Erm...
If she decides not to have sex with him, and says no then it is rape.

Just because you get a bit touchy feely, doesn;t give someone the right to have sex with you.

I can't believe you even had to post the question ffs.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Wed 29 Oct 2008, 18:22, archived)

I can understand the two points of view here
On one side of the argument, the picture shows the women with her hand down his trousers on his cock. Her actions are suggesting to the man (from his point of view) that she wants to be sexually intimate.
The other side of the argument is "'no' means no".
( turb0t, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 18:31, archived)

No, it is a sign that she wants to play with his cock.
It is not a sign that she will have sex.

I might go down on someone, but not want to fuck them. I fI say 'No', then I do not expect to be raped because 'I was obviously askingg for it'.
( Wicca'd Witch needs ideas for a new sig on..., Wed 29 Oct 2008, 18:36, archived)

Yes this is true,
However, that is how you see it. But when you've progressed passed the kissy kissy stage, and she has slipped her hand down his trousers to fondle his cock, Its quite likely that he will be feeling very turned on, so she shouldn't be surprised if he tries to slip his hand up her skirt/down her trousers too. I'm not suggesting that he has any right to penetrative sex at all at this point, but his emotions and feelings will make him think that his luck is on, and that he will get sex in a little while.
No still means no, and always will.
But she is playing with his feelings and emotions, and just as he has no right to have unconcenting sex with her, she equally has no right to mess with his feelings by taking him along the path that will give him full arousal, and then suddenly stop and expect him to not be pissed off.
( turb0t, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 18:45, archived)

You're wrong.

(WANKERTRON you say "prick", I say "wanker", Wed 29 Oct 2008, 18:53, archived)

He's not wrong.
It's not an excuse for rape. but he's not wrong. The way you treat people influences their emotions, and they might not get emotions that are congruent with your own intentions. On some level, deep down, people are somewhat automatic.
( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 18:59, archived)

The bottom line is this.
If I meet a girl in a bar (or anywhere) and we have a few drinks and start chatting, and then things progress to moving a bit closer and kissing, if she was to say from the outset "I want to slide my hand into your trousers and play with your cock, and get you really aroused, right up to the point of orgasm. But I don't want sex with you". I would say "no thanks." Basically its a bit of reversal here, the woman is almost raping the man.
But don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that just because he consents to allowing her to fondle his cock, that she should automatically have to accept that she must have sex with him.

I'd also like to point out that this is hypothetical, and that I would not be in this situation, as I'm happily married. Nor did I meet Mrs turb0t this way.
( turb0t, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 19:06, archived)

I still stand by the fact that "NO" means No!
but you are saying that you are happy to let a women slide her hand into your trousers without asking you, and let her play with your cock right up to the point of full arousal, and then shortly before getting to the vinegar strokes, you are happy for her to stop and you both go back to your own respective beds.
( turb0t, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 19:00, archived)

Actually, I was just pre-empting the invariable response from an intellectual.

(WANKERTRON you say "prick", I say "wanker", Wed 29 Oct 2008, 19:01, archived)

But if God is telling him to kill her anyway it doesn't matter.

( stuj (^(^;;^)^) GO TEAM SPIDERS!(^(^;;^)^), Wed 29 Oct 2008, 18:42, archived)

I think these two things are not mutually exclusive.

( Moon Girl Technologies horrendous beanbag, Wed 29 Oct 2008, 18:45, archived)