|
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. |
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote: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.
Wow. Just wow.
So if two people are drunk, are they both rapists or is that a function of whether one of them regrets it the next day?
He quite clearly made a distinction between preying on drunk beyond reason people and two people being similarly inebriated in a social setting.
Your post is way out of line... and for the record I've never had sex while drunk with anyone ever, infact I drink like once a year so I have zero personal stake in this.
|
Canada11398 Posts
On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote: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.
Well, I don't know. As a person that never drinks alcohol and never will, he seems to make a reasonable distinction. It seems to me that it is possible to be mutually drinking and mutually sleeping together and it is also possible to both be drinking, but the sleeping together was not mutually consented upon. How that line is drawn remains the tricky part, but it seems a logical assertion that there remains a distinction. Alcohol, by its nature, lowers ones inhibitions- one of the reasons I have had no desire to drink it. But it seems to me reasonable, that two people can mutually agree to lower their inhibitions through the medium of alcohol... it also seems to me what has been historically under-reported is that there a number (far too many) of predatory guys that do not care whether it was mutual or not, just that she was drunk enough. I think it is a reasonable nuance.
|
On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: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
This sounds reasonable; I think the issue becomes significantly more difficult to parse once both parties are past a certain threshold of mutual intoxication. Accordingly, the specific facts surrounding such an incident will likely be far more helpful than any generalized rule.
|
On November 24 2016 00:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:43 biology]major wrote: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?
If someone forced me or anyone else to take alcohol without consent and then the result of that action lead me to be so inebriated that I or anyone else could barely walk or think straight and then had sex yes, that is rape. Me choosing to have some drinks and lowering my standards w/ "beer goggles" and having sex with women I normally wouldn't isn't rape. I feel like I'm explaining common sense shit right now, but this is where we at now apparently.
Your argument is so weak because you are essentially going down the slippery slope where even your emotions can be considered "drugs" that are influencing you. You were raped by your own lust bro, it's not real and it made you have sex with a woman. Once you're finished and have a clear head and regret what you just did, let me guess, you were raped!!
|
On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: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
How drunk are we talking about? Because it's really about consent right? How much alcohol do you need to do something you wouldn't do sober? Does it have to be passed out drunk before you decide to do a non-sexual stupid thing you wouldn't do otherwise? Is it less than that?
The reason it feels like a gray area is that alcohol is a drug we allow people to take en masse and along with it will come this weird line of how much alcohol is needed to remove consent.
|
On November 24 2016 00:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: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 How drunk are we talking about? Because it's really about consent right? How much alcohol do you need to do something you wouldn't do sober? Does it have to be passed out drunk before you decide to do a non-sexual stupid thing you wouldn't do otherwise? Is it less than that? The reason it feels like a gray area is that alcohol is a drug we allow people to take en masse and along with it will come this weird line of how much alcohol is needed to remove consent.
But how is this relevant when both people are drunk? Are you saying both people raped each other?
|
On November 24 2016 00:54 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:43 biology]major wrote: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? If someone forced me or anyone else to take alcohol without consent and then the result of that action lead me to be so inebriated that I or anyone else could barely walk or think straight and then had sex yes, that is rape. Me choosing to have some drinks and lowering my standards w/ "beer goggles" and having sex with women I normally wouldn't isn't rape. I feel like I'm explaining common sense shit right now, but this is where we at now apparently. Your argument is so weak because you are essentially going down the slippery slope where even your emotions can be considered "drugs" that are influencing you. You were raped by your own lust bro, it's not real and it made you have sex with a woman. Once you're finished and have a clear head and regret what you just did, let me guess, you were raped!!
Both sides choosing to be unable to consent does not negate the lack of consent. You not believing rape is about consent is the problem.
|
On November 24 2016 00:51 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: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 This sounds reasonable; I think the issue becomes significantly more difficult to parse once both parties are past a certain threshold of mutual intoxication. Accordingly, the specific facts surrounding such an incident will likely be far more helpful than any generalized rule.
That is more or less what I was getting at. It seemed that TM was saying that the only condition for rape is that one party wakes up regretting what they had done. I was pointing out that the vast majority of the time (I would hope), the other person is also intoxicated. The fact that a woman might regret having done so doesn't seem a high enough standard to label the person she slept with a rapist. But again, mutual intoxication is different from other outlined scenarios. My only point was that I wonder how many of these incidents are cases of mutual intoxication, and that one would think that the cases of mutual intoxication followed by regret are much higher than the predatory scenarios.
|
On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote: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.
Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it:
Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 24 2016 00:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: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 How drunk are we talking about? Because it's really about consent right? How much alcohol do you need to do something you wouldn't do sober? Does it have to be passed out drunk before you decide to do a non-sexual stupid thing you wouldn't do otherwise? Is it less than that? The reason it feels like a gray area is that alcohol is a drug we allow people to take en masse and along with it will come this weird line of how much alcohol is needed to remove consent.
Why apply a different standard to this, ethically, than other similar power dynamic situations?
Both underage, nobody cares.
One party underage, or in a position of subservity, not okay.
Both parties similarly drunk, fine.
One party not drunk, one party drunk off their face, not good.
Obviously this can not form the basis of any legal definition but we're only speaking about what is and isn't rape her in theory, right?
|
@Acro
I might have overshot, but going from the 7/100 you used, which is clearly horrible enough, to 25/100 is exactly the kind of shit that annoys me to no end.
Same with other topics like the gender pay gap, which exists, is a problem and shoul dbe solved asap, but isn’t actually as big as „commonly used statistic“ sais once the whole picture was taken into account.
The constant exagerations/cherry picking, not just on feminist topics but also on race/immigration/healthcare/taxes/welfare and probably about every topic there are statistics made about destroy the possibility for any sensible discussion because onec you dig a bit, you realise that no side is actually honest but just throws in their best/worst case they can find.
My former post was douchy, no doubt, sorry for that (didn’t help that i actually got this explained to me by someone yesterday, that actually was 100% serious about it)… But ye, sry.
|
On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote: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. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him.
Please don't tell me there are people who call this rape...
|
On November 24 2016 00:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: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 How drunk are we talking about? Because it's really about consent right? How much alcohol do you need to do something you wouldn't do sober? Does it have to be passed out drunk before you decide to do a non-sexual stupid thing you wouldn't do otherwise? Is it less than that? The reason it feels like a gray area is that alcohol is a drug we allow people to take en masse and along with it will come this weird line of how much alcohol is needed to remove consent.
You are labeling one a rapist and one a rape victim based purely on which one wakes up and regrets it. That is silly. If they are both drunk and end up having sex, no one was raped. Or as someone pointed out above, they would both be rape victims in some scenarios. Your definition of rape is so broad you end up with scenarios as absurd as two people having sex and both of them being rape victims and rapists at the same time.
|
On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote: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. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him.
She was drugged by her own lust 
When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways.
|
Canada11398 Posts
On November 24 2016 01:00 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:42 Thieving Magpie wrote: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 How drunk are we talking about? Because it's really about consent right? How much alcohol do you need to do something you wouldn't do sober? Does it have to be passed out drunk before you decide to do a non-sexual stupid thing you wouldn't do otherwise? Is it less than that? The reason it feels like a gray area is that alcohol is a drug we allow people to take en masse and along with it will come this weird line of how much alcohol is needed to remove consent. Why apply a different standard to this, ethically, than other similar power dynamic situations? Both underage, nobody cares. One party underage, or in a position of subservity, not okay. Both parties similarly drunk, fine. One party not drunk, one party drunk off their face, not good. Obviously this can not form the basis of any legal definition but we're only speaking about what is and isn't rape her in theory, right?
I think you would still want within so many standard deviations of being equally drunk as well (whatever that looks like). I could see room for a predator when one is minimally drunk and the other is plastered drunk.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
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
I saw this earlier today and was wondering why it wasnt all over this thread etc... unreal.
|
On November 24 2016 00:43 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:35 LegalLord wrote: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. 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"
Indeed. Do you happen to have statistics/studies on that matter that would shed some light on the issue?
|
On November 24 2016 01:02 sharkie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote: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. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him. Please don't tell me there are people who call this rape...
Thieving Magpie just argued it was.
|
On November 24 2016 00:49 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote: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. Wow. Just wow. So if two people are drunk, are they both rapists or is that a function of whether one of them regrets it the next day? He quite clearly made a distinction between preying on drunk beyond reason people and two people being similarly inebriated in a social setting. Your post is way out of line... and for the record I've never had sex while drunk with anyone ever, infact I drink like once a year so I have zero personal stake in this.
The whole is about consent.
Let's shift from rape to bondage for a moment.
Hitting someone is assault. Strangling someone, is assault.
In BDSM, the groundwork, rules, and consent is given prior, safety words are passed, and then the violence happens.
Alcohol should be no different.
If you and your partner meet, decide to imbibe, and then do things together while intoxicated, the rules have been set.
If you go to the bar, meet someone, you develop a rapport, get intoxicated and follow through on that rapport, then it's no different to the BDSM community.
The issue with alcohol is that there isn't groundwork being done to emphasize the importance of sharing consent prior to the imbibing. In BDSM a lot of things are unsaid because the culture and rules for BDSM is commonly understood, but they are rules developed with consent in mind. Alcohol is different. A lot of times alcohol is praised for making you do things you wouldn't do otherwise. "Liquid Courage" "I shouldn't have done that" etc... This leads to a space where people can be raped or can't be without any tangible way to parse the two because the culture ingrained is that the benefit of alcohol is that your ability to consent is inhibited. Hence why it is so problematic and why it really needs to be focused on and emphasized that the issue is forming rules on how consent is divvied and not waiting to be drunk to ask for consent.
|
I am uncomfortable with labeling a guy who is drunk and hooks up with someone who is more drunk a rapist. The fact that one is mildly drunk and the other plastered doesn't seem that important to me. Again, I think the situation where someone is so drunk that they are incapable of objecting and are taken advantage of are much rarer than the cases where all inhibitions are gone and people just go with it, and one is rape and one quite clearly isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
