• 📚 Admin Project Update: I've added a major feature to PictureBooks.io called Avatar Studio! You can now upload photos to instantly turn your kids (and pets! 🐶) into illustrated characters that star in their own stories. Give it a try and let me know what you think!

Woman raped live on Big Brother Africa

"Bezuidenhout, who is married, finally desisted and went off to sit by himself while drunkenly sniffing his fingers."

This part made me chuckle. :D

Yes I know it's wrong.
 
Aegis said:
On a sidenote, I'd like to play the Devil's Advocate here and ask, if a woman is not held liable for her choices because she is drunk, why is a man held liable for his, when he is drunk?

I understand that this was not the situation on the show, as the girl was clearly passed out.
Click to expand...

Why is the default position the assumption of consent unless a woman loudly and clearly says no? Why this notion of unceasing availability?

I think what scares people about the idea that "drunk = can't consent" is that it challenges the notion that men have some automatic entitlement to sex as long as woman doesn't loudly and clearly deny them. If the default position was "there is no consent unless the woman loudly and clearly says yes and continues to say yes" then men would have to be a lot more careful about where they put their dicks. It would shift the onus back towards guys to be civil and control themselves, and actually make dudes stop and think before they try to force themselves on someone who, technically, didn't protest loudly and vigourously enough.

That scares many dudes, because they think if the ability to cajole, manipulate and force the issue without consequences is taken away, they'll never find a woman sufficiently keen and enthusiastic to get their rocks off with them.
 
Arwon said:
Why is the default position the assumption of consent unless a woman loudly and clearly says no? Why this notion of unceasing availability?

I think what scares people about the idea that "drunk = can't consent" is that it challenges the notion that men have some automatic entitlement to sex as long as woman doesn't loudly and clearly deny them. If the default position was "there is no consent unless the woman loudly and clearly says yes and continues to say yes" then men would have to be a lot more careful about where they put their dicks. It would shift the onus back towards guys to be civil and control themselves, and actually make dudes stop and think before they try to force themselves on someone who, technically, didn't protest loudly and vigourously enough.

That scares many dudes, because they think if the ability to cajole, manipulate and force the issue without consequences is taken away, they'll never find a woman sufficiently keen and enthusiastic to get their rocks off with them.
Click to expand...

I think your wrong on what scares many "dudes". What scares people is the idea of someone claiming to be a victim of a crime after the fact, but not before or during.

And why does this keep going on a male/female line. Sex can take place with two people or more people of the same gender, or mixed.

Woman f**k with men's head just as much as men do. A Crime shouldn't be based on the gender of the person.

I don't mean to be rude by asking this, but have you ever had sex? Because sex is very much a non verbal game. No one says "I went to have sexual intercourse with you". You can tell if someone wants to have sex with you by the hints you drop. Just like how I would drop hints that I would like to have sex with someone, but much of this is done non verbally. Wait, I have had girls flat out to have sex with them, they always say no. And there is a good reason for that.
 
Arwon said:
Why is the default position the assumption of consent unless a woman loudly and clearly says no? Why this notion of unceasing availability?

I think what scares people about the idea that "drunk = can't consent" is that it challenges the notion that men have some automatic entitlement to sex as long as woman doesn't loudly and clearly deny them. If the default position was "there is no consent unless the woman loudly and clearly says yes and continues to say yes" then men would have to be a lot more careful about where they put their dicks. It would shift the onus back towards guys to be civil and control themselves, and actually make dudes stop and think before they try to force themselves on someone who, technically, didn't protest loudly and vigourously enough.

That scares many dudes, because they think if the ability to cajole, manipulate and force the issue without consequences is taken away, they'll never find a woman sufficiently keen and enthusiastic to get their rocks off with them.
Click to expand...

You make it sound like no woman in the world wants to have sex and men are all rude swines that force the pure women into activities they are disgusted of. :p

Of course, I'm not talking about the original situation of the thread, where obviously consent wasn't given at all and the guy's rape/assault live on TV is a horrible thing to do.
 
Women can do that now, woody. People can do that now. They don't need a correctly calibrated legal definition of consent in order to make up rape charges, so I'm afraid I have to call bollocks on the idea that we can't fix this assumption of "consent unless it's withdrawn" because it just empowers those crazy women to 'ruin people's lives" as one poster so charmingly put it.

Mirc: No, I'm not the one saying that, I'm saying that's how many other dudes see it. "Women just aren't keen on sex therefore we can't expect them to consent all the time so we have to make it so that cajoling or manipulating is enough to keep me out of jail."
 
Arwon said:
Why is the default position the assumption of consent unless a woman loudly and clearly says no? Why this notion of unceasing availability?
Click to expand...
Where did anyone says that? "Not saying no" isn't sufficient for consent, I agree (although I don't believe it needs an explicit "Yes" either, as woody60707 points out, consent can be indicated by obvious non-verbal actions too; ultimately it's up to the jury to decide it consent was given).

I think what scares people about the idea that "drunk = can't consent" is that it challenges the notion that men have some automatic entitlement to sex as long as woman doesn't loudly and clearly deny them.
Click to expand...
No, it's scary because it would be rape even if the woman explicitly said "Yes I want to have se with you".

What you say about the "default position" is an entirely separate issue. It applies when the person is sober too - the question "If they don't say no, is that sufficient for consent?" still holds.

Please don't confuse the issue with a strawman argument - the issue is consent when drunk, not "default position", which has nothing to do with it, and which no one has brought up AFAICT.
 
woody60707 said:
I think your wrong on what scares many "dudes". What scares people is the idea of someone claiming to be a victim of a crime after the fact, but not before or during.

And why does this keep going on a male/female line. Sex can take place with two people or more people of the same gender, or mixed.

Woman f**k with men's head just as much as men do. A Crime shouldn't be based on the gender of the person.

I don't mean to be rude by asking this, but have you ever had sex? Because sex is very much a non verbal game. No one says "I went to have sexual intercourse with you". You can tell if someone wants to have sex with you by the hints you drop. Just like how I would drop hints that I would like to have sex with someone, but much of this is done non verbally. Wait, I have had girls flat out to have sex with them, they always say no. And there is a good reason for that.
Click to expand...

The key to avoiding those kind of women that play mind games is to avoid women that play mind games. it's a bit circular but it can save a lot of crazy . .. .. .. . from happening.
 
They should have a follow up which should be:

"Rapest castrated live on big brother Africa"
 
If you aren't sure a woman isn't going to say you raped her tomorrow...

Why are you having sex with her?
 
Arwon said:
If you aren't sure a woman isn't going to say you raped her tomorrow...

Why are you having sex with her?
Click to expand...
What point are you referring to here?

Obviously one has to make a judgement on this - keeping away anyone you think might be likely to do this, but ultimately you can never be sure unless you never have sex.
 
Its rape or sexual assualt, but all these are very disturbing actually...

The audacity to do it publicly, claiming its norm in africa, the condescending of women... how are the africian going to be developed or civilised if they wont help themselves ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Broken_Erika
General Purpose News Thread
Replies
9
Views
333
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
Birdjaguar
What can the Democrats do?
12 13 14
Replies
266
Views
12K
danjuno
danjuno
P_S_
Opinions on the leaders so far
Replies
0
Views
648
P_S_
P_S_
Joij21
Canada Euthanizing Poor People
4 5 6
Replies
119
Views
13K
Valka D'Ur
Valka D'Ur
TyrannusRex
(E&E) Civilization VI - First Look: Iroquois (Haudenosaunee)
Replies
9
Views
3K
Henri Christophe
Henri Christophe
Back
Top Bottom