This is what Feminism has done to our culture

OP

Original post by unprinted

I hope you never find out how completely wrong you are.

aw, so this is the only thing you can say against my statement? not some kind of intelligent debunking? I'm sorry but the only argument backing up this theory that "there is a point where your consent doesn't 'count'" is based on either infantilisation (often on the part of the woman, which is sexist in that it degrades their skills of judgemental regarding how much alcohol to drink) or a denial of liberty (towards the man, often). the legal and morality are different things - is it moral to have sex with somebody that you *know* will regret it in the morning? no. should it be illegal? no. obviously not.

Reply 42

username521617

17

Original post by Jibola240

Silly poster. Whilst I agree with the core goal of feminism(equality for both sexes) I disagree with the way its approached and more often than not feel the movement is more about female superiority rather than female equality. Not saying femisim doesn't tackle legitment issues, but stuff like that poster is why many these days are finding it hard to sympathise with the movement.

My attitude exactly. The way the movement is pushing for rape cases to be handled - and how we are supposed to perceive sex - is testament to this.

It's very troubling how they fail to recognize their sheer hypocrisy and prejudiced thinking, and of course to mention this to them means we hate women, obviously. This isn't all feminists, but a hell of a lot. Especially in universities.

Reply 43

username521617

17

Original post by zippity.doodah

...

If you think women should be treated equally and like adults when it comes to alcohol and consent to sex, you must really hate women. The idea that women should have any responsibility for their own choices and actions is part of rape culture and our male supremacist society!

At least that's what Jezabel and my hairy-armpited women's studies prof told me...

Reply 44

slade p

4

Original post by Dandaman1

If you think women should be treated equally and like adults when it comes to alcohol and consent to sex, you must really hate women. The idea that women should have any responsibility for their own choices and actions is part of rape culture and our male supremacist society!

At least that's what Jezabel and my hairy-armpited women's studies prof told me...

F*** feminists

Reply 45

Lyrical Prodigy

feminists are horrible :frown:

Reply 46

Original post by zippity.doodah

aw, so this is the only thing you can say against my statement?

OK then, you're morally wrong and legally wrong. Did you read that quote from Bree? Not that it matters - you're held to it anyway - but what about it don't you accept?

Reply 47

Original post by zippity.doodah

is it moral to have sex with somebody that you *know* will regret it in the morning? no. should it be illegal? no. obviously not.

It depends on why you know they'll regret it.

Reply 48

theDanIdentity

16

Original post by zippity.doodah

this image is based on the american law case which took place late last year:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a33751/occidental-justice-case/

so basically, to sum up the story in a nifty little sentence: guy and girl have sex; guy and girl are both drunk; girl texts her friend "I'm about to have sex" and texts the guy "did you bring a condom?"; because she was drunk, the guy, whom was also drunk, gets charged with sexual assault regardless of the evidence of her consent.

feminism is usually (attemptedly) described as the concept of equality between men and women, but the movement that "feminism" has been pedalling recently (especially in my own university) is the 'if she's drunk she can't consent' nonsense, or rather, the "yes mean yes"/"no means no" and "never okay (referring to perceived sexual harassment" phrases (images below for more detail):

Spoiler

it is clear that, in some ways, feminism and it's influence in the legal system (in the UK; perfect proof with the the new DPP directive: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11375667/Men-must-prove-a-woman-said-Yes-under-tough-new-rape-rules.html) has caused men to perpetually be blamed or punished for acts which are not even illegitimate (if it is perfectly clear that there was implied consent to a perfectly legal act, sex) in a matter which makes the claim of "patriarchy" nonsensical. it has basically led to a rather dominant belief that women are never to be held responsible for their own actions, or if they get drunk and regret what they have done, this calls for the man to be shamed for this. where is the equality here? why don't women have to prove that men "absolutely and unambiguously vocally affirmed~" to sex (consented) (california's new consent law is an example of this: http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2014/09/29/352482932/california-enacts-yes-means-yes-law-defining-sexual-consent) while men do for women's? why aren't women charged for having sex with drunk men? why are men demonised for doing the same acts as women? why are we supposed to believe that alcohol, a mind altering substance which a person voluntarily consumes, causes their actions to be non-voluntary for women when, if they were to commit a crime (e.g. offences against the person, a property offence, etc) they *would* be held responsible despite any influence of alcohol? the modern feminist movement is leading to obvious contradictions such as this and rules which discriminate unfair and harshly against men for no reason at all other than the fact that feminists have created this movement which has put pressure on those in authority to be misandristic to men, unless "it's rape", or "that's sexist against women". it's called radical feminism to be the face of "equality" to many governments in the west and this is obviously ridiculous when it comes to issues like this where there is an actively discriminating law against one gender and not the other

doesn't anybody else at least partly agree with what I'm saying? isn't this "rape culture" propaganda all just a movement to lump women's sexual or cultural responsibilities upon men, and to never frame women, regarding sex, as the ones with any individual responsibility? yes, I know rape culture isn't just about this and also about things like cat calling, before anybody mentions this fact - with the cat calling stuff you could say that a woman wearing a revealing top doesn't give her a reasonable right to act aggressively to men who "look" at her when we have a free society where sexuality exists

this is a ****** brilliant post. i'm being genuinely serious. i would've posted the same if i had the same resources.

10/10. not enough people know of the various ways in which feminism is ****** society over. i take my hat off to you my sir :P

(i'm only doing this, as i can't rep your post. i seriously can't: it says i must rep other members first :/ )

Reply 49

OP

Original post by unprinted

OK then, you're morally wrong and legally wrong. Did you read that quote from Bree? Not that it matters - you're held to it anyway - but what about it don't you accept?

"morally wrong"? I'm not arguing *from* morally here. I'm arguing on legality, or hypothetical legality (what a "feminist" or egalitarian legal code would and should be). morality has and should have nothing to do with legal principles; I could tell a lie and it would be obvious, given the situation, that this was immoral, but are you saying that just because it's immoral that means the state and the police department must become involved in this situation? if there is no force, theft or violence involved then I see absolutely no reason why potentially immoral sex ought to be something punishable by the state. and I say "potentially" because all situations are different and even complicated.

feminism has caused the law to become misandristic. either gender can act potentially immorally by being involved in sex with a drunk person, but drunk sex isn't rape. drunken consent is still exactly as it sounds - consent which comes around (perhaps) as a result of one's own choice to drink alcohol and it would only ever be close to rape if it was involuntary intoxication. this would make sense when the law says that if you commit a crime as a result of alcohol, and you drank it unknowingly (reasonably thinking it wasn't alcohol) then you aren't guilty of a crime that was the result of drinking that alcohol. hell, there are even legal cases where if the person of a case gets unknowingly drunk, but it is not logical to think that their crime was factorised by alcohol, then they are still guilty. it's not as if somebody can reasonably take a swig of alcohol and think to themselves "haha, this drunk means I'm automatically a rape victim tonight if I choose, drunkenly, to sleep with a stranger!" unless the state made this kind of ridiculous behaviour allowable for women.

nothing about being drunk, when you consent to drinking alcohol (which is OBVIOUSLY a mind-altering substance which loosens you up to sexual acts) implies that you don't want to consent. why can't a person consent when they have drank alcohol? you aren't even ****ing *trying* to answer me any more. any kind of mind altering substance can influence you into thinking very differently than usual, but those thoughts which go on inside ones' own head are ENTIRELY ONES OWN and responsibility must be taken by the person who chose to consume the mind altering substance which (potentially) caused the consent (as you can't be sure it was or not based on alcohol - what's certain would only be the fact that the consent took place with an absence of negative, illegitimate, undue or unconscionable forces within the mix).

if you can't handle alcohol, and you don't want your mind to be changed (about sex) after drinking it, don't drink it. alcohol is an adult's drink for a reason, or many reasons, more specifically. it is adulthood which ushers in responsibilities. one's own discretion is both responsible for moral, immoral, sexual and non-sexual acts and thoughts. if you drink and have sex, if there was drunken consent at the time of sex, drunken sex is still consent - the consent which occurred existed and the fact that alcohol was a factor of that choice (perhaps) has nothing that will cause that consent to secretly (or whatever the **** you want to perceive it) *not* be consent. you're not making any sense at all. oh yeah, and I am truly surprised by your "moral" logic when you want to accuse people that "they didn't really consent" just because they drank - who are you to speculate this? don't you think their acts spoke for themselves? why would they have sex with no force or threats (of force) involved if it was rape or sex without any consent? is there some kind of psychic conspiracy I'm not seeing here? is there some kind of patriarchal puppet strings upon ever drunken woman that I'm simply not seeing?! if women can't consent to sex once they have become drunk, they are a danger upon men and, from your reasoning, they shouldn't be allowed to drink when they can endanger men's security in the law

Original post by unprinted

It depends on why you know they'll regret it.

what are you even trying to tell me here? that if I am an opportunist and can make a girl consent to sex with me (yes, consent) after she, herself, chooses to drink, that means I should be punished? if I "knew" she'd regret it, yet *she* chooses to have sex with me, why am I being punished simply for being speculative about how her mind has been voluntarily altered?! why am I to be punished for being clever when it is simply her own fault for being consensually stupid?

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 50

Original post by zippity.doodah

what are you even trying to tell me here? that if I am an opportunist and can make a girl consent to sex with me (yes, consent) .. that means I should be punished? if I "knew" she'd regret it, yet *she* chooses to have sex with me .. why am I to be punished for being clever when it is simply her own fault for being consensually stupid?

Sticking with the 'I know she will regret doing it' aspect:

1. You know A wants to use a condom and is consenting on that basis. You remove the condom in a way that she doesn't notice. She will discover that after the sex. Rape or 'being clever'?

2. For whatever reason - including because of drink - you know B thinks you are someone else: her boyfriend. You pretend that you are in order to have sex with her. She will discover the truth in the morning. Rape or 'being clever'?

3. You've been out clubbing in drag. You know C thinks you're a woman with a strap-on when she consents to have sex with you. You use your penis instead. She will discover the truth in the morning. Rape or 'being clever'?

4. Your partner D doesn't want you to come inside her, but will tolerate having sex with you if you don't. You deliberately do so. She realises. Rape or 'being clever'?

Reply 51

caravaggio2

17

Original post by bassbabe

But they were both drunk, what if the guy couldn't consent? :s-smilie:

A prime example of how femists are fine with the infantalizing of women when it is to the advantage of their agenda.

Reply 52

scrotgrot

16

Original post by unprinted

Sticking with the 'I know she will regret doing it' aspect:

1. You know A wants to use a condom and is consenting on that basis. You remove the condom in a way that she doesn't notice. She will discover that after the sex. Rape or 'being clever'?

2. For whatever reason - including because of drink - you know B thinks you are someone else: her boyfriend. You pretend that you are in order to have sex with her. She will discover the truth in the morning. Rape or 'being clever'?

3. You've been out clubbing in drag. You know C thinks you're a woman with a strap-on when she consents to have sex with you. You use your penis instead. She will discover the truth in the morning. Rape or 'being clever'?

4. Your partner D doesn't want you to come inside her, but will tolerate having sex with you if you don't. You deliberately do so. She realises. Rape or 'being clever'?

Don't think he means actual deception like this which is obviously rape. More she is drunk and impaired in the sense that she can still make decisions but they are likely to be poor ones. You know she has beer goggles on; you know she's usually chaste; you know she doesn't like you in normal life. These are examples where you might expect her to regret it in the morning, but as far as I can see full consent is given.

Reply 53

OP

Original post by unprinted

Sticking with the 'I know she will regret doing it' aspect:

1. You know A wants to use a condom and is consenting on that basis. You remove the condom in a way that she doesn't notice. She will discover that after the sex. Rape or 'being clever'?

the sex itself was consensual. so it's not "rape". it's a different crime entirely, if one based on this act even exists

2. For whatever reason - including because of drink - you know B thinks you are someone else: her boyfriend. You pretend that you are in order to have sex with her. She will discover the truth in the morning. Rape or 'being clever'?

again, the sex itself is consensual. the identity of the person isn't the sex, the act is. there was no forcible penetration. mistaken identity is the mistake of B and not the problem of A when A still gets an agreement to have sex. we aren't talking about contract law here where there's a "defence of mistake"

3. You've been out clubbing in drag. You know C thinks you're a woman with a strap-on when she consents to have sex with you. You use your penis instead. She will discover the truth in the morning. Rape or 'being clever'?

...how many times do I need to repeat myself

4. Your partner D doesn't want you to come inside her, but will tolerate having sex with you if you don't. You deliberately do so. She realises. Rape or 'being clever'?

...apparently once more.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 54

Original post by zippity.doodah

the sex itself was consensual. so it's not "rape". it's a different crime entirely, if one based on this act even exists

Nope, Assange v Swedish Prosecution Authority [2011] EWHC 2849 (Admin) says that it's rape. She was consenting to sex with a condom, and you deliberately did something you knew she did not consent to.

again, the sex itself is consensual. the identity of the person isn't the sex, the act is. there was no forcible penetration. mistaken identity is the mistake of B and not the problem of A when A still gets an agreement to have sex. we aren't talking about contract law here where there's a "defence of mistake"

Nope, it has been seen as rape for decades. For the vast majority of people, the person you're consenting to sex with is very definitely part of the deal - or are you a Ched Evans fan who thinks that because she was having sex with his mate, she obviously would be fine with having sex with him, despite never having exchanged a word or even been asked by him?

Plus since the Sexual Offences Act 2003, if you deliberately impersonate someone known to the complainant, there's no defence: it's a conclusive presumption that there was no consent to what happened.

...how many times do I need to repeat myself

Tired of digging?

The third one is again rape, see McNally v R [2013] EWCA Crim 1051, where it was the other way around - a woman was pretending to be a man.

".. while, in a physical sense, the acts of assault by penetration of the vagina are the same whether perpetrated by a male or a female, the sexual nature of the acts is, on any common sense view, different where the complainant is deliberately deceived by a defendant into believing the latter is a male. Assuming the facts to be proved as alleged, M chose to have sexual encounters with a boy and her preference (her freedom to choose whether or not to have a sexual encounter with a girl) was removed by the appellant’s deception".

...apparently once more.

Four out of four wrong! I'd be a bit smarter and a bit less 'clever' if were you and wanted to avoid a rape charge.

This one's confirmed to be rape by R (on the application of F) v the Director of Public Prosecutions [2013] EWHC 945 (Admin). "She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based. Accordingly her consent was negated. Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina. In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape."

These obviously apply to male complainants too. If you consent to me ****ing you with a condom and not coming inside you, I'm guilty if I do it without a condom and/or ejaculate inside you. Similarly, if I know you think I'm female... or would you go 'Ha ha, you're so clever to fool me, so it's all right'?

Reply 55

Original post by scrotgrot

Don't think he means actual deception like this which is obviously rape.

A look at his reply says that, yes, he really does mean deceptions like this aren't rape.

Fortunately, the law says otherwise for each of them.

More she is drunk and impaired in the sense that she can still make decisions but they are likely to be poor ones. You know she has beer goggles on; you know she's usually chaste; you know she doesn't like you in normal life. These are examples where you might expect her to regret it in the morning, but as far as I can see full consent is given.

Yep, and you've a reasonable belief in that consent.

Reply 56

OP

Original post by unprinted

x

right so what you've done here is simply confirm that we have a feminised establishment that is willing to take an entirely subjective and non-objective approach to "consent" whereby if you, for example, lie about your hair colour, eye colour, without explicitly forcible penetration, and entirely at the fault of the "victim"'s poor reasoning/choice, then you've "raped", while in reality, you have simply misled somebody. misleading somebody is not forcing them to have sex with you. rape is a violence-based action. there is an obvious gap between having sex in immoral circumstances and forcing a woman to have sex with you.

I can quote you the law which says that a 12 year old boy, who was legally raped, had to pay for the baby that his female rapist had later when he turned 18, or the cases where women have lied about being on birth control and have locked men into 18 years old child support payments - would that be supporting the argument that women should be allowed to rape and exploit 12 year olds though, or lie about being on contraceptives?

Reply 57

Original post by zippity.doodah

right so what you've done here is simply confirm that we have a feminised establishment that is willing to take an entirely subjective and non-objective approach to "consent" whereby if you, for example, lie about your hair colour, eye colour, without explicitly forcible penetration, and entirely at the fault of the "victim"'s poor reasoning/choice, then you've "raped", while in reality, you have simply misled somebody. misleading somebody is not forcing them to have sex with you. rape is a violence-based action.

So now it's only rape if there's force?!?

There is an obvious gap, but it's between your ears.

Your answer to my 'would you go "you're so clever" if I did any of those things to you' question is...?

Reply 58

OP

Original post by unprinted

So now it's only rape if there's force?!?

yes, because there is mutual agreement! the agreement, just because it is based on misleading circumstances, doesn't cause it, logically, to become rape, because the person, who is mislead, hasn't been "forced" - there shouldn't be a ridiculous "duty of disclosure" for bedroom deals like there are for contracts - should I, before I sleep with a woman/man, tell them "actually, I lied about my height, I lied about my hair colour, I lied about my grades, I lied about the type of car I drive, I lied about my shoe size, I lied about (etc) and I slept with your best friend in the past. will you still sleep with me?" - that's stupid and unnecessary for a free society. the government shouldn't regulate lies. lies are immoral but lies don't become rape - it's a different kind of "crime" - it's like saying "you stole from me" if I described/displayed my item on ebay as something slightly different or inaccurate based on the description - yes, it would be scamming, but it wouldn't be a property offence (criminal) of theft/robbery, it would be a civil offence (misrepresentation) - that's actually a logical differentiation because one uses force and the other doesn't

There is an obvious gap, but it's between your ears.

oh wow, insulting me is going to go far, isn't it

Your answer to my 'would you go "you're so clever" if I did any of those things to you' question is...?

what question? if, as a guess, your question is "if I did the things in my four circumstances to you, would you consider it rape", then obviously, as I've been arguing all this time - no! how is it rape just because it's me involved? how does this even make sense? this is the logic you use? I don't know why you're bringing it in then. it's immoral but it's not forcing me to have sex because at the end of the day I am making a choice to do it and nobody is using violence to override my will

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 59

OP