Books on rape

[LadyVer]

What you have there is sexual assault scenario ... more appropriately would be to say, "How would he - Roosh - like it if a gay male took his tactics and attempted it on him." ... He would either get up and actually leave the place and the man's presence or he might get seduced ...

Have you ever been raped?

 

[sr71plt]

What you have there is sexual assault scenario ... more appropriately would be to say, "How would he - Roosh - like it if a gay male took his tactics and attempted it on him." ... He would either get up and actually leave the place and the man's presence or he might get seduced ...

I have to agree with this. I have before said that the rape scenario is different with heteros than with gay males (assuming, of course, that the one taken goes with men). It's more of one of the game techniques with gay males, I think--probably because there are more serious consequences involved with a woman being taking by a man than a man by a man (not saying that a woman shouldn't feel violated by being taken by a man--just that there's a shade of difference in what is expected and what the longer term/lasting consequences could be). Also, because of what society holds, a man being taken by another man needs more "I couldn't do anything about it" rationalization than a woman taken by a man does ("ah well, of course she was weaker--and it happens more often"). This means the "taken supposedly unwillingly" is more of a "one of the mating games" in GM than in heterosex.

And in this game, as Everyday_Man posts, two options are seen by the man approached (again assuming that the man approached does go with men). In most cases it isn't as one sided as the game is being played, so the options are if you didn't want to play the rape game, you just walk off before it gets dicey, you slug the guy and walk off, or you move into a fistfight where you both stumble off rather than having sex, or, conversely, you go with it because you want it but not society's guilting that goes with letting another man fuck you.

And, yes, in my prime I was technically raped by one or more bigger, thuggish guys, but in each case it was part of a dance I'd entered into knowing where it was headed and accepting it as one of the GM games of seduction (and being sufficiently aroused and ego-stroked by it to let it happen). It wasn't a case of someone popping out of nowhere without prior setup and foreplay, though. Those instances would be extremely rare in the gay lifestyle, where having sex, once you've crossed the beaded curtain of having sex with another man, just isn't as problematic as it is in a male-female setup (if only because there's no issue of pregnancy involved. Also, males being males, there isn't as much of a barrier to single hookups and just walking off from having sex with no strings hanging off you. Face it, there isn't as much expectation of a relationship between men having sex as there is--especially with the woman--in a man and woman having sex).

And now, before someone says I can't see both sides (which they'll say anyway), I'll say I can see both sides better than someone who isn't on both sides. I'm bi and have had both hetero and gay relationships and encounters. They just aren't the same in concept or expectation. And the rape scenario is one where there are basic differences.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

From one of his books:

How to deal with the dreaded 'R' word: resistance. I teach you an effective strategy to steamroll her resistance so you don't go home blue-balled.

Seven very detailed steps to taking off her clothes that includes tactics to fight any late-minute resistance she might throw at you.

Next comes her panties... you may get firm resistance at this point, even if she didn't resist prior steps. Just treat it like any other form of resistance and start over if she stops you, making a panty removal attempt every 10-15 minutes. At this stage you can use raw persistence to break down any remaining resistance.

Does that sound consensual to you?

I'm certain this won't be all that popular view, but... while it's aggressive, those quotes BY THEMSELVES doesn't come within shooting distance of a non-consent situation. Note I said those quotes BY THEMSELVES. Add a locked door or a firm grip on a wrist, or inebriation or a host of other what-ifs, and it's a different situation. But as stated, it's only a persistent demand for sex, which can be circumvented by getting up and walking away. If someone is free to leave, but in the end does not, and sex happens, it WAS consensual. Period.

As opposed as I am to rape - if we criminalise guys trying their best to get into someone's panties, you might as well declare the Y chromosome illegal.

If all his writing was like those two quotes - and I'm not going to look, and I suspect he has worse - then I'd say he's a master of skirting the edge of the law and he's no one I'd advise going on a date with. But rape needs a higher standard than "he kept trying to get my panties off and in the end I let him."

("late minute"? The guy needs a writing class as well as an ethics check.)

 

[LadyVer]

Legitimate rape in all its glory.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm certain this won't be all that popular view, but... while it's aggressive, those quotes BY THEMSELVES doesn't come within shooting distance of a non-consent situation. Note I said those quotes BY THEMSELVES. Add a locked door or a firm grip on a wrist, or inebriation or a host of other what-ifs, and it's a different situation. But as stated, it's only a persistent demand for sex, which can be circumvented by getting up and walking away. If someone is free to leave, but in the end does not, and sex happens, it WAS consensual. Period.

No, silence is not consent. If somebody is "resisting", that's a clear sign that they do not want the sex you're offering and it's time to fuck off and respect their wishes. The fact that you might be able to "wear down" that resistance - whether through physical force, or alcohol, or tiredness, or just pestering - does not turn nonconsent into consent. A woman who's tired of saying "no" to a guy who doesn't listen is no more "consenting" than one who's stopped fighting a guy who's too strong for her.

As for your "free to leave" - people are not telepathic. When a guy keeps trying to take a woman's panties off after she repeatedly tells him no, how can she know whether she is free to leave? He's already shown that he doesn't respect her wishes when they're expressed verbally; how can she possibly be certain that he's going to respect her wishes when she tries to walk away? Sometimes the thought process is "I don't want to have sex with this guy but he doesn't seem to care about what I want and I'm afraid I might get hurt if I don't give in".

If you read a few survivors' accounts, you might learn a bit about the reasons why women don't always keep saying "no" to sex they don't want - especially when dealing with a guy who's invested time and money specifically into learning ways to bamboozle women and fuck with their heads to wear down that resistance.

As opposed as I am to rape - if we criminalise guys trying their best to get into someone's panties, you might as well declare the Y chromosome illegal.

Just about everybody is "opposed to rape", including rapists. They find ways to define "rape" so it doesn't encompass what they're doing. Part of Roosh's success is in catering to the boys who are perfectly happy with "steamrolling" a woman's resistance so they can get their rocks off, but don't want to think of themselves as rapists.

For myself, if "trying their best" means "even after it becomes clear that she doesn't want to", I'm pretty comfortable with criminalising that. I'm sorry you have such a low opinion of men that you think that would be a difficult standard; me, I know plenty who'd have no problem with that test, and if people did start going to jail for that, the rest would learn soon enough.

But rape needs a higher standard than "he kept trying to get my panties off and in the end I let him."

Does it?

Me, I think society would be vastly improved if we made a habit of locking up guys who tried to "wear down" women who'd already indicated that they didn't want sex.

 

[Bramblethorn]

How many guys or gals for that matter, have attempted to get someone to go out with them more than once? .... From skimming it, he never says go past the 'no' ...

If you try to take a woman's panties down, and she says no, and "10-15 minutes later" you try it again, that is "going past the no". She has already explicitly denied consent and you're trying to do the thing she refused consent for.

There are situations where it might be reasonable to check in again to see if a person's attitude towards you has changed. "Wait 10-15 minutes and try again, over and over" ain't it.

If his tactics were rape in his writing, then I'd say a high percentage of men and women would be in jail right now for using them without ever reading his books.

There are quite a few unprosecuted rapists in the world, yes.

Separate fact from distaste ... but this is one of those topics where extreme dislike has given a certain group of people an opinion that can't be changed.

True enough: I have an extreme dislike for rapists - including the ones who try to make excuses for how what they're doing isn't "rape-rape" - and my opinion is that the world would be vastly better if we refused to tolerate kind of bullshit.

 

[Handley_Page]

No, silence is not consent. If somebody is "resisting", that's a clear sign that they do not want the sex you're offering and it's time to fuck off and respect their wishes.
. . .
Me, I think society would be vastly improved if we made a habit of locking up guys who tried to "wear down" women who'd already indicated that they didn't want sex.

The trouble is that "what does one do to the lady who lies?"
If any man who attacks/rapes a female can get shunted away I reckon that it is only fair that the lying lady is castigated roundly and publicly shamed in no uncertain manner: And liable to be sued.

It's happened a time or two over here. I recall one incident where the young lady concerned "could not be named for legal reasons." [Those reasons were not stated in the report I read. ] The mad little bitch accused a bloke who lost his family, his job; but nothing was said about the MLB or any compensation to the accused.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The trouble is that "what does one do to the lady who lies? If any man who attacks/rapes a female can get shunted away I reckon that it is only fair that the lying lady is castigated roundly and publicly shamed in no uncertain manner: And liable to be sued.

Already happens. In any legal system that I'm aware of, making a false accusation of rape or any other offense already is a crime; it'd be covered by charges such as defamation, perjury, and perverting the cause of justice, and anybody who could show they'd been falsely accused would have standing to sue. In your neck of the woods, the CPS prosecutes about two people a month for false accusations of rape (with about 160 times that number being prosecuted for rape itself).

That said, the fact that somebody has been acquitted on a rape charge doesn't mean the accusation was false; the principle of "innocent until proven guilty" inevitably means that truthful allegations won't always be provable to that standard in court, especially when rape cases so often come down to questions not of whether sex happened but of whether it was consensual.

It's happened a time or two over here. I recall one incident where the young lady concerned "could not be named for legal reasons." [Those reasons were not stated in the report I read. ] The mad little bitch accused a bloke who lost his family, his job; but nothing was said about the MLB or any compensation to the accused.

Well, here's a UK case from last year in which a man who'd been accused of rape launched a private prosecution of his accuser, which was then taken over by the CPS. Whether it was successful, you'll have to judge for yourself.

 

[Handley_Page]

Well, here's a UK case from last year in which a man who'd been accused of rape launched a private prosecution of his accuser, which was then taken over by the CPS. Whether it was successful, you'll have to judge for yourself.

I notice that the piece seemed to feature the errors or omissions by the Prosecuting authority, rather than the sheer glee of the accused man.
I wonder if he got some compensation ?

 

[Bramblethorn]

I notice that the piece seemed to feature the errors or omissions by the Prosecuting authority, rather than the sheer glee of the accused man.
I wonder if he got some compensation ?

From HMG, or from his accuser?

As far as I know, governments don't usually give out compensation simply for being accused of a crime. For a wrongful conviction yes, but this one didn't even get to the point of charges being laid against him.

He might have been able to sue her (or rather, her estate) for defamation or some such, but it looks as if he chose to let it go after her death, for whatever reason.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

The fact that you might be able to "wear down" that resistance - whether through physical force, or alcohol, or tiredness, or just pestering - does not turn nonconsent into consent. A woman who's tired of saying "no" to a guy who doesn't listen is no more "consenting" than one who's stopped fighting a guy who's too strong for her.

Sorry, but I call bull. I'd already ruled out physical force and alcohol. But with the rest you're trying to make seduction illegal. And that will never be a reasonable thing to attempt to do.

As for your "free to leave" - people are not telepathic. When a guy keeps trying to take a woman's panties off after she repeatedly tells him no, how can she know whether she is free to leave?

By trying to leave, which realistically should happen at the same time as the second No if not the first. If she tries and he detainees her, the situation is instantly illegal - kidnapping at the very least, assault and rape not far behind. And then charges should and MUST be pressed as soon as possible.

"I don't want to have sex with this guy but he doesn't seem to care about what I want and I'm afraid I might get hurt if I don't give in".

If you're saying yes to unwanted sex, you're already being hurt. It may not be a beating (though that may happen anyway) but it's certainly emotionally unhealthy. But by saying yes you're making it virtually impossible to convince anyone it was a rape. Now he gets what he wants and he gets away with it, and he knows you're an easy mark. I submit you may be better off trying to leave, and if then attacked, screaming for help, trying to gouge his eyes out and running for it. Studies indicate the better outcomes go to those who fight back. And they can often prove their cases in court.

For myself, if "trying their best" means "even after it becomes clear that she doesn't want to", I'm pretty comfortable with criminalising that...
Me, I think society would be vastly improved if we made a habit of locking up guys who tried to "wear down" women who'd already indicated that they didn't want sex.

Well, that's terrifying. Existing law on rape is hardly perfect, but your view is at risk of sending a guy to jail for trying for a kiss after a girl whispers "please stop". It's unenforceable, it seems to lack an understanding of sexual dynamics, and it would rapidly devolve into a requirement that men read minds ("I whimpered! He should have known that meant no!")

Sorry. Existing law is a compromise of competing interests, worked out over decades, and it's probably as good as it can get. I prefer a world in which men can be charged with rape if they actively detain a woman - it's at least unambiguous and fairly easy to prove - and women can take an active role in their own destiny by leaving, fighting back as needed, and ideally insofar as it is a choice, not getting alone with a guy they don't trust in the first place. You can't legislate saintliness, but you can punish actual violence.

For what it's worth, I think a guy convinced of rape twice should face a mandatory life sentence, and that's kind compared to what I like for people twice convicted of drunk driving.

 

[LadyVer]

There are too many nuances in seduction and in rape to be an expert on either, especially if one has never been raped.

 

[Everyday_Man]

Here is a quote from Roosh's book ... it didn't take long to find at all, about a minute of skimming ...


"If you are getting too much resistance, you feel like you are doing all the work, or she says something like, "We are not having sex tonight," then you can gradually ramp down the intimacy and make and excuse about how you have to get up early. The exception is if a sleep over is assumed, where in that case you can try again later that night or the next morning. When you eventually do make your exit, leave things on good terms by not showing annoyance or anger. You are a man who wants sex so you tried to get it, and she is a woman who resists sex. It's no big deal. When you part ways, make sure you give a nice goodbye. Tell her that you had a really good time if you want to see her again and that you will talk to her soon"

It seems some people think he is talking about fucking just any girl right after the hello .... it looks like he has steps leading up to sex, you're already intimate, sex is a possibility (at some point) ... hardly a person wants to give it up right away without a little resistance, a few dates, some kissing, warming up, whatever steps people want to take. And the persistence he is stating doesn't sound like you went for the panties, got rejected and did NOTHING for 15 minutes ... action is continuing on some level. Some people are lacking in the common sense area ... this isn't a by the numbers manual on how to build an engine, if you're going to follow his advice, you better KNOW how to read a situation. And for those who can't, they were rapists long before they read Roosh's book.

I'm not saying people should take his advice, but some of you are attempting to criminalize and dehumanize for no reason other than you decided too (it seems).

And for LadyVer .. .the "Have you been raped?" question ..... by today's definition, I suppose I have. Went out, got a little loose with alcohol (lack of inhibitions to black out drunk) woke up next to woman/female friends (sorry boys, I'm straight) I'd never sleep with or enter a serious relationship with and some of those girls KNEW that already (and after the fact, it didn't stop them from being pissed off), but I was looking for a good time, my will power was down, I was more incline to say yes because that was my mindset ... I don't consider it rape, I knew I was looking for a good time, I just realized which of my friends I couldn't drink that much around. It was my bad choice knowing what kind of night I was looking for, but suddenly shouting rapists over my own regrets of not getting the action I wanted, but settling for the action offered, wouldn't have been right or just.

Anyway ... have fun discussing more Roosh ... I'm out of this thread ... further opinions you can PM or just be happy knowing I will never see responses.

This conversation is too serious for my good humor.

 

[LadyVer]

Roosh is a known misogynist who teaches men how to have sex with women, whether the women want it or not. If you think he teaches seduction techniques instead of rape techniques, you are naive.

Rape, whether it is "legitimate" or not, is still rape. And men thinking they're experts on women who are raped is as ludicrous as women thinking they're experts on men who are raped.

I was raped in my own home by my husband, who at one time I considered my best friend. There are no words to describe the humiliation or shame or feelings of degradation, or the rage.

Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

 

[TxRad]

Sorry, but I call bull. I'd already ruled out physical force and alcohol. But with the rest you're trying to make seduction illegal. And that will never be a reasonable thing to attempt to do.

And I call bull on your bull. Wearing down and seduction have nothing to do with each other and if you think they do then you have a problem.

 

[Handley_Page]

And I call bull on your bull. Wearing down and seduction have nothing to do with each other and if you think they do then you have a problem.

You mean, the difference between
"OH - YES!!"
and
"Oh, all right then" ?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Sorry, but I call bull. I'd already ruled out physical force and alcohol. But with the rest you're trying to make seduction illegal. And that will never be a reasonable thing to attempt to do.

What is so unreasonable about the idea that guys don't have the right to pester women who aren't interested?

By trying to leave, which realistically should happen at the same time as the second No if not the first. If she tries and he detainees her, the situation is instantly illegal - kidnapping at the very least, assault and rape not far behind. And then charges should and MUST be pressed as soon as possible.

...except that then it very often comes down to his word against hers, often with a bonus serve of victim-blaming ("she went inside with him, she MUST have been agreeing to sex...") Double complications if he's part of her social circle. A woman can lose a hell of a lot by accusing a man of rape, even if he's convicted.

But since you seem to have missed the point there, I'll repeat - by attempting to leave, she is taking a risk because she doesn't know how he's going to react. Sometimes acquiescing to unwanted sex may seem like a lesser risk, especially when he's spent the last couple of hours trying to mess with her head.

(And I'll remind you that Roosh has explicitly advocated for the right of men to rape women in situations like this, which in more rational company would be the end of any kind of debate as to what kind of person he is.)

If you're saying yes to unwanted sex, you're already being hurt. It may not be a beating (though that may happen anyway) but it's certainly emotionally unhealthy. But by saying yes you're making it virtually impossible to convince anyone it was a rape.

Which in many cases isn't much of a difference, given that less than 10% of rapes reported to police lead to a conviction (depending on whose numbers you take).

Now he gets what he wants and he gets away with it, and he knows you're an easy mark. I submit you may be better off trying to leave, and if then attacked, screaming for help, trying to gouge his eyes out and running for it. Studies indicate the better outcomes go to those who fight back. And they can often prove their cases in court.

Even if that was true - which would only be an "on average, but not always" kind of true - so what?

No man has the right to put a woman in a situation where she has to make that call. Women go out to enjoy themselves, not for the privilege of playing the "is this guy a rapist or just a sleaze?" guessing game. (First prize: not getting raped! Second prize: not quite as good as first prize.)

There is no reason why guys need to behave this way and make the world a crappier place for women. (And indeed for men too, because shit like this is a big part of why women have to be so guarded in how they interact with men, because they can't afford to give a guy the impression that maybe if he pesters her fifty times she'll only say no forty-nine times).

Well, that's terrifying. Existing law on rape is hardly perfect, but your view is at risk of sending a guy to jail for trying for a kiss after a girl whispers "please stop".

Fine by me. I acknowledge that it would often be hard to prove - and the guy would get the benefit of the doubt in such situations, as always - but where it can be established that he tried to kiss her after she said no, I'm very comfortable with it.

Why is it so important to you that a guy should have the freedom to pursue sexual contact with a woman who's already indicated that she doesn't want to? Why are you so bothered by the idea that women should have bodily autonomy?

It's unenforceable, it seems to lack an understanding of sexual dynamics,

I've had a reasonably adventurous and varied sex life (admittedly after a late start), and from the discussion we've had so far, I don't think you have an awful lot to teach me about sexual dynamics. At least, nothing that I'd care to learn.

and it would rapidly devolve into a requirement that men read minds ("I whimpered! He should have known that meant no!")

I know that problem.

Not sexual, but: a couple of weeks ago I was talking to somebody, and she was really upset, and I wanted to hug her but I didn't know whether she would be bothered by that. And I couldn't tell from her body language. So I just stood there trying to read her mind for what felt like hours, and it was horribly awkward. I still feel like I should have hugged her, but I wasn't sure, and then it was too late...

...no, wait. That didn't happen. What actually happened was I opened my arms a bit and said "Hugs okay?" without crowding her, and she said "yes", and I hugged her. I don't know why so many guys spend so much time fussing over these hypothetical situations of ambiguous consent when it's so easy to resolve this stuff by using your words.

Or rather, I suspect I do know; they're worried that if they do get a clear response the answer might be "no", and they'd rather have something ambiguous because it lets them get their rocks off without being certain they're harming the other person.

For anybody who actually takes an interest in their partner's wellbeing and wants to be sure that they're having a good time, there are countless ways to do it, including ways that frame it so she doesn't have to do a threat assessment.

"Hey, I find you really attractive and I'd like to go to bed with you, if you feel the same way then here's my phone number/room number/etc" - then leave, and let her decide whether she wants to give you positive consent, without putting her in the position where she has to gauge the risks of refusal.

You mean, the difference between
"OH - YES!!"
and
"Oh, all right then" ?

Exactly so. Sometimes known as "enthusiastic consent".

 

[DeYaKen]

I notice that the piece seemed to feature the errors or omissions by the Prosecuting authority, rather than the sheer glee of the accused man.
I wonder if he got some compensation ?

The problem was that as soon as the charge of rape was made, the accused name was released to the press. In his efforts to clear his name he uncovered CCTV footage of the alleged victim, happily shopping for sex toys, with the alleged rapist, the day after the alleged attack.
The girl was Bi-polar and took her own life.
In my opinion a tragedy all round. It highlighted the problems of the accuser having full anonymity while the accused faces the glare of publicity.

I'm somewhat puzzled by the book in question. Is bedding women some kind of sport? Is it really a contest to see who can win? Whenever I've made love to a woman, I've always wanted it to be a win/win situation. Surely the thrill comes from someone wanting you that much. I guess I'm just an old romantic.

 

[Handley_Page]

The problem was that as soon as the charge of rape was made, the accused name was released to the press. In his efforts to clear his name he uncovered CCTV footage of the alleged victim, happily shopping for sex toys, with the alleged rapist, the day after the alleged attack.
The girl was Bi-polar and took her own life.
In my opinion a tragedy all round. It highlighted the problems of the accuser having full anonymity while the accused faces the glare of publicity.

I'm somewhat puzzled by the book in question. Is bedding women some kind of sport? Is it really a contest to see who can win? Whenever I've made love to a woman, I've always wanted it to be a win/win situation. Surely the thrill comes from someone wanting you that much. I guess I'm just an old romantic.

I'd be interested to understand the connection between being 'BiPolar' (WTF?) and the guilty party to a serious fraud.

May I join you on the 'old romantics' bench?

 

[DeYaKen]

I'd be interested to understand the connection between being 'BiPolar' (WTF?) and the guilty party to a serious fraud.

May I join you on the 'old romantics' bench?

I think there is plenty of room on that bench.

As for being Bi-Polar, to put it crudely a Bi-Polar person can suffer really violent mood swings. What may have put them on top of the world one day, puts them in the depths of despair the next. Of course, there are different degrees and I don't know where she was on the scale. It is quite possible that her perception of events changed.

It's taken a long time for the police to get to their current position of giving the accuser benefit of the doubt, and I wouldn't like to see that change. In that particular case, if the man's identity had been kept secret, he would have had no need to prosecute, and the girl might still be alive.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Is bedding women some kind of sport? Is it really a contest to see who can win?

You're presumably unfamiliar with the term bedsport as a euphemism for sex. And IIRC in victorian times women were referred to as bedsport, though I'm blinkered if I can find a cite at the moment.

Sex includes a wide range of behaviours and attitudes. There are people who pursue sex for their own gratification and ego massage, and a subject of boasting rights. They used to be called wolves; recently there seems to be a movement afoot to get them branded as misogynists and rapists. On the other hand, it's an attitude I've seen more than once among the affluent and powerful. (Some of the stories I've heard about wall street traders are interesting in this regard.)

I think it's a trifle naive to assume that everyone approaches sex in the same way and gets the same thing from it. At least, it's naive on an erotica site. Look around the site. I at least find a LOT of stories that I just stare at, wondering how anyone can find THAT erotic; but I can at least understand that some people do, even if they are people I'd be likely to push away with a sharp stick if I ran across them socially. (I carry sharpened sticks for exactly this purpose.)

 

[HandsInTheDark]

And I call bull on your bull. Wearing down and seduction have nothing to do with each other and if you think they do then you have a problem.

Oh good. Now we have hot bull on bull action. Does Literotica allow that?

There's a large category here called Reluctance. I write in that category at times and from my fan mail I can attest to the fact that many women find the concept hot. That's not to say that what works in a story is always applicable to real life; but I can also attest to the fact that many women (and I don't care to estimate percentages) find a man's persistence and aggressiveness in this area extremely hot *in real life*. Intense desire and a willingness to express it *is* seductive to many people.

The problem is that there's a wide variety of preferences when ti comes to sex - especially, I think, among women. Some get positively soaked at the idea of a man pushing for it, aggressive and arrogant. Maybe lots of them are married, bored with their sex lives and getting on in years, but they absolutely exist. And there are some that are utterly horrified at anything but respect, flowers, and a nicely worded Please May I gently expressed after going to the theater together. Maybe lots of those are beautiful, young and frankly a little bored with all the guys chasing them and doing it so poorly, but they absolutely exist.

Add to that the women who gave into the temptation to dally with someone arrogant and forceful and ended up deeply regretting it; and the women who lives happily with a respectful, gentle, never demanding man only to discover he's been sneaking out and slapping and fucking girls in the BDSM community when she thought he was going bowling; and you end with with a mix of conflicting and strongly held positions.

I've talked to enough people over the years to realise that there's a wide variety of things that work for different people and even if I'll never understand half of it, I probably shouldn't be fast to judge it in others. Show me any full on deviant weirdness and there's someone out there who'd like to join you in it. There are even people who only like monogamous, vanilla sex with a spouse, though I'm starting to think that's the most countercultural, socially deviant minority of all.

 

[sr71plt]

There's no Reluctance category here. It's Nonconsent/Reluctance, and "nonconsent" has taken over the category. It would be better if they were split, which then would highlight that "nonconsent" is actually "rape," which supposedly isn't permitted here . . . which should lead to the "nonconsent" part being dropped, leaving only "reluctance," which is a whole different kettle of fish than is actually found in that category now. (And which makes for more interesting plot possibilities, IMO)

 

[HandsInTheDark]

There's no Reluctance category here. It's Nonconsent/Reluctance, and "nonconsent" has taken over the category. It would be better if they were split, which then would highlight that "nonconsent" is actually "rape," which supposedly isn't permitted here . . . which should lead to the "nonconsent" part being dropped, leaving only "reluctance," which is a whole different kettle of fish than is actually found in that category now. (And which makes for more interesting plot possibilities, IMO)

Interesting idea, but the grey area issue this thread highlights would show up again. For one person, "It took two hours but I got her to open her legs" means she consented. For another, anything short of asking if it's really ok three times, seems to be rape.

By letting the categories blur, readers can go into a story aware that it might get darker than they like, which I think is a positive. Given that everyone draws lines in different places - and for many people, some wickedness is delightfully tangy and a very little more is revulsion city- I can see why they are cojoined.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think there is plenty of room on that bench.

As for being Bi-Polar, to put it crudely a Bi-Polar person can suffer really violent mood swings. What may have put them on top of the world one day, puts them in the depths of despair the next. Of course, there are different degrees and I don't know where she was on the scale. It is quite possible that her perception of events changed.

It's taken a long time for the police to get to their current position of giving the accuser benefit of the doubt, and I wouldn't like to see that change. In that particular case, if the man's identity had been kept secret, he would have had no need to prosecute, and the girl might still be alive.

Yeah, severe BPD can badly impair judgement, and sometimes the "on top of the world" part of it is just as damaging as the "depths of despair" side. People feel invincible, every rash idea feels like a stroke of genius, they go on spending sprees, etc etc. I knew one guy who had a manic phase where he was going to copyright the number 33 and then make a fortune charging Australia Post royalties on every 33c stamp they sold.

The tricky part with keeping the guy's identity secret is that so often, it's hard to get a conviction on a single accusation of rape when it comes down to "he said"/"she said". To make something like that stick you may need a string of victims who can testify to the same pattern of behaviour. Releasing the guy's name is a way to get those other victims to come forward; I think that's how Rolf Harris got convicted. But it certainly can be abused.