I would think that the virginity loss hook up would be one time you wouldn't want the biggest dick you could find.

Well, some virgins are more familiar with their own vaginas than others.

Obviously she was basically raped, because she was drunk.

Everyone calls him Ogre? That is hurtful and sad.

@LAME I'm assuming that's addressed to me. If right, obviously you're a moron who hasn't read (or at least, hasn't understood) half of my posts.

Actually I thought she was raped since she didn't see his nuts. This shows a lack of sufficient affirmation! One can't consent to what she can't see and any and all from of sex in the absence of consent are rape. **** Will EC ever realize that she has confused one flavor of consent for consent itself? I think not!

If a person is familiar enough with sex to know that they want a big dick for the 'first time', I think this is evidence that the term 'virgin' is not really applicable!

All this talk of rape is ludicrous. If she were drunk and crashed a car she would be guilty of murder. She cannot blame the alcohol and claim immunity. If she is drunk and has sex, then she has sex. Period

You're both wrong. Obviously she was raped because this man had a penis, making him part of the evil patriarchy.

@BJC It's called foreplay. The more aroused you are the less it's going to hurt. I was with a big guy my first time and it didn't hurt at all. @EC Exactly. I think a lot of women would have a more enjoyable first time if they were better aquainted with their vaginas.

Yes, right on MMK. You hear her, ladies? Acquaint yourselves with your vaginas this instant. Report back on what you find.

is anyone even going to talk about the story? what was with the demented spelling ('innocense'?? really?) and random use of the word deficient? this is one of the worst ones ever in this series! it was like a cosmo confessions story. *dry retches*

ok we cant say raped because she tells it like she went in wanting to have sex. plus a first timers got alot on her mind than to count his balls! however i will say its only drunken sex when ur both hammered, if not then someone is being taken advantage of. and thats never ok!

EC, I'm sure the comment is targeted at you. Your carrying the topic over from one post to the next (actually trying to continue the conversation about an old post in the forum for the new one) is wearying.

Yes EC, it was about you. But nothing personal, I just repeated it because I found it hilarious that every time one of these stories is posted, it seems like someone (most often you) claims it was rape. So I figured I'd say so before you got the chance. Tell me I'm wrong. She was drunk, so this was rape, right?

Actually, when she is drunk and I am not I usually feel like the one being taken advantage of.

All you would have to do is stop moaning and making eye contact in that situation and EC will call up the district attorney and report a rape!!

LAME, Actually, I only claimed it was rape one time. The other time I said it was ambiguous, and that was only after someone else brought it up. So in fact, BOTH of the posts in which I commented on the issue of rape, I was not the one who started the topic. I commented on a third thread because I realized SOMEONE had gone back and posted a shit-long post on one of the old threads, and I hadn't seen it for awhile, but it was pretty dour stuff and I felt a need to respond.

First off, NN, you clearly don't know how the legal system works. Only the victim has the ability to report a rape. So if she doesn't feel it's rape, nothing is going to happen. Second of all, if she was laying their silently staring off at the wall, then yeah, I'd say something could be a bit off.

"This shows a lack of sufficient affirmation! One can't consent to what she can't see and any and all from of sex in the absence of consent are rape." And finally, I know you're just trolling at this point, and I don't know why I even bother responding to someone who finds rape hilarious, but, you're using the term "affirmative" totally incorrectly here, which sort of makes it difficult to know what you think you're talking about.

But can't you see that laying there and staring could be just unenthusiastic sex and not rape? If I decide to just go ahead with it because I feel guilty for leading a guy on, I might just lay there and be unenthusiastic, but that isn't rape. That is what is so weird about your definition of rape: you want everyone to consent in this very specific way and that means that the sex can only really take place between to fully enthusiastic partners. Also when you place all the burden for figuring out whether consent is occurring on the male you change is mindset. He always thinks about being an 'accidental rapist' (which is pretty close to being an oxymoron) and this changes his thoughts about sex too, not to mention his partner's ( who is basically being treated like a potential victim). This is all just too implausible, you seem to want sex to fit some ideal that you have in mind but it aint like that. We all fuck for different reasons in different ways, you communicate consent in the way you want and the rest of us can keep having reluctant sex, or trade shitty sex for money or drugs or even be really inhibited but just surrender oneself to a strong man - none of these lack consent just cause I don't feel like being very vocal and affirmative about what is happening!

"But can't you see that laying there and staring could be just unenthusiastic sex and not rape? If I decide to just go ahead with it because I feel guilty for leading a guy on, I might just lay there and be unenthusiastic, but that isn't rape" Well, if you don't think it's rape, it's not going to be reported as rape, so it's not going to matter. But it sounds pretty damn sad, whatever it is. "Also when you place all the burden for figuring out whether consent is occurring on the male " That is a negative. If a male just lies there still and silent, he is not giving affirmative consent either. "and the rest of us can keep having reluctant sex, or trade shitty sex for money or drugs or even be really inhibited but just surrender oneself to a strong man - none of these lack consent just cause I don't feel like being very vocal and affirmative about what is happening!" Gee, you're right, your way is so much better! But seriously, the point of using affirmative consent as the determiner isn't to punish people who are inhibited and want sex, it's to provide extra protection to people who might feel too afraid to say "no." It's the idea that there are always going to be some miscommunications, and protecting people from harm (the kind of psychological harm that lasts years and impedes success in other areas of life) should be what we prioritize.

You rapey guys and girls, EC and Lame and whoever, are making the comments sections very boring and hard to read. Please stop responding to each other.

If the point is to protect the weak by beefing up what counts as consent for everyone then you have treated mature women as potential victims and forced a kind of victim's mentality on them. But the more pressing worry is that 'affirmative consent' doesn't go far enough to provide that 'extra protection'. After all any girl too intimidated to say no, assuming your standards are widely promulgated, may very well also be a girl who will fake affirmation because she is intimidated. *** Finally I would like to point out that you are engaging in some subtle equivocation. Originally you were willing to call something rape if it met your definition. But now you are saying it isn't rape unless it gets reported as such and cognized as such by the 'victim'. But this is actually inconsistent with your first definition since a great many sex acts that do not include affirmative consent will never be thought of as rape by either party and certainly won't be reported to police. In this way then you seem to have pretty clearly shown that while sex lacking the very specific kind of consent you demand may be sad or not as good as other sex or whatever it doesn't always rise to the level of rape. Moreover your willingness to treat each party as either potential victim or potential perpetrator does a great deal to destroy the joy and spontaneity of sex and so also foists a kind of harm on us all that is only justified by a desire to protect the few unwilling to speak up for themselves. Most people consider that price too high.

"If the point is to protect the weak by beefing up what counts as consent for everyone then you have treated mature women as potential victims and forced a kind of victim's mentality on them. " Currently, we're living in a culture with a lot of Tucker Max's who think it's acceptable to pressure a girl until she stops saying no or get her drunk and take advantage of her. It happens pretty d*mn often, that is the reality we are living in. And women feel guilty if they think they've led a guy on, or they feel it's their fault for the way they dressed or whatever, so they're not going to think of it as rape. Talking about affirmative consent on the other hand, teaches guys that sex is not about getting a girl to stop saying no, it's about waiting for a partner who is as enthusiastic about having sex with him as he is about hitting it with her. Can't you see how that would be beneficial? There are perhaps two definitions of rape: what I'd consider moral rape, and legal rape. We've been using them here interchangeably, and I haven't been the only one guilty of that. But when guys come on kvetching about the possibility of false accusations, I've been referring to the legal one, because that's all that really matters in that case. "Moreover your willingness to treat each party as either potential victim or potential perpetrator does a great deal to destroy the joy and spontaneity of sex and so also foists a kind of harm on us all that is only justified by a desire to protect the few unwilling to speak up for themselves. Most people consider that price too high." It's not about people being unwilling to speak up for themselves. Again, there are many, many different circumstances. But between 1 in 4 and 1 in 6 women in this country have been raped, a statistic acknowledged even by our government. Worldwide it's between 1 in 2 and 1 in 3. I consider THAT price too high.

But all your definition does is put a different goal in place for the Tucker Maxs. Now they think all I have to do is sweet talk me into thinking it is a good idea rather than badger me into merely dropping opposition. That doesn't look like much of an improvement. That said, I am also confused about what you say here "And women feel guilty if they think they've led a guy on, or they feel it's their fault for the way they dressed or whatever, so they're not going to think of it as rape." It seems like all you have described is a kind of shitty seduction not rape. In fact earlier you said that rape happens when a girl thinks it happens. But if I feel guilty for leading a guy on (and I think I should) and so give in to some pressure to have sex, I haven't been raped. All that is happened is I have made a crappy choice under pressure. Rape is such a big deal that I hope you are not proposing to redefine any acquiescence under pressure as rape. That is totally anti-female because it implies that women are not able to make choices freely and so any choice made where one feels pressure is not a choice at all. I'm teaching my daughter to be aware of her choices and desires and be vocal about them. I'm also teaching her to recognize that sometimes choices are hard and come with crappy consequences. What I fear is your vision of women as potential victims rides roughshod over my attempt to make her secure and autonomous. On your view she thinks it is someone else's job to figure out what she wants, not her job to express it and she comes to think that if she made a choice under less than ideal circumstances and doesn't like the consequences she can take it back and foist the consequences on someone else. That teaches her to be a victim instead of a responsible and self-aware woman- an equal. *** What I see happening if you got your way is not any real reduction in rape at all. There would just be a different form of pressure on us to have sex. Instead of guys getting us to stop demuring, they would just pressure us in other ways. Big girls(i.e real feminists) can handle male sexuality because they see themselves as equal to men. Your women still see all men as responsible for figuring out what they want and as a kind of rapist if they put pressure on them. That, to me, is infantilizing to women and perpetuates the fucked up gender dynamic that got us into this mess!

EC, you destroy all your credibility when you throw around debunked rape statistics. First the federal government does NOT recognize the one in 4 statistic, I challenge you to show official govt websites that do. Second, that statistic has been throughly debunked in the 25 years since it was first reported. Apparently the women's studies where you are a grad student does not cultivate intellectual honesty. https://aspiringeconomist.com/index.php/2009/09/11/rape-statistics-1-in-4/

Oops, I posted that just now, not NN

The website you link to defines rape as "Most statutes currently define rape as nonconsensual oral, anal, or vaginal penetration of the victim by body parts or objects using force, threats of bodily harm, or by taking advantage of a victim who is incapacitated or otherwise incapable of giving consent" not as a lack of affirmative consent. All you can do is spin tired and traditional gender theory that treats women as victims and you end up telling people that they kind of sex they have is 'stupid'. Get off your high horse! If you think your group can make policy go on and try. But it is pretty clear that even in the most sexually liberated of Internet enclaves you can't get your ideas to pass muster.

I've never said affirmative consent was written into law. I said it is now in the rules of a lot of colleges and universities, it is supported by a lot of advocacy organizations, and I believe in a couple of decades it will be written into law. Stop blaming me for your ignorance and the fact you haven't read all of my posts. And Hooksexup is SO not the most sexually liberated internet enclave (I know it tries to be that, but I consider it pretty mainstream in a lot of ways)

Also, I'm not calling women victims, I am calling upon women to be assertive in sexual situations. I'm calling upon mothers to teach their daughters to say "yes" when they want it. If it's clear when a woman wants it, then a man can't argue he was just "confused" when he "accidentally" rapes her when she wasn't acting enthusiastic about sex, or thought she "didn't really mean no," or any of those old cultural tropes.

Wtf, where did my post that linked to the government site go? Here it is again: "The most recent and methodologically rigorous studies show that sexual assault still occurs at rates that approximate those first identified more than 20 years ago when Koss, Gidycz, and Wisiewski [6], reported that approximately 27.5% of college women reported experiences that met the legal criteria for rape." https://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/topics/crime/rape-sexual-violence/welcome.htm

He should have done her in the ass

There is nothing to debate. All you definition does is shift the full weight of responsibility for obtaining consent on the man by sticking him with the dire consequences of not doing so. In the meantime it reduces any responsibility on the part of the women for speaking up and making herself heard. It does this by removing any consequences and personal responsibility for not doing so. To the extent that it does that it sends the message that women find it too difficult to find the voice to say 'no' and absolves them of any responsibility for doing so. We get it! Enough all ready. You think this is all right because of the trauma of rape, but when laid out like this, few people are going to think it is anything but a double standard. "Women as capable as men, except when it comes to saying 'NO!'."

It doesn't put the responsibility on men for women's consent. What it does is change the definition of consent, for BOTH men and women, to 'the presence of "yes"' as opposed to 'the absence of "no."' Again, if a guy is just laying still and silent, I would not presume that a woman should try and have sex with him (unless that's what he's into and they've had some previous conversation letting her know that is the case). And vice versa. And stop calling it "my definition." Because again, it's the definition currently used by a lot of colleges and universities and a lot of advocacy groups, so clearly I'm not the only one who sees the logic in it.

Fair enough. In your language then: The non-standard-definition-currently-in-favor among-advocacy-groups-and-a-minority-of-university-campuses-has-the-following-effects: it raises the bar with respect to what counts as consent. By requiring a person to actively voice consent rather than merely not object to what is happening and by defining anything other than this as rape, it has the result of shifting the burden of responsibility to the 'active' partner in such a way that a person who was unwilling but who did not say 'no' would be absolved of any blame or consequence for failing to voice her attitude. It also has the effect of redefining into rape a great many sexual encounters that would, if not for the proposed definition, otherwise not be considered rape. Although the author of the proposal denies that it treats all women as potential victims she readily admits that it is intended to "it's to provide extra protection to people who might feel too afraid to say "no."" and in so doing seems to treat a woman that is too fearful to say 'no' as the most significant player in the policy proposal. If I have left anything out please let us know, but I still say this is a bullshit double standard that will never make into policy using democratic methods!

Ha Ha!! "No" means No, but also silence means No and a lack of sufficient eye contact, enthusiasm and writhing should also be construed as a "no"! Now EC will tell me I'm stupid and I don't care enough about teh rape victims!