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

[seashale76]

This explains consent rather well:

I just watched this. I think everyone on this thread needs to watch this.

 

[FelipeOliveir@]

LOL. I used to have a set of Benson's Commentaries - the set my dad used in seminary. (He was ordained in the Wesleyan Methodist denom) My brother Wayne now has them. They were first published in England about 1860, and the Preface to the Song of Solomon was very telling. It was said EVERYTHING in this book MUST be taken as allegory of Christ and the church. To take it literally (i.e. talking about married sex) was unthinkable and sinful.

They always have an excuse. I can hardly believe, a loveless marriage must be terrible, I live with one, my parents. I realize that the doctrines serve more to a kind of mental and behavioral control, and of course to judge people and inflate the human ego.

 

[FelipeOliveir@]

LOL. I used to have a set of Benson's Commentaries - the set my dad used in seminary. (He was ordained in the Wesleyan Methodist denom) My brother Wayne now has them. They were first published in England about 1860, and the Preface to the Song of Solomon was very telling. It was said EVERYTHING in this book MUST be taken as allegory of Christ and the church. To take it literally (i.e. talking about married sex) was unthinkable and sinful.

My parents follow this doctrine, they leave no more room, do not go to meetings together, and do not date or have sex. I think that if this is a Christian marriage I do not want to get married it's better to live alone.

Couples think that children do not realize when something is wrong between them, they are mistaken, the sons perceive much more than adults realize.

In fact, i got tired of see my parents and grandparents who call themselves Christians fight/argue with each other everyday since I was a kid, I've become repulsed by any type of supossed "love union" betwew two persons (marriage and any kind of relationship). I'm 22 years old and has never kissed a girl, something very unusual in my country, even in churches and i don't have many eager to do.

 

[Dave-W]

I hear ya. It took an audible voice from God to get me to consider marriage.

 

[Cearbhall]

Why would anyone bring this thread back...

 

[SuperCloud]

What an absurd idea. I'm assuming the difference between men and women is not so huge that there are no women who simply prefer to sleep naked as many men do. If proof is presented that there are no women who simply prefer to sleep naked then I'll entertain arguments for the claim.

I'm thinking I will not need to entertain the idea.

I sleep naked in bed. I sleep the best that way.

#1. Just as a statement of right and wrong I would say a woman that is naked still has a choice and that choice should be respected. Even if no laws existed and anarchy reigned. God will still know if you raped a person.

#2. If we are to respect the biology of hetero women, homosexual people, then we ought respect the biology of males too. What I mean by that is males are very easy to be aroused, and it's not really cool to push the envelope to the extreme with "teasing" males. Has nothing to do with justifying rape. But if males are to respect female biology in all its complexities and hormonal attributes, then in an honest equality of respect between so-called "equals," females ought be taught to respect the biology of hetero males too. That's not asking anyone to cure cancer or lift the moon.

#3. As a male if I had for some crazy reason to share a bed with a female acquaintance. It would be regarded as a violent assault to female biology (inherent "sensibilities") if I got into bed with her with me butt-naked. Yet... in a world of inequality and haughty female superiority, a woman is regarded as 100% to get butt-naked and "tease" 1 or 20 men around her, even a monk or vowed celibate priest stuck in some POW cell together. Because the male hetero biology is regarded as worthless and 100% operated by choice--including attraction and penile erection. Feminist holy doctrine 101.

 

[SuperCloud]

It's important to remember two factors here. Firstly, the rate of false rape accusation is exceedingly small. 2%-8%. Secondly, the number of rapists who actually get prosecuted is also exceedingly small - 3%.

How? Scientific evidence should demonstrate objective evidence of rape. Furthermore, if in fact these studies know beyond a reasonable doubt that x number of people accused of rape are guilty then that indicates physical evidence combined with scientific medical and lab evidence overwhelmingly provides sufficient evidence to persuade female jury members of a male's guilt in rape.

What I'm hazarding a guess is "tears" or non-tears with women play acting their crying and/or swearing on the name of God they were raped, is "scientific evidence." It is not.

Much of what the USA calls "rape" in terms of "date rape" (but not all) is essentially, morally, much the same as when a female prostitute loathes having sex with a stinky, drunken, unwashed man and regrets it later.

Feminist holy doctrine 102: no female shall be burden with regret ever--excepted they violate through heresy any feminist holy doctrine.

 

[Desk trauma]

Clearly a woman could never withdraw consent were she tied up, naked and involved in impact play. Her partner would be far too excited to listen to such nonsense.

Oh wait.

It's us kinky freaks who spend time working out how to communicate withdrawal of consent, set clear boundaries before hand and enshrine the importance of consent.

Vanillas...

 

[Cearbhall]

It's us kinky freaks who spend time working out how to communicate withdrawal of consent, set clear boundaries before hand and enshrine the importance of consent.

Vanillas...

Ironic, innit? It's almost as if going on and on about about one's own moral superiority doesn't actually make a person moral!

 

[The Cadet]

How? Scientific evidence should demonstrate objective evidence of rape. Furthermore, if in fact these studies know beyond a reasonable doubt that x number of people accused of rape are guilty then that indicates physical evidence combined with scientific medical and lab evidence overwhelmingly provides sufficient evidence to persuade female jury members of a male's guilt in rape.

The problem is that rape is a very, very hard crime to prosecute. Even in cases where women have airtight cases against their rapists, the rapist often goes free because the woman does not want to face her rapist in court day after day, and would rather just put the whole traumatic experience behind them. And that's where the evidence is airtight - in most cases, it boils down to "He-said-she-said", and any relevant evidence is just gone less than a day after the fact. The court's standard of evidence is stacked firmly in favor of the rapist. I'm not saying that's a bad thing - it needs to be that way, and it's a good thing that it is that way. But as a result, you end up with fairly skewed statistics on rape.

What I'm hazarding a guess is "tears" or non-tears with women play acting their crying and/or swearing on the name of God they were raped, is "scientific evidence."

Or, instead of making assumptions, you could go to RAINN and look for yourself what their methodology is.

Much of what the USA calls "rape" in terms of "date rape" (but not all) is essentially, morally, much the same as when a female prostitute loathes having sex with a stinky, drunken, unwashed man and regrets it later.

Citation needed.

Feminist holy doctrine 102: no female shall be burden with regret ever--excepted they violate through heresy any feminist holy doctrine.

Yeah, I'm sure the problem with rape statistics is those nasty feminists ensuring that every case of regret is treated as a full-scale rape case.

 

[dgiharris]

...People are not animals; we have self control and we have shame, and no means no, regardless of the situation or the clothing involved.

The bold is where we diverge. IMO, people ARE animals. Simply watch the news for proof. People repeatedly demonstrate on a daily basis just how animal like we are and just how lacking we are in self control.

Some of us have self control, some of us do NOT.

I think you are making the mistake of thinking everyone is just like you. No. Road rage, acts of passions, dishonesty, stealing, etc happen every second of every day. Obviously there is a lot of "should". I mean we "should" do this and we "should" do that, yada yada yada.

But my arguments are for what is, my arguments are based on reality not should fantasy. And the reality is, a lot of people are no better than animals, a lot of people have very limited self control. And those of you who live in the world of should will get a very rude awakening when reality hits you in the face.

There is a youtube video I wish I could dig up, can't remember where I saw it. In the video there was a heated argument in a restaurant. Two 30s something men were yelling at each other over something stupid. They both got up and stood toe to toe. Well, this 60s something do-gooder woman felt compelled to break it up. So she got in the middle and stood between them and tried to push them apart. One of the men swung at the other, missed, and ended up hitting that woman square in the face breaking her jaw.

UNfortunately for her, she was no longer in her world of "should" and stepped into the real world of "what is".

And the real world of "what is" is filled with varying degrees of people, some have self control, some don't, some are enlightened and some are animals and some are worse than animals.

Again, if you don't believe me, just turn on the news and watch for 60 seconds...

 

[dgiharris]

How? Scientific evidence should demonstrate objective evidence of rape. Furthermore, if in fact these studies know beyond a reasonable doubt that x number of people accused of rape are guilty then that indicates physical evidence combined with scientific medical and lab evidence overwhelmingly provides sufficient evidence to persuade female jury members of a male's guilt in rape.....

No. Scientific evidence can never demonstrate objective evidence of rape. No. All it can do is demonstrate objective evidence of sex. Now, in certain contexts, sex can automatically equate to rape (i.e. sex with a child). In other circumstances and contexts it can equate to rape (i.e. extraordinary violence occurred with the sex,). However, barring those clear cut smoking gun situations, for most women who are raped, it still comes down to he said she said.

Then there is the matter of the justice system. The woman is often put on trial. If she has ANY sort of lurid past, ANY act in her past that shows she isn't a virtuous virginal god-fearing woman, her character is dragged through the mud. She will also bear culpability in the minds of some jurors. Everything from her dressing like a harlot simply because she wore a mini-skirt to it being her fault because she had a couple of drinks and accepted an invitation to his apartment...

The problem is that rape is a very, very hard crime to prosecute. ....

Agreed. Most rape cases (i.e. date rape) are not open-and-shut easy to prove cases. Quite the contrary. The vast majority of rape cases come down to he said she said, and if the accuser can afford a decent lawyer, the victim has a very small chance of winning her case.

 

[SuperCloud]

No. Scientific evidence can never demonstrate objective evidence of rape. No. All it can do is demonstrate objective evidence of sex. Now, in certain contexts, sex can automatically equate to rape (i.e. sex with a child). In other circumstances and contexts it can equate to rape (i.e. extraordinary violence occurred with the sex,). However, barring those clear cut smoking gun situations, for most women who are raped, it still comes down to he said she said.

Evidence and proof are two different things. Medical science can objectively establish evidence of rape. In part it's called trauma. As in physical trauma.

A forensic pathologist can even determine--with scientific opinion--through examination of a corps wheter a woman was vaginally raped, attempted to fight off her attacker, or died from blunt trauma to the head by an attacker hitting her with an object.

Then there is the matter of the justice system. The woman is often put on trial. If she has ANY sort of lurid past, ANY act in her past that shows she isn't a virtuous virginal god-fearing woman, her character is dragged through the mud. She will also bear culpability in the minds of some jurors. Everything from her dressing like a harlot simply because she wore a mini-skirt to it being her fault because she had a couple of drinks and accepted an invitation to his apartment...

You are 100% incorrect. I know because I stood trial accused of rape by a white female before. Medical examination showed no evidence of rape (of course, because she was not) but did find she had an STD. Certainly did not obtain it from me because A) I had no STD and B) I wore a condom which did not fail.

Her STD and sexual history was not admissible in court. What was admissible was her and the prosecutor attempting to portray her as some virgin angel.

However, I was fortunate that my jury was made up of an old Mexican woman living in a predominately white area, a strong Sicilian woman that physically looked like a Latina (so, I can reasonably guess some whites have hurled racial insults at her), and best of all the jury was headed by a retired FBI agent. It also helped that a white man being questioned for jury position stated he could not fairly judge a trial involving a white woman and a black man. I'm happy he was honest, so, he was struck off the jury list.

Maybe one day you'll be falsely accused of rape. And then whatever illusions you have of "mistreatment" of women accusing other of rape will disappear.

One thing my lawyer would not do was attack the character of the female accuser. Because juries don't like that. So,. he focused on the inconsistencies in her story as well as the fact (in light of trying to come off as an angelic innocent virgin) she actually paid for the motel room.

 

[Blank Stair]

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

Westheimer's Remarks:
I know it's controversial, but for your program, I'm going to stand up and be counted and, like I do in the book, be very honest. I am very worried about college campuses saying that a woman and a man or two men or two women, but I talk right now about woman and man, can be in bed together, Diane, and at one time, naked, and at one time, he or she — most of the time they think she can say, I changed my mind. No such thing is possible.

Westheimer, 86, cited the Jewish tradition of the Talmud as her rationale: "... it says when that part of the male anatomy is aroused, when there is an erection, the brain flies out of the head," she told Rehm. "And we have to take that very seriously."


Fortunately and praise GOD, we don't have to take her seriously!

What a pathetic assertion for a supposed professional to make. And especially given the reports of rape that occur on college campuses. And the unreported rapes of course. And the fact that colleges and universities have been reported to obscure those numbers because no one who is a donor much less the college or university themselves want to be known as
"Rape U".
So for that reason they can be inspired to hide the facts of that. And then young women unaware find out the hard way.

I wonder if she believes a wife can be raped by her husband?

 

[dgiharris]

...

Evidence and proof are two different things. Medical science can objectively establish evidence of rape. In part it's called trauma. As in physical trauma.

A forensic pathologist can even determine--with scientific opinion--through examination of a corps wheter a woman was vaginally raped, attempted to fight off her attacker, or died from blunt trauma to the head by an attacker hitting her with an object.

I think we are saying the same thing here

....
You are 100% incorrect. I know because I stood trial accused of rape by a white female before. Medical examination showed no evidence of rape (of course, because she was not) but did find she had an STD. Certainly did not obtain it from me because A) I had no STD and B) I wore a condom which did not fail.

Her STD and sexual history was not admissible in court. What was admissible was her and the prosecutor attempting to portray her as some virgin angel.

However, I was fortunate that my jury was made up of an old Mexican woman living in a predominately white area, a strong Sicilian woman that physically looked like a Latina (so, I can reasonably guess some whites have hurled racial insults at her), and best of all the jury was headed by a retired FBI agent. It also helped that a white man being questioned for jury position stated he could not fairly judge a trial involving a white woman and a black man. I'm happy he was honest, so, he was struck off the jury list.

Maybe one day you'll be falsely accused of rape. And then whatever illusions you have of "mistreatment" of women accusing other of rape will disappear.

One thing my lawyer would not do was attack the character of the female accuser. Because juries don't like that. So,. he focused on the inconsistencies in her story as well as the fact (in light of trying to come off as an angelic innocent virgin) she actually paid for the motel room.

Fair enough. When I was a teenager I wanted to be a lawyer (I love arguing) and I used to watch and read about a ton of court cases and I've read plenty of rape cases where the victim's past was dragged through the mud. Usually, the defense attorney used legal manuevering to enable him to bring it up and make it an issue.

But I will yield that there are plenty of circumstances where that could work against the accused. Fair enough.

I also should have put in the disclaimer about rape cases against blacks and hispanic men when it is a white woman crying wolf. That should almost be it's own category because in those cases, the men have a mountain to climb to prove their innocence.

In college, I know of a big time college football player who hooked up with a girl at a party, they had sex and then he more or less kicked her out of bed when he was done. She got mad and tried to claim rape the next day. Lucky for him, she told a friend about all of this and then she had a falling out with her friend and her friend testified on behalf of the guy and the case was dropped before going to court. Had that not have happened, he would have been screwed.

 

[SuperCloud]

I think, dgi, that similar things occur when young white men are accused of raping a black woman. The black community will jump up in arms are simply assume the woman is not telling a lie.

All of this is in part due to USA racial history. Another part also has to do with feminist holier than thou pontifical rhetoric from the 1980s, that being, "Women don't lie about being raped." I'm sure you saw those advertisements if you're old enough.

Both those things as well as other factors played into my own case.

Some woman that works in the Milwaukee legal system had told my mother that had those events/case taken place in Milwaukee it would never have seen the light of day in a Milwaukee court. As the city has too many other pressing court and social problems to deal with than BS allegations backed with no real support to be playing out games in the court room.

My case took place in a county outside of Milwaukee and one known to be hostile to "Milwaukeeans" by which that terms is used to denote "blacks." That's part of the social construct.

The other thing is I was young, naive, and actually believed in the America BS fiction of, "If you're innocent you have nothing to worry about." So, I got myself in trouble believing that and freely talking to cops interviewing whilst declining the need of a lawyer.

And my ordeal in court radically changed my understanding and view of the US legal system. I left away more grown up about "the world." I realized my parents having had the money to pay for a good lawyer saved me and that one of the reasons so many young black men in the US end up in prison is because their families can't finance a proper defense for them. As far as I'm concerned "justice" is bought and paid for in the USA. And no one's changing my mind.

The courts also overwhelmingly tilt in favor of females. Maybe that was not the case in the 1960s and 1970s but it's the case today.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waukesha_County,_Wisconsin

Waukesha County is a county in the U.S. state of Wisconsin. As of the 2010 census, the population was 389,891,[1] making it the third-most populous county in Wisconsin. Its county seat is Waukesha.[2]


Waukesha County is included in the Milwaukee-Waukesha-West Allis, WI Metropolitan Statistical Area.

The racial makeup of the county was 93.3% White, 1.3% Black or African American, 0.3% Native American, 2.7% Asian, 0.0003% Pacific Islander, 1.0% from other races, and 1.3% from two or more races. 4.1% of the population were Hispanic or Latino of any race.

Also, claiming you feared me because I'm black (which she claimed--literally), might be persuasive to omega females and beta females. And acting on the stand like you're some little angel out of the Leave It To Beaver days might persuade omega and beta females and racist white dudes too.

But alpha women and non-racist white dudes are going to be asking themselves this question: If you're so afraid of this black dude then why meet him, go to a motel, and pay for the motel room? And how many angelic young women do something like that, rather than sitting on a park bench eating ice cream with one another?

 

[Catherineanne]

The bold is where we diverge. IMO, people ARE animals.

Your opinion has no bearing on mine.

Kindly do not quote selectively from what I said. Here it is again, as you seem not to have read it all:

If the mother of a cat happened to disturb her offspring in flagrante delicto, they would carry on regardless because they are animals; in context they have no moral sense of right and wrong and they are therefore free to follow their instincts without compunction.

If the mother of a human being happened to walk in on her child in such a situation, however, they would stop; in context they have a moral sense of right and wrong, and such behaviour in front of a parent definitely counts as wrong. Few of us would be able to disregard such an observer.

Ergo, in this context and for these reasons we are not animals. And because we can always choose to stop, that is why stop always means stop; at any point and regardless of the context, the clothing or any former behaviour.