Which gets to the core of the 'let' argument. You can let someone do something, without resistance, but it doesn't mean you consented to it. If you've got a gun to your head, you're going to 'let' people do a lot of things you would not normally 'let' them do. And when you're a young woman in bed with a man twice your size you may 'let' him do things to you that you told him not to do.
It sickens me that this is even a point of conversation. What I've learned from this thread is that there are some guys out there who spend an awful lot of time and energy trying to validate rape loopholes, as if they're optimistic it will help them out if they get rapey.
I've been in bed with women where everyone was consenting up until we couldn't find a condom. She wanted it, I wanted it, clothes had long since been shed. But it was no dice without protection so that's where it ended for the evening.
At NO POINT did I think to myself, 'y'know. . . She's done so many consenting things and only said 'no' just now. Maybe, just maybe I can still have sex with her and it wouldn't REALLY be rape. At least not in the eyes of the law. . . ' Now why didn't I think these things? Because that's the type of thing that would pass through the mind of a misogynist cretin who has no respect for other human beings, much less the opposite sex. The whole reason this thread just fucking BLOWS MY MIND is that people actually exist that think that parsing semantics might just help you when you want to rape a girl.
Seriously?
I thought people like that only existed in Onion articles.
