Judge says man having sex with wife is a human right

[HobbitFeet]

yes, I believe you claimed that being really really drunk made you fair game to fuck whether you gave consent or not, because you might want to say yes and being incapable of speaking coherently doesn't necessarily mean no

remember this was stranger sex we were talking about, not relationship sex where consent can easily be non-verbal

It could have been in the same thread where I recanted my tale of being blackout drunk in a bar and regained my cognitive functions whilst hanging off the lips of some 400lb 40 year old hambeast and seeing all my mates laughing at me and don't consider it sexual assault because even though I didn't know wtf I was doing I was walking around and apparently in control of my body well enough to be ordering drinks and not stumbling around or be thrown out of the bar.

Thankfully I sobered up enough before in my drunken stupor I decided getting raped was a good idea.

do you understand what recanted is?

about as much as he understands what coercion and consent are

[Dinkydoobie]

do you understand what recanted is?

"To sing over again; utter repeatedly in song."

https://www.wordnik.com/words/recant

[HobbitFeet]

actually DD, you should have chance to put things into your own words on here, rather than people relying on the views you put forward on DS

what is your view on Roosh?

[Text]

........ that when in the midst of i don't know...an erotic encounter? that sometimes no means perhaps or maybe and that in the heat of the moment the only thing a guy will pay attention to is stop... not no, which might mean a slight reluctance and that perhaps sometimes no doesn't necessarily mean no.

oh and article 8 also says that the rights must be in accordance with the law, therefore if consent is not given and it is not lawful, then it is not a human right

Lifting quotes out of context always provides for some juicy tidbits but I believe i may have been talking about persuasion. Like if you ask your girlfriend/wife for a blowjob and she says no or if you're trying to fuck some random and they say no because 'they don't know you that well' and don't want to appear like a slag who fucks randoms on nights out even if they might actually want to. In short haired lesbian land I imagine if you end up in some birds house and ask her for a suck and she says no that should be the end of it but reality isn't always like that and even if she initially said no then it isn't always rape or nefearious coercion by a potential rapist.

So... no doesn’t always mean no. It just means you haven’t persuaded them enough?

Oi, let's leave Brexit out of this, you very, very naughty lefty!!

[Bessie]

........ that when in the midst of i don't know...an erotic encounter? that sometimes no means perhaps or maybe and that in the heat of the moment the only thing a guy will pay attention to is stop... not no, which might mean a slight reluctance and that perhaps sometimes no doesn't necessarily mean no.

oh and article 8 also says that the rights must be in accordance with the law, therefore if consent is not given and it is not lawful, then it is not a human right

Lifting quotes out of context always provides for some juicy tidbits but I believe i may have been talking about persuasion. Like if you ask your girlfriend/wife for a blowjob and she says no or if you're trying to fuck some random and they say no because 'they don't know you that well' and don't want to appear like a slag who fucks randoms on nights out even if they might actually want to. In short haired lesbian land I imagine if you end up in some birds house and ask her for a suck and she says no that should be the end of it but reality isn't always like that and even if she initially said no then it isn't always rape or nefearious coercion by a potential rapist.

So... no doesn’t always mean no. It just means you haven’t persuaded them enough?

Oi, let's leave Brexit out of this, you very, very naughty lefty!!

[Dinkydoobie]

What is your view on Roosh?

I think he's a sleazeball.

[HobbitFeet]

What is your view on Roosh?

I think he's a sleazeball.

well that's a good start

why?

[NastyNickers]

So... no doesn’t always mean no. It just means you haven’t persuaded them enough?

Oi, let's leave Brexit out of this, you very, very naughty lefty!!

Brexit reminds me more of accidental wrong hole. Everyone squeals and no one enjoys it.

[Dinkydoobie]

well that's a good start

why?

Because his entire purpose in life seems to be about having sex, he goes out to bars and doesn't really drink with the intention of hooking up with women who have been drinking. I don't think he's a rapist but he is sleazy.

[Text]

So... no doesn’t always mean no. It just means you haven’t persuaded them enough?

Oi, let's leave Brexit out of this, you very, very naughty lefty!!

Brexit reminds me more of accidental wrong hole. Everyone squeals and no one enjoys it.

There are no holes in winsome Theresa's um …

Spoiler: show

arguments!

Okay, taxi for Text.
To get back on topic, no of course women are not possessions, or pieces of meat. Having sex with a wife ain't a man's human right. How ludicrous.

[HobbitFeet]

well that's a good start

why?

Because his entire purpose in life seems to be about having sex, he goes out to bars and doesn't really drink with the intention of hooking up with women who have been drinking. I don't think he's a rapist but he is sleazy.

so if the women are too drunk to verbally give coherent consent, bearing in mind these are strangers, is he raping them?

[Dinkydoobie]

To get back on topic, no of course women are not possessions, or pieces of meat. Having sex with a wife ain't a man's human right. How ludicrous.

it isn't ludicrous and it is a right for a man to have sex with his wife. The right is that you have the right to have sex with whoever you choose without interference from the state, and it's a qualified right, that the interference from the state should only be where necessary.

I even mentioned the qualified part in either my original post or one shortly following it but nobody paid attention or asked what the qualifications may be.

[Text]

To get back on topic, no of course women are not possessions, or pieces of meat. Having sex with a wife ain't a man's human right. How ludicrous.

it isn't ludicrous and it is a right for a man to have sex with his wife. The right is that you have the right to have sex with whoever you choose without interference from the state, and it's a qualified right, that the interference from the state should only be where necessary.

I even mentioned the qualified part in either my original post or one shortly following it but nobody paid attention or asked what the qualifications may be.

In all seriousness, DD,
Putting human rights and sex in the same sentence is about as dodgy as it gets.
That is absolutely all.
Have a good weekend, won't you!

[Dinkydoobie]

so if the women are too drunk to verbally give coherent consent, bearing in mind these are strangers, is he raping them?

If they were so drunk that they weren't being coherent then most likely but it's been what? like 5 years since that thread and I read his book and I don't recall him describing any of the women in it as being so drunk they were incoherent. I do recall him describing one woman who stumbled over as they were walking back to her house but that doesn't mean you're incapable of giving consent.

[Dinkydoobie]

In all seriousness, DD,
Putting human rights and sex in the same sentence is about as dodgy as it gets.

Take it up with the ECHR

"j.Sexual orientation and sexual life115.

The Court has held that elements such as gender identification, name and sexual orientation and sexual life are important elements of the personal sphere protected by Article8 "

https://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Guide_Art_8_ENG.pdf