|
On February 12 2014 07:30 KwarK wrote:
What Sokrates thinks the article means based upon his preconceived notions of feminism
If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the man is in the wrong
If a drunk man paws at a drunk man both men are in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the man is in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman nobody is in the wrong
What the article is actually saying
If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong
If a drunk man paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong
It's just "don't paw at drunk people without consent" and that ought not to be a thing we're arguing against.
Ah so we set up a checklist by every move one makes that is considered sexual the person has to ask. This is surely how real life works.
Also give me the example of a female pawing at a man in said article. I think the article was only directed towards males doing this. Not a single notion about intervening when a female is pawing at a man.
|
United States44128 Posts
On February 12 2014 07:28 Sokrates wrote:
The man is expected to be the active part and is most likely the active part.
You can actively give consent while being initiated on. The verb "pawing" is not typically used to describe that situation.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Sokrates wrote:
So asides from that your definition of said rape still is totally out of proportion no matter if you blame the man or the woman.
What definition of rape? I didn't give one. You seem to think I think all drunken sexual activity is rape. I do not.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Sokrates wrote:
What you are basically saying is that every sex or every making out under the influcence of alcohol is considered rape beause there will always be a part that is more active than the other.
No I didn't. You said that. Just now.
On February 12 2014 07:28 Sokrates wrote:
Also note that you said drunk people cannot consent, so there has to be a rapist involved, even if you make it genderblind this is still fucked up.
No, I really didn't say that.
What is happening here is that you keep reading this weird fucked up manhating agenda into everything anyone says and it's just not there. You seem to have literally no clue what I wrote.
|
Then how do you know there was no consent? What if the person being pawed on was ok with that?
Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
|
United States44128 Posts
On February 12 2014 07:32 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 07:30 KwarK wrote:
What Sokrates thinks the article means based upon his preconceived notions of feminism
If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the man is in the wrong
If a drunk man paws at a drunk man both men are in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the man is in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman nobody is in the wrong
What the article is actually saying
If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong
If a drunk man paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong
It's just "don't paw at drunk people without consent" and that ought not to be a thing we're arguing against. Ah so we set up a checklist by every move one makes that is considered sexual the person has to ask. This is surely how real life works. Also give me the example of a female pawing at a man in said article. I think the article was only directed towards males doing this. Not a single notion about intervening when a female is pawing at a man.
And you thought an appropriate response to the fact that the single example given was not gender neutral was to conclude that feminists think all men everywhere are rapists despite the fact that in the example the gender of the individual involved was not the reason he was identified as being in the wrong?
If you're so upset about the example not being gender neutral, or not being repeated immediately afterwards the genders reversed, write to the editor. I've seen girls do things to guys who are pretty much out of it drunk and as a feminist I'm not okay with it. You're arguing against a strawman that you made up.
|
United States44128 Posts
On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote:
Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched".
Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against.
I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here.
|
On February 12 2014 07:40 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 07:32 Sokrates wrote:On February 12 2014 07:30 KwarK wrote:
What Sokrates thinks the article means based upon his preconceived notions of feminism
If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the man is in the wrong
If a drunk man paws at a drunk man both men are in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the man is in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman nobody is in the wrong
What the article is actually saying
If a drunk man paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong
If a drunk man paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk man the pawer is in the wrong
If a drunk woman paws at a drunk woman the pawer is in the wrong
It's just "don't paw at drunk people without consent" and that ought not to be a thing we're arguing against. Ah so we set up a checklist by every move one makes that is considered sexual the person has to ask. This is surely how real life works. Also give me the example of a female pawing at a man in said article. I think the article was only directed towards males doing this. Not a single notion about intervening when a female is pawing at a man. And you thought an appropriate response to the fact that the single example given was not gender neutral was to conclude that feminists think all men everywhere are rapists despite the fact that in the example the gender of the individual involved was not the reason he was identified as being in the wrong? If you're so upset about the example not being gender neutral, or not being repeated immediately afterwards the genders reversed, write to the editor. I've seen girls do things to guys who are pretty much out of it drunk and as a feminist I'm not okay with it. You're arguing against a strawman that you made up.
So then every feminist that complains about articles or games that are not gender neutral are arguing against a strawman. Am i correct with that assumption? You just said that it doesnt matter what gender the persons involved in an article/game etc. have. But i have the impression that "gender neutrality" in such mattters are one of the top tier subjects in feminist movements. If you agree on that then i also agree on that article.
On February 12 2014 07:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote:
Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched". Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against. I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here.
Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape. 
|
United States44128 Posts
On February 12 2014 07:45 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 07:42 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote:
Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched". Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against. I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here. Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape.
In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions.
I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape.
I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.
I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness.
|
On February 12 2014 07:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 07:45 Sokrates wrote:On February 12 2014 07:42 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote:
Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched". Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against. I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here. Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape. In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions. I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape. I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated. I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness.
Most of sexual actions are implicit, you dont ask a girl if you can kiss her if you dont want to sound like a clown. She will either respond or pull back. Same with all that other stuff.
I m not talking about blacked out persons because they can not respond but if someone is still able to talk or able to react then this person is also able to show that he/she isnt ok with something. And he/she is also able to tell if something is ok or not.
I m only argueing against "well i had sex last night and now i regret it, must be rape." That doesnt work.
Of course this thing is a bit of a grey area and not clear cut but i d rather apply to personal responsibility than making this whole thing a walk on eggshells.
|
United States44128 Posts
On February 12 2014 08:05 Sokrates wrote:
I m only argueing against "well i had sex last night and now i regret it, must be rape." That doesnt work.
And I, and every other feminist I've ever spoken to, will agree that regretting consensual sex does not make that sex rape.
Nobody is saying the things you're contradicting. Not the article, not me earlier when you put words into my mouth and not feminism to the best of my knowledge.
|
On February 12 2014 08:08 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 08:05 Sokrates wrote:
I m only argueing against "well i had sex last night and now i regret it, must be rape." That doesnt work.
And I, and every other feminist I've ever spoken to, will agree that regretting consensual sex does not make that sex rape. Nobody is saying the things you're contradicting. Not the article, not me earlier when you put words into my mouth and not feminism to the best of my knowledge.
You are discussing semantics here because no feminist EVER will say "well i bet you didnt get raped you just regret it now."
NEVER EVER did i see that happen.
|
On February 12 2014 07:57 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 07:45 Sokrates wrote:On February 12 2014 07:42 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote:
Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched". Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against. I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here. Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape. In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions. I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape. I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness.
That is a pretty extreme case. How can you justify calling it rape if she says no, but then starts initiating?
Its like those feminist saying that stares or looks are enough to feel mentally raped and should be punished by same standard as physically rape. The article is sane, "don't touch someone if they dont want to be touched, regardless of gender" But however how noble the article is, real life feminism just doesn't say that.
In my eyes feminism is as close to a hate movement as you can get. Trying to poke and bend every situation so that (white) men will always be underdogs, skewing statistics and scenarios. Like that Feminist gamer activist Anita pulling straw and disregarding same stereotypes vs men.
Its rare that you hear about sane feminist's. Dunno if that's because they are silent to it all, or they don't give a crap.
|
United States44128 Posts
On February 12 2014 08:13 Sokrates wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 08:08 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 08:05 Sokrates wrote:
I m only argueing against "well i had sex last night and now i regret it, must be rape." That doesnt work.
And I, and every other feminist I've ever spoken to, will agree that regretting consensual sex does not make that sex rape. Nobody is saying the things you're contradicting. Not the article, not me earlier when you put words into my mouth and not feminism to the best of my knowledge. You are discussing semantics here because no feminist EVER will say "well i bet you didnt get raped you just regret it now." NEVER EVER did i see that happen.
I know a guy who was falsely accused of rape. It made national news at the time oddly enough and he came out of it pretty poorly because he was named by the papers. The same papers that ruined his name actually ran editorials afterwards saying how awful it was that the suspect could be named but the victim remained anonymous before the courts made a ruling because fuck hypocrisy, papers to sell. Anyway, her story was found to be unconvincing and was thrown out and I think based upon what I was told about it (admittedly I only heard his side) that they made the right decision.
But equally we don't go around saying "I bet you didn't get mugged, you just regret giving away all your money". It's just a really shitty thing to say to someone. Rape is an unusually distressing crime and opening with an accusation that they deserved it and that they wanted it is just an awful, awful thing to say. If the facts support that conclusion then find the guy innocent and say so and if malicious intent from the "victim" can be proved then go ahead and go after her. But if there is a chance that they were actually raped and you still think "I bet you actually wanted it to happen" is an okay thing to say to someone then you're a colossal shitbag.
I accept that statistically speaking some people must make false rape accusations for whatever reason. Research into it shows that it's a low percentage, no more than other false accusations for other crimes, but it is a non zero number so there are some of them out there. What I do not accept is that it is reasonable to accuse people who are probably rape victims of being responsible for their own rape. The majority of rapes are very difficult to prove and devolve into one word against another and it is no more reasonable to assume that a woman whose rapist was not convicted (insufficient evidence, not reported, not found, whatever) really wanted it than that the accused person was actually a rapist.
It is wrong to treat someone accused of being a rapist but not found guilty as a rapist. It is also wrong to blame someone who was possibly raped for their rape. These things are not mutually exclusive.
|
On February 12 2014 08:14 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 07:57 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 07:45 Sokrates wrote:On February 12 2014 07:42 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote:
Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched". Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against. I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here. Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape. In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions. I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape. I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness. In my eyes feminism is as close to a hate movement as you can get. Trying to poke and bend every situation so that (white) men will always be underdogs, skewing statistics and scenarios. Like that Feminist gamer activist Anita pulling straw and disregarding same stereotypes vs men. Its rare that you hear about sane feminist's. Dunno if that's because they are silent to it all, or they don't give a crap.
Actually I never got hat kind of double standards often involved with feminism. Germany's best known feminist Alice Schwarzer declared the word "Unschuldsvermutung" (Innocent until proven otherwise) to be the "Unwort" (worst word of the year) because a man (Kachelmann, should be rather unknown outside of Germany) was convicted "not guilty" of rape in a rather controversy prozess. Any man with such kind of bold statements (women just want to be raped or other horrible stuff) would be publicy cruzified.
|
On February 12 2014 08:14 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 07:57 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 07:45 Sokrates wrote:On February 12 2014 07:42 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote:
Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched". Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against. I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here. Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape. In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions. I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape. I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness. That is a pretty extreme case. How can you justify calling it rape if she says no, but then starts initiating? Its like those feminist saying that stares or looks are enough to feel mentally raped and should be punished by same standard as physically rape. The article is sane, " don't touch someone if they dont want to be touched, regardless of gender" But however how noble the article is, real life feminism just doesn't say that. In my eyes feminism is as close to a hate movement as you can get. Trying to poke and bend every situation so that (white) men will always be underdogs, skewing statistics and scenarios. Like that Feminist gamer activist Anita pulling straw and disregarding same stereotypes vs men. Its rare that you hear about sane feminist's. Dunno if that's because they are silent to it all, or they don't give a crap.
Well it is always the "noble" cause that justifies the means. THe discussion here is about the noble cause and not about the means, they pretend they do not exist.
|
United States44128 Posts
On February 12 2014 08:14 TheRealArtemis wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 07:57 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 07:45 Sokrates wrote:On February 12 2014 07:42 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote:
Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched". Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against. I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here. Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape. In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions. I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape. I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness. That is a pretty extreme case. How can you justify calling it rape if she says no, but then starts initiating? Its like those feminist saying that stares or looks are enough to feel mentally raped and should be punished by same standard as physically rape. The article is sane, " don't touch someone if they dont want to be touched, regardless of gender" But however how noble the article is, real life feminism just doesn't say that. In my eyes feminism is as close to a hate movement as you can get. Trying to poke and bend every situation so that (white) men will always be underdogs, skewing statistics and scenarios. Like that Feminist gamer activist Anita pulling straw and disregarding same stereotypes vs men. Its rare that you hear about sane feminist's. Dunno if that's because they are silent to it all, or they don't give a crap.
Because she has stated that she does not want to have sex with you. If in doubt, ask. If she initiates the actual penetration and puts your dick inside her then you're in the clear but if she consents to oral sex but not vaginal penetration and then you force her then that is rape. If someone states "I do not consent to X", don't do X to her. Pretty basic shit.
I'm a real life feminist and I don't believe that staring is the same thing as physical rape. I talk to quite a lot of feminists in real life and none of them think that. You seem to have made these people up. You talk about "real life feminism", how many feminists do you talk to in real life? Do they really tell you that staring should be punished the same way as a physical rape? Where do you find these people? Are they your friends? Your peers?
|
On February 12 2014 08:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 08:13 Sokrates wrote:On February 12 2014 08:08 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 08:05 Sokrates wrote:
I m only argueing against "well i had sex last night and now i regret it, must be rape." That doesnt work.
And I, and every other feminist I've ever spoken to, will agree that regretting consensual sex does not make that sex rape. Nobody is saying the things you're contradicting. Not the article, not me earlier when you put words into my mouth and not feminism to the best of my knowledge. You are discussing semantics here because no feminist EVER will say "well i bet you didnt get raped you just regret it now." NEVER EVER did i see that happen. I know a guy who was falsely accused of rape. It made national news at the time oddly enough and he came out of it pretty poorly because he was named by the papers. The same papers that ruined his name actually ran editorials afterwards saying how awful it was that the suspect could be named but the victim remained anonymous before the courts made a ruling because fuck hypocrisy, papers to sell. Anyway, her story was found to be unconvincing and was thrown out and I think based upon what I was told about it (admittedly I only heard his side) that they made the right decision. But equally we don't go around saying "I bet you didn't get mugged, you just regret giving away all your money". It's just a really shitty thing to say to someone. Rape is an unusually distressing crime and opening with an accusation that they deserved it and that they wanted it is just an awful, awful thing to say. If the facts support that conclusion then find the guy innocent and say so and if malicious intent from the "victim" can be proved then go ahead and go after her. But if there is a chance that they were actually raped and you still think "I bet you actually wanted it to happen" is an okay thing to say to someone then you're a colossal shitbag.
Ok i agree with that but "siding" with the victim and assuming that the guy must be guilty is ALSO malicious when nobody acutally knows what is going on. Feminists are very quick siding with the victim and saying the guy is guilty. It is the same shit as saying that she was asking for it.
I accept that statistically speaking some people must make false rape accusations for whatever reason. Research into it shows that it's a low percentage, no more than other false accusations for other crimes, but it is a non zero number so there are some of them out there. What I do not accept is that it is reasonable to accuse people who are probably rape victims of being responsible for their own rape. The majority of rapes are very difficult to prove and devolve into one word against another and it is no more reasonable to assume that a woman whose rapist was not convicted (insufficient evidence, not reported, not found, whatever) really wanted it than that the accused person was actually a rapist.
It is wrong to treat someone accused of being a rapist but not found guilty as a rapist. It is also wrong to blame someone who was possibly raped for their rape. These things are not mutually exclusive.
It is just wrong to assume that you have been raped when you didnt explicitly give consent but you were also not making clear that you didnt want it either (being really wasted is something different). Just like that girl that got eaten out in the middle of the street enjoyed it then this got spread on the internet and she accused him of rape afterwards. How retarded is that? I mean there was clear evidence that she was NOT raped but she accused him of rape anyway even knowing that this was filmed.
Modern day feminism plants such seeds in the heads of young women.
Ofc you are saying now that feminism doesnt do that but the reality is different. Like i said before in this thread: All the nice words and ideals mean nothing when they are just empty shells.
On February 12 2014 08:33 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On February 12 2014 08:14 TheRealArtemis wrote:On February 12 2014 07:57 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 07:45 Sokrates wrote:On February 12 2014 07:42 KwarK wrote:On February 12 2014 07:37 Sokrates wrote:
Otherwise you are just telling the most trivial things in the world "dont touch people that dont want to be touched". Yes. That's what feminists are saying. "don't touch people that don't want to be touched". That's literally it. That's what you've been arguing against. I feel we've finally had a breakthrough here. Oh then let me ask you: When is sex between two drunk persons not rape. In my opinion, when they both give clear consent, either verbally or implicitly through their actions. I'll give some examples. If they say "yes, I want to have sex with you" and then that isn't contradicted by them fighting back or struggling or whatever then that'd count. Or if they don't verbally consent but get themselves naked and start riding you then that'd count. But if they said "I don't want to have sex, I just want to spoon" and then got naked then that'd not be clear consent because they've already verbally stated that they don't want to have sex so assuming that they do based upon them undressing would be rape. Likewise if someone says "yes, but only if you use a condom" and the other party deliberately ignores that then that's rape. I also believe both parties should take reasonable efforts to avoid raping someone. If it's confusing or somehow ambiguous (girl says no to sex then starts sucking your dick or whatever) then take the 3 seconds to ask her again rather than just assume that the no is somehow invalidated.I do not believe that all drunken activity is automatically lacking in consent. Alcohol is a pretty central part of human social activity and such a rule would be unenforceable and end up hurting a lot of innocent people. But alcohol is also a drug that has the ability to make people incapable of giving consent, such as when people get blackout drunk, and assuming consensually consuming alcohol means consenting to literally anything subsequently done to you is madness. That is a pretty extreme case. How can you justify calling it rape if she says no, but then starts initiating? Its like those feminist saying that stares or looks are enough to feel mentally raped and should be punished by same standard as physically rape. The article is sane, " don't touch someone if they dont want to be touched, regardless of gender" But however how noble the article is, real life feminism just doesn't say that. In my eyes feminism is as close to a hate movement as you can get. Trying to poke and bend every situation so that (white) men will always be underdogs, skewing statistics and scenarios. Like that Feminist gamer activist Anita pulling straw and disregarding same stereotypes vs men. Its rare that you hear about sane feminist's. Dunno if that's because they are silent to it all, or they don't give a crap. Because she has stated that she does not want to have sex with you. If in doubt, ask. If she initiates the actual penetration and puts your dick inside her then you're in the clear but if she consents to oral sex but not vaginal penetration and then you force her then that is rape. If someone states "I do not consent to X", don't do X to her. Pretty basic shit. I'm a real life feminist and I don't believe that staring is the same thing as physical rape. I talk to quite a lot of feminists in real life and none of them think that. You seem to have made these people up. You talk about "real life feminism", how many feminists do you talk to in real life? Do they really tell you that staring should be punished the same way as a physical rape? Where do you find these people? Are they your friends? Your peers?
You find such people all over the internet, they may be a minority and batshit crazy but maybe they become the mainstream in a few years. There is also a picture stating "i need feminism because you can rape a woman without ever laying a hand on her."
|
United States44128 Posts
If you insist upon fighting your own straw men there is no point in me, or anyone else, talking to you. Go find a "real feminist" (someone who by your definition assumes all men are rapists) to fight. Let me know when you do and I'll join you because as a real person who is also a feminist I strongly disagree with what the "real feminists" are saying.
But there is absolutely no point in you fighting your straw men here unless you find a "real feminist". For now you're stuck with me and my feminism which, incidentally, you seem to agree with.
|
United States44128 Posts
In response to your edit.
Crazy people saying dumb things!?!? On the internet!?!?
No shit people say dumb things on the internet. But using them to define feminism so you can argue against it is about as smart as using "but if God isn't real then who made Satan" to argue against the intelligence of Christians. You just have to let that shit go, it's not worth it.
|
Because you agree with basic trivial stuff. Stuff that almost every regular person would see the same way yet none of them claims to be a feminist. I m just talking about all those feminists out there that belive all men are evil oppressors and rapists.
Now of course you can hang on to your noble cause and bring out your definitions but then i can also ask you why all those feminists are hating on the MRAs so hard, if i wouldnt be so lazy i would look up their noble causes and i bet you would also agree. But i get it MRAs are bad people and feminists are good people.
Why arent both calling themselves humanisits? After all i m just fighting strawmen...
Also you didnt answer my question on the gender neutrality, you accidentially skipped that part i assume. Just a strawman.
|
haha the 3 sets vs 5 sets is the stupidest thing i've ever heard. a sprinter shouldnt be payed at all then because he only runs for 10 seconds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
