Female salon owner keeps robber as sex slave, feeding him only Viagra

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

We need pictures of the salon owner in order to figure out what sort of lesson he learned.

[antikristuseke]

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...postcount=6468

HA! Beat you.

[kiwi_2005]

Rape!?

Why didn't He kick her in the nuts and run for it...

[Sailor Steve]

Umm...

[the_tyrant]

I still do not understand how a man can be raped
for it to be rape, the victim must not agree to it

but, considering that he has an erect penis, he must have agreed

unless umm, she ahhh used certain "toys" on his behind

[frau kaleun]

I still do not understand how a man can be raped
for it to be rape, the victim must not agree to it

but, considering that he has an erect penis, he must have agreed

unless umm, she ahhh used certain "toys" on his behind

You are confusing "rape" and "sexual assault" with "penetration."

There does not have to be physical penetration in order for unwanted sexual contact, i.e., sexual assault to occur.

He apparently claims that she force-fed him Viagra. Since I'm not familiar with exactly how the drug works I don't know for sure, but the contention seems to be that the Viagra caused him to have erections despite the fact that he had not consented nor was he willing to engage in sexual activity.

At any rate, outward signs of purely physical arousal are sometimes beyond the control of the individual and can occur even if there is no intention to engage in sexual activity and no willingness to do so. This is definitely true of female anatomy, where vaginal lubrication will sometimes occur even during unwanted and forced sexual contact in that area. It is the body's way of preparing and even protecting itself in the event of penetration and is not something that occurs because the individual "wills" it in accordance with consensual sexual activity.

Of course I don't have the male equipment so can't speak from experience on that score, but from what I've been told, involuntary boners are also a known phenomenon.

Also I'd like to point out that guys who talk about wanting some woman to abduct and "rape" them are confusing "getting raped" with "getting laid." THE FACT THAT YOU DESIRE IT TO HAPPEN MEANS IT IS NOT "RAPE" THAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I cannot stress that too emphatically. You are talking about consensual sexual activity. Yes I know that you are "joking" and I get the joke and while I do consider myself a feminist I certainly don't think I lack a sense of humor.

However the fact that men so easily fall into the habit of equating rape with some kind of fervently wished-for consensual sexual encounter is somewhat disturbing. It's both a result of, and a perpetuation of, so many BS stereotypes about men, women, and sex that I can't even list them all here and unfortunately it's a small part of the overall mindset that plays a part in so many assaults by men on women.

Not trying to call anyone out or anything, just offering up some food for thought for those who don't seem to understand the "minority" POV being put forward by razark et. al.

[antikristuseke]

Would a kitchen related joke be out of line right now?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

Not trying to call anyone out or anything, just offering up some food for thought for those who don't seem to understand the "minority" POV being put forward by razark et. al.

I think most people here understand his point perfectly, it's just that the whole story satisfies many people's taste for grim black humour. The clichés of the always stronger male and the always inferior female is being turned ad absurdum, in a manner that pushes it all over the top, by that it turns from claimed drama (because I still think there is more to the story than what the man just claimed afterwards) into something that makes you wanting to laugh out in grim humour.

When a piano is being pushed out of the window and three floors down falls on top your head, you certainly would not find that funny, but if you see it being done by Laurel and Hardy, you laugh.

Honestly said, when reading that story, all I thought was "What an idiot that guy is." Beyond that, I stick with my initial statement: if he would not have attempted to abuse an - assumed - weaker victim as target for his crime
that he planned in the first, he would not have gotten into trouble. He exposed himself to the chance of getting burned, and so he got.

Sometimes you catch the bear - and sometimes the bear catches you. Don't like it? Then don't go after bears.