Man Falsely Accuses Self of Rape

[MrMan]

I don't know if this is an article from a self-loathing man who idiotically is allowing himself to be manipulated by his girlfriend or clever satire of current rape philosophy. I assume the former, but I read this in a letter presumably written to an online publication.

I raped my girlfriend. I did not threaten her with a weapon of any kind, I did not physically force myself on her, and she verbally gave consent, but it was still rape because she did not want to have sex—I just did not know it at the time.

From:
https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/1 ... dvice.html

It sounds like their mutual crime is fornication. They aren't married. I am a little alarmed at the growing definition of 'rape', especially with fornicator definitions creeping into marital relationships.

A few decades ago, if a husband and wife had sex, legally it couldn't be rape. Back in the 1970s and in the years that followed, legal systems created the category of 'marital rape.' I suppose most of us guys don't think a man should hold his wife down screaming 'no'.... unless she's into that sort of thing. But now it is rape, and what if a woman just accuses a man after a nasty divorce? There are people saying, 'Believe the victim.' How about innocent until proven guilty?

A few decades back in some states, fornication was technically illegal, unenforced, though the courts could still do so.

I overheard someone on a university campus training student volunteers or workers on 'consent.' She described scenarios where someone is saying, "Is it okay if I put my hand here? How do you like this?" to get consent for every step. I understand if trying to create some non-rape steps for fornicators is the goal, but it is unnatural to try to put that stuff on married couples. If she gets out of the shower and lays on the bed naked, or he takes her clothes of and they are just grabbing each other wherever they want and she touches him wherever she wants, and they just do what they normally do to each other, there can be zero 'verbal' consent, but it isn't rape in the slightest. She might say, 'stick it in me now' or whatever, but if she says nothing, and they just have sex, that' isn't rape.

If a man comes up to a random girl on the street or a drunk girl he took to a party and starts touching her all over, takes her clothes off, etc., that's a different story.

And sometimes if a woman doesn't really want to have sex, would rather do something else, etc., and has sex with him because he wants it, or because he asked... now that is supposed to be rape? What idiocy? In fact, it's reasonable if a wife (or husband) isn't performing sexually for the other partner to confront the one who is slack about not meeting one's sexual needs. If he/she puts out after that, that's fine. It's not rape. If you rightly marry someone (not talking about another man's wife or gay stuff), you take upon yourself the obligation to take care of your spouse's sexual needs. That might mean having sex when you might otherwise have slept or done the laundry if it were up to you. It isn't rape if your partner prioritizes your desires over some other preferred activity, 'takes one for the team', isn't all that interested but does it anyway and has a great time, engages in 'duty sex,' etc. (Duty sex sounds pretty depressing, but it isn't rape.)

I wonder if the article is clever satire of idiotic feminist rhetoric, but it's too detailed, so I suspect it is some man who has allowed himself to be brainwashed by some idiotic philosophy, possibly manipulation from a girlfriend.

[vlkmo]

I read an anecdotal theory before that the widening definition of "rape" (a false definition though) is another unintended consequence of the sexual revolution from the 1960s. Social norms about sex were loosened and people could now have unrestrained sex with anybody they want (at least in theory), and now women who stand to get hurt emotionally are now screaming about "rape culture" everywhere there is. I'm not excusing false accusations or psychopathy though.

It also isn't necessarily helping that there is an undercurrent of sexual prudery in general.

[MrMan]

I read an anecdotal theory before that the widening definition of "rape" (a false definition though) is another unintended consequence of the sexual revolution from the 1960s. Social norms about sex were loosened and people could now have unrestrained sex with anybody they want (at least in theory), and now women who stand to get hurt emotionally are now screaming about "rape culture" everywhere there is. I'm not excusing false accusations or psychopathy though.

It also isn't necessarily helping that there is an undercurrent of sexual prudery in general.

I think there is something to the theory. When most girls kept their virginity, then young women didn't go crash somewhere and sleep on a futon with a man they weren't married to at night. They didn't go out and get really drunk and end up in some guys bed. They didn't go to a man's apartment, lay down with him, making out in their underpants, then cry rape when lo and behold it turned into sex. Other people would say she went out drinking with men, she went alone at night to a single man's apartment. She lay there in her underwear on a man's bed, and we are supposed to think that was a rape? And girls in those types of situations would have been ashamed to talk about it since most single women were virgins. And if a girl is doing heavy petting on a guy when they are in their underwear, and it turns into full sex she didn't explicitly say she wanted, the cops or court might not take her claims very seriously because it was considered slutty behavior.

Married couples realistically don't get explicit consent for every touch, kiss, etc. I can come up to my wife, hug her, kiss her cheek, grab her behind or elsewhere (if no one is around of course) and it isn't treated like some kind of crime. If she grabs me, she's welcome to it.

But a man shouldn't be able to do that with a woman he is just dating. But this culture where people hook up and shack up creates a lot of fuzziness where there should rightly be clear lines.

But with birth control and fornication being mainstream, then getting explicit consent for sex becomes the norm.

So now if a single man and woman go out and get drunk and have sex, it's almost come to the point where it is up to the woman the next morning as to whether it was rape. And young people are taught to ask for permission to touch each body part, which I guess makes sense for fornicators in their sin if they don't want it to be rape, but expecting that of married couples can get rather ridiculous.