[Nightmare]

	Originally Posted by Saggita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes it is. Consent isn't permanent. One can withdraw it any given time. Doesn't matter if the partner is halfway through orgasm.

I disagree. If you have given consent for entry, you essentially provide the 'okay' for the entire act. And it's kind of hard for a guy to.... move? ... mid-orgasm anyway...

Indulging in sex is an adult decision. If you cannot commit to such an adult decision the entire course of the act, you shouldn't be doing it. Consent isn't permanent, yes, but not on the scale you're thinking of.

[Seriously]

	Originally Posted by Nightmare To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I disagree. If you have given consent for entry, you essentially provide the 'okay' for the entire act. And it's kind of hard for a guy to.... move? ... mid-orgasm anyway... Indulging in sex is an adult decision. If you cannot commit to such an adult decision the entire course of the act, you shouldn't be doing it. Consent isn't permanent, yes, but not on the scale you're thinking of.

Seriously? lol shove him the fuck off you and see how quickly he can move. I agree that keeping going after you are already engaged in penetrative sex doesn't qualify as rape in my personal opinion but to say you can't stop is just stupid.

[Nightmare]

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Seriously? lol shove him the fuck off you and see how quickly he can move. I agree that keeping going after you are already engaged in penetrative sex doesn't qualify as rape in my personal opinion but to say you can't stop is just stupid.

Seriously: seriously? <- I lol'd

I never said one cannot stop, but it is incredibly difficult to.

[Seriously]

	Originally Posted by Nightmare To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Seriously: seriously? <- I lol'd I never said one cannot stop, but it is incredibly difficult to.

Life can be incredibly difficult sometimes.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Moth]

	Unless you're a blushing virgin, which this girl was not, you can generally tell how close a man is to climax. There are exceptions but for the most part you can tell.

I'm no blushing virgin, but for the most part, I can't. Also, did you not say that both were drinking, something that might have reduced the precision of her awareness?

In both cases an innocent man is accused of rape. A charge which can and often does ruin his life. Working in the legal system I have a serious issue with someone being convicted based on eyewitness testimony alone. In one case you have the legal system imposing a sentence on someone who didn't commit a crime and in the other you have someone potentially having a sentence imposed who did not commit a crime.

Right. However, you posted it in response to another link discussing how difficult it is to quantify false accusations, which had in mind those where no rape had actually occurred, as if to refute it. The example you yourself gave is not clearly false in that sense, either, just impossible to prove.

I was also previously aware of the study you posted, and aware of its being often and clearly misused by Men's Rights slacktivists as "hard proof" of women lying about rape, despite most of the women in the report not seeming to have lied about their rapes having happened. Admittedly that has made me cautious about seeing it cited in ambiguous ways.

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I have an issue with this. Isn't entering already giving consent of sex? At what point is the line drawn? Just because he finished? What if he pumped three more times after she said stop but didn't finish? Is that considered rape?

To the first question, no. Again, there is absolutely no good reason that I can think of to conceive of sex as a package deal rather than an activity that you continuously opt in or out of via participation, like, say, basketball. It would even be unsafe to do so: it's quite easy for sex to become painful for either partner in such a way as to necessitate its ending, if only momentarily. Whether someone finishes or not is irrelevant. What matters is that they kept going after non-consent was expressed, not only because it could have caused their partner physical distress, but because it violated that person's bodily autonomy, which is pretty foundational to, and unassailable in, most modern legal structures. It's their body, not yours. They get to say what happens to it, not you. Letting you penetrate them does not effectively make them your penetration slave for however long you decide it should go on.

On the exact time limit for ceasing intercourse:

	"How long is too long" to take to cease intercourse is often left to juries to decide, wisely or unwisely. It would be nice to see a more concrete look taken at that aspect of it.

That determining a reasonable amount of time is left to judge or jury is not actually atypical for legislation, which often intentionally or unintentionally leaves room for some improvisational decision-making. However, proving and prosecuting a case where a man "pumped three more times" or one like it, even if it were to technically be considered rape (many judges/juries, under many circumstances, probably would not see it that way), would most likely be incredibly hard. The difficulty of that provides quite of bit of safety buffer for those worried that they might come under fire from a similar rape accusation. Though I kind of figure it's simpler just to stop immediately if you hear "stop."

	If you have given consent for entry, you essentially provide the 'okay' for the entire act.

Entry does not imply or reveal what the "entire act" will consist of, feel like, how long it will last, etc. Why would I agree to something the content of which I cannot predict? What is innate about sex, as opposed to other kinds of agreements and engagements, that would make it a given that I am agreeing to whatever happens after initial penetration, even if I can't be reasonably, or was not explicitly, informed about the specifics of it, or did not explicitly agree to tolerate the duration as per my partner's wishes? I suppose my partners and I could provide elaborate lists of dos and don'ts to one another for notarized signing, but that would kill the spontaneity for both of us. It's probably just better (and more convenient) to pay attention to the "I don't want that"s of the moment.

[JustMel]

	Originally Posted by Moth To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm no blushing virgin, but for the most part, I can't. Also, did you not say that both were drinking, something that might have reduced the precision of her awareness?

Okay.. Most women I have ever associated with can and generally do know. I can tell and always have been able to except the first two or three times. Subtle cues. There are times when it's a surprise but those have been when it surprised him too.

Originally Posted by Moth To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Right. However, you posted it in response to another link discussing how difficult it is to quantify false accusations, which had in mind those where no rape had actually occurred, as if to refute it. The example you yourself gave is not clearly false in that sense, either, just impossible to prove. I was also previously aware of the study you posted, and aware of its being often and clearly misused by Men's Rights slacktivists as "hard proof" of women lying about rape, despite most of the women in the report not seeming to have lied about their rapes having happened. Admittedly that has made me cautious about seeing it cited in ambiguous ways.

I probably shouldn't have used that particular link when in discussion about false reporting but I believe that false reporting leads to false imprisonment.

I've seen it used that way too and the article that led me to it talked about how it is misused. There are reports that say the false reporting is somewhere between 8% and 80+% so it's difficult to find statistics. In our county it's around 26% just from knowing law enforcement, working for an attorney that's also a prosecutor (in one municipality) and a judge (in another municipality) and the counseling I do.

[SeverusSin]

Originally Posted by firebee To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This also fails to answer my question -- which, for reference, was: I would like an answer to this question, not a passive-aggressive whine about how you guess you'll just do nothing to prevent yourself be bullied and stolen from beyond demanding it, or a reiteration of your earlier statement that women should learn to let other people put their hands on them. Please tell me what martial art teaches its practitioners that they should permit other people to intrude on their personal space to avoid "awkward and negative" interactions or that "touching is required for human communication, get over it". ---------- Post added 05-22-2012 at 01:02 PM ---------- And, I'll add -- I have a second degree black belt in Hapkido. I've also intermittently studied Tae Kwon Do, SCA rapier, and handgun shooting, and I know people who have studied a great many other arts. So we can cross these off the list as potential answers to my question, let's say.

Huh? When did I claim that Martial Arts teaches women that? I swear I simply said Martial Arts is good for building up internal confidence which helps in that it prevents people "lashing out" uncontrollably and exacerbating a potentially harmless situation. I've done Karate and a few others and a running theme is non-violent response to confrontation. This is obvious, I don't know why you insist to constantly and seemingly intentionally misinterpreting my replies in an attempt to invalidate or demean my opinions. Oh well, I guess that's what happens when you get on these types of forums eh, I don't really need you to fully understand I'm sure there are others who have picked up what I mean.

[Saggita]

	I swear I simply said Martial Arts is good for building up internal confidence which helps in that it prevents people "lashing out" uncontrollably and exacerbating a potentially harmless situation.

This is the problem with your whole argument, really. We should teach people to respect other people's boundaries, instead of telling the people who have this boundaries trespassed to not exacerbate a harmless situation. The point is: no one can tell when is an innocent situation. Yes, not even you.

Especially because when one considers touch to be something to get over it, instead of considerating personal wishes and desires. Is a very dangerous logic, which leads to victim blaming and is the embryo logic of rape culture. There's no need to "lash out" if the one disrespecting the boundary backs off immediately or even better, asks your consent first, I assure you that.

[Seriously]

Originally Posted by SeverusSin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Huh? When did I claim that Martial Arts teaches women that? I swear I simply said Martial Arts is good for building up internal confidence which helps in that it prevents people "lashing out" uncontrollably and exacerbating a potentially harmless situation. I've done Karate and a few others and a running theme is non-violent response to confrontation. This is obvious, I don't know why you insist to constantly and seemingly intentionally misinterpreting my replies in an attempt to invalidate or demean my opinions. Oh well, I guess that's what happens when you get on these types of forums eh, I don't really need you to fully understand I'm sure there are others who have picked up what I mean.

I've taken Krav Maga and Thai and kick boxing and I guess I've had somewhat of a different experience. True it gives you more confidence but you have also been taught to react quickly. People who sneak up on me are more likely to get a nasty surprise because I've been taught to protect myself first and foremost. And IMO the confidence I have now makes me apt to be a little more agressive physically than the average woman who hasn't had any training. AND the one thing they have always stressed in the classes I have taken (and maybe this is because I'm a woman) is that the first mistake you make is in letting someone you shouldn't into your personal space, that's when they can overpower or hurt you.

That said I've found my words are sufficient to keep people at a distance without having to resort to getting physical.

[Zhen]

i usually duck out of the way or if it is familiar people that i know i might even hit them away! pretty much the male friends that know you tend to do it if they know it annoys you or you don't like it. It would be best to just ignore it and don't negatively react...but it's hard!

someone needs to make a shirt that says "KEEP YOUR DIRTY LITTLE PAWS TO YOURSELF!" lol

[SeverusSin]

Originally Posted by Saggita To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is the problem with your whole argument, really. We should teach people to respect other people's boundaries, instead of telling the people who have this boundaries trespassed to not exacerbate a harmless situation. The point is: no one can tell when is an innocent situation. Yes, not even you. Especially because when one considers touch to be something to get over it, instead of considerating personal wishes and desires. Is a very dangerous logic, which leads to victim blaming and is the embryo logic of rape culture. There's no need to "lash out" if the one disrespecting the boundary backs off immediately or even better, asks your consent first, I assure you that.

The thing is, what I said earlier was that is the thinking behind mitigating theft, i.e. locking of doors, keeping expensive items concealed. Its been expressed in so many area in this forum and by people who work with rape victims, that the majority of rape victims know their attackers personally, thus are probably desensitized to their touch. This means that irrationally lashing out isn't a response that mitigates the majority of potential rape. Whereas Krav Maga might, see below.

Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I've taken Krav Maga and Thai and kick boxing and I guess I've had somewhat of a different experience. True it gives you more confidence but you have also been taught to react quickly. People who sneak up on me are more likely to get a nasty surprise because I've been taught to protect myself first and foremost. And IMO the confidence I have now makes me apt to be a little more agressive physically than the average woman who hasn't had any training. AND the one thing they have always stressed in the classes I have taken (and maybe this is because I'm a woman) is that the first mistake you make is in letting someone you shouldn't into your personal space, that's when they can overpower or hurt you. That said I've found my words are sufficient to keep people at a distance without having to resort to getting physical.

The difference between having the training and not having the training is that you KNOW for a fact you can defend yourself. This automatically puts you in a different bracket to those perpetually angry and awkward "Don't even look at me or I'll break your nose" types who clearly can't even fight to defend themselves.

Thanks for the reasonable and respectful responses. I actually am in agreement with the statements I've highlighted in bold. Its not about any extremes on either side. I also do not speak of touching as inherently related to rape, seems like a lot of women on the forum have this kind of associative baggage, not judging merely observing.

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by SeverusSin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	This automatically puts you in a different bracket to those perpetually angry and awkward "Don't even look at me or I'll break your nose" types who clearly can't even fight to defend themselves.

Which isn't surprising, given that their limbs are made of straw. But how is it that someone who is incapable of fighting needs to learn how to fight so that they can avoid the "awkwardness" of, apparently, getting into fights with every sweet and innocent man who makes eye contact?

(Also, it's kind of funny that you seem to be telling this to a crowd of female martial artists.)

The way you're framing the situation, in addition to being laughably implausible (An epidemic of women whose lack of confidence is causing them to be too confrontational in interpersonal interaction? Whut??), is treating the expectation of having one's person respected as if it is a neurosis that is subordinate to other people's desire to put their paws on whatever body they care to (and if you don't like it, "get over it"). It also recapitulates the social rule of "Don't make trouble, don't be rude, don't make other people uncomfortable" that, in the real world, causes a great many women serious problems.

This sort of hlep, we do not need.

[SeverusSin]

I've never once said anyone should be free to put their hands on whom they would like. Don't try it, I can see the intentional misinterpretation running rampant once again.

A lot of my views on this have been expressed as devil's advocate. It originally just meant to highlight that if I responded to touches how these women respond to touches, I'd be in jail. I might equally want to uphold my own boundaries for fear of rape or whatever...

[firebee]

	Originally Posted by SeverusSin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I've never once said anyone should be free to put their hands on whom they would like.

You need to change your password. Someone is getting into your account and posting this:

	Originally Posted by SeverusSin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That is as opposed to saying men shouldn't touch, get real, touching is required for human communication, get over it.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by Moth To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To the first question, no. Again, there is absolutely no good reason that I can think of to conceive of sex as a package deal rather than an activity that you continuously opt in or out of via participation, like, say, basketball. It would even be unsafe to do so: it's quite easy for sex to become painful for either partner in such a way as to necessitate its ending, if only momentarily. Whether someone finishes or not is irrelevant. What matters is that they kept going after non-consent was expressed, not only because it could have caused their partner physical distress, but because it violated that person's bodily autonomy, which is pretty foundational to, and unassailable in, most modern legal structures. It's their body, not yours. They get to say what happens to it, not you. Letting you penetrate them does not effectively make them your penetration slave for however long you decide it should go on. On the exact time limit for ceasing intercourse: That determining a reasonable amount of time is left to judge or jury is not actually atypical for legislation, which often intentionally or unintentionally leaves room for some improvisational decision-making. However, proving and prosecuting a case where a man "pumped three more times" or one like it, even if it were to technically be considered rape (many judges/juries, under many circumstances, probably would not see it that way), would most likely be incredibly hard. The difficulty of that provides quite of bit of safety buffer for those worried that they might come under fire from a similar rape accusation. Though I kind of figure it's simpler just to stop immediately if you hear "stop."

Yes but I feel like sexual intercourse occurs at entry. So if rape is saying I did not consent to sex, then you actually did b/c you consented to the entry. I'm just being technical about it. I agree if someone says stop, then you should stop.

[Moth]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Yes but I feel like sexual intercourse occurs at entry. So if rape is saying I did not consent to sex, then you actually did b/c you consented to the entry. I'm just being technical about it. I agree if someone says stop, then you should stop.

You're misguided about the technicalities, then. Sexual intercourse does not "occur at entry" in a way that it doesn't occur continuously throughout the remainder of the session. Sexual intercourse is the entire process, the entire interactivity, of having sex. All of it, each individual moment from beginning to end, is sexual intercourse/sex, in the same way that walking from point A to point B is "walking" for the duration and not just "walking" at the first step. If you consent to penetration you've consented to the penetration and, reasonably, to the sex that occurs up until you express non-consent. Any sexual intercourse, any immediate continuation of that session, that happens after and despite your expressing non-consent? That would be sex that you clearly did not consent to. In saying that you were raped, you would be saying that you did not consent to that (stretch of) sex specifically.

[curiousgeorge01]

It just sounds odd. Let's say someone asks did you consent to sex, the answer would be "yes up to a certain point?"

[Nightmare]

Originally Posted by Moth To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

You're misguided about the technicalities, then. Sexual intercourse does not "occur at entry" in a way that's discrete from the remainder of the sex. Sexual intercourse is the entire process, the entire interactivity, of having sex. All of it, each individual moment from beginning to end, is sexual intercourse/sex, in the same way that walking from point A to point B is "walking" for the duration and not just "walking" at the first step. If you consent to penetration you've consented to the penetration and, reasonably, to the sex that occurs up until you express non-consent. Any sexual intercourse, any immediate continuation of that session, that happens after and despite your expressing non-consent? That would be sex that you clearly did not consent to. Consent functions at the level of specific acts and instances, not ill-defined time periods.

Okay, I can accept that due to the ambiguity and non-linearity of sex. So then, can we come to an agreement?

When consent for sex is given, up until one participator says 'stop', the sexual activity is consensual. If a person says 'stop', and the other ignores such request, that should not be considered rape, but another term to describe that very situation. How about, 'refusal to comply with sexual cessation'? Rape means 'a crime, committed by a person, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with them, esp. by the threat or use of violence.' In this specific case of a person withdrawing their consent, since they'd originally consented, they should not be at all able to proclaim rape. So let's make such a situation less dramatic by labeling it as something other than rape, like 'withdrawl of consent'. This shouldn't have as substantial of legal punishments. After all, she did consent. Rape is totally non-consensual.

[curiousgeorge01]

Originally Posted by Nightmare To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Okay, I can accept that due to the ambiguity and non-linearity of sex. So then, can we come to an agreement? When consent for sex is given, up until one participator says 'stop', the sexual activity is consensual. If a person says 'stop', and the other ignores such request, that should not be considered rape, but another term to describe that very situation. How about, 'refusal to comply with sexual cessation'? Rape means 'a crime, committed by a person, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with them, esp. by the threat or use of violence.' In this specific case of a person withdrawing their consent, since they'd originally consented, they should not be at all able to proclaim rape. So let's make such a situation less dramatic by labeling it as something other than rape, like 'withdrawl of consent'. This shouldn't have as substantial of legal punishments. After all, she did consent. Rape is totally non-consensual.

Right, I find it odd they would call that rape and a rapist the poor guy who pumped 3 more times after she said stop. -=T

[AnnaMolly]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Right, I find it odd they would call that rape and a rapist the poor guy who pumped 3 more times after she said stop. -=T

How about a guy who after 10 minutes of having consensual sex tells her that he cheated on her with her sister, and then refuses to get off of her when she gets really angry and wants to stop having sex?

How about a guy who after 10 minutes of cuddly missionary gets out the handcuffs, ties her to the bed, whips her till her skin is sore and throatfucks her, all despite her clearly expressing non-consent?

Or, to give you a less "outlandish" example, how about a guy (or woman) who ignores the safeword in a BDSM session and just keeps going, despite the other person desperately screaming the safeword?

Or even simpler, what if something's suddenly really painful for her? Maybe she's starting to have her period in that moment and experiencing cramps or nausea, maybe she's getting a huge migraine, maybe she's got a bad cramp in her leg. She says "please stop, I'm hurting", but he keeps going and won't let her go?


All these examples, at least in my opinion, are clearly rape.

Non-consent is non-consent. Doesn't matter whether it's expressed before or after initial penetration. You act as if sex always stays exactly the same way as it begun, but conditions and circumstances may change during, and having sex with someone against their will is always heineous.

[Moth]

	Originally Posted by curiousgeorge01 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It just sounds odd. Let's say someone asks did you consent to sex, the answer would be "yes up to a certain point?"

That sex is only consented to up to a certain point is implied by the difficulty of specifying what precisely any sex session will eventually entail. If someone asked me if I consented to sex regarding a certain session, and I had consented to all of it, I would say "yes." This is because "sex" is colloquially used to stand in for "have sex," and because the specificity of the question implies the duration of the session, not because the word "sex" must necessarily refer to some ill-defined unit of time-spent-doing-it presumably ending in male orgasm. Similarly if someone asked me if I consented to walk (or "go on a walk") and I had consented to the duration of the walk in question, I would say "yes." If I had not consented to the duration of either, for whatever reason, I would in either case say "I consented to it up until yea point, after which it became non-consensual."

Originally Posted by Nightmare To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Okay, I can accept that due to the ambiguity and non-linearity of sex. So then, can we come to an agreement? When consent for sex is given, up until one participator says 'stop', the sexual activity is consensual. If a person says 'stop', and the other ignores such request, that should not be considered rape, but another term to describe that very situation. How about, 'refusal to comply with sexual cessation'? Rape means 'a crime, committed by a person, of forcing another person to have sexual intercourse with them, esp. by the threat or use of violence.' In this specific case of a person withdrawing their consent, since they'd originally consented, they should not be at all able to proclaim rape. So let's make such a situation less dramatic by labeling it as something other than rape.

No. Rape, as per the FBI's revised definition (again, implemented to better reflected national consensus regarding what should be considered "rape" for purposes of statistical measurement) is:

	Originally Posted by To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	“Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”

Penetration continued after non-consent has been clearly expressed is not consensual penetration. There is no reason why it cannot or should not been seen to meet the above criteria. What constitutes a reasonable amount of time for cessation is more contentious, but I'd guess that the poor guy who can't help but pump in sets of four probably would not be considered a rapist by either a court, or the woman.

[Seriously]

How about a guy who thinks he might have hurt his penis when she comes down hard but she continues right on pumping because hey he consented and she needs to get hers?

Or how about if during a blow job she keeps scraping her teeth on his dick and he says to stop but hey he initially consented so it's ok if she keeps going.

Consent stops when someone doesn't want to play anymore. It's their body and their right to say no and expect the other person to comply.

I can't believe this has to be explained to people. But I guess that is why there are laws, eh?

---------- Post added 05-24-2012 at 02:12 PM ----------

	but I'd guess that the poor guy who can't help but pump in sets of four probably would not be considered a rapist by either a court, or the woman.

I agree but the sad part is some dumbass on here will read this and take it to mean it's ok to keep going because some women on the internet said it wasn't rape. Instead of realizing that the best way to live your life it to treat other people the way you would want to be treated instead of trying to figure out technicalities to be a douche and get away with it.

[AnnaMolly]

Heh, I like your examples better than mine. They might make it easier for many men to get the point -- which in itself is messed up. The fact that something like this even needs explaining and some (probably a lot) of men lacking basic empathy towards women when it comes to sex, is making me sick in the stomach and wish I was a lesbian.

	Originally Posted by Seriously To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I agree but the sad part is some dumbass on here will read this and take it to mean it's ok to keep going because some women on the internet said it wasn't rape. Instead of realizing that the best way to live your life it to treat other people the way you would want to be treated instead of trying to figure out technicalities to be a douche and get away with it.

I can picture it ... he sits there, in front of his computer screen, carefully writing down "It appears that there is a consensus among females that getting in 4 more pumps after the woman in question has expressed that she wishes to stop the sexing session is still considered acceptable. 5 pumps, however, will for the average female be indicative of a rape having occured. Note to self: 4 pumps is the limit for the educated man who wants to cash in his well-earned and deserved right to orgasm but does not wish to be prosecuted and go to jail."

The sad thing is, I can actually picture that.

[RedN]

I only want to be touched by people I'm attracted to, otherwise I dont even want a hug or a pat just please dont touch me - I might consider a handshake though.

[Moth]

	I agree but the sad part is some dumbass on here will read this and take it to mean it's ok to keep going because some women on the internet said it wasn't rape. Instead of realizing that the best way to live your life it to treat other people the way you would want to be treated instead of trying to figure out technicalities to be a douche and get away with it.

Yes, I'm unfortunately very aware of that, too. I added the detail because I myself have experienced innocuous situations where a thrust or so happened just after (or while) I asked a partner to stop: in my case they did stop immediately after, apologized concernedly for having maybe taken even so much as a half-second too long, etc. I believe they would have met most people's standard for "reasonable time" and I didn't perceive it to be a violation. They took no more than a couple of seconds at most to stop, and immediate physical momentum or the message taking a small moment to sink in was the apparent cause. I also know that legally, similar situations put forward will tend to be interpreted as innocuous if only for lack of clear evidence to the contrary.

So the anxiety that some men have regarding the idea that if they go just a centimeter too far for any reason their partner will hate them and they'll be looking at a hard prison sentence is vastly overblown, which they ought to be made aware of for reasons up to and including their own peace of mind. However, I can also conceive of situations in which the man continues after a "stop" for no reason other than that he knows he can most likely get away with it and/or wants to push the boundary, in which case "rape" is a pretty accurate descriptor even if it's brief and prosecution is not possible.