I consider the above quote silly for two main reasons:

1. Performing a sex act simply for “revenge fairness” is rather pathetic;

2. Men have prostate glands, so if done right it would feel good (as the women who own strap-ons and have latex gloves by their besides attested to, not to mention the men who piped up about being pegged and fingered by their wives).

Frankly, the Details article is just sophomoric and intended to shock. The same magazine had an expose on the secret world of “mandingo parties.” The picture is amusing (come on, it is) but the men are clearly selected for their crude viewpoints. It should be obvious most men don’t think that way (even most of the ones who make jokes suggesting that they seriously do). So raging at the article, while clear-eyed, is not so interesting.

What I found interesting was the frank discussion amongst commenters here about female-to-male anal play that seemed to arise out of nowhere (uh, that isn’t what’s in the article!). I didn’t expect that wrinkle in the discourse. (I also didn’t take Amanda’s gun rack comment as a joke. But maybe that’s just me. Are you *really* saying a gun rack of sex toys isn’t cool?) Not to advocate for a standalone thread on the topic (though that’s not a bad idea), but that digression from what else was discussed here was more enjoyable than the segue into sleep rape and the troll saying whatever it was I skimmed over.

In any event, the “How would men like it!” argument is always bothersome because it presumes men don’t like anal play and that women don’t like being penetrated anally, either. Where is the empirical evidence for that? It’s probably the case that most people like anal play to varying degrees. I mean, people don’t end up in the hospital with shit stuck in their ass by accident. Why perpetuate that silly myth just to strike down a straw (heterosexual) man?

God, I hate spelling mistakes.

giant lion-eating chimp of the magic forest

Just as MAJeff is (GoB).

Thank you, I’d been trying to think of something more cogent that just pointing out the guy had been accepting her removal of consent, and that, prima facie that moves him out of the rapist category.

Cranky Liberal: Can someone remove consent… sort of. It’s a question of direction.

It might be better viewed as, consenting to allow sex (inside whatever categories; the consent need not be absolute) at any time.

I know people who have done this; it’s mostly a dominant/submissive relationship. Not my thing, and I have some deep concerns about it, but so long as that blanket consent is revocable then I think it’s a valid consent.

For all the relationships like this which I’ve been aware of, it was. The consent invoved taking a token [yes, often a collar, or some symbol representing one; that “slave” aspect of it is what bothers me, but I digress] and removing/returning the token was the equivalant of a “safe word”.

or, as I suspect Savage’s letter writer believes, that if they can make some kind of deal for speculative future consent to do something SOMETIME, that means blanket consent to do it ANY time, even if in the moment, their partner clearly doesn’t want it,

Read the damned letter. They had repeated discussions, repeated agreements and she had provided repeated consent. There is no “speculative” about it. It is your statements are speculative and unsustainable. If two consenting adults agree to something and run into technical problems, who the tapdancing fuck are you to conclude that since you “suspect” something then half of that couple is a rapist?

In my sleep I once snarled like a dog (bared fangs and all) at a man I had to share a bed with. By your asshat reasoning that means I’m a carnivorous, fur-covered quadraped, that I really didn’t want to share the covers because the surreal realm of sleep is our only real reality.

And you have no grounds to call the accusation of misandry (made by, I believe, Chet) ridiculous. The dunce cap fits and you have to wear it.

But take a clearer look at this letter. It comes from the man… This man, like the scary Details-profiled men you despise, thinks he has made some kind of deal with her …that this man has the Details mentality: he makes deals about sex and figures he’s entitled to whatever his wife has “okayed.â€?

So, he’s a man, and he has reached consensual agreements with his partner but that only means that he thinks he has, and you think you know his marriage better than him and so he’s a liar and a rapist; he’s “entitled” and “scary”. Why? Because he’s trying to make a consensual situation work and seeks advice in doing it. Did he rape her? No. Did he move past her unconscious acts and have sex with her anyway? No. He sought advice on how to make a marital agreement work. You, you prat, you on the other hand won’t debate others, won’t address their points, repeatedly make the same baseless, nasty assertions about the letter-writer over and over again, AND streamroll over the near-tears of the rape-victim moderator to make your point. But when Chet (I believe) calls bullshit on you you think it ludicrous.

no one is suggesting that Savage should have been skeptical of the man’s letter because he had a penis.

In case you missed part of Amanda’s message, let me rephrase it for you:
There are enough rapists in the world — and the damage they do horrid enough — that we can’t and shouldn’t waste time calling non-rapists rapists. Doing so demeans decent men, and hurts rape victims. I notice that in your eagerness to make your point you don’t seem to give a flying fuck about hurting Amanda. Just blew right by that. What were the first words out of you after that? “I call bullsh**, Amanda.” REAL sensitive, asswipe. REAL compassionate about the costs of rape.

Consent is a conscious act. Can’t you see the implications of your position, or are you that stupid? (That’s a rhetorical question, by the way; you’ve made it clear that you are that stupid.) If an unconscious, reflexive act can be held to void a position taken while conscious, then a woman who has clearly stated her lack of consent whilst awake cannot state later that she was raped while asleep if her unconscious conduct showed sleeping assent. After all, her unconscious acts showing consent govern, according to your reasoning.

“cranky liberal” indeed. I think you are a sanctimonious prig with zero empathy posing as a person sensitive to the issues of rape. No wonder you’re cranky: pretending to be a liberal when you really don’t care what others think or feel or give a damn about what consenting adults agree to (because you know better!) must be a considerable strain on a person who is emotionally and intellectually underdeveloped.