*** The Official CUCKposting thread ***

[spoonitnow]

I'm just not getting where the outrage is coming from with some of these women.

If you put out on the first date, don't be surprised if he doesn't respect you!

Conduct yourself with some dignity, and maybe you won't feel so fucking ashamed all the time. Stop trying to dump your dysfunction on the closest penis.

Based on what I've read, Aziz's date was just uncomfortable with how fast the physical encounter progressed. All she had to do was say "stop". What happened to the days of "no means no"?

Instead we've regressed to a point where a woman is simply NOT able to deny a horny man. She's too weak, and scared, and powerless. Apparently too tired from fighting so much for equal treatment.

You don't understand the power imbalance or why "no means no" is inherently sexist and enables rape culture. This is why "yes means yes" and affirmative and informed consent is so important.

He could have ruined her. She couldn't consent under these conditions because it's coercion even if she did say yes.

[BananaStand]

You don't understand the power imbalance

You're trolling right?

or why "no means no" is inherently sexist and enables rape culture.

You're gonna have to do some bigtime logical somersaults to explain to me how a woman exercising control over what happens to her body is "inherently sexist".

This is why "yes means yes" and affirmative and informed consent is so important.

When you go back to a man's apartment, you've said "yes". You can say "no" any time after that. Like when he says "i'm gonna go get a condom". That would be a perfect time to speak up for yourself.

And truly if you're telling me that once she goes back to his place, she's stuck and can't possibly say no.....THEN DON'T GO BACK TO HIS FUCKING APARTMENT UNLESS YOU'RE GOOD TO GO!

He could have ruined her. She couldn't consent under these conditions because it's coercion even if she did say yes

No no no. I'm flat out refusing to buy into this line that says you can't ever say no to a man because any man has the power to ruin you. That's fucking bullshit. You don't get to imagine the worst case scenario, contain it entirely inside your own head, and then claim it was used as leverage to coerce you.

Using that logic, I should be able to run from the cops because they might plant evidence on me.

[spoonitnow]

You're trolling right?

Yes, I'm staying with the CUCKposting theme of the thread, so I'm staying in CUCKposting character based on the types of things that these people actually believe. Moreover, I'm almost universally saying things that I've seen these types say repeatedly.

You're gonna have to do some bigtime logical somersaults to explain to me how a woman exercising control over what happens to her body is "inherently sexist".

The point is that she can't exercise control over her body when she is coerced into sex, but you can't understand that because you benefit from the power structures of the patriarchy.

When you go back to a man's apartment, you've said "yes". You can say "no" any time after that. Like when he says "i'm gonna go get a condom". That would be a perfect time to speak up for yourself.

And truly if you're telling me that once she goes back to his place, she's stuck and can't possibly say no.....THEN DON'T GO BACK TO HIS FUCKING APARTMENT UNLESS YOU'RE GOOD TO GO!

Going back to a man's apartment does not give him the right to rape you.

If you're at a man's apartment, and he says he's going to get a condom, you can't say no because you don't know if he's going to beat the shit out of you and not let you leave. He should respond to all of the cues that show I'm not interested.

{Commentary: The pairing of these two statements is hilarious to me.}

No no no. I'm flat out refusing to buy into this line that says you can't ever say no to a man because any man has the power to ruin you. That's fucking bullshit. You don't get to imagine the worst case scenario, contain it entirely inside your own head, and then claim it was used as leverage to coerce you.

This is typical of straight, white, cisgender males who have never went a day in their lives without being in power.

[BananaStand]

The point is that she can't exercise control over her body when she is coerced into sex, but you can't understand that because you benefit from the power structures of the patriarchy.

Coerced? By willingly drinking and going back to a man's apartment?

Going back to a man's apartment does not give him the right to rape you

Agreed. But it's not rape if you say yes.

If you're at a man's apartment, and he says he's going to get a condom, you can't say no because you don't know if he's going to beat the shit out of you and not let you leave.

WHAAAAAAATTTT??? So we're just assuming that every man is a violent abuser until he proves otherwise? That's fucking bullshit.

But also, if that's really the standard you're going with...then you should be choosier about who's apartment you go back to after a date. I mean, if it's your assumption that a man will beat you if you say no, then why would you ever put yourself in that position if it's your intention to say no?

He should respond to all of the cues that show I'm not interested.

Which cues were those? Was it when she took her panties off, sat on his kitchen counter and spread her legs so he could fit his face in there?

This is typical of straight, white, cisgender males who have never went a day in their lives without being in power

If anything you're saying is true....I should be getting laid way more.

[BananaStand]

This is why "yes means yes" and affirmative and informed consent is so important.

By the way, this isn't actually a thing, since by law, consent can be revoked at any time.

[spoonitnow]

By the way, this isn't actually a thing, since by law, consent can be revoked at any time.

Not trolling anymore on this topic, but they're actually making a lot of progress towards getting consent laws changed to reflect the type of ridiculous bullshit I was talking about here. It's the current law in California and Michigan, actually. See below:


California Enacts 'Yes Means Yes' Law, Defining Sexual Consent

From: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-...sexual-consent

Gov. Jerry Brown has signed a bill into law that makes California the first in the nation to have a clear definition of when people agree to sex. The law goes further than the common "no means no" standard, which has been blamed for bringing ambiguity into investigations of sexual assault cases.

The new law seeks both to improve how universities handle rape and sexual assault accusations and to clarify the standards, requiring an "affirmative consent" and stating that consent can't be given if someone is asleep or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol.

"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent," the law states, "nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."

[BananaStand]

Not trolling anymore on this topic......

Bullshit. You just quoted a California law as an example of "progress"

GTFO cuck-troll


Progress would be allowing those accused of rape on campus to have lawyers, or face their accusers, as they should when accused of a criminal charge. Instead this law just creates an insane standard of proof by which the accused must defend himself.

[spoonitnow]

Bullshit. You just quoted a California law as an example of "progress"

GTFO cuck-troll

By progress I mean completely fucking up everything beyond all semblance of common sense or decency or functionality.