[RD] Feminism

[Timsup2nothin]

I see, just as I expected.

What if he had been more drunk than her?

Then he probably wouldn't be telling the story.

 

[Akka]

Well, if death is non-existence, then it's neither good nor bad, and so any bad experience will be worse than it, and any good experience will be better than it. Or perhaps more accurately, they simply can't be compared, because non-existence isn't like anything, because it isn't anything at all. In which case asking what death is like is just the wrong question. Alternatively, if there is life after death, then we don't know what it's like and we can't answer the question at all. Or perhaps I've just been reading too much Lucretius.

Regardless of what is death, we can safely say that being killed means an end to life. It's depriving people of what could have been their life, and it's pretty obvious that it's much worse to be prevented to even have a choice than to be able to make one.

And yet people do commit rape, and the vast majority of them are men.

Well, people are told not to kill nor steal nor jaywalk, they still do it. It's hardly anything specific to a men vs women issue.

If she regretted it in the morning I'd have respected her claims, yes.

I wasn't aware that being drunk removed your agency and your responsability. I thought it just made you act stupid, feel ill and fall asleep. Not necessarily in that order.
That's seriously messed up.

Being clear-headed and abusing of the situation where someone can't give informed consent is seriously disgusting. Banging someone who is barely conscious or asleep is creepy, and doing so without having obtained clear consent beforehand is clearly rape.

But shoving under "rape" everything and anything that isn't contractually written and signed with witnesses and a doctor to judge if it's actual consent only ends up in watering down what actually is rape, infantilize people, and in the end be quite counter-productive.
If someone shout "bang me now !", claiming it's "rape" is just ridiculous. Let's not mix making dumb mistakes with being violated and abused.

 

[civver_764]

And yet people do commit rape, and the vast majority of them are men. I don't see how telling boys not to commit rape is "male-shaming". It doesn't involve making anyone ashamed of their gender. It's perfectly reasonable to direct anti-rape education towards boys/men since they're the ones most likely to do it!

Rape is a far bigger problem in this world than false accusations of rape, let alone "gold-digging". So the analogy really doesn't hold.

Fine. How about "Teach black people not to be violent thugs." Ouch, I bet that one stung.

But women face more, and worse ones.

Strongly disagree.

Not at all. But there is something to point out here.

You shut it down because it made you uncomfortable.

The question you might ask yourself is whether you would "shut down" something if it sounded good to you, but you knew (or thought probably) the girl would regret it in the sober light of morning.

That is ridiculous. She clearly wanted to have sex, I was the one that didn't. I'm supposed to try to determine if she would have regretted it the next morning while she was aggressively kissing and fondling me? That standard would never hold for a women if the man was drunk.

If she regretted it in the morning I'd have respected her claims, yes. If it was something they had discussed previously when they were sober and was something he had good reason to believe she actually wanted to do that I think it would be a reasonable defense.

This really makes my blood boil. I posted that story to show that women can take advantage of men too, and your response is that I would've been a rapist if I had given in to her shaming tactics? Un-freaking-believable. If a man had shamed a woman in such a way he would have been demonized to hell. He would be an "abusive alcoholic" or an "entitled manchild". When it's a woman doing it THE MAN IS STILL RESPONSIBLE?

Make no mistake, you are not for female equality, you are for female supremacy.

And for what it's worth, I was also drunk.

I'm not sure why someone would stay with someone like that.

You underestimate the level of control a manipulative woman can have on an emotionally insecure young man.

 

[Akka]

That is ridiculous. She clearly wanted to have sex, I was the one that didn't. I'm supposed to try to determine if she would have regretted it the next morning while she was aggressively kissing and fondling me? That standard would never hold for a women if the man was drunk.

Actually, I'd like to know what would be the opinion of people in this thread about a situation where a drunk male would fondle and kiss a woman who was uncomfortable with it.

What would you call that ?

 

[civver_764]

Actually, I'd like to know what would be the opinion of people in this thread about a situation where a drunk male would fondle and kiss a woman who was uncomfortable with it.

What would you call that ?

If she told him it made her uncomfortable and he proceeded to shame her I would absolutely condemn that. I would call that emotional abuse.

 

[Ryika]

I'm also interested in the following scenario:

A drunk man pushes himself onto a woman. Astonishingly, the woman is like: "Ehh. Fine, why not?" Both have sex.
The next morning the man wakes up and realizes he had sex with the woman, and regrets it.

By Tim's logic, she's now a rapist, and he's the victim of her actions, right? Can't say I agree with that.

 

[Akka]

Nobody in their right mind can agree that you can retroactively remove consent.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Nobody in their right mind can agree that you can retroactively remove consent.

No one is suggesting "retroactively removing consent." The issue is whether a person can be too drunk to give consent. That is a legal issue that varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. The Brock Turner case hearkens back to what some men call "the good old days" where "she didn't say no" was the definition of consent, even if "well, yeah, she was unconscious at the time" is part of the story. That is no longer accepted in any US jurisdiction, and rightfully so.

But the edges of "too drunk to consent" are generally not yet very clear. So, yeah, if someone wakes up regretful and says "I was too drunk to consent to that, and normally wouldn't do it, so it was against my will" then in many jurisdictions they do have a case. So, if you are to drunk to make a reliable judgement about whether the other person is capable of giving consent, don't do it.

A very good indicator is when you think "I better do this now because I'll never have the chance when she (or he) sobers up." That is a clear indicator that you are not only able to judge their ability to consent, but you also know that their ability is compromised. The number of guys who try to defend themselves with "she gave consent and didn't seem too drunk to me" out one side of their mouth who are convicted because they not only boasted out the other side of their mouth that they had "gotten her too drunk to care" but also had told someone ahead of time that they intended to "get her drunk enough to do it" is hilarious, in a black humor sort of way.

 

[Lexicus]

I am just sort of curious about what kind of terrible sex people are having where there's any doubt whatsoever whether someone is consenting

 

[Ryika]

"I was too drunk to consent to that, and normally wouldn't do it, so it was against my will"

Yeah, if you're close to passing out, sure. In the case of "I was drunk and the alcohol made me want to have sex with that person, although I normally wouldn't want to have sex with them!"? Complete BS. That's not rape. You're still making decisions, and you're still giving active consent. The only thing that is different is the more open state of mind that you have willingly put yourself in, by consuming alcohol.

I am just sort of curious about what kind of terrible sex people are having where there's any doubt whatsoever whether someone is consenting

Sex with ambiguous consent is the best sex.

 

[Bugfatty300]

I am just sort of curious about what kind of terrible sex people are having where there's any doubt whatsoever whether someone is consenting

The kind of terrible sex that people have when they're chemically reduced to their basic animal instincts to fight other males and mate. Alcohol can be good time machine for visiting tens millions of years ago.

 

[Akka]

No one is suggesting "retroactively removing consent." The issue is whether a person can be too drunk to give consent.

So, if you are to drunk to make a reliable judgement about whether the other person is capable of giving consent, don't do it.

Aren't these parts somehow contradicting themselves ? Being too drunk means not being able to judge in one case, but it means you're supposed to make a judgement call in the second ?

The Brock Turner case hearkens back to what some men call "the good old days" where "she didn't say no" was the definition of consent, even if "well, yeah, she was unconscious at the time" is part of the story. That is no longer accepted in any US jurisdiction, and rightfully so.

I don't know what kind of laws was in the US, because being unconscious (or asleep, or unaware) has been considered ground for being a rape for a long time here.

A very good indicator is when you think "I better do this now because I'll never have the chance when she (or he) sobers up." That is a clear indicator that you are not only able to judge their ability to consent, but you also know that their ability is compromised.

It's a good indicator for being a gentleman (or even a decent person), but there is still quite a lot of walk to do before it becomes something worthy of sending someone for years in jail.
It all depends on the degree of drunkenness - there is a huge gap between "heated up by alcohol and liable to do things one's wouldn't do usually" and "nearly unconscious and unaware of what's happening".

If someone killed another while being in a drunken state, I might accept an extenuating circumstance, but I would still clearly hold him up responsible for his acts. I don't see how such a state would suddendly nullify all agency from a woman when it comes to chose a partner.

The number of guys who try to defend themselves with "she gave consent and didn't seem too drunk to me" out one side of their mouth who are convicted because they not only boasted out the other side of their mouth that they had "gotten her too drunk to care" but also had told someone ahead of time that they intended to "get her drunk enough to do it" is hilarious, in a black humor sort of way.

Yeah, but that's just covering up an ill intent, it has nothing to do with the actual definitions.
If I claim someone paid me for something while I actually stole their wallet, it doesn't mean that now being paid means stealing. It just means I lied.


Also, I'm still waiting for an answer to this :

Actually, I'd like to know what would be the opinion of people in this thread about a situation where a drunk male would fondle and kiss a woman who was uncomfortable with it.

What would you call that ?

 

[JollyRoger]

Also, I'm still waiting for an answer to this :

Actually, I'd like to know what would be the opinion of people in this thread about a situation where a drunk male would fondle and kiss a woman who was uncomfortable with it.

What would you call that ?

Sexual assault. If in public, public lewdness and public intoxication.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Also, I'm still waiting for an answer to this :

Actually, I'd like to know what would be the opinion of people in this thread about a situation where a drunk male would fondle and kiss a woman who was uncomfortable with it.

What would you call that ?

It would generally be anything from battery to sexual battery.

 

[Ryika]

Now that that's cleared, you will surely point out that this is abuse too, right?

I remember one time when my ex-girlfriend was drunk. We were getting into it and she kept trying to get me to agree to a threesome with my friend. I told her that made me super uncomfortable and shut down. She proceeded to shame the hell out of me "but I'm hornnyyyyyyyyy", "are you *beep* serious?" "why'd you get me so worked up for nothing?"

 

[Synobun]

Saying "but I'm horny" is not abuse, no.

Saying "but I'm horny" and then forcing the issue is abuse, yes.

 

[Lexicus]

Now that that's cleared, you people will surely point out that this is abuse too, right?

It seems like abuse to me, what is controversial here?

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Sexual assault. If in public, public lewdness and public intoxication.

Accurate. I had no idea that anyone was waiting for an answer to what I had taken as a rhetorical question. It should be noted that Civver had a valid case for pressing charges against his ex-gf in most jurisdictions.

 

[Ryika]

It seems like abuse to me, what is controversial here?

Nothing controversial, it's just that the only response when that was brought up came from Tim who immediately reframed the issue into something about the woman. I just wanted to hear that that's not okay, too. So thanks for that.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Now that that's cleared, you will surely point out that this is abuse too, right?
I remember one time when my ex-girlfriend was drunk. We were getting into it and she kept trying to get me to agree to a threesome with my friend. I told her that made me super uncomfortable and shut down. She proceeded to shame the hell out of me "but I'm hornnyyyyyyyyy", "are you *beep* serious?" "why'd you get me so worked up for nothing?"

That would be propositioning at most by the sound of it.