Guys, ever been raped by a woman?

Dudess · 22-10-2008 2:03pm

He's dyslexic. Surely that was obvious.

Christy Manure wrote: »

Is that one of those buddhist sayings that is meant to make you question your own sanity?

Edit: A kōan is a story, dialogue, question, or statement in the history and lore of Chán (Zen) Buddhism, generally containing aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding:

A monk asked Dongshan Shouchu, "What is Buddha?" Dongshan said, "Three pounds of flax".

Sorry, I meant: there is the view that only a person who is capable of penetrating is capable of rape, but that's not true.

Darragh29 · 22-10-2008 2:09pm

Christy Manure wrote: »

If my use of the word rape is stupid, then why is a woman's use of it not equally stupid when applied to the same situation with the sexes reversed?

If a girl complained about date rape, would you say to her, You were sober enough to get wet and spread your legs, so you must have been asking for it?

If not, then it implies that a double standard of sexual morality exists and men are held to higher standards of personal responsibility than women.

It's like this OP. If I was on a jury and the case involved a guy OR A GIRL, saying they were drunk, brought someone home, ended up consentually in bed together, and then something transpired where they had sex and he didn't feel she had his consent or in the case of the complainant being a girl, she said she didn't give him consent, I'd be not just unclined, but I'd also OBLIGED, to acquit the person who was accused or rape. Innocent until PROVEN guilty reyond a reasonable doubt and all the rest of it.

seamus · 22-10-2008 2:22pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Actually rape does equal penetration under the law and ok women can rape if they penetrate with the unconsenting person with an object

It doesn't specify that the unconsenting person needs to be penetrated. It only specifies that the assualt must include penetration.

Turd Ferguson · 22-10-2008 2:22pm

Dudess wrote: »

(most of the male After Hours regulars aren't neanderthals but there is one awesomely dumb-fuk contingent).

Cant help but thinking you're referring to me there

And to be honest as far as sexual predatory goes I think wimmens are WAY worse than guys. Maybe not with "rape" per say but definatly with forcing themselves on guys that dont particularly want it.

Christy Manure · 22-10-2008 2:24pm

Darragh29 wrote: »

It's like this OP. If I was on a jury and the case involved a guy OR A GIRL, saying they were drunk, brought someone home, ended up consentually in bed together, and then something transpired where they had sex and he didn't feel she had his consent or in the case of the complainant being a girl, she said she didn't give him consent, I'd be not just unclined, but I'd also OBLIGED, to acquit the person who was accused or rape. Innocent until PROVEN guilty reyond a reasonable doubt and all the rest of it.

There are errors in the above.

1. Nobody would be stupid enough to state their case in those terms. They would say that they were not in a position to give consent at any stage of the proceedings, or their case would simply not reach the courts.

2. A juror cannot acquit anybody. Only a judge can. A juror is only OBLIGED to take a certain view if instructed by a judge. If the judge has decided to acquit, the jury will be discharged, and won't receive any instructions.

3. Concrete proof in a case such as this is going to be hard to come by. It is going to be a case of he said/she said; social mores, stereotyping and gender roles are going to play a large role in determining the verdict.

junior_apollo · 22-10-2008 2:33pm

WindSock wrote: »

Flash your gash maybe...:pac:

pics or gtfo!

Dudess · 22-10-2008 2:34pm

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

Cant help but thinking you're referring to me there

Actually no. You, snyper, Mordeth, Kold and all the other sick fuks

are not who I'm talking about - ye're far too intelligent

.

Tigger · 22-10-2008 2:36pm

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Sexula preadatopr? is that some kind of insect?

the worst kind

btw are you this pinkitty in real life or do you save it for anonymity
tell you what I'll use a spell checker that'll improve something about me....

Smart Bug · 22-10-2008 2:40pm

Christy Manure wrote: »

There are errors in the above.

1. Nobody would be stupid enough to state their case in those terms. They would say that they were not in a position to give consent at any stage of the proceedings, or their case would simply not reach the courts.

2. A juror cannot acquit anybody. Only a judge can. A juror is only OBLIGED to take a certain view if instructed by a judge. If the judge has decided to acquit, the jury will be discharged, and won't receive any instructions.

3. Concrete proof in a case such as this is going to be hard to come by. It is going to be a case of he said/she said; social mores, stereotyping and gender roles are going to play a large role in determining the verdict.

Yes, it would be a very hard case to prove. I'm not given to premature judgements but I wouldn't say the lady being accused would get shafted by the judge/jury. The judge wouldn't go soft on the complainant I reckon. If I was in this position I'd be afraid of making a dick of myself.

Turd Ferguson · 22-10-2008 2:41pm

EamonnKeane wrote: »

Sexula preadatopr? is that some kind of insect?

Its Pedobears Halloween costume

Nevyn · 22-10-2008 2:50pm

Most cases of 'date rape' where it comes down to two people in bed with drink consumed are not reported to the garda and even if they are the Dept of Public Prosecutions will not send a file to the courts if they don't think there is enough evidence or they don't have good enough testimony proving lack of consent or withdrawl of consent.

Tigger · 22-10-2008 3:12pm

thats why god invented baseball

Whyner · 22-10-2008 3:18pm

jaycen wrote: »

Certainly have been a few times (when lockd) that some have chanced their arm, TBH I've never really been so drunk as to go off with a girl I didn't want.

Then you weren't drunk.

mountainyman · 22-10-2008 4:09pm

I once woke up to find a girl riding me, but when I grabbed on to her she looked down said 'who are you' and left.

Christy Manure · 22-10-2008 4:11pm

Tigger wrote: »

are you this pinkitty in real life

I have never been raped by a pink kitty, thank God. But if I ever see one, I might throw a hockey into it, just to show it who's boss.

Edit: Now that I think of it, I have been inside more voracious pink pussies than I would have preferred.

22-10-2008 4:18pm

Rosie O'Donnell is a sexual predator.

Fact

daveharnett · 24-10-2008 12:43pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

Actually rape does equal penetration under the law and ok women can rape if they penetrate with the unconsenting person with an object.

Not according to what you quoted.

Scenario (A) is out of the question, due to the woman lacking a penis. Scenario (B) is similarly excluded by the man lacking a vagina.

It is hair splitting of the highest order or course, but the law is good at that.

Thaedydal wrote: »

4.—(1) In this Act "rape under section 4" means a sexual assault that includes—
[GA]

( a ) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

( b ) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

Delirium · 24-10-2008 2:15pm

daveharnett wrote: »

Not according to what you quoted.

Scenario (A) is out of the question, due to the woman lacking a penis. Scenario (B) is similarly excluded by the man lacking a vagina.

It is hair splitting of the highest order or course, but the law is good at that.

Scenario (A) only specifies a penis penetrating the mouth or anus. It doesn't state whether the penis or the anus/mouth is the offender.

Scenario (B) states penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person. The object, a penis is being manipulated by another person, who just happens to be the vagina being penetrated.

Have no idea if it would even be possible to argue this in court. But usually its down to interpretations of the law.

Army Of One · 24-10-2008 2:32pm

Christy Manure wrote: »

Just got banned from the Ladies Lounge for the following post:

"Quite a few of [my sexual partners] have been absolute rotters that I was with when I was drunk, and nobody who has seen these creatures considers me to be any kind of a hero or stud. Quite the opposite - the consensus is that I have been taken advantage of numerous times by predatory females who made their moves on someone who was incapable of rational thought.

Girls constantly lament the double standard that girls with a lot of partners are considered sluts, while guys are not. However this is a different double standard - a guy who takes advantage of a girl who is totally out of it is known as a rapist. How are girls who do this thought of?

I wonder what would happen if guys decided to protect their friends the way girls do, and in situations such as this, came over to the girl and shooed her away.

Get away you evil bowler! He doesn't want to be with you."

Guess the ban is a pretty clear answer. Women do not want to admit that this happens, or discuss it. Anyone here have any opinions on this? Draw your own conclusions if I get a siteban for posting it here.

lol @ username

StormWarrior · 24-10-2008 3:23pm

As a woman, I have to say, the more the man screams and struggles to get away, the more I enjoy it.

Turd Ferguson · 24-10-2008 3:26pm

Thaedydal wrote: »

4.—(1) In this Act "rape under section 4" means a sexual assault that includes—
[GA]

( a ) penetration (however slight) of the anus or mouth by the penis, or

( b ) penetration (however slight) of the vagina by any object held or manipulated by another person.

(2) A person guilty of rape under section 4 shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.

(3) Rape under section 4 shall be a felony.

So if you stick it in their ear its not technically rape. That is very good to know.......brb

Nerin · 24-10-2008 4:20pm

StormWarrior wrote: »

As a woman, I have to say, the more the man screams and struggles to get away, the more I enjoy it.

oh hai

javaboy · 24-10-2008 6:02pm

Turd Ferguson wrote: »

So if you stick it in their ear its not technically rape. That is very good to know.......brb

Aural sex ftw!

dr.bollocko · 24-10-2008 6:40pm

So... why was the OP banneded? Poor feller. I liked the cut of his jib.

dSTAR · 26-10-2008 1:40am

Maybe Mr Manure just needed to be ass blasted by a couple of well hung gay bikers and be called Princess.

Kinetic^ · 26-10-2008 1:46am

seamus wrote: »

It doesn't specify that the unconsenting person needs to be penetrated. It only specifies that the assualt must include penetration.

There's always a catch!

doke · 28-10-2008 1:32pm

StormWarrior wrote: »

As a woman, I have to say, the more the man screams and struggles to get away, the more I enjoy it.

As a man, I have to say, holy crap but that's hot.

carlybabe1 · 28-10-2008 4:12pm

Maybe Im a bit naive, but if ye were all that drunk that you couldnt get away, then how did your buddy stand too attention???? unless she was a hephalump that pinned ye down

______________________________________
BENDER: Ye know its funny
FRY:What?
BENDER: Your weeener

Irishcrx · 28-10-2008 4:45pm

doke wrote: »

As a man, I have to say, holy crap but that's hot.

If you want I can arrange a women to come to your house smash plates over your head , dance on your balls, piss on you and beat you with a frying pan....all for a decent price.

Jazzy · 28-10-2008 5:49pm

another boys vs. girls thread in the eternal playground of the afterhours forum... of course stemming from the all girls school of the ladies lounge and the Christian brothers all boys school of the beer guts and receding hairlines forum.

why o' why cant ireland have mixed schools? (as in ALL schools being mixed)

Guys, ever been raped by a woman?

Comments