On May 02 2013 23:38 Kickboxer wrote: I never understood the whole "objectifying" thing. Our bodies are objects. You are your body plus your mind plus your spirit. You have an equal degree of control over your body than you have over your mind, and it defines who you are to the same extent your thoughts do. Some are born deficient and make up for it, others are given gifts and squander them. At any rate, no matter which way you turn it, your body is you. You are not simply the ethereal collection of your thoughts, you are also your body, an object.
Since sex has to do with the body a lot, it is normal to look at persons as objects in the context of sexuality. Unless you are genuinely turned on by smarts (yeah, right) this is just simple reality. Don't want to be "objectified"? Ok then, stop treating your body well, stop masquerading it, stop adorning it, just be ashamed of it and cover it up. There, you are now no longer an "object" and nobody views you in a sexual light. Mission accomplished. Thing is, if they didn't want to talk to you before, they sure won't want to talk to you now, either.
People put their breasts out, accent their ass, paint themselves in make-up and strut around in high heels and then complain of being "objectified". I'd sooner expect them to complain about being "intelectualized" to be honest. When a woman is attracted to me I couldn't care less if she sees me as an object. Of course I am an object, I am made of meat and bone and tendon and I've been working hard on those abs so they can offer her sensory pleasure. Sure, if I want a deep debate about meaningful issues and the person keeps talking about my ass it feels kind of awkward, but in the context of sex I will not be able to pleasure a woman with my interesting views on citizen's basic income or the Norwegian leatherworking industry so what's the point of forcing my character and intellect on her? And if she is genuinely interested, of course, I will gladly present them.
It's tantamount to coming to a debate, punching someone you disagree with in the face and then complaining you are being "intellectualized" when the security drags you out.
That's because you're misunderstanding the objectification issue.
It's not merely about being desired for their body.
It's when you can't even put a video of yourself online without someone saying "show me your boobs". Has any man put up a video of themselves playing a game or whatever and had people saying, "show me your dick"? When was the last time you saw people commenting on a video, clamoring for a man to wear more revealing or flattering clothes?
We're talking about the most basic interaction people have with a video online. If it's a video of a man, the commentary will be about the content of the video. If it features a woman, there will be a non-trivial amount of commentary asking her to wear something more revealing, discussing her breast size, and other crap like that.
That's objectification: when people completely ignore just about everything you're saying and focus entirely on you as a flesh bag. When you have to dress "correctly" in accord with some arbitrary construct lest you be called various things (whether "slut" or be told to "show your tits more" or whatever). And so forth.
This is simply not something that happens to men. If you think it is, trust me; it isn't. Not to the level that women get it.
I don't trust you, because you don't understand the differences between how the sexes objectify each other. Women objectify men just as much as men do them, but they do it by different qualities. Men do it by big boobs and revealing clothes, women do it by success, status and money. Or are you completely unaware of the droves of screaming women making up the front lines of the audience at a concert whenever any popular male artist is playing? Are you unaware of the amount of sexual attention that firemen, military men and just about any other kind of -men that comes with a uniform, receive? Men don't receive the same type of comments on youtube videos, because 1) women are sexual choosers, not sexual offerers, and 2) "go put on a firefighter uniform" is not a comment that makes much sense.
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
Whos fault was it that he got black out drunk?
His but that's not in any way relevant to whether someone else has the right to do things to him while he is blacked out.
Sure it is. If you knowingly and willingly intoxicate yourself to the point where you lose control, then you have to share some of the blame. If I walked through Compton shouting "nigger" at the top of my lungs because I got drunk, I'd get stabbed or shot. My assailant would be a criminal who violated my rights, but no one would think twice to lay a portion of the blame on me. It's a harsh reality, but rights don't completely absolve anyone of blame in a situation. Rape is a serious crime no doubt, but to say that a woman who dresses in sexually provocative clothing and severely intoxicates herself is in no way faulted... that is complete and utter bullshit.
And yes, I have had this conversation with girls in real life, even one who claimed to be a rape victim.
This opinion is becoming less popular as the world becomes less stupid. Slowly but surely.
The fact that you think screaming 'nigger' and then getting your ass beat is the same thing as getting drunk and then getting raped is kind of horrifying.
edit: on the other hand if the provocatively dressed, somewhat drunk woman comes on to a man then accuses him of rape later that can be bs I'd admit
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape.
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
Whos fault was it that he got black out drunk?
His but that's not in any way relevant to whether someone else has the right to do things to him while he is blacked out.
Sure it is. If you knowingly and willingly intoxicate yourself to the point where you lose control, then you have to share some of the blame. If I walked through Compton shouting "nigger" at the top of my lungs because I got drunk, I'd get stabbed or shot. My assailant would be a criminal who violated my rights, but no one would think twice to lay a portion of the blame on me. It's a harsh reality, but rights don't completely absolve anyone of blame in a situation. Rape is a serious crime no doubt, but to say that a woman who dresses in sexually provocative clothing and severely intoxicates herself is in no way faulted... that is complete and utter bullshit.
And yes, I have had this conversation with girls in real life, even one who claimed to be a rape victim.
This opinion is becoming less popular as the world becomes less stupid. Slowly but surely.
The fact that you think screaming 'nigger' and then getting your ass beat is the same thing as getting drunk and then getting raped is kind of horrifying.
edit: on the other hand if the provocatively dressed, somewhat drunk woman comes on to a man then accuses him of rape later that can be bs I'd admit
How you dress and whether you recreationally consume alcohol are never relevant to the decision of the rapist to rape you. Ever.
On May 02 2013 23:38 Kickboxer wrote: I never understood the whole "objectifying" thing. Our bodies are objects. You are your body plus your mind plus your spirit. You have an equal degree of control over your body than you have over your mind, and it defines who you are to the same extent your thoughts do. Some are born deficient and make up for it, others are given gifts and squander them. At any rate, no matter which way you turn it, your body is you. You are not simply the ethereal collection of your thoughts, you are also your body, an object.
Since sex has to do with the body a lot, it is normal to look at persons as objects in the context of sexuality. Unless you are genuinely turned on by smarts (yeah, right) this is just simple reality. Don't want to be "objectified"? Ok then, stop treating your body well, stop masquerading it, stop adorning it, just be ashamed of it and cover it up. There, you are now no longer an "object" and nobody views you in a sexual light. Mission accomplished. Thing is, if they didn't want to talk to you before, they sure won't want to talk to you now, either.
People put their breasts out, accent their ass, paint themselves in make-up and strut around in high heels and then complain of being "objectified". I'd sooner expect them to complain about being "intelectualized" to be honest. When a woman is attracted to me I couldn't care less if she sees me as an object. Of course I am an object, I am made of meat and bone and tendon and I've been working hard on those abs so they can offer her sensory pleasure. Sure, if I want a deep debate about meaningful issues and the person keeps talking about my ass it feels kind of awkward, but in the context of sex I will not be able to pleasure a woman with my interesting views on citizen's basic income or the Norwegian leatherworking industry so what's the point of forcing my character and intellect on her? And if she is genuinely interested, of course, I will gladly present them.
It's tantamount to coming to a debate, punching someone you disagree with in the face and then complaining you are being "intellectualized" when the security drags you out.
Objectify means focus on the object instead of focusing on the human. Such as when people get upset when a video isn't showing tits--even though the video is about gaming culture. Now if the video was a porno without tits--then it's a valid complaint because the video is *supposed* to show you that. Objectification is not about whether someone is being sexualized or not, it's about someone being equated to their sex instead of to their personhood.
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape.
I would hope the penalties for what you describe, if any, would be far less than violent rape or things like that.
Unfortunately it is quite difficult (legally) to deal with situations where people are having fun, getting drunk, and having more fun with strangers.
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
Whos fault was it that he got black out drunk?
His but that's not in any way relevant to whether someone else has the right to do things to him while he is blacked out.
Sure it is. If you knowingly and willingly intoxicate yourself to the point where you lose control, then you have to share some of the blame. If I walked through Compton shouting "nigger" at the top of my lungs because I got drunk, I'd get stabbed or shot. My assailant would be a criminal who violated my rights, but no one would think twice to lay a portion of the blame on me. It's a harsh reality, but rights don't completely absolve anyone of blame in a situation. Rape is a serious crime no doubt, but to say that a woman who dresses in sexually provocative clothing and severely intoxicates herself is in no way faulted... that is complete and utter bullshit.
And yes, I have had this conversation with girls in real life, even one who claimed to be a rape victim.
This opinion is becoming less popular as the world becomes less stupid. Slowly but surely.
The fact that you think screaming 'nigger' and then getting your ass beat is the same thing as getting drunk and then getting raped is kind of horrifying.
edit: on the other hand if the provocatively dressed, somewhat drunk woman comes on to a man then accuses him of rape later that can be bs I'd admit
How you dress and whether you recreationally consume alcohol are never relevant to the decision of the rapist to rape you. Ever.
I don't know how often this actually happens but it's possible for, say, the drunk female to pull you into a room and start trying to remove your clothing. You may not even realize that she's that drunk and then the day after she could come after you legally for rape. It is a tricky situation... I don't want to say not all rapes are legitimate but some cases of rape the defendant honestly may not have realized he did anything wrong and there may not have been any clear cues.
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
Whos fault was it that he got black out drunk?
His but that's not in any way relevant to whether someone else has the right to do things to him while he is blacked out.
Sure it is. If you knowingly and willingly intoxicate yourself to the point where you lose control, then you have to share some of the blame.
Um, no you don't.
There is a difference between "responsibility" and "blame". The blame always rests on the perpetrator of the act. While it was irresponsible to get intoxicated to the point where consent is not possible, that doesn't mean you are to blame for what is done to you.
And it is just as irresponsible to not notice that someone is incapable of consenting as it is to make yourself incapable of consent. And if you do something based on that irresponsibility, you are now to blame for the consequences of that action.
Person A being irresponsible does not in any way absolve Person B from for doing something to them. It does not make Person A culpable for what happened, nor should it in any way lesson or affect the guilt or punishment for Person B.
On May 03 2013 00:04 SupLilSon wrote: If I walked through Compton shouting "nigger" at the top of my lungs because I got drunk, I'd get stabbed or shot. My assailant would be a criminal who violated my rights, but no one would think twice to lay a portion of the blame on me.
That would be because you were inciting people to attack you and disturbing the peace. The latter is a crime.
On May 03 2013 00:04 SupLilSon wrote: It's a harsh reality, but rights don't completely absolve anyone of blame in a situation. Rape is a serious crime no doubt, but to say that a woman who dresses in sexually provocative clothing and severely intoxicates herself is in no way faulted... that is complete and utter bullshit.
And yes, I have had this conversation with girls in real life, even one who claimed to be a rape victim.
"One who claimed to be a rape victim". That says so much right there.
You never hear someone called "one who claimed to be a victim of robbery" or "one who claimed to be a victim of assault". Yet people will say what you said, as those there are only "claims" of being a rape victim, not actual rape victims.
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape.
I am of the opinion that the free choice to lower your inhibitions with alcohol makes you accountable for the drunken choices you make following that and therefore a drunken decision to have sex still counts as consent. But if someone drunkenly refuses to have sex and is then raped because of their inability to escape the situation or if they pass out and are raped then obviously that is rape.
Before I record the videos I create for various different companies I change my shirt from the loosely fitting singlet I usually wear during the day, to a high-collared t-shirt that will minimise my chances of being objectified. It’s less comfortable, it’s not what I would generally choose to wear, but I do it in attempt to avoid comments about my breasts, my chest, and my physique in general – I try to negate any harassment I possibly can.
So you purposefully make yourself physically uncomfortable and repress a little of your sexuality because you're bothered by random internet users? Seriously? Are you new to the internet? Do you not understand how this thing works? That's like IdrA not playing StarCraft anymore because someone told him he's not a good player. lmao
Obviously, it doesn’t work. Instead of having people disregard gender entirely as it really shouldn’t be relevant to a video about game news, there are streams of responses from men complaining that a woman hasn’t revealed herself to them, as though it’s expected or it’s their right to ask for that. Not only is this incredibly discouraging – these videos take hours and hours of effort to create – it’s easy to feel like you simply can’t win. You can only ignore the comments, but that would make responding to the pleasant viewers or the ones who ask genuine questions impossible.
Nope. It's not impossible. Many people manage to ignore trolls and uneducated children, even on Twitch whose chat is a cancerous cesspool, or YouTube comments ffs.
If jerks on the internet are given a free-pass and allowed to hide behind anonymity when they’re being sexist to someone, then there’s absolutely no reason you can’t use that same anonymity to criticise or educate them. Honestly, just seeing one down-vote or having one person stick up for me is a part of the reason I’m still here and I’m not going to stop fighting. Every single person has the power to fight sexism.
Is this woman stupid? People on the internet are given a free-pass to do and say far more than just being sexist to some uptight, sensitive and easily-offended woman like her who apparently doesn't understand how the internet works or that you can't censor it.
I mean lmao, I'm not a big deal, but in my many years of competitive gaming I've had hundreds if not thousands of people call me a no-life, a basement dweller, a loser (all of which baseless assumptions ofc) and wishing things like death and cancer and rape on me and my family, JUST BECAUSE I BEAT THEM AT VIDEO GAMES. Do you think that affected me in any way, shape or form? No lol. I just laugh and brush it off, and it even makes me feel better about myself that these people are so easily irritated.
Protip to her: stop being butthurt, either get off the Internet or learn to deal with. Seriously. Re-assess your life: does it really mean that much to you that some kiddies on the other side of the world purposefully post mean or "sexist" things about you just to get you riled up? Because you're kinda getting trolled here hun, getting trolled big time if you acknowledge their presence.
So because it sucks, we shouldn't complain about it and try to change it? That's a shitty attitude.
If you complain about it, the trolls have won.
Trying to change it on any wide scale is futile, it's simply not going to happen. You can have a well-moderated community like TL, of course, where these people are banned without a second thought, but you will never exterminate this from the Internet, you simply can't.
Wow I just have to say that that's a terrible attitude to have. This might be a relatively innocent example, but people with an attitude like this are the reason terrible things can happen on a grand scale. If everyone had this attitude of "just let it slide" black people would still be slaves, there would be no more jews, and unruly women would still be burnt at the stake. I realise very well that none of these issues have been resolved completely, but at least we're working on it.
Again, I realise that the current matter is far less severe but I just think that this is a dangerous kind of attitude to have in general.
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape.
Yeah, the last few posts have been kinda interesting.
There's actually some kind of line with fault/blame on one side, where I totally agree that the victim is not at fault.
But it's also very likely true that a provocatively dressed woman / drunk woman / whatever is more likely to get raped, yes? There are always going to be rapists, does it make sense for women (and men) to conduct themselves in a way that's less likely to lead to this outcome? This isn't about whether they should have to do this (they shouldn't have to) but whether doing so might be a good idea. Or do women accept the inherent risk of dressing provocatively and getting plastered? Simply put, if doing A, B, C make it more likely to get raped, should you think twice about doing A, B, C even though you should be perfectly allowed to do them in civilised society?
Hope people see what I'm getting at and don't put on the rage goggles :p
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape.
I am of the opinion that the free choice to lower your inhibitions with alcohol makes you accountable for the drunken choices you make following that and therefore a drunken decision to have sex still counts as consent. But if someone drunkenly refuses to have sex and is then raped because of their inability to escape the situation or if they pass out and are raped then obviously that is rape.
Unfortunately, a lot of people (mainly guys) seek out 'drunk chicks' and try to take the advantage of the fact that they are drunk. While the girl was seemingly willing to have sex due to the alcohol in her, the guy was very possibly taking advantage of her. This is actually a very tricky issue, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the court room scenarios it can lead to.
Before I record the videos I create for various different companies I change my shirt from the loosely fitting singlet I usually wear during the day, to a high-collared t-shirt that will minimise my chances of being objectified. It’s less comfortable, it’s not what I would generally choose to wear, but I do it in attempt to avoid comments about my breasts, my chest, and my physique in general – I try to negate any harassment I possibly can.
So you purposefully make yourself physically uncomfortable and repress a little of your sexuality because you're bothered by random internet users? Seriously? Are you new to the internet? Do you not understand how this thing works? That's like IdrA not playing StarCraft anymore because someone told him he's not a good player. lmao
Obviously, it doesn’t work. Instead of having people disregard gender entirely as it really shouldn’t be relevant to a video about game news, there are streams of responses from men complaining that a woman hasn’t revealed herself to them, as though it’s expected or it’s their right to ask for that. Not only is this incredibly discouraging – these videos take hours and hours of effort to create – it’s easy to feel like you simply can’t win. You can only ignore the comments, but that would make responding to the pleasant viewers or the ones who ask genuine questions impossible.
Nope. It's not impossible. Many people manage to ignore trolls and uneducated children, even on Twitch whose chat is a cancerous cesspool, or YouTube comments ffs.
If jerks on the internet are given a free-pass and allowed to hide behind anonymity when they’re being sexist to someone, then there’s absolutely no reason you can’t use that same anonymity to criticise or educate them. Honestly, just seeing one down-vote or having one person stick up for me is a part of the reason I’m still here and I’m not going to stop fighting. Every single person has the power to fight sexism.
Is this woman stupid? People on the internet are given a free-pass to do and say far more than just being sexist to some uptight, sensitive and easily-offended woman like her who apparently doesn't understand how the internet works or that you can't censor it.
I mean lmao, I'm not a big deal, but in my many years of competitive gaming I've had hundreds if not thousands of people call me a no-life, a basement dweller, a loser (all of which baseless assumptions ofc) and wishing things like death and cancer and rape on me and my family, JUST BECAUSE I BEAT THEM AT VIDEO GAMES. Do you think that affected me in any way, shape or form? No lol. I just laugh and brush it off, and it even makes me feel better about myself that these people are so easily irritated.
Protip to her: stop being butthurt, either get off the Internet or learn to deal with. Seriously. Re-assess your life: does it really mean that much to you that some kiddies on the other side of the world purposefully post mean or "sexist" things about you just to get you riled up? Because you're kinda getting trolled here hun, getting trolled big time if you acknowledge their presence.
So because it sucks, we shouldn't complain about it and try to change it? That's a shitty attitude.
If you complain about it, the trolls have won.
Trying to change it on any wide scale is futile, it's simply not going to happen. You can have a well-moderated community like TL, of course, where these people are banned without a second thought, but you will never exterminate this from the Internet, you simply can't.
Wow I just have to say that that's a terrible attitude to have. This might be a relatively innocent example, but people with an attitude like this are the reason terrible things can happen on a grand scale. If everyone had this attitude of "just let it slide" black people would still be slaves, there would be no more jews, and unruly women would still be burnt at the stake. I realise very well that none of these issues have been resolved completely, but at least we're working on it.
Again, I realise that the current matter is far less severe but I just think that this is a dangerous kind of attitude to have in general.
No.
Internet trolls have literally *zero* effect on anything, so long as you don't give them any attention. Stop pretending like there's an equation between internet and real life.
Edit: Also, someone looking for information on how Women receive lighter sentencing then Men in the Justice system http://www.terry.uga.edu/~mustard/sentencing.pdf Warning: PDF, and you actually have to read.
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
Whos fault was it that he got black out drunk?
His but that's not in any way relevant to whether someone else has the right to do things to him while he is blacked out.
Sure it is. If you knowingly and willingly intoxicate yourself to the point where you lose control, then you have to share some of the blame.
Um, no you don't.
There is a difference between "responsibility" and "blame". The blame always rests on the perpetrator of the act. While it was irresponsible to get intoxicated to the point where consent is not possible, that doesn't mean you are to blame for what is done to you.
And it is just as irresponsible to not notice that someone is incapable of consenting as it is to make yourself incapable of consent. And if you do something based on that irresponsibility, you are now to blame for the consequences of that action.
Person A being irresponsible does not in any way absolve Person B from for doing something to them. It does not make Person A culpable for what happened, nor should it in any way lesson or affect the guilt or punishment for Person B. .
This is what I was trying to say but worded infinitely better, and I think it's what a lot of people aren't getting - the basic distinction between blame/fault and (ir)responsibility.
If you rape someone you are to blame / you are at fault absolutely.
Before I record the videos I create for various different companies I change my shirt from the loosely fitting singlet I usually wear during the day, to a high-collared t-shirt that will minimise my chances of being objectified. It’s less comfortable, it’s not what I would generally choose to wear, but I do it in attempt to avoid comments about my breasts, my chest, and my physique in general – I try to negate any harassment I possibly can.
So you purposefully make yourself physically uncomfortable and repress a little of your sexuality because you're bothered by random internet users? Seriously? Are you new to the internet? Do you not understand how this thing works? That's like IdrA not playing StarCraft anymore because someone told him he's not a good player. lmao
Obviously, it doesn’t work. Instead of having people disregard gender entirely as it really shouldn’t be relevant to a video about game news, there are streams of responses from men complaining that a woman hasn’t revealed herself to them, as though it’s expected or it’s their right to ask for that. Not only is this incredibly discouraging – these videos take hours and hours of effort to create – it’s easy to feel like you simply can’t win. You can only ignore the comments, but that would make responding to the pleasant viewers or the ones who ask genuine questions impossible.
Nope. It's not impossible. Many people manage to ignore trolls and uneducated children, even on Twitch whose chat is a cancerous cesspool, or YouTube comments ffs.
If jerks on the internet are given a free-pass and allowed to hide behind anonymity when they’re being sexist to someone, then there’s absolutely no reason you can’t use that same anonymity to criticise or educate them. Honestly, just seeing one down-vote or having one person stick up for me is a part of the reason I’m still here and I’m not going to stop fighting. Every single person has the power to fight sexism.
Is this woman stupid? People on the internet are given a free-pass to do and say far more than just being sexist to some uptight, sensitive and easily-offended woman like her who apparently doesn't understand how the internet works or that you can't censor it.
I mean lmao, I'm not a big deal, but in my many years of competitive gaming I've had hundreds if not thousands of people call me a no-life, a basement dweller, a loser (all of which baseless assumptions ofc) and wishing things like death and cancer and rape on me and my family, JUST BECAUSE I BEAT THEM AT VIDEO GAMES. Do you think that affected me in any way, shape or form? No lol. I just laugh and brush it off, and it even makes me feel better about myself that these people are so easily irritated.
Protip to her: stop being butthurt, either get off the Internet or learn to deal with. Seriously. Re-assess your life: does it really mean that much to you that some kiddies on the other side of the world purposefully post mean or "sexist" things about you just to get you riled up? Because you're kinda getting trolled here hun, getting trolled big time if you acknowledge their presence.
So because it sucks, we shouldn't complain about it and try to change it? That's a shitty attitude.
If you complain about it, the trolls have won.
Trying to change it on any wide scale is futile, it's simply not going to happen. You can have a well-moderated community like TL, of course, where these people are banned without a second thought, but you will never exterminate this from the Internet, you simply can't.
Wow I just have to say that that's a terrible attitude to have. This might be a relatively innocent example, but people with an attitude like this are the reason terrible things can happen on a grand scale. If everyone had this attitude of "just let it slide" black people would still be slaves, there would be no more jews, and unruly women would still be burnt at the stake. I realise very well that none of these issues have been resolved completely, but at least we're working on it.
Again, I realise that the current matter is far less severe but I just think that this is a dangerous kind of attitude to have in general.
This. The thing to take away from the article is still that you should discourage the kind of behavior displayed by the harassers, or whatnot, when you encounter it. It's about not ignoring opportunities to change the public attitude little by little.
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape.
I am of the opinion that the free choice to lower your inhibitions with alcohol makes you accountable for the drunken choices you make following that and therefore a drunken decision to have sex still counts as consent. But if someone drunkenly refuses to have sex and is then raped because of their inability to escape the situation or if they pass out and are raped then obviously that is rape.
Unfortunately, a lot of people (mainly guys) seek out 'drunk chicks' and try to take the advantage of the fact that they are drunk. While the girl was seemingly willing to have sex due to the alcohol in her, the guy was very possibly taking advantage of her. This is actually a very tricky issue, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the court room scenarios it can lead to.
Having drunken sex that you wouldn't have sober is, in my opinion, no different to committing drunken crimes that you wouldn't commit sober in terms of accountability. You still made the decision and even though you were influenced by drugs you chose to take the drugs knowing what they did. Obviously tricking someone into getting drunk, drugging them and cases in which they don't give drunken consent (such as when they're passed out) are completely different and count as rape.
I never understood the whole "objectifying" thing. Our bodies are objects. You are your body plus your mind plus your spirit. You have an equal degree of control over your body than you have over your mind, and it defines who you are to the same extent your thoughts do. Some are born deficient and make up for it, others are given gifts and squander them. At any rate, no matter which way you turn it, your body is you. You are not simply the ethereal collection of your thoughts, you are also your body, an object.
Since sex has to do with the body a lot, it is normal to look at persons as objects in the context of sexuality. Unless you are genuinely turned on by smarts (yeah, right) this is just simple reality. Don't want to be "objectified"? Ok then, stop treating your body well, stop masquerading it, stop adorning it, just be ashamed of it and cover it up. There, you are now no longer an "object" and nobody views you in a sexual light. Mission accomplished. Thing is, if they didn't want to talk to you before, they sure won't want to talk to you now, either.
People put their breasts out, accent their ass, paint themselves in make-up and strut around in high heels and then complain of being "objectified". I'd sooner expect them to complain about being "intelectualized" to be honest. When a woman is attracted to me I couldn't care less if she sees me as an object. Of course I am an object, I am made of meat and bone and tendon and I've been working hard on those abs so they can offer her sensory pleasure. Sure, if I want a deep debate about meaningful issues and the person keeps talking about my ass it feels kind of awkward, but in the context of sex I will not be able to pleasure a woman with my interesting views on citizen's basic income or the Norwegian leatherworking industry so what's the point of forcing my character and intellect on her? And if she is genuinely interested, of course, I will gladly present them.
It's tantamount to coming to a debate, punching someone you disagree with in the face and then complaining you are being "intellectualized" when the security drags you out.
A person has a mind. An object does not.
Normally, when you interact with another person, your brain creates an image of the mind of that person. Through empathy, listening to what that person says and looking at their body language and their face, you are guessing their thought process and feelings. While your brain is guessing the inside of that person's mind, you will follow their thought process and experience the same emotions. If the person seems hurt, you will feel hurt, if that person seems happy, you will feel happy.
You can also do that with objects and animals. You can personify a cat and feel hurt when the cat is crying, happy when the cat gets a treat.
To objectify means your empathy is switched off while interacting with a human. If you objectify a crying child, you don't feel hurt, for example.
Your mind can change between personifying and objectifying at will. To objectify is probably somewhat of a safety mechanism. Your empathy needs to be turned off while you are doing certain things for your own protection. You can also go about successfully interacting with people without empathy. You can deduce their motivations and emotions logically, and then decide what to do and what to say like that, without ever actually feeling any of the emotions.
I can't imagine an example where objectifying while having sex leads to good things that wouldn't have happened otherwise. On the other hand, objectifying a person is what enables you to hurt them without you yourself feeling hurt. That's why objectifying is so often used as a "bad word".
It's a shame that its expected that if someone posts a femenist OP that clicking on the last page will reveal MRA and femenist arguing over whether rape is the woman's fault. Sigh... TL being TL...
On May 02 2013 23:47 Velr wrote: Hm... After reading this last few pages i probably have been raped more than once because i had intercourse while being black out drunk with girls i would not have or want intercourse when sober (or anything close to that). So, was i raped?
Yes. If you were unable to consent or had things done to you without your consent.
If you weren't actually passed out drunk and gave willing drunken consent then that still counts as consent in my opinion.
I'm confused, are you implying that unconsciousness is a prerequisite for it to be nonconsensual? As long as they can physically say yes then their consent is genuine, no matter their state of mind?
It isn't consensual if the person cannot consent. This does not have to mean that the victim is unconscious. The victim can be otherwise mentally impaired such as being quite drunk.
On the other hand, if two people were planning on consensual sex prior to drinking or doing something else that mentally impairs them, then I don't think it's a big deal.
So basically you're arguing that a large part of sex that happens between young single people in western countries is actually rape, because often enough one of the parties involved (and even more often both) are drunk enough that they are impaired in their judgement (as evidenced by the morning-after effect of waking up next to someone you would "never in your right mind" go to bed with: both male and female).
This seems a far too inclusive definition of rape.
I am of the opinion that the free choice to lower your inhibitions with alcohol makes you accountable for the drunken choices you make following that and therefore a drunken decision to have sex still counts as consent. But if someone drunkenly refuses to have sex and is then raped because of their inability to escape the situation or if they pass out and are raped then obviously that is rape.
Unfortunately, a lot of people (mainly guys) seek out 'drunk chicks' and try to take the advantage of the fact that they are drunk. While the girl was seemingly willing to have sex due to the alcohol in her, the guy was very possibly taking advantage of her. This is actually a very tricky issue, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with the court room scenarios it can lead to.
Having drunken sex that you wouldn't have sober is, in my opinion, no different to committing drunken crimes that you wouldn't commit sober in terms of accountability. You still made the decision and even though you were influenced by drugs you chose to take the drugs knowing what they did. Obviously tricking someone into getting drunk, drugging them and cases in which they don't give drunken consent (such as when they're passed out) are completely different and count as rape.
There is still the problem of guys trying to seduce 'already-drunk chicks', though. I don't know if there is anything that can be done about it legally but I think it is very immoral. In fact, it almost seems like you are blaming the girl for allowing herself to get drunk enough that she enabled getting seduced by someone and lead into a sexual encounter.
I think this video of Incontrol dealing with a heckler shows the kind of guy that posts those types of comments and how they can't be reasoned with:
One can only take the high ground and keep putting out good content. I'm sure it still hurts though, but that's why I'd never want to be an entertainment personality.
EPT
