Predator Poly Couples

Not open for further replies.
Manipulation and exploitation to get sex is rape full stop. Trying to dress it up to not sound so bad doesn't make it not rape. Your wife was raped, both during the BJ incident and by the other couple.

Also you have no way of knowing how much impact you may have had long term on the women that you manipulated into having sex with you while you were in high school and college. I assure you that being manipulated into sex with someone who you do not wish to have sex with has long term effects on you.

Derby-I love you!
One of my favorite quotes from my ex-husband, not long before we separated, was, "Why do we need to talk? We never talked before."

Um, yeah. And we're in such a great place now, aren't we? :rolleyes:

Oh yeah. And there was that too. He tried very hard to promote communication. Her way of pleasing him? To sit down with a sigh of resignation, and say, "okay let's do your talk thing,".
Yeah, it didn't come out clear

I'm afraid the more you post the more stunned I am. Hate for Franklin, and I'm not exactly a fan anyway, is just spewed! It doesn't matter WHAT the subject is, you bring it back. Get thee some help. You have too many conspiracy theories, too much hate, and think way too little of men to be constantly degrading them as a separate species to be at ALL healthy.

Seriously. I start to think that my own issues that I work very hard on are nothing and could be ignored for a long while when I read your posts. Just because the scale is so tilted with you.

Everything is all twisted in your posts, in your mind. It's horribly worrisome. I mean seriously? A woman can't rape a man except maybe by strap on because rape is ONLY about invasion of space?? You are reinventing the English language as you go and it's not working.

so I can see where you'd call it conspiracy, as I do tend to babble when topics hit close to home. Perhaps I should have written more clear.

So maybe this reply will answer a question for you too, Vinccenzo, because when I said something along the lines of

I might have trouble labeling a women inserting a man's erect penis into her, rape.

I really should have said, I cannot label a women inserting a man's erect penis into her rape. Mostly because it would have to happen, and then the man would have to honestly make that claim, that is was rape.

I don't believe it has ever happened that a man has believed he was raped, in a sexual act context, where he claims it was a woman who raped him and the acts that took place did not involve penetration of him, with something by the alleged rapist.

Are you sure you heard your friend right? did he really call rape? the situation that happens where a woman placed his erect penis inside her, so long as you are talking about a legal adult male, who was not awake and so he did not consent. And if you really have a friend or acquaintance who actually believes this, I now of some people who would be very interested in understanding his situation, and while they wouldn't promise him it would be lucrative as that has led to more fabricated information than not, if I were him I would get in touch with this group, because when they can tell you aren't bullshitting, they had accidentally revealed a little bit more of what it is exactly they are studying.

I am going to get in a lot of hot water for explaining it, but fuck em, these are important issues and I am not in it for money, but I will start another thread, because I can sympathize with Confused, and maybe understanding what I am doing a horrible job at explaining, will help him,

but all that is for another post, I just wanted to ensure you I didn't mean you were ignorant,

but maybe there are some realities you have trouble completely understand because you are not female, and therefore probably have never been raped. I think it more accurately they are just confused, at the core, deep, deep way down deep, further than one would think to know.

As it was once put by another: "they have no pain, like the fire they are pure they are not to blame"
Last edited:
I honestly (and I read it three times) don't know what you're trying to say here.

I'll take a stab at guessing.

Are you asking if I'm sure I heard my friend right and am I sure he actually said a woman raped him? If that is what you're asking then yes I am sure I heard him right and yes he did say it was a woman and that she raped him. I would say technically she attempted to rape him but she most certainly did molest/sexually assault him.
He had taken her back to his place since it was a first date and they'd met at the bar. He didn't know where her home was. He put her on his couch in the front room and then went to bed.
She's removed her own clothes and, naked, went into his room and straddled him while he slept. He woke in time before she got him fully inside her. He pushed her off and took a shower since she'd wiped her naked vagina on him plenty attempting to put him inside her. When he came back out she had passed out again on his bed. He took the couch.
In the morning she woke up naked in his bed. She dressed quickly and heading home. AND THEN TOLD PEOPLE HE RAPED HER.

SO yeah he was pretty traumatized, first sexually and then by character assassination because people believed it. People like you who can't imagine a guy could possibly not want to fuck every second of the day no matter the circumstance.
Last edited:
It bothers me to no end that this happens so often. Men being branded rapists because a girl got too drunk, tried stuff and then was embarrassed when she sobered up or when she was turned down and so cry rape. It pisses me off. Which is seriously not vehement enough. As someone that has dealt with rape, seeing it thrown around as a defense mechanism is just, ugggh. I want to stab people. In the face. IN. THE. FACE.
I want to stab people. In the face. IN. THE. FACE.

First, hahahaha, that is awesome.

Second, watching conversations like this take place makes me very uneasy. It makes me want to get a notarized letter of consent before I shake a girls hand.
I would damn near want a notarized letter of consent.

But-really-there is a difference between having sex drunk and then saying rape-and claiming that you take advantage of the option by getting someone else drunk.

Personally-I just don't have sex (with men or women) until I know that they want it sober. After that if we want to drink to our hearts content-so be it. But we're going to discuss it sober first.

(and the whole men can't be raped thing made me too green to even comment-men CAN be raped and they ARE raped)
Easy there my kindest, bestest friends

You still aren't hearing me, I am not saying that men can't be raped, I know damn well that they can be raped, and that women can be responsible from the act.

But it requires more than inserting the man's erect penis into her

as you all, in all your psychological and literary genius, seem to be missing the entire point, paradox if you will, that rape is NOT only a sexual crime.

It is also a crime of power and control, the idea that the perpetrator believes that because in that one specific instance, which is not perpetual and not a situation where the rapist temporary power lasts long, but never the less,
at that moment the perpetrator believes he has authority to enter a place that he has NO AUTHORITY to enter, as it is solely the owner of that space's decision, and nothing can ever make entrance to space OK, accept permission.

Sort of like an man's asshole and it never being OK for another to enter without his permission

It is about entering a space that is not only not-public, but so private that only the person whose body IS that space itself, and only that person can grant permission to enter.

So you twist what I say as much as you want, and I don't care if I am banned, but if you think anything that I wrote means that I don't understand that men don't always want to fuck during every second of every day, then you should read what I said again.

Because I am not being cryptic, I am not intending my words to have esoteric meaning, I am attempting to explain a principle which many people fail to understand

I can empathize with both people being raped and not having anyone believe them AND how it feels to be accused of rape when nothing further from the truth could be the reality of what happened

and get this, you can beat around the bush all you want, I will NOT be intimidated intellectually or physically, and the fact you do not know this speaks of both YOUR intelligence and your knowledge of history, because not only have I been in both those situations, but everywhere in between. As I have been ignorant enough to not see have their have been instances in my life where if the woman believed I raped her, than that is what happened, and that is my fault because I was too stupid, like you, at the time understand.

I have also almost ruined my life and others, because a woman whom I am close with, and I mistakenly believed she was raped, and it was only by chance that I was stopped, and when she found out and clarified that she had only used that term, "rape" because she didn't want to deal with one particular person, and even if she hadn't asked where I was going that day, if would have been my fault, as I had only overheard an argument when I had given her a ride to her boyfriends to drop off her school books before we had to go to work, and like her boyfriend believed it, it seemed plausible to me so I believed it without ever asking her about it. So yes, I understand that people I once thought very highly of, are capable of lying. But it is NOT because of "people like me" that innocent men get accused of rape.

My general disgust with men is more due to them being full of shit most of the time, do you realise, Vinccenzo, that you claimed men get raped more then often then I think. And you said this because you did not understand me and why I do not consider it rape, at least not the act alone of having his dick inserted into someone with his permission. And I am know that it might not make sense to you that people can be wrongly convicted of a crime they did not commit, while having that very act done to them and not have that molestation constitute rape.

It sounds like it cannot be right, but it is, and I am not discounting the severity of the wrongs done to your friend, nor I am discounting the damage done to him,

THE ONLY THING I AM SAYING, and because this topic needs to be addressed, is that sex acts with a mans dick being inserted into another is not the same act nor carry the same consequences as the other side of that act, being a woman's vagina having a dick inserted into it.

They are not equal halves of an equation of consequence.

Because I am speaking about the importance of truth, and not being afraid of it, the woman who I wrongly thought was raped would have never said something like that to me, as she knows me, but rather then telling her husband the truth and dealing with an uncomfortable situation she lied. And I realized that I am responsible for my actions, which is why I don't associate with others as anything but casual acquaintances, unless I know they value, respect, and are not afraid of the truth, even though we do not employ it as a weapon.

So maybe you aren't hearing me still, I am not saying women don't lie, I am not saying it's OK to be slandered and accused.

I am not saying men cannot be raped be raped by woman,

I am say that it is not rape, simply for the act of inserting part of the victim into the perp, as that is not entering a sovereign space

I am not saying there are times when men choose not to have sex. I am saying that if a man is not penetrated, it is molestation and different from rape. Molestation between adults is not as severe of a wrong doing, but it is still a fucked up thing to do.

The sickness, the disease, has more to do with not showing respect to things not under your control and authority, during the periods that nothing is preventing you from maintaining that respect

I understand most, if not all of the things rape is not,

I understand most, if not all of the most of the things rape is

and I am not speaking from some exercise in imagination, nor I am being a dick and just pretending I am stupid when it's really just being a stupid prick

I am speaking from personal, accurately remembered experience, all of which have nothing to do with anything nor the times I have been tricked into believing things that were not true, but I had believed they were, because of a parallel to the frame of mind of rapists, that happens with power and control and also authority of said power and control of information in this electronic age

and women are much less prone to committing such crimes because they are inherently more knowledgeable to truth by experience, and have to be taught to accept false core beliefs, where as the male comes pre-wired with lies

Take it however you want to take it, for whatever meaning you hear, it doesn't change anything, and everything that Is real remains real, despite how much power and authority is abused
Last edited:
This might be a good time to remind everyone that this forum is international, and thus rife for the possibilities of cultural differences.

I don't know why people continue to think the definition of rape is somehow a matter of opinion, where one POV can be as valid as another, and then debated with some amount of civility and detachment.
More importantly however, the metal/meat interface of this discussion has to do with the law...

For example, we have no Rape in Canada anymore, just Sexual Assault, as defined by the Criminal Code:

Meaning of “consent”

273.1 (1) Subject to subsection (2) and subsection 265(3), “consent” means, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.

Marginal note:Where no consent obtained

(2) No consent is obtained, for the purposes of sections 271, 272 and 273, where
(a) the agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of a person other than the complainant;
(b) the complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity;
(c) the accused induces the complainant to engage in the activity by abusing a position of trust, power or authority;
(d) the complainant expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to engage in the activity; or
(e) the complainant, having consented to engage in sexual activity, expresses, by words or conduct, a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity.​

Marginal note:Subsection (2) not limiting

(3) Nothing in subsection (2) shall be construed as limiting the circumstances in which no consent is obtained.

Where belief in consent not a defence

273.2 It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where
(a) the accused’s belief arose from the accused’s
(i) self-induced intoxication, or
(ii) recklessness or wilful blindness; or​
(b) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.​

Note that while the act does define sexual intercourse, it is not used in the definition of sexual assault, but instead focuses on sexual activity ...which can be much more broadly defined. Thus ANY activity that can be construed as sexual in nature, can, if consent is not given, be the basis for criminal charges for Sexual Assault.
(Genders of the persons in question are also not a factor)

Also note that 273.2 is why I suspect anyone from Canada who is posting here, will not be very forgiving of the intoxicated nature of the incident described by the OP, since up here, it doesn't change, excuse, or defend any aspect of a sexual assault.

By contrast, looking at the UK laws briefly on wiki, it seems that Rape is a male only crime, since it appears that possession of a penis is a prerequisite for the crime to be perpetrated.

As for the USA...I have no's a state by state thing apparently...I don't get it.

The point here, is that everyone can probably take a step back, and recognize that:
  • If you are being triggered by another PoV, they may be in another country where the definitions are not the same.
  • If you are triggering others with your PoV, you may want to step back and consider they may come from a place with stricter laws, or personal experience that makes the topic particularly painful.
  • Everyone will do well to think about how they proceed with a topic as sensitive as this, and it's affect on others.

Now, perhaps we can get away from the mechanics of what tab or slots need to be inserted where to qualify, since it's a question better left to the courts of the region in which any given incident occurred...and find our way back to whatever the topic was supposed to be.
II-in the US it is state by state. Which as you noted does make it even more complicated.
But as a rule of thumb our laws *tend* to be more in alignment with what you noted Canadian law on the topic is.
II-in the US it is state by state. Which as you noted does make it even more complicated.
But as a rule of thumb our laws *tend* to be more in alignment with what you noted Canadian law on the topic is.

I fail to see what the Law has to do with Right and Wrong.
In theory different places have different standards of right and wrong.

ORLY? Whose "theory" is that?

I don't think the Law has much to do with "standards of right and wrong" regardless of "different places".

Just because forcing a woman to marry her rapist is LEGAL in "different places" does NOT make it RIGHT.

Just because smoking marijuana is ILLEGAL in "different places" does not make it WRONG.

I do not need artificial laws to tell me Right from Wrong - not in the US, not in the UK, not in Canada, not on Jupiter.

Fuck "laws". Laws are for cowards who cannot think for themselves.

ETA: Imaginary Illusion, do not bust my chops for this. You were the one who brought the LAW into this discussion. Up until that point, we were discussing Right and Wrong. I am just pointing out that one does not flow from the other. Rape can be LEGAL and it is still WRONG, no matter where you live or what the fabulous LAWS are.
Last edited:
laws of any country are not definitions or right and wrong, it's what you are and are not allowed to do, and rules governing how you are to live.

if i remember correctly, a couple thousand years ago there were around 10 laws, some counties had up to 13
Last edited:
laws of any country are not definitions or right and wrong, it's what you are and are not allowed to do, and rules governing how you are to live.

if i remember correctly, a couple thousand years ago there were around 10 laws, some counties had up to 13

What countries would those be because I am pretty sure you are not referring to anywhere within the Roman Empire?
What countries would those be because I am pretty sure you are not referring to anywhere within the Roman Empire?

Oh you know... Probably the country of Africa or Asia.
Not open for further replies.