|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 23 2016 23:07 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 21:27 Blisse wrote:
Idk wtf you guys are complaining about the statistics being expanded, I literally posted the source and the definition of rape they used, which was about penetration, not just general assault.
you also conveniently ignore that rape victims of any gender tend to underreport incidences of rape and assault.
this victimising crap about the numbers or the definition of assault is exactly why women look like feminists to you when you completely fail to even acknowledge that they were sexually assaulted and brush it off as some drunk mishap.
stop making generalizations of the problems people have experienced based off of your biased as fuck experiences and opinions. go read the damn studies to find out how they defined rape like I did instead of armchair debating here trying to demonize women because of your biased experiences of how rape isn't as big of a problem as people are making it out to be. how insensitive can you even be. I was about to make a long post about how I had actually gone to the study and read it, and Velr was full of shit, but you already did so. Really, this is not about drunk sex being reported as rape. It's about rape. Here's just Harvard: http://sexualassaulttaskforce.harvard.edu/files/taskforce/files/o._harvard_specific_aau_campus_survey_on_sexual_assault_and_sexual_misconduct_.pdfEven if we disregard all the groping and boobgrabbing, and we disregard all the "penetration when incapacitated" as potential cases of drunk sex, we are left with 6.9% of surveyed girls were forcefully penetrated at Harvard. That is 7 out of 100 girls at Harvard. Pretty fucking terrible if you ask me. And I'm sure Harvard has a comparatively safe campus (being a top notch Ivy league school, and all that). Now I'm sure some people will come and say that that is nowhere near 1 in 4, and the SJW were touting that number. It doesn't really matter. You're not talking to some fictitious strawman SJW. You're talking to us, who have looked at the actual data, and even if you go right down to the smallest number in there, that is 7 out 100 girls who are forced to have sex with someone against their will on an Ivy league college campus. Oh, and just in case people start arguing methodology, I suggest reading Appendix 4. It probably already addresses your issue.
Well, it's hard to say for sure about the whole "Ivy league" part.
+ Show Spoiler +In 2014, Harvard received more reports of on-campus rape than any other university in Massachusetts, according to data from the U.S. Department of Education.
Using numbers collected through the Clery Act, a law that requires universities that receive federal funding to report data about crime on their campuses to the government, the Department of Education created a searchable database with details about campus crime, including sexual offenses. Harvard topped the list for Massachusetts universities with 33 reported rapes that occurred on its campus in Cambridge in 2014. It exceeded colleges with larger student populations, such as the University of Massachusetts Amherst—which had 10 reports of rape that occurred on its main campus—and peer universities, such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, which had 14 reports.
Brown University and the University of Connecticut led the country in reported rapes on their main campuses, with 43 reports each in 2014. Dartmouth had 42 reported rapes on its main campus.
2014 was the first year in which data was collected nationwide for reports of rape; previously, the Clery Act only mandated that colleges tally reports of “non forcible” and “forcible” sex offenses, umbrella terms covering a variety of acts. Harvard’s Clery Act data includes campus crimes reported to local police departments, the Harvard University Police Department, and university officials who have “significant responsibility for student and campus activities.”
Though there is a potential explanation that isn't "Ivy leaguers are more rapey" Some University officials do not consider a high level of reported rapes as a wholly negative statistic. Many Title IX officials at Harvard, including University Title IX Officer Mia Karvonides, consider increased levels of reporting an important step towards preventing and combatting sexual assault on campus. Instead of indicating of higher levels of rape, more reports may suggest that more people on campus are coming forward. Unfortunately, more is still far from all. Eighty percent of female College students who reported in the survey of having experienced nonconsensual penetration by incapacitation, and 69 percent of those who experienced penetration by force, did not file a formal report, according to a report on the survey by former provost Steven E. Hyman. SourceWorth noting that University of Connecticut has ~31,000 students, Dartmouth and Brown have about 15,000 combined.
|
On November 23 2016 19:48 Velr wrote:
You get these absurd numbers easily.
A Supersayan-SJW' would simply argue:
"Victim" was Drunk/Stoned (not blackout drunk/stoned) --> therefore could not give consent --> therefore the sex was rape.
Therefore I was raped several times and i have raped several times (most of the times i did and experienced both at the same time!)... As have most grown ups. Most just suck it up instead of complaining after the fact that they got too drunk and did something they probably wouldn't have done sober.
As for sexual harassment, thats a diffrent story and i fully belief that women are subject to it way too often.
Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it"
If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no.
It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use.
|
On November 24 2016 00:12 LegalLord wrote:
I could certainly believe that 15 percent of women or so in college were kissed involuntarily at least once, possibly with alcohol involved. That qualifies as sexual assault by their definition. But it's almost trivial by comparison to the emotional reaction "sexual assault" invokes.
So just hypothetically, because we're still talking about 7 in 100 girls getting actually raped at Harvard, you'd be totally fine if some big broad strong guy came up to you and stuck his lips all over your face (and then grabbed your ass, just for good measure). Because, well, it's "almost trivial". Right?
|
On November 23 2016 22:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:So now it's up to Elon Musk, and possibly Jeff Bezos to start building stellites and renting them to NASA and other groups to study the climate. Unfucking believable. Show nested quote +Donald Trump is poised to eliminate all climate change research conducted by Nasa as part of a crackdown on “politicized science”, his senior adviser on issues relating to the space agency has said.
Nasa’s Earth science division is set to be stripped of funding in favor of exploration of deep space, with the president-elect having set a goal during the campaign to explore the entire solar system by the end of the century.
This would mean the elimination of Nasa’s world-renowned research into temperature, ice, clouds and other climate phenomena. Nasa’s network of satellites provide a wealth of information on climate change, with the Earth science division’s budget set to grow to $2bn next year. By comparison, space exploration has been scaled back somewhat, with a proposed budget of $2.8bn in 2017.
Bob Walker, a senior Trump campaign adviser, said there was no need for Nasa to do what he has previously described as “politically correct environmental monitoring”.
“We see Nasa in an exploration role, in deep space research,” Walker told the Guardian. “Earth-centric science is better placed at other agencies where it is their prime mission.
“My guess is that it would be difficult to stop all ongoing Nasa programs but future programs should definitely be placed with other agencies. I believe that climate research is necessary but it has been heavily politicized, which has undermined a lot of the work that researchers have been doing. Mr Trump’s decisions will be based upon solid science, not politicized science.”
Trump has previously said that climate change is a “hoax” perpetrated by the Chinese, although on Tuesday he said there is “some connectivity” between human actions and the climate. There is overwhelming and long-established evidence that burning fossil fuels and deforestation causes the release of heat-trapping gases, therefore causing the warming experienced in recent decades. Source
Hey man, some scientists might have ulterior motives, therefore climate change isn't human caused.
|
On November 23 2016 19:47 GoTuNk! wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 19:31 Acrofales wrote:On November 23 2016 19:14 GoTuNk! wrote:On November 23 2016 14:24 Falling wrote:On November 23 2016 13:30 Mohdoo wrote:
When I was in college, there was a big sign outside the women's building that said: "If she was drunk, it was rape", as simply as that. So if we were both drunk, I raped her? Congratulations, you just lowered women to such a remarkably low bar that they are incapable of making decisions.
Edit: Should have been more clear. Whenever I hear about the 1 in 5 thing, I can't help but wonder how they are defining it. I have heard this idea that an intoxicated woman is raped whenever she has sex, even if the guy is drunk too, supported too many times. Well I don't know the legal lingo, but is sexual assault related to the assault part of assault and battery? That is assault is the verbal part and battery is the physical contact part? Because that would suddenly make the 1 in 5 stat quite a bit more viable considering the number of verbal things certain males hurl at pretty women. You can't simply keep expanding the definition to claim woman got "raped". If 1 in 5 woman got raped it would mean that they get gang raped on dorms regularly and that College campuses are more dangerous to them than sub saharan African countries. This is non sense, who could possibly say this? To start off, I have no idea on the stats and where they come from, but to compare rape in the US and rape in sub-saharan Africa (why only sub-saharan, btw? It's not as if women´s rights is a big deal in northern Africa aside from Tunisia) is mindbogglingly stupid. Women´s rights is pretty low on the list of priorities in sub-saharan Africa, and what is considered rape there is generally far more restrictive than what someone who ascribes equal rights to women (you do, don't you), classifies as rape. For starters, marital rape simply doesn't exist legally in those countries. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. If women are systematically oppressed, then rape has a different meaning than when women have equal rights. From my knowledge of rural communities in both South Africa and Morocco (two of the more enlightened countries on the continent), it is generally only the case that a woman is reported as having been raped, when either her husband or her father says she has been raped. Her own word is worth less than dirt. So you can see that the statistics of "rape in Africa" means something completely different from the statistics of "rape in the US", right? My point is that making up numbers or definitions ("he said mean things drunk, I GOT RAPED") takes legitimacy from the argument. College campuses are obviously a lot safer than African countries are for woman. To deal with the issue apropiately, we should not be emebelishing numbers to make it sound worse, or an ever expanding definition. Imagine we got around saying everyone who's been mugged got murdered, or that now for victimization crime rates we used "micro agressions". It's not true, and makes any analisis impossible. It's EXACTLY the same thing as Trumps critics. Instead of trying to critizice him, they call him an actual Nazi who will start targeting people. Muslim, latinos, even handicaped; read the non-sense about having kids send him letters to "be kind" with their latino/muslim fellow students. Anyone actually thinks the police will start picking up and rounding up latino kids from schools? And build POW camps for them? Execute disabled kids and put them in trash cans? Collective graveyards? No, it's fucking stupid. So stop exaggerating (or completely making up) facts, and then there can be a civil discussion.
Mugging a are assaults.
Murders are assaults where the victim ends up dead.
Rape is a form of assault.
If rape is the main thing to fear in colleges it is still safer than genital mutilation, the sex slave trade, and civil fucking war.
Being upset that you can't get girls drunk and fuck them is not our problem, it's yours.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 24 2016 00:16 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:12 LegalLord wrote:
I could certainly believe that 15 percent of women or so in college were kissed involuntarily at least once, possibly with alcohol involved. That qualifies as sexual assault by their definition. But it's almost trivial by comparison to the emotional reaction "sexual assault" invokes. So just hypothetically, because we're still talking about 7 in 100 girls getting actually raped at Harvard, you'd be totally fine if some big broad strong guy came up to you and stuck his lips all over your face (and then grabbed your ass, just for good measure). Because, well, it's "almost trivial". Right?
Almost trivial in comparison =/= almost trivial objectively. It's a problem but it's more in line with the kind of stupid shit that eager young people with questionable judgment do just because they think they can get some, rather than the act of full-blown rapists.
|
On November 24 2016 00:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 19:48 Velr wrote:
You get these absurd numbers easily.
A Supersayan-SJW' would simply argue:
"Victim" was Drunk/Stoned (not blackout drunk/stoned) --> therefore could not give consent --> therefore the sex was rape.
Therefore I was raped several times and i have raped several times (most of the times i did and experienced both at the same time!)... As have most grown ups. Most just suck it up instead of complaining after the fact that they got too drunk and did something they probably wouldn't have done sober.
As for sexual harassment, thats a diffrent story and i fully belief that women are subject to it way too often. Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it" If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no. It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use.
I disagree. I've done lots of things where I think afterwards "hey, that was really stupid". But it was totally in my power to not get drunk in the first place. If I didn't want to lose full control over my actions, I could choose to say no to that beer my buddy is offering me. Sometimes, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions, also as a girl, rather than crying rape. If you get drunk and think, "hey, that guy is cute (he isn't), lets fuck" and regret it the next morning, that isn't rape, that's stupidity and alcohol.
That's not to say you can't get raped while drunk. You quite clearly can. Drink even more than in the above scenario and you reach that point where you can't speak (or stand) anymore. And that cannot possibly count as consent in any way, shape or form.
|
On November 24 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:16 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:12 LegalLord wrote:
I could certainly believe that 15 percent of women or so in college were kissed involuntarily at least once, possibly with alcohol involved. That qualifies as sexual assault by their definition. But it's almost trivial by comparison to the emotional reaction "sexual assault" invokes. So just hypothetically, because we're still talking about 7 in 100 girls getting actually raped at Harvard, you'd be totally fine if some big broad strong guy came up to you and stuck his lips all over your face (and then grabbed your ass, just for good measure). Because, well, it's "almost trivial". Right? Almost trivial in comparison =/= almost trivial objectively. It's a problem but it's more in line with the kind of stupid shit that eager young people with questionable judgment do just because they think they can get some, rather than the act of full-blown rapists.
Ok, that is the kind of whitewashing that just doesn't fly. A rapist is almost trivial in comparison to Charles Manson, so lets ignore that problem too, right? Kissing someone without consent is sexual assault. There are worse forms of sexual assault, and I'm sure a judge will sort that out pronto. But how about we don't send a message that going around kissing people who don't want to be kissed is somehow okay.
|
Taking advantage or forcing yourself onto someone who is intoxicated happens and is a form of sexual assault if it is unwanted, but I think it is quite a stretch to say that if two drunk people lose all their inhibitions and end up sleeping together that one of them was raped and that the other is a rapist. I think (hope?) that the later happens more than the former, that more often than not these things are due to everyone being drunk in social situations rather than a predator going to parties and waiting for an opportunity, but no one will argue that it doesn't happen at all.
|
Given that we just elected a man who outwardly bragged about touching women without their consent, I think the notion that only eager young people partake in that kind of behavior needs some revisiting.
|
On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 23 2016 19:48 Velr wrote:
You get these absurd numbers easily.
A Supersayan-SJW' would simply argue:
"Victim" was Drunk/Stoned (not blackout drunk/stoned) --> therefore could not give consent --> therefore the sex was rape.
Therefore I was raped several times and i have raped several times (most of the times i did and experienced both at the same time!)... As have most grown ups. Most just suck it up instead of complaining after the fact that they got too drunk and did something they probably wouldn't have done sober.
As for sexual harassment, thats a diffrent story and i fully belief that women are subject to it way too often. Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it" If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no. It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use. I disagree. I've done lots of things where I think afterwards "hey, that was really stupid". But it was totally in my power to not get drunk in the first place. If I didn't want to lose full control over my actions, I could choose to say no to that beer my buddy is offering me. Sometimes, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions, also as a girl, rather than crying rape. If you get drunk and think, "hey, that guy is cute (he isn't), lets fuck" and regret it the next morning, that isn't rape, that's stupidity and alcohol. That's not to say you can't get raped while drunk. You quite clearly can. Drink even more than in the above scenario and you reach that point where you can't speak (or stand) anymore. And that cannot possibly count as consent in any way, shape or form.
Majority of girls don't cry rape. Even the ones actually victimized of rape. It's super under reported. Part of the reason you feel it's normal is because it's so under reported. Part of the reason a lot is at stake for you is because if it started getting accurately reported you and your friends would become redefined as rapists.
|
On November 24 2016 00:30 Kickstart wrote:
Taking advantage or forcing yourself onto someone who is intoxicated happens and is a form of sexual assault if it is unwanted, but I think it is quite a stretch to say that if two drunk people lose all their inhibitions and end up sleeping together that one of them was raped and that the other is a rapist. I think (hope?) that the later happens more than the former, that more often than not these things are due to everyone being drunk in social situations rather than a predator going to parties and waiting for an opportunity, but no one will argue that it doesn't happen at all.
Being nitpicky about which drug removed inhibitions alcohol or ruffies is a special kind of cherry picking.
|
On November 24 2016 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:30 Kickstart wrote:
Taking advantage or forcing yourself onto someone who is intoxicated happens and is a form of sexual assault if it is unwanted, but I think it is quite a stretch to say that if two drunk people lose all their inhibitions and end up sleeping together that one of them was raped and that the other is a rapist. I think (hope?) that the later happens more than the former, that more often than not these things are due to everyone being drunk in social situations rather than a predator going to parties and waiting for an opportunity, but no one will argue that it doesn't happen at all. Being nitpicky about which drug removed inhibitions alcohol or ruffies is a special kind of cherry picking.
That would surely be a case of a predator targeting people which I specifically said is assault would it not? I also took care to point out the difference between someone taking advantage of someone who is intoxicated and two people being drunk/high/whatever in a social setting. But if you are going to misrepresent everyone this hard I'll just not converse with you.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On November 24 2016 00:29 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote:On November 24 2016 00:16 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:12 LegalLord wrote:
I could certainly believe that 15 percent of women or so in college were kissed involuntarily at least once, possibly with alcohol involved. That qualifies as sexual assault by their definition. But it's almost trivial by comparison to the emotional reaction "sexual assault" invokes. So just hypothetically, because we're still talking about 7 in 100 girls getting actually raped at Harvard, you'd be totally fine if some big broad strong guy came up to you and stuck his lips all over your face (and then grabbed your ass, just for good measure). Because, well, it's "almost trivial". Right? Almost trivial in comparison =/= almost trivial objectively. It's a problem but it's more in line with the kind of stupid shit that eager young people with questionable judgment do just because they think they can get some, rather than the act of full-blown rapists. Ok, that is the kind of whitewashing that just doesn't fly. A rapist is almost trivial in comparison to Charles Manson, so lets ignore that problem too, right? Kissing someone without consent is sexual assault. There are worse forms of sexual assault, and I'm sure a judge will sort that out pronto. But how about we don't send a message that going around kissing people who don't want to be kissed is somehow okay.
Your statement, not mine. I never said it was ok, and I'll just explicitly say that it isn't just to be clear.
On November 24 2016 00:30 farvacola wrote:
Given that we just elected a man who outwardly bragged about touching women without their consent, I think the notion that only eager young people partake in that kind of behavior needs some revisiting.
Fair enough. The hope is that they grow out of it, although the reality is probably more so that many people were never into that game and never will be, and that people who continue doing it start ending up in prison.
|
On November 24 2016 00:34 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:30 Kickstart wrote:
Taking advantage or forcing yourself onto someone who is intoxicated happens and is a form of sexual assault if it is unwanted, but I think it is quite a stretch to say that if two drunk people lose all their inhibitions and end up sleeping together that one of them was raped and that the other is a rapist. I think (hope?) that the later happens more than the former, that more often than not these things are due to everyone being drunk in social situations rather than a predator going to parties and waiting for an opportunity, but no one will argue that it doesn't happen at all. Being nitpicky about which drug removed inhibitions alcohol or ruffies is a special kind of cherry picking. That would surely be a case of a predator targeting people which I specifically said is assault would it not? I also took care to point out the difference between someone taking advantage of someone who is intoxicated and two people being drunk/high/whatever in a social setting. But if you are going to misrepresent everyone this hard I'll just not converse with you.
You start your paragraph by saying alcohol can remove inhibitions and when it does, people can use it for sexual assault.
You then say that if a room was full of intoxicated people, it's no longer an issue unless there was a predator in that crowd specifically hunting drunk victims down.
Hence my comment that the specificity of the predator does not change the outcome of the drug itself. Ie, dropping ruffies in drinks to drag people to your hotel room is not needed to get people to fuck under the influence.
|
On November 24 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:29 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:21 LegalLord wrote:On November 24 2016 00:16 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:12 LegalLord wrote:
I could certainly believe that 15 percent of women or so in college were kissed involuntarily at least once, possibly with alcohol involved. That qualifies as sexual assault by their definition. But it's almost trivial by comparison to the emotional reaction "sexual assault" invokes. So just hypothetically, because we're still talking about 7 in 100 girls getting actually raped at Harvard, you'd be totally fine if some big broad strong guy came up to you and stuck his lips all over your face (and then grabbed your ass, just for good measure). Because, well, it's "almost trivial". Right? Almost trivial in comparison =/= almost trivial objectively. It's a problem but it's more in line with the kind of stupid shit that eager young people with questionable judgment do just because they think they can get some, rather than the act of full-blown rapists. Ok, that is the kind of whitewashing that just doesn't fly. A rapist is almost trivial in comparison to Charles Manson, so lets ignore that problem too, right? Kissing someone without consent is sexual assault. There are worse forms of sexual assault, and I'm sure a judge will sort that out pronto. But how about we don't send a message that going around kissing people who don't want to be kissed is somehow okay. Your statement, not mine. I never said it was ok, and I'll just explicitly say that it isn't just to be clear. Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:30 farvacola wrote:
Given that we just elected a man who outwardly bragged about touching women without their consent, I think the notion that only eager young people partake in that kind of behavior needs some revisiting. Fair enough. The hope is that they grow out of it, although the reality is probably more so that many people were never into that game and never will be, and that people who continue doing it start ending up in prison.
Do rapists tend to be young kids in their early twenties or do they tend to be older folks? I think that would show whether it's something you "grow out of"
|
On November 24 2016 00:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 23 2016 19:48 Velr wrote:
You get these absurd numbers easily.
A Supersayan-SJW' would simply argue:
"Victim" was Drunk/Stoned (not blackout drunk/stoned) --> therefore could not give consent --> therefore the sex was rape.
Therefore I was raped several times and i have raped several times (most of the times i did and experienced both at the same time!)... As have most grown ups. Most just suck it up instead of complaining after the fact that they got too drunk and did something they probably wouldn't have done sober.
As for sexual harassment, thats a diffrent story and i fully belief that women are subject to it way too often. Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it" If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no. It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use.
This type of infantilization of the human psyche is troubling to me. We have all done some shit we regret while drunk, probably every poster in this thread. Regret sex while under the influence of alcohol is not rape, if you think it is then move back into your parents house because you aren't ready for anything in the real world. I think this type of thinking is just a result of ideology replacing common sense.
|
ideology can't replace common sense because common sense is itself an ideology.
|
On November 24 2016 00:43 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 23 2016 19:48 Velr wrote:
You get these absurd numbers easily.
A Supersayan-SJW' would simply argue:
"Victim" was Drunk/Stoned (not blackout drunk/stoned) --> therefore could not give consent --> therefore the sex was rape.
Therefore I was raped several times and i have raped several times (most of the times i did and experienced both at the same time!)... As have most grown ups. Most just suck it up instead of complaining after the fact that they got too drunk and did something they probably wouldn't have done sober.
As for sexual harassment, thats a diffrent story and i fully belief that women are subject to it way too often. Most rapes aren't reported. Most rape victims do "shut up about it" If you're response after waking up to something was "I shouldn't have done that, but I was drunk" then yes, you have been raped. You were intoxicated enough to get fucked and was not of sound mind to say no. It's about consent, it's about being of sound enough mind to be able to consent, to be able to say no, to be able to say yes. If you wake up the next day and would not have done anything with that person had you been sober--then you were literally drugged into having sex. If this was something you two would do and enjoy while being sober, and alcohol just made it more exciting, then that's recreational drug use. This type of infantilization of the human psyche is troubling to me. We have all done some shit we regret while drunk, probably every poster in this thread. Regret sex while under the influence of alcohol is not rape, if you think it is then move back into your parents house because you aren't ready for anything in the real world. I think this type of thinking is just a result of ideology replacing common sense.
Getting ruffied and waking up regretting who you fucked is rape, but if the drug is alcohol it's okay--is that your argument? That you were okay with losing cognitive control and had to sober up realizing you did something you wouldn't have if you weren't drugged into it--that to you is okay? That is your argument?
|
On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:34 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:30 Kickstart wrote:
Taking advantage or forcing yourself onto someone who is intoxicated happens and is a form of sexual assault if it is unwanted, but I think it is quite a stretch to say that if two drunk people lose all their inhibitions and end up sleeping together that one of them was raped and that the other is a rapist. I think (hope?) that the later happens more than the former, that more often than not these things are due to everyone being drunk in social situations rather than a predator going to parties and waiting for an opportunity, but no one will argue that it doesn't happen at all. Being nitpicky about which drug removed inhibitions alcohol or ruffies is a special kind of cherry picking. That would surely be a case of a predator targeting people which I specifically said is assault would it not? I also took care to point out the difference between someone taking advantage of someone who is intoxicated and two people being drunk/high/whatever in a social setting. But if you are going to misrepresent everyone this hard I'll just not converse with you. You start your paragraph by saying alcohol can remove inhibitions and when it does, people can use it for sexual assault. You then say that if a room was full of intoxicated people, it's no longer an issue unless there was a predator in that crowd specifically hunting drunk victims down. Hence my comment that the specificity of the predator does not change the outcome of the drug itself. Ie, dropping ruffies in drinks to drag people to your hotel room is not needed to get people to fuck under the influence.
I'm arguing that if two drunk people end up sleeping together that one isn't a rape victim and the other a rapist necessarily, not that someone who roofies someone and then drags them to a room isn't a rapist
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
