Lets say a average normal guy, lets call him subject A is in his 20s and was kidnapped and drugged and put into a room underground with no escape, a door opens and a loli walks in and starts seducing and fucking him in his dazed state by the orders of a single adult cult leader or something, the girl and subliminal messages playing over a loud speaker or tv or something are clearly and intentionally hypnotizing the subject A to become a breeding slave, he attempts to resist the first time halfway through and then gives up and lets it happen, now after this subject A gives into his lower instincts and actively fucks 99 other willing lolis over the course of months that go in and out of the room with him, technically speaking, is he a victim that was brainwashed and hypnotized into doing that or not legally speaking.

>>935875758 (OP)
Only while the brainwashing was going on.

It's rape.
Subject A is innocent, but also consent is all that matters in reality. There. I said it. Happy?

You have some weird fantasies man, but guess that's normal too.

>>935875758 (OP)
Get a job you fucking gooner. Stop fantasizing about legal loopholes for you being a peado. Even less believable than your stupid infinite child sex dungeon is that you'd ever be used for breeding in the first place

>>935876064

>>935875758 (OP)
A has the chance to escape the next day

>>935876340
The op says theres no escape, which would mean the lolis are getting in and out in a way which would probably be impossible for an adult to fit through

>>935875758 (OP)
Is he continuously being drugged?

>>935875866
Is it rape because its rape or is it rape because this thought experiment disturbs you?
Cast your personal bias aside and answer truthfully.

Not op but people (you) who cant answer questions without personal bias are low iq.

>>935877901
no, only for the first day

>>935877995
I already answered clearly, anon. You didn't understand the implications,likely because you are of lower intelligence.
It's rape. The man is being raped, because he is being forced into sexual intercourse against his will.
It is categorically rape.
> personal bias
None to behold. It seems as though you want me to say something I wouldn't say.
The only bias between us is your own, towards what you thought I meant. You're the one doing what you're accusing me of doing. Stop that.
Get some common sense, and learn to read from more than one angle.

>>935878213
Rape is un-consented penetration of a penis into the anus, vagina or mouth.

>>935878602
No. Rape is forced sexual intercourse. While it is rare, females can rape males.

>>935878661
No, your definition is incorrect: "Rape is defined by the United States Department of Justice as "Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim." While definitions and terminology of rape vary by jurisdiction in the United States, the FBI revised its definition in 2013 to eliminate a requirement that the crime involve an element of force." from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States
I don't see many women's vaginas penetrating much (stick the clit inside. XD).

>>935875758 (OP)
If we cannot consent under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Why would him being drugged be any different.
But tbh if he had to do anything illegal to save his own life, I don't think it's cut and dry good or bad.
Oh they made you bang a loli at gunpoint to get blackmail on you? I get it man.
Not guilty.
But if you banged the loli because your cult bros told you to, or because of
>muh mind control
Guilty.
Wanting to vs forced too, very different.

>>935878852
Rape is rape no matter how wikipedia and the government define it.
If you fail to see that, then you're lacking introspective and understanding of what rape means to define as a term.
-
What then would you call it when a woman forces a man to have sex without consent. If that is not rape, then what is it?
it's wrong either way, because it violates the individuals' will.

>>935875858
The effects of brainwashing don't magically disappear because the technique has been stopped/paused. You have to recondition someone out of the brainwashed state because their fundamental sense of reality has been warped.

>>935875758 (OP)
There's a similar thing that happened to a man who had a pedophilic disorder due to a brain tumor. He downloaded CP and molested people. He completely lost the urges after the tumor was removed. A branch of philosophy dealing with Frankfurt cases can really happen.

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/pedophile-lost-urge-after-surgery-flna1c9478663

>>935879235
>?Rape is rape no matter how wikipedia and the government define it.
KEK. When you invoke "Rape" there is a very specific meaning to that word, how it is used matters legally, personally (not to me, but to individuals) and inter-relational wise.

>>935879238
Okay, but how long he was in an affected state wasn't mentioned.

>>935879394
Rape is forced sexual intercourse no matter who it is being done to. you failed to answer my question, because you can't answer it without contradicting yourself.

>>935879455
>Rape is forced sexual intercourse no matter who it is being done to.
Sexual assault already fits into that box: "In the United States, the definition of sexual assault varies widely among the individual states. However, in most states sexual assault occurs when there is lack of consent from one of the individuals involved. Consent must take place between two adults who are not incapacitated and consent may change, by being withdrawn, at any time during the sexual act.[6] Sexual assault can be defined as violation of consent according to standards of substantive equality or formal equality." from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_assault#Definition
>you failed to answer my question, because you can't answer it without contradicting yourself.
Tell me where I contradicted myself.

>>935879562
It is forced penetration all the same. It is rape when one party forces the other to have sex.
You're splitting hairs.
Here's a more accurate definition.
You still didn't answer my question.
What do you call it when a man is forced to have sex against his will?
Sexual assault is merely a synonym for rape, even though it doe snot only cover rape, but a varying degree of crimes.

>>935879692
He cited the law, you cited a dictionary. If a dictionary was my lawyer, I would kindly clean up a bank

>>935879756
What do you call it when a man is forced to have sex against his will?
If it;s not rape, then what is it?
Sexual assault is a synonym, and does not cover the specifics of what I am asking you. So answer. What is it if not rape?

>>935879266
Wow thats a thinker right there, I guess we really arnt in control of our thoughts as much as we think we are.
>>935879419
Well technically the entire time i would say? Based on subject A's initial experience which caused him to change

>>935879791
If it's a man that does it to a man, it's rape. You can't be raped by women

>>935879854
You're wrong.
>About 1% of people arrested for committing rape are female, and while some of those cases involve materially aiding and abetting a male perpetrator (e.g. by holding down a victim while the male perpetrator engaged in the act), some of those arrests involve the fact pattern that you describe.
law.stackexchange.com›is-it-rape-if-it-is-a-woman-on-a-girl

>>935879854
Etymology

The term rape originates from the Latin rapere (supine stem raptum), "to snatch, to grab, to carry off".

>>935879692
Picrel isn't specific to any region, nor is it law.
>It is rape when one party forces the other to have sex.
I've already outlined how (however wrong you or I think it) that is not the definition for any significant region, or any region that I know of (there could be "significant regions" where the definition is "when one party forces the other to have sex" but I've never heard that before).
>What do you call it when a man is forced to have sex against his will?
Sexual assault (yes this is dis-sociable from "rape").
>Sexual assault is merely a synonym for rape, even though it doe snot only cover rape, but a varying degree of crimes.
Yes, and many of those crimes aren't rape themselves.

>>935879999 nice quads
True, but still forced intercourse is rape, no matter how you cut it.
If not, then the word requires redefining.
It's more than sexual assault when penetration is involved, even in reverse.
If you contest this, fine, but it is still the same act.
It's still the same action and intention, no matter who is doing it, and no matter who it is happening to.
It is the same action, and the same intention.
That is what I am arguing for.
If the "law" cannot recognize that fact, then the "law" has failed.

>>935880201
>True, but still forced intercourse is rape, no matter how you cut it.
I don't know how else to tell you, but that is just the false definition.
>If not, then the word requires redefining.
That's fine, but I don't think you're going to get far.
>It's more than sexual assault when penetration is involved, even in reverse.
>If you contest this, fine, but it is still the same act.
"it is still the same act." I agree, but as far as the law is involved that's incorrect.
>If the "law" cannot recognize that fact, then the "law" has failed.
That opinion is fine, but words don't change definition without consensus (currently the legal consensus is different from your view).

>>935880201
If you are the average normie and you are not a anon you are gonna be disgusted by it, because you don't want to be associated with pedos or pedophilia and if you have any amount of self respect it wont be attractive for you
What they do is they brain

>>935875758 (OP)
100% guilty. You need to belong to the fucking club to get away with that stuff.

>>935875758 (OP)
>Victim A

>>935875758 (OP)
>Victims B-Z

>>935883317
I don't think you understood the context (correct me if I'm wrong) of his post, he started posting here: >>935878661

>Guilty Cult Leader

>>935882973
>false definition
It's not. it's proper because it reflects reality better than the 'legal' definition.
If intention and action define law, and therefore legal terms, then it should be considered rape.
Even though you admit it's the same act, you reject it for an all-to rigid adherence to 'legal terms'. I want to know why you default to this, and not common sense. You have your reasons, I am sure you do.
You're ridiculous, and I suppose so am I for even considering the "law" would represent crime accurately.
>without consensus
Yeah see, that's just the thing. 'Legal' consensus aside, if you asked just about any person about this, giving explicit detail on the circumstances, they would likely call it rape too, because it is rape. It's forced sexual intercourse.
>>935883317
I've been here longer than you, I would guess, by a very, very long difference in time.
your basis for evaluating whether someone is an 'anon' or a 'normalnigger'/'normalfag' is flimsy at best, just like the definition.
I am not offended by rape in the way you are implying. I don't condone rap either, though. I am very much against it, but it's just another regrettable action to me.
We are talking about rape, though. Not in relationship to what you're referring to. Just the act itself.
that is another thing entirely, and your assessment on it is incorrect, because it presumes only one reason for attraction.
>>935883445
Snitch :^)
Yeah, thanks though.

>all-to
*all-too rigid adherence

>>935883412
Do you not understand the mental anguish subject A will feel for the rest of his life from fucking those 99 lolis as hard as he could? He needs a huge disability check every month for surviving trafficking and a nobel peace prize atleast for fucking gods sake

>>935875866
its torture

>>935883857
If you see it that way. I know how some Anons are here, and so to them it wouldn't be.
If it's non-consensual, I would still refer to it as rape, though.
It isn't something I favor, or condone.

Subject A is innocent, and a victim, from every point of view.
But if the purpose of the thing is reproduction, why use lolis?

>>935883577
>I want to know why you default to this, and not common sense. You have your reasons, I am sure you do.
A lot of the time "common sense" dictates that "men cannot be raped by women", anyway all I'm saying is what rape is legally (which seems to be the most serious way to define "rape").
>'Legal' consensus aside, if you asked just about any person about this, giving explicit detail on the circumstances, they would likely call it rape too
Maybe, but you could ask laymen about many things (they would say ridiculous things about), but this wouldn't be a very serious way of approaching the definition of "rape".

Telegony theory may be why. If true, maybe the mastermind behind this means to "cross-pollinate" them before they are actually able to conceive progeny.

>>935884195
>most serious way to define "rape"
It's highly inaccurate for a legal definition. It defies reality.
>but you could ask laymen about many things
This isn't about that. It's about the actions being identical in every way, and yet the definition only acknowledges the act one way.
It's highly illogical, and defies common sense in any reasonable definition of the term.
>wouldn't be a very serious way of approaching the definition
Whoever came up with the definition didn't think it through very well. It can be shown to be false in many ways, especially if you add other "legal definitions" into play with it. Some weirdos think women can have penises these days, for example.
that nonsense aside, I still think if a woman ties up a man, forces him to become aroused, then mounts him against his will, that is categorically rape.
I know that is some anons' fantasy, but still, if it's being done against someone's will, it's rape. *even if the definition is retarded, and doesn't recognize simple truth.
-
>dictates that "men cannot be raped by women"
Yet they can. Rape can easily work either way. Both acts involve forced penetration in the example of a woman versus a man bound and shackled. It's "forced penetration" either way, so definitionally, it should be identical.
Forget your "law". Represent action versus intention.

>>935884247
>Telegony theory may be why
What's that?

Search it. It's the theory stating that genetic information from past lovers are stored in the woman's uterine walls or other reproductive parts, then when she is pregnant, that genetic information is passed on to her progeny (offspring).
It's a theory proven in many animals, but studies in humans keep being rejected, because if they were accepted as being true, it would upend modern society.

Meaning all the sperm from here past partners is stored, than no matter who the father happens to be when she finally becomes pregnant, the other genetic information effects the outcome and genetic information of the baby.

Meaning all the sperm from her past partners is stored, then no matter who the father happens to be when she finally becomes pregnant, the other genetic information effects the outcome and genetic information of the baby.

>>935884563
>Yet they can. Rape can easily work either way. Both acts involve forced penetration in the example of a woman versus a man bound and shackled. It's "forced penetration" either way, so definitionally, it should be identical.
Forget your "law". Represent action versus intention.
I was talking about "common sense". This conversation isn't meaningful, it's just me saying "legal", and you saying "same".

>>935885068
Well, we're both correct, but what should be isn't.
I suppose I just think it's ridiculous that the law doesn't recognize this, but, it shouldn't be surprising.
The entire system is corrupt and illogical.
>I was talking about "common sense".
I addressed that too, briefly. Actual common sense is something more objective. you seemed to refer to the opinion of laymen, instead of referring to what is most obvious and most true. Oh well. This was interesting and fun too, believe it or not.
If you are done, thanks for talking.

>>935884806
>studies in humans keep being rejected, because if they were accepted as being true, it would upend modern society.
Seriously? Why would researchers not want innovation, new funding and a new paradigm?

"Maintain the social cohesion comrade!"
It's something along the lines of money, power, nepotism and laziness.
People are too complicit and set in their ways. Imagine the factual basis for "slut shaming" too. It would upturn society. People don't want that.

>>935885158
>Actual common sense is something more objective. you seemed to refer to the opinion of laymen, instead of referring to what is most obvious and most true.
Common sense seems to just be popular opinion (traditional thought): "knowledge, judgement, and taste which is more or less universal and which is held more or less without reflection or argument" from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_sense

>>935885257
>Common sense seems to just be popular opinion (traditional thought)
No. Common sense is seeing the reality of the nature of things. That's what I mean to say when I refer to "common sense". that is how many people tend to use the term too, but I suppose to you it's synonymous with "opinion".
>knowledge, judgement
Yes, but in what context? It's more than simple opinion, anon.
Also wikipedia isn't a great source for knowledge, since it is often edited with great bias.
Regardless, I meant to refer to something more along the lines of "what is most obvious and true". As in: "common sense dictates the ducks fly south in the autumn, and return in spring.
It's more of a 1 to 1 observational analysis than a mere "opinion", otherwise I would have referred to opinion.
You have a very rigid mind, but that can be a good thing too.
I tend to speak towards a more human perspective on things, along with what should be, rather than what is.
It is what it is.

>>935875758 (OP)
are there big tiddy lolis he didn't fuck yet?

>>935885377
So, some a posteriori logic, I don't see how that dovetails with "common sense" (literally: common sense [thought])?

>>935885583
>a posteriori logic
More or less, yes. It's often related to an interpretation of the word "wisdom" too, but only indirectly. They tend to go hand-in-hand, though.
>I don't see how that dovetails with "common sense"
It's called "common sense" for a reason. It is a direct observation and reasoning of actionable events or phenomena.
that's how I am familiar with the use of the word. That is what it means to me and others.
A direct observation using your 5 common senses.

>common sense
>noun
>: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts