Thursday, April 19, 2012

So does this mean...

The next time after a woman has consensual sex with a guy but when she tries to leave he keeps her there against her will and forces her to have repeated sex with him we won't call him a rapist we will call him 'sex mad'?

But at least its not surprising that a few people in that comment section are pulling out the old "but he's a man and he's a woman, he could have easily overpowered her" justification.

I really like this gem from the user "haterofstupid":
Nice try dude.. No guy can bone against his will. My thinking is he sobered up and realized how ugly she was, and in his haste to escape, was spotted by someone that knew him.
Either this person lacks understanding of how the penis works, has no penis (thus no intimate understanding), or is just a moron. Hey does that mean that since they are using the name "haterofstupid" they are a self loather (see what I did there)?

Just so we are clear yes it is possible for a woman to force a man to have sex against his will.

She could overpower him (if you think this is impossible then you have no problem with managers in physically demanding jobs automatically skipping all women applicants either right?).

She could threaten him with a weapon (I have yet to see the physical weapon that worked on women but not men or the other way around).

She could remove his ability to give consent (drugs, alcohol, tie him up, etc....).

She could threaten him in a verbal/blackmail way (yes the "Who's gonna believe you?" argument works both ways).

Oh look. Even taking into account that its not as likely that a woman can overpower a man those other three ways are some of the very same ways that a man can force a woman to have sex against her will....

Could it be that when it comes to rape strength isn't everything?