[philwelch]

> and one could argue that "sex without a condom" with a naked woman already in bed with you by her own will is not rape, certainly

If one was a misogynist who thought women lost their basic human rights as soon as their clothes were off, one could certainly argue that.

[shrughes]

You can make statements about non-explicitly authorized "wake-up sex" in either gender direction. The fact that we're talking about one particular direction does not make one a misogynist.

You seem quite eager to call people misogynists. It sounds to me like you enjoy it.

[mkramlich]

if one were a rude asshole, one would make the comment you just made

[philwelch]

The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent is pure misogyny. It outright justifies rape. I'm not going to give you a pass on making comments like that out of politeness. Ideas like that need to be called out for what they are.

[mkramlich]

> The notion that once a woman is naked and in someone's bed, they have the right to do whatever they want to her regardless of her consent

I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.

> It outright justifies rape.

I never said that. Quote me where I said that. Again, you can't.

I'm very careful with my wording. You are probably falling into the trap of getting emotional about something that wasn't said, something that lives only in your own mind. Unfortunately this is one of those topics that never fails to draw people out who commit that kind of mistake.

Also, I'd love to meet you sometime for a friendly coffee somewhere. Always good to meet fellow HN'ers, and as a bonus we can clear up any misunderstandings.

[philwelch]

> I never said that. Quote me where I said that. You can't.

I never claimed you did say that. But you introduced the notion as something "one could argue", and the only thing I'm attacking is that notion, not you personally. That's more than you can say for yourself, incidentally.

That you took it personally says far more about you than it does me. When one puts forward a notion on the basis of "one could argue", sometimes it means it's a notion they're not especially attached to but they think is worthy of consideration. Other times, it means they're evading personal criticism for believing in that notion. In the first case, one would not feel so worked up and personally attacked by having the notion criticized; in the second case, they would. Your reaction, I'm afraid, has given you away.

[Steko]

"But you introduced the notion as something"

You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says.

[philwelch]

In context, the notion put forward is this: it's arguably not rape to have unprotected sex with someone who refuses consent to have unprotected sex with you, as long as you've already got them naked and in bed with you. I'm not sure you can classify that notion as a harmless technicality. And if you leave out the part about the woman refusing consent, then it's a non-sequitur anyway.

[mkramlich]

> You keep spooning these words into his mouth but no he didn't ever say them. You think they are equivalent to what he said but they are not. What he said was 'X is arguably not rape'. That doesn't mean 'X is ok'. That means exactly what it says.

BINGO. thank you. there are other intelligent, sane people on this website.