Tuesday, 17 May 2011

The Myth of Consent

The myth of “consent”

What women SAY when they claim they’ve been “raped” is that they didn’t “consent” to have sex with the man they claim “raped” them. Apart from the fact that most “rape” claims are false and the woman is deliberately lying about the true facts of the case, there’s also the fact that in her mind there’s often a great deal of confusion about both what happened and what she actually wanted.

Consent is always one of the key issues when the crime of rape occurs. There are obviously other situations where it's relevant - perhaps most clearly in the questions of assisted suicide, abortion, mental illness and substance abuse. Maybe surprisingly, even consensual sexual activity can still attract the attention of the law.

With consent there are three key words that qualify it. If you take the view (as, for instance, some extreme feminists do, and are trying to have their ideas enshrined in US law right now - I'll dig out chapter and verse to prove I'm not just making it up!) that only if the woman gives the most unambiguously explicit (preferably written) consent to being fucked is acceptable as proof OF consent, you're going to face a LOT of problems.

For starters, if this requirement for EXPLICIT and UNEQUIVOCAL consent has to be in place for any act to be lawful, by definition every abortion MUST be illegal since the foetus clearly DIDN'T give his or her explicit CONSENT to a termination.

On the other hand, if explicit consent HAS been given, assisted suicide CANNOT be a crime. That would make ALL abortions illegal and ALL assisted suicides legal!

Now let's look at the second kind of consent, "tacit" or "implicit" consent. LOADS of bloke (I speak from personal experience on this one LOL!) believe that when a girl invites them in for a coffee she's offering sex. Sometimes she is; sometimes she isn't; and sometimes she hasn't made up her mind which it is. It’s basically arguable that she OUGHT to have made up her mind what she wants BEFORE she asks the bloke in and that if she DID get raped in those sort of sets of circumstances it’s all HER fault for giving mixed messages and not making her mind up! My advice to girls is pretty simple – if you DON’T want him to fuck you then DON’T ask him in. Otherwise you’ve only got yourself to blame if he DOES rape you!

And of course most blokes think that buying a girl a meal or even a few drinks entitles them to sex. If the girl thinks it DOESN’T then the only sensible thing she can do is to turn down his offer of a meal or a drink. Otherwise – knowing how the bloke’s mind works – in HIS eyes the girl has already said YES. Once again, it’s entirely HER fault if he rapes her when she says NO.

The third tricky area of consent is the word "informed." Giving an INFORMED consent, to sex or anything else, means that you KN0W and fully ACCEPT and take RESPONSIBILITY for the consequences of your actions.

This applies particularly to minors, but also to many areas where the question of consent is blurred. How "informed" is the consent of a drunk girl, someonw high on drugs, a mentally ill person or a mental deficient? Or what if the person has been hypnotised to obey every command? How can the trance subject be said to have given or refused "consent" in any MEANINGFUL way?

Let’s take a good look at the idea of consent and how it applies to sexual encounters. How often do we specifically say to one another that we want to fuck? OK, sure, quite often we do put it as specifically as that, but certainly NOT all the time, or even most of the time.

So what happens in the grey areas? What about a girl who’s drunk, a bit of a show-off and likes to tease men? How capable is she of giving her consent in the first case? Or is the very fact that she DID get drunk a clear proof that she DID want to be fucked and WAS consenting to sex? And how far is she giving an implicit consent in the second? If she goes and starts flashing her tits and cunt and arse or even if she just goes and talks all dirty or shows a bit of cleavage or generally dresses like some dirty fucking slut then it’s OBVIOUS that she IS up for it and obviously she DID want to be fucked.

In BOTH those cases, I reckon, the girl DID want it and it’s obviously HER fault if she gets raped because she WAS asking for it. In the second case, to be honest, if she DIDN’T want it and she was only carrying on like a fucking prick-teaser then her behaviour is WORSE and I honestly think SHE deserves to be punished for it. Prick-teasing is a horrible way of bullying blokes and the girl should certainly be punished for doing something as disgusting as that. Equally, the bloke’s done NOTHING wrong if he “rapes” her in circumstances like that.

I'm now going to talk about some very tricky areas. For twelve years I've been stuck in a waste of self-hatred and shame because I ORGASMED when I was being raped. I was drunk at the time, I’d been talking dirty, acting like a prick-teaser and come on strong to the bloke. He took me back to his place and “raped” me. The bloke told me at the time that the fact that I HAD orgasmed when he “raped” me meant that REALLY I HAD wanted to be raped and it was MY Fault. In other words, I HAD consented to being “raped” because if I hadn’t then I wouldn’t have come.

The mouth can lie; the mind can lie; but the body doesn’t lie. I CAME when I was “raped” and it was the BEST fucking sex I’ve ever had! It’s OBVIOUS that I MUST Have wanted it and that my orgasm WAS a clear and unambiguous act of consent. I must have WANTED to be raped and I most definitely DESERVED to be raped for being such a fucking prick-teasing bitch!

I’ve always realised that my orgasm means that I MUST have CONSENTED to the “rape” and so it WASN’T really rape.

And, of course, there's the question of what you might call spontaneity. Often hubby and I will be cuddling up in bed, or he'll massage my back or something like that, and suddenly he wants to fuck me. If he starts trying and I don't really feel like it but he persists and I give in to him I wouldn't call it rape but then I wouldn't quite call it consent either. Equally there are times when I'm up for it and he isn't but I get him going. Again, that's not rape IM(O but you couldn’t really say it was explicit consent either. It's that grey area in between.

Then again, though MOST of the time we have loving, caring, tender sex, ever since my rape I've always had the need (not all the time, but some of the time) for rough, even brutal and degrading, sex. 

I fucking LOVE it but my hubby hates it and doesn't enjoy it at all but because he loves me he gives in to me about 30% of the time. Am I forcing HIM to have non-consensual sex? I dunno.

Basically, to sum up, unless it's "stranger rape" it always turns out that the girl actually DID consent to the sex in one way or another. That means it's HER fault she got "raped" and the bloke who she accuses of being a "rapist" has done nothing wrong!

Anyway, just a few of my own thoughts on the question. I'm sure the good  readers of my blog will have plenty of their own!


  1. As you can see, when I was "raped" I really had consensual sex because I orgasmed.

    As you can also see from the rest of my post, rape is pretty well ALWAYS consensual sex.

    It's certainly the BEST sex a girl will ever have!

  2. You wait till I REALLY get started in on the whole fucking myth of "consent!"

  3. When a girl gets drunk, knowing she will fuck someone while drunk, then goes ahead and gets drunk she IS giving consent because she knew what it would do to her. Same with dressing and cock teasing behaviour. When she gives consent this way it is not rape.

    Once girls are raised to understand they have no right to say 'no' to men wanting to fuck them, there will be no rape.

    When females only leave the house with a male relative, the opportunity of stranger rape will cease to exist. We can get rid of rape in one generation.

  4. i agree with every word you've said, nequam.

    it's basic common sense!