[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You're definitely more educated in the law than I am, so I'll concede the point.

Quote from R. v. Welch:

Originally Posted by Ontario Court of Appeal

The sadistic sexual activity here involved bondage (the tying of the victim's hands and feet) and the intentional infliction of injury to the body and rectum of the complainant. The consent of the complainant, assuming it was given, cannot detract from the inherently degrading and dehumanizing nature of the conduct. Although the law must recognize individual freedom and autonomy, when the activity in question involves pursuing sexual gratification by deliberately inflicting pain upon another that gives rise to bodily harm, then the personal interest of the individuals involved must yield to the more compelling societal interests which are challenged by such behaviour.

There are plenty of people who enjoy receiving pain during sex in exactly the way described there, and do it safely, responsibly and with consent. You could find a dozen more statements just like that that are seriously troubling if you're part of that community.

Is it the majority viewpoint, though? Among feminists, progressives (and even some of these are wolves in sheep's clothing), etc., it would be, but I've also had plenty of conversations with dudes who think like Roosh does.

I really think you're probably being uncharitable. I have difficulty believing that there are a large number of dudes who think this is acceptable behaviour.

However, I have no difficulty imagining that there is a large group of people who are frustrated by being unable to discuss the corner cases without being thought of as perpetuating rape culture - e.g. where two people are both drunk, or where someone embarks on a sexual encounter willingly, changes their mind and the question arises as to how to communicate that, or just the basic question of doing things when caught up in an encounter without asking (e.g. you're having sex and someone... well, use your imagination). Those are not only difficult questions, they're important conversations that aren't necessarily being had because there's a chilling effect that's partly an unwillingness to talk about sex stuff generally and partly an unwillingness to be thought of as unenlightened in this area. Much easier to just repeat "no means no" ad nauseum.

Well I think the clear difference is that Hitches, Dawkins, etc., where concerned with getting people to think critically, not attempting to mobilize them the way that Trump and Roosh are.

I really believe that Trump isn't trying to mobilize people to act in a xenophobic way. He wants to do it through legislation, orders, however you like, but legally. His message is, "vote me in and I'll implement measures". Maybe the line is active and intentional incitement of illegal activity, but in that case, I think we're giving a lot of ground to the trolls. Maybe that's right as a matter of principle; maybe we have to. I'm just saying, there are probably a lot of things you'll want to intuitively hold the person riling people up accountable for that you won't be able to. @Nero can say pretty much whatever he likes, and his twitter followers are free to harass or issue death threats, etc...