Is this rape?

[Deleted member 67900]

Coercion - Initially said no — “shut up and take my cock” She takes it after your sexual persistence because she knew/thought you wouldn’t stop

It doesn't necessarily have to be coercion.

Because her changing her mind doesn't have to be related to blackmailing, maybe she just changed her mind, people change their mind on different things, this is not exclusive or inclusive to rape.

Doesn’t matter if she liked it/ said yes afterwards, if she said No initially and you still went ahead, told her to shut up, and f*cked her. Coerced rape (unless like I said, there’s CNC kink involved).

Well again, you're wrong because it wouldn't be classified as coercion, unless proven so by the prosecutors since the burden of proof would be on them.

but assuming you said that without "coerced", it indeed matters whether she said yes afterwards the same way it matters when you beat a girl , because you could hit her really hard and her consent/reaction afterwards, because maybe you just gave her an injury.

I don’t blame your disagreement towards this topic; this form of rape happens in a lot of relationships without knowledge.

Technically rape is exclusive to penetration, not just sexual acts like "take my cock".

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Someone can want to be murdered you can kill them therefore "satisfying their will" but it is still illegal, we don't want murderers in our societys, NOR rapists! That is why they go to jail and it was rape.

Murder is different from both rape and physical battery, because once a person is murdered they cant press charges, so the state does.

Whereas for battery and rape, the state doesn't necessarily pick up the charges.

So you have a pointless and flawed analogy.

 

[greycel]

They won't be, you overestimate how often a woman can just get a man in jail simply because she said "he raped me".

You've just contradicted yourself, if the jury, which is the arbiter of whether it was rape or not, is the one that takes all of these factors into one and decides guilty or not, then you would be contradicting yourself in saying that a woman effectively accusing a man of rape, despite it not being true, has equal efficiency/effect as if it were true.

How would it be? They aren't omniscient, if they knew what happened then there wouldn't even need to be a point in a jury.
What is the difference between the one where she is saying the truth and the one where she isn't saying the truth?
In the eyes of the jury who have no clue about it, either one could be correct.. if there is no physical evidence such as text messages beforehand or afterwards inclining towards any direction.

That's what I'm trying to say.

Think about it, if in one universe, the girl and you were fine with it and then for some reason (say you are famous and rich), she tries to accuse you of rape.. then that would be the same as if you even did do that. The jury has no clue either way. They are both equal (if there's no proof).. then things become entirely subjective, so they factor in all those other things I mentioned. Which they would in either scenario

Yeah I get it, how you look changes how you guilty you are perceived, what the fuck does this have to do with absolutely anything?

I was trying to explain how these subjective stuff influence the final decision ultimately, because if she lied/didn't lie, her story would be presented exactly the same to the jury (assuming no physical evidence).

 

[sickdawgie]

Murder is different from both rape and physical battery, because once a person is murdered they cant press charges, so the state does.

Whereas for battery and rape, the state doesn't necessarily pick up the charges.

So you have a pointless and flawed analogy.

you're being pointlessly obtuse and will never change your opinion. My point is like I said much earlier and you never responded. If someone thinks it's ok to rape someone (and the girl liked it) what's gonna stop them from raping someone else who won't like it. We don't want this person in society

 

[Deleted member 67900]

What is the difference between the one where she is saying the truth and the one where she isn't saying the truth?

There is no difference only in "she said he said" cases, which don't encompass all cases of rape charges.

Think about it, if in one universe, the girl and you were fine with it and then for some reason (say you are famous and rich), she tries to accuse you of rape.. then that would be the same as if you even did do that. The jury has no clue either way. They are both equal (if there's no proof).. then things become entirely subjective, so they factor in all those other things I mentioned. Which they would in either scenario

They wouldn't be equal because not all cases of rape accusations are in the ones that you've just mentioned.

I was trying to explain how these subjective stuff influence the final decision ultimately, because if she lied/didn't lie, her story would be presented exactly the same to the jury (assuming no physical evidence).

Okay, but you've said the factors that the jury takes into account matter, yet you're basically saying they don't matter if a woman will have it equally effective to get a man in jail for rape despite the claims being true.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

you're being pointlessly obtuse and will never change your opinion. My point is like I said much earlier and you never responded. If someone thinks it's ok to rape someone (and the girl liked it) what's gonna stop them from raping someone else who won't like it. We don't want this person in society

Allowing what kind of person into society? I didn't state any exceptions, I've only asked questions, I have not said allow all cases of rape. Are you making a strawman or are you some kind of retarded troll.

I don't want to get into a debate of whether the advantages outweigh the benefits of allowing rapists into society, because that's literally not what I said if you can read.

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

It doesn't necessarily have to be coercion.

1. Because her changing her mind doesn't have to be related to blackmailing, maybe she just changed her mind, people change their mind on different things, this is not exclusive or inclusive to rape.

2. Well again, you're wrong because it wouldn't be classified as coercion, unless proven so by the prosecutors since the burden of proof would be on them.

3. but assuming you said that without "coerced", it indeed matters whether she said yes afterwards the same way it matters when you beat a girl , because you could hit her really hard and her consent/reaction afterwards, because maybe you just gave her an injury.

Technically rape is exclusive to penetration, not just sexual acts like "take my cock".

1. I don’t think you understand. Her changing her mind during it doesnt matter, even if she changed it 0.0001 seconds after. All that matters is the initial decision which was NO. You said shut up and went in. Might’ve been wrong on “Coerced” rape but it is definitely “Rape.” Initial response and the action done afterwards defines rape.

2. Coercion could easily be proven by prosecutors.

“Did you say no initially?” “Yes.” “What did he say afterwards?” “He said shut up and take it” “How did you feel after he said that? Did you feel threatened on what he said?” “I was scared and knew he wouldn’t stop besides I said no — So yes, I was threatened.” Very, VERY easy. Changing mind doesn’t matter by law or the definition of rape.

3. Nope, all rape can’t be undone because it’s initial. You used coercion “shut up and take it” (taking her clothes off too, I forgot to even mention that ludicrous act) which could easily be said that it made her feel threatened and scared to the point where she let you proceed. Using beating kinks isn’t a good example to use here as the sex was consensual — which is all we’re arguing about right now.

4. Don’t even know what to say to this lol.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

1. I don’t think you understand. Her changing her mind during it doesnt matter, even if she changed it 0.0001 seconds after. All that matters is the initial decision which was NO. You said shut up and went in. Might’ve been wrong on “Coerced” rape but it is definitely “Rape.” Initial response and the action done afterwards defines rape.

I'm not saying rule out the initial decision, I'm saying don't rule out the last decision for the same reasons that I am going to tell you in this reply.

2. Coercion could easily be proven by prosecutors.

“Did you say no initially?” “Yes.” “What did he say afterwards?” “He said shut up and take it” “How did you feel after he said that? Did you feel threatened on what he said?” “I was scared and knew he wouldn’t stop besides I said no — So yes, I was threatened.” Very, VERY easy. Changing mind doesn’t matter by law or the definition of rape.

Changing mind matters when it comes to physical battery though, so why exactly would the same principle not apply to rape, quite simple, it does.

Also be more accurate, that can be used as proof in court only if there is other evidence involved like video etc you get the point.

3. Nope, all rape can’t be undone because it’s initial. You used coercion “shut up and take it” (taking her clothes off too, I forgot to even mention that ludicrous act) which could easily be said that it made her feel threatened and scared to the point where she let you proceed. Using beating kinks isn’t a good example to use here as the sex was consensual — which is all we’re arguing about right now.

Beating someone can't be undone either yet people can both consent to it before and after, it's the consent at the end/final decision that matters because what if he hit you too hard and you got an injury and it hurts? Similar principle applies to rape, yeah?

4. Don’t even know what to say to this lol.

That's just what rape is defined as, non-consensual penetration.

foreplay, handjobs, footjobs, kissing, licking is not rape.

 

[greycel]

There is no difference only in "she said he said" cases, which don't encompass all cases of rape charges.


They wouldn't be equal because not all cases of rape accusations are in the ones that you've just mentioned.

You're an idiot chasing specifics because you care more about winning the argument than understanding other's perspectives.
If you don't actually tell me in detail what about what I'm saying is wrong, then I'm not going to bother helping you in your own thread.

Okay, but you've said the factors that the jury takes into account matter, yet you're basically saying they don't matter if a woman will have it equally effective to get a man in jail for rape despite the claims being true.

This is the only thing you somewhat explained, so I'll go into detail.
Yes I am saying the factors the jury take into account matter. IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, is what I'm saying.
Nothing else matters, without objective proof both scenarios will be presented same to the jury.

When did I say these factors don't matter? I said they are the only thing that it'll boil down to when theres no physical proof of her consenting or not consenting, prior/through the duration of it.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether or not you did rape her. Because if she wants to accuse you, she would say the same for both situations. And eventually it will come to those subjective factors.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

You're an idiot chasing specifics because you care more about winning the argument than understanding other's perspectives.
If you don't actually tell me in detail what about what I'm saying is wrong, then I'm not going to bother helping you in your own thread.

Look, we are having a debate.

If you are unhappy with your choice of words, so long that I am not splitting hairs and engaging in good faith (unless you show otherwise) then that's your fault not mine, and you can get the fuck outta here and stop bumping my thread like a moron.

This is the only thing you somewhat explained, so I'll go into detail.
Yes I am saying the factors the jury take into account matter. IT IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS, is what I'm saying.
Nothing else matters, without objective proof both scenarios will be presented same to the jury.

When did I say these factors don't matter? I said they are the only thing that it'll boil down to when theres no physical proof of her consenting or not consenting, prior/through the duration of it.

Yeah they would be the only thing it will boil down to.................. your point exactly being....................?

When I said that you said the factors don't matter, I was referring to you saying that a woman accusing the man at first without any other evidence is seen as equal, if it is equal then if they look at her the same way when she tells a lie as if she told the truth, they might aswell disregard everything, but even that is a red herring because that's a proper subset of rape cases, not all rape cases are just "he said she said" so what the fuck does this have to do with anything that ive said.

At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whether or not you did rape her. Because if she wants to accuse you, she would say the same for both situations. And eventually it will come to those subjective factors.

Those factors are not completely subjective, if she is not telling the truth the jury cant just say "oh well I feel like this is rape today", there is actually some objectivity here so you're wrong on saying that "it doesn't matter"

 

[greycel]

When I said that you said the factors don't matter, I was referring to you saying that a woman accusing the man at first without any other evidence is seen as equal, if it is equal then if they look at her the same way when she tells a lie as if she told the truth, they might aswell disregard everything, but even that is a red herring because that's a proper subset of rape cases, not all rape cases are just "he said she said" so what the fuck does this have to do with anything that ive said.

Okay let me make this clear.
You misunderstood what I'm saying, so I'll clarify it here. I'm not saying what they will take into account, what they are going to look at or not.
I'm saying you are equally screwed or not screwed in both scenarios. So it doesn't matter, everything has been decided already. The location/time you guys had sex would be the same if you raped her/didn't. How long you had sex, she would say the same time if you did rape her or didn't.
They will take everything into account.
Just before you guys even initiated in sex, your outcome for a potential rape case would've already been decided. There's nothing you can say or do, that will change it.

If there is a difference between a universe where you did rape her, and a universe where you didn't.. then tell me.
The only thing I potentially see is a polygraph test (but those are bullshit anyways).

Can't any girl just lie about it either way.
I understand what @n9wiff is saying, but unless there is physical evidence present of her not wanting to, then she could've falsely accused you either way.. even if she was initially showing signals in person.
So, assuming no physical proof, she can she she wants to in person and then you do it then she accuses you. Or she can say she doesn't want to in person and then you do it then she accuses you.

So, best to not think abou it and don't do it again. Like @n9wiff said, don't get on her bad side.. and ideally just forget about all this short term hooking up stuff and look for a wife.

Which is why I said, best to not think about it, there's nothing you can do.. just don't get on her bad side so she potentially makes a case against you

 

[anthony111553]

incel fanasty

 

[Deleted member 67900]

incel fanasty

Chad fantasy*

 

[anthony111553]

Chad fantasy*

that's not how it works

 

[Deleted member 67900]

that's not how it works

Chad is the only one that consents

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Okay let me make this clear.
You misunderstood what I'm saying, so I'll clarify it here. I'm not saying what they will take into account, what they are going to look at or not.
I'm saying you are equally screwed or not screwed in both scenarios. So it doesn't matter, everything has been decided already. The location/time you guys had sex would be the same if you raped her/didn't. How long you had sex, she would say the same time if you did rape her or didn't.
They will take everything into account.
Just before you guys even initiated in sex, your outcome for a potential rape case would've already been decided. There's nothing you can say or do, that will change it.

Ah so you're trying to convince me that if there is no other evidence other than her hearsay, whether you actually did rape her or not makes you equally screwed.

I already said not always but let's grant that because you are filibustering Sure maybe, so for the forth time what does that have to do with my thread?

If there is a difference between a universe where you did rape her, and a universe where you didn't.. then tell me.

Yeah sure? In the universe where you did, you chances are, generally speaking, higher of conviction.

The only thing I potentially see is a polygraph test (but those are bullshit anyways).


Which is why I said, best to not think about it, there's nothing you can do.. just don't get on her bad side so she potentially makes a case against you

Andrew tate has like 100 of rape allegations against him that he quite likely did not do, yet people who actually commit once or two have a much higher probability of being caught.

So actually, even though what you were saying was irrelevant, it's wrong. There is a difference between her lying and telling the truth.

 

[uglysub8male]

What the fuck does rape even mean? I never wrapped my mind around this concept.

Murder is simple, intentional killing

Wrong. All intentional killing isn’t murder

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Wrong. All intentional killing isn’t murder

doesn't mean murder isn't an intentional killing, yeah?

Now tell me what rape is, I'm here listening.

 

[greycel]

Yeah sure? In the universe where you did, you chances are, generally speaking, higher of conviction.

How so nigga?
You aren't being specific enough. Stop with the generalization.. tell me some reasons why. Tell me a single reason, in any example you choose (exlcuding any physical proof).
My point being, BECAUSE she would frame the story to be the exact same as the story in which she hypothetically would've been in if she got raped.

Andrew tate has like 100 of rape allegations against him that he quite likely did not do, yet people who actually commit once or two have a much higher probability of being caught.

So actually, even though what you were saying was irrelevant, it's wrong. There is a difference between her lying and telling the truth.

What the fuck does this even mean?

How do the ones with fewer allegations have a higher likelihood of getting caught?
How does the chances of somebody getting caught relate to her lying or telling the truth?
What does any of this relate with anything I said?



I'm done talking with you this is my last message on this thread.
I'm not wasting anymore time. You're repeating stuff you've heard and making sweeping generalizations.

---All of this assuming there is no physical proof---​

To sum up, I was saying that you shouldn't bother worrying about it, because even if you did rape her or didn't, she would frame it as if you did. And in that case, your fate was already sealed just before you had sex with her. That is because the jury would know the exact account from her if you did rape her or didn't. It would be the exact same.
You said "in the universe where you did, higher rates of conviction", where you pulled that out of your arse as if you fucking knew everybody's truth and whether they were in jail rightfully so or not. You are genuinely an idiot for this btw. Are you omniscient @Azonin?

And most importantly, all of this assuming this thread is even true. I guarantee this is LARP.
Your abysmal Post/Rep is starting to make sense.
Try getting laid first before writing fanfics

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

I'm not saying rule out the initial decision, I'm saying don't rule out the last decision for the same reasons that I am going to tell you in this reply.

Changing mind matters when it comes to physical battery though, so why exactly would the same principle not apply to rape, quite simple, it does.

Also be more accurate, that can be used as proof in court only if there is other evidence involved like video etc you get the point.

Beating someone can't be undone either yet people can both consent to it before and after, it's the consent at the end/final decision that matters because what if he hit you too hard and you got an injury and it hurts? Similar principle applies to rape, yeah?

That's just what rape is defined as, non-consensual penetration.

foreplay, handjobs, footjobs, kissing, licking is not rape.

You’re still stuck on that ignorant and illogical thought that the fact that if it’s rape or not, it can be changed. Let me say it again: Once it happened, it can not be undone, no matter if they liked it after or not. If stuff like CNC or being hit during sex happens it should be discussed before.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

You’re still stuck on that ignorant and illogical thought that the fact that if it’s rape or not, it can be changed. Let me say it again: Once it happened, it can not be undone, no matter if they liked it after or not. If stuff like CNC or being hit during sex happens it should be discussed before.

And I've addressed this point to you dumbfuck like 6 times now.

You define the instance of rape as when man clearly continues sex even when clearly being told no.

Argument doesn't work if we consider that beating isn't necessarily illegal if the consent/reaction of the woman matters afterwards, while you're saying the opposite that it doesn't.

I'm also questioning the jurisprudence, you can find jurisdictions that define it differently, what would your point be exactly?

Smoothbrain is going on repeat because it's running out of arguments.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

How so nigga?
You aren't being specific enough. Stop with the generalization.. tell me some reasons why. Tell me a single reason, in any example you choose (exlcuding any physical proof).
My point being, BECAUSE she would frame the story to be the exact same as the story in which she hypothetically would've been in if she got raped.

Because false convictions of crimes are, very consistently, far more rare than if they are true ones. "She would have framed the story the exact same way", that's a part of the problem, because she'd have to tell the entire story from beginning to end, and a lot of women mess up if they are lying.

What the fuck does this even mean?

How do the ones with fewer allegations have a higher likelihood of getting caught?
How does the chances of somebody getting caught relate to her lying or telling the truth?
What does any of this relate with anything I said?

Uhhhh, because the number of allegations is not the only factor for determining success rate of conviction? Because the nature of their allegations are fundamentally different?

Because people would expect a person to rape 1-2 at most 3 or 4 women if we are pushing it, not tens and tens and tens which collectively make an extraordinary claim, which, by the sagan standard, require relatively extraordinary person to the man with fewer allegations.

I'm done talking with you this is my last message on this thread.
I'm not wasting anymore time. You're repeating stuff you've heard and making sweeping generalizations.

So the stuff I've repeated are things like.

1) If post consent doesn't matter for rape why does it matter for physical battery? You've brought up murder where post-consent doesn't even exist like a moron I doubt you know what you're talking about.

2) Your stupid idea that you chose to filibuster on (that the other factors of the allegations don't matter) which simply means you've got nothing regarding the main topic.

---All of this assuming there is no physical proof---​

To sum up, I was saying that you shouldn't bother worrying about it, because even if you did rape her or didn't, she would frame it as if you did. And in that case, your fate was already sealed just before you had sex with her. That is because the jury would know the exact account from her if you did rape her or didn't. It would be the exact same.
You said "in the universe where you did, higher rates of conviction", where you pulled that out of your arse as if you fucking knew everybody's truth and whether they were in jail rightfully so or not. You are genuinely an idiot for this btw. Are you omniscient @Azonin?

Why are we derailing? What does this have to do with absolutely anything.

"You shouldnt bother if there is no physical evidence"

Dude are you a troll or just retarded? Im talking about the jurisprudence, Im not debating how likely i am to be considered a rapist by the gov.

And most importantly, all of this assuming this thread is even true. I guarantee this is LARP.
Your abysmal Post/Rep is starting to make sense.
Try getting laid first before writing fanfics

So I don't get laid because I am a misogynist? The same way other misogynists get laid?

 

[Deleted member 31971]

its just natural instinct

 

[Deleted member 67900]

its just natural instinct

? what do you mean exactly

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

And I've addressed this point to you dumbfuck like 6 times now.

You define the instance of rape as when man clearly continues sex even when clearly being told no.

Argument doesn't work if we consider that beating isn't necessarily illegal if the consent/reaction of the woman matters afterwards, while you're saying the opposite that it doesn't.

I'm also questioning the jurisprudence, you can find jurisdictions that define it differently, what would your point be exactly?

Smoothbrain is going on repeat because it's running out of arguments.

You’ve lost— ad hominem detected so i’ll do it too
Stop using hitting during sex as a comparison in this, fool; two completely different things.You’re trying hard to prove to yourself that you didn’t rape that woman. You are a rapist.

When you hear the word NO, do not continue with putting your penis in their vagina. Unless it’s CNC, do NOT, and i mean DO NOT, STICK YOUR PENIS, IN A WOMAN WHO SAYS NO

Just realized you are the same dude who said the legal age should be 13 because a woman is fertile at those ages. It makes sense now.

 

[optimisticzoomer]

Rape isn't real

 

[optimisticzoomer]

Just realized you are the same dude who said the legal age should be 13 because a woman is fertile at those ages. It makes sense now.

That's a valid point tho

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

That's a valid point tho

yes so let’s let 13yo”s who have no knowledge on sex, cautions, and what is dangerous get targeted by an old man so they can be impregnated and their life ruined. little kids as single moms across the world. super valid…

Little boys too right? let’s let the women target little boys too.

 

[optimisticzoomer]

yes so let’s let 13yo”s who have no knowledge on sex, cautions, and what is dangerous get targeted by an old man. super valid…

I have no knowledge on sex
13 year olds are not that young

 

[Deleted member 67900]

You’ve lost— ad hominem detected so i’ll do it too
Stop using hitting during sex as a comparison in this, fool; two completely different things.You’re trying hard to prove to yourself that you didn’t rape that woman. You are a rapist.

Where did I make an ad hom. you dont know what an ad hominem means.

it doesnt mean to insult someone.

When you hear the word NO, do not continue with putting your penis in their vagina. Unless it’s CNC, do NOT, and i mean DO NOT, STICK YOUR PENIS, IN A WOMAN WHO SAYS NO

What if I hear yes after? we are going in circles now.

Just realized you are the same dude who said the legal age should be 13 because a woman is fertile at those ages. It makes sense now.

legal age for what?

 

[Deleted member 67900]

yes so let’s let 13yo”s who have no knowledge on sex, cautions, and what is dangerous get targeted by an old man so they can be impregnated and their life ruined. little kids as single moms across the world. super valid…

Little boys too right? let’s let the women target little boys too.

whether they have knowledge of sex is totally culturally dependent, hence countries have varying age of consents, yes?

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

Where did I make an ad hom. you dont know what an ad hominem means.

it doesnt mean to insult someone.

What if I hear yes after? we are going in circles now.

legal age for what?

Yes before the insertion, and without her being threatened or scared = no rape

No, then insert, then yes later = rape, just enjoyed it afterwards. She could easily take you to court and you’ll be the registered rapist you are

No, “shut up and take cock” then insert = rape.

You said legal age for sex should be 13 just because a woman is fertile during it.

ad hominem: “smooth brain” which was directed towards me personally.

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Yes before the insertion, and without her being threatened or scared = no rape

No im asking after the insertion, youre positing post-consent doesnt matter i ask why.

No, then insert, then yes later = rape, just enjoyed it afterwards. She could easily take you to court and you’ll be the registered rapist you are

No, “shut up and take cock” then insert = rape.

How is it rape if she wanted it?

You said legal age for sex should be 13 just because a woman is fertile during it.

Some countries have the legal age as 13, what's the issue exactly?

ad hominem: “smooth brain” which was directed towards me personally.

That's not what an ad hominem means, it's short for argumentum ad hominem, a personal attack used as an argument, which I did not do. Look up fallacies before you name them.

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

So let's say I fucked this girl, I rip her pants off p in the v whatever, she says no im like shut up bitch, I cum and do my thing, then she says actually she liked it and yeah.

Would this still be rape? If so is it based?

Yes it’s rape and not it’s not based

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Yes it’s rape and not it’s not based

how so

 

[wishIwasSalludon]

how so

how its rape or how its not based?

 

[Deleted member 67900]

how its rape or how its not based?

how is it rape

 

[IAMNOTANINCEL]

obviously its not rape if she wants it, you know the meaning of rape, you just posted this to brag. why dont you try raping your heart with a knife

 

[anthony111553]

obviously its not rape if she wants it, you know the meaning of rape, you just posted this to brag. why dont you try raping your heart with a knife

"to brag" as if that would happen to anyone on this site

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

No im asking after the insertion, youre positing post-consent doesnt matter i ask why.

How is it rape if she wanted it?

Some countries have the legal age as 13, what's the issue exactly?

That's not what an ad hominem means, it's short for argumentum ad hominem, a personal attack used as an argument, which I did not do. Look up fallacies before you name them.

Wanted it but said no? Is this bait?

 

[Deleted member 67900]

Wanted it but said no? Is this bait?

Wanted it because she gave post-consent, the same way you'd imagine that you gave consent to eating chocolate if at first it tastes shit but you like the aftertaste;

 

[leanmaxx74]

no you would go prison for like 20 years and dont give me the fag cope shit of 'if i was chad' even statusmaxxed chads get snitched on being with a 17 year old nvm raping som1,but i think if you wanted to do consensual rape you would need like a video of her saying you could do it

 

[Deleted member 67900]

no you would go prison for like 20 years and dont give me the fag cope shit of 'if i was chad' even statusmaxxed chads get snitched on being with a 17 year old nvm raping som1,but i think if you wanted to do consensual rape you would need like a video of her saying you could do it

i dont think you would go to 20 years for being with a 17 year old, not all chads are old grown men let alone the age of consent is not always 18+ and even if it were fucking someone 1 year under the age is never 20 years in prison.

 

[leanmaxx74]

i dont think you would go to 20 years for being with a 17 year old, not all chads are old grown men let alone the age of consent is not always 18+ and even if it were fucking someone 1 year under the age is never 20 years in prison.

no i was talking about rape prison time in this case,i was just saying that ppl even get snitched on for being with a 17 year old let alone rape

 

[Ukraine1]

I’ve been to prison and in America just a woman saying you raped her and even if she claims it was years ago…

Can get you arrested and convicted.

Which means you can go to prison.

You really have to be careful with sexual activity in America / Canada / Australia…

Look at the Tate brothers accused of rape with no proof and they got arrested

 

[Deleted member 67900]

no i was talking about rape prison time in this case,i was just saying that ppl even get snitched on for being with a 17 year old let alone rape

its mostly legal

 

[leanmaxx74]

its mostly legal

bro noway you think rape is legal its soo punishable,but they usually have to have actual proof you did ikt

 

[Zoom759]

the question itself makes no sense, women are not like cars where inserting ur cock in them will turn them on. if she’s not in the mood to have sex to begin with she won’t enjoy it afterwards and she’s most likely lying if she says she does.

Regardless if u think it’s morally wrong or not just know that you will be found guilty of rape unless ur rich so do with that what you will. JFL if u think the judge will look at her saying she enjoyed it as evidence it’s not rape

 

[Deleted member 67900]

bro noway you think rape is legal its soo punishable,but they usually have to have actual proof you did ikt

I wasn't talking about rape if you had some reading comprehension, i was talking about fucking a 17 year old.

But rape can be legal too, for instance egypt.

 

[liberiangrimreaper]

Wanted it because she gave post-consent, the same way you'd imagine that you gave consent to eating chocolate if at first it tastes shit but you like the aftertaste;

“post-consent” lmao W trolling. Rapist.