Very true. I suppose my general hatred for internet justice/education of things I consider menial is showing today.thaluikhain said:
Wait, This Need To Be Taught?
- Thread starter chiggerwood
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Yeah, I can live with that. Some men being annoyed isn't worse than women being raped.chiggerwood said:
Why are they in need of therapy? Is this true for all of them?chiggerwood said:
It's very often pointed out that different cultures across the world and throughout time have had different attitudes towards, and thus rates of, rape. People can be taught about that.
I tried, but it growled at me and insisted I shovel down a sandwich.lax4life said:
Who can I call about an abusive stomach?
What can men do against such reckless hate? D:
You putting them in a bear pit is something you are doing to them that that aren't consenting to and is still causing them harm. Sex is only rape based on given consent before hand or not. They need to accept the responsibility for the actions they commit while drunk when they chose to put themselves in that state.Shanicus said:
To make your weird analogy a bit fairer, lets say that you convinced them, while drunk, to willingly go play in the bear pit. That is their decision still, and the resulting mauling and legal action taking for trespassing isn't going to be charged at anyone but the perpetrator.
Being drunk does not excuse your actions or responsibility for them.
The problem here is that you are excusing behavior made after an intentional choice to get drunk solely because you dislike the implications that by willingly drinking themselves stupid, it means people are more likely to take advantage of that stupidity. And you should feel horrified that people will take advantage of that stupidity, but then realize that since it was their own choice to weaken their own critical thinking skills, the resulting actions they take with impaired judgement are still their fault. Or are charges against drunk drivers that kill people suddenly no longer accepted in court anymore?
Keep in mind this entire argument is about what is or is not rape, where what defines rape is consent. When you intentionally reduce the requirements for what you are going to consent to, regretting the decision afterwards doesn't magically take away the consent you gave earlier. Nor does your choosing to be drunk in a society that wont let that be an excuse for actions you take in that state remove the responsibility for being drunk (and thus the actions taken in that state).
I wouldn't. But I have known those that like to get shit faced and sleep with other shit faced people. As such, because this topic is sort of pertinent, sort of have to go with the precedent when it comes to legal responsibility of drunk people. Turns out, it is exactly the same as when you aren't drunk. Willingly putting a critical thinking handicap on is the choice of the person drinking after all, so why should society suddenly protect them from the results of their stupid decisions just because they regret getting drunk afterwards?Lieju said:
If you're teaching people about consent, that's not necessarily an outright 'We think you're going to rape someone if you're not told not to' thing. Or at least it shouldn't be, that'd be a rubbish way to do things. But there are a lot of grey areas on this issue; this thread's proof enough of that. There are boys who are too clueless and end up sleeping with someone who doesn't want to, girls who are too shy to make their discomfort known. It's those grey areas that this sort of thing is relevant to.chiggerwood said:
Some people are just arseholes, or have serious mental problems, and a classroom talk - you're perfectly right - is not going to help those people. But it's shouldn't be about them, it should be about trying to help people not have things they don't want to happen happen, or about not doing things to people that you don't want to do. Because I rather suspect that most boys are reasonably decent people, and would be horrified to discover that a girl they slept with did so because she was too uncomfortable to say no. Even if neither of them would call it rape, I feel like that's something that most people would want not to happen and/or not to have done.
You are right, they have responsibility of reinforcing. The problem is that reinforcing morality isn't teaching it wholesale. Reinforcing in schools is using the established moral framework and demonstrating it in a sort of test social framework. This should be where differences in individual moral understandings are ironed out before they are put into full society. Not where you start from the base and give them all the moral guidance the parents can't be asked to.BubbleBurst said:
Schools have an ever increasing curriculum of practical base skills and social experiences to teach kids as it is, adding in morality as well and one has to ask what the hell the point of parents are at that point when the school is the one doing all the work at that point. And that is before we even get into the ways some schools try to push morality, such as through religion.
Yeah, like the people who have legal guardian ship of them in the first place, or even gave birth. The people who's responsibility in society thanks to having the children or ownership of the children include raising that child to be a well adjusted member of the society.
don't get me wrong, reinforcing the idea though school is great, but that wasn't ever what I was arguing against. I was arguing against the school having responsibility to teach morality in the first place. Though I suppose there is a question to ask about how they can do even that much since, you know, sex isn't something that happens under guidance and permission in the school and is acknowledged as something proper if done right. Or did I miss where schools let you have sex on the premise because it was a valuable life experience they were suppose to help teach?
Yeah, parents, the people legally responsible for that instead of an already overly relied on nanny school system whose over-use of has lead to this mess some anyways as parents heave more and more responsibility for actually raising the kids into contributing members of society onto. Thought we went over that one before? Also, call me crazy, but do you think, maybe, that you might have been lied to about what is believed about rape in relating to consent because some people wanted to weasel out of responsibility for their actions and saying "I didn't know" was a nice way to try to play dumb or justify an action that was despicable?
I mean yeah, you can get into some confusing situations where one or neither people are in the right state of mind such as at a party, but even then it is still kinda easy to pick up on if they are consenting or not. And if I recall right I was taught, and reinforced about in school no less, at around 5 years old that you ask permission and accept no when told to you if you wanted to play with a toy or person.
No, because stealing a wallet is a crime of theft that isn't based on consent. Sort of like that other example you gave, the state of the person it is perpetrated on doesn't change that you are doing something illegal to them unlike when the state of the crime is based on consent, such as rape.
Here, let me put it this way, lets say you convinces someone drunk, who chose to drink themselves stupid without your help, to give you $50. Is THAT theft? Because that is the argument in a nutshell here, that a person is no longer responsible for their actions after they get themselves drunk. Except the amount of time a person has been charged with murder for drinking while driving, hell the amount of people charged with cow-tipping has shown that you never stop being responsible for your actions in the eyes of the law, even when you consciously choose to make yourself stupider beforehand. And do note, this all only applies when the person consciously chooses to drink themselves, not spiking a drink or any of that stuff. Or would getting shitfaced excuse me from the responsibility of acting like a productive member of society and thus allow me to go around harassing women by grabbing at them since I was no longer responsible for the choices I make after the initial choice of drinking like a fish, knowing full well my decision making would be hindered?
Hell, you want a prime example of this, see any gambling casino. You start winning, they start giving you free drinks in hopes you do something stupid and lose it. That is intentionally trying to get people drunk to get them to do something stupid and is still legally acceptable since the person's actions are still their damn own, why does that suddenly stop when you mix sex into it? And it seems that is the only case where a person is no longer responsible for their own choices in society, or can change their mind about it after the fact and regret sinks in. Or could I drag the MGM Grand to court and sue for damages since they gave me free alcohol and because that may have impede my judgement, caused me to make stupid bets that cost me thousands?
Certainly entering into a bit of a gray area. Even in business contracts being drunk can be grounds for throwing out the contract, although in practice you have to establish the person was taken advantage of while being completely incapacitated or that someone deliberately plied them with alcohol or drugs in order to take advantage of them.BathorysGraveland2 said:
And I think most folks understand the line between drunk girl coming on to you and taking advantage of semi-conscious drunk girl. If she's not an active participant, then you're in creepy territory. If you're having sex with someone who isn't capable of getting anything from the experience (save perhaps an STD or unwanted pregnancy), then you're being an asshole. Case closed.
The problem is it's hard coming up with a legal standard here. A woman could be completely off-her-face and a very willing participant... but even back in my college days (late 80s) when there wasn't any discussion of drunk consent, I witnessed a friend of mine refusing the sexual advances of a very drunk girl... despite him being a virgin and desperate to get laid. But then the girl confessed to really liking him, so he scooped that up later when there was no danger of her vomiting on him.
That seems, by far, the sensible way of doing it.Netrigan said:
I mean, even if you're pretty sure she'd be into it sober, nothing much can go wrong if you don't have sex, but it really, really can if you do.
Well...not necessarily stupid, but otherwise sensible people can end up believing all sorts of things that would seem obviously wrong.Auron225 said:
Well, wow, think about this on a basic level.chiggerwood said:
The most successful people in the world are also some of the worst. Corporations dominate the global economy, and by design a corporation is a psychopathic wealth accumulator, which is only bounded by whatever outside forces can put pressure on it. The amount of time that high-paid supermodels and actresses put into their appearance makes it very difficult for them to care about anything besides their appearance.
Men are encouraged to wealth accumulate at any cost, women are encouraged to be shallow and be only concerned with their faces and bodies.
I'm really surprised that amid all this society manages to continue. It's amazing and a testament to just how resilient humanity is amid all the terror, abuse, and debasement.
But of course this debasement has an effect, and we see that all the time. Men are encouraged to be aggressive within the economy and within society, as long as they aren't TOO aggressive. Fucking lots of women without regard to anyone's feelings (as long as consent exists between them and their partner-at-the-moment) is just fine and in fact it makes one "more of a man" than foolishly loving someone. Wilt Chamberlain took this to the logical extreme - fucking thousands of women, essentially keeping his "man-score" and adding 1 point for every new woman fucked. His value TO HIMSELF was, quite literally, based on the precise number of women he fucked. In gamer terms, fucking was like killing a monster and gaining XP - Wilt Chamberlain was a Level 20,000 Woman-fucker, melting Ice Queens with his Fiery Longsword.
Why should it surprise anyone that within our culture there's a lot of sexual abuse and rape? It's just ONE STEP REMOVED from what our culture celebrates.
Football's a good analogy. It's fine to bash someone to unconsciousness, fine to paralyze them (as long as it's accidental) - in fact it's part of what makes a good football player. But a line is drawn. So football players are encouraged to get as close to the line as they possibly can without crossing it.
Here's what happens with this kind of logic - people step over the line all the time, often unintentionally. Our culture tells us that the best people dance on the line, and the difference between success and failure is staying on the right side of the line. Stay on the right side of the road and you speed to your destination. Shift to the wrong side and you crash, killing people.
It's utterly insane. Welcome to the modern world. Enjoy dancing on the line.
From all my interactions with women on the subject, this isn't completely literal.chiggerwood said:I think one of the more infuriating aspects when it comes to discussions about consent and such matters is this particular idea:thaluikhain said:
The frustration centers around how often the woman's behavior or clothing being brought up. That it's their responsibility to not act or dress in any manner that might incite a rape. You're supposed to focus on the first part of that statement, to not say it's her fault she got raped.
Unfortunately, so many people seem to leap-frog over that bit and focus like a laser beam on the second part, as if women don't already take extraordinary measures to protect themselves. Not too long ago a series of animated gifs popped up on my Tumblr feed. The first one has a professor asking his male students "how many of you pull out your keys before you get to your car?" A few hands go up. "Okay, how many of you make sure no one is in the back seat before you get into your car?" A total of four men have their hands in the air. "How many women do both of those things all the time?" Just about every woman puts her hand in the air.
And this is the intended meaning behind that sign. Women are sick and tired of having their rapes excused because they didn't do enough to prevent them. This is why they get so pissed off at victim-blaming. They locked the doors, barred the windows, armed themselves, and they're still held accountable for letting it happen to them
Because, and this bit of knowledge came as a surprise to me when I finally figured it out after chiming in on the subject many, many, many times, they already know everything that is going to come out of their mouth. A rape victim already blames herself. She's already trying to work out what she could have done differently to prevent her rape. All those points we men keep trying to inject into this discussion should be met with a patronizing pat on the head because we've got so much less experience on the subject of personal safety than the average woman that the vast, vast, vast majority of times our "insightful" thoughts are dead-obvious to anyone with half a brain. Every 13 year old can come up with the "don't walk down a darkened alley at night and expect not to be victimized" thought, but it doesn't stop an infinite number of idiots from speaking that out loud like the thought has never occurred to anyone before.
Now, this isn't to say that an incoming freshmen doesn't need to be taught how to protect herself, because they're entering into a new environment where they don't know the rules yet. You usually don't have to tell a young woman to attend any such class on the subject, because they're usually well-aware they can easily be physically over-powered by the average man.
But the frustration is on the flip side, where guys are often not called out on their rapey behavior by their fellow men. I wish I could remember where I read it, but a guy talked about the Rape Talk his college gave him, which essentially amounted to "don't fuck crazy" because they'll file false rape-charges against you... because when told that 10-20% of rape accusations are false, we have this tendency to ignore the larger percentage and focus on the much smaller number that applies to us.
Well, society developed with that sort of thing as a given, though.briankoontz said:
Huh, actually that is a pretty good way of putting it there, I'll have to remember that.briankoontz said:
In this case, I don't think you can say that people are "supposed" to focus on anything other than THE EMBOLDENED AND UNDERLINED PART OF A SIGN POST WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS, HELD UP OVER A LARGE CROWD, MENTIONING ONE OF SOCIETIES MOST EXTREME AND HEAD-TURNING CRIMES LIKE MURDER AND PEDOPHILIA.Netrigan said:
This is how you make a sign-post.
Feminists usually come out of academia. They have a bad habit of over-thinking stuff and not realizing their jargon or their discussions aren't known to the average person.R0guy said:In this case, I don't think you can say that people are "supposed" to focus on anything other than THE EMBOLDENED AND UNDERLINED PART OF A SIGN POST WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS, HELD UP OVER A LARGE CROWD, MENTIONING ONE OF SOCIETIES MOST EXTREME AND HEAD-TURNING CRIMES LIKE MURDER AND PEDOPHILIA.Netrigan said:
This is how you make a sign-post.
But it doesn't excuse people from deciding half the words on a sign don't mean anything, so they can inject the most obvious thoughts into the discussion. Thunderb00t did a video on that sign and I don't think he came up with a single thought which didn't occur to me at the age of 17. Now, perhaps I was just the smartest person on the planet when I was 17, but I think the much more likely scenario is I was a dumbass who didn't realize that the discussion is far beyond my meaningless points. They're discussing calculus and I'm trying to tell them 2x2=4 and expecting to be treated like the smartest person in the room.
I'm not gonna lie - the status on being drunk is incredibly confusing to me, and I say this as someone who actively doesn't fuck. If a married couple get drunk together and fuck, were they both raped? What about someone who actively goes to a bar with the intent of getting themselves drunk and getting laid? What about someone who's had just enough drinks to not be legally allowed to drive, but is still very coherent? If someone get's smashed, laid, then states afterwards that they consented, is it still rape? Where exactly is the line for somebody to be too drunk for sex?
Fortunately, I think I could safely say that I wouldn't fuck someone I thought was drunk even if I did fuck. However, these are still questions that I feel need answering.
Fortunately, I think I could safely say that I wouldn't fuck someone I thought was drunk even if I did fuck. However, these are still questions that I feel need answering.
Sorry but what the hell is that suppose to mean? Are these black people less credible because they're not academics? Or are you saying that academics over-think things to the point of being needlessly antagonistic? Because MLK was one and somehow the civil rights movement didn't devolve into incoherent "teach whites to not be racist" campaigns. So that's nonsense.Netrigan said:Feminists usually come out of academia. They have a bad habit of over-thinking stuff and not realizing their jargon or their discussions aren't known to the average person.R0guy said:In this case, I don't think you can say that people are "supposed" to focus on anything other than THE EMBOLDENED AND UNDERLINED PART OF A SIGN POST WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS, HELD UP OVER A LARGE CROWD, MENTIONING ONE OF SOCIETIES MOST EXTREME AND HEAD-TURNING CRIMES LIKE MURDER AND PEDOPHILIA.Netrigan said:
This is how you make a sign-post.
Here's another couple of "non-academics" who didn't "over-think" their movement into antagonistic drivel.
And another
At the moment, it's one of those weird legal judgment calls. By being drunk, you can't legally consent to sex, which means you have grounds to pursue legal action afterwards.V da Mighty Taco said:
This, by the way, is true of contract law. If you're drunk when you sign a contract, you have grounds to pursue legal action to get out of the contract.
And this is where the legal judgment call comes in. Absolutely everyone understands that being drunk doesn't absolve you from bad decisions. The question becomes did someone take advantage of you being drunk to get you to do something you didn't want to do. Did they ply you with alcohol to get you to submit? Did they take advantage of you when you were clearly in a state of advanced inebriation? If you're signing a contract and the other side comes in completely drunk, then don't sign the contract until a sober representative is there. That's how you protect yourself.
Odds are nothing is going to come of it. Odds are the worse that will happen when you drunkenly hook up the drunken girl is no more than her disappointment in your poor performance and the giggles of her friends every time you enter a room
But a good rule of thumb is to avoid hooking up with a girl who is extremely drunk. She may not remember agreeing to sex the following morning, she may vomit on you, she may just be really annoying. Basically, an extremely drunk person (male or female) is an albatross about your neck. Get them home safely and leave it at that.
Did you happen to catch the phrase "bad habit" in the section you quoted?R0guy said:Sorry but what the hell is that suppose to mean? Are these black people less credible because they're not academics? Or are you saying that academics over-think things to the point of being needlessly antagonistic? Because MLK was one and somehow the civil rights movement didn't devolve into incoherent "teach whites to not be racist" campaigns. So that's nonsense.Netrigan said:Feminists usually come out of academia. They have a bad habit of over-thinking stuff and not realizing their jargon or their discussions aren't known to the average person.R0guy said:In this case, I don't think you can say that people are "supposed" to focus on anything other than THE EMBOLDENED AND UNDERLINED PART OF A SIGN POST WRITTEN IN CAPITAL LETTERS, HELD UP OVER A LARGE CROWD, MENTIONING ONE OF SOCIETIES MOST EXTREME AND HEAD-TURNING CRIMES LIKE MURDER AND PEDOPHILIA.Netrigan said:
This is how you make a sign-post.
Here's another couple of "non-academics" who didn't "over-think" their movement into antagonistic drivel.
Academia is a terrible place to come up with your slogan. They're fucking awful at it. They over-intellectualize everything and it often comes out the other side as stupid.
In the end you get a sign which goes in two directions at once. They're pissed because men keep telling them something which is immaterial, while men get pissed because the second part suggests they don't know rape is wrong.
But then many people seem to be very good at getting defensive when something is aimed in their general direction. I personally don't get upset when people share their bad Gamer stories, because I don't do those sort of asshole things. Other people get offended for exactly the same reason because they're Gamers and don't act like assholes... although often I'd suggest they rethink that particular opinion, because their overly insulting response suggests otherwise
Same situation here. I do my best to condemn men who cross the line. I can see what they're driving at even if they didn't select their words with enough care. I'm not offended by it. Other people get all offended because they don't see themselves as having any responsibility as they've never raped anyone.
To better illustrate what I think that sign was going toward. The Steubenville Rape Case.
A girl got incredibly drunk and was raped by two football players when she wasn't capable of intelligible speech, much less consent to sex.
Yet many people focused on her getting that drunk, as if rape was just one of those things which naturally happens when you pass out drunk somewhere. People made this point so heavily, it often sounded like they were excusing the two boys who raped her.
And, yes, you do have to be careful getting that drunk anywhere. There's a bit of an object lesson to be had here. Getting insensibly drunk is never a smart thing, regardless of gender. But it doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others.
But those two boys still made the decision to rape her. The responsibility is 100% on them. Her being drunk doesn't in any way excuse their actions. At all. Not even a tiny, tiny bit. They're rapist assholes.
A girl got incredibly drunk and was raped by two football players when she wasn't capable of intelligible speech, much less consent to sex.
Yet many people focused on her getting that drunk, as if rape was just one of those things which naturally happens when you pass out drunk somewhere. People made this point so heavily, it often sounded like they were excusing the two boys who raped her.
And, yes, you do have to be careful getting that drunk anywhere. There's a bit of an object lesson to be had here. Getting insensibly drunk is never a smart thing, regardless of gender. But it doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others.
But those two boys still made the decision to rape her. The responsibility is 100% on them. Her being drunk doesn't in any way excuse their actions. At all. Not even a tiny, tiny bit. They're rapist assholes.
Yeah, I kept seeing these posters in the SU saying "sex if she doesn't want it is rape". Kind of an obvious one, but apparently, there are people who split hairs and I suppose, convince themselves that somehow, under some bizarre condition, it was okay. I don't see what a poster is going to do to change the mind of one so twisted, but hey, I guess it couldn't do much harm.
Also, there's first world countries that don't have compulsory sex education? Does...does britain have compulsory sex education? I mean, I know I had it. Jesus, I had it once on the ass end of primary, twice in secondary, and yet fucking again in college! But you mean to tell me there's some schools in britain teaching kids around the age of puberty that don't fucking have sex education? That's all kinds of fucked up. I mean, male or female, our sex education pretty much boiled down to "Use a condom, here are some gross pictures of what happens if you don't" so mine wasn't really good, but jesus christ, at least I HAD it.
Also, there's first world countries that don't have compulsory sex education? Does...does britain have compulsory sex education? I mean, I know I had it. Jesus, I had it once on the ass end of primary, twice in secondary, and yet fucking again in college! But you mean to tell me there's some schools in britain teaching kids around the age of puberty that don't fucking have sex education? That's all kinds of fucked up. I mean, male or female, our sex education pretty much boiled down to "Use a condom, here are some gross pictures of what happens if you don't" so mine wasn't really good, but jesus christ, at least I HAD it.