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

[dgiharris]

.....
Dr Ruth is wrong, she thinks like an animal and apparently so do some of you.

Exactly. Human beings still have a strong animal component, the Reptile Brain. Please feel free to Google and read up on it. This is nothing new. Look at physical fights between adults, Road Rage, Murder, Rape, Crimes of passion... these things occur on a daily basis in every city in the world...

I feel a lot of people in this thread live in the hypothetical world of "should". And I will agree with you in principle and theory, absolutely. But my arguments are more in terms of REALITY. ANd I apply my reasoning to all my aspects of life. I do not put myself in these sorts of situations because not every person is going to have Zen like control over their Reptile brain. ANd I definitely would never exacerbate a situation to such an extreme point.

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.

I couldn't agree more. Most of my arguments though were trying to delve more into the "Why" and the "how" though many in this thread seem content to wave my arguments away with a "should" counter.

"should" is a very dangerous world to live in. There is nothing more dangerous than thinking you are in the world of "should" and then one day stumbling into the real world. Regardless of your sex, if you delight in teasing to such an extreme level and putting yourself in these sorts of situations, you are playing with fire and one day you will get burned.

Lastly, though majority of my arguments in this thread have been concerning sex, my real argument is concerning any EXTREME situation in which you pit the Reptile brain against the Cognitive brain in such a way that the Reptile brain "may" override the Cognitive centers due to the extreme nature urgency of the situation. This is one reason why companies have learned the hard way to fire people on Fridays so that the person can cool down over the weekend, that is, allow the cognitive brain to override the Reptile brain. Why companies have developed an entire process of firing people that minimizes the chance of violence.

So in conclusion, I'm not arguing the right or wrong of legality of this, I'm arguing the actuality of this. People in this thread need to realize that not everyone is like you, not everyone is as highly morally evolved as you, and if you want to live in the world of "should" then you will have a rude awakening when you stumble into the real world.

 

[Paradoxum]

Actually, Doctor Ruth does make some sense. If a woman is naked in bed with a man, that could reasonably be taken to be implied consent.

Being naked and aroused in bed shouldn't imply consent to sex. I wouldn't expect a guy to consider it to mean that. There's lots of stuff you can do naked that don't involve traditional sex.

Perhaps someone is willing to go as far as that, but not as far as sex. I'd think that's not rare.

Why would she be naked in bed unless she intended to have sex?

'Foreplay' can be a thing on it's own.

However, if she has already been penetrated and intercourse is already in progress, it would be absurd for her to call it rape even after saying "no".

I'm not sure I understand you here. If she has said no, he has clearly understood and is clearly ignoring her, that's rape... even if it was already in progress.

I understand it might be frustrating to stop, but I believe in men.

You may have a point if intercourse has not yet begun. Perhaps saying "no" before being penetrated is enough warning, even if both partners are already aroused. Still, I at least agree with Doctor Ruth that it is irresponsible to let things get so far.

Well I doubt it's done on purpose.

 

[Armoured]

I heard a lot of girls in high school who did this on a regular basis.
They loved watching their guy squirm. So they did it over and over.

Anecdotal evidence is the most fun kind of evidence, isn't it?

 

[Tina W]

I don't get it. I just can't understand how and why a woman would put herself in the position where penetration is about to happen then say stop or change her mind. If you are unsure, don't start.

 

[Moral Orel]

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?

Does that make the behavior of the guy throwing the punch okay in any way shape or form, or should he just accept that other people can be real jerks? Just because that guy did a bad thing, does that make you less responsible for the actions you choose to do? Do not resist evil, says Jesus, so I don't know how bad of a situation you could come up with that would make me say it is justifiable to commit violence of any kind.

Now you see, in my example, I used two people that were both consenting to engage in an argument. One person went way further with it than the other person wanted. Are you really comparing a woman changing her mind about being comfortable with having sex to a person calling your mother a crack harlot and spitting on her? Are these two equally bad and comparable things?

I'll ask another question, what is so hard about just finishing by yourself? When my wife and I were just dating, and we were at a point that we stopped at "making out", nothing under the clothes, I would get all hot and bothered, I would get the dreaded "blue balls". But I never once thought about holding her down and penetrating her against her will. I'd go home after a date and take care of myself.

 

[Moral Orel]

It's thinking like this that makes so many women who are raped never even report it because they feel that no one will believe them or that it is in some way their fault.

Rape is the only crime I can think of that people want to blame the victim for.

My car was vandalized one time. I called the police and filled out a report. Not once did the officer say, "Well what are you driving around in such a nice car for? Look at how nice that paint job is... you were just asking for this to happen".

 

[dgiharris]

Does that make the behavior of the guy throwing the punch okay in any way shape or form, or should he just accept that other people can be real jerks? Just because that guy did a bad thing, does that make you less responsible for the actions you choose to do?

I can see you are the mayor of Shouldville. You are arguing "shoulds" and nice theoretical constructs while I'm arguing actuality and reality.

..... Are you really comparing a woman changing her mind about being comfortable with having sex to a person calling your mother a crack harlot and spitting on her? Are these two equally bad and comparable things?

Again, I was making the point about pitting the Reptile part of your brain against the Cognitive centers of your brain in an "extreme" situation in which the Reptile part of your brain can overpower the Cognitive centers of your brain.

I wish you were here so I could do an experiment so you could see my point. In the experiment I would hook up a heart monitor to you. I would then tell you that a series of stimuli are going to be applied to you and that at no time will you be in any danger whatsoever and that everything is 100% safe as verified by a team of scientists and people you trust.

I would then subject you to various things: a venomless snake, a harmless tarantula, an empty gun in which I point it at you at point blank and pull the trigger....

The heart monitor will show your serious increases in your blood pressure and heart rate despite you "knowing" that everything is safe. That is, your Reptile brain will override your Cognitive centers and even though you "know" it will not prevent your Reptile brain from taking control of different aspects of your body...

You keep trying to simplify my argument to some caricature in which I'm advocating rape and blaming the victim. I am not.

What I am arguing is that in very specialized and extreme circumstances (which you keep trivializing and downplaying) it is "possible" for the Reptile brain to overwhelm the Cognitive centers of your brain. It takes extreme stress and highly specialized situations for this to occur. I'm arguing science while you are arguing morality.

For the record, sure, I agree with your morality and I understand where you are coming from.

Do you understand where I am coming from? Do you understand the argument I'm making?

I put the key part of my argument in bold a few posts back.

.....I'll ask another question, what is so hard about just finishing by yourself?.

This would be one way to alleviate the stress and urgency as perceived by the Reptile part of our brains as well as the other person stimulating us via other means. However, again rationality isn't the Reptile brain's strong suit.

..... When my wife and I were just dating, and we were at a point that we stopped at "making out", nothing under the clothes, .

you can stop right there. The situation you describe is not comparable to the situation in which I'm arguing. Your situation is not extreme enough to allow the Reptile brain to overwhelm the Cognitive parts of the brain.

I've done my best to make my point as clear as possible. If you still misconstrue it, then there really is nothing else I can say and you will just have to continue to be ignorant to crux of my argument and the point I'm trying to make.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

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%.

I personally don't need to be reminded of those factors, but thank you for posting them nevertheless. Yes, false rape accusations are indeed rare, but if you fail to acknowledge the fact that they do happen, particularly on college campuses, you risk being stampeded by some here who will accuse you of having neglected it.

And yes, I also know that the number of rapists who are criminally prosecuted is dismayingly small. The woman in the Stanford case I referenced above was distressed that no criminal charges were filed against the man who allegedly raped her, and by what she felt was delayed and inadequate action taken by the university.

My mom has also taken on several pro-bono cases for rape victims over the years.

 

[riona]

Yes, I agree. She has withdrawn consent.

However, if she has already been penetrated and intercourse is already in progress, it would be absurd for her to call it rape even after saying "no".

You may have a point if intercourse has not yet begun. Perhaps saying "no" before being penetrated is enough warning, even if both partners are already aroused. Still, I at least agree with Doctor Ruth that it is irresponsible to let things get so far.


eudaimonia,

Mark

I respectfully disagree.
Just because a man has already penetrated a woman it's ok for him to ignore her telling him to stop?
If he stops, then no, it's not rape.
If he continues, yes, it is rape.
He has been told to stop, for whatever reason, not respecting that is him forcing her to continue against her will. You dont see that as rape?

 

[riona]

I have to say I agree with these two posts. Once things get started and the guy gets aroused and you have consented to it in the beginning, I don't think it's right to say no in the middle of it or in the heat of it, I think that's wrong too. I'm a woman and I don't have that much experience, but I know I would have a hard time stopping or might not be able to stop at all once things got started so I know it must be even more harder for a man. I never could understand why people expect that if a woman says no in the middle of it that the man has to stop or it's considered as rape. Especially when she gave consent in the beginning and just as things get heated she says no. That's wrong. I'm against rape when it's clearly rape, when the woman has never given any kind of consent what so ever at any time. But once she gives consent and things get started then I don't agree with the idea that she can say no in the middle of it. I know most women seem to think it's okay but I never did agree with that idea.

Ok so let's say you and your husband get frisky and head to the bedroom. You start going at it, hot and heavy. Suddenly something feels 'off' and you want to stop for a breather, you know, collect your thoughts, grab a drink of water. So you say, "honey, please stop for a minute."
You are saying that it is perfectly ok for him to ignore you and keep in pounding away?
Do you have any respect for yourself?

 

[riona]

I don't get it. I just can't understand how and why a woman would put herself in the position where penetration is about to happen then say stop or change her mind. If you are unsure, don't start. If you think you might not be able to finish why start? Why are you making out with him, taking off your clothes and both in bed naked if you don't think you will want to go through with it? I still say it's wrong to do that. I would not put myself in that position. If I'm unsure, I would not let things even start. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand that once things go so far, that some people can't stop especially if it's been a long time. I think those things happen with young girls who are not mature enough to be trying to have sex anyway and they don't fully understand what they are playing with or they do it on purpose. Rape is definitely wrong when it is clearly rape. But giving consent right up to the point of penetration or beyond, then saying stop, that's a gray area where it depends on so many things.

What people SHOULD do and what they ULTIMATELY do are two completely different things.
I can only venture to guess by this post you've never done anything you regret? No? Then you should understand that these things happen in sexual situations too.

It makes me sad to think that so many people on this forum, yourself included, think that men are just mindless penis driven sex monsters with no control over their thrusting. I've never met a man who simply could not stop. 'nope, sorry baby, my brain says quit, but my hips just won't give it up!'
It's completely absurd, and I venture to say immature, to view men in this way.

Dang this reminds me of so many nurse-in-public debates I've been involved in.... You men and your Uncontrollable sexual nature...how do you walk down the beach without poking every bikini laden girl that bounces by? I mean... She dressed like that in front of you... That MUST mean she wants sex, right? /sarcasm

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Yes, I agree. She has withdrawn consent.

However, if she has already been penetrated and intercourse is already in progress, it would be absurd for her to call it rape even after saying "no".

You may have a point if intercourse has not yet begun. Perhaps saying "no" before being penetrated is enough warning, even if both partners are already aroused. Still, I at least agree with Doctor Ruth that it is irresponsible to let things get so far.


eudaimonia,

Mark

What if she consents to intercourse and then he becomes far more aggressive than expected and is hurting her, and she repeatedly asks him to stop but he refuses? I think that falls into a gray area. I don't know that it constitutes rape, but it's still a violation and is wrong.

 

[quatona]

What if she consents to intercourse and then he becomes far more aggressive than expected and is hurting her, and she repeatedly asks him to stop but he refuses?

I think we don´t even need to go that far. What if a person realizes he/she simply doesn´t like the way goes about it (be it too soft, too hard, too wordy, too silent, too whatever)?
Just like with everything else, in my opinion everyone can stop an interaction at any point they realize it´s not to their liking. Heck, I have even left discussions that I had consented to start.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Being naked and aroused in bed shouldn't imply consent to sex. I wouldn't expect a guy to consider it to mean that. There's lots of stuff you can do naked that don't involve traditional sex.

I agree, but there should be discussion about that beforehand or else consent for sex could reasonably be seen as implied. If there is an agreement about the activity to take place, that's a different matter.

I'm not sure I understand you here. If she has said no, he has clearly understood and is clearly ignoring her, that's rape... even if it was already in progress.

I understand it might be frustrating to stop, but I believe in men.

I believe in hormones. You can't expect someone in the throws of sexual excitement mid-intercourse to suddenly change course. Yes, it can be done, but reason and sexual excitement don't mix well.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Eudaimonist]

He has been told to stop, for whatever reason, not respecting that is him forcing her to continue against her will. You dont see that as rape?

Rape isn't necessarily consciously intended at that point, and it is odd to see that as rape when intercourse has already commenced with full consent. It seems to me that rape involves the intention to have intercourse with someone against their consent. If intercourse has already begun with consent, then the man is not a rapist. If I were a judge, I could not in good conscience charge that man with rape. He may be insensitive or have difficulty controlling himself while experiencing sexual excitement, but that's a different matter.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tony Conrad]

Where does marriage come into this. If my wife and I lie in bed naked there is no problem if it happens or doesn't happen.

If we are talking about singles then obviously we have to flee before anything like that happens.

 

[quatona]

I believe in hormones.

So do I. But since we both believe in hormones, yet come to different conclusions, I am sensing that you believe something about hormones that I don´t believe.

You can't expect someone in the throws of sexual excitement mid-intercourse to suddenly change course.

That´s a terrifying picture you paint of sexually excited persons.

Yes, it can be done, but reason and sexual excitement don't mix well.

I agree. I do, however, not see how my sexual or hormonal condition constitutes any obligation for anybody else.


eudaimonia,

Mark[/QUOTE]

 

[Eudaimonist]

So do I. But since we both believe in hormones, yet come to different conclusions, I am sensing that you believe something about hormones that I don´t believe.

Entirely possible.

That´s a terrifying picture you paint of sexually excited persons.

Reality can be terrifying in some instances.

I recommend post #61 by dgiharris.

I agree. I do, however, not see how my sexual or hormonal condition constitutes any obligation for anybody else.

I wasn't talking about that.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[quatona]

Reality can be terrifying in some instances.

"You can´t expect..." doesn´t sound like a description of reality.

I recommend post #61 by dgiharris.

"You can´t expect..." is a veiled "should".

I wasn't talking about that.

Sorry for misunderstanding you, then. What is it you meant to talk about in reference to the topic?
Do your considerations lead to any practical implications?

 

[ViaCrucis]

I don't understand why this is so hard for so many in our culture to grasp: No means no.

It doesn't matter how close two people are to "doing the deed", if one of them changes their mind, decides they don't want to after all, they can still say no--and they are under no obligation to satiate the desires of the other against their own will.

-CryptoLutheran