Post: #1

In the current war on teenage sex, a recent study reported here in the LA Times classifies "arguing between boyfriend and girlfriend" to be a form of "sexual violence"

Naturally, the LA times reporter didn't for one second question the way this report lies.

Prosecutors nationwide are salivating at thought of going after those 17 year old boys who dare to argue (or push for sex) from their girlfriends. Even more juicy is the prospect of wiping out the life savings of these boy's parents, with 100K/200K legal fees just a beginning. For lesbian and/or Feminist prosecutors, of course the satisfaction is more simple... destroying those boys who rejected them in high school.

All teenage boys go to jail, all boy's parents destroyed. The witchunt against teenage boys continues.

http://www.latimes.com/science/scienceno...9499.story

-----------
Sexual assault not rare among teens. Neither is feeling responsible.

Nearly 1 in 10 young Americans between ages 14 and 21 acknowledges having perpetrated an act of sexual violence at least once, and 4% of a nationally representative sample of American kids reported attempting or completing rape, a new study finds.

--

Drawing upon the U.S. Justice Department definitions of sexual violence, the authors of the latest research asked participants whether they had ever engaged in a wide range of behaviors, including kissing, touching, making an unwilling partner do something sexual or coercing or forcing someone who did not want to have sex to do so. That range of behavior might range from sexual harassment to rape, but is generally all defined as sexual violence.

Coercive tactics, including arguing, pressuring, getting angry or making someone feel guilty, were most commonly reported by those who acknowledged attempted or completed rape. And the study found that 75% of the cases of sexual violence occurred in the context of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship.

---

Post: #2

Quote:Latino and African American youths, and those from low-income families, were less likely to have coerced another person to engage in sex than were whites and those from higher-income families, the study found.

How convenient for the lawyers to discover this horrible problem that exists only with the rich.

Post: #3

(10-07-2013 07:54 PM)Samseau Wrote:  

Quote:Latino and African American youths, and those from low-income families, were less likely to have coerced another person to engage in sex than were whites and those from higher-income families, the study found.

How convenient for the lawyers to discover this horrible problem that exists only with the rich.

It's important that they have assets, otherwise the legal system won't get enough to keep prosectutor's buddies employed.

Post: #4

Quote:Coercive tactics, including arguing, pressuring, getting angry or making someone feel guilty, were most commonly reported by those who acknowledged attempted or completed rape.

Post: #5

From what I just read, it doesn't classify arguing as sexual assault, it just says that the guys who did the raping happened to have argued with the girls.

Post: #6

(10-07-2013 08:03 PM)soup Wrote:  From what I just read, it doesn't classify arguing as sexual assault, it just says that the guys who did the raping happened to have argued with the girls.

But what does that mean in terms of a big picture? What's the point of even making such a connection? As far as I can tell they're claiming that arguing is a possible prelude to rape. This is just another expansion of our society's unhinged rape hysteria. These bastards are trying to tie arguing, or feelings of guilt to rape.

Post: #7

(10-07-2013 08:03 PM)soup Wrote:  From what I just read, it doesn't classify arguing as sexual assault, it just says that the guys who did the raping happened to have argued with the girls.

No. Read it more carefully. These kinds of articles are extremely sneaky the way they re-define things in a way that you never actually notice. This is exactly the way they pull off this kind of shit...they teach this kind of manipulative writing in college pre-legal classes.

Post: #8

(10-07-2013 07:52 PM)MrLemon Wrote:  In the current war on teenage sex, a recent study reported here in the LA Times classifies "arguing between boyfriend and girlfriend" to be a form of "sexual violence"

.....
http://www.latimes.com/science/scienceno...9499.story

-----------
Sexual assault not rare among teens. Neither is feeling responsible.

--

Coercive tactics, including arguing, pressuring, getting angry or making someone feel guilty, were most commonly reported by those who acknowledged attempted or completed rape. And the study found that 75% of the cases of sexual violence occurred in the context of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship.

---

"And the study found that 75% of the cases of sexual violence occurred in the context of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship."

That's as opposed to boyfriend-boyfriend or girlfriend-girlfriend relationships, where only saint-like behavior occurs. Kidding aside, this is the message they intended to slip in there while nobody was looking.

Post: #9

Women love to play the victim. Crocodile tears my friends.

Post: #10

This re-affirms what I've asked of 2Wycked, he hasn't answered yet.

Feminists want females to have a monopoly on judgement.

If they deem something to be correct, men in their mind are meant to acquiesce, because men are simply wrong if they have come to a different conclusion.

I find it funny all the accusations feminists make, they seem to be projection more than anything else.

The 'rape is about power, not sex' theme for example.

Is there a difference, in a structural sense, between punching a woman in the face, or punching her in the vulva?

What about punching her multiple times in the vulva? What about replacing a fist with a dick. Is it in a structural sense, really that different to GBH?

It becomes about power because she has had her ability to torment a guy via rejection taken away from her, but for the guy it is most likely about sex.

"Rape is power" is female projection.

Same as the blanket use of 'misogyny'. We as the end of the spectrum that disagrees with women the most... don't actually hate them. We believe they have averted from gender roles that they are suite for and make them happiest, but all in all we don't hate them.

Feminists do hate every fibre of men, they hate they exist, they hate they have the temerity to come to their own conclusions, they hate that males conclusions and desires aren't automatically considered a lower priority if conflicting with any and all female conclusions and desires.

They do believe men should subordinate to women in all aspects of human endeavour.

Talk about a shit test.

Post: #11

(10-07-2013 08:32 PM)T and A Man Wrote:  Rape is power is female projection.

Great point. It makes a woman feel powerless, therefore the motivation of the rapist must have been to make her feel powerless.

Post: #12

(10-07-2013 08:12 PM)Wadsworth Wrote:  

(10-07-2013 08:03 PM)soup Wrote:  From what I just read, it doesn't classify arguing as sexual assault, it just says that the guys who did the raping happened to have argued with the girls.

But what does that mean in terms of a big picture? What's the point of even making such a connection? As far as I can tell they're claiming that arguing is a possible prelude to rape. This is just another expansion of our society's unhinged rape hysteria. These bastards are trying to tie arguing, or feelings of guilt to rape.

Yes, but rape is rape, not arguing. I don't believe that any guy is going to go to jail for arguing with a woman. An argument implies that two people are a verbal disagreement. Rape is physical violation that is very much one sided.

In other words, it takes the effort of two people to make an argument, and it only takes the effort of one person for rape to happen.

You can't "argue" someone in the way that you can rape some one because there is no subject/objection relationship that can be described using the word argue.

Post: #13

soup, in a rational or humanly comprehensible world what you are saying is right, of course.

But in the nightmare world that these people are trying to bring about, things are different. Here are the key 3 paragraphs from the article:

Quote:Drawing upon the U.S. Justice Department definitions of sexual violence, the authors of the latest research asked participants whether they had ever engaged in a wide range of behaviors, including kissing, touching, making an unwilling partner do something sexual or coercing or forcing someone who did not want to have sex to do so. That range of behavior might range from sexual harassment to rape, but is generally all defined as sexual violence.

In all, 8% of those responding -- 84 of 1,058 respondents -- reported they had kissed, touched or made someone else do something sexual when they knew the person did not want to (characterized as "forced sexual contact"). About 3% reported they had gotten someone else to give in to sex when the perpetrator knew the other person did not want to (characterized as "coercive sex"). Also, 3% acknowledged attempting rape, meaning that he or she had been unable to force someone else to have sex. And 2% -- a total of 18 individuals -- said they had forced another person to have sex when they knew the person did not want to, a completed rape.

Coercive tactics, including arguing, pressuring, getting angry or making someone feel guilty, were most commonly reported by those who acknowledged attempted or completed rape. And the study found that 75% of the cases of sexual violence occurred in the context of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. Ten of the respondents -- just under 1% -- acknowledged having threatened or used physical force to get someone to engage in sex.

Read this carefully, looking especially at the terms in boldface.

First, there is already a monstrous omnibus definition of "sexual violence" that includes things like kissing someone. Not exactly what comes to mind when you say "sexual violence" but that's what the DOJ thinks.

Second and most ominously, they are trying to establish definitions of "coercive behavior" where you "coerce" someone into sex. How do you "coerce" them, by tying them to a bed? Not necessarily. It turns out that you "coerce" someone by "getting someone to give in" to sex they don't want (which is then called "coercive sex" because at some point someone didn't want it). And how do you "get them to give in"? By using "coercive tactics", which include arguing with them, pressuring them, getting angry at them or making them feel guilty.

In other words, you use your new LMR technique on some slut, you tell her how you're confused that she's not 100% into it like you are. She gives in to your frame. Guess what, you've just engaged in a "coercive tactic". By saying you're confused, you argued with the whore and made her feel guilty. You thereby made her engage in sex which she "really" didn't want, and which is therefore "coercive sex". This is nothing less than a form of "sexual violence".

Do you see the evil torturer's logic that is being used here?

Now, is it easy right here and right now to charge you with assault because the next day this bitch decides to complain that you used coercive arguing tactics to get her to fuck? Probably not very easy just yet. But this is definitely where things are headed if these people are not stopped. And sooner than anyone thinks.

Post: #14

^^Yeah, even 2 years ago I'd have thought it sounded tin-foil hattish, but the logic of these fascists basically boils down to:

#1. Study documented rape cases
#2. Report that rapists "argued" or used guilt, manipulative behavior, or anger
#3. Define argumentative/manipulative behavior or anger etc. as evidence of rape

It's basically a form of affirming the consequent.

Post: #15

Basically, this means that guys are going to have tighten up their game a lot in the future. There will be very little room for error.

Post: #16

If arguing with your partner is sexual assault, doesnt this make 100% of women rapists? Christ do women ever love arguing/complaining/pressuring....


What a relief that prosecutors are finally taking on the scourge of nagging women, right?

Post: #17

Quote:3% acknowledged attempting rape, meaning that he or she had been unable to force someone else to have sex.

Not having sex with an unwilling partner = attempted rape?

"I'd hate myself if I had that kind of attitude, if I were that weak." - Arnold

Post: #18

Since what constitutes rape is fundamentally based in contract law, people should try extending this logic to other issues, and citing feminist bullshit as their reasoning.

"I didn't really want to sign this contract, but the salesman pressured me. I was coerced, and should be absolved of all responsibility!"

"I was drunk when I went to Vegas and blew $40,000 at the casinos. They took advantage of me!"

Have fun.

Post: #19

Arguing of any kind drives me nuts. I just get up and leave the room or head to the bar if they don't get the hint and shut up. Me starting an argument almost never happens - I strive for harmony or I strive to be alone.

Next time a girlfriend insists on arguing I'm going to get right up in her face and holler "STOP FUCKING RAPING ME!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

Post: #20

There's a saying that if in argument goes past 2-3 back and forth's, both sides are wrong.

Post: #21

This is a pretty typical case of definition creep.

Over time, an originally narrowly defined term comes to encompass more and more things, related and not-so-related.

For example, the government, academics, and activists have continuously expanded what poverty means. The result is that the war on poverty can never be won, since its a constantly moving target.

The environmentalist movement is particularly bad with this. Notice how we've gone from the greenhouse effect to global warming to climate change. They want to include ever more climatic phenomena into the whole global warming issue.

It's the rhetorical equivalent of mission creep in America's wars - we go first to disarm a country of WMD's, then it's about trying to stabilize the country and bring democracy, then it's about trying to manage the ethnic conflicts there, then it's about trying to stave off any influence from regional rivals, then it's about saving face.

It has to be said I sometimes see guys in the manosphere fall into this trap. The phrase "red pill" in particular seems to mean more and more things everyday. At this point, for some guys its become a complete political and philosophical worldview.

Post: #22

Yes, but you have to look at who is doing the defining. This would never hold up in our current court of law.

Post: #23

(10-07-2013 10:08 PM)The Lizard of Oz Wrote:  soup, in a rational or humanly comprehensible world what you are saying is right, of course.

But in the nightmare world that these people are trying to bring about, things are different. Here are the key 3 paragraphs from the article:

Quote:Drawing upon the U.S. Justice Department definitions of sexual violence, the authors of the latest research asked participants whether they had ever engaged in a wide range of behaviors, including kissing, touching, making an unwilling partner do something sexual or coercing or forcing someone who did not want to have sex to do so. That range of behavior might range from sexual harassment to rape, but is generally all defined as sexual violence.

In all, 8% of those responding -- 84 of 1,058 respondents -- reported they had kissed, touched or made someone else do something sexual when they knew the person did not want to (characterized as "forced sexual contact"). About 3% reported they had gotten someone else to give in to sex when the perpetrator knew the other person did not want to (characterized as "coercive sex"). Also, 3% acknowledged attempting rape, meaning that he or she had been unable to force someone else to have sex. And 2% -- a total of 18 individuals -- said they had forced another person to have sex when they knew the person did not want to, a completed rape.

Coercive tactics, including arguing, pressuring, getting angry or making someone feel guilty, were most commonly reported by those who acknowledged attempted or completed rape. And the study found that 75% of the cases of sexual violence occurred in the context of a boyfriend-girlfriend relationship. Ten of the respondents -- just under 1% -- acknowledged having threatened or used physical force to get someone to engage in sex.

Read this carefully, looking especially at the terms in boldface.

First, there is already a monstrous omnibus definition of "sexual violence" that includes things like kissing someone. Not exactly what comes to mind when you say "sexual violence" but that's what the DOJ thinks.

Second and most ominously, they are trying to establish definitions of "coercive behavior" where you "coerce" someone into sex. How do you "coerce" them, by tying them to a bed? Not necessarily. It turns out that you "coerce" someone by "getting someone to give in" to sex they don't want (which is then called "coercive sex" because at some point someone didn't want it). And how do you "get them to give in"? By using "coercive tactics", which include arguing with them, pressuring them, getting angry at them or making them feel guilty.

In other words, you use your new LMR technique on some slut, you tell her how you're confused that she's not 100% into it like you are. She gives in to your frame. Guess what, you've just engaged in a "coercive tactic". By saying you're confused, you argued with the whore and made her feel guilty. You thereby made her engage in sex which she "really" didn't want, and which is therefore "coercive sex". This is nothing less than a form of "sexual violence".

Do you see the evil torturer's logic that is being used here?

Now, is it easy right here and right now to charge you with assault because the next day this bitch decides to complain that you used coercive arguing tactics to get her to fuck? Probably not very easy just yet. But this is definitely where things are headed if these people are not stopped. And sooner than anyone thinks.

Great analysis, thank you.

The point of a study like this is to expand the concept of rape to encompass Game.

Gentleman, the legal system has just painted a bullseye on your foreheads. I predict within 5 years, men from this forum will be prosecuted for sexual assault, because they use "coercion" to get women into bed.

What do you think, the Femnazi man-haters currently dominating our legal system are just going to let you continue undercutting their power structure? Uh-uh. Aint gonna happen.

The "red pill" movement is dangerous. It's a clear threat to their political power, and these people have absolutely no qualms about using every means at hand to crush you. This is not "democracy". These people are the next wannabe dictatorship aiming to keep power at any means.

They are coming after you, and by the way, they don't need any laws changed. That's the beauty of their technique. They simply extend the concept of "sexual violence" to encompass the behavior of any group of men they want to attack. Then they can prosecute men like you at will.

Of course no jury will ever convict you *but it doesn't matter*. You will never get a trial because the legal fees are beyond your financial means. You will plea-bargain and accept a couple years in jail, or addition to the sexual predators list, at which point, you have lost your right to vote and influence the political system.

The purpose of the slow expansion of the definition of rape is to politically, socially, and financially disenfranchise men.

Don't believe that such conspiracies exist? Oh, but they do. They do indeed.

Post: #24

I agree that this is ridiculous, but I think you guys are being a little alarmist. This will not fly in America - definitely not within 5 years.

Post: #25

I never really pushed for sex when I was a teenager. I was really blue pill at the time, but I didn't want to make her uncomfortable. The point being that if I am dating her, I like her, and then I should genuinely respect the opinion of her.

On the flipside, I would make my intentions known from the onset. If she's not DTF or at least considering it, then I won't date her. Simple as can be.

I also don't argue, I hit eject and let that plane crash and burn.

I also think someone is going to prosecute the wrong person and it will get appealed to a point where a real judge looks at it, laughs, and throws it all out.