Feminist Threads, Cue Trolls

[Vigile]

The culture already makes rape unthinkable. Reasonable people know this. Unthinkable things still happen in a world where not everyone is nice. It takes a special kind of data interpretation to argue a rape friendly culture.

[Orbit]

The culture already makes rape unthinkable. Reasonable people know this. Unthinkable things still happen in a world where not everyone is nice. It takes a special kind of data interpretation to argue a rape friendly culture.

I have already discussed this at length with you. If it were unthinkable, it wouldn't be so common.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

The culture already makes rape unthinkable. Reasonable people know this. Unthinkable things still happen in a world where not everyone is nice. It takes a special kind of data interpretation to argue a rape friendly culture.

I read a poster here just the other day arguing that sex with an intoxicated woman wasn't rape.  Rape culture is right under your nose.

[Vigile]

 

The culture already makes rape unthinkable. Reasonable people know this. Unthinkable things still happen in a world where not everyone is nice. It takes a special kind of data interpretation to argue a rape friendly culture.

 

I have already discussed this at length with you. If it were unthinkable, it wouldn't be so common.

You can condescend all you like, it doesn't mean you've made your case. Appealing to your expertise is just that, an appeal. I'm not trying to be a jerk but you are insisting on something that is far from a given.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

The culture already makes rape unthinkable. Reasonable people know this. Unthinkable things still happen in a world where not everyone is nice. It takes a special kind of data interpretation to argue a rape friendly culture.

I have already discussed this at length with you. If it were unthinkable, it wouldn't be so common.

You can condescend all you like, it doesn't mean you've made your case. Appealing to your expertise is just that, an appeal. I'm not trying to be a jerk but you are insisting on something that is far from a given.

 

I think there may be something wrong with your perception.

[mymistake]

Okay, what percentage of a population must view rape as unthinkable before the culture counts as viewing rape as unthinkable?

 

 

We have no way to remove all criminals from our population so that isn't an option.

[ContraBardus]

 

The culture already makes rape unthinkable. Reasonable people know this. Unthinkable things still happen in a world where not everyone is nice. It takes a special kind of data interpretation to argue a rape friendly culture.

I read a poster here just the other day arguing that sex with an intoxicated woman wasn't rape.  Rape culture is right under your nose.

 

 

It's not. If there is consent it's not rape. The fact that one or both parties is drunk, regardless of gender, doesn't matter. Being drunk, behaving irresponsibly, and regretting it the next day does not constitute rape. That works both ways. If there is no consent, then yes, it doesn't even have to be a 'no', unless express permission is given, it's not okay. After consent is given, unless it's revoked, it's not rape, it's just someone being irresponsible while drunk, and that is not a crime on either end.

 

Even when you are drunk you are responsible for your actions. You can't claim that it isn't your fault because you were intoxicated and didn't know any better if you get behind the wheel and kill somebody either. Claiming that you were drunk and couldn't help it because you were not in your right mind is not an excuse.

 

I know plenty of guys who got drunk, had a woman take advantage of that, and weren't too happy about waking up next to somebody the next day. None of them considered it rape, it was just them doing something stupid when they were drunk and every one of them owned up to it. They knew what happened was all on their head because they were behaving irresponsibly.

 

This is one of the problems I have with some Feminists. The fact that they use things like this to try and shift blame for their own behaviors onto others, and then claim sexism or "rape culture" to anyone who suggests they should take responsibility for their own actions even when intoxicated. Being drunk or intoxicated does not absolve anyone of their actions while under the influence.

 

You want to talk about rape culture then we should be discussing India, or any of numerous Middle Eastern countries.

 

People who get drunk or high and have willingly sex with a stranger are simply reaping the consequences of being irresponsible. It's not right to try and shift the blame to someone else. If you're drinking or using drugs, it's well know what the effects of those drugs are. It's a risk that you take when you get intoxicated and every adult should know that.

 

You can still be raped while drunk or high of course, just because someone is drunk doesn't mean they want to fuck, but if someone gives consent it's on them and no one else. Again, that works both ways. Someone seducing another in that condition is indeed at least partially their fault. That's not blaming the victim either because permission was given. If it happens to you it means that you went out and got drunk or high knowing the risks and how it affects judgement. It was not a surprise and unless someone forces themselves on you without your express permission it's no one's fault but your own if it happens to you.

 

Why is a woman who has sex while drunk a "victim" while a man who has drunk sex a "rapist"? That's a double standard and it's exactly what this argument suggests. It goes against everything reasonable Feminism stands for.

 

Getting drunk is not a crime, but that doesn't excuse being an irresponsible drunk, and it certainly doesn't give someone the right to blame others for their actions while drunk. If you can't handle being drunk, you need to stop drinking. Because you can't blame others for what you do when you are.

 

Unless you think that being drunk absolves all responsibility, meaning drunk driving, public intoxication, and any other crime committed while under the influence should be excused because how alcohol affects some people, then there is no good reason to claim that simply being drunk and having sex constitutes being raped. It's not, and if you're claiming that it is, you're wrong. It's a double standard and there's no excusing such claims.

 

 

 

 

[FreeThinkerNZ]

This thread has become Feminist Threads, Cue Trolls Rape Apologetics.

[mymistake]

- nevermind

[xtify]

Contrabardus, you seem to be mixing up two different subjects here.  I am more confused by your position on consent now than ever.  If I drink and i decide to have sex with someone, then I agree with you.  But, for gawdsakes, are you trying to say that when a woman drinks alcohol she is consenting merely by drinking?  

 

Pennsylvania isn't exactly the most progressive state to reference, either.  It's pretty Amish.  The "Don't Be That Girl" slogan really pisses me off.  What exactly does that mean?  A girl that falsely accuses men of violent crimes?  Or, a girl that has a few drinks at a club while wearing a nice dress?  The lines are way too blurred for me in these public service campaigns.  

 

I'm guessing that PA is not the best place to have a few too many.  Reminds me to never go back there again.  

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Here's another example of rape culture:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/06/foxs-tucker-carlson-whiny-teen-couldnt-have-been-raped-by-teacher-because-hes-a-boy/

 

A commentator saying sex between a 30 year old teacher and a 16 year old boy "can't be rape" because the victim was male.  It's statutory rape.

 

Rape culture is when people don't call rape, rape.

[ContraBardus]

Contrabardus, you seem to be mixing up two different subjects here.  I am more confused by your position on consent now than ever.  If I drink and i decide to have sex with someone, then I agree with you.  But, for gawdsakes, are you trying to say that when a woman drinks alcohol she is consenting merely by drinking?  

 

Pennsylvania isn't exactly the most progressive state to reference, either.  It's pretty Amish.  The "Don't Be That Girl" slogan really pisses me off.  What exactly does that mean?  A girl that falsely accuses men of violent crimes?  Or, a girl that has a few drinks at a club while wearing a nice dress?  The lines are way too blurred for me in these public service campaigns.  

 

I'm guessing that PA is not the best place to have a few too many.  Reminds me to never go back there again.  

 

You obviously didn't bother to read my post, because I covered all of that in it. Either that, or you're deliberately ignoring where I did specifically cover those exact questions several times in my post to put up a straw man and suggest I was claiming something I clearly did not. Given your statements about PA, it seems to me that it's more likely the latter. It's pretty obvious who "that girl" is based on the context of the campaign, and it's quite literally laid out based on the last image.

 

I suppose I should give the benefit of the doubt, in which case "That girl" is the girl who goes out, gets drunk, has consensual sex with someone she doesn't know, and then decides because she feels bad about it after the fact that it was rape and tries to press charges and falsely accuse the other party of rape.

 

In all honesty, I'd prefer it if it said "that person" because that should work both ways. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't. If the same thing happens to a man, it's somehow not considered rape. In that situation the man did something stupid and should just deal with it because it was his own fault. Why is that exactly? Because all men who go out drinking want to fuck?

 

In a case where both parties have been drinking and the woman is the one who initiates sex, why is the man not the victim? Somehow in these cases she's still the victim and he is the one who should have controlled himself. Exactly how is that not a double standard? Explain how that is in any way "equality".

 

Absolutely nothing about the statement "no one is responsible for your decisions but you" suggests anything near what you're implying here. It means if you get drunk, and you consensually do something stupid intentionally while drunk, it's your fault. The fact that you were drunk does not shift the blame to someone else. It's no different than if you get drunk and decide to drive, whatever happens when you're behind the wheel is your responsibility, being drunk does not excuse it.

 

Also, only the top image is from PA, the rest are from a national campaign.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

Intoxicated people cannot legally give consent.

[ContraBardus]

Here's another example of rape culture:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/06/foxs-tucker-carlson-whiny-teen-couldnt-have-been-raped-by-teacher-because-hes-a-boy/

 

A commentator saying sex between a 30 year old teacher and a 16 year old boy "can't be rape" because the victim was male.  It's statutory rape.

 

Rape culture is when people don't call rape, rape.

 

Misuse of the word 'culture' I think. A handful of stupid and immoral people does not suggest there is a cultural problem. Every culture has bad people. If this sort of thing was sanctioned, enabled, or practiced by a large portion of the population, or supported and/or enabled by the government directly or indirectly, such as the case in India for example, then I might see it.

 

As it is, I'd say it's not really a culture, just a few assholes who don't represent anywhere near the majority that aren't a collective large enough to warrant being labeled a culture.

 

I call it a case of exaggerating a problem. Yes the problem is real, but it's not really a 'culture' in most Western countries.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I call this a case of denying and minimising a problem.

[xtify]

 

Contrabardus, you seem to be mixing up two different subjects here.  I am more confused by your position on consent now than ever.  If I drink and i decide to have sex with someone, then I agree with you.  But, for gawdsakes, are you trying to say that when a woman drinks alcohol she is consenting merely by drinking?  

 

Pennsylvania isn't exactly the most progressive state to reference, either.  It's pretty Amish.  The "Don't Be That Girl" slogan really pisses me off.  What exactly does that mean?  A girl that falsely accuses men of violent crimes?  Or, a girl that has a few drinks at a club while wearing a nice dress?  The lines are way too blurred for me in these public service campaigns.  

 

I'm guessing that PA is not the best place to have a few too many.  Reminds me to never go back there again.  

 

You obviously didn't bother to read my post, because I covered all of that in it. Either that, or you're deliberately ignoring where I did specifically cover those exact questions several times in my post to put up a straw man and suggest I was claiming something I clearly did not. Given your statements about PA, it seems to me that it's more likely the latter. It's pretty obvious who "that girl" is based on the context of the campaign, and it's quite literally laid out based on the last image.

 

I suppose I should give the benefit of the doubt, in which case "That girl" is the girl who goes out, gets drunk, has consensual sex with someone she doesn't know, and then decides because she feels bad about it after the fact that it was rape and tries to press charges and falsely accuse the other party of rape.

 

In all honesty, I'd prefer it if it said "that person" because that should work both ways. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't. If the same thing happens to a man, it's somehow not considered rape. In that situation the man did something stupid and should just deal with it because it was his own fault. Why is that exactly? Because all men who go out drinking want to fuck?

 

In a case where both parties have been drinking and the woman is the one who initiates sex, why is the man not the victim? Somehow in these cases she's still the victim and he is the one who should have controlled himself. Exactly how is that not a double standard? Explain how that is in any way "equality".

 

Absolutely nothing about the statement "no one is responsible for your decisions but you" suggests anything near what you're implying here. It means if you get drunk, and you consensually do something stupid intentionally while drunk, it's your fault. The fact that you were drunk does not shift the blame to someone else. It's no different than if you get drunk and decide to drive, whatever happens when you're behind the wheel is your responsibility, being drunk does not excuse it.

 

Also, only the top image is from PA, the rest are from a national campaign.

 

 

I read your damn post, and I was asking for clarification.  What strawman argument exactly are you referring to?  The images of don't be that girl are vague to me, to say the least.  

 

If your posts weren't so damn long all the time, and your messages more to the point, then maybe I wouldn't be so confused. Can an intoxicated person give consent?  That would depend on the definition of intoxicated.  I already admitted I was confused by your post, but I see now that you aren't a person who can tolerate being questioned since you so willingly escalate to lash out mode.  I haven't made one post on rape culture and I really think you are confusing me for someone else.  You need to just calm down and chill.

[ContraBardus]

Intoxicated people cannot legally give consent.

 

Not true.

 

The way it works legally is that intoxication does not create consent by default. Both parties have to be lucid enough to give verbal consent. In other words if asking for consent no reply is not a "yes" and must be interpreted as "no". Needless to say that means incapacitated women who can't or won't say yes are not fair game. It's still forcible and rape unless specific permission is given, or the intoxicated party initiates sex themselves. Someone who has passed out cannot give consent, and neither can someone who is too drunk to say "yes" or "no".

 

Legally, if permission is asked and the other party is either unwilling or unable to say "no", it's rape. A lack of response is not yes.

 

However, if permission is given, as long as the other party is still able to refuse and does not, it's perfectly legal and definitely not rape. It's worth noting that if someone says it's okay and then passes out before intercourse is initiated, it is not legal to have sex with them and would be considered rape.

 

Legally speaking if you're sober enough to give permission and do so, it's not rape.

[xtify]

 

Here's another example of rape culture:

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/06/06/foxs-tucker-carlson-whiny-teen-couldnt-have-been-raped-by-teacher-because-hes-a-boy/

 

A commentator saying sex between a 30 year old teacher and a 16 year old boy "can't be rape" because the victim was male.  It's statutory rape.

 

Rape culture is when people don't call rape, rape.

 

Misuse of the word 'culture' I think. A handful of stupid and immoral people does not suggest there is a cultural problem. Every culture has bad people. If this sort of thing was sanctioned, enabled, or practiced by a large portion of the population, or supported and/or enabled by the government directly or indirectly, such as the case in India for example, then I might see it.

 

As it is, I'd say it's not really a culture, just a few assholes who don't represent anywhere near the majority that aren't a collective large enough to warrant being labeled a culture.

 

I call it a case of exaggerating a problem. Yes the problem is real, but it's not really a 'culture' in most Western countries.

 

 

The problem of false accusation of rape seems far more exaggerated to me than the problem of actual rape.  But it doesn't stop you from constantly voicing your concern about this injustice.

 

I've never known even one person, in my whole life who was falsely accused of rape.  I agree that this would be morally reprehensible, but it is far more rare than actual rape.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

Intoxicated people cannot legally give consent.

 

Not true.

 

The way it works legally is that intoxication does not create consent by default. Both parties have to be lucid enough to give verbal consent. In other words if asking for consent no reply is not a "yes" and must be interpreted as "no". Needless to say that means incapacitated women who can't or won't say yes are not fair game. It's still forcible and rape unless specific permission is given, or the intoxicated party initiates sex themselves. Someone who has passed out cannot give consent, and neither can someone who is too drunk to say "yes" or "no".

 

Legally, if permission is asked and the other party is either unwilling or unable to say "no", it's rape. A lack of response is not yes.

 

However, if permission is given, as long as the other party is still able to refuse and does not, it's perfectly legal and definitely not rape. It's worth noting that if someone says it's okay and then passes out before intercourse is initiated, it is not legal to have sex with them and would be considered rape.

 

Legally speaking if you're sober enough to give permission and do so, it's not rape.

 

I don't think you're a lawyer.  Anyway you contradicted yourself.

[thereisnoperfect]

 

The culture already makes rape unthinkable. Reasonable people know this. Unthinkable things still happen in a world where not everyone is nice. It takes a special kind of data interpretation to argue a rape friendly culture.

I read a poster here just the other day arguing that sex with an intoxicated woman wasn't rape.  Rape culture is right under your nose.

 

Exactly. If it were "unthinkable," there wouldn't be floods of people blaming the victims, making excuses, and talking about "legitimate rape" all the time.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

Contrabardus, you seem to be mixing up two different subjects here.  I am more confused by your position on consent now than ever.  If I drink and i decide to have sex with someone, then I agree with you.  But, for gawdsakes, are you trying to say that when a woman drinks alcohol she is consenting merely by drinking?  

 

Pennsylvania isn't exactly the most progressive state to reference, either.  It's pretty Amish.  The "Don't Be That Girl" slogan really pisses me off.  What exactly does that mean?  A girl that falsely accuses men of violent crimes?  Or, a girl that has a few drinks at a club while wearing a nice dress?  The lines are way too blurred for me in these public service campaigns.  

 

I'm guessing that PA is not the best place to have a few too many.  Reminds me to never go back there again.  

 

You obviously didn't bother to read my post, because I covered all of that in it. Either that, or you're deliberately ignoring where I did specifically cover those exact questions several times in my post to put up a straw man and suggest I was claiming something I clearly did not. Given your statements about PA, it seems to me that it's more likely the latter. It's pretty obvious who "that girl" is based on the context of the campaign, and it's quite literally laid out based on the last image.

 

I suppose I should give the benefit of the doubt, in which case "That girl" is the girl who goes out, gets drunk, has consensual sex with someone she doesn't know, and then decides because she feels bad about it after the fact that it was rape and tries to press charges and falsely accuse the other party of rape.

 

In all honesty, I'd prefer it if it said "that person" because that should work both ways. As far as I'm aware, it doesn't. If the same thing happens to a man, it's somehow not considered rape. In that situation the man did something stupid and should just deal with it because it was his own fault. Why is that exactly? Because all men who go out drinking want to fuck?

 

In a case where both parties have been drinking and the woman is the one who initiates sex, why is the man not the victim? Somehow in these cases she's still the victim and he is the one who should have controlled himself. Exactly how is that not a double standard? Explain how that is in any way "equality".

 

Absolutely nothing about the statement "no one is responsible for your decisions but you" suggests anything near what you're implying here. It means if you get drunk, and you consensually do something stupid intentionally while drunk, it's your fault. The fact that you were drunk does not shift the blame to someone else. It's no different than if you get drunk and decide to drive, whatever happens when you're behind the wheel is your responsibility, being drunk does not excuse it.

 

Also, only the top image is from PA, the rest are from a national campaign.

 

 

I read your damn post, and I was asking for clarification.  What strawman argument exactly are you referring to?  The images of don't be that girl are vague to me, to say the least.  

 

If your posts weren't so damn long all the time, and your messages more to the point, then maybe I wouldn't be so confused. Can an intoxicated person give consent?  That would depend on the definition of intoxicated.  I already admitted I was confused by your post, but I see now that you aren't a person who can tolerate being questioned since you so willingly escalate to lash out mode.  I haven't made one post on rape culture and I really think you are confusing me for someone else.  You need to just calm down and chill.

 

 

You think I'm the one who needs to "chill out"?

 

This is a strawman:

 

 

But, for gawdsakes, are you trying to say that when a woman drinks alcohol she is consenting merely by drinking?

 

This is a quote from my post:

 

You can still be raped while drunk or high of course, just because someone is drunk doesn't mean they want to fuck, but if someone gives consent it's on them and no one else.

 

Given that, I had every reason to assume that you did not read my post before you responded.

 

If you don't read, why are you on a forum? That's kind of how things work in this format. This isn't twitter or Youtube comments and there isn't a character limit for a reason.

 

I also didn't say anything about "rape culture" to you at any point in any response to you. I did mention it responding to to NZ, but she brought it up.

 

The campaign images I posted are specifically aimed at women who behave irresponsibly, do things consensually, and then get upset about it and blame other people for their actions after the fact. They are not intended to suggest that women are at fault if they are attacked under the influence, they are suggesting that if a woman gets drunk and does something stupid like having consensual sex with a stranger because she is drunk, the stupid thing she did is not anyone's fault but her own and she should take responsibility for it rather than trying to blame it on someone else.

[xtify]

 

 

You think I'm the one who needs to "chill out"?

 

This is a strawman:

 

 

But, for gawdsakes, are you trying to say that when a woman drinks alcohol she is consenting merely by drinking?

 

This is a quote from my post:

 

You can still be raped while drunk or high of course, just because someone is drunk doesn't mean they want to fuck, but if someone gives consent it's on them and no one else.

 

Given that, I had every reason to assume that you did not read my post before you responded.

 

If you don't read, why are you on a forum? That's kind of how things work in this format. 

 

Nothing condescending about that now, is there.  

I get it now.  Asking for clarification is a strawman:  because you have explained yourself so well already.  How could I have possibly thought to bother you for clarification.  Your posts are always so precise.

It must be lonely at the top.    

[ContraBardus]

 

I don't think you're a lawyer.  Anyway you contradicted yourself.

 

 

And you are?

 

Well, if that's the issue, here it is from an actual lawyer.

 

 

Legal Definitions

Rape is defined as non-consensual that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress. That means any non-consensual sex qualifies. We often think of non-consensual as meaning that someone said "no," but that isn't really accurate.

Non-consensual means there wasn't consent -- in other words, that the victim did not say "yes." This can include situations in which the victim struggled, said "no," or tried to get away. But it can also include situations in which the victim was unable to say no.

Someone who is drunk or otherwise intoxicated often can't say "no" even if she does not want to have sex. It might be that she can't communicate or that she passed out and is unconscious.

If the victim can't consent, the person who forced intercourse can be charged with rape. Rape by intoxication refers to a circumstance in which the victim was under the influence.

Adult Responsibilities

As an adult making decisions about sex, it's your responsibility to make sure that any sexual advances that you make are welcome.

The easiest way to determine that is just to ask, "Is this OK?" Under the law, a lack of response is the same thing as a "no."

 

 

-Deanne Katz Esq. Attorney at Law

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

 

I don't think you're a lawyer.  Anyway you contradicted yourself.

 

 

And you are?

 

Well, if that's the issue, here it is from an actual lawyer.

 

 

Legal Definitions

Rape is defined as non-consensual that is committed by physical force, threat of injury, or other duress. That means any non-consensual sex qualifies. We often think of non-consensual as meaning that someone said "no," but that isn't really accurate.

Non-consensual means there wasn't consent -- in other words, that the victim did not say "yes." This can include situations in which the victim struggled, said "no," or tried to get away. But it can also include situations in which the victim was unable to say no.

Someone who is drunk or otherwise intoxicated often can't say "no" even if she does not want to have sex. It might be that she can't communicate or that she passed out and is unconscious.

If the victim can't consent, the person who forced intercourse can be charged with rape. Rape by intoxication refers to a circumstance in which the victim was under the influence.

Adult Responsibilities

As an adult making decisions about sex, it's your responsibility to make sure that any sexual advances that you make are welcome.

The easiest way to determine that is just to ask, "Is this OK?" Under the law, a lack of response is the same thing as a "no."

 

 

-Deanne Katz Esq. Attorney at Law

 

All you've done there is support the statement that an intoxicated person cannot legally give consent.  Which kinda invalidates your argument.

[ContraBardus]

 

 

 

You think I'm the one who needs to "chill out"?

 

This is a strawman:

 

 

But, for gawdsakes, are you trying to say that when a woman drinks alcohol she is consenting merely by drinking?

 

This is a quote from my post:

 

You can still be raped while drunk or high of course, just because someone is drunk doesn't mean they want to fuck, but if someone gives consent it's on them and no one else.

 

Given that, I had every reason to assume that you did not read my post before you responded.

 

If you don't read, why are you on a forum? That's kind of how things work in this format. 

 

Nothing condescending about that now, is there.  

I get it now.  Asking for clarification is a strawman:  because you have explained yourself so well already.  How could I have possibly thought to bother you for clarification.  Your posts are always so precise.

It must be lonely at the top.    

 

 

Asking for clarification when the subject in question is already directly answered by a previous statement suggest you didn't really read the post, and does suggest that the statement you made was presented as a strawman. There really was no taking the segment of my post I quoted any other way.

 

I did answer your request and clarify, you just didn't care for my answer or how I went about it.