fyi: it’s “drugs”
I’m not even trying to be controversial, but rapists are not some red evil demon with clear rapey intentions. You may find this hard to grasp, but they are basically just people. They vote, they work, they have families and probably go to therapy. Believing they are some kind of evil monster makes you vulnerable to the real ones. Don’t be stupid, try hard to not go half naked, totally high and or drunk, to places filled with people you don’t know, all by yourself.
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.
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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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 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
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 thinking 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?
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
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 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.
The main difference is in one case, someone gets raped.
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”.
Sounds like something only a rapist would give reason to rape. Starts with never asking for permission. Ends with that too.
Mom always ruined my birthdays 😔
For career day, did your dad also show up with the teacher’s catalytic converter?
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”.
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
Its the typical shaming. The attempt to blame the victim. Always so wrong but seems for a lot of people legit.
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.
Two people of similar intoxication levels can consent.
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.
Not what I asked.
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 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.
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.
mhm mhm
but also do not show up naked to a party unless it’s a nude party cause otherwise thats literally sexual harassment
Don’t do it if you’re a man. If you’re a woman, it’s not really going to bother anyone.
Hard disagree. Don’t be like that, enforce equality.
Women are simply inherently less scary to see naked.
Don’t fuck with that “men are inherently scary/bad/worse than women” bullshit, you’re just a fucking bastard dickhead.
?
Gross. I’d rather a naked man any day. Heck, twice a day.
clothes are a civilization wide psyop to make nudity exciting. What does that mean though for people who dress animals in human-style clothing 🧐 a coat for a horse in the winter is one thing but a cowboy hat for a dog is something very different I fear
So if horses someday are commonly dressed and then one day in that alt-future timeline we see a horse undressed, we all become Mr. Hands? I don’t think that’s how that works.
Ohhhh I was thinking it was “drags”, like on a cigarette. /S
it’s “drugs”
Who would have thought?!
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.
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.
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.
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.
therapist are the worst
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
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.
Is the censored word drags?
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
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.
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.
