It's really pretty simple guys...

pynchme; 'something that's invasive of your body - say, a prostate exam' and 'to what is *done to* one's body'

See guys, it's all about penetration. As soon as women start to think of themselves as engulfing men rather than being penetrated, then there will be a lot less people feeling they were raped.

BTW: I would love to read all the romance novels when in the peak of passion a man keeps asking, 'ok now, I'm going to touch your left breast. Now are you ok with that? How does that feel? too rough? too soft? ok, now I'm going to move my right hand...' I'm sure they would sell like hot cakes!

To the Men;

If a woman doesn't say no, and you have sex, you can still be charged with rape. Get over it. It's not fair, and the rape might be purely a self-justification on her part because she's decided you're coyote ugly the morning after, but that's the price you pay for protecting lots of other women who ARE legitimately raped.

I mean really, what sane woman really goes very far with a rubbish accusation. I know it happens, and I know how it feels to read about how I'm the 'bad' gender all the time, how it's always my fault, but just don't read all that shite, let it all go, and live a happy life.

I'd much rather increase the chances of the women in my life getting justice if they're raped than worry about the slimmer chance I get falsly accused.

Houellebecq:"I'd much rather increase the chances of the women in my life getting justice if they're raped than worry about the slimmer chance I get falsly accused."

All well and good, but condoning false accusations does nothing to improve the lot of those who are genuine victims. If anything, it dilutes the resources available to those genuine victims. I have experienced a false accusation (of violence, not rape) and the consequences first-hand. The person who made the accusation suffered no penalty at all and was funded by Women's Legal Aid Qld to do so. Given that I was punished by being stopped from having anything to do with my children and by having to self-fund an expensive defence, as well as the loss of income I suffered during the Court process and the pain and suffering I endured over 7 months, while her side called for adjournment after adjournment, knowing full-well there was no case to answer, why was she not help culpable? Why was the lehal system prepared to punish me by not examining the prima facie evidence at the earliest opportunity? Why was she not punished as a matter of course?

We all want "justice", which means we should all be appalled when someone knowingly makes a false accusation against someone else. I'm amazed at the number of people who are prepared to condone such a misuse of the legal system.

I'm sure you are not so naive as to be unaware of the answer to your own question, Antiseptic.

>>..knowing full-well there was no case to answer, why was she not help culpable? Why was the lehal system prepared to punish me by not examining the prima facie evidence at the earliest opportunity? Why was she not punished as a matter of course?<<

This describes the fate of everyone who is put in the position of defending in court a baseless allegation. Having myself experienced precisely the same frustrations in a business capacity, I know that there is no practical recourse against a well-heeled litigant.

Take your emotional lumps, keep costs to a minimum while sticking to your guns, and sometimes, occasionally a form of random justice might prevail. The rest must be left to karma.

Just be assured that it has nothing to do with women per se.

Houellebecq: "I'd much rather increase the chances of the women in my life getting justice if they're raped than worry about the slimmer chance I get falsly accused."

Struth Houellebecq, what does a victim get out of justice? On a purely selfish level I can see only one thing - vengeance. On an altruistic level you might do it to make society a safer place. But I doubt I would ask my women to put themselves through a rape trail just to make the world a safer place - it seems like one hell of an ask. If they did it would be their decision only. Then again, maybe you do put a high price on getting vengeance, but are you sure your women feel the same way? Have you asked them?

The other point you seem to have missed entirely is when it comes to a jury trial how you define consent is irrelevant if either party is a convincing liar. It happens in private, so it's one persons word against another. Anything short of demanding the man obtain written consent or taping the entire performance of every sexual encounter is just a waste of time. So what on earth is the point of dreaming up some fictitious model of human behaviour, and then getting it written into the law? It won't succeed in getting more prosecutions, but if any girl is silly enough to believe males really behave like that it will make sexual encounters more dangerous than they were before.

Pericles, there is another dimension to Antiseptic's problem which is outside of the law. The girls, create little pots of money for other girls in need - as girls are wont to do. Some less principled girls fraudulently put that money to use for their own nefarious purposes - not an uncommon fate for pots of money. Antiseptic says he was the unfortunate victim one of those uses. Unfortunately, he then seems to lay the blame for his fate at the feet of those girls whose noble intentions made the money available.

rstuart, and others, how is convicting a person of a crime making the world a safer place?

Sure it might just remove one person from society for a while, one only needs to look at repeat offenders, and the world is only safe whilst they are in prison.

Would it not be better to minimize the occurence of crime? Rather than increasing the levels of punishment.

Even for some the threat of corporal punishment is no deterrent. Just look at the US, even the threat of the death penalty is no deterrent.

Drugs and alcohol use, plays an enormous role in a fair amount of crime.

Houellebecq, I'd rather prefer to decrease the risk that the women and men in my life never become a victim of a crime, no matter what that crime maybe.

Sure - there has to be consent.
Yes - both/all parties must be comfortable with the way things progress. But sorry ninaf - your 'question time' version of foreplay is too over done in my opinion.

I think your opinion is far too narrow in regard to this discussion as your comments portray females as being these delicate little flowers in the ruthless grip of a male hand.

.... WHAT ??

If you are going to have sex with someone whom you WANT to have sex with, in my experience there is both: body language coupled WITH verbal communication, displaying the mental attitude and physical desires of each person.

Maybe I'm odd, but I've never started having sex with someone I didn't want to have sex with. And the thought that someone (male or female) embarks on such an endeavor WITHOUT getting that straight with themselves 1st, is very troubling to me.

If someone (again male OR female) gets into it and finds that things are not panning out as they would have liked, then bloody well get a grip of yourself, take control of the situation and remove yourself.

If you are not NOT being prevented from leaving - you have to ask yourself HOW and WHY you allowed yourself to be caught in such a predicament where you did not have somewhere to go and some way to get there. ?

If sex is then forced onto you - then yes, this is my definition of a form of rape.

If someone is going to have a one night stand and they do not know the person with whom they have decided to become 'friendly' with - then there is a obviously a chance that things could get out of control. Having said that, whether you're a bloke or a girl, if you put yourself in that position you must be prepared to take responsibility for yourself. By that I mean, taking responsibility for creating the situation, participating in the situation and, if it comes to it, ending the situation.