Quote:
Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
You're the fucking idiot. In the post that Bilmore responded to with the Lewinski scenario, you stated "Rape is when sex = violence and there is no consent. Sex = power is an entirely different concept, one that always includes consent as I see it. If it doesn't include consent, then back to sex = violence."
See the sentence there where YOU say that Sex=power ALWAYS includes consent? Go back to your post and read it again.
I'd be happy to chase you away from this board, but it's not from my stupidity. It's from your making idiotic comments and being totally unable to own up to them.
|
The problem is that you've misunderstood what I said. I never said power equals consent. I said that if there is no consent it is rape, pure and simple. And I said that rape is about violence.
I also said that the violence of a rape is a different concept than the interplay between sex and power, which I see as a consensual situation. I was talking about the very fact pattern I described in which my b/f and I have consensual hot sex because my body is so hot and it turns him on hugely. There was no issue of consent in that fact pattern I described, which ABBAKiss said was a rape.
I also explained, if there had been no consent, then it would be about rape, which is an act of violence.
Remember how we got onto this topic. I described a mutually consensual sexual situation where I also saw a sex and power interplay and ABBAKiss called that a rape. I disagreed that it was a rape because there was consent (had there not been it would be that violent act known as a rape). My point was and is that I don't see the interplay between sex and power in a mutually consensual sex act as a rape situation, and therefore, I think it was wierd and wrong that ABBAKiss saw that as a rape. How can there be a rape when there is consent?
