In cases where a woman rapes a man...

Originally posted by Stoic
I'm trying to figure out how a woman would rape a man? Aside from being tied up, and dildo raped, how does she rape a man if he is erect? An erection would mean that he is willing to penetrate the woman no matter what position that he may be in.

Well...SC already alluded to this point but you can get a boner in a situation that you are not wanting to...bone?

Not sure if those are the words.

Anyway....

This old dude sees erections due to cathoders from 50% of his patients (that's a picture of a real urologist, lol).

Yes, he's looking at you because he's concerned about your boners during the exam he's giving you. 😆

Do you honestly think half (what a nurse told meh) of the men are REALLY sexually aroused by this old doctor or is it an uncontrollable response that is very embarrassing for the men?

From personal experience, I can tell you I got a half-boner when the family practitioner was handling my junk looking for a herniation. I can assure you that even if I were gay, my familiy practitioner would be one of the last people I would want to "penetrate". It's just a natural response you can't help.

You also get erections in your sleep even if you're not dreaming about something sexy.

Then some people get boners during hangings (hung just wasn't the optimal word).

So, no, not all boners mean "bone it".

Originally posted by Stoic
An erection would mean that he is willing to penetrate the woman no matter what position that he may be in.

No it would not.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
There's no "order" for doing things involved. We don't have to get rid of all the male rapist before we start taking issue with the female rapists.
We can address both at the same time.

There is an 'order' actually and a process. Clearly you're unfamiliar with this, as you are with way too many other things.

Sociologists and social policy makers, when addressing the issue of anything, not just rape, look for patterns within any crime committed.
This is done to establish the reasons for the crime, such as social status, sex, age group, culture...etc so that solution can be found.

If the highest number of crimes is committed by a particular social class, particular sex or particular sub-group it is investigated FROM THERE. It's called a starting point.

So far, it has been established that vast majority of rapes have been committed by heterosexual men on both men AND women. Highest percentage of raped women know their attacker, so attacks by random strangers are rare. It has also been established that rape has nothing to do with sex, but power and humiliation, and that sex is merely the means for degradation, humiliation and punishment.
This has been established through study of MEN raping.

On top of that, men raping other men has physical and psychological damages to a victim FAR GREATER than any rape woman commits.
The allocation of resources for rape should be 93% of men raping and 6.7% on women raping, REFLECTING THE ACTUAL PROBLEM.

Read Giddens or something if you're going to get into a sociological debate.

EDIT: They are addressed at the same time, but logically not in the same degree because the problem isn't in the same degree nor is it widespread!

lol. I dont even...

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
On top of that, men raping other men has physical and psychological damages to a victim FAR GREATER than any rape woman commits.

Based on your own personal speculation?

If a woman threatens to kill you the forces a beer bottle up you ass that's going to cause you exactly as much psychological trauma as a man doing the same. We can test this if you'd like.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
The allocation of resources for rape should be 93% of men raping and 6.7% on women raping, REFLECTING THE ACTUAL PROBLEM.

And no one has aruged against that. I just think your position that women should be treated more lightly for crimes is completely batshit insane.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
They are addressed at the same time, but logically not in the same degree because the problem isn't in the same degree nor is it widespread!

I'd like you to define "degree" here because it sounds like you're arguing that we should punish crimes less severely if they're less common.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I'd like you to define "degree" here because it sounds like you're arguing that we should punish crimes less severely if they're less common.

I probably could use some clarification, as well. From what I understood from Lil B, statutory rape is hardly the same crime as an adult woman raping an adult man.

Come on...when you were 16 or 17...you would have boned Mrs. Johnson, without hesitation, if she offered, right? 313

Now, I've read of cases of middle school teachers having sex with their 13 year old male students. That's going too far, obviously. But it was still consensual vs. the straight up rape kind Lil B was talking about.

So, yes, there does appear to be a layman interpretation of "degree".

However, from my own academic studies of rape degrees, there are usually 3-4 legally defined degrees of rape. That MAY be what she was talking about. In most states, 3rd degree rape is statutory rape. Lil B would know much more about this than I because she has a Masters in Criminal Law (or was it Criminology?) I only had to take 2 courses on it.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Come on...when you were 16 or 17...you would have boned Mrs. Johnson, without hesitation, if she offered, right? 313

No, I really wouldn't have. Even today I would find a person offering to have sex with me fairly disturbing. I know that with all the cliches we've built up around male sexuality this is probably very hard to believe but my revulsion at the thought of coming in contact with another person is much greater than my desire to have sex.

I've looked at people and thought "he/she is very attractive" but never "and I've like to have sex with him/her".

Originally posted by dadudemon
Now, I've read of cases of middle school teachers having sex with their 13 year old male students. That's going too far, obviously. But it was still consensual vs. the straight up rape kind Lil B was talking about.

The nature of consent among the very young is a different (and even more contentious) subject. Personally I think much of the US sets the age of consent too high, 15 seems more appropriate to me, but I wouldn't accept the claim that a 13-year-old consensually had sex with a person more than a few years older. I do realize that this restricts the right of 13-year-olds in way that may occasionally be unnecessary (I believe you've mentioned feeling ready for sex around that age) but children are in a very vulnerable situation in any interaction with an adult and I prefer to protect them from potential abuse.

Its very hard to find out if a child really consented to something or not. In psych studies of children its important to correct for what's sometimes called the "yes-saying-bias". Given that issue I prefer to err on the side of caution

I just noticed that I wrote this whole thing and it exactly four words of that post. In any event I also don't think rape should drop to a lower degree because the victim was male the attacker female.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, I really wouldn't have. Even today I would find a person offering to have sex with me fairly disturbing. I know that with all the cliches we've built up around male sexuality this is probably very hard to believe but my revulsion at the thought of coming in contact with another person is much greater than my desire to have

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
No, I really wouldn't have. Even today I would find a person offering to have sex with me fairly disturbing. I know that with all the cliches we've built up around male sexuality this is probably very hard to believe but my revulsion at the thought of coming in contact with another person is much greater than my desire to have sex.

No, no, you're fine. I ain't judgin'. It was a joke not intended to be taken seriously. I know how you are about sex and I see nothing wrong with your perspective. I should have been a bit more sensitive so I apologize for that. But, it was definitely intended as a joke.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The nature of consent among the very young is a different (and even more contentious) subject. Personally I think much of the US sets the age of consent too high, 15 seems more appropriate to me, but I wouldn't accept the claim that a 13-year-old consensually had sex with a person more than a few years older. I do realize that this restricts the right of 13-year-olds in way that may occasionally be unnecessary (I believe you've mentioned feeling ready for sex around that age) but children are in a very vulnerable situation in any interaction with an adult and I prefer to protect them from potential abuse.

I agree. I think sex with a 13-year old should only happen with someone a year or two older or younger than them. I am not too familiar with the psychology around that but it just seems natural and more healthy for a child's sexual development if their first sexual experiences are with other children around their age.

But, yes...as a 13 year old, if the teacher was hot enough, I probably would not have said no. That's probably why it is considered "statitory rape" because at that age, most kids aren't socially developed enough (and intellectually) to make a genuinely informed consent.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Its very hard to find out if a child really consented to something or not. In psych studies of children its important to correct for what's sometimes called the "yes-saying-bias". Given that issue I prefer to err on the side of caution

Ditto. Also agreed on the "err on the side of caution" when it comes to kids and sexual consent.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
I just noticed that I wrote this whole thing and it exactly four words of that post. In any event I also don't think rape should drop to a lower degree because the victim was male the attacker female.

I dunno, man. Like you said, it can be difficult to determine if it was really the really bad kind of rape. In the 7th and 8th grade, my classmates talked very graphically about sex with the hot interns. That seems par for the course. It is difficult for me to view 13-14 year old boys, who talked about banging one of the intern assistants (22-23 years old?) in graphic ways, as not consenting to sex. It may not be an "adult" consent, but it is consent none-the-less.

It should be expected that a nice figure and a pretty face will sexually arouse straight young men. That could be boiled down to, "A sexually mature human should sexually arouse another sexually mature/ing human."

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
I would imagine that has more to do with your severe social anxiety issues than it does with anything else, though, I imagine. Yah?

Partly, I think it's mostly a dislike of sticky fluids thing. Kissing grosses me out but I like hugs.

We don't need to make it an issue that's personal to me, though, we can just propose a greasy woman who weighs 300 pounds. Now it is the outlier who will want to have sex with her rather than the outlier who will not.

Indeed.

I apologize if I got a little too personal, though. I wasn't trying to take a dig at you.

Originally posted by RE: Blaxican
Indeed.

I apologize if I got a little too personal, though. I wasn't trying to take a dig at you.

No, that was my fault I brought it up.

Originally posted by Stoic
An erection would mean that he is willing to penetrate the woman no matter what position that he may be in.

No, actually.

I guarantee you that I, a male, could give you an erection without much trouble via stimulation, despite you being straight (I assume, anyway). Oh yes ****ers I went there.

The physiological reactions to stimulation do not make sex you don't consent to magically not rape, as similar physiological reactions often befall women who are being raped (And indeed, it is due to this that many rape cases are not reported, being ashamed that it, for lack of a better way to phrase this, "felt good"😉.

So yeah, men can be raped by women.

I like how I don't think anyone has actually answered this question though.

I don't know. I don't think he should be forced to take care of it, but eh, forcing an abortion I am unsure about, adoption might be necessary though, since I am not too keen on the notion of rapists raising children.

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
That's not the only way a woman can rape a man, in fact that is really rare.

More common cases are statutory rape, or rape where the victim is blackmailed or threatened. (yes, that's also considered rape - if a woman blackmails or threatens a man to have sex with her against his will, it's still rape).

In a survey answered by hundreds of rape and sexual assault support agencies, they estimated that 93.7 percent of male rape perpetrators are male and 6.3 percent were female.

Maybe the 93.7% men raping other men should be addressed before the 6.3% is.

I argee it happens but it is mosty the man who rapes not the woman.

@Jackie - yes it goes without saying that the majority of brutal rapes are perpetrated by men (whatever the gender of the victim) but society has strange and messed up ideas of cases perpetrated by women. Check this essay on the subject.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb6469/is_n35/ai_n28711408/?tag=content;col1

And what is more shocking is how until very recently, deviant women who abused very young victims could get away with it because of the strange mass delusion that women are all pure angels...! The BBC made the following documentary on the subject:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ALdzDaqXbu8

In the 1980s sexual abuse of children was acknowledged in the UK as being possible, but it was not acknowledged that it was possible for deviant women to do it. It's only just beginning to be officially recognised as a real issue now.

It is now considered likely that 20% of all sexual abuse of small children is carried out by women...! That is a problem of colossal scale to just ignore.

If a man allows a woman to rape him he is either weak and deserved it or he wanted it to happen

Originally posted by NemeBro
No, actually.

I guarantee you that I, a male, could give you an erection without much trouble via stimulation, despite you being straight (I assume, anyway). Oh yes ****ers I went there.

The physiological reactions to stimulation do not make sex you don't consent to magically not rape, as similar physiological reactions often befall women who are being raped (And indeed, it is due to this that many rape cases are not reported, being ashamed that it, for lack of a better way to phrase this, "felt good"😉.

So yeah, men can be raped by women.

I like how I don't think anyone has actually answered this question though.

I don't know. I don't think he should be forced to take care of it, but eh, forcing an abortion I am unsure about, adoption might be necessary though, since I am not too keen on the notion of rapists raising children.

Nope.

Fear = no erection.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
If a man allows a woman to rape him he is either weak and deserved it or he wanted it to happen

Dude. 😐

I voted yes on abortion if rape had occurred (without protection of course), it's something he didn't want and shouldn't have to live knowing about even if he doesn't have to bear the cost. I feel the same about those women who tamper with condoms or stop birth control without telling - scary stuff!

Now the mechanics of the rape itself is not foolproof to even produce a child unless the guy is prepped either chemically and/or held down for a long time by others.

Originally posted by jinXed by JaNx
If a man allows a woman to rape him he is either weak and deserved it or he wanted it to happen

You wouldn't happen to be a moron, would you?

Evidence thus far points to yes.