If a sober women has sex with a drunken man - even if he doesn't verbally consent, she is not a rapist. But the moment she puts on a dildo and has anal sex with him - even if he asks her too, she's a rapist?

Well in fetboy land anyway.

No, a drunk woman incoherent or passed out can't give consent

Up to now you've been saying a drunk woman cannot give consent. Now you're saying a passed out woman - there's a world of difference. Everyone else is arguing the former, no one is arguing that having sex with a unconscious woman is not rape.

face it, you argued yourself into a ridiculous corner and are now trying to change the terms of reference and claim that was what you meant all along.

Bullshit artist.

Your definition of drunk differs from everyone else's. Of course your one is the correct one, everyone else is just out to get you.

I think this somewhat one sided discussion reached its use by date some time ago.

"a drunk woman incoherent or passed out can't give consent."

AKA Smith, as I'm sure you're well aware, fetboy did not say "incoherent or passed" until *much* later in the discussion when he realised how ridiculous his position had become and hurriedly revised his original words - just "drunk" to mean passed out and then tried to pretend that was what he meant all along and smear the rest of us as arguing we would rape an unconscious woman.

If you can't argue honestly then there is little point in this discussion.

No one likes to see the smear all over the screen after that little self love fest.

Pillock.

Its uncalled for. No need for me to descend to your level.

But anyway, rape is about far more than simple penetartion, and their a world of sexual abuse/molestation that can be practised by both sexes.

To you, rape is all about the penetration - and people have to be penetrated to be raped. Yet the fact that it is forced intercourse/intimacy seems entirely irrelevant - it's all about the penetration - a particularly patriarchal obsession related to ownership/control issues over women.

The fact that men can be just as sensitive and intimate with regards to their genitalia as women and feel violated by their abuse seems to not factor in the equation at all, its like you feel men's sexuality is a blunt instrument that can be freely abused. The old "Men are pigs/Women are delicate flowers" syndrome.

I gotta admit, I've felt a lot of male self loathing and latent homophobia in your posts.

Just because people disagree with you does not mean they are attacking feminism or aren't feminists. Nor does it imply they are rapists and paedophiles, as you have accused the majority of people arguing with you being.

FYI, I am an ardent and passionate feminist who strongly believes in equal rights, and has done so from childhood, something which caused me a fair bit of grief at the redneck rural school I grew up in.

As such, I believe the setting of different standards for men and women is wrong, not to mention counter productive and ammunition for those wishing to attack feminism.

And yes, of course having sex with a unconscious person is rape. But that was not the original argument, which was about drunken people. You may equate drunken with unconscious but you'd be in a distinct minority there.

Really we only seem to differ on two issues - You seem to believe a drunken person cannot consent to sex, I do and find it patronising to imply otherwise.

I believe all non-consenting sex is rape whether of male or females; you limit it to penetration of orifices. I would agree that female rape of males is a vanishingly small compared to the reverse, but that's not to say it should be ignored or excused.

I regret that words between us became so destructive and heated because when push comes to shove we're on the same side, so I offer my apologies for the personal attacks. However I do disagree strongly with you on the above points.

Peace.

your dribbling inability to carry on a civilised conversation or comprehend other points of view keeps you in good company, that of the far right neocons and the far left, both of whom have more in common with each other - authoritarianism, inflexibility, inability to comprehend logic and a fear of the unknown/other, than they do with moderates.

I missed it originally, drowned out in the noise :)

I'd agree with most of it with an addendum: Early femminism didn't make progress just by personal examples (though that was very important) but also by being strident and out there. We need to cover all bases, both public and personal, loudly and quietly.

Part of it is cultural, because we still have a sick and twisted attitude that women are the only caregivers and that men who want to give to children are not "really" men -- and the only way to kill that notion is one by one, man by man, day by day.

Word.

I think it's all about the delivery

Rather than the message. If you're antagonistic far less people are going to give whatever you say any merit.

But antagonistism is so much more fun! however it does leave one feeling soiled in the long run.