American Women need Sexual Freedom, Instead of Victimizing Themselves

[SenseOfTumour]

I'd say that yes, it'd be great if we could balance the idiotic viewpoint that men are somehow more manly for banging a multitude of women, yet a woman has sex with like three guys in 5 years and she's 'putting it around a bit'.

I've known a couple of women in my time, one is still a good friend, who manages to have unemotional 'casual' sex and enjoys it, with getting all mentally unstable about it, and I wouldn't dream of giving her or others I've known any crap about it, so long as they're mentally not hurting themselves or others and being physically careful, sex is fun, why should they not have the same rules as single men?

As for drinking, I think it'll always be a grey area, as some people find a couple of drinks really helps them to bypass their inbuilt fears and oppression about sex, and find the courage to approach the subject with someone they want. Of course it can go too far.

As for the above thing about becoming unable to be erect, I'd suggest that decision making is impaired by alcohol after a single drink, and keeps on fading with each successive one, however it takes a pretty solid amount to send the beast to sleep, as it were, especially if mentally you're thinking you may be having sex soon.

I'd also say that while the OP does show little sympathy towards rape victims I would not say he's actively attacking them, and should we not discuss unpopular points of view? I know the recent 'paedophilia' one didn't go well, and I'm certainly not here to defend rapists, but many men are victimised by rape claims, it goes both ways.

A single sexual accusation can really mess with a man's life, leaving him stained by it forever as a potential sexual predator, and it doesn't matter if it's innocent.

You only have to look at the newspapers and how they dealt with Chris Jefferies, who knew a girl who went missing. Having not been charged with anything, he appeared on 11 front pages with headlines using words like "weird", "lewd", "strange", "creepy", "angry","odd",
"disturbing", "eccentric", "a loner" and "unusual". They then went on to pick apart his character and personality in detail.

Who among us would have nothing to hide if an entire country's press decided we needed to be demonised? There's already a media feeling that if you 'look a bit weird, you're probably a paedo', and who here has no interesting sites in their history, no blog entrys, no hidden stash of porn on their PC?

It's not even needed, as this guy was a teacher, and because he covered the holocaust in a history class, that makes him 'obsessed with death'. If he's obsessed with death, surely he could have abducted and killed that girl then...

No evidence, no charges, all hearsay, yet his life is shattered. At present he's still being investigated, and may in fact be guilty, however, all this came very early on in the case, and there's a fair bit of past form in accused people being entirely innocent yet having to live with the stigma of months of media harrassment for being a potential murderer.

Now, convicted murderers and rapists, go to town, say what you like about them, but all the time a man is deemed innocent he should be treated as such.

 

[DVS Storm]

In Denmark, you don't really feel the need to feel up someone else. Why? Because your sexuality isn't repressed. You are encouraged(or at the least not discouraged) to sleeping with whoever you want, however often you want. When you can do that, why would you need to grope anyone?

Dude I agree with you. I live in Finland and while we may not have sex as much as you seem to do in Denmark, I'd still say that we too have sex a lot. I personally like that sex is not a taboo here and I can just talk about with my friends without any wierd feelings(depends on the subject though). I too am a bit confused about Americas way of treating sexuality. I saw one Dr. Phil episode about how it is bad to send a text message to your boy/girlfriend that says "I want you". ?????? I see nothing bad here. Though I see no point in sending messages like that but well. And even though I am a man I'm still no sexist or so chauvinist(I just had an urge to clarify that).

 

[Vryyk]

I have some MAJOR issues with your post. First you are generalizing rape and molestation victims. Have you EVEN talked to one?

When I was raped I was not drinking, I was 16 a virgin and the the guy was stronger than me. I wasn't wearing anything slutty. Rape is about power, and control.

Coercion: Ever think the person may have been in an abusive relationship? Where if the woman doesn't person sexually she gets hurt physically or otherwise?

Molestation: Most molestation cases aren't that is an older person: friend of the family, family member, sibling, clergy, teacher, or parent.

Please look up the facts before you run off your mouth about something you have NO knowledge about

You should probably consider actually reading his post before you run your own mouth. He didnt even touch on rape in any real detail.

Also, what you are saying about coercion implies females are too weak to defend themselves and too thin-skinned to get out of abusive relationships. Unless someone is physically trapping you in their domicile (which is a whole other matter), you can always leave.

Stop pretending females are helpless and need the law to save them.

 

[Unspeakable]

In Denmark, you don't really feel the need to feel up someone else. Why? Because your sexuality isn't repressed. You are encouraged(or at the least not discouraged) to sleeping with whoever you want, however often you want. When you can do that, why would you need to grope anyone?

I'm trying to see how your points aren't counter-intuitive. Because you're encouraged to have as much sex as you want, you want less? Shouldn't you want to perform the behavior that is encouraged and not do what is discouraged? Wouldn't the opposite be deviant behavior? I'm also not sure you should generalize about Denmark either; maybe you think you can have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, conscious or obliviously drunk, but in a lot of places (and not just America) that's pretty much still considered, at best, the attitude of a misogynist, and at worst, the attitude of a rapist.

 

[Grigori361]

They had that, it was called feminism, or the "sexual liberation movement" after gaining women the ability to vote, and hold up proper jobs, it then devolved into "neo feminism" which is essentially Man hate, or perhaps female self victimization as I see it. I once watched one of my friends get backed into a corner while some lady was beating him with various objects in a bar. He defended himself by smacked her back with he hand hand enough to knock her down. He gets kicked out for a year, she's back the next night.

I've also seen some females knowingly accuse men of rape, or assault or anything else sexually relevant and taboo over here simply for revenge, One friend of my sister got accused of beating some girl up because she came onto him and he rejected her. My sister then proceeded to beat the dumb ***** to within an inch of unconsciousness while her friend was in jail for an assault he never committed, we know he didn't because he was with us when the supposed crime happened.

On one hand you get plenty of women beaters over here in North America, On the other hand you get just as many women who do similar types of things to men, or women (in the case of lesbian rape and the like).

I don't presume to know, but I get the overall impression that women in General don't want full "liberation" as you put it because then they'd be held just as accountable.

Of course I am speaking from a Canadian perspective, and the USA has a Much more virulent rape problem then us, our issue is women taking advantage of the legal system designed to protect them.

But that's just what I've found personally.

 

[Grigori361]

On a side note your women sound amazing I'm moving to Denmark.

 

[s0denone]

No, she can press charges on him because he choose to have sex with her when she couldn't give consent. Which is rape. Which is a crime.

It is not a crime for a woman to get drunk. If you are arguing that people shouldn't impair themselves that way, that's a seperate issue, unrelated to a man who decides to have sex with a woman who can't give consent. You are blaming the victim.

Given that I don't think there is a victim, that is not what I'm doing at all.
My viewpoint is my own, but coincidentally supported by Danish law. You have a different law, and are thus taught a different mindset.

You think women who have sex while intoxicated are victims. You think men who have sex while intoxicated are victims also, I assume? A sober woman sleeping with an intoxicated man?

I do not. At all.
It is a conscious decision to get drunk, I refer you to what I have written earlier:
Ultimately becoming drunk and doing stupid shit is a choice you make yourself.
Does "stupid shit" sometimes include sleeping with people you would otherwise not have slept with? Yes!
Does that mean that said people raped you? No!
Does that mean, however, that maybe you should drink less in the future, if you seek to avoid such occurances? Certainly!

So, you are saying that women should be immune to such influence? That's fine as far as it goes, except you are blaming the victim, again. The perpetrator chose to take advantage of the victim, and so therefore they are at fault.

I'm not blaming the victim.
I'm talking about "consensual" and "non-consensual". I'm talking about "rape" and "not rape".
I'm not saying anyone should coerce anyone. I'm saying that if they are, they aren't "raping" anyone.

Ignoring the problem does not make it go away. You cannot blame women for feeling like victims, or potential victims, when they are. Which is also blaming the victim.

I don't *Blame* any single individual or "victim". I blame the mindset of feminists on certain matters, some of which have influenced American law.

I ask you - women do not see themselves as "raped" when engaged in intoxicated sex in Denmark. Are these women wrong?

You have decided that women should be more sexually aggressive, instead of the way that women are choosing to be now.

No, I have offered my thoughts that I think the fact that women are not allowing being sexually aggressive is hurtful to the overarching cause of gender equality.
I'm not asking anyone to change who they are, but I'm saying being a sexually aggressive women carries with it social stigma. This shouldn't be the case.

Also "sexually aggressive"? You really think that's a good thing?

Yes I do. As defined in the OP.

You claim to view women as equal, but are opposed to feminism, that being the movement to security women's equality?

Are we attributing eachother words like "Claim", now? Inferring dishonesty? I take offense at that.
I'm not opposed to feminism as a whole, I just think at certain points they are entirely misguided.

I never said I was a woman, I just happen to take an interest in the inequalities forced upon half the population. As such, I'm not going to understand the problem's facing women as well as women do.

I wholeheartedly apologize for the assumption.

But, on the other hand, it does allow me to understand something about male privilege. I totally understand that you do not see yourself as a chauvinist. You're right, the notion is offensive, but that doesn't make it untrue. You've been brought up in a culture that, covertly or overtly has encouraged you to think yourself superior to women. You will, of course, automatically wish to deny this. But to a greater or lesser extent, almost every male has been conditioned to view women as inferior. Even if you aren't going to agree with me, please, please, please entertain the thought before dismissing it.

I entertained the thought.
I dismissed it.

I will look upon my sister as an example. I am certainly physically stronger than she is, but at the same time I will acknowledge that she is smarter than I am.
I look upon one of my good friends, who is a woman. She is a much better person than I am - if only I could act as sympathetically towards my fellow man as she is.
I look upon one of my grandmothers. She is a racist. I am happy I am not like her.

I do not look upon women as inferior to me in any way. They are different, certainly, but not inferior.

I haven't been brought up in a culture that teaches me I am better than women. Do you know of "Denmark"? I'd wager we are just about as progressive a country as you're going to find in the world of today.

You may attribute all of my arguments to my "chauvinist" nature, and "ignorance of my own self" but it does you no good... Because it quite simply isn't true.

I cannot even grasp how you can infer from my posts, that I find myself opposed to the equality of women, feminism or am a malechauvinist without knowing. I'm sorry, but I'm very much offended at the notion.

I'm hardly immune, I get called up on things alot more than I'd like, but I'd like to think I've gotten better. I understand your position because I've seen it lots of times myself, and I used to share it. It took me longer than I'd like to stop wanting to tell all the women why they were wrong and I knew better, that they were making a fuss over nothing, or that they should just learn to put up with it and stop whinging.

I'm not telling anyone that I know better, or that men should control the lives of women. Stop inferring this stuff.

I am, however, *entertaining the thought* that a certain feminist victimizing of women is counter-productive in regards to gender equality.

If you really want, as a male, to understand the problems of women, you really need to stop talking and start listening. I'd reccomend:

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/

As a good place to start. It can be very jarring at first, but it's worth sticking with. I'd very much recommend reading ALOT before replying to anything though, they don't suffer fools gladly.

I am familiar with the website. It is one of the blogs I have visit. I haven't commented on anything, as I go there only as a source of information - and insight into the feminist point of view.

I'm trying to see how your points aren't counter-intuitive. Because you're encouraged to have as much sex as you want, you want less? Shouldn't you want to perform the behavior that is encouraged and not do what is discouraged? Wouldn't the opposite be deviant behavior? I'm also not sure you should generalize about Denmark either; maybe you think you can have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, conscious or obliviously drunk, but in a lot of places (and not just America) that's pretty much still considered, at best, the attitude of a misogynist, and at worst, the attitude of a rapist.

What are you talking about?
I'm talking about giving women the oppurtunity to sleep with whoever they want, without suffering any form of social stigma. Not forcing them to do so.

I'm talking about society allowing it without afterwards judging them for it.

 

[esperandote]

Great post and great posts that refute the OP. Damn, I can't make my mind on this.

There's no way of saying how drunk you should be to call it non-consensual, but there's a very clear line where it is non-consensual, after the person passes out. Making an analogy, like in abortion (though that isn't the subject nor I will discuss that), it will be for ever debatable when the fetus is a person but there will be always a very clear line when it is murder, after birth.

I'm not talking about people passing out.
The example is where both are intoxicated, although one part significantly less than the other.
or
Where one part is intoxicated and the other is not.

In both cases, the one most intoxicated is conscious (although, as stated, intoxicated) and gives their verbal consent.

You may feel conflicted, but how will just justify pressing rape charges on someone having sex with someone else, just because the other part is more drunk than the first?

What about when both parties are extremely drunk? Are they raping each-other? Could they both file rape charges?

Ultimately becoming drunk and doing stupid shit is a choice you make yourself.
Does "stupid shit" sometimes include sleeping with people you would otherwise not have slept with? Yes!
Does that mean that said people raped you? No!
Does that mean, however, that maybe you should drink less in the future, if you seek to avoid such occurances? Certainly!

Oh, I didn't mean you were talking about passing out. I was saying that there's sober and passed out and everything in the middle is a gray area.

 

[s0denone]

Oh, I didn't mean you were talking about passing out. I was saying that there's sober and passed out and everything in the middle is a gray area.

I see.
To me there is no gray area.

It is a conscious decision to become drunk. It is a conscious decision to become very drunk.

All activities engaged in due to said drunkenness are the responsibility of the drunk person.

Where would we be if not?
Can we not hold bank-robbers responsible if they were drunk?
Vandalism? If done while under the influence, can we still prosecute?

Of course we can. People are responsible for their own actions.

You may be a normal guy. If you go hit someone in the head with a bottle while drunk, regardless of the fact that you would never have done that sober, you are still prosecuted

Why is sexual relation different, in America? It is absolutely ludicrous.

 

[Mr.Squishy]

Oh, I didn't mean you were talking about passing out. I was saying that there's sober and passed out and everything in the middle is a gray area.

I see.
To me there is no gray area.

It is a conscious decision to become drunk. It is a conscious decision to become very drunk.

All activities engaged in due to said drunkenness are the responsibility of the drunk person.

Where would we be if not?
Can we not hold bank-robbers responsible if they were drunk?
Vandalism? If done while under the influence, can we still persecute?

Of course we can. People are responsible for their own actions.

You may be a normal guy. If you go hit someone in the head with a bottle while drunk, regardless of the fact that you would never have done that sober, you are still persecuted.

Why is sexual relation different, in America? It is absolutely ludicrous.

Allow me to suppliment this with a Norwegian law (one paragraph, as in x§) "Self-induced, conscious and willing intoxication does not absolve one of one's responsibility for one's actions." Bear in mind this is a translated, paraphrased version. I think this is a good law, and very relevant to the discussion at hand.

 

[awesomeClaw]

Okay, then. Let us look at what you're saying:
A woman can get extremely drunk(to the point of her not knowing what she is doing or saying), and then give her consent while drunk(which then isn't valid) - and when she wakes up with an enormous hangover, she can press charges on the man who had sex with her, who she would otherwise not have slept with because she was irrespensible and got very drunk?

No, she can press charges on him because he choose to have sex with her when she couldn't give consent. Which is rape. Which is a crime.

It is not a crime for a woman to get drunk. If you are arguing that people shouldn't impair themselves that way, that's a seperate issue, unrelated to a man who decides to have sex with a woman who can't give consent. You are blaming the victim.

It seems extremely morally dubious.
I am not arguing the morality of the action, but the mindset of the victim. The victim wasn't "raped", the victim was taken advantage off, because said victim had low self-esteem.

There is a vast difference for me, there.

So, you are saying that women should be immune to such influence? That's fine as far as it goes, except you are blaming the victim, again. The perpetrator chose to take advantage of the victim, and so therefore they are at fault.

I merely offered thoughts on why it is such a "problem". As stated, in the whole bunch of text you quoted, I think it is because woman victimze themselves, that they feel like victims. If they stopped thinking they were potential victims, but instead saw themselves as equal in every way, especially a sexual way, they wouldn't be bothered by these things as much as they are.

Ignoring the problem does not make it go away. You cannot blame women for feeling like victims, or potential victims, when they are. Which is also blaming the victim.

[How I am telling anyone to do anything? Please highlight with quotes.
I agree entirely that women are mens equals - in fact I started this thread in an effort to make it even more so, and that so being in the "sexually aggressive" department.

You have decided that women should be more sexually aggressive, instead of the way that women are choosing to be now.

Also "sexually aggressive"? You really think that's a good thing?

The trouble is, you've been reading feminist blogs. The majority of those are insane, and most of them just want to show how much they hate men without saying that they really just hate men.

Indeed - but when there are laws in place that make, for instance, a woman pressing charges for a man having sex with her on a night out viable... Then there must be some sort of general consesus, right?
I realise that feminists are extremist in this regard, but some of their points obviously carries legal weight.

You claim to view women as equal, but are opposed to feminism, that being the movement to security women's equality?

I'm sorry you feel that way. I will not ignore anything you say because you are a woman. I'm even more sorry that I appear to come off as some sort of malechauvinist. I would be offended at the notion, if not for the fact that you appear to misunderstood my position entirely.

I never said I was a woman, I just happen to take an interest in the inequalities forced upon half the population. As such, I'm not going to understand the problem's facing women as well as women do.

But, on the other hand, it does allow me to understand something about male privilege. I totally understand that you do not see yourself as a chauvinist. You're right, the notion is offensive, but that doesn't make it untrue. You've been brought up in a culture that, covertly or overtly has encouraged you to think yourself superior to women. You will, of course, automatically wish to deny this. But to a greater or lesser extent, almost every male has been conditioned to view women as inferior. Even if you aren't going to agree with me, please, please, please entertain the thought before dismissing it.

I'm hardly immune, I get called up on things alot more than I'd like, but I'd like to think I've gotten better. I understand your position because I've seen it lots of times myself, and I used to share it. It took me longer than I'd like to stop wanting to tell all the women why they were wrong and I knew better, that they were making a fuss over nothing, or that they should just learn to put up with it and stop whinging.

If you really want, as a male, to understand the problems of women, you really need to stop talking and start listening. I'd reccomend:

http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/

As a good place to start. It can be very jarring at first, but it's worth sticking with. I'd very much recommend reading ALOT before replying to anything though, they don't suffer fools gladly.

I´m not going to respond to your entire post, but rather the things you said about feminism.

I think what he meant with being opposed to feminism as "I´m opposed to women who want women to have more rights and have it better then men" which i think the website you linked to showcases perfectly.

At the time of writing, one of the news read that the FBI has saved 69 kids from molestation & abuse. However, slightly lower down, the woman writing the article says: "The FBI announced the other day the arrest of over 800 people (let?s be serious here, men)" and it was at that point i stopped reading. The woman in the text, is, quite frankly, a *****.

You see, my problem with (many) feminists is that very few of them seem to actually defend equality, most just seem to defend WOMENS equality, will stating that men are perfectly equal to women already. Which they aren´t.

Let´s check if you are one of these i like to call "FEMI-Feminists", shall we?
Let us say that a women get´s pregnant. The man wants to abort the child, but the woman wants to keep it. Who is in the right? The man? The woman? If you blindly answer "the woman, obviously" you, my friend, are a "FEMI-Feminist"

However, if you answer "Both are in the right" you are truly a standing example of equality. Just because it´s the womans body does not mean it isn´t both people´s child, and both people need to agree on what to do with it. (Personally, i think that you should never force someone into having a child with you if he/she doesn´t want to, but that´s another argument)

See my point?

 

[Dogstile]

I have some MAJOR issues with your post. First you are generalizing rape and molestation victims. Have you EVEN talked to one?

When I was raped I was not drinking, I was 16 a virgin and the the guy was stronger than me. I wasn't wearing anything slutty. Rape is about power, and control.

Coercion: Ever think the person may have been in an abusive relationship? Where if the woman doesn't person sexually she gets hurt physically or otherwise?

Molestation: Most molestation cases aren't that is an older person: friend of the family, family member, sibling, clergy, teacher, or parent.

Please look up the facts before you run off your mouth about something you have NO knowledge about

OP was talking about people who drink, have sex with someone, regretting it in the morning and pressing rape charges. Which does happen in the US, and when it does, its rather public.

Coercion: Again, OP wasn't talking about people who were in abusive relationships. OP was talking about people who say no, do it anyway when the guy really wants it (I mean, its awesome, and most people ask for something that feels great at least twice) then press charges.

And the last one I can't comment on because I really can't be bothered to. But that should at least clear that up

 

[Daveman]

A person who is intoxicated is not able to give consent, because intoxication impairs mental faculties. That should be really obvious. You're not allowed to drive while intoxicated, you'd get fired if you turned up to work drunk, you'd be in serious trouble if called as a witness in a court and turned up drunk. The same logic applies.

If a person cannot give consent, then having sex with them is sex without consent.

I totally disagree. Getting drunk is an active process. You can't give diminished responsibility for being drunk in cases as you described. If you drink and drive you bear responsibilty for your actions because you CHOSE to get drunk. It is exactly the same in this case.

What's more you can't surely be suggesting that nobody should EVER have sex when drunk? Because from your argument that would mean that consent was never given and regardless of how people feel about it afterwards that would make it rape.

Of course the perpetrator is at fault. You can argue whether or not it constitutes rape, but you are talking about a man getting a woman to do something she doesn't want to do, simply for his own pleasure. That doesn't seem morally dubious to you? You don't see why woman might feel unhappy if they give in to that?

The whole idea is that she obviously did want to do it. As long as she wasn't physically forced to or threatened, she chose to do it. The OP is trying to say you can't do something and then decide you didn't want to afterwards. Otherwise it is like retracting the previously given consent. I'd feel afraid to do anything sexual if it was actually the case that AFTER the event she could decide that she didn't want to have done that.

On the topic of "coersion", if a salesman persuades you to buy a car he didn't literally steal from you (regardless of the condition or whatever (assuming he didn't lie)) just the same as if you persuade somebody to give you a blow job you didn't rape them.

So, it's the fault of women that they are victims of men? If women would just roll over and enjoy what is happening to them, the problem would go away? What a startling and original observation.

Here's a thought though, you don't think it might be better to condemn the perpetrator, and not the victim? You know, just for a change.

Ok, I get that you said you are a supporter of equality, and maybe you believe that you believe that. But you don't come off as that convincing when you follow the uusual path of victim-blaming or denying.

Ditch the victim-blaming argument because that has nothing to do with this argument. Not to mention I could bring up quite easily how a false allegation of rape could ruin somebodys life and THEN who's the victim? It's not about ignoring a real victim of rape, it's about actually assessing guilt of the perpetrator. To be honest a women could feel as terrible as she wants about it but I don't give a shit (feel free to quote out of context, I can take it), I care about whether the man has actually done something wrong and that's what this entire discussion is about. It's about women making themselves out as victims when they're not.

It's an alien concept I know (not being sarcastic, it really is), but not that complicated. If women are equal to men, then they are men's equals. That is, you don't ignore problems just because they tend to happen to women. You don't ignore women's experiences because they are women. You don't blame women for what men do to them. Women do not become liberated by getting them to be what men want. And most importantly, women do not need men to tell them how women's problems should be solved.

But apparently a mans opinion on a subject that relates to women is worthless, real equality there. And I suppose I can't study engineering because I'm not a bridge.
By the way, the women in this situation don't want the problem solved. They want to turn having sex with somebody you probably wouldn't have normally because you were drunk into rape.

What's more it says a lot for their equality if they can be talked into doing something they allegedly don't want to do by a man.

Yes, almost certainly you'll totally ignore everything I've said, because you know you know better. You know everything about equality of the sexes, because you're a man. But every time I come across someone who has written the same old stuff, I take the time and respond because maybe this time someone will take the effort (and I admit, it's a hell of an effort) to stop and think about what they know they know.

Of course anyone who offers an opinion thinks they know better. That's what you're doing! And he may at least know something about equality of sexes being a man, and if we ARE fucking equal then his opinion is just as reasonable as a womans, so ditch the sarcasm.

Anyway, if you do take any of my comments as condoning rape I want to clarify that the idea of forced sex is abhorrent to me and of course is a terrible crime, but the withdrawal of consent afterwards and diminished responsibility due to being drunk, which is what this discussion is all about, is ludicrous in my opinion.

With regards to the original post I do think that the situations outlined don't qualify as rape. I'm not entirely sure whether I agree with your idea of "sexual liberation" though. But maybe my Britishness is making me too much of a prude.

I don't even know where to start with the whole groping thing either so I'm gonna just ignore that.

 

[ZtH]

In Denmark, you don't really feel the need to feel up someone else. Why? Because your sexuality isn't repressed. You are encouraged(or at the least not discouraged) to sleeping with whoever you want, however often you want. When you can do that, why would you need to grope anyone?

I'm trying to see how your points aren't counter-intuitive. Because you're encouraged to have as much sex as you want, you want less? Shouldn't you want to perform the behavior that is encouraged and not do what is discouraged? Wouldn't the opposite be deviant behavior? I'm also not sure you should generalize about Denmark either; maybe you think you can have sex with whoever you want, whenever you want, conscious or obliviously drunk, but in a lot of places (and not just America) that's pretty much still considered, at best, the attitude of a misogynist, and at worst, the attitude of a rapist.

I feel as though you are intentionally twisting the OP's words here. Particularly when you talk about "having sex with whoever you want, whenever you want." In my understanding it was not the OP's opinion that anyone is entitled to sex with whoever they want, whenever they want regardless of the ability to give consent. Rather it seems that what the OP was trying to get across was that in his social environment any two willing people could have recreational sex without it being seen as morally reprehensible.

Also, to clarify my understanding of his point in regards to groping, I believe the implication was that if there is no stigma regarding sex in the social environment and there was a reasonable chance that if a person pursued sex they would find a willing partner, they would not stoop to groping someone without their consent. For an analogy, groping someone when there are consenting sexual partners readily available is similar to eating a single candy off the floor when there is a bowl of clean candy on the table. Why would you bother to risk personal injury/disease for a lesser thrill than that which is being willingly offered.

Also on the topic of the drunken consent issue. A person shouldn't be able to plead insanity if they get drunk and commit something along the lines of theft, so why should you not be held responsible for your choice of sexual partners while drunk. If your judgement is so impaired that you attempt to drive a vehicle you are arrested for this, despite the fact that your judgement is impaired by alcohol you are still held responsible for your decisions, the same should apply to decisions of a sexual nature, male or female.

 

[Tom Roberts]

Or...because...and I'm sorry if I'm coming too far out of left-field here for you to handle...they were raped. Yes, there are going to be women who 'cry rape', and IMO these women deserve to serve jail-time for undermining thousands of other women who have been genuinely molested)

Though not y'know for actually victimizing the innocent man or anything. Here the victim should be ignored and/or reinterpreted to be other women. It's funny how this highlights the point of Women=Victims, Men=Victimizer.

Yep. Sure is funny.

 

[PatrickXD]

Okay, the unto's threw me off occasionally.
But apart from that I had absolutely no idea what the problems were, apart from you not fully understanding different cultural opinions and how they came to be. Hardly anyone's fault.

 

[TheDarkestDerp]

...those people in Germany and the Nederlands have the possibility to be however promiscous they want to be, and sleep with however many people they want - in whatever way they desire.
What I'm saying that such isn't the case in the U.S.
A woman wants casual sex? She is branded a slut.
A man wants casual sex? High-fives all-round.

Is that simplying the issue? Certainly.
Does it, however, illustrate the problem? Yes.

EDIT:
More relevant example:
A woman had sex on a night out(while heavily intoxicated)? Wow, someone took advantage of her.
A man had sex on a night out(while heavily intoxicated)? Wow, he scored. Awesome!

Not exactly more relevant- my point is you're over-simplifying. People have the possiblity in America the same as anywhere to behave the same. Sexuality and sexism are a matter of perspective. If you cheapen another or if you are cheapened isn't so much a matter of society as much as your own integrity and empowerment, no matter where you live.
My point is Not everyone sees things as you say in either locale. What you're describing is a mindset, a frame of thought which is not confined to any location. Not everyone in Holland, the supposed mecca of sexual liberation in many stereotypes for example, sees sex in the fashion you describe, quite to the contrary for many, FAR more uptight and puritanical than any bible-thumper I've ever encountered. Just as in America, some people, myself included, see drunken hook-ups as somewhat low-brow and foolish regardless of sex, for the fact of compromised judgment and memory recollection. far too many bad incidents have occurred, people hurt and regretable actions taken under drug/alcohol influence. Men are often seen just as negatively as women for this type of irresponsible action.

I've many friends from Europe who claim my attitude towards sex is very European, due to my openness regarding taboo and fetishist activity, prostitution and adult entertainment, but when it comes to more monogamous loving and singular relationships, I'm all for them, preferred, actually.

That's awesome.
How is that relevant, however?
I am not saying that women(or men) should not engage in monogamous relationship. Nor am I saying that being "sexually aggressive" requires you to sleep with tons of people.

Yes, it is relevant, as I was establishing my unbiased point of beginning as a paid domme and sex-worker and attempting to show you that we are not so different as you seem to think. I am no prudish contrarian, disagreeing with you on moral views or superstition.

How to express this... Yes, women have been placed into a very ridiculous double-standard in America, but this country is far from alone in that regard. The morality and cultural ideals in some social circles of America you describe are from notions from long before "Yerp Jr." was ever conceived, beginning as far back as probably civilization itself, and it can be found in any country, any clime, Denmark is no different. Be it Amsterdam or New York, people will be people, regardless of nationality. I've met pretty wild TG's from "oppressive" Tehran, and Christian missionaries from "the fleshpots" of Thailand.

All I'm trying to say is you seem to be over-simplifying this issue based perhaps on your view of your own social circle. Conservativism isn't confined to any nation, just as sexual taboo isn't quite as cast-aside as perhaps it should be.

I apologize for my screwed-up quotations in the middle there. I generate anti-ork fields of technological difficulty. *chuckles*

 

[incandescent-smile]

A person who is intoxicated is not able to give consent, because intoxication impairs mental faculties. That should be really obvious. You're not allowed to drive while intoxicated, you'd get fired if you turned up to work drunk, you'd be in serious trouble if called as a witness in a court and turned up drunk. The same logic applies.

No. That's not true at all.
You're not allowed to drive drunk because it has physical implications, not because it has mental ones.
Drunk on the job? You are less productive (and obviously irresponsible) and fired because of that.
Witness in court and turned up drunk? Wow, I've never heard of that. I guess it would be morally dubious, but not illegal? I don't really know what to think there.

However, to your main point here, that:

If a person cannot give consent, then having sex with them is sex without consent.

- i have issue with your (s0denone's) views regarding the nature of consent. For you to suggest that being intoxicated does not carry mental implications is unreasonable.

The law in England (where i'm from) states in the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, that unless the person performing the act upon the other individual (so, in the circumstances implied throughout this argument, the man having sex with the drunk woman) REASONABLY BELIEVES that the consent was genuine, the act is defined as an act of rape. Therefore, if the man is having sex with a woman who is drunk to the point in which one can reasonably assume that her judgement is impaired, the man is committing rape. The onus is on the man to acknowledge that this potential sexual partner is beyond the point of being able to make rational judgements and decisions, and decide not to have sex with her for that reason.

Also, witnesses in court are not allowed to testify if they are drunk. This, of course, makes complete sense...because alcohol impairs your mental faculties. One is not allowed to drive while drunk because being drunk reduces one's hazard perception and reaction time: both COGNITIVE, not, as you suggested, physical faculties.

 

[s0denone]

I feel as though you are intentionally twisting the OP's words here. Particularly when you talk about "having sex with whoever you want, whenever you want." In my understanding it was not the OP's opinion that anyone is entitled to sex with whoever they want, whenever they want regardless of the ability to give consent. Rather it seems that what the OP was trying to get across was that in his social environment any two willing people could have recreational sex without it being seen as morally reprehensible.

Also, to clarify my understanding of his point in regards to groping, I believe the implication was that if there is no stigma regarding sex in the social environment and there was a reasonable chance that if a person pursued sex they would find a willing partner, they would not stoop to groping someone without their consent. For an analogy, groping someone when there are consenting sexual partners readily available is similar to eating a single candy off the floor when there is a bowl of clean candy on the table. Why would you bother to risk personal injury/disease for a lesser thrill than that which is being willingly offered.

Also on the topic of the drunken consent issue. A person shouldn't be able to plead insanity if they get drunk and commit something along the lines of theft, so why should you not be held responsible for your choice of sexual partners while drunk. If your judgement is so impaired that you attempt to drive a vehicle you are arrested for this, despite the fact that your judgement is impaired by alcohol you are still held responsible for your decisions, the same should apply to decisions of a sexual nature, male or female.

If only I was as eloquent.

Not exactly more relevant- my point is you're over-simplifying. People have the possiblity in America the same as anywhere to behave the same. Sexuality and sexism are a matter of perspective. If you cheapen another or if you are cheapened isn't so much a matter of society as much as your own integrity and empowerment, no matter where you live.
My point is Not everyone sees things as you say in either locale. What you're describing is a mindset, a frame of thought which is not confined to any location. Not everyone in Holland, the supposed mecca of sexual liberation in many stereotypes for example, sees sex in the fashion you describe, quite to the contrary for many, FAR more uptight and puritanical than any bible-thumper I've ever encountered. Just as in America, some people, myself included, see drunken hook-ups as somewhat low-brow and foolish regardless of sex, for the fact of compromised judgment and memory recollection. far too many bad incidents have occurred, people hurt and regretable actions taken under drug/alcohol influence. Men are often seen just as negatively as women for this type of irresponsible action.

Does this mean you agree with engaging in sexual relations while under the influence of alcohol is not "rape"? Given that you only attribute it words such as "low-brow" and "foolish", not "ill-spirited", "illegal" and "non-consensual".

Sexuality and sexism isn't a matter of perspective, though - else there would be no descrimination of homosexuals, transsexuals or any other kind of sexuality. Don't tell me it has nothing to do with the society as a whole, and is more dependant on empowerment of one self. That is absolute bollony.

People in America have the possiblity to act however they please, yes. But they do so, knowing that they will suffer the social stigma of said actions.

In Denmark it isn't like that. No-matter what knowledge you have of Europe. It simply is not the case.

To bring another example of repressed sexuality/sexuality being discriminated, in regards to America nowadays, from the perspective of a hetorosexual male:
The sexuality of men is not particularly taboo -> they will open talk about having had sex with girls, and nobody will judge them of doing so.
The sexuality of women is rather taboo, or at the least considered "bad taste" -> women may or may not talk about having had sex with guys, and will or will not be judged based upon several different factors(How often, did she know him, etc.).

The homosexuality of lesbians is taboo, but men will openly admit to being turned on by it -> homosexual women may or may not be discriminated against, based on several factors but mainly on the "Are they attractive?"/"Do they look butch?" scale.
The homosexuality of gays is taboo -> homosexual men will be discriminated against.

Yes, it is relevant, as I was establishing my unbiased point of beginning as a paid domme and sex-worker and attempting to show you that we are not so different as you seem to think. I am no prudish contrarian, disagreeing with you on moral views or superstition.

How to express this... Yes, women have been placed into a very ridiculous double-standard in America, but this country is far from alone in that regard. The morality and cultural ideals in some social circles of America you describe are from notions from long before "Yerp Jr." was ever conceived, beginning as far back as probably civilization itself, and it can be found in any country, any clime, Denmark is no different. Be it Amsterdam or New York, people will be people, regardless of nationality. I've met pretty wild TG's from "oppressive" Tehran, and Christian missionaries from "the fleshpots" of Thailand.

All I'm trying to say is you seem to be over-simplifying this issue based perhaps on your view of your own social circle. Conservativism isn't confined to any nation, just as sexual taboo isn't quite as cast-aside as perhaps it should be.

I apologize for my screwed-up quotations in the middle there. I generate anti-ork fields of technological difficulty. *chuckles*

What am I oversimplifying, however?
I thought I'm being quite clear on my main points: Sexually aggressive women are treated to social stigma.
Liberated sexuality is not present for women in America.

This leads to women feeling inferior or as victims when compared to men, sexually. This, in turn, leads to them feeling abused and victimized for what is in other countries (for instance Denmark, Holland or Germany, to name your own examples) exceptionally "normal" occurances.

This includes engaging in sexual relations while intoxicated.

- i have issue with your (s0denone's) views regarding the nature of consent. For you to suggest that being intoxicated does not carry mental implications is unreasonable.

The law in England (where i'm from) states in the Sexual Offences Act of 2003, that unless the person performing the act upon the other individual (so, in the circumstances implied throughout this argument, the man having sex with the drunk woman) REASONABLY BELIEVES that the consent was genuine, the act is defined as an act of rape. Therefore, if the man is having sex with a woman who is drunk to the point in which one can reasonably assume that her judgement is impaired, the man is committing rape. The onus is on the man to acknowledge that this potential sexual partner is beyond the point of being able to make rational judgements and decisions, and decide not to have sex with her for that reason.

Also, witnesses in court are not allowed to testify if they are drunk. This, of course, makes complete sense...because alcohol impairs your mental faculties. One is not allowed to drive while drunk because being drunk reduces one's hazard perception and reaction time: both COGNITIVE, not, as you suggested, physical faculties.

Bringing you to the post of ZamielTheHunter, who elaborated on my existing point:
Look up.

Did you read his post? Continue onwards.
So you are able to consent to acts that are criminal in nature, while intoxicated, but unable to consent to acts that are sexual in nature?
That is absurdly hypocritical, not to mention extremely nonsensical.

 

[MasterOfWorlds]

For the drinking bit; according to law, as I understand it in the US (I don't drink and neither does my gf, so it's not a concern for us) if you and/or your partner are impaired, you can't consent, without consent, it's rape. Also, as far as I know, anyone at any point during sex can withdraw consent, that doesn't make anything up to that point rape, but if you were to continue, it would be. I think this is a little bit rediculous, but that's just me I guess.

For the groping bit; I've seen plenty of women smack or otherwise make the man stop. The main places it becomes a problem are where the man is in a theoretical position of power over the woman (ie boss, manager, etc) or in crowded public places (ie subways and such). I've seen a waitress pour hot coffee on a guy for groping her ass. It wasn't super hot and she didn't ruin his crotch or anything, but it didn't look pleasant.

Your definition of "coercion" and mine are pretty different. Where you take the self-esteem route, my definition is more along the lines of "Do this or..." and things of that nature. And I'd also make the argument that since "self" is the first word of "self-esteem" there is essentially no difference between your self-esteem being targeted and you as a person being targeted.

Your definition of rape, while accurate, also doesn't cover what all constitutes rape in the US. If the person is unable (minor, handicapped, etc.) unwilling (classic rape case) or impaired (see my first point) than it is rape. Of course, the age of consent varies from state to state in the US, raning from 16 to 18 and some allowances for age differences ranging from two to three year differences.

It does sort of go both ways here. Guys get groped/raped all the time but it's rarely reported because of pride/emberrasment.

I think you're looking at too narrow of an area. The issues you're looking at are really specific and would need a sweeping social reform to change. In order to fix these issues, you'd need to work from the ground up.

Also, you mention "feminist" like a dozen times in your OP. While not all of them are foaming at the mouth, you need to keep in mind that a lot of sepcialized groups like that are extremely biased. Maybe you should look around at other things that aren't told by feminists, or at least make sure that you're not reading something by the rabid man-hating ones that we know are out there.