Dr. Ruth: Women can't say no to sex once naked in bed

[Hank]

I'm sorry, but no. Just no.

I really don't care if you are actively having sex and one party changes their mind, there is absolutely no requirement that you have to finish the other person off. Too bad. It happens. Go finish yourself off if it is that urgent for you.

Lacking so much impulse control that you feel you have the right to force the person into a sex act to satisfy your sexual urges makes you a disgusting person.

I get it. When she scream more more, I can proceed and if she screams that's enough I need to go out. In other words one is in total control, while the other better be ready to act like a slave or face criminal consequences.

Wow, perhaps I misread this post, if not, I just realized how blessed I am living with a partner that, sure has times when she does not want me (it's normal for anyone), but when she does, she is there all the way.

 

[EarthFae]

The pegging post was to make a point. I suspect that women who arouse a man to the point of being naked with him, and stopping just because are an extreme minority.

Though it still doesn't give you license to rape them

I am willing to put my hard earned dollar that it usually happens because a man wants a sex act the girl isn't comfortable with. I was pointing out what if a woman wanted you guys to do an act you weren't comfortable with

 

[Cute Tink]

I get it. When she scream more more, I can proceed and if she screams that's enough I need to go out. In other words one is in total control, while the other better be ready to act like a slave or face criminal consequences.

Wow, perhaps I misread this post, if not, I just realized how blessed I am living with a partner that, sure has times when she does not want me (it's normal for anyone), but when she does, she is there all the way.

You must have missed the part of my post where I didn't specify a gender for either party. Either person involved has the exact same power to stop the act at any time. I don't understand where you get the idea that only one person has this power...

 

[Moral Orel]

And of course, something missed here is that usually, when a woman goes so far as to get naked with someone, and then decides, "Nah, I'd rather not", it's usually not a case of just wanting to tease someone. There's usually a real reason why she yells time-out. If someone is trying to be a cocktease, they usually stop before either party gets fully naked.

I'll back this up. My wife once threw her back out while we were mid-coitus. It hurt so bad that she was crying. But some people here are saying that it would be understandable if I were to have just kept going because I can't help it. Since I did stop, does that mean that there's something special about me that makes me magically better than everyone else because I have some capability that it is unreasonable for us to expect other people to have?

 

[Dave-W]

The pegging post was to make a point. I suspect that women who arouse a man to the point of being naked with him, and stopping just because are an extreme minority.

Though it still doesn't give you license to rape them

I am willing to put my hard earned dollar that it usually happens because a man wants a sex act the girl isn't comfortable with. I was pointing out what if a woman wanted you guys to do an act you weren't comfortable with

OK. But without explaination I would have had no idea what that was. I agree there is no licence to rape - EVER.

But I would not say that "stopping just because" is all that rare. Or even stopping inadvertantly.

 

[Moral Orel]

If I were to attempt to quantify it, I would probably say perhaps 10% of males would be unable to pull back at that point. I'd put the percentage as high as 30% for males aged 16 - 25 and then probably knock off 2 percentage points per year older than 25.

Any citation if you're going to state actual statistics, or are all these numbers off the top of your head?
Also, we could say that because there are people who get into fights, there are some people who can't help but punching someone in the face if they get angry. So people should know better than to argue with anyone because they might be the type of person that can't help but punch them in the face, and arguing with them makes them just as culpable as the assaulter.

 

[The Cadet]

Hmm. Never gonna happen. I do not see the point.

It's called a prostate gland. For men who are straight, pegging is one of the best ways to stimulate it.

 

[Dave-W]

It's called a prostate gland.

Um - its called "hemeroids."

 

[The Cadet]

Um - its called "hemeroids."

I'm going to go ahead and give you that one. That was a pretty good comeback.

 

[Eudaimonist]

the rate of false rape accusation is exceedingly small. 2%-8%.

2-8% is not exceedingly small. That's embarrassingly large.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[D2wing]

Having been in this situation in my younger days and pre Christian that any further sex after she says no is rape. Implied consent or not there is no question about it. Dr Ruth is wrong. Women are complex and do not have the same drive as men. Do some mean yes when they say no? As a man outside of being Christian it is wrong to assume no means anything but no.
No Christian should be in that place to begin with. Sex is not an entitlement in life. It is a gift. To use it outside of marriage debases a person as does abusive or other degrading forms of sex.
For a guy to accuse a women or girl of being a prick tease is abusive and wrong. To blame a women for rape even when in bed naked is wrong. Once a beautiful women stripped for me and wanted to have sex with me. As tempted as I was I just could not. I would have enjoyed it, but felt bad about it forever. I did not and feel good about it forever.
I know some folks have no morals or all kinds of excuses when it comes to sex. But outside of marriage somebody is always going to get hurt or degraded in some way. I was once a person that had sex with with many women. Nothing good came of it, and it still causes problems for me and others.
Dr Ruth is wrong, she thinks like an animal and apparently so do some of you.

 

[NightHawkeye]

@ first post
Oh my ...
So you finally, finally got your girl in bed, and then she says no, just at the very last moment. Yes, the political correct laws are there, but please don't tell me you are not playing with fire here. Sure this expert is a bit over the top, but she has a remote point, if you don't know when you play with fire, don't play.

Yep.

Dr. Ruth was offering good "blunt" advice to women. Don't put yourself in that compromising situation ... and your chance of having a problem is much less.

 

[MInTheGap]

As this is a Christian Forum, let me call back to the Bible.

• Married believer's bodies are not their own-- I Cor 7.
  
• The wife is to submit to the husband in everything and the husband is to practice self-sacrificing love toward the wife -- Eph 5:22ff.
• In the Old Testament, rape was determined by whether the woman called out such that she could be heard. If she didn't call out, or no one could hear it, it wasn't considered rape.

Rape is violent, abusive and wrong. We're into all sorts of grey territory when we start talking about two people that are dating, are naked, aroused and in bed with each other compared to what rape has been understood to be for generations.

And the idea that one may not know they were raped until after the occurrence, that's foreign to the Biblical definition.

Sex inside marriage to committed partners is the Bible's prescription for sex. Anything else is immoral.

 

[Hank]

You must have missed the part of my post where I didn't specify a gender for either party. Either person involved has the exact same power to stop the act at any time. I don't understand where you get the idea that only one person has this power...

Guilty as charged. I have not come across many male being raped by female cases.

 

[Cute Tink]

Guilty as charged. I have not come across many male being raped by female cases.

They do happen though. I heard about one recently in, I want to say Africa, where 3 women kidnapped and raped a man.

 

[The Cadet]

As this is a Christian Forum, let me call back to the Bible.

• Married believer's bodies are not their own-- I Cor 7.
• The wife is to submit to the husband in everything and the husband is to practice self-sacrificing love toward the wife -- Eph 5:22ff.
• In the Old Testament, rape was determined by whether the woman called out such that she could be heard. If she didn't call out, or no one could hear it, it wasn't considered rape.

Rape is violent, abusive and wrong.

Does not compute. Does not compute. Does not compute.

Rape is violent, abusive, and wrong... And yet the bible apparently makes all sorts of apologetics towards rape. The concept of "marital rape" straight up does not exist within the bible, and the idea that a woman is responsible for getting raped if she doesn't scream loud enough is horrifying enough without getting into the way it blames the victim (what about roofies, or a quick blow to the back of the head?), but when you consider that a woman's virginity is a matter of life and death in the old testament, the way this law on rape is handled is downright horrifying.

We're into all sorts of grey territory when we start talking about two people that are dating, are naked, aroused and in bed with each other compared to what rape has been understood to be for generations.

There's nothing gray about it. In fact, what's happened is that we've gotten rid of most of the "gray area", and made it clear: sex without consent is rape. It's a clear-cut, easy-to-understand definition that offers very little wiggle room. There's nothing "gray" about the above situation - if consent is not given, it is not sex, it is rape.

 

[Rajni]

This explains consent rather well:

Yes. This is perfect!

-

 

[quatona]

Click here before you think that the issue of consent is close to being resolved.

Well, of course a woman (or a man) can change their mind at any point in time, and sometimes they do, and they can and do say "no" at that point. So that´s apparently not what Dr. West is talking about.
It seems like she is submitting that beyond a certain point a "no" needn´t be respected. I disagree whole-heartedly.

when that part of the male anatomy is aroused, when there is an erection, the brain flies out of the head,

What a bunch of nonsense. I´m not easily offended, but I find this statement quite offensive.

 

[Tina W]

lets be clear, we aren't talking about two people in bed naked equating to sex...

no we are talking about two AROUSED people lying naked in bed.

Her quote is:



and as unpopular as it might be to say so, I have to agree with her.

The urge to reproduce is perhaps the most POWERFUL biological imperative that we have hardwired into us. Once action is hot and heavy and you are BOTH lying naked on the bed and up to that point consent has been giving by both sides, then neither party can be faulted for being unable to "stop" the act of sex and at that point, if either party wants to stop the act of sex that party might have to use force....

I would equate this to having gone days without eating and then being set down in front of a buffet. You are given a knife and fork and told you eat whatever you like. You take a big bite of hamburger begin to chew and then right before you swallow someone orders you to spit the food out....

If you do NOT want to have sex, then you simply need to do any abortive action prior to arousing your partner and then having both you and your partner lying naked in bed... that is beyond irresponsible. Sorry.

At some point we need to be held accountable for our actions. If you don't want to have sex, then don't put yourself in the above position.

The universal rule for "no sex" is keeping the underwear on. That rule has been firmly established since Junior High for crying out loud. Other than that, both of you "agreeing" prior to being naked to take things only so far is also acceptable. Anything other than that is just way irresponsible for either party to allow things to get that far without intending to have sex...

I appreciate your presence of reality in your post.

I agree wholeheartedly that rape is NEVER justifiable. What does trouble me somewhat is that no one ever has anything to say regarding the wrong done to a guy by encouraging his stimulation up to the point of sexual readiness and then saying, "No". THAT is pure evil. In my mind, I see that AND rape as equally base. The only real difference between the two is that one carries a legal punishment and one does not. But the effects on the individuals are not that different, except for the possibility of pregnancy. Many women seem oblivious to the sin they commit against a guy by essentially teasing him and then cutting him off. Some use it as a game to boost their own self-worth. The truth is, their worth is diminished, not enhanced, by treating a guy like that.

I have to say I agree with these two posts. I'm a woman and I don't have that much experience, but I know I would have a hard time stopping so I know it must be even more harder for a man.

 

[dgiharris]

Any citation if you're going to state actual statistics, or are all these numbers off the top of your head?
Also, we could say that because there are people who get into fights, there are some people who can't help but punching someone in the face if they get angry. So people should know better than to argue with anyone because they might be the type of person that can't help but punch them in the face, and arguing with them makes them just as culpable as the assaulter.

The numbers are pulled out of my [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse] as I'm sure there are no statistics on cockteasing vs rape.

I want to talk about what you said about people getting into fights.

Imagine it's mother's day and you take your mother out to lunch. In the parking lot some random guy comes up to you and your mom and calls her a crack harlot than spits on her. What percentage of guys do you think will punch that guy's lights out?

My argument is for a very specific instance of emotional situations from which the Reptile Brain can override the Cognitive centers of the brain. A lot of counters to my arguments do not address this and contrive situations in which this would NOT be the case.

I'll back this up. My wife once threw her back out while we were mid-coitus. It hurt so bad that she was crying. But some people here are saying that it would be understandable if I were to have just kept going because I can't help it. Since I did stop, does that mean that there's something special about me that makes me magically better than everyone else because I have some capability that it is unreasonable for us to expect other people to have?

Given your relationship with your wife and history it makes a lot more sense that the Cognitive centers of your brain would be much more resilient against the Reptile brain as far as the sexual urge is concerned. It's also worth noting that the Reptile part of your brain in this situation would likely HALT the sex act and switch over to "protecting your spouse" mode. And in this case, protecting your spouse would entail stopping the sex act. So in the situation you describe, both the Reptile and Cognitive parts of your brain would cease the sex act so the situation would different than a date rape setup situation that I'm arguing.