Post: #1

Saw this on BB.com originally.

From The University of Montana sexual misconduct policy, page 9 is found an example of sexual coercion -- read it carefully:

"Amanda and Bill meet at a party. They spend the evening dancing and getting to know each other. Bill convinces Amanda to come up to his room. From 11:00pm until 3:00am, Bill uses every line he can think of to convince Amanda to have sex with him, but she adamantly refuses. He keeps at her, and begins to question her religious convictions, and accuses her of being “a prude.” Finally, it seems to Bill that her resolve is weakening, and he convinces her to give him a “hand job” (hand to genital contact). Amanda would never had done it but for Bill’s incessant advances. He feels that he successfully seduced her, and that she wanted to do it all along, but was playing shy and hard to get. Why else would she have come up to his room alone after the party? If she really didn’t want it, she could have left. Bill is responsible for violating the university Non‐Consensual Sexual Contact policy. It is likely that a university hearing board would find that the degree and duration of the pressure Bill applied to Amanda are unreasonable. Bill coerced Amanda into performing unwanted sexual touching upon him. Where sexual activity is coerced, it is forced. Consent is not effective when forced. Sex without effective consent is sexual misconduct."

http://www.cotwa.info/2012/09/the-univer...s-sex.html

America keeps sinking into the abyss.

Post: #2

Dude's mistake was in accepting a handjob. If he went all the way, Amanda would be beside herself with bliss... and she'd never complain. When a girl gives a handjob, *everyone* feels humiliated.

Original BB thread: http://forum.bodybuilding.com/showthread...=944594583

Post: #3

This is such a huge grey area and lawmakers are struggling to breakdown and define sexual assault into as many facets as they can.

What they really want to do is kill the concept of seduction. Anything other than a female ripping your clothes off and riding your cock cowgirl style would fall under one of their definitions of assault.

Best thing you can do as a man is secretly video tape your bedroom activities and keep your mouth shut about your sexual conquests.

Or you can pull a Dave Chappele and make her sign a pre-humptual agreement

Post: #4

(09-06-2012 05:03 PM)Zebra_Cakes Wrote:  a “hand job” (hand to genital contact).

Thank god they cleared that one up.

Post: #5

Sure, what he did was a form of coercion, but it wasn't the least bit physical in nature. He didn't physically prevent her from leaving anytime she wanted. He may have Jedi mind-tricked her a little, but are we going to start criminalizing THAT? All this does is tell young women that in matters of physical intimacy, they bear no responsibility for their actions or the consequences of them. Only young men are responsible. If a chick doesn't want to do anything, they can leave. In scenarios like the one described, chicks want to be "coerced" into doing something sexual so they can rationalize it to themselves later.

Post: #6

I'm gonna pull that shit next time a drunk fat girl hits on me.

I'll freak out and start screaming "DONT YOU KNOW SEXUAL COERCION IS RAPE. YOU ARE RAPING ME" then I'll repeat the same thing that crazy landlord lady did from the thread "this is where society is at" and be like 'Help mee, please help mee' and I bet instead of some old fat guys coming to my aid... I'll get kicked out.

Then I'll try and sell my story to the press, and they'll say, "Sorry.. the space is taken up we're running a piece on how guys should sit down at the urinal and another one because there's this girl who has become the first ever person to spin a plate on a straw whilst blackberry-messaging her bestie."

So I'll write a blog post about it and get told to 'man up' by this guy:

Post: #7

I've said it before and I'll say it again. Feminist advocacy is not motivated by the perceived fairness (or lack thereof) of a proposed policy. It is motivated by whether or not feminists would benefit from that policy. Hence why you can get a major university these days to adopt a sexual conduct policy that, aside from being manifestly immoral, isn't even logically coherent: the fact that the woman in this scenario consented to the hand job follows directly from the fact that the man convinced her to do it--in the absence of a threat, to be convinced to do something is necessarily to consent to it, as surely as to be a bachelor is necessarily to be unmarried.

The university policy seems to implicitly recognize this since it doesn't actually say the act was non-consensual; instead they came up with a new category called "effective consent," which as far as I can tell adds no content to the concept of consent except to arbitrarily exclude whatever consensual activities the people in charge of adjudicating these issues don't like.

God help us all.

Post: #8

You know the virgin Mary technically never consented to being impregnated. Doesn't that mean that god is guilty of sexual assault in some form? Chew on that for a while feminists.

Post: #9

The answer is simple, don't sleep with, date, or touch american women ever under any circumstances. Treat them like toxic waste. Be very careful around it, warn your friends away from it and don't go within 100 feet of it. Ignore it for 1,000,000 years and it will simply break down and go away on its own.

Post: #10

What's dangerous now is that sexual assualt has lost all meaning in the United States. Without a definition, rape now is whatever a woman wants it to be. And that's bad for all parties. Men now have to take extra care, but women suffer too.

The best sex, the kind that feminists have never experienced, involves the woman's submitting to the man's will. But such sex cannot exist in a consent-first world, as we're moving towards only the blandest variety of humping being permitted. I'd imagine that there are feminists who want the man to ask permission before each thrust. If there aren't any yet, they're coming soon.

Post: #11

(09-06-2012 07:43 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  You know the virgin Mary technically never consented to being impregnated. Doesn't that mean that god is guilty of sexual assault in some form? Chew on that for a while feminists.

You mean chew on that for a while christian feminists.

Post: #12

Some speaker at our orientation wanted us to "ask before we kiss".

Also, he told girls to cockblock.

He said if a girl doesn't wanna have sex with you sober, she doesn't want to have sex at all.

On the bright side most guys I've talked to think what he said is bullshit.

Post: #13

(09-06-2012 09:04 PM)torontokid Wrote:  Some speaker at our orientation wanted us to "ask before we kiss".

Also, he told girls to cockblock.

He said if a girl doesn't wanna have sex with you sober, she doesn't want to have sex at all.

On the bright side most guys I've talked to think what he said is bullshit.

The "ask before you kiss" rule is one of the most bizarre rules ever. If you go for the kiss and she moves her head, or gives you the cheek, you know what the deal is. But ask first? Ridiculous. It's like you're supposed to engage in a running commentary of everything you intend to do before you do it, so she can consent to it first. "I'm about to place my right hand on your lower back, equidistant between your c-blah blah vertebrae and the top of your gluteals. Do I have your consent?"

Post: #14

(09-06-2012 07:43 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  You know the virgin Mary technically never consented to being impregnated. Doesn't that mean that god is guilty of sexual assault in some form? Chew on that for a while feminists.

Wow. God is a rapist. You could close the forum after this post. Our jobs are done.

Post: #15

Tuth you should hear my "Jesus was a liberal" argument when conservative religious nuts try to preach to me. I can get anyone to reverse their views. I'm very persuasive. It's a gift.

Post: #16

(09-06-2012 09:39 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  Tuth you should hear my "Jesus was a liberal" argument when conservative religious nuts try to preach to me. I can get anyone to reverse their views. I'm very persuasive. It's a gift.

Jesus wasn't just a liberal, he was a socialist. They really freak out at that one.

Post: #17

(09-06-2012 09:42 PM)Tuthmosis Wrote:  

(09-06-2012 09:39 PM)Parlay44 Wrote:  Tuth you should hear my "Jesus was a liberal" argument when conservative religious nuts try to preach to me. I can get anyone to reverse their views. I'm very persuasive. It's a gift.

Jesus wasn't just a liberal, he was a socialist. They really freak out at that one.

Sometimes I refer to Jesus as a drunken frat boy who liked to party with whores

Post: #18

A future preview of sex in the Feminist States of America:

1) Before any sexual act can occur, the male must secure a form of consent from the female.

2) This form must spell out every sexual act that is to occur during the course of their encounter, be signed by both parties and a notary public, and kept in triplicate.

3) The sexual encounter must take place in the presence of at least three witnesses.

4) If the female has a BAC over .02 during the encounter, the consent form is voided and a criminal rape has occurred.

5) If the female regrets the sex, the consent form is voided at a criminal rape has occurred.

6) There is no statute of limitations on the female regret clause, and a charge of criminal rape can be brought against a male years later.

This concludes the preview of the future of sex in the Feminist States of America. Have a nice day!

Post: #19

That'd be a killer form of insulting women.

Game a 6, make her think the man of her dreams has selected her because of her special uniqueness, work her into a frenzy, kill the vibe as you whip out a consent form that needs to be signed in triplicate.

When she gets uppity, "Sorry hun, i can't afford to take that much risk."

Post: #20

Quote:A woman wrote this and she showed it to her husband to make herself feel better for giving Bill, her husband's brother, a handjob at the fair. She had half a glass of wine and wasn't herself anymore, of course. As she was an administrative worker the University of Montana, she was given the task of writing the sexual misconduct policy. Writing this story up in the policy seemed like a great way to justify and clarify this story to her husband. After all, it was now part of an official sexual misconduct policy that cleared her of any guilt. Amanda had been given the task of writing up said polucy specifically because she had a lot of experience with rape. She had filed over 5 rape charges against 4 different men before, in college alone. She became notorious among coworkers for her women's sexual rights advocacy after getting three board members fired after giving them oral sex in the bathrooms all at the same time. It was rape, of course, as she only said to be hungry for a gallon of cum because she finished the bottom of her husband's whiskey the night before so she was clearly drunk and thus taken advantage of.

Her husband, Terry, shot himself in the head a year later after 'Amanda' wrote a new paragraph for The University of Montana sexual misconduct policy, where she explained how getting trainfukked by three men after eating a small portion of champagne sorbet was also deemed rape and it was officially 'totally not cheating'.

Post: #21

Notice the story right under that, about Jiang (lol finally Asians are getting full rights... to be falsely accused of rape) and some girl. Apparently, they started making out and then having sex, but she was abused by a babysitter when she was 5 and didn't want it to go that quickly, but she couldn't say or show it in any visible way. Jiang is guilty of rape, because you need consent, and some people are not always able to give consent.

I'm not kidding, go to example 2 on page 9 and read.

Post: #22

(09-07-2012 01:52 AM)Handsome Creepy Eel Wrote:  Notice the story right under that, about Jiang (lol finally Asians are getting full rights... to be falsely accused of rape) and some girl. Apparently, they started making out and then having sex, but she was abused by a babysitter when she was 5 and didn't want it to go that quickly, but she couldn't say or show it in any visible way. Jiang is guilty of rape, because you need consent, and some people are not always able to give consent.

I'm not kidding, go to example 2 on page 9 and read.

Yeah, the examples are ridiculous. They place all the responsibility on the men, while the women are "victims" incapable of making decisions for themselves. The Jiang one is especially ridiculous. I mean, how is the woman not able to verbally say "no"? How is she not able to push Jiang off of her? Absolutely stupid.

Post: #23

(09-07-2012 12:36 AM)scorpion Wrote:  A future preview of sex in the Feminist States of America:

What you're describing:

Post: #24

^^^still can't stop laughing