|
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 01:05 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:00 Liquid`Jinro wrote: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.
Yeah that exact thought crossed my mind and was why I said it wouldn't be a good legal argument, and also why I used "similarly" drunk.
Seems incredibly hard to actually codify, especially with how alcohol tolerance varies between people.
|
Speaking for myself, I'm not too anxious to jump on the nascent policy plans of Trump until they actually start moving forward, though the defunding of earth science is certainly troubling. Those critical of Trump and the party that brought him to the White House have a lot of work to do on themselves during this next month, and time is better spent on that front.
|
On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major 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. She was drugged by her own lust  When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways.
You guys don't get it.
If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant.
So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself.
It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with.
And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok.
|
On November 24 2016 01:05 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:00 Liquid`Jinro wrote: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.
Also leads to the "I was drunk at the time" defense.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 24 2016 01:01 Velr wrote:
@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.
I think this is a pretty big problem. I don't really understand why people feel the need to pad the numbers when they are already unacceptably high. ..
All that happens is people who are on the fence look at said numbers and see the minor ones tacked on, conclude it is bullshit leftist propaganda.
I feel presenting the numbers separately would give both a bigger impact...
|
On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote: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. She was drugged by her own lust When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok.
No. You don't get it. We all agree on that. Except TM, who agrees with that, but ALSO claims that anybody who drinks, has sex and regrets it the next day has been raped, because the fact that alcohol lowered his/her inhibitions so that while they could still say no, they didn't while they would have if sober, is enough to call rape.
|
It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with.
And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened.
Uhm, this? :p
And btw. if we are talking about "things you wouldn't do sober"... Your mind Begins to change fast, very fast and you don't Need to "feel" drunk to do stuff you wouldn't do either.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote: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. She was drugged by her own lust When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok.
Nobody is arguing against that! TM is literally saying that if two people are drunk and have sex it is de facto rape because you cant consent while drunk.
Still hasn't gotten back to anyone on whether that makes for 1 or 2 rapists tho.
Literally everyone has agreed that what you outlined is rape.
Edit damn thread is too fast :p
|
On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote: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. She was drugged by her own lust When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok.
That's not what he's saying. Theiving is saying if under any circumstance she wakes up in the morning and regrets her decision, and drank the night before --> she was incapable of consent because she did something she normally wouldn't do. That is idiotic, we all do shit we regret even without the influence of alcohol while completely sober. The line as to where you lose your ability to consent while under the influence of alcohol is completely different for each person and legally I have no idea how you figure that out. But having some drinks before meeting the other person, having sex and then regretting it the next day isn't rape.
|
On November 24 2016 01:03 Kickstart 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. 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.
I'm am arguing that culture that looks for consent from someone after they are drugged by alcohol is worse than a culture that emphasizes that consent be given before being drugged by alcohol.
|
On November 24 2016 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:03 Kickstart wrote: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. 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. I'm am arguing that culture that looks for consent from someone after they are drugged by alcohol is worse than a culture that emphasizes that consent be given before being drugged by alcohol.
Yes, because going to a party and approaching everyone there with "Look, I plan on fucking tonight. If it happens to be with you is that going to be okay with you tomorrow morning?" is going to go over real well for people. What you are proposing won't happen.
|
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...
She didn't give her affirmative consent. It's absolutely rape in the eyes of some in this thread, though maybe not a majority of this gaming community. If a statistician frames the question as counting sex while drunk i.e. too inebriated to give consent, it absolutely is counted in some metrics. The girl was a victim of rape, the rapist is an example of pernicious campus rape culture.
|
On November 24 2016 01:20 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:03 Kickstart wrote: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. 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. I'm am arguing that culture that looks for consent from someone after they are drugged by alcohol is worse than a culture that emphasizes that consent be given before being drugged by alcohol. Yes, because going to a party and approaching everyone there with "Look, I plan on fucking tonight. If it happens to be with you is that going to be okay with you tomorrow morning?" is going to go over real well for people. What you are proposing won't happen.
Welcome to rape culture where discussing about consent while of sound mind is taboo.
User was warned for this post
|
On November 24 2016 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:03 Kickstart wrote: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. 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. I'm am arguing that culture that looks for consent from someone after they are drugged by alcohol is worse than a culture that emphasizes that consent be given before being drugged by alcohol.
Have you ever been out in the real world and talked with a real person in a bar?
User was warned for this post
|
On November 24 2016 01:29 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:02 sharkie wrote: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... She didn't give her affirmative consent. It's absolutely rape in the eyes of some in this thread, though maybe not a majority of this gaming community. If a statistician frames the question as counting sex while drunk i.e. too inebriated to give consent, it absolutely is counted in some metrics. The girl was a victim of rape, the rapist is an example of pernicious campus rape culture.
Nice strawman you got there. You took one Thieving Magpie and raised it a whole ton of horseshit. And I thought the entire left-leaning part of the thread telling TM he was being ridiculous would be enough.
In the off chance you weren't just being facetious, please point me towards those metrics. Or is this just something "many people say"?
User was warned for this post
|
On November 24 2016 01:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:20 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:03 Kickstart wrote: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. 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. I'm am arguing that culture that looks for consent from someone after they are drugged by alcohol is worse than a culture that emphasizes that consent be given before being drugged by alcohol. Yes, because going to a party and approaching everyone there with "Look, I plan on fucking tonight. If it happens to be with you is that going to be okay with you tomorrow morning?" is going to go over real well for people. What you are proposing won't happen. Welcome to rape culture where discussing about consent while of sound mind is taboo.
What if you're late to the party, and everybody started drinking without you? Should you abstain from having hot steamy sex with that guy winking at you at the other end of the bar?
Oh wait, I have the solution. We should walk around with pocket breathalizers. Sex is forbidden if either party scores > 0.1 º/oo
|
On November 24 2016 01:20 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:03 Kickstart wrote: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. 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. I'm am arguing that culture that looks for consent from someone after they are drugged by alcohol is worse than a culture that emphasizes that consent be given before being drugged by alcohol. Yes, because going to a party and approaching everyone there with "Look, I plan on fucking tonight. If it happens to be with you is that going to be okay with you tomorrow morning?" is going to go over real well for people. What you are proposing won't happen.
Not only that but prior consent is irrelevant because it can be taken back at any time, even if drunk.
|
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...
Depends on the number of drinks she had.
One I have always liked: In some countries, it is legally a rape if he lied during the chat part of the seduction process. Consent is not valid if it is given to someone she believes him to be and not to the person he actually is.
|
Lmao I'm so glad to see there are people who think like this, never would have known otherwise
|
Didn't expect anything less from TM.
User was warned for this post
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
