Shamrock vs Gracie 2, something I'm not sure to understand...

**Rivington** · Posted On: 11/27/2009 1:34pm

Originally Posted by Shawarma

What do you think would be more correct?

Interestingly, earlier in this thread it was suggested that it was very annoying to offer uninformed opinions along with dumb questions.

**Osaka peach** · Posted On: 11/27/2009 1:35pm

Originally Posted by Shawarma

I watch an awful lot of disturbing porn. .

you don't want to say that out loud you know :boxing:

**Kickapoo** · Posted On: 11/27/2009 1:37pm

Originally Posted by Osaka peach

If you mean that having intercourse when you don't really feel like it is rape, then 90 per cent of men can go straight to jail because you can't begin to imagine how often we say "yes" to our boyfriends only to please him when we really don't feel like it

This is not the same. You saying "Yes" is offering consent. Just because you do not mean it does not mean it is invalid. To the best of my recollection (I know you are in Quebec but I'm going by American laws here), consent must be given (or at least implied) and the person offering consent must have their senses about them. What this means is that a lot of things are actually rape that people don't report. Offering consent when you don't want to is not one of them.

**Osaka peach** · Posted On: 11/27/2009 1:37pm

Originally Posted by Rivington

Interestingly, earlier in this thread it was suggested that it was very annoying to offer uninformed opinions along with dumb questions.

please stop being so aggressive, I'm sure we can all discuss politely, even if I sometimes ask stupid questions, I already apologized :crybaby2:

**Osaka peach** · Posted On: 11/27/2009 1:40pm

Originally Posted by Kickapoo

This is not the same. You saying "Yes" is offering consent. Just because you do not mean it does not mean it is invalid. To the best of my recollection (I know you are in Quebec but I'm going by American laws here), consent must be given (or at least implied) and the person offering consent must have their senses about them. What this means is that a lot of things are actually rape that people don't report. Offering consent when you don't want to is not one of them.

the big problem is that some men are expert at manipulating emotions, and they will make you feel like a piece of trash for saying no so if you are the least bit emotionaly weak he will get a forced "yes" out of you at some point...

**Rivington** · Posted On: 11/27/2009 1:43pm

Originally Posted by Osaka peach

I'm really tired of this troll thing, especially since I don't really get what it means. I'm french so I don't get all the slang terms right. :eusa_doh:

A troll is someone who makes posts just to get a rise out of or annoy people. So, if you're annoying people, maybe you should try to be less annoying even if you're not doing it purposefully

If you mean that having intercourse when you don't really feel like it is rape

You're pretty stupid. Sexual assault—rape—is sex without consent. If you say "Yes," you're consenting unless some other factor (age, inebriation, abuse of authority, etc.) makes that "Yes" meaningless.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pcvi-cpcv/def.html

Anyway, if you're really worried about a "rape scenario", you'll do better to learn a bit about the rights you actually have rather than watching old UFCs.

**Kickapoo** · Posted On: 11/27/2009 1:43pm

Originally Posted by Osaka peach

the big problem is that some men are expert at manipulating emotions, and they will make you feel like a piece of trash for saying no so if you are the least bit emotionaly weak he will get a forced "yes" out of you at some point...

No, the big problem is that you associate with people like this.

Is it underhanded? Yes. Doesn't particularly mean it's illegal. If you're in your normal state of mind and say yes, then there is no legal basis for you throwing around the word rape.

**Shawarma** · Posted On: 11/27/2009 1:45pm

Originally Posted by Rivington

Interestingly, earlier in this thread it was suggested that it was very annoying to offer uninformed opinions along with dumb questions.

And unwarranted arrogance is even less helpful, especially when not coupled with a more informed opinion than the uninformed opinion blasted.

We can all agree that situational awareness and all that is king in avoiding any kind of unwanted violent situation. This is undisputable. It is also fairly common knowledge that "scary unknown stalking rapist" scenarios are nowhere near as common as rape by aquaintances.

HOWEVER, the basic mechanics of rape would be the same regardless of the nature of the attacker, which is why I personally feel that submission grappling with a strong emphasis on position improvement from inferior positions is ideal for female self defense. I'm talking from a technical point of view here rather than a philosophical one.

You disagree with this? If so, what about it is particularily stupid?

**Osaka peach** · Posted On: 11/27/2009 1:52pm

Originally Posted by Rivington

A troll is someone who makes posts just to get a rise out of or annoy people. So, if you're annoying people, maybe you should try to be less annoying even if you're not doing it purposefully

You're pretty stupid. Sexual assault—rape—is sex without consent. If you say "Yes," you're consenting unless some other factor (age, inebriation, abuse of authority, etc.) makes that "Yes" meaningless.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pcvi-cpcv/def.html

Anyway, if you're really worried about a "rape scenario", you'll do better to learn a bit about the rights you actually have rather than watching old UFCs.

Sorry for being annoying then, but the original purpose of this thread was that I didn't understand how fighting like Gracie did in this particular fight would in any way prevent a rape from happening, and weither or not I was stupid for doubting BJJ on the basis of staling fights is irrelevant to the fact that I was asking an honest question.

And why do you have to resort to insults to make your point? So I guess manipulative men are alright after all, since you're implying that a girl that says yes out of manipulation is the one to blame, not the men taking advantage of her. That's really what's you're saying?

**Rivington** · Posted On: 11/27/2009 1:56pm

Originally Posted by Shawarma

And unwarranted arrogance is even less helpful, especially when not coupled with a more informed opinion than the uninformed opinion blasted.

It's not unwarranted, nor is it arrogance. You're just an idiot. I know; you do not. You should shut up and listen. Don't defend your stupidity; be silent and learn. Simply, do not fucking talk unless you know.

HOWEVER, the basic mechanics of rape would be the same regardless of the nature of the attacker,
You disagree with this? If so, what about it is particularily stupid?

Clearly, the basic mechanics of rape would not be the same if:

a. the victim is inebriated to the point where consent is meaningless even if given

b. the victim is compelled to engage in sex by her (or his) employer, therapist, father, husband, rabbi, priest, President, etc. with economic, philosophical, or spiritual coercion but not physical coercion or with only tertirary physical coercion. Learn guard escapes and sweeps all you like, it won't matter if the coercion is sex or be homeless, damned, sent to the mental hospital against your will, have custody of your children taken away, etc.

c. the attacker has a weapon such as a firearm or knife and selects to sodomize the victim orally, anally, or after she (or he) is wounded or unconscious

d. the sex act began as consensual but the attacker did not stop engaging in sex after consent was withdrawn

Those are four big ones that take all of ten seconds to come up—the trick is simply knowing something about the subject rather than wanking to visions of big ol' men tackling and engaging in forced missionary intercourse women. Maybe a little less disturbing porn and a bit more time with the occasional newspaper might help.