"it's not rape if you enjoy it"

During the Covington kids debacle, one of the kids (not a Covington student) is recorded saying the above. Now, I realize the feminist would go apeshit over the quote, but I honestly can't see anything illogical about the statement. How can it be rape if the person in question enjoyed it? What do Jow Forumsacks think?

Attached: download.jpg (1164x620, 119K)

As Andrea Dworkin laid out in her book "Intercourse", all PIV sex is rape, pure and simple:

>Therefore, women feel the fuck—when it works, when it overwhelms—as possession; and feel possession as deeply erotic; and value annihilation of the self in sex as proof of the man’s desire or love, its awesome intensity. And therefore, being possessed is phenomenologically real for women; and sex itself is an experience of diminishing self-possession, an erosion of self. That loss of self is a physical reality, not just a psychic vampirism; and as a physical reality it is chilling and extreme, a literal erosion of the body’s integrity and its ability to function and to survive. The physical rigors of sexual possession—of being possessed—overwhelm the body’s vitality; and while at first the woman is fierce with the pride of possession—he wants her enough to empty her out—her insides are worn away over time, and she, possessed, becomes weak, depleted, usurped in all her physical and mental energies and capacities by the one who has physically taken her over; by the one who occupies her. This sexual possession is a sensual state of being that borders on antibeing until it ends in death. The body dies, or the lover discards the body when it is used up, throws it away, an old, useless thing, emptied, like an empty bottle. The body is used up; and the will is raped.

I realize women can use the concept of consent to screw men over in court with false rape accusations but still this man is not wrong about if they enjoy it

You can enjoy something you don't want.
You can force a vegetarian to eat a hamburger, and they can like the flavour, but the experience is still bad for them.
The woman in question can get aroused and have pleasure in the act, but if she was forced she'll feel bad before she enjoys it, and she'll feel bad afterwards too.
It's like the way you feel after eating that seventh bag of cheetos.

>You can force a vegetarian to eat a hamburger, and they can like the flavour, but the experience is still bad for them.

Are you saying that a woman being raped can and do feel pleasure from the act?

Of course.
You can get your dick sucked and have an unwanted finger in your ass. You like the feel, but you don't like your body being unwantedly violated.

jewish garbage

>one of the kids (not a Covington student) is recorded saying the above.

No they weren't.

Women can reach orgasm during rape. It doesn’t mean that they want to, it can be just from pure physical stimulation. I bet it really fucks with them too associating the pleasure of an orgasm with the pain and shame from an attack.

Nice try faggot!
Share Blue Media Matters Jew faggots won’t fool us!
We Know AI can be made now to do your trickery! Go finish some of your Nasa space station videos for fucks sake!

Attached: 7FF57D50-0E8E-4FF5-A1CC-B2257C02A836.png (1024x491, 458K)

Women enjoy rape anyways, statistically speaking. Women orgasm more often during rape than normal consensual sex.

LUL bitch sounds like she had a bad one night stand that left her seething because chad wouldn't give her any more attention after he pumped and dumped.

rape is a social construct anyway so whatever.

She sounds mental

Eh, rape is moreso objective but the way we classify it and consider it taboo is a social construct.
Let me be clear, many women that claim rape just because it furthers their position does not mean that every time it is claimed it is actually rape. I can scream and stomp my feet about how my dick is 12 inches but in reality it’s 5.5’ on a good day. Rape itself is just sex that is forced on another person who was unwilling to give consent. That is objective. Like I said (I have to drive the point home because Jow Forums only takes things extremely literal) the way we classify “rape” is social construct, unconsenual sex is objective. And no, you can’t decide afterwards if it was actually unconsenual

>consent is objective

I may be laughing, but if you keep tickling me I'm going to kill you.

It’s binary. My argument is that the social construct is the interpretation of the 1 or 0, but you can’t argue that it was actually a 1 or a 0 in the same way you can’t argue that you’re a faggot. It’s objective.

Well I kinda wanna argue, but maybe I shouldn't.

truth

I was raped by my babysitter when I was like 9, she was much bigger than me and sucked my dick and made me feel her tits. I mean it felt good but the lingering knowledge of "oh my god someone who is bigger and stronger than me can do whatever they want to me" doesn't feel good at all.

nice

It’s hard to argue that 2+2 doesn’t equal 4

>You can enjoy something you don't want.
literal doublethink

>Andrea Dworkin
This is her?

Attached: 1024px-Dworkin_on_After_Dark.jpg (1024x901, 132K)

whynotboth?.jpeg

I have raped a couple of girls and even though they resisted and tried to struggle most of the way through I could still feel them getting wetter as it went on. The stimulation they feel is involuntary and the body just reacts on reflex. I have also had girls I know tell me in secret that the did have orgasms when they were raped but they were not huge orgasms. They were low yield enough to be able to hide their reactions from their attacker. I can only hope I cause the girls I raped to orgasm because that carries an emotional devastation that stays with them forever. In a way they are betrayed by their own stupid vaginas and think that they are naturally sluts if a rape made them orgasm.

Rape is just another word for intercourse with feels attached, it doesn't exist in the animal kingdom and likely for much of human history it didn't exist in ours either.

Attached: 1525221136467.jpg (736x837, 90K)

The thing is that you don't really have to think.
No it's not. 2+2=4 is just your opinion.

Nice

i am going to inject you with heroin now

saying you know whether or not someone enjoyed something implies supernatural knowledge of the mind of the someone
supernatural knowledge is not considered valid in a courtroom
>I know (s)he enjoyed it
how do you know
>I just know
how could you know how someone else feels
>I just know
how can you look inside someone else's head
>I just know
can you read someone's mind
>I just know
you're admitting you can read the mind of the other person
it is illogical to say that a court should accept testimony based on a supernatural ability
when we say
>I know someone enjoyed something
we don't expect this statement to hold up in a courtroom setting and it is more of a guess or an opinion rather than a statement of fact or reality
when I say
>I know someone enjoyed something
I'm not trying to influence the outcome of a court case, and I don't expect my words to be used in a courtroom context.
If I say
>you can't seek a legal remedy because of something that isn't admissible to a court
that isn't logical

what makes sense is to say
>you wouldn't call it rape if you enjoyed it
the fact that it was considered rape is dependent upon not enjoying it
you know someone didn't enjoy it because they went to the trouble to initiate legal proceedings
people don't go to that trouble when they enjoy something

I think it brings up an interesting conversation that many feminists would be utterly incapable of having.

no. I as a male have been semi-raped too raped by female women. and they were all sexual deviants.