Tasteful Rape Jokes

[mistermack]

I don't know any.

But if it wasn't for rape, none of us would be alive today, and that's a certain fact.
And it makes great margerine !!

[Cunt]

To paraphrase the great writer, "what would a respectful rape joke sound like"

[mistermack]

No means no.

That's a fucking joke.

[JimC]

"You look positively ravishing today, deer..."

(caution, bestiality is a crime in most jurisdictions...)

[Cunt]

No means no.

That's a fucking joke.

Not funny anymore.

It isn't enough anymore, either.

'No means no!' used to be the slogan of many hedonists who like to convene orgies. It used to be enough. Now I would say that has likely changed to 'Only YES means yes!'

Rightly so, in that context, by the way. I say so because I know more than one person who is pretty much unable to say no. One friend in particular, a woman, who would basically allow herself to be used as a pocket pussy before saying 'no', and having a conflict. She is a bit fucked up in the head, of course, and working on it. In the meantime, anyone who knew this could exploit this peccadillo and have sex with her. Wouldn't be convicted probably, too.

Life isn't black and white.

Anyway, I care about her, and don't want to see her exploited that way. I think most people would not like to see her exploited. For her, 'no means no' is not enough. I would offer her protection anyway, even though she is a bit fucky. What law can protect her though?

[mistermack]

When you offer them a drink, that's their chance to say no.

How can it be rape, when you've bought them a drink? The world's gone mad.

[pErvinalia]

Rape and bacon. That would be a tasty rape joke!

[mistermack]

Anyway, I care about her, and don't want to see her exploited that way. I think most people would not like to see her exploited.

Me included.
Have you got her phone number, or address?
I'd like to help her not to be exploited.

[Strontium Dog]

Jokes about anything, even rape, are fine, so long as they're actually funny.

For instance, "9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape", which is amusing because it subverts a statistical cliche.

I wouldn't recommend anyone other than a skilled comedian attempts jokes about rape. As we can see here, mistermack definitely should not give up the day job.

[Brian Peacock]

[Cunt]

Jokes about anything, even rape, are fine, so long as they're actually funny.

For instance, "9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape", which is amusing because it subverts a statistical cliche.

I wouldn't recommend anyone other than a skilled comedian attempts jokes about rape. As we can see here, mistermack definitely should not give up the day job.

Yeah. Just for that, I'm not giving him her number.

[MrJonno]

My grandfather died in a concentration camp

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

He fell out of a guard tower and broke his neck

(Bennard Manning)

[Forty Two]

No means no.

That's a fucking joke.

Not funny anymore.

It isn't enough anymore, either.

'No means no!' used to be the slogan of many hedonists who like to convene orgies. It used to be enough. Now I would say that has likely changed to 'Only YES means yes!'

Rightly so, in that context, by the way. I say so because I know more than one person who is pretty much unable to say no. One friend in particular, a woman, who would basically allow herself to be used as a pocket pussy before saying 'no', and having a conflict. She is a bit fucked up in the head, of course, and working on it. In the meantime, anyone who knew this could exploit this peccadillo and have sex with her. Wouldn't be convicted probably, too.

Life isn't black and white.

Anyway, I care about her, and don't want to see her exploited that way. I think most people would not like to see her exploited. For her, 'no means no' is not enough. I would offer her protection anyway, even though she is a bit fucky. What law can protect her though?

There is a difference, however, in being exploited and being raped. One can certainly care about a person and not want her to be exploited without calling every exploitation involving sex to be rape.

The notion that "only yes means yes" is a rather dangerous concept, from the standpoint of the criminal law. One, it means that there can be consent, but rape nevertheless occurred because nobody said yes. Two, it allows two people to rape each other because neither said yes. Three, it tends to infantalize women, because as applied, normally the "yes" only has to be uttered by the woman, and a man is presumed to consent just because he had sex. Four, it is essentially a shifting of the burden of proof to the accused, who then has to affirmative show that he obtained consent verbally, with a yes, or it is not validly legal consent (even if she did consent in actual fact, the yes wasn't there). Remaining silent would guarantee a conviction, because unless the woman testified that she uttered "yes" then he'd be toast.

Add to that the fact that the movement today is to not only say "yes means yes," but that the yes has to be continuous at every level of sexual interaction (whatever that actually means), so that, say, you need a yes to kiss her, and then a yes to put your hand on her, and then a yes to put your hand somewhere else, and at each "base" thereafter - there is no concrete definition of what each yes applies to, but since consent can be withdrawn even after it's given, just because she said yes to some tit-squeezing doesn't mean she wants you to keep squeezing it. She can withdraw consent, and if you did not get new consent before she withdrew it, then it's assault. Also, the yes must be enthusiastic and not hesitant or guarded. If she doesn't say "yes" in a way that let's you know she "really" wants it, and isn't just saying yes because she doesn't want to hurt your feelings, then it's not a real yes.

The long and short of it is, there is a movement afoot to pretty much make rape and sexual assault a guilt by accusation crime. "Women don't lie about rape and sexual assault," followed by the burden on the defendant to show consent as outlined above, and you are left with only a very tiny window of opportunity for a defendant to be acquitted. We believe the victim, and if he had treated her right she would never have said he raped or assaulted her. Since women don't lie about it, he raped her if she said he raped her.

And, as is shown on american colleges and universities these days, there is amovement to not even let accused people confront their accuser and present exculpatory evidence? Why? the evidence is always about the woman's pre and post incident conduct and statements, right? And, just because she didn't act like she had been raped, or just because her actions before the incident seemed as if she was pursuing him, etc., that kind of thing ought not be deemed relevant because "all women act differently in these situations, and just because the story may not have been told consistently or accurately and just because she may not have behaved in a way consistent with someone who had been assaulted, that has no relevance to the incident...."

[Cunt]

Perhaps true about the justice system, but I was talking about orgies.

I usually organize one a day. Mostly I am the only one who shows up, but I do it anyway!

[pErvinalia]

My grandfather died in a concentration camp

Trigger Warning!!!1! :

He fell out of a guard tower and broke his neck

(Bennard Manning)

Was he raped while he lay motionless on the ground under the tower?