Man's 'right' to have sex is more important than vulnerable women's right to safety.

[jellyfrizz]

www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/03/man-who-does-not-understand-consent-has-right-to-pursue-sex-court-rules

The judgment said that the “decision to engage in sexual relations ... is a primal expression of our humanity and existence as sexual beings. It is an essential part of our basic DNA as reproductive human beings.”

In its submission to the court, the local authority said that there was concern that JB’s behaviour, if unrestrained, “might result in his exposure to the criminal justice system and risk to potentially vulnerable females”. They said that his advances to women in the past have lacked appropriate social inhibition.

FFS!

1/3 of guys think that it's not rape to carry on if the woman changes her mind, even though it is rape by law

I read your post and understand that. I just don’t think that is the same thing as 1/3 of men continuing knowing their partner wasn’t enjoying it and wanted them to stop.

A lot of things “aren’t rape”, but we don’t do them during sex because we care about our partner’s enjoyment too. Either altruistically because we love them, or selfishly because we want to continue the relationship.

I am fully aware that a large percentage of both men and women do not count anything except violent stranger rape as “rape”, and even then only if there are multiple independent eye witnesses. You do not have to convince me of that, I have firsthand experience of it thank you. But believing rape myths is not the same thing as actually being a rapist yourself.

There appear to be a lot of different groups attempting to establish a legal right to sex at the moment and I guarantee that is not going to work out well for women.

This is a complicated idea, and as far as I can see it doesn't mean that everybody gets to have sex. It means we don't as a society restrict people's right to seek out sex in any legal way.

In a similar way, people have a right to own property, that doesn't give them a right to commit fraud or rob a bank. We don't have a right to steal a loaf of bread if we are starving though we might not get much of a punishment in that kind of situation.

The argument that the state has no business outlawing sex acts like homosexual sex, or oral or anal sex, comes out of the same thinking, that the state has to have a very high bar to interfere in people's sex lives because they are entitled to pursue those as they see fit.

@Goosefoot one of the most sensible things I've read on the Internet about this.

I just don’t think that is the same thing as 1/3 of men continuing knowing their partner wasn’t enjoying it and wanted them to stop.

A lot of things “aren’t rape”, but we don’t do them during sex because we care about our partner’s enjoyment too.

If a man doesn't understand that my "stop" is a legally-binding instruction, I don't and can't trust him.

My "stop" during sex is a legally-binding instruction like the stop sign on a road (example pictured). We wouldn't issue a driving licence to someone who admitted to thinking that a road stop sign was advisory, even if they honour them as some kind of goodwill gesture.