User: doctor-brown

This was triggered by a passing remark on a music reaction channel on YouTube, but I put it here anyway because it's relevant.

It makes me utterly disgusted when I hear people say that someone in their early twenties is "really young". Every person's potential is fulfilled or squandered before the age of twenty-five, whereupon brains and other body parts start to decay and decline. This is well-known to governments, and churches, and parents and other abusive / controlling / terrorising power-mongering forces - all of whom are currently being given free rein to retard human development, by keeping the legal age of majority far too high, and forcing young people to stay in education and in the equally oppressive censorious environment of the family home, for far far too long. All the while "justifying" these oppressions by publishing demonstrably false fake-science about "brain development" - pretending (nowadays) that adolescence ends in the mid-twenties when in reality that is when senility begins.

People on this forum such as rip33 and Airgod seemingly need a basic lesson in how male bodies and brains work, from someone who is actually male (and incidentally, not that this really should make any difference, is 80% heterosexual).

POINT 1 - as a medical textbook once phrased it, "unless the male is aroused, coitus is not possible".

So what does aroused mean? This: it is false to claim that a male can be stimulated to erection by anything other than sexual attraction. It is also false to claim that a male can be stimulated to erection at any time of day "at a stroke" (so to speak). That is not true, even when he is 13 or 14 years old! (I'll spare you the details, but I have strong memories of myself at that age - when I got a hard-on at an inconvenient time, and when I found myself unable to). Examples - Tight trousers on a male do not mechanically induce erections and/or "arousal" in the wearer. An unexpected brush of the $%!@ area is as repellent - and erection-repellent - as an unexpected squeeze! A man turns himself on, he can't be turned on like a machine. Which leads to -

POINT 2 - not only is it impossible for a man to be coerced into erection, it is also impossible for a man to be coerced into penetration. If for instance a woman mounts an already hard $%!@, and it stays hard, then it is obvious that the man does not have any real "misgivings"* about coitus. Even if he had misgivings for a few seconds, they will have evaporated - and for a heterosexual male, penetrating a female with his $%!@ can never be physically unpleasant enough to end arousal.

There is no way on earth that what the aforementioned hypothetical female is doing may be comparable, physically or psychologically, to either Assault (that means "violence - infliction of pain and/or discomforting invasion of privacy") or actual Rape (a word which, more than most, must never be redefined to incorporate a diametrical oppositional definition - rape is "penetrative", end of. A woman can only rape a man by $%!@ penetrating him with a phallic object).

Anyone who argues with anything I have just said must be assumed to be one of the following: (a) a female who is unable to comprehend male physiology and psychology; (b) a male who is dangerously mentally under-developed, lacking the intutive understanding of himself and his own body* that he should under normal circumstances have developed before he even entered into puberty, or (c) a dangerous deluded person - probably corrupted by religion, as is the case with most so-called feminists of the present day.

Categories (b) and (c) may overlap, as of course may the categories within (c), but - such people are not "respectable" or even "pitiable". And under NO circumstances may they police, or set standards of behavior, for people who unlike them are fully-functioning, rational, "normal".

(* this is one of the fundamental flaws in the EastEnders storyline involving Ruby Allen - a female, with very rare exceptions, can never physically intimidate a male in the same way as the reverse. For that reason alone, female employer/male employee relationships will never have the same potentially sinister "power dynamic" as the reverse).

(** compare the ludicrous claims of Shia LaBoeuf re his supposed sexual assault during an art installation)

And, Airgod please note, laws founded on untrue presumptions are null and void.

What did she actually do to him?

Important - undebatable - fact of biological life:

A man can only be "raped" if he is $%!@ penetrated with a phallic object.

Any act involving man as penetrator cannot be "rape" for the man, because if he is not sexually aroused he cannot use his $%!@ to penetrate someone.

because there are no actual "guilty/not guilty" options to choose!

What if you're a highly qualified adult who unfortunately hasn't been able to get work - and thus get enough money to live on? Should you be kicked out of the house, for problems not of your own making?

I'm a Brit - and inspite of what the government and the right-wing media, we're still in an economic depression. The "low" unemployment figures are not the result of a recovery in the labour market but are entirely due to people being refused Jobseekers Allowance (often for spurious reasons) or struggling on low-paid, ad-hoc and/or part-time work.