ragebait repost from corporate social media: it's quite common there to censor random letters and words, or make some deliberate grammar mistakes, so people will comment about it and will boost the post organically. I hate that it appears here as well, because people just mindlessly repost it with the builtin bait
It's not genuine. It's making fun of the fact that the post chose to censor one letter from the word "drugs" despite it being painfully obvious what that one letter was, and the fact that the far more offensive word "rape" went through uncensored twice.
It really depends on the situation. Two people of similar intoxication levels can consent. But at the same time when with an intoxicated person you need to be making certain they're moving forward with you and consenting.
At least that's my perspective as someone who will get involved with strangers while drinking at bars.
When someone's blacked out or unable to enthusiastically consent (ie advance the acts of their own volition without being pressured or otherwise coerced) then they fundamentally can't consent
The point here is that any intoxication is bad - negative is its characteristic. Doubling that negativity doesnt make it any better than if it was just one person intoxicated.
I once raped my wife, then. She was drunk, came back home drunk and wanted to fuck me hard. I told her I didn't feel like it was right to have sex with her in such condition, but she just didn't want to hear about my decent comments and told me to get off my high horses and just fuck her. So I did. Should I be ashamed of myself? Because, I'm not, it's not like its something easy to forget, but in a good way.
It's hard for two unconscious people to have sex. One of them has to be conscious enough to be able to move. Even if they are drunk they are still responsible for having sex with unconscious person.
It may depend on jurisdiction but usually it's illegal to have sex with someone unable to consent. I think that if they are drunk but are still consenting (verbally or non-verbally) it's not considered rape.
You are claiming that an individual is still responsible for their actions even when intoxicated. So if a girl gets drunk and high and sleeps with a bunch of guys, is she not responsible for her actions?
I honestly would vouch for a similar figure to the designated driver. I'll call it the designated handler, some sort of a box staff of allies trying to keep you in the fight, but also checking if you are okay to continue.
I've always been a total wierdo, but even at sixteen, when I was a desperate, frustrated incel, if a girl (in this case, a peer) had to get sloshed to be into me, it'd freak me out.
Pretty much through my entire romantic career, meeting at a bar instead of a café was a red flag. Sex always seemed like a sober activity. Or more exactly, sex supplies its own drugs. Morover, once someone was not coherent enough to do crosswords, it was clear they weren't clear headed enough to consent to fluid exchange.
Granted, there are two factors that inform this attitude: One is my parents were sloppy drunks and went to sloppy-drunk parties. And I never wanted to be like that. The other is I made my way into the kink community in my twenties, and mixing drugs or booze with kink was geberallt generally known to be dangerous like mixing drugs and booze with motor vehicles or guns. (At least in my corner of the kink community. Also breath-control was a no-no and kids seem to be choking each other all over the place, nowadays.)
But then, I've never been a frat dude, or even the kind of guy who'd ever be sponsored to join a Greek house.
Kinda same. Even in my most incel times my most fucked up fantasies there the other party was getting totally ravaged, the reason it was sexy was because they consented, because they wanted it, because they were feeling pleasure from it. It was sexy because I was able to empathize with the imaginary other.
I guess fantasy me doesn't really care about hammered sex, but real me would never be that hammered and would instantly be worried if the OP happened, can't get aroused if I'm worried. Crazy how some guys are.
I wanted one since long before then. I am a bit worried we'll end up with a strongly conservative matriarchy that won't look severely different than what we have now, but I think the only chance we have to swing left of 'left' is to shake up the patriarchy.
Anarchy sounds nice until you have a task big enough to require people to work together, or to do shitty work no one wants to do, or to deal with outside aggressors, or to resolve conflict.
There's probably something in between anarchy, dictatorship, republic, communism that works, but we haven't found it yet.
This has been solved many many times. Kropotkin addresses this in Mutual Aid. You form confederations, and call regular meetings to form pacts and mutual trade.
Ironically anarchy doesn't mean no governance, it means no state and government. A good anarchist society would have plenty of agreed upon rules and expectations, they just wouldn't be enforced by a body of monopolistic violence.
Villages of quisi to fully anarchist peoples operated for centuries and millennia in this form of communal structure until the nation-state was born in the late medieval ages and spread abroad through European colonialism.
Perhaps, but since just about every other system has already devolved into internal armed conflict and slavery at various points, it seems like a good idea to try the one that hasn't yet.
Alternatively, one could argue that they accomplished quite a lot in the context of wartime shortages of resources, betrayals, etc. Just as one example, they expanded bus service all over Barcelona while also making it free and more frequent, by having the bus workers run everything democratically.
Hey, I'd just be excited to have a cool new friend to do drugs with, and if I take off my clothes it's not sexual, it's purely about being on the same mental level
Some people see the naked girl railing lines on the couch and think, "oh dear I hope she's SAFE, I hope she learns self control". I see someone that I can sit there on molly with for the next hour while she trauma dumps and I'm like "damn girl that is seriously crazy you've been through so much, damn, that's life though right??"
It's a principal thing. Censorship on corporate social media trains people how to think and what's okay or not okay to talk about. Importing that shit here I think it's harmful. I care, you don't. Okie dokie.
I mean, a few of you at least have ever had sex with someone who was not participating, just being passive, clearly "accepting but not willing". Am I the only one to find it a turn off?
To make love together requires a cooperation... of course not to "fuck someone" but this one is supposed in a domination, but if you need that some one be passed out to dominate them, what do you think of yourself?
If you want a sex toy, please buy it in some shop, it has never been that easy. If you want to make love, you need to seduce someone enough so they are genuinely willing to do it with you.
Completely agree with you. I honestly feel a little sick if someone says they were doing it as a favor to me. Don't do that. If you aren't into it, just tell me. I can take of myself in that case.
Exactly this. Hell, I've had instances where one of my partners just isn't into it, or something happens and they're not feeling it anymore, and it just takes all the enjoyment out of it.
Consent, connection, and enjoyment are critical for me.
Some people find it sexy to behave as sex toys or to be treated as such. Some people like to be dominated and moved around. Not everyone wants to make love, some people just want to fuck, or even to be fucked. You may find this unjust, but I feel like, in your writing, you just think about how you feel yourself, and not about how others experience their sexuality as if they were somehow broken if it doesn't look like love and cooperation to you.
The partners are both willing, and they agree on how to do it? I am totally fine with them doing it in their way. And may one act as a slave and the other as a master, with their rules and their limit ; I see it as a form of cooperation.
If one of the partner is forced, or accept for secondary reasons (they don't really want sex, or not that way) ; here I see a problem.
It is just the same if they are more than 2 partners. As long as they are all willing it, for it, and as it is, I find it fine.
Also, sometimes, you may be willing to try something, and find out you do not like it (you at least have this experience with food). It is important, I think, to respect the others even when they change their mind. You would not either, I think, force someone to finish a full plate of something they don't like just because they have accepted to try to please you...
You're right and it's tragic. It's part of the punching down systems these guys benefit from when they climb in the hierarchies, the old boys' club. I'm a guy and have seen how guys can benefit in life, but shouldn't use it to hurt others. Same thing in many families, supernatural groups, sports, frats, military, and right-wing politics. People cant wait for their turn to punch down on someone and it's indoctrinated as normal and good. They all hide their abusive ways, where real truth stands in the open. Tribalism, right/wrong obedient to authority, it's easier than having real convictions, and just go along with what was brainwashed into them. And again these guys benefit from their privilege and get mad when that word is used, since their ego takes over and they have not ego awareness as we all need, but that's part of these unhealthy systems.
A very sad thing is that, unless we take care of it, we are all bound to value this "winning male" behaviour as not only normal but also as good! The ones aware don't need to make an effort to see how wrong it is... but take a young adult male who became a successfull influencer or businessman, how surprising would it be that he abused sexualy of someone? Isn't it in the pack with the success? Of course it should not be... but we would need that young men grow understanding that abusing others is gross and a lesser thing.
And so, breaking idols out of abusive behavior isn't just to piss off their fans. It is to make abuse incompatible with success. To turn "yes, of course, he is such a man!" into "he fucked up, he is such a looser!"... which would be a nice step taken against patriarchy, and hopefully not the last one!
I do too, but "what do I find a turn off" and "what do I think is the line that must be proven before someone can be thrown in a cage, and to what standard do I think it must be shown and what things do I think work in the accused's defense" are...not the same thing?
Given this is presumably in the context of the Cornell 7, that case has a lot of details that I think makes the whole thing fuzzier than any of the cut and dried summaries imply, and that's just from what's been aired publicly - there's certainly more beneath that that isn't public.
I will try to find Cornell 7, I don't know about it yet...
Also, I think there are two lines, one is the legal minimum and those who play under it are a danger for society, the cage is as far as I know the best we have for them. But there is an other line over which one may feel really happy and have happy partner(s).
Current definition of consent actually excludes the apathetic/numb/freeze/fawn response you described. So yes consent is still enough, but only if its modern definition not outdated "they didn't resist strongly enough for me to feel bad and stop"
Current definition of consent actually excludes the apathetic/numb/freeze/fawn response you described. So yes consent is still enough, but only if its modern definition not outdated “they didn’t resist strongly enough for me to feel bad and stop”
Source?
I haven't seen educational resources around consent ignore body language. I've seen plenty of men ignore women's freeze/fawn reactions, but never in the course of educating people on consent.
Current definition of consent actually excludes the apathetic/numb/freeze/fawn response you described.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just haven't seen this particular claim in actual educational areas about consent. What current definition are you using?
"Enthusiastic sober consent" should be the bare minimum. If they're sober, but only kind of into it, that's a "no". If they're enthusiastic but drunk or high, it's a "no" until they sober up and confirm that they really want to.
There might not be any rapist at the party until they become one at that party. It's not like they're born a rapist. It's a consequence of their own actions.
That's 100% not how that works. You're getting into thought crime territory. You're not a rapist until you rape. You're not a murderer until you murder. You can't accuse someone of something they might do.
Ya this whole post and the general movement around it is just meant to razz men up before an important election by making deceitful arguments about men having some kind of original rape sin. The people making these posts are not acting in good faith. OP mostly posts articles that are all about politics, and mostly about Donald Trump. Think about how you consume media at a time like this.
Also I’m sure this isn’t the intention of the post but it’s basically an aphorism. Only a jaywalker jaywalks. It’s a true statement, but not really the way the writer probably thought it was. All it does is shift the classification of the action to the actor, it doesn’t make it more or less objective.
I get the sentiment but I'm willing to bet a vast majority of people genuinely think they would "just do the right thing in that situation." But people underestimate the temptation in the moment. They've never actually thought to try and put themselves in that situation, or what they might do, they just thought "of course im a good person" and left it at that.
And naturally the mere suggestion of "thinking it out" is met with ridicule. "How can you even consider it?! This should be a fast, easy answer!!". When not thinking about it at all is what contributed to it happening.
Anecdotal evidence: I'm a frat boy who has been in this situation multiple times. I can't even understand how that would be tempting to a non-rapist; the sex wouldn't even be good! My layman understanding is that it's about power, not horny.
This situation came up so often that we had a standard procedure of getting the girls rehydrated and in a cab.
IMHO the problem isn't that most men want to rape, it's that most men would cover for an alleged rapist friend. They value their gender team over basic decency.
You're also describing an extreme scenario. What about the scenario when you're both drunk and just too impaired to make good decisions? The other person isn't in the right mind to consent but you were both fooling around before you both got too fucked up. That's a scenario where bad decisions get made. From my understanding the facilitating of those scenarios is "rape culture". Not every case is going to be a simple as one person was sober and the other was passed out.
You make it seem like when someone is drunk they may do anything. If I killed someone while I was drunk I wouldn't just chuckle "sorry I wasn't myself". I would feel extreme remorse and want to repent for the harm I caused.
What temptation? It is not a donut at 2am when you are on a diet. If you find yourself with someone your hate in a situation to commit the perfect crime, would you kill them, would that be tempting? Jesus.
Actually proving the second part of my comment true so thanks for that. The idea that everyone will "just do the right thing" all the time is incredibly naive imo. Not meaning that as an insult either.
Idk where you're from, but if you were alone in a room with Donald Trump, or Putin, or Netanyahu, and there was a confirmed 0% chance you would get caught, you would seriously not even consider killing them?
In my head I predicted that strawman argument, maybe I should have edited my comment to preemptively reply to it, but anyways.
Your putting the question "If I had the opportunity to punish a heinous criminal that got away with it would I do it?", actually your examples are even more "clear cut", they are "If I had the opportunity to punish and stop a heinous criminal from continuing to actively is killing a bunch of people, would I do it?" This are very different questions. That is not what I mean and I think it is pretty clear.
What temptation? It is not a donut at 2am when you are on a diet. If you find yourself with someone your hate in a situation to commit the perfect crime, would you kill them, would that be tempting? Jesus.
YOU'RE the one arguing about killing someone and getting away with "the perfect crime"... why would you even try to make that comparison if you already knew that they weren't at all the same??
Just seems disingenuous and ignoring the fact that thinking good people will just always do good things leaves people woefully unprepared if they ever find themselves in a questionable situation.
but I'm willing to bet a vast majority of people genuinely think they would "just do the right thing in that situation." But people underestimate the temptation in the moment.
Big "I'm not a sinner because I want to get into heaven" energy.
I'm saying people seem to think in their head they are a good person so they will just naturally do "the right thing" all the time. Then they get blindsided by their actual thoughts or feelings when they're actually in that situation.
Especially when it's someone they care about. Try to imagine the person you love the most committed some heinous crime. Would you immediately call the police and turn them in? Or would you hesitate due to personal feelings?
"Oh, but they would never do that."
Yeah, and that's exactly my point. Just thinking something will "never happen" leaves you at the mercy of your feelings in the moment, which most people would be very surprised to learn about themselves is not always so honorable.
A lot of non religious people get their morals internally. We dont need threat of hell, or the carrot of heaven, because its pretty clear what is and isnt socially acceptable
I'm saying people seem to think in their head they are a good person so they will just naturally do "the right thing" all the time. Then they get blindsided by their actual thoughts or feelings when they're actually in that situation.
It's pretty clear, but plenty of the religious people I've interacted with have effectively told me they don't sin because of their religion, or they wouldn't do something specifically because their religion forbids it. Not because they don't want to do it, because 'god' says no.
Other people can get their morals from their own self, and don't have to worry about what they would do in the moment in a situation like that. And this isn't me talking shit. I've been in that situation with female identifying friends multiple times, and taking advantage of them in that state literally never crossed my mind. Because I have an internal moral compass that doesn't need external motivation to not be a fuck head and abuse someone like that.
Ok, I can see the connection but I wasn't really aiming for the religious angle when I used the word "temptation", I just thought it best described what was happening.
It's kind of similar to when people criticize someone for "selling out" when they themselves have never been offered an obscene amount of money to compromise their morals. When in reality they would probably "sell out" for much less.
I never accused you of or criticized you for taking that angle, but that doesn't change that it's the same energy I've seen all my life from those sorts of people.
Whether intentional or not, it feels like the argument is working to offload responsibility from the abuser for the abuse with an implication that anyone could fall victim to the situation, rather than it being a personal failing for choosing to engage in the abuse.
I may just be sensitive to that line of argumentation, but I can't stand seeing it in practice. Abusers choose to engage in abuse, and a lot of time they're just continuing the cycle because that's what they know. And the only way to break the cycle is to call out the mentality and hope people can change, be it themselves or their argument/thought patterns. But standing by changes nothing.
90%+ of the population has no morals aside from legal/religious consequences. Of those people most don't rape because they have no interest in doing so.
If you haven’t raped anyone, but would if you thought consequences wouldn’t come back to you, then you’re a rapist.
...and if you haven't raped anyone, but you're drunk and high and an attractive person of the appropriate sex who is also drunk and high suggests sex then?
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
But you may have been raised a rapist when the messaging is women are objects of desire with limited purpose in life, which includes satisfying men’s vanity, but also treating them like we’re all their moms the rest of the time…
Even then, you're not raised a rapist, you would have been raised someone who is more likely to become a rapist. You aren't that until you actually become it. I don't think we should be accusing anyone of anything before they've even done it. You should absolutely call out any shitty behavior that leads you to suspect they'll do harm to others wither it's rape, murder, or some other crime. By saying they already were a rapist or raised as a rapist you're taking away their free agency and kind ironically saying it wasn't their fault that's just how they were raised.
Thought provoking comment, thanks. If I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, there are people who find rape attractive, where they get off on the idea of raping someone. But a person feeling that way should not be called a rapist, because that's a term that should be reserved for those who have actually committed the act of rape. Perhaps some psychological or medical term should be used for the rape-attracted instead?
That's interesting, and complicates my worldview slightly. To shift topic, I'd begun to separate the idea of a pedophile from a child rapist. Because if someone has attractions to children, it's not the same thing as that person being sexually involved with them. At first this seems to reinforce what I interpret you're saying. Where the same term "pedo" is inappropriately used for both those who have and haven't hurt children.
However, in the "pedo" case those who haven't hurt children had the name first, and then that name was extended by popular culture to also mean those who have hurt children. Whereas with rapist it's the reverse, where the common term is for the person who has committed the act, but there isn't a common term for one who hasn't.
And there's a third case. In some cases we've begun to separate actions and defining a person by them. For example, "alcoholic" vs "someone with alcohol use disorder", because someone can receive treatment and stop using alcohol. So, is there a potential third term for someone who stops raping? I think not, at least not anytime soon. There's no known effective treatment for having attractions. For example, conversion therapy to "cure" homosexuality was nothing less than torture and also a complete failure. Chemical castration doesn't remove attractions either, just sex drive. Modern therapy for various attractions involves helping the person accept the attraction not trying to remove the attraction. Therefore, if someone rapes once does that mean they should be forever defined as a rapist? In the present day, I'd say yes. Perhaps in the future we'll have advanced our knowledge of medicine and the mind to be able to change attractions, but right now that's simply not possible.
A lot of people seem to hate the idea that someone who is capable of coming up with or having some sort of affinity towards an activity and someone who has already committed that activity are separate. Mostly, they would point out that you need active pressure of society or laws to prevent the behavior.
Personally, I think active prevention, separating the concepts of impulse from activity, and working with people who are generally maladapted to society, but haven't committed any actual harm would be a good thing, but these kinds of concepts have a lot of pushback from people.
If you're willing to commit rape, you're already a rapist even if you haven't done it yet. Not legally, of course, but morally speaking there's no difference between wanting to do it and doing it.
I just think it's interesting that even in that short comment, you avoid assigning blame to the rapist and instead choose the passive "someone gets raped".
Kinda like when cops shoot people. It's always "person of interest was shot" instead of "the police shot the suspect".
Hey can you do me a favor real quick? Please go back and read the sentence immediately before the one you’re talking about. Specifically the part that says “someone who has committed rape.”
I get the notion of this but in college if someone shows up at my party sloshed, does drugs, and passes out. They're getting raped in a different way; the EMS and hospital bill. Sorry, no one wants to deal with that shit.
And then their parents would be getting the explanation of benefits. At least that was the concern I heard when I was in college. Didn't matter we still has the ambulance come.
Sounds like you helped people out. It's all fun until you learn limits. And I can't stress enough that people don't want to deal with seizures (when spice was popular) or people puking.
I think the implication is that a simple collar, like a dog collar or a lock collar implies someone who is a sub who may appreciate being approached.
If they have a full latex suit or something that goes from their clavicle all the way up their neck to their ears, maybe you want to be wary they are a dominatrix about to beat your ass.
Lmao 🤣. my understanding was that it was about shirt collars. Frat boys trend to pop their shirt collars where as normal guys just wear their shirts normally.
I feel the rave/techno scene is like that (at least in Europe)…. And among all my friends that got raped/SA I didn’t heard yet a single one that got raped at a rave/techno party. Not saying it doesn’t happen but it feels much less than “socially respectable” parties, ex boyfriends, friends of friends, etc.
I wonder if it is because people that are attracted by that scene are in a certain way or the community has a strong culture of consent or something else.
But I would love to read if there is any statistical study on correlation between certain “scenes” and sexual abuse… and if there is a rational explanation on the causation
I’m all for other people’s decisions but as an unconsenting party to whatever the fuck is going on I don’t think I’d be comfortable with the situation, even if she was.
Not going to defend any rapists here, the statements are true, but there must be done recognition of placing yourself in an extremely dangerous position by your own choices.
Still doesn't excuse rape, by any stretch, but bad decisions are still bad decisions.
Being inebriated around dozens to hundreds of strangers who themselves are consuming mind altering substances isn't exactly a safe situation. Take the fun of it being a party away from it and just zoom out with that context. Nobody has their full faculties.
I'll pile on with there is no defense of predators, but you can make choices about the environment that you put yourself in and the state that you are in when you go there.
I'm a dude and I wouldn't feel safe going to a party naked, drunk or not.
I'm also not prone to going to house parties, or getting drunk/doing drugs, so I might be an outlier here.
To be blunt, unless you're in a context where it's normalized, being naked in any situation is probably an unsafe activity, regardless of gender, or the environment.
The obvious exceptions here being private or secured spaces, including bathrooms, changing rooms/locker rooms, and other public facilities like showers and such. Any medical situation. Also, any nudist areas... Probably more that I'm not thinking about.
Just because, as a man, I'm not as likely to be raped, doesn't mean it can't happen, or even that it's unlikely to happen. I have no doubt that every community including the LGBTQIA+ communities, have some rapists in their ranks. Not many, surely, but not zero either. So there's a nontrivial chance of me, as a guy, going to a house party drunk, doing drugs, then getting raped, either by a man, or a woman.
This is a human problem.
At the same time, I recognize that women are raped in far higher numbers than men, or at least that's what the statistics show, so there's extra risk there based on the statistics alone.
That doesn't make it safe for a dude to go and do the same thing.
I think the "human problem" is another problem entirely, and imo handwaves the fact that there is one very specific gendered dynamic where this is a problem, to the point where we in the comments are going like "well obviously there are going to be some rapists in mixed company, and given the opportunity to rape..."
That is rape culture right up in here, and there are things we can do to mitigate it.
It's like both cars and cyclists can injure pedestrians but there are reasons why one of these is much more prevalent. Bad analogy but hopefully you can look past it to see my point.
I'm not denying, nor am I trying to deny that the scales are not balanced in terms of perpetrators and victims of rape.
Nor do I mean to say, nor imply, that there are not groups of rapists, and people who are okay with them, or support them.
I also equally recognise that the number of people in those groups is relatively small in comparison to the overall population.
That doesn't and shouldn't imply that I don't think something should be done.
The problem is anyone who is complacent with the act, who perpetrates the act, anyone who covers up the act, and any judge, jury, or court, that would deny someone justice in the face of evidence of the act, even if that evidence is simply the victims side of the story.
I also think anyone using an accusation of rape to smear someone or get them in trouble, when no crime has been committed, should be severely punished for creating a false report.
In my opinion, everyone should be doing everything to find, report, and/or otherwise stop rapists at all times, in every circumstance. It should be the duty of every individual in society to put these people in jail, or stop them by whatever means are necessary. To me, the only ones that are not committed to this, are rapists, sympathisers, or enablers, all of which should be given the same punishment.
It's not up to me to say what that punishment should be. That's up to society. I am not a rapist, nor am I a victim, so I have no basis to judge what a fair punishment should be, nor do I have any stake in making that punishment any less severe than what the victims need that would best help with their recovery from such a trauma.
I also think anyone using an accusation of rape to smear someone or get them in trouble, when no crime has been committed, should be severely punished for creating a false report.
You just had to elevate false reports to the same level as actual rape, didn't you?
The obvious exceptions here being private or secured spaces, including bathrooms, changing rooms/locker rooms, and other public facilities like showers and such. Any medical situation. Also, any nudist areas
Those are dangerous for women, too.
You're missing the point that even naked and doing drugs, no one should be raped. It's not an invitation.
The danger comes from others willing to take advantage of someone in that situation, not the situation itself.
When we talk about sexual violence, the focus too often falls on what survivors did, where they were, or whether they reported. But rape happens because someone chooses to violate another person’s consent.
According to FBI crime data, an average of 107,418 U.S. men are the perpetrators of reported rape each year.
Each year, an average of 5,510 female perpetrators are reported for rape, according to law enforcement reporting.
The point continues to be missed: why is it unsafe?
No one disputes that that situation is unsafe. People are saying that it's unsafe because of rapists. Pointing out that you shouldn't do unsafe things is asinine when the point being made is that people shouldn't act in a fashion that makes them a danger to others.
Ignoring that the hazard is due to the choices of live humans with agency and entirely placing the agency on the victim is the crux of the problem.
Flip it around: you shouldn't be inebriated in a situation where there are hundreds of people you can hurt.
The victim has no control over where the hazard goes. The rapist chooses where it's dangerous for the victim to be. Big party? Dangerous if there's a rapist there. Intimate gathering of friends? Dangerous if one of them is a rapist.
Rapists are not lightning. They don't randomly strike in hazardous situations beyond anyone's control where the best advice is "don't stand under a big tree or you might get raped by lightning".
They're humans committing a crime against another person.
I like to analogize victim blaming to blaming someone who was hit on the head with hammers for not wearing a helmet. Like, yes, wearing a helmet would make you safer, but these conversations always get derailed into talking about helmets and not really asking why are people hitting others on the head with hammers?
You're not wrong. It's further than that though, because there are accidental head-hammerings (if we want to get all OSHA I suppose we'd say there are head hammerings from systemic negligence, but thats the same on an individual level), but you just don't have an accidental rape.
I guess I should've specified that in this analogy you're just a normal person going about a normal day, not like a construction worker. So the expectation of wearing a helmet is absurd.
Oh, you're totally correct. Just, as the other commenter immediately demonstrated: people love to latch on to any discrepancy or possible inconsistency.
You're doing the thing I said about derailing the conversation into talking about risks and preventative actions the victim should take rather than asking why head-hitting is a risk in the first place and what we can do about that. Stop.
It’s closer to the ladder thing because the person swinging the hammer knows they’re doing it. So it only fits if you define rape the way it was under patriarchal society norms - but the Cornell case had nobody thinking it was rape while it was happening, it only got defined as rape after the fact. So, it is not something you can defend against by telling people not to rape. Thus much more akin to a hammer falling out of a bag on a ladder. Should the hammer have been secured? Of course. Did the person walking by hit their leg on the ladder and knock the hammer? Maybe. Does it change that the person was hurt by the hammer falling? No.
I still like the "If you ride a bike and get run over, it's the drivers fault. But you should still wear a helmet" metaphor. But I believe some people think it's a defense of rapists, which it's not.
It's not my fault you can't connect the dots here.
You're still blaming victims for not wearing helmets when they're hit by the driver instead of placing the blame on the driver for hitting the cyclist.
The graveyards are full of people who were not at fault, and/or in the right with their actions.
As you say, the driver is (or at least should be) at fault. But wear a helmet anyways.
That metaphor has legs. It applies to all kinds of things, from personal protection equipment, to situational hazards, to environmental hazards...
Like the guy climbing up on the umpteenth floor of a high-rise during its construction where that floor doesn't have outside walls, or guard rails or anything... He's not planning on falling, but he should wear fall arrest gear anyways.
I don't plan on getting hit by a car when I direct traffic to a parking area, but I still wear a high vis vest and stand out of the path where cars are going to drive....
It's not about blaming the victim at all. Victims are victims. But before you become a victim, you can take steps to avoid becoming one. Once you are a victim, anyone pointing out what you could have done to avoid becoming a victim, is an asshole.
I don’t plan on getting hit by a car when I direct traffic to a parking area, but I still wear a high vis vest and stand out of the path where cars are going to drive…
I didn't know rapists were trying to get somewhere else and didn't see their victim before they shoved their penis inside one of their orifices.
Another approach for preventing sexual assault is to learn strategies for intervening. Bystander intervention programs emphasize the importance of stopping bad behavior before it escalates, teach specific skills for intervening, and remind people that everyone has a responsibility to prevent sexual violence.
Students who participate in such programs are more confident in their ability to intervene and more willing to do so. Most importantly, rates of sexual violence are markedly lower on campuses that have implemented these programs. For example, one study found that experiences of sexual harassment and stalking were 11% lower and that instances of unwanted sexual activity with women who were too drunk or high to stop them were as much as 17% lower.
It’s tempting to read about the Cornell case and assume the apparent inaction in the face of problematic behavior is uniquely a problem at one college, or only with members of fraternities, or only with college students. But the reality is that pretty much everyone has been in situations where they’ve seen potentially problematic behavior and failed to speak up.
Understanding the very normal psychological factors that lead people to misperceive what others are actually thinking and feeling—and learning specific strategies for intervening—can make a real difference.
Humans are hairless apes. You can acknowledge that the rapist at a frat party made a mistake, while also acknowledging that the naked woman made a bad mistake of entering the hairless ape enclosure in that state.
It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where every hairless ape had perfect self-control, was raised with absolutely enlightened beliefs, and never let alcohol or drugs impair their judgment. It makes perfect sense to punish any hairless ape that breaks a law.
OTOH, if you're the parents of a young woman, you should teach her to be very careful when choosing to enter the hairless ape enclosure because humanity hasn't yet reached a stage where that's always safe.
You can acknowledge that the rapist at a frat party made a mistake
Woah. Stop right there. A mistake is an action taken in error.
Those frat boys deliberately raped that girl. Their actions were not mistakes, they were deliberate criminal acts.
Do not confuse the two. This is the difference between accidentally discharging a firearm and taking aim and firing.
OTOH, if you’re the parents of a young woman, you should teach her to be very careful when choosing to enter the hairless ape enclosure because humanity hasn’t yet reached a stage where that’s always safe.
You mean the entire fucking world?
Are you seriously advocating that women should stay within the four walls of their own home? (Which also isn't safe for women, by the way - a lot of rape is done at the hands of family members.)
OTOH, if you're the parents of a young woman, you should teach her to be very careful when choosing to enter the hairless ape enclosure because humanity hasn't yet reached a stage where that's always safe.
Perhaps if you define better what it means to be careful? Most people's definition of being careful against rapists (avoiding after dark, avoiding creepy looking guys) is just completely wrong and gives false sense of safety and superiority to survivors.
Looking at data, how rape happens in the most ordinary of situations by seemingly most ordinary of people. I don't think there is anything you could really do to prevent rape other than not talking to humans whatsoever.
Perhaps if you define better what it means to be careful?
For instance, don't show up at a party drunk and nude, and then take drugs while you're there. I'm not saying that you're never going to be raped as long as you do that. But, that's a commonsense way to avoid a certain kind of rape.
I don't hate the idea, but that infringes on the basic civil rights in most countries.
I don't think this should be exclusive to Men. Women should be killing rapists in self defense, and that should be ok.
My main issue is whether the person doing the killing is correct in their assumption of guilt regarding the perpetrator (or accused).
But this is why we don't have this kind of martial law. Everyone is entitled to be judged by a jury of their "peers". Even low life scum like murderers and rapists.
To be honest, I consider rape to be more severe than murder, because now that person has to live the rest of their life, permanently changed from the experience. To me, that makes it a form of torture. Dead people don't have to live with their trauma.
Not to diminish how severe of a crime murder is, at all. It's easily a close second, but IMO, rape is top of my list in terms of how heinous it is.
If she is influenced but coherent enough to have sex with someone willingly without pressure she wouldn't accuse them of rape afterwards.
Its really not that hard, if you are not sure if someone is fully into it than don't do it.
If you can't trust yourself to judge a situation correctly than don't do it.
Well let's add some nuance then. If he didn't then go on a group chat and advertise the gang rape then maybe he wouldn't be in much trouble. How intoxicated was he if he was able to get more people in to rape? Is that the behavior of someone who was assaulted?
The one point that I agree with is that a rapist doesn't necessarily look like one at first glance. So if you think that they would, you're making yourself more vulnerable.
That's what I think I wrote. Sadly, someone got too offended and just removed the comment. I will admit I may not be that good at writing in a foreign language, so it could go wrong. But in a thread like this, forcing themselves to remove my opinion? Jeez.
Well, my comment was removed so I couldn't check my phrasing. I was trying to say they don't look like "red evil demons". They of course are evil, but my point was that rapists are people in the world looking like any other person, and it's useful to know that.
Sometimes it feels to me like rapists are culturally "cartoonized". It happens a lot here in Mexico with the "narco" figure. That's shared with Americans. They put always these Mexican macho cowboy moustached men as the typical druglord, but they are usually just regular guys in their looks. I'm saying a similar thing is socially ingrained with rapists, like these malicious looking weirdos, when they are, in reality, fathers, brothers, excelent students and "exemplary" coworkers, as well as incels, machos and weirdos.
In my app it says "Removido" which is a bad translation for "Removed" but common in bad translations. I tried to edit my message after it appeared as "Removido" because I didn't want to engage personally with people trying to shame or accuse me of being a rapist or, whatever they are doing (they are blocked now). The option of editing my message was active, so I tried, but my edit didn't do anything, apparently. Maybe it just registered as edited, but it didn't change the situation.
Removed means a moderator deleted your comment, but there's no mod action on your comment. There's no way for anyone to see what the original comment was now because you edited it. I wish people would just stand by the things they say.
I do not have time or will to know those intricacies. I edit most of my comments because it's hard to comment in English with a Spanish/English keyboard, but really, I don't care for these self-righteous, wannabe-superior, angry people.
290 replies
Is the censored word drags?
It's drfucks
No, it’s clearly drfuckgs.
You left out the G. It’s very important, helps give insight to the word’s etymology, history, and context.
TRUE!!! I forgot it's only a silent letter not an invisible one... shaking smh my head in shamefully...
Why is drugs considered a more upsetting word than rape? Like literally what the fuck
ragebait repost from corporate social media: it's quite common there to censor random letters and words, or make some deliberate grammar mistakes, so people will comment about it and will boost the post organically. I hate that it appears here as well, because people just mindlessly repost it with the builtin bait
If this is genuine: it’s drugs. This is about the cornell rape.
It's not genuine. It's making fun of the fact that the post chose to censor one letter from the word "drugs" despite it being painfully obvious what that one letter was, and the fact that the far more offensive word "rape" went through uncensored twice.
So, most p*rties
Underrated comment.
mhm mhm
but also do not show up naked to a party unless it's a nude party cause otherwise thats literally sexual harassment
It's so strange to me that the argument of she was drunk and / or on drugs so strange.
These are reasons that she could never consent. Therefore any sexual act with her would be assault
It feels so weird to me that they think this is some kind of "gotcha".
Its the typical shaming. The attempt to blame the victim. Always so wrong but seems for a lot of people legit.
Does it make more sense if it's presented as
If a woman goes to a party, she won't be raped unless there's a rapist there.
This holds true even if she's on drugs and naked.
Because the drugs aren't the point
That phrasing makes more sense, but has less shock value.
The more interesting one is what if both are under the influence of alcohol/drugs?
It really depends on the situation. Two people of similar intoxication levels can consent. But at the same time when with an intoxicated person you need to be making certain they're moving forward with you and consenting.
At least that's my perspective as someone who will get involved with strangers while drinking at bars.
When someone's blacked out or unable to enthusiastically consent (ie advance the acts of their own volition without being pressured or otherwise coerced) then they fundamentally can't consent
Just to be safe, get even drunker than them.
The whole point is that intoxicated people can't consent - like at all.
So if two intoxicated people have sex, they're always raping each other?
If only one person is intoxicated is it always rape?
The answer is yes, because intoxication is involved.
The point here is that any intoxication is bad - negative is its characteristic. Doubling that negativity doesnt make it any better than if it was just one person intoxicated.
I once raped my wife, then. She was drunk, came back home drunk and wanted to fuck me hard. I told her I didn't feel like it was right to have sex with her in such condition, but she just didn't want to hear about my decent comments and told me to get off my high horses and just fuck her. So I did. Should I be ashamed of myself? Because, I'm not, it's not like its something easy to forget, but in a good way.
Just because two people who are sober can consent doesn't mean two people who are intoxicated can
I think you're still responsible for the crimes you commit while drunk/high.
I think the point is then: who is the victim?
It's hard for two unconscious people to have sex. One of them has to be conscious enough to be able to move. Even if they are drunk they are still responsible for having sex with unconscious person.
It may depend on jurisdiction but usually it's illegal to have sex with someone unable to consent. I think that if they are drunk but are still consenting (verbally or non-verbally) it's not considered rape.
How about the people you sleep with? Can't have it both ways.
The people I sleep with are also responsible for the crimes they commit while drunk. What do you mean?
You are claiming that an individual is still responsible for their actions even when intoxicated. So if a girl gets drunk and high and sleeps with a bunch of guys, is she not responsible for her actions?
I explained in another comment in this thread, like 4 comments up (sorry, don't know how to link to it fediverse style).
I honestly would vouch for a similar figure to the designated driver. I'll call it the designated handler, some sort of a box staff of allies trying to keep you in the fight, but also checking if you are okay to continue.
It's victim blaming. He didn't do anything wrong. She was naked and drunk. She was asking for it.
I've always been a total wierdo, but even at sixteen, when I was a desperate, frustrated incel, if a girl (in this case, a peer) had to get sloshed to be into me, it'd freak me out.
Pretty much through my entire romantic career, meeting at a bar instead of a café was a red flag. Sex always seemed like a sober activity. Or more exactly, sex supplies its own drugs. Morover, once someone was not coherent enough to do crosswords, it was clear they weren't clear headed enough to consent to fluid exchange.
Granted, there are two factors that inform this attitude: One is my parents were sloppy drunks and went to sloppy-drunk parties. And I never wanted to be like that. The other is I made my way into the kink community in my twenties, and mixing drugs or booze with kink was
geberalltgenerally known to be dangerous like mixing drugs and booze with motor vehicles or guns. (At least in my corner of the kink community. Also breath-control was a no-no and kids seem to be choking each other all over the place, nowadays.)But then, I've never been a frat dude, or even the kind of guy who'd ever be sponsored to join a Greek house.
Kinda same. Even in my most incel times my most fucked up fantasies there the other party was getting totally ravaged, the reason it was sexy was because they consented, because they wanted it, because they were feeling pleasure from it. It was sexy because I was able to empathize with the imaginary other.
I guess fantasy me doesn't really care about hammered sex, but real me would never be that hammered and would instantly be worried if the OP happened, can't get aroused if I'm worried. Crazy how some guys are.
Mom always ruined my birthdays 😔
For career day, did your dad also show up with the teacher's catalytic converter?
Seeing people defend the Cornell 7 has made me want a fucking matriarchy
I wanted one since long before then. I am a bit worried we'll end up with a strongly conservative matriarchy that won't look severely different than what we have now, but I think the only chance we have to swing left of 'left' is to shake up the patriarchy.
Changing the boot rarely helps. Anarchy would be the true change.
Anarchy sounds nice until you have a task big enough to require people to work together, or to do shitty work no one wants to do, or to deal with outside aggressors, or to resolve conflict.
There's probably something in between anarchy, dictatorship, republic, communism that works, but we haven't found it yet.
This has been solved many many times. Kropotkin addresses this in Mutual Aid. You form confederations, and call regular meetings to form pacts and mutual trade.
Ironically anarchy doesn't mean no governance, it means no state and government. A good anarchist society would have plenty of agreed upon rules and expectations, they just wouldn't be enforced by a body of monopolistic violence.
Villages of quisi to fully anarchist peoples operated for centuries and millennia in this form of communal structure until the nation-state was born in the late medieval ages and spread abroad through European colonialism.
I was pretty sure that the first agrarian societies led away from community rule towards state rule.
The outside aggressors are a legitimate problem, but anarchist societies (e.g. Catalonia) have dealt with the others just fine.
One might argue that a 3-year test just post civil war wasn't a solid shakedown cruise.
I'm fairly certain the US would just devolve into internal armed conflict and a return to slavery.
Perhaps, but since just about every other system has already devolved into internal armed conflict and slavery at various points, it seems like a good idea to try the one that hasn't yet.
Alternatively, one could argue that they accomplished quite a lot in the context of wartime shortages of resources, betrayals, etc. Just as one example, they expanded bus service all over Barcelona while also making it free and more frequent, by having the bus workers run everything democratically.
Admittedly I'm worried if we put women in charge, they'll be TERFs
Was it too much to hope they dropped and broke the mold with Rowling?
Yeah, that could also be a bad way to go, I think we're nearly as likely to get there with the current patriarchy path in a gen or two.
If someone shows up drunk and naked and starts taking drugs you should stay away from them no mater which sex they are. I mean stay away forever.
Unless it's a swingers thing, but then they all know what they're getting themselves into.
Hey, I'd just be excited to have a cool new friend to do drugs with, and if I take off my clothes it's not sexual, it's purely about being on the same mental level
For me it’s more likely to be “Jesus fuck how is it so hot all of a sudden?”
Some people see the naked girl railing lines on the couch and think, "oh dear I hope she's SAFE, I hope she learns self control". I see someone that I can sit there on molly with for the next hour while she trauma dumps and I'm like "damn girl that is seriously crazy you've been through so much, damn, that's life though right??"
Dregs
Drygs
Drags
Drigs
Drögs
Drꚙgs
Drægs
Drøgs
Fyi it takes 5 seconds to edit the words back in...or just rewrite this yourself. It's text on white background.
Took my brain 0 seconds to auto correct though. Hardly seems worth the effort.
It's a principal thing. Censorship on corporate social media trains people how to think and what's okay or not okay to talk about. Importing that shit here I think it's harmful. I care, you don't. Okie dokie.
Posting an image of text without an alt attribute is the epitome of not giving a shit about other people.
I want to live in a world where all women feel completely safe running around stark naked.
please, what about literally everyone else's pair of eyes?
If someone is high on drugs and/or drunk, does that also mean I can rob them without consequences, or the rule only applies for rape?
If they're naked they're not going to have a lot of possessions :(
I've heard you can get good money for a kidney.
Don't go to a party in the candy mountain cave
Those are nice ear rings
Better check the ol' prison wallet
Am I the only one thinking consent isn't enough?
I mean, a few of you at least have ever had sex with someone who was not participating, just being passive, clearly "accepting but not willing". Am I the only one to find it a turn off?
To make love together requires a cooperation... of course not to "fuck someone" but this one is supposed in a domination, but if you need that some one be passed out to dominate them, what do you think of yourself?
If you want a sex toy, please buy it in some shop, it has never been that easy. If you want to make love, you need to seduce someone enough so they are genuinely willing to do it with you.
Completely agree with you. I honestly feel a little sick if someone says they were doing it as a favor to me. Don't do that. If you aren't into it, just tell me. I can take of myself in that case.
Exactly this. Hell, I've had instances where one of my partners just isn't into it, or something happens and they're not feeling it anymore, and it just takes all the enjoyment out of it.
Consent, connection, and enjoyment are critical for me.
Thank you!
And yes, lets have a fun time together doing something we are both willing to do together! It will be a better time for everyone!
Some people find it sexy to behave as sex toys or to be treated as such. Some people like to be dominated and moved around. Not everyone wants to make love, some people just want to fuck, or even to be fucked. You may find this unjust, but I feel like, in your writing, you just think about how you feel yourself, and not about how others experience their sexuality as if they were somehow broken if it doesn't look like love and cooperation to you.
There are more flavors than vanilla.
The partners are both willing, and they agree on how to do it? I am totally fine with them doing it in their way. And may one act as a slave and the other as a master, with their rules and their limit ; I see it as a form of cooperation.
If one of the partner is forced, or accept for secondary reasons (they don't really want sex, or not that way) ; here I see a problem.
It is just the same if they are more than 2 partners. As long as they are all willing it, for it, and as it is, I find it fine.
Also, sometimes, you may be willing to try something, and find out you do not like it (you at least have this experience with food). It is important, I think, to respect the others even when they change their mind. You would not either, I think, force someone to finish a full plate of something they don't like just because they have accepted to try to please you...
Yes, we agree. No is no, no matter when and what happened before. The message I replied before, felt more rigid.
You're right and it's tragic. It's part of the punching down systems these guys benefit from when they climb in the hierarchies, the old boys' club. I'm a guy and have seen how guys can benefit in life, but shouldn't use it to hurt others. Same thing in many families, supernatural groups, sports, frats, military, and right-wing politics. People cant wait for their turn to punch down on someone and it's indoctrinated as normal and good. They all hide their abusive ways, where real truth stands in the open. Tribalism, right/wrong obedient to authority, it's easier than having real convictions, and just go along with what was brainwashed into them. And again these guys benefit from their privilege and get mad when that word is used, since their ego takes over and they have not ego awareness as we all need, but that's part of these unhealthy systems.
Abolish the patriarchy.
A very sad thing is that, unless we take care of it, we are all bound to value this "winning male" behaviour as not only normal but also as good! The ones aware don't need to make an effort to see how wrong it is... but take a young adult male who became a successfull influencer or businessman, how surprising would it be that he abused sexualy of someone? Isn't it in the pack with the success? Of course it should not be... but we would need that young men grow understanding that abusing others is gross and a lesser thing.
And so, breaking idols out of abusive behavior isn't just to piss off their fans. It is to make abuse incompatible with success. To turn "yes, of course, he is such a man!" into "he fucked up, he is such a looser!"... which would be a nice step taken against patriarchy, and hopefully not the last one!
I do too, but "what do I find a turn off" and "what do I think is the line that must be proven before someone can be thrown in a cage, and to what standard do I think it must be shown and what things do I think work in the accused's defense" are...not the same thing?
Given this is presumably in the context of the Cornell 7, that case has a lot of details that I think makes the whole thing fuzzier than any of the cut and dried summaries imply, and that's just from what's been aired publicly - there's certainly more beneath that that isn't public.
I will try to find Cornell 7, I don't know about it yet...
Also, I think there are two lines, one is the legal minimum and those who play under it are a danger for society, the cage is as far as I know the best we have for them. But there is an other line over which one may feel really happy and have happy partner(s).
I wish to call for playing above the second.
Current definition of consent actually excludes the apathetic/numb/freeze/fawn response you described. So yes consent is still enough, but only if its modern definition not outdated "they didn't resist strongly enough for me to feel bad and stop"
Source?
I haven't seen educational resources around consent ignore body language. I've seen plenty of men ignore women's freeze/fawn reactions, but never in the course of educating people on consent.
I said the same thing as you just did, please read again.
I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just haven't seen this particular claim in actual educational areas about consent. What current definition are you using?
I meant "yes means Yes!" principle that some advocate for.
I believe this is the source I first heard the idea from
Article: https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/08/the-dangerous-insufficiency-of-no-means-no/566465/
Without paywall: https://www.removepaywall.com/search?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.theatlantic.com%2Fentertainment%2Farchive%2F2018%2F08%2Fthe-dangerous-insufficiency-of-no-means-no%2F566465%2F
Basically the idea is that "No means no" is outdated and doesn't cover majority of rape cases where no one technically says no.
The updated one to replace "No means no" is "Yes means Yes!", also called affirmative/enthusiastic consent or something.
Ah see I was in the mindset that “yes means yes” is the current consent shorthand. Thank you for the links!
Many men won't stop if you say "Stop.", but will if you say "Stop raping me." but will still call you crazy before leaving.
"Enthusiastic sober consent" should be the bare minimum. If they're sober, but only kind of into it, that's a "no". If they're enthusiastic but drunk or high, it's a "no" until they sober up and confirm that they really want to.
There might not be any rapist at the party until they become one at that party. It's not like they're born a rapist. It's a consequence of their own actions.
If you haven't raped anyone, but would if you thought consequences wouldn't come back to you, then you're a rapist.
That's 100% not how that works. You're getting into thought crime territory. You're not a rapist until you rape. You're not a murderer until you murder. You can't accuse someone of something they might do.
Ya this whole post and the general movement around it is just meant to razz men up before an important election by making deceitful arguments about men having some kind of original rape sin. The people making these posts are not acting in good faith. OP mostly posts articles that are all about politics, and mostly about Donald Trump. Think about how you consume media at a time like this.
Good looking out.
Also I’m sure this isn’t the intention of the post but it’s basically an aphorism. Only a jaywalker jaywalks. It’s a true statement, but not really the way the writer probably thought it was. All it does is shift the classification of the action to the actor, it doesn’t make it more or less objective.
I get the sentiment but I'm willing to bet a vast majority of people genuinely think they would "just do the right thing in that situation." But people underestimate the temptation in the moment. They've never actually thought to try and put themselves in that situation, or what they might do, they just thought "of course im a good person" and left it at that.
And naturally the mere suggestion of "thinking it out" is met with ridicule. "How can you even consider it?! This should be a fast, easy answer!!". When not thinking about it at all is what contributed to it happening.
Anecdotal evidence: I'm a frat boy who has been in this situation multiple times. I can't even understand how that would be tempting to a non-rapist; the sex wouldn't even be good! My layman understanding is that it's about power, not horny.
This situation came up so often that we had a standard procedure of getting the girls rehydrated and in a cab.
IMHO the problem isn't that most men want to rape, it's that most men would cover for an alleged rapist friend. They value their gender team over basic decency.
You're also describing an extreme scenario. What about the scenario when you're both drunk and just too impaired to make good decisions? The other person isn't in the right mind to consent but you were both fooling around before you both got too fucked up. That's a scenario where bad decisions get made. From my understanding the facilitating of those scenarios is "rape culture". Not every case is going to be a simple as one person was sober and the other was passed out.
You make it seem like when someone is drunk they may do anything. If I killed someone while I was drunk I wouldn't just chuckle "sorry I wasn't myself". I would feel extreme remorse and want to repent for the harm I caused.
So why does the same not apply to sex?
Why is it if two people are both drunk and have sex, that only one is at fault?
If a woman is drunk and goes to a drunk guy at a party and tells him she wants to have sex, why does that make him a rapist?
It doesn't.
FWIW I'm only talking about situations like this meme, the Cornell 7, and what I've seen personally. Not disputing that nuanced situations exist.
Fair enough. Just seems like it's a cartoonish scenario without any ambiguity that really isn't worth pondering.
What temptation? It is not a donut at 2am when you are on a diet. If you find yourself with someone your hate in a situation to commit the perfect crime, would you kill them, would that be tempting? Jesus.
Actually proving the second part of my comment true so thanks for that. The idea that everyone will "just do the right thing" all the time is incredibly naive imo. Not meaning that as an insult either.
Idk where you're from, but if you were alone in a room with Donald Trump, or Putin, or Netanyahu, and there was a confirmed 0% chance you would get caught, you would seriously not even consider killing them?
In my head I predicted that strawman argument, maybe I should have edited my comment to preemptively reply to it, but anyways.
Your putting the question "If I had the opportunity to punish a heinous criminal that got away with it would I do it?", actually your examples are even more "clear cut", they are "If I had the opportunity to punish and stop a heinous criminal from continuing to actively is killing a bunch of people, would I do it?" This are very different questions. That is not what I mean and I think it is pretty clear.
What strawman? This was your literal quote
YOU'RE the one arguing about killing someone and getting away with "the perfect crime"... why would you even try to make that comparison if you already knew that they weren't at all the same??
Just seems disingenuous and ignoring the fact that thinking good people will just always do good things leaves people woefully unprepared if they ever find themselves in a questionable situation.
Big "I'm not a sinner because I want to get into heaven" energy.
I dont even know what that's supposed to mean.
I'm saying people seem to think in their head they are a good person so they will just naturally do "the right thing" all the time. Then they get blindsided by their actual thoughts or feelings when they're actually in that situation.
Especially when it's someone they care about. Try to imagine the person you love the most committed some heinous crime. Would you immediately call the police and turn them in? Or would you hesitate due to personal feelings?
"Oh, but they would never do that." Yeah, and that's exactly my point. Just thinking something will "never happen" leaves you at the mercy of your feelings in the moment, which most people would be very surprised to learn about themselves is not always so honorable.
A lot of non religious people get their morals internally. We dont need threat of hell, or the carrot of heaven, because its pretty clear what is and isnt socially acceptable
It's pretty clear, but plenty of the religious people I've interacted with have effectively told me they don't sin because of their religion, or they wouldn't do something specifically because their religion forbids it. Not because they don't want to do it, because 'god' says no.
Other people can get their morals from their own self, and don't have to worry about what they would do in the moment in a situation like that. And this isn't me talking shit. I've been in that situation with female identifying friends multiple times, and taking advantage of them in that state literally never crossed my mind. Because I have an internal moral compass that doesn't need external motivation to not be a fuck head and abuse someone like that.
Ok, I can see the connection but I wasn't really aiming for the religious angle when I used the word "temptation", I just thought it best described what was happening.
It's kind of similar to when people criticize someone for "selling out" when they themselves have never been offered an obscene amount of money to compromise their morals. When in reality they would probably "sell out" for much less.
I never accused you of or criticized you for taking that angle, but that doesn't change that it's the same energy I've seen all my life from those sorts of people.
Whether intentional or not, it feels like the argument is working to offload responsibility from the abuser for the abuse with an implication that anyone could fall victim to the situation, rather than it being a personal failing for choosing to engage in the abuse.
I may just be sensitive to that line of argumentation, but I can't stand seeing it in practice. Abusers choose to engage in abuse, and a lot of time they're just continuing the cycle because that's what they know. And the only way to break the cycle is to call out the mentality and hope people can change, be it themselves or their argument/thought patterns. But standing by changes nothing.
Bold of you to assume that people don't rape only because they fear the consequences
They're saying that if that is the only reason someone doesn't rape, then from a moral perspective they're essentially a rapist.
90%+ of the population has no morals aside from legal/religious consequences. Of those people most don't rape because they have no interest in doing so.
...and if you haven't raped anyone, but you're drunk and high and an attractive person of the appropriate sex who is also drunk and high suggests sex then?
Oh i don't entertain this kind of thing.
But you may have been raised a rapist when the messaging is women are objects of desire with limited purpose in life, which includes satisfying men’s vanity, but also treating them like we’re all their moms the rest of the time…
Even then, you're not raised a rapist, you would have been raised someone who is more likely to become a rapist. You aren't that until you actually become it. I don't think we should be accusing anyone of anything before they've even done it. You should absolutely call out any shitty behavior that leads you to suspect they'll do harm to others wither it's rape, murder, or some other crime. By saying they already were a rapist or raised as a rapist you're taking away their free agency and kind ironically saying it wasn't their fault that's just how they were raised.
Thought provoking comment, thanks. If I'm interpreting what you're saying correctly, there are people who find rape attractive, where they get off on the idea of raping someone. But a person feeling that way should not be called a rapist, because that's a term that should be reserved for those who have actually committed the act of rape. Perhaps some psychological or medical term should be used for the rape-attracted instead?
That's interesting, and complicates my worldview slightly. To shift topic, I'd begun to separate the idea of a pedophile from a child rapist. Because if someone has attractions to children, it's not the same thing as that person being sexually involved with them. At first this seems to reinforce what I interpret you're saying. Where the same term "pedo" is inappropriately used for both those who have and haven't hurt children.
However, in the "pedo" case those who haven't hurt children had the name first, and then that name was extended by popular culture to also mean those who have hurt children. Whereas with rapist it's the reverse, where the common term is for the person who has committed the act, but there isn't a common term for one who hasn't.
And there's a third case. In some cases we've begun to separate actions and defining a person by them. For example, "alcoholic" vs "someone with alcohol use disorder", because someone can receive treatment and stop using alcohol. So, is there a potential third term for someone who stops raping? I think not, at least not anytime soon. There's no known effective treatment for having attractions. For example, conversion therapy to "cure" homosexuality was nothing less than torture and also a complete failure. Chemical castration doesn't remove attractions either, just sex drive. Modern therapy for various attractions involves helping the person accept the attraction not trying to remove the attraction. Therefore, if someone rapes once does that mean they should be forever defined as a rapist? In the present day, I'd say yes. Perhaps in the future we'll have advanced our knowledge of medicine and the mind to be able to change attractions, but right now that's simply not possible.
A lot of people seem to hate the idea that someone who is capable of coming up with or having some sort of affinity towards an activity and someone who has already committed that activity are separate. Mostly, they would point out that you need active pressure of society or laws to prevent the behavior.
Personally, I think active prevention, separating the concepts of impulse from activity, and working with people who are generally maladapted to society, but haven't committed any actual harm would be a good thing, but these kinds of concepts have a lot of pushback from people.
I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not... But there are legitimately people that do rape roleplay.
Honestly, its a poor worded post. Pretty sure, no one would invite actual rapists to parties.
People invite actual rapists to parties all the time. Most victims know their rapists before the rape happens.
But do they know if they are a rapist? Even then, there are definitely people who knowingly invite rapist to a party. Epstein famously did that.
Yes and no. As you said, there are many such cases of people knowingly inviting rapists to parties.
If you're willing to commit rape, you're already a rapist even if you haven't done it yet. Not legally, of course, but morally speaking there's no difference between wanting to do it and doing it.
There is a huge, giant fucking massive difference between someone that would plausibly commit rape and someone who has committed rape.
The main difference is in one case, someone gets raped.
Well, yeah. There's a huge difference for the victim. But I wouldn't say lack of opportunity is a moral victory for the would-be rapist.
Interesting use of passive voice.
Brother really had no argument.
"Erm you use the wrong there/their. The'refour your argument is invalid"-ass response
I just think it's interesting that even in that short comment, you avoid assigning blame to the rapist and instead choose the passive "someone gets raped".
Kinda like when cops shoot people. It's always "person of interest was shot" instead of "the police shot the suspect".
Hey can you do me a favor real quick? Please go back and read the sentence immediately before the one you’re talking about. Specifically the part that says “someone who has committed rape.”
Sounds like something only a rapist would give reason to rape. Starts with never asking for permission. Ends with that too.
I get the notion of this but in college if someone shows up at my party sloshed, does drugs, and passes out. They're getting raped in a different way; the EMS and hospital bill. Sorry, no one wants to deal with that shit.
And then their parents would be getting the explanation of benefits. At least that was the concern I heard when I was in college. Didn't matter we still has the ambulance come.
Sounds like you helped people out. It's all fun until you learn limits. And I can't stress enough that people don't want to deal with seizures (when spice was popular) or people puking.
Is there a handy rhyme (like with snakes) to help the average so-and-so spot these rapists in the wild?
Collar touches shoulder, be a little bolder. Collar touches ears, believe your fears.
Is this supposed to make no sense?
I think the implication is that a simple collar, like a dog collar or a lock collar implies someone who is a sub who may appreciate being approached.
If they have a full latex suit or something that goes from their clavicle all the way up their neck to their ears, maybe you want to be wary they are a dominatrix about to beat your ass.
Lmao 🤣. my understanding was that it was about shirt collars. Frat boys trend to pop their shirt collars where as normal guys just wear their shirts normally.
Interesting interpretation, but the original question was asking how to spot rapists.
I've been in the leather scene for nearly my entire adult life and I've never heard anything like this before
Collar touches ears, you need a tailor. Or maybe a cosmetic surgeon 😂
Or a cosmic surgeon
But my collar goes around my neck? :/c
you're going to have eliα :neofox_confused:
I feel the rave/techno scene is like that (at least in Europe)…. And among all my friends that got raped/SA I didn’t heard yet a single one that got raped at a rave/techno party. Not saying it doesn’t happen but it feels much less than “socially respectable” parties, ex boyfriends, friends of friends, etc.
I wonder if it is because people that are attracted by that scene are in a certain way or the community has a strong culture of consent or something else.
But I would love to read if there is any statistical study on correlation between certain “scenes” and sexual abuse… and if there is a rational explanation on the causation
MDMA is the best drug
I fear rave metrics are probably mostly impossible to collect. Anonymous events with illegal substances don't generate a lot of usable data
it me i'm the woman who would do this
okay maybe not stark naked but definitely at least tits out
I had a man apologize to my husband once because he saw my tits.
I fumed. My husband doesn't own my tits. Those are my tits! I'll show 'em if I fucking wanna.
Vanta & Velma do a tits battle !
mine are the most recent post on my profile :3
10/10 cute clicker
Who would have thought?!
If both people show up drunk and take drugs, who is the rapist? both? neither? o.O
The one who takes advantage of the state of the other to force a sexual relationship.
The man lol obviously
What man? The "people" in question are obviously two womem.
You are the real one when cops are called and only this woman is the one getting arrested.
Edit: actually wait, all of you are getting arrested. Why are there drugs at the party.
some drugs like alcohol, tabacco, and cannabis are legal over the counter in places and common at parties :3
Maybe the woman brought them?
But she showed up naked. Where’s she gonna keep her drugs?
The ol' prison wallet
Bro never done coochie coke
In her prison pocket
In her hands?
some states have limited immunity for calling ems while on drugs for someone else
I just wonder which fucking assholes downvoted this.
Rapists.
So the numbers match the statistics? Probably.
https://lemvotes.org/post/lemmy.ca/post/71968123
Here you go, let's all DM them and post their replies: https://lemvotes.org/post/lemmy.ca/post/71968123
Normally that would be me and it’s still not ok then either.
therapist are the worst
So true! ME TOO!
Ohhhh I was thinking it was "drags", like on a cigarette. /S
I’m all for other people’s decisions but as an unconsenting party to whatever the fuck is going on I don’t think I’d be comfortable with the situation, even if she was.
I would intervene and get them medical attention because they're in crisis or will be in health problems soon if they continue on the night like that.
He baiting
Not going to defend any rapists here, the statements are true, but there must be done recognition of placing yourself in an extremely dangerous position by your own choices.
Still doesn't excuse rape, by any stretch, but bad decisions are still bad decisions.
I get how you mean this, but it's so fucked up that a house party is "an extremely dangerous position" to be in.
Being inebriated around dozens to hundreds of strangers who themselves are consuming mind altering substances isn't exactly a safe situation. Take the fun of it being a party away from it and just zoom out with that context. Nobody has their full faculties.
I'll pile on with there is no defense of predators, but you can make choices about the environment that you put yourself in and the state that you are in when you go there.
Can a man go to a party naked and drunk without it being unsafe? Mostly yes? Then it seems to be a problem with rape culture, doesn't it.
Consent is consent is consent. And if men respected consent, we wouldn't need to have this conversation at all.
I'm a dude and I wouldn't feel safe going to a party naked, drunk or not.
I'm also not prone to going to house parties, or getting drunk/doing drugs, so I might be an outlier here.
To be blunt, unless you're in a context where it's normalized, being naked in any situation is probably an unsafe activity, regardless of gender, or the environment. The obvious exceptions here being private or secured spaces, including bathrooms, changing rooms/locker rooms, and other public facilities like showers and such. Any medical situation. Also, any nudist areas... Probably more that I'm not thinking about.
Just because, as a man, I'm not as likely to be raped, doesn't mean it can't happen, or even that it's unlikely to happen. I have no doubt that every community including the LGBTQIA+ communities, have some rapists in their ranks. Not many, surely, but not zero either. So there's a nontrivial chance of me, as a guy, going to a house party drunk, doing drugs, then getting raped, either by a man, or a woman.
This is a human problem.
At the same time, I recognize that women are raped in far higher numbers than men, or at least that's what the statistics show, so there's extra risk there based on the statistics alone. That doesn't make it safe for a dude to go and do the same thing.
I think the "human problem" is another problem entirely, and imo handwaves the fact that there is one very specific gendered dynamic where this is a problem, to the point where we in the comments are going like "well obviously there are going to be some rapists in mixed company, and given the opportunity to rape..."
That is rape culture right up in here, and there are things we can do to mitigate it.
It's like both cars and cyclists can injure pedestrians but there are reasons why one of these is much more prevalent. Bad analogy but hopefully you can look past it to see my point.
I like you, you can come to my house parties.
I'm not denying, nor am I trying to deny that the scales are not balanced in terms of perpetrators and victims of rape.
Nor do I mean to say, nor imply, that there are not groups of rapists, and people who are okay with them, or support them.
I also equally recognise that the number of people in those groups is relatively small in comparison to the overall population.
That doesn't and shouldn't imply that I don't think something should be done.
The problem is anyone who is complacent with the act, who perpetrates the act, anyone who covers up the act, and any judge, jury, or court, that would deny someone justice in the face of evidence of the act, even if that evidence is simply the victims side of the story.
I also think anyone using an accusation of rape to smear someone or get them in trouble, when no crime has been committed, should be severely punished for creating a false report.
In my opinion, everyone should be doing everything to find, report, and/or otherwise stop rapists at all times, in every circumstance. It should be the duty of every individual in society to put these people in jail, or stop them by whatever means are necessary. To me, the only ones that are not committed to this, are rapists, sympathisers, or enablers, all of which should be given the same punishment.
It's not up to me to say what that punishment should be. That's up to society. I am not a rapist, nor am I a victim, so I have no basis to judge what a fair punishment should be, nor do I have any stake in making that punishment any less severe than what the victims need that would best help with their recovery from such a trauma.
You just had to elevate false reports to the same level as actual rape, didn't you?
Jesus Christ.
Those are dangerous for women, too.
You're missing the point that even naked and doing drugs, no one should be raped. It's not an invitation.
The danger comes from others willing to take advantage of someone in that situation, not the situation itself.
You and I agree, as far as I can tell.
I think we both disagree with this statement (which spurred my comment):
The answer is no. This isn't really a gender problem. It's a rape problem. Just don't fucking rape people.
Please stop diminishing the facts about rape.
You're getting caught up in the nitty gritty details of the meme scenario without looking at the big picture.
Yes, men and women are raped. It does no good to pretend like they're being raped in a vacuum by some faceless entity we can't identify.
I'm a man and no, I would not feel safe arriving at a part drunk & naked & doing drugs.
There are ways to create safe communities without police.
The point continues to be missed: why is it unsafe?
No one disputes that that situation is unsafe. People are saying that it's unsafe because of rapists. Pointing out that you shouldn't do unsafe things is asinine when the point being made is that people shouldn't act in a fashion that makes them a danger to others.
Ignoring that the hazard is due to the choices of live humans with agency and entirely placing the agency on the victim is the crux of the problem.
Flip it around: you shouldn't be inebriated in a situation where there are hundreds of people you can hurt.
The victim has no control over where the hazard goes. The rapist chooses where it's dangerous for the victim to be. Big party? Dangerous if there's a rapist there. Intimate gathering of friends? Dangerous if one of them is a rapist.
Rapists are not lightning. They don't randomly strike in hazardous situations beyond anyone's control where the best advice is "don't stand under a big tree or you might get raped by lightning".
They're humans committing a crime against another person.
I like to analogize victim blaming to blaming someone who was hit on the head with hammers for not wearing a helmet. Like, yes, wearing a helmet would make you safer, but these conversations always get derailed into talking about helmets and not really asking why are people hitting others on the head with hammers?
You're not wrong. It's further than that though, because there are accidental head-hammerings (if we want to get all OSHA I suppose we'd say there are head hammerings from systemic negligence, but thats the same on an individual level), but you just don't have an accidental rape.
I guess I should've specified that in this analogy you're just a normal person going about a normal day, not like a construction worker. So the expectation of wearing a helmet is absurd.
Oh, you're totally correct. Just, as the other commenter immediately demonstrated: people love to latch on to any discrepancy or possible inconsistency.
More like walking under a ladder with a bag of hammers on it. Not your fault but a known risk of the action.
You're doing the thing I said about derailing the conversation into talking about risks and preventative actions the victim should take rather than asking why head-hitting is a risk in the first place and what we can do about that. Stop.
It’s closer to the ladder thing because the person swinging the hammer knows they’re doing it. So it only fits if you define rape the way it was under patriarchal society norms - but the Cornell case had nobody thinking it was rape while it was happening, it only got defined as rape after the fact. So, it is not something you can defend against by telling people not to rape. Thus much more akin to a hammer falling out of a bag on a ladder. Should the hammer have been secured? Of course. Did the person walking by hit their leg on the ladder and knock the hammer? Maybe. Does it change that the person was hurt by the hammer falling? No.
Just depends on the party.
Yeah rapists should be careful about placing themselves in positions where they can rape someone. Glad we agree.
100% this.
Very yes.
Why are the situations/positions dangerous?
Because showing up drunk and naked, then doing drugs, is generally risky behavior?
Regardless of gender, unless you're at a nudist resort, surrounded by trusted individuals, there is risk to being in this situation.
Even sober, showing up naked to any place where nudity is not the norm, carries risk.
Sure it's risky doing drugs, you might OD, might have a bad trip, might fall and injure yourself.
You won't get raped unless there's a rapist.
Facts.
Where does the danger come from?
Do you think you're doing something?
I'm asking a question. Do you have an answer to my question?
Where does the danger come from in that situation?
Alcohol, drugs, poor life choices....
Ok, you're talking about drinking too much and ODing?
What other dangers might we be talking about here? Where does that danger come from?
The situation described is only dangerous if there is a dangerous person there. Rape victims are not responsible for being raped. Rapists are.
Yeah, uh, not going to criticize you here, but have you tried not missing the point?
Never.
I still like the "If you ride a bike and get run over, it's the drivers fault. But you should still wear a helmet" metaphor. But I believe some people think it's a defense of rapists, which it's not.
What we were wearing at the time of our attack was not an invitation for violence.
Do you think the lesson in that metaphor is that I think women should be wearing helmets....?
It's not meant literally.
It's not my fault you can't connect the dots here.
You're still blaming victims for not wearing helmets when they're hit by the driver instead of placing the blame on the driver for hitting the cyclist.
This isn't productive so I'm going to stop responding to your bad faith bait.
Try rereading the metaphor. Because I directly addressed who's at fault.
The graveyards are full of people who were not at fault, and/or in the right with their actions.
As you say, the driver is (or at least should be) at fault. But wear a helmet anyways. That metaphor has legs. It applies to all kinds of things, from personal protection equipment, to situational hazards, to environmental hazards...
Like the guy climbing up on the umpteenth floor of a high-rise during its construction where that floor doesn't have outside walls, or guard rails or anything... He's not planning on falling, but he should wear fall arrest gear anyways.
I don't plan on getting hit by a car when I direct traffic to a parking area, but I still wear a high vis vest and stand out of the path where cars are going to drive....
It's not about blaming the victim at all. Victims are victims. But before you become a victim, you can take steps to avoid becoming one. Once you are a victim, anyone pointing out what you could have done to avoid becoming a victim, is an asshole.
I didn't know rapists were trying to get somewhere else and didn't see their victim before they shoved their penis inside one of their orifices.
think of it like the point of house locks, its a deterrent so the criminal goes after someone else and nit you.
All of these metaphors are assuming rape is inevitable and we should focus on mitigating the risk of rape instead of focusing on diminishing rapists.
The fault lies entirely with the person committing rape against someone else.
individuals can't meaningfully prevent others from being rapists, they can make it less likely they get raped.
No, stop. We should not and can not only focus on rape victims and what they should do to avoid being raped.
People can and do influence others from being rapists. We all take part in our rape culture and we can all examine those beliefs.
What Bystanders Can Do to Stop Sexual Violence
You dont talk to your friends about consent?
How confident are you that your friends are sfae people if you dont talk about it?
Who hurt you?
I don't think you want to know the honest answer to that question on this topic.
Maybe you'll think a little harder about the next metaphor you use for rape though.
Humans are hairless apes. You can acknowledge that the rapist at a frat party made a mistake, while also acknowledging that the naked woman made a bad mistake of entering the hairless ape enclosure in that state.
It would be wonderful if we lived in a world where every hairless ape had perfect self-control, was raised with absolutely enlightened beliefs, and never let alcohol or drugs impair their judgment. It makes perfect sense to punish any hairless ape that breaks a law.
OTOH, if you're the parents of a young woman, you should teach her to be very careful when choosing to enter the hairless ape enclosure because humanity hasn't yet reached a stage where that's always safe.
Woah. Stop right there. A mistake is an action taken in error.
Those frat boys deliberately raped that girl. Their actions were not mistakes, they were deliberate criminal acts.
Do not confuse the two. This is the difference between accidentally discharging a firearm and taking aim and firing.
You mean the entire fucking world?
Are you seriously advocating that women should stay within the four walls of their own home? (Which also isn't safe for women, by the way - a lot of rape is done at the hands of family members.)
Perhaps if you define better what it means to be careful? Most people's definition of being careful against rapists (avoiding after dark, avoiding creepy looking guys) is just completely wrong and gives false sense of safety and superiority to survivors.
Looking at data, how rape happens in the most ordinary of situations by seemingly most ordinary of people. I don't think there is anything you could really do to prevent rape other than not talking to humans whatsoever.
For instance, don't show up at a party drunk and nude, and then take drugs while you're there. I'm not saying that you're never going to be raped as long as you do that. But, that's a commonsense way to avoid a certain kind of rape.
I don't hate the idea, but that infringes on the basic civil rights in most countries.
I don't think this should be exclusive to Men. Women should be killing rapists in self defense, and that should be ok.
My main issue is whether the person doing the killing is correct in their assumption of guilt regarding the perpetrator (or accused).
But this is why we don't have this kind of martial law. Everyone is entitled to be judged by a jury of their "peers". Even low life scum like murderers and rapists.
To be honest, I consider rape to be more severe than murder, because now that person has to live the rest of their life, permanently changed from the experience. To me, that makes it a form of torture. Dead people don't have to live with their trauma.
Not to diminish how severe of a crime murder is, at all. It's easily a close second, but IMO, rape is top of my list in terms of how heinous it is.
Then she has sex with an other drunk drugged guy and he is a rapist....
If she is influenced but coherent enough to have sex with someone willingly without pressure she wouldn't accuse them of rape afterwards.
Its really not that hard, if you are not sure if someone is fully into it than don't do it. If you can't trust yourself to judge a situation correctly than don't do it.
Don’t bring nuance here, people don’t like it.
Well let's add some nuance then. If he didn't then go on a group chat and advertise the gang rape then maybe he wouldn't be in much trouble. How intoxicated was he if he was able to get more people in to rape? Is that the behavior of someone who was assaulted?
I'm sorry WHAT. Rapists aren't evil? RAPISTS. People who force someone else to have sex with them without their consent? These people aren't evil?
The one point that I agree with is that a rapist doesn't necessarily look like one at first glance. So if you think that they would, you're making yourself more vulnerable.
That's what I think I wrote. Sadly, someone got too offended and just removed the comment. I will admit I may not be that good at writing in a foreign language, so it could go wrong. But in a thread like this, forcing themselves to remove my opinion? Jeez.
Well, my comment was removed so I couldn't check my phrasing. I was trying to say they don't look like "red evil demons". They of course are evil, but my point was that rapists are people in the world looking like any other person, and it's useful to know that.
Women already do
Women, especially in 'Murica know
It's guys, from the rapists to the cops to the lawyers to the judges who are overwhelmingly men, and overwhelmingly the problem
Sometimes it feels to me like rapists are culturally "cartoonized". It happens a lot here in Mexico with the "narco" figure. That's shared with Americans. They put always these Mexican macho cowboy moustached men as the typical druglord, but they are usually just regular guys in their looks. I'm saying a similar thing is socially ingrained with rapists, like these malicious looking weirdos, when they are, in reality, fathers, brothers, excelent students and "exemplary" coworkers, as well as incels, machos and weirdos.
Your comment wasn't removed it says edited not removed.
In my app it says "Removido" which is a bad translation for "Removed" but common in bad translations. I tried to edit my message after it appeared as "Removido" because I didn't want to engage personally with people trying to shame or accuse me of being a rapist or, whatever they are doing (they are blocked now). The option of editing my message was active, so I tried, but my edit didn't do anything, apparently. Maybe it just registered as edited, but it didn't change the situation.
Removed means a moderator deleted your comment, but there's no mod action on your comment. There's no way for anyone to see what the original comment was now because you edited it. I wish people would just stand by the things they say.
I do not have time or will to know those intricacies. I edit most of my comments because it's hard to comment in English with a Spanish/English keyboard, but really, I don't care for these self-righteous, wannabe-superior, angry people.
Says removed by mod on my end.
Look at this guys profile. What the fuck? Shouldn't this guy be in a prison?
You just showed us all that you think it's ok to be a rapist
Are you proud of yourself?
Dude you absolutely fucking destroyed that straw man!
This has never happened.
Why is asking for a little less rape met with this kind of incredulousness?