Men have done such a number on us that even women don't even know what rape is

Sorry:if you are uncomfortable with the idea that you should have to get an enthusiastic "yes"...

Because to my mind, if you are uncomfortable with the idea that you shouldn't have to get an enthusiastic "yes" from your sexual partners, you are, in fact, a rapist. Or at the very least, NAMALT etc etc, you have rapist tendencies and see your pleasure as more important than the physical or physiological well-being of your partner and have no respect for them as anything beyond a human sex toy.

I would expand slightly on Buffy's question to make it: assume for a moment that anything less than a definite "yes" (rather than an "oh go on, if you must") is defined as rape, what's the actual problem with that for anyone who isn't a rapist?

Imagine if being asked not to behave like arseholes didn't make men really defensive and indignant.

Then mere consensual sex is an offence ?

Oh dear me cadno. I hope you realise how much of an arse that statement makes you look.

Brighton, feeling that you are just a convenient wank-sock for someone, is actually quite harmful.

It might not do physical harm, but the emotional and psychological damage it can wreak, is significant.

But Brighton - you're assuming the woman is having sex with someone she knows well. And therefore KNOWS (or has a reasonable belief) that the man will pester and paw, but not force her. What if you were with a man you DIDN'T know very well? A new partner? A ONS? It would quite quickly feel threatening in that situation.

A lot of men are absolutely horrified by the idea that every single sex act they ever engage in, should be wanted by the person with whom they engage in it.

Men have always defined rape in such a way that they were enabled to rape without having it called rape.

It's why it's so common.

I think what your describing is unpleasant, but I am thinking along the lines of 'should this be criminal' and my conclusion is no.

I agree that it is self evident that consent can't be valid if given under duress but what you describing doesn't sound like duress - for me there needs to be a risk of real harm.

Empire - yes it must be freely given but no decision is ever taken in a vacuum and this includes the decision to consent or not consent to sexual activity.

Begging implies verbal "pleease" "Go onnn" which itself is deeply irritating and often uncomfortable.
However, what about when men men try the pawing approach? - kisses, attempts to massage, they all feel horrible because it's clearly nothing to do with mutual pleasure and all to do with getting what they want. A straight up no should NOT need to be repeated.
And Empire is absolutely right in her post above.

Catkisser - no you're obviously right that if you've had to beg then your partner is probably not bubbling over with desire but I don't think that makes it a rape.

But giving permission doesn't mean you desire it, and if you've been saying "no" for the past hour, it couldn't possibly be interpreted as such. Only someone who basically wanted a hole to ejaculate into would have sex in this situation.

mostly the actions of hormones - I believe.
Please tell me this isn't leading into "men NEED to empty their sack once they reach the point of no return..." etc.

I think Cando is saying that if you give someone permission to do something, then they are not going against your will. Especially if they have recognised your right to refuse permission for the act up to that point.

The only serious caveat I can think of would be if you were under duress of some kind of harm.

So, cadno, you think it's acceptable that a man should coerce an unenthusiastic woman to have sex, because hormones? Does that extend to men "not being able to stop" once sex is underway and a women changes her mind? Which, by law, is also rape.

Do you realise how that thinking reduces men to animals and shows no respect for them as intelligent human beings? Huh, and they say feminists are the man-haters.....

I should hope all consensual sex is enthusiastic, otherwise it is probably not done right.

Not sure why it is hard to understand that clearly the word enthusiastic had to be put in precisely because of the problem of pestering and coercion. The "if you loved me you would do it", "it doesn't hurt, besides I'm nearly finished", "most other women love this, so you must too" etc.
Precisely what I Imagine sparked this thread in the first place. "The rape was not violent" .
It gives me a quiet rage.