The Slog also had the story yesterday of the Air Force telling women in service that sometimes fighting back is the wrong choice (ie you may be threatened with bodily injury) and that women should NOT fight back.

So yes, you get to say NO and it means "I don't want to have sex with you." If it continues, that's rape.

I know this is a minor point, but getting a B.A. doesn't make you a linguist, any more than being an undergraduate physics major makes you a physicist. This attempt to round herself up is pathetic. And then insinuating that what linguists care about is fixed definitions of particular words, which just goes to show how little she learned in her linguistics classes in college.

Rather than "no means no," I prefer the alternative I heard on Talk of the Nation/On Point/some NPR talk show: "yes means yes." As in, you have permission to fuck the person only if the person says YES. Anything other than YES is NO.

#3, what did you do, hand over your testicles to be deposited in a blind trust?

@3: So if people have sex without discussing it they have just raped each other? That seems pretty silly.

A new low for Unbrainwashed, as he decides that men who make an effort to not be rapists aren't real men.

@5- More like "If you have even the tiniest bit of doubt that there isn't clear consent, you ought to ask."

Some people like to play games, some people don't know what the games are. Unless these people speak clearly to each other, people get hurt.

No Means No is an awesome band. Also, in the context of consent, indisputable.

It's time to just call these people what they are: rape advocates.

These examples sound to me like second-degree rape, which leads me to wonder if third-degree rape is what second-degree rapists get when they plea bargain?

@4: Just fuck you. Fucking troll.

*graps @4's head and starts scouring it with Comet and steelwool.*

Used to be grounds for divorce if one spouse withheld connubial rights from the other.

Now you can probably get 3 days in jail for solicitation just for asking the wife if she's gonna be tired tonight.

End result is the death of marriage.

@13 your marriage deserved to die.

where do I cast my vote in the ban @4 poll? (and if @13 disappeared too I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep)

I think it would be interesting to know how often this charge is actually used. None of the stats I can find break down charges or convictions with sufficient detail.

@13: So, um, rape-lite?
It's not much of a marriage if you have to sexually assault her to get laid. More like a hostage situation.

@14 Oh silly. Like any woman (or man) would go near him.

#11, more like the other way around?

14,15, 17,18,19

One insightful comment and the SLOGoteriat has a grand mal seizure on stage.

Just another day for SupeROTU !

responding to trolls = yummy delicious troll food. Just sayin.

@20: I'll believe it when I see you actually post something insightful.

@4 Let me guess: you were a Phi-Delt as a frat boy.

Call me crazy, but didn't both of those examples involve force?

I'm still confused.

Yes, but what are we going to do about marital canola?

@10, @24: +1

As you have been polite about it, I'll spell it out: 3rd deg rape is a figment of imagination, and leaves way too much room for misuse. Obviously any act upon another without consent requires either harm or threat of harm. Sexual assault is assault, period. Of course "no" is not always "no", as documented in much of all our contemporary literature and art forms depicting sexuality, if not in people's experiences and observations. It's a fallacy; verbal communication is not that precise: tone, context, body language and cultural differences all play a part in it. There is no need to create a separate class of assault because sex is involved; this only opens the opportunity for people to exploit. No need to legislate sexual conduct beyond that of use or threat of harm (violent or material).

Needless to say, sex with minors is a separate issue altogether, of course.

@10, @24: +1

As you have been polite about it, I'll spell it out: 3rd deg rape is a figment of imagination, and leaves way too much room for misuse. Obviously any act upon another without consent requires either harm or threat of harm. Sexual assault is assault, period. Of course "no" is not always "no", as documented in much of all our contemporary literature and art forms depicting sexuality, if not in people's experiences and observations. It's a fallacy; verbal communication is not that precise: tone, context, body language and cultural differences all play a part in it. There is no need to create a separate class of assault because sex is involved; this only opens the opportunity for people to exploit. No need to legislate sexual conduct beyond that of use or threat of harm (violent or material).

Needless to say, sex with minors is a separate issue altogether, of course.