# Males and "Consent"



## EllisRedding

This ad has supposedly appeared out be me (at the train station) as well as elsewhere. I have always wondered the answer to this question. If both male and female are intoxicated, how can one be held responsible and the other not? How is this not a horrible message to try and spread?


----------



## anonmd

Easier to be gay these days:surprise:


----------



## Andy1001

anonmd said:


> Easier to be gay these days:surprise:


Nah,being gay is a pain in the ass.


----------



## ConanHub

Andy1001 said:


> Nah,being gay is a pain in the ass.


Hahaha! Damn!:grin2:


----------



## ConanHub

EllisRedding said:


> This ad has supposedly appeared out be me (at the train station) as well as elsewhere. I have always wondered the answer to this question. If both male and female are intoxicated, how can one be held responsible and the other not? How is this not a horrible message to try and spread?


There is absolutely a double standard here.

Although I think most instances of actual non consent were when a not as drunk or fairly sober guy took advantage of a nearly or all the way passed out girl.

It really depends on the situation and it shouldn't immediately be assumed that the man is at fault.

One of my first sexual experiences was when I got so smashed I couldn't stand.

I found myself in a room with 3 girls doing me.

I felt like crap, the room was spinning and I was struggling although feebly.

They didn't think it was a big deal to take advantage of me and honestly, I wasn't very bothered about it upon waking the next day.

Had I been married or had a girlfriend, I would have been enraged.

If a young lady had found herself in that situation, I believe it would have been serious as life and death.

It is a double standard.

I do think women need to be just as cautious about taking advantage of drunk men as men should be towards drunk women.


----------



## SunCMars

Men are real beings.
Men are aggressors, women cannot be.
Men enjoy sex, intimacy, women do not. 

Women are not real beings.
They are fragile flowers. 
They are not responsible adults. 
They are always girls, never reach majority.

All this is obviously incorrect.
If both were drunk, both are implicated.

Provided that the man did not "force" himself on his equally drunk date/friend.
That is often the case. But often is not always.


----------



## ConanHub

I have never had sex with a drunk woman BTW.

I have been nearly mauled by them but didn't let them get my pants off.

I did go knock the socks off a girl later, when she was sober though because I really liked what she was showing me during her drunken attempt at seduction.😁


----------



## Mr. Nail

by this logic it is unethical for a woman to flirt with a drinking man. 
The alcohol question has always been my first concern. 
My second concern is the withdrawal of consent at any point. With that stipulation consent is impossible to prove and therefor sex is unethical. Or sex is rape. 
I'm still waiting for the first Jake to cry rape.


----------



## Windwalker

EllisRedding said:


>


Ellis,

I generally like just about all your posts. For the most part they make a person stop and think, but this one? Meh, we both know damn well that "Thats not how equality works".

Talk, discuss, converse until you're blue in the face.
It won't change a damned thing.


----------



## arbitrator

EllisRedding said:


> This ad has supposedly appeared out be me (at the train station) as well as elsewhere. I have always wondered the answer to this question. If both male and female are intoxicated, how can one be held responsible and the other not? How is this not a horrible message to try and spread?


*In Texas, If the facts of the case bore out that both were drunk and a third party could bear that out, then no competent prosecutor worth his salt would even look at the case!

Now if within the act that Jake ended up knocking Josie up, then the States AG Office would be all over his a$$ like stink on kaka for child support, which they would gladly and legitimately “rape” Jake!*


----------



## EllisRedding

Windwalker said:


> Ellis,
> 
> I generally like just about all your posts. For the most part they make a person stop and think, but this one? Meh, we both know damn well that "Thats not how equality works".
> 
> Talk, discuss, converse until you're blue in the face.
> It won't change a damned thing.


I do agree, we all know how it works. Really, my point though with posting this is that this is an actual ad, not just a MEME made up (I am all for posting a good MEME lol). To me that is a little scary when a message like this is actually being posted in public at places to be read (i.e. such as the train station). Who would actually think this a good idea to post as a special service announcement (regardless of what the reality is)


----------



## BlueWoman

Yup, this double standard bothers me as well. I mean, don’t get me wrong, I am part of the #metoo crowd. But if the only factor that makes this rape is that they were both the same level of drunk...well then, no, it shouldn’t be considered rape. If he can be held responsible for his actions while drunk, than she should be held responsible for her actions. 

The following would make it rape: 1) One would have coerced the other into drinking alcohol; 2) one person was so drunk they weren’t physically capable of saying “no”; 3) or any other standard that can be applied while sober.


----------



## arbitrator

Andy1001 said:


> *Nah, being gay is a pain in the ass.*


*Now that ain’t right, Andy!*


----------



## Windwalker

EllisRedding said:


> I do agree, we all know how it works. Really, my point though with posting this is that this is an actual ad, not just a MEME made up (I am all for posting a good MEME lol). To me that is a little scary when a message like this is actually being posted in public at places to be read (i.e. such as the train station). Who would actually think this a good idea to post as a special service announcement (regardless of what the reality is)


I understood the context. I think that the fact that it is an actual ad just enforces the point they are trying to make. Scary or not, that is the society we live in now days. 

There is an agenda to push, and damn it Ellis, neither you or I will stand in the way!


----------



## CuddleBug

EllisRedding said:


> This ad has supposedly appeared out be me (at the train station) as well as elsewhere. I have always wondered the answer to this question. If both male and female are intoxicated, how can one be held responsible and the other not? How is this not a horrible message to try and spread?



- The double standard will never end.

- Woman want their cake and eat it too.

- Is see it this way, women are treated EQUALLY in all things, but there is a price to pay for that.

- Women know exactly what they're doing, and are not little children.

- This is women using the system.

- If both men and woman are drunk, and she has sex with him while he's asleep and he wakes up, that's okay because a woman did it......but if the situation were reversed, RAPE. 

- Utter Nonsense.

- You want to be treated as equals, this is exactly that.


----------



## uhtred

Its a really complicated problem. Its very difficult to evaluate someone's level of intoxication. Its also not clear if its OK for someone to intentionally get so drunk that they can't actively consent, but to have consented to sex beforehand. 

Ideally the rules would be gender equal. One differentiating factor is that it easier for an extremely drunk, even unconscious woman to have sex than for a man do do so. I don't think its possible to have intercourse with a passed out man (not sure - you can of course force intercourse on an awake man). 


Personally I wish people would just not drink so much! I can't imagine getting so drunk that I might not be in control of my actions - its a huge risk for a man or woman.


----------



## 23cm

If he was that drunk, it wouldn’t be rape. More likely assault with a dead weapon.


----------



## Cletus

I'm ambivalent about this one.

Yeah, it's a double standard and that's sorta ****ty. 

On the other hand, everyone in this room knows that date rape is a male problem. Not that it never happens the other way, but let's be real here. If you're trying to triage the problem, you can ignore the women to a pretty damned good first approximation.


----------



## uhtred

Statistically i agree. OTOH, I'm not willing to punish the wrong person 1% of the time. 

If two equally drunk people have sex, I don't think its rape - but "equally drunk" is difficult to define. 

WHY DO PEOPLE DRINK SO MUCH??? I'm not saying its "immoral" and I'm certainly not saying its the "fault" of the drunken person, but why get so drunk that you can't remember how much fun you had? It seems like taking a big risk for no gain.

(people who are drugged, or slipped unusually strong drinks etc is a different matter. I'm happy to treat poisoning as a very serious felony). 




Cletus said:


> I'm ambivalent about this one.
> 
> Yeah, it's a double standard and that's sorta ****ty.
> 
> On the other hand, everyone in this room knows that date rape is a male problem. Not that it never happens the other way, but let's be real here. If you're trying to triage the problem, you can ignore the women to a pretty damned good first approximation.


----------



## Fozzy

uhtred said:


> WHY DO PEOPLE DRINK SO MUCH??? I'm not saying its "immoral" and I'm certainly not saying its the "fault" of the drunken person, but *why get so drunk that you can't remember how much fun you had?* It seems like taking a big risk for no gain.


Sometimes you drink to remember how much fun you used to have. Sometimes you drink to forget how much fun you're no longer having.


----------



## Fozzy

uhtred said:


> Its a really complicated problem. Its very difficult to evaluate someone's level of intoxication. *Its also not clear if its OK for someone to intentionally get so drunk that they can't actively consent, but to have consented to sex beforehand.*


I'm imagining the argument would be that even though they consented beforehand, the intoxication would compromise their ability to remove consent leading up to and during the act.


----------



## arbitrator

uhtred said:


> Its a really complicated problem. Its very difficult to evaluate someone's level of intoxication. Its also not clear if its OK for someone to intentionally get so drunk that they can't actively consent, but to have consented to sex beforehand.
> 
> *Ideally the rules would be gender equal. One differentiating factor is that it is easier for an extremely drunk, even unconscious woman to have sex than for a man do do so. I don't think it’s possible to have intercourse with a passed out man (not sure - you can of course force intercourse on an awake man).*
> 
> 
> Personally I wish people would just not drink so much! I can't imagine getting so drunk that I might not be in control of my actions - its a huge risk for a man or woman.


*More especially when it’s been substantially proven that the presence of alcohol in ones system can definitely play “Harry-Carry ” with the males sexual equipment! 

And greatly to the point that they simply cannot get it up!*


----------



## RandomDude

I despise this. They throw rape around like a card without knowing what it truly is. They use it so they can refuse to accept responsibility for their own actions. REAL rape victims suffer from this, makes it difficult for justice to be carried out when so many are trying to abuse the system. Sickening and disgusting.


----------



## Cooper

I suggest people start signing consent forms before every date outlining what is and isn't allowed.


----------



## Thor

Is the more intoxicated person incapable of consent yet the less intoxicated person is? Or is it a binary threshold? Upon reaching intoxication, however that may be legally defined, is one simply legally presumed not capable of consenting? Or are there degrees of ability to consent, and the least capable is the victim?

If someone has reached a state of intoxication they are not capable of consent, and thus not repsonsible for what they do, according to the theory. But only if what they do is not criminal. That is, they are not responsible for doing something lawful such as having sex, but they are culpable if they do something unlawful like drive recklessly or physically assault someone? They are both responsible and not responsible for choices while intoxicated, depending on if they were breaking a law?

Of course there is a different context if someone is unwillingly given an intoxicant. But if a person chooses to consume intoxicants and then chooses to engage in a lawful activity (sex, playing pool, eating pizza), why are they not presumed to have been competent in their choices? Many people choose to become intoxicated to add to their enjoyment.

I sure am glad I'm not a college student or in my 20's trying to date.


----------



## Ikaika

If he is that drunk, chances are he probably could not even get it up, so possibly it is all a moot point. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Holdingontoit

There is no "fair".
No way to read people's minds after the facts and recreate what happened accurately.
The only objectively verifiable facts are whether sex occurred and whether one or both parties was intoxicated. The legal rules need to be fashioned knowing that these are the only facts that will be known with any certainty.
So you can devise a rule that protects women and will inevitably result in men being falsely accused or you can devise a rule that will inevitably leave women who did not provide consent with no relief.
If you craft a rule that requires women to physically exhibit their refusal to consent in order to claim rape by fighting the man off, you will wind up with more dead women (may or may not end up with fewer raped women).
If you craft a rule that scares men and motivates them to be more hesitant about questionable interactions, you will likely reduce enjoyment by both men and women, but you will keep some women safer. Whether that is preferable is a value judgment, and despite being a man anatomically and genetically, I think that is a "balance" that is probably closer to "fair" than leaving women with little or no recourse in a "he said / she said" situation.
But it is also correct to say that this does not treat men and women equally. Even if it is rough justice.


----------



## Thor

Ikaika said:


> If he is that drunk, chances are he probably could not even get it up, so possibly it is all a moot point.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


When I was in college I could be completely intoxicated yet have no problem keeping it up all night long. Ability to penetrate is not a valid determinant of whether a (young) man is intoxicated.


----------



## Thor

Holdingontoit said:


> There is no "fair".
> No way to read people's minds after the facts and recreate what happened accurately.
> The only objectively verifiable facts are whether sex occurred and whether one or both parties was intoxicated. The legal rules need to be fashioned knowing that these are the only facts that will be known with any certainty.
> So you can devise a rule that protects women and will inevitably result in men being falsely accused or you can devise a rule that will inevitably leave women who did not provide consent with no relief.
> If you craft a rule that requires women to physically exhibit their refusal to consent in order to claim rape by fighting the man off, you will wind up with more dead women (may or may not end up with fewer raped women).
> If you craft a rule that scares men and motivates them to be more hesitant about questionable interactions, you will likely reduce enjoyment by both men and women, but you will keep some women safer. Whether that is preferable is a value judgment, and despite being a man anatomically and genetically, I think that is a "balance" that is probably closer to "fair" than leaving women with little or no recourse in a "he said / she said" situation.
> But it is also correct to say that this does not treat men and women equally. Even if it is rough justice.


I don't believe one can in fact determine whether someone was intoxicated after the fact. 

How intoxicated was she really? Even if we knew her body weight and precisely how many drinks she had and when, and when the sex occurred, we still wouldn't know her mental capacity. I rarely drink and have very low tolerance, but someone my same weight who drinks regularly could have twice the alcohol without being nearly as impaired as I would be. You can't presume incapacity with any reliability until the amount of alcohol is quite high. Drawing the line at 2 drinks, or 5 drinks, would result in a lot of cases where the person actually was not impaired.

Our legal system is predicated, and correctly imho, on a presumption of innocence until _proven_ guilty. For that we need objective standards. We accept that we err on the side of letting the guilty go free, rather than imprisoning an innocent person. In addition, we need true equality between the sexes under the law. If the woman had a few drinks and was legally considered not responsible for her actions, then the man who also had a few drinks and had sex with her is also a victim. They are both victims of rape, because neither one was mentally capable of consent. Yet both are also perpetrators of rape against the other?

Furthermore, from the partner's perspective, if the other person gives consent and actively participates in what seems like consensual sex, how is that partner to determine that consent was not legally valid? Doesn't a person have a legal right to understand the boundaries so that they don't transgress the law?

All of which is looking at it from the standpoint of the person who engages in normal activities and is not seeking non-consensual sex. If there is verifiable evidence someone was given intoxicants without their knowledge, then of course the following consent was not necessarily valid.


----------



## arbitrator

23cm said:


> *If he was that drunk, it wouldn’t be rape. More likely assault with a dead weapon.*


*That’s exactly what they would charge Ol’ Arb with!
*


----------



## Ikaika

Thor said:


> When I was in college I could be completely intoxicated yet have no problem keeping it up all night long. Ability to penetrate is not a valid determinant of whether a (young) man is intoxicated.



Congratulations. I would suggest that males treat drinking in the same manner we teach people if you are going to drink, don’t drive. So, if you going to drink and have a good time getting intoxicated just don’t plan on “getting down” even if you can keep it going all night long. You may think this is not fair, but I better safe than in trouble. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## happy2gether

so if they change the law to be equal then all a man has to do is make sure he is drunk before having sex. that way he can claim he did not legally consent either, so is not responsible for rape claims nor any resulting offspring. 

BTW, in my younger years alcohol didn't make it harder to get an erection but instead made an erection harder. My wife always complained when I drank crown because she knew she wasn't getting any rest that night. now, it is a 50/50 chance whether whiskey will stand me up or lay me down....


----------



## Ikaika

*Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



happy2gether said:


> so if they change the law to be equal then all a man has to do is make sure he is drunk before having sex. that way he can claim he did not legally consent either, so is not responsible for rape claims nor any resulting offspring.
> 
> 
> 
> BTW, in my younger years alcohol didn't make it harder to get an erection but instead made an erection harder. My wife always complained when I drank crown because she knew she wasn't getting any rest that night. now, it is a 50/50 chance whether whiskey will stand me up or lay me down....




Even if they change the law, there would far too much abiguity in who the guilty party would be. I would say teach your sons and yourself be the mature individual and just don’t drink and have intentions of sexual encounters. 

I just don’t find all the complaining to be very useful. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## happy2gether

you fail to see the point, if things are truly equal then there can be NO alcohol(or drug) related rapes. maybe parents should teach their daughters to not drink either, so they don't get themselves in the situation......


----------



## Ikaika

*Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



happy2gether said:


> you fail to see the point, if things are truly equal then there can be NO alcohol(or drug) related rapes. maybe parents should teach their daughters to not drink either, so they don't get themselves in the situation......




Who ever said things are equal in all things. And why worry about it. It’s far better to adapt and stay out of trouble 

Simply my opinion 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## happy2gether

the law is supposed to apply equally to all people in all situations. there are no genders remember?


----------



## Ikaika

happy2gether said:


> the law is supposed to apply equally to all people in all situations. there are no genders remember?




If you want all laws to apply as such, you are free to contact your US Rep or senators. A judge will not be sympathetic to changing a law in a court setting. Laws are not written in stone, but applied as written. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## notmyrealname4

/


----------



## uhtred

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*

Agreed, and it applies to both men and women. 

There are a lot of risks with sex: pregnancy, disease, unintended emotional connections, unintended adultery etc. I think it is extremely unwise to have sex when intoxicated except with a long term trusted partner. 

I don't "blame" someone for being drunk if they are raped, but I believe that they can reduce their risk substantially be not being drunk 





Ikaika said:


> Who ever said things are equal in all things. And why worry about it. It’s far better to adapt and stay out of trouble
> 
> Simply my opinion
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Holdingontoit

I always told my daughter not to get drunk at a party and leave with a guy unless she intended to have sex with him. Because once she was alone with a guy, whether or not sex happened was no longer entirely up to her. Yes, it should be. But in the real world it isn't. No, I wouldn't blame her if she got raped. But it still isn't smart to get so drunk you don't remember that allowing some guy to take you to his room (or back to your own room) is a risky move unless you want to have sex with him.


----------



## FalCod

I hold to the politically incorrect view that anyone that got drunk of their own volition and is sober enough to say "yes" is able to consent and is responsible for their own actions, regardless of gender.


----------



## NobodySpecial

happy2gether said:


> you fail to see the point, if things are truly equal then there can be NO alcohol(or drug) related rapes. maybe parents should teach their daughters to not drink either, so they don't get themselves in the situation......


So... boys can experiment with drinking in their youth but girls can't? Because boys wear a screw and girls a bolt? Explain the Brock Turner case to me, please.


----------



## happy2gether

the other poster said to teach boys not to drink, so by the same logic girls should be taught the same....


----------



## Mr. Nail

NobodySpecial said:


> So... boys can experiment with drinking in their youth but girls can't? Because boys wear a screw and girls a bolt? Explain the Brock Turner case to me, please.


I'd probably be more successful in explaining fasteners to you but, as you ask.

Two privileged young students attending a prestigious university, got drunk . the first one to pass out got assaulted. The one with the most privilege got off with a very light sentence, but he really wants to get off of the charges all together. This is not a question of White privilege It is a matter of position privilege. The event does illuminate the idea that drunk people do stupid things. Brock did not get a light sentence because he was drunk. He got a light sentence because he was connected. It is interesting to note that all of this took place in the peoples republic of California, where race and wealth are not factors for discrimination. Where people are protected from weapons (except chairs) and where alcohol is a major national product.


----------



## Thor

NobodySpecial said:


> So... boys can experiment with drinking in their youth but girls can't? Because boys wear a screw and girls a bolt? Explain the Brock Turner case to me, please.


I think the point is if two people are intoxicated and have consensual sex, then neither one can claim rape _because of intoxication which made their consent invalid_.

Now there is zero indication in the Brock Turner case that the _unconscious_ woman gave consent. Intoxication was actually not a central part of the issue, it was her _unconsciousness_ which made her unable to give consent. Multiple witnesses testified that the woman was unconscious, so this is not a case of he said she said. 

If Person A is unable to give consent due to intoxication (whatever that may be defined as), then Person B is also unable to give consent due to intoxication. Either both people are victims of rape, or neither are victims, presuming the law ignores gender. If both are victims of rape, then both are also guilty of committing rape. 

The issue is that a woman can give what appears to another person to be consent, and to then engage in sexual activity as a willing partner, yet later claim her consent was not valid because she was intoxicated. Yet the double standard exists that the male _who also was drinking_ is considered the perp. Why is it the male's consent is considered valid even if he were intoxicated? Why is he responsible for his actions, but she is not responsible for her actions? From the outside, both appear to have gone step by step consensually down the same path.

The picture in the OP has the following text:
"Jake was drunk. Josie was drunk. Jake and Josie hooked up. Josie could NOT consent. The next day JAKE was charged with RAPE. A woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent for sex, so proceeding under these circumstances is a crime."


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> I'd probably be more successful in explaining fasteners to you but, as you ask.


You certainly don't engender a spirit of discourse with something like that. I don't generally imply someone is too stupid or distorted to engage in civil dialog before attempting same. But I guess I will bite nonetheless.


> Two privileged young students attending a prestigious university, got drunk . the first one to pass out got assaulted. The one with the most privilege got off with a very light sentence, but he really wants to get off of the charges all together. This is not a question of White privilege It is a matter of position privilege. The event does illuminate the idea that drunk people do stupid things. Brock did not get a light sentence because he was drunk. He got a light sentence because he was connected. It is interesting to note that all of this took place in the peoples republic of California, where race and wealth are not factors for discrimination. Where people are protected from weapons (except chairs) and where alcohol is a major national product.


I was responding to the comment that there is no such thing as alcohol related rape. One person was unconscious by virtue of having consumed too much alcohol. One person committed rape on said unconscious form. The outcome of that case illustrates how little we really care about rape, consent and the like while many continue to lament the great travesty that is yet not in the slightest bit systemic of men being falsely accused of rape.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thor said:


> I think the point is if two people are intoxicated and have consensual sex, then neither one can claim rape _because of intoxication which made their consent invalid_.


That would be damned hard to prosecute.


> Now there is zero indication in the Brock Turner case that the _unconscious_ woman gave consent. Intoxication was actually not a central part of the issue, it was her _unconsciousness_ which made her unable to give consent. Multiple witnesses testified that the woman was unconscious, so this is not a case of he said she said.
> 
> If Person A is unable to give consent due to intoxication (whatever that may be defined as), then Person B is also unable to give consent due to intoxication. Either both people are victims of rape, or neither are victims, presuming the law ignores gender. If both are victims of rape, then both are also guilty of committing rape.
> 
> The issue is that a woman can give what appears to another person to be consent, and to then engage in sexual activity as a willing partner, yet later claim her consent was not valid because she was intoxicated. Yet the double standard exists that the male _who also was drinking_ is considered the perp. Why is it the male's consent is considered valid even if he were intoxicated? Why is he responsible for his actions, but she is not responsible for her actions? From the outside, both appear to have gone step by step consensually down the same path.
> 
> The picture in the OP has the following text:
> "Jake was drunk. Josie was drunk. Jake and Josie hooked up. Josie could NOT consent. The next day JAKE was charged with RAPE. A woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent for sex, so proceeding under these circumstances is a crime."


In the picture, which is an inflammatory meme, you see an angst that bears very little on prosecutorial reality.


----------



## Mr. Nail

I think I was saying that I know more about screws and bolts than law. if it helps think of the comment as self depreciation.


----------



## Ikaika

happy2gether said:


> the other poster said to teach boys not to drink, so by the same logic girls should be taught the same....




I would teach both sons and daughters the same sort of caution when it comes to drinking. For me personally, I have two sons but if I had a daughter, no doubt I would teach her to be very very cautious around these situations. 

Most younger Millennials and iGens have heard all the precautions from parents and schools (as a mandatory part of compliance), so this seems to be more of a problem with those who less likely to put into these situations. Times they are a changing. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thor said:


> I think the point is if two people are intoxicated and have consensual sex, then neither one can claim rape _because of intoxication which made their consent invalid_.


Consent is consent. That no one else is present is challenging to the law. That someone might regret their drunken consent is a travesty. I don't think that anyone is arguing that it is not. The idea that alcohol does not cloud the issue, however, is stupid. Where young men (who bear both the biology of insertion and the upbringing that sex is to be acquired and achieved even fought for) think consent means absence of a No, alcohol has great bearing. I remember a case my freshmen year in college where a drunk young man escorted a conscious drunk young woman back to her dorm. He was in control enough of his faculties to get her onto the bed and insert himself into her. She was not in control enough of her faculties to get her No out. Prosecution was unable to get a conviction because she did not say no.

It is telling to me that the focus on this board is avoiding accusation. Consent is not hard to see when enthusiasm is the low bar. Again, no one is arguing that there are cases of people changing their minds or facing reality the next day. This is bad. Bad. Bad. Bad. But it remains not systemic where sexual assault and abuse remains systemic with the mindset of getting away with it the reality for many men young and old.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Ikaika said:


> I would teach both sons and daughters the same sort of caution when it comes to drinking.


I know many adults who need way more caution with drinking. The amount of influence booze has on our society is staggering.


----------



## Buddy400

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



Ikaika said:


> Who ever said things are equal in all things. And why worry about it. It’s far better to adapt and stay out of trouble


I know that these are a couple of orders of magnitude worse, but the same advice could have been given to blacks in the south during Jim Crow or Jews in Germany in the 1930's.

This is also along the lines of "if you're innocent, you shouldn't have a problem with the government reading your private correspondence".

This depends on the authorities to which you're granting the role of jury and executioner to never use those powers unwisely or unjustly.


----------



## Ikaika

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



Buddy400 said:


> I know that these are a couple of orders of magnitude worse, but the same advice could have been given to blacks in the south during Jim Crow or Jews in Germany in the 1930's.
> 
> 
> 
> This is also along the lines of "if you're innocent, you shouldn't have a problem with the government reading your private correspondence".
> 
> 
> 
> This depends on the authorities to which you're granting the role of jury and executioner to never use those powers unwisely or unjustly.




This hyperbole runs close to Godwin’s law, but you are free to express such an opinion. 


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NobodySpecial

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



Ikaika said:


> This hyperbole runs close to Godwin’s law, but you are free to express such an opinion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I laughed out loud.


----------



## Buddy400

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



Ikaika said:


> This hyperbole runs close to Godwin’s law, but you are free to express such an opinion.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


I acknowledged the hyperbole ("I know that there are several orders of magnitude of difference").

But a principle is a principle and suggesting that the appropriate response to injustice is to "just live with it and adapt" is just as wrong regardless.

By the way, thanks for letting me know that I have the right to my opinion. 

I wasn't sure about that.


----------



## Ikaika

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



Buddy400 said:


> I acknowledged the hyperbole ("I know that there are several orders of magnitude of difference").
> 
> 
> 
> But a principle is a principle and suggesting that the appropriate response to injustice is to "just live with it and adapt" is just as wrong regardless.
> 
> 
> 
> By the way, thanks for letting me know that I have the right to my opinion.
> 
> 
> 
> I wasn't sure about that.



What say you is the injustice? I still believe that this is more of a problem for older folks. Younger generations have already adapted. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NobodySpecial

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



Ikaika said:


> What say you is the injustice? I still believe that this is more of a problem for older folks. Younger generations have already adapted.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


I think I am confused about what you are trying to say. Adapted to what, exactly?


----------



## Ikaika

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



Ikaika said:


> Most younger Millennials and iGens have heard all the precautions from parents and schools (as a mandatory part of compliance), so this seems to be more of a problem with those who less likely to put into these situations. Times they are a changing.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro






NobodySpecial said:


> I think I am confused about what you are trying to say. Adapted to what, exactly?







Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NobodySpecial

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



Ikaika said:


> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


"Most younger Millennials and iGens have heard all the precautions from parents and schools (as a mandatory part of compliance), so this seems to be more of a problem with those who less likely to put into these situations. Times they are a changing. "

I can't say I agree with this. Rape culture is alive and well. The discourse seems to still be avoid it for women and get away with it for men for many local families.


----------



## Ikaika

*Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



NobodySpecial said:


> "Most younger Millennials and iGens have heard all the precautions from parents and schools (as a mandatory part of compliance), so this seems to be more of a problem with those who less likely to put into these situations. Times they are a changing. "
> 
> 
> 
> I can't say I agree with this. Rape culture is alive and well. The discourse seems to still be avoid it for women and get away with it for men for many local families.




I’m not suggesting sexual assault has ended. I’m merely suggesting those that want to imply that there is some reverse injustice or that this boys being boys “attitude” should be allowed because that is how it was in there day. This is just not acceptable any longer. And, younger people are growing up with this understanding that older folks can’t understand. 

Compliance training in most schools drill this into most students early and often, nowadays. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NobodySpecial

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



Ikaika said:


> I’m not suggesting sexual assault has ended. I’m merely suggesting those that want to imply that there is some reverse injustice or that this boys being boys “attitude” should be allowed because that is how it was in there day. This is just not acceptable any longer. And, younger people are growing up with this understanding that older folks can’t understand.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Many people find it unacceptable. Some don't. The "young man" who accosted my daughter with every bit of foul language in the book was handed that exact set of words while my husband was there.


----------



## Ikaika

*Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



NobodySpecial said:


> Many people find it unacceptable. Some don't. The "young man" who accosted my daughter with every bit of foul language in the book was handed that exact set of words while my husband was there.




Compliance training is given earlier and earlier and more often in our education system. This cannot prevent all bad behavior, but it does set a lawful standard. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NobodySpecial

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



Ikaika said:


> Compliance training is given earlier and earlier and more often in our education system. This cannot prevent all bad behavior, but it does set a lawful standard.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


Lawful, yes. And for that I am glad. But the thing that really needs to change for meaningful inroads is minds and hearts. Look at all the threads where argument about the vagaries of supposed rules is debated for something that really is quite simple. This discourse would be unnecessary if there was not a significant group that wants the status quo to remain. Some of these people are raising the next generation like the parents of the jerk who accosted my daughter.


----------



## Ikaika

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



NobodySpecial said:


> Lawful, yes. And for that I am glad. But the thing that really needs to change for meaningful inroads is minds and hearts. Look at all the threads where argument about the vagaries of supposed rules is debated for something that really is quite simple. This discourse would be unnecessary if there was not a significant group that wants the status quo to remain. Some of these people are raising the next generation like the parents of the jerk who accosted my daughter.




All the threads, discussed by folks of what age? 

To those that want to reset the clock for younger people back to when they were young, I say good luck and not likely to happen. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Ikaika

This like folks who think the 40s and 50s was a greatest time in America’s history MAGA). And, it was if you were white and male. These were the bad old days for everyone else. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## NobodySpecial

*Re: Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



Ikaika said:


> All the threads, discussed by folks of what age?


Of the age to be raising the next set of young people.


----------



## Ikaika

*Males and &quot;Consent&quot;*



NobodySpecial said:


> Of the age to be raising the next set of young people.




My wife and I are late boomers raising iGens. I also work in education, my wife works in early intervention services. We get it. I also understand industries and older folks (whose children have already grown) that have yet to catch up. 

On a more personal note, I caution my sons on drinking because I’m an alcoholic (a dry one). 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Ikaika

Definition:

Millennials: born early 1980s to 1995

iGen: born 1996 - ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## uhtred

How / where do young people learn to interact with the other sex these days. When I was growing up, the answer was pretty much nowhere - except movies, TV etc which set some pretty terrible examples.


----------



## Ikaika

uhtred said:


> How / where do young people learn to interact with the other sex these days. When I was growing up, the answer was pretty much nowhere - except movies, TV etc which set some pretty terrible examples.




Online, in various text and social media formats


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Thor

The issue I have is the specific message in the picture shown in the first post, which is very much the same message as what my son's college has plastered all over every single dorm. As I've said before, one literally cannot stand eyes open in any public space in a dorm there without seeing such a poster.

The message is thus: Men are Rapists. Women are helpless victims. If a woman has sex after ingesting any alcohol, she can successfully claim rape the next day simply because she drank any amount at all. Women, don't forget that all men are predators. Men, don't forget consent may not really be consent.

Nobody here is arguing that real rape doesn't happen, nor that it doesn't sometimes involves a man intentionally getting a woman so intoxicated she cannot verbalize her desired refusal. But there is a very long continuum between stone cold sober and stone cold unconscious. Somewhere in there, and actually for the large majority of that continuum, a person is quite capable of verbalizing their thoughts to include "NO".

To automatically presume consent is not valid if a person is "intoxicated" only if they have female genitalia, but is valid if the person has male genitalia, is a huge double standard.


----------



## Ikaika

Thor said:


> The issue I have is the specific message in the picture shown in the first post, which is very much the same message as what my son's college has plastered all over every single dorm. As I've said before, one literally cannot stand eyes open in any public space in a dorm there without seeing such a poster.
> 
> 
> 
> The message is thus: Men are Rapists. Women are helpless victims. If a woman has sex after ingesting any alcohol, she can successfully claim rape the next day simply because she drank any amount at all. Women, don't forget that all men are predators. Men, don't forget consent may not really be consent.



I have been in a lot of university settings and I have never felt it was implied that men are rapist and women are victims. I can see where some would have this as a takeaway. My same take on this to any college student (male or female), take lots of precaution in how much alcohol you consume in social settings and just don’t mix drinking and sexual encounters. 



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


----------



## Thor

Ikaika said:


> I have been in a lot of university settings and I have never felt it was implied that men are rapist and women are victims. I can see where some would have this as a takeaway. My same take on this to any college student (male or female), take lots of precaution in how much alcohol you consume in social settings and just don’t mix drinking and sexual encounters.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro


The posters at my son's college are worse than the one in this thread from the standpoint it doesn't say anything about the male being drunk. The posters are all about how the women need to watch out for the men, always go in groups, don't drink, etc. For me it is a matter of the way the posters are flooded across campus. The message is exactly what I told my daughters, like don't accept a drink from someone without seeing it poured from the source. But the posters are absolutely everywhere. Nowhere is there balance. It is brainwashing.

I find the tilt of the messaging very disturbing really. It is so far over the top. But it is just more of the same social justice messaging our kids are exposed to nowadays.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thor said:


> The posters at my son's college are worse than the one in this thread from the standpoint it doesn't say anything about the male being drunk. The posters are all about how the women need to watch out for the men, always go in groups, don't drink, etc.


When my kids were small, there was a Bernstein Bears book about stranger danger. It talked about how most strangers are nice, normal people. They make an analogy to a bushel of apples. You are aware of the risk for the one bad apple. This is the same sea we have been swimming in for decades. I am pushing 50. I have swimming this sea since I was sixteen. Late bloomer.



> For me it is a matter of the way the posters are flooded across campus. The message is exactly what I told my daughters, like don't accept a drink from someone without seeing it poured from the source. But the posters are absolutely everywhere. Nowhere is there balance. It is brainwashing.
> 
> 
> I find the tilt of the messaging very disturbing really. It is so far over the top. But it is just more of the same social justice messaging our kids are exposed to nowadays.


Meh. If guys gave to be aware of that, I am good with it. If they have to stick their toe in those waters, I am likewise good with it.


----------



## ConanHub

I think encouraging men to take action against predators and predatory behavior would help as well.

I've stepped in a couple times when no one else was and a female or two might have ended up getting a lot more sex than they wanted that night.

The girls were embarrassed but grateful and I pissed off a pos or two but who cares.


----------



## Cletus

I'll start caring a lot more about the messaging when the men of the world make the playing field a little more even.

We're talking about a poster here - an advertisement. Every good advertiser knows you target the biggest demographic for your buck.


----------



## EllisRedding

ConanHub said:


> I think encouraging men to take action against predators and predatory behavior would help as well.


I think a step further, encouraging both men and women to take action. Predators don't like to have attention drawn to them in public, so there are many things you can do to help discourage them. Really though, this can carry through for a lot of things and not just sex related (i.e. bullying, etc...).

At the end of the day, you want to push accountability and responsibility, whether you are a male or female. You can debate whether or not the so called rape culture exists, but in the context of the advertisement posted, it is clearly trying to lessen the responsibility of one gender over the other (which is a horrible message).


----------



## NobodySpecial

EllisRedding said:


> I think a step further, encouraging both men and women to take action. Predators don't like to have attention drawn to them in public, so there are many things you can do to help discourage them. Really though, this can carry through for a lot of things and not just sex related (i.e. bullying, etc...).
> 
> At the end of the day, you want to push accountability and responsibility, whether you are a male or female. You can debate whether or not the so called rape culture exists, but in the context of the advertisement posted, it is clearly trying to lessen the responsibility of one gender over the other (which is a horrible message).


I am curious about one thing, though I don't yet have an opinion on it myself. It is well known that young women are schooled in socializing to minimize their risk of assault despite the fact that it is not their fault. Would it not also be prudent to educate young men to the risk of false accusation?


----------



## manwithnoname

EllisRedding said:


> This ad has supposedly appeared out be me (at the train station) as well as elsewhere. I have always wondered the answer to this question. If both male and female are intoxicated, how can one be held responsible and the other not? How is this not a horrible message to try and spread?


Definitely double standard. 

Then I started thinking...who was the aggressor? If he was pounding away while she was saying "no" then that would be rape. If she was on top, bouncing herself on his ****, then she would be guilty of rape if he was unconscious. If he was into it as well in that situation, then nothing there but drunken sex.

The male is usually the one with sex in mind well before the drinking starts. Females need to understand, to not be isolated with a man, regardless of alcohol (but that makes it worse)


----------



## manwithnoname

NobodySpecial said:


> I am curious about one thing, though I don't yet have an opinion on it myself. It is well known that young women are schooled in socializing to minimize their risk of assault despite the fact that it is not their fault. *Would it not also be prudent to educate young men to the risk of false accusation?*


This is a good idea. If not by society, by the parents.


----------



## EllisRedding

NobodySpecial said:


> I am curious about one thing, though I don't yet have an opinion on it myself. It is well known that young women are schooled in socializing to minimize their risk of assault despite the fact that it is not their fault. Would it not also be prudent to educate young men to the risk of false accusation?


I 100% agree that young men should be educated about the risk of false accusations. For better or worse, especially this day and age give social media and the social justice warriors, an accusation (especially made by a female against a male) can do an incredible amount of damage. Note, I am not saying that all the accusations being made are false, just that thanks in part to social media (FB/Twitter, etc...) there seems to be more of a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality going around.


----------



## RandomDude

EllisRedding said:


> I 100% agree that young men should be educated about the risk of false accusations. For better or worse, especially this day and age give social media and the social justice warriors, an accusation (especially made by a female against a male) can do an incredible amount of damage. Note, I am not saying that all the accusations being made are false, just that thanks in part to social media (FB/Twitter, etc...) there seems to be more of a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality going around.


Social justice warriors = Lynch mobs gone online!


----------



## username77

If a woman is too drunk to consent she can still have sex, if a man is too drunk to consent he likely can't, the biology won't work. Women can also get laid whenever they want, they don't tend to blow passed out men until hard and rape. It happens, but it's exponentially rare compared to men assaulting women.

The rules should be simple common sense, but I agree they're getting a lot more grey, like removing consent after the fact. Or stating too impaired to consent after only a couple drinks things like that make engaging in sexual activity very risky today (especially with STD's at an all time high).

At the end of the day, men and women are victims of sexual assault and violence at rates that are closer than most people realize. But the common denominator is the perpetrator is overwhelmingly male. I know this is frustrating to the 90% of guys out there who don't do this stuff, but like everything in life, it's that 10% that ruins it for everyone. that 10% causes us to worry for our children, lock our doors at night, have a miserable work life, miserable marriage, miserable experience at the super-market. That 10% in life makes life unbearable for everyone.


----------



## EllisRedding

username77 said:


> If a woman is too drunk to consent she can still have sex,* if a man is too drunk to consent he likely can't, the biology won't work.* Women can also get laid whenever they want, they don't tend to blow passed out men until hard and rape. It happens, but it's exponentially rare compared to men assaulting women.


IDK, there is plenty of drunk sex going on out there :grin2: I have never had issues when I have drank too much. However, here is the question (and really where I think the grey area comes into play), how do you determine what "too drunk" is? What level of drunkenness do you need to be at where you are considered unable to give consent (is it possibly based on state laws of sobriety, other factors, etc...)?


----------



## uhtred

I agree with a fair bit of that. There is a lot of messaging that "men are rapists" which is very different from a minority of evil men are rapists. In social media men are often pressured to confess their complicity in a rape culture.

Even the completely reasonable phrase "not all men.." has been re-defined as an extremely sexists misogynist statement. Its a double-speak situation, its difficult to even say that most men aren't rapists. 

I don't know the statistics, and would be interested if anyone has data, but I think the percentage of men who commit rape is quite small. At least in some of the college / party / date rape cases the assailant had assaulted a lot of other women before being caught.

I would really like to see the discussion move away from men vs. women, and towards "normal people" vs "rapists". This is in the same way that we've learned not to look at violent crime as a "black" problem - despite a statistical correlation. It does no good to blame a (non voluntary) group of people for the actions of a minority. 


Where I don't agree is that I think that sexual assault is quite common, especially in some social settings like frat parties. I consider those assaults to be very serious. People feel social pressure to drink and I think sexual assault is much more common in the presence of alcohol: it causes people to not really think through the consequences of their actions. 





Thor said:


> The issue I have is the specific message in the picture shown in the first post, which is very much the same message as what my son's college has plastered all over every single dorm. As I've said before, one literally cannot stand eyes open in any public space in a dorm there without seeing such a poster.
> 
> The message is thus: Men are Rapists. Women are helpless victims. If a woman has sex after ingesting any alcohol, she can successfully claim rape the next day simply because she drank any amount at all. Women, don't forget that all men are predators. Men, don't forget consent may not really be consent.
> 
> Nobody here is arguing that real rape doesn't happen, nor that it doesn't sometimes involves a man intentionally getting a woman so intoxicated she cannot verbalize her desired refusal. But there is a very long continuum between stone cold sober and stone cold unconscious. Somewhere in there, and actually for the large majority of that continuum, a person is quite capable of verbalizing their thoughts to include "NO".
> 
> To automatically presume consent is not valid if a person is "intoxicated" only if they have female genitalia, but is valid if the person has male genitalia, is a huge double standard.


----------



## Holdingontoit

ConanHub said:


> I think encouraging men to take action against predators and predatory behavior would help as well.


I agree. I once had to pull a freshman pledge off a drunk girl at our frat. He complained, saying he thought the idea of a frat was to get him hooked up. I explained that the idea of the frat was to teach him self confidence and social skills so he could find a woman who would consent - not to help him get some girl so drunk she wouldn't realize what he was doing until it was too late to say no. Would be better if more frat bros saw it that way.


----------



## Thor

The issue as raised by the poster doesn't indicate the woman was so intoxicated she was unable to speak the word "No", nor was she physically unable to push the man away. The poster says *both* participants are _intoxicated_. 

So I interpret this as one of two cases.

1) The woman said "Yes" but then later claiming she was unable to make a good decision due to intoxication. She later claims she never would have consented to sex had she been sober. Thus her "Yes" was not valid even though she spoke the word and appeared to participate willingly at the time.

2) She proceeded as an apparently willing and active participant (giving no indication she did not want to have sex) and then later claims she wanted to say "No" but was too intoxicated to do anything about it. He never verbally asked if she wanted to proceed, and she never indicated verbally or physically that she did not want to proceed. She appeared to participate willingly throughout. 

In both cases, according to the poster, the male is guilty of rape because her consent was not valid simply because she was intoxicated. That's what the poster says, *by definition* a _woman_ cannot give consent if she is _intoxicated_, even though she appeared to give consent at the time. _She can retract her consent at a later time on the basis she was intoxicated, not that she was incapacitated_.

Using gender neutral philosophy, _his consent was also invalid_ even if he said "Yes" or appeared to participate willingly at every step. Now if the law is in fact gender blind, I would respond to rape charges under such a situation by filing rape charges against the woman. If her consent was not legal due to intoxication, then my consent was not legal due to intoxication.

Now let's say this intoxicated woman left the scene of the rape and drove herself home, but along the way was caught driving while intoxicated. Can she claim she was not responsible for the choice to drive because she was intoxicated? While sober she would never choose to later drive drunk. She didn't want to do it and knew she shouldn't do it, but she was impaired and thus couldn't make a legally binding decision.


----------



## uhtred

The problem is that "drunk" does not have a sharp cutoff on consent. Someone who has had a glass of wine and is feeling relaxed can consent. Someone who is unconscious cannot. It not at all clear where the boundary is. So you can find stories that seem completely unreasonable one way or the other. 

For driving there is a specific legal limit, but there isn't for sex - nor is there any reasonable way to determine if someone is above that limit. 


Don't get seriously drunk. Don't have sex with someone who is drunk. Why take either risk?




Thor said:


> The issue as raised by the poster doesn't indicate the woman was so intoxicated she was unable to speak the word "No", nor was she physically unable to push the man away. The poster says *both* participants are _intoxicated_.
> 
> So I interpret this as one of two cases.
> 
> 1) The woman said "Yes" but then later claiming she was unable to make a good decision due to intoxication. She later claims she never would have consented to sex had she been sober. Thus her "Yes" was not valid even though she spoke the word and appeared to participate willingly at the time.
> 
> 2) She proceeded as an apparently willing and active participant (giving no indication she did not want to have sex) and then later claims she wanted to say "No" but was too intoxicated to do anything about it. He never verbally asked if she wanted to proceed, and she never indicated verbally or physically that she did not want to proceed. She appeared to participate willingly throughout.
> 
> In both cases, according to the poster, the male is guilty of rape because her consent was not valid simply because she was intoxicated. That's what the poster says, *by definition* a _woman_ cannot give consent if she is _intoxicated_, even though she appeared to give consent at the time. _She can retract her consent at a later time on the basis she was intoxicated, not that she was incapacitated_.
> 
> Using gender neutral philosophy, _his consent was also invalid_ even if he said "Yes" or appeared to participate willingly at every step. Now if the law is in fact gender blind, I would respond to rape charges under such a situation by filing rape charges against the woman. If her consent was not legal due to intoxication, then my consent was not legal due to intoxication.
> 
> Now let's say this intoxicated woman left the scene of the rape and drove herself home, but along the way was caught driving while intoxicated. Can she claim she was not responsible for the choice to drive because she was intoxicated? While sober she would never choose to later drive drunk. She didn't want to do it and knew she shouldn't do it, but she was impaired and thus couldn't make a legally binding decision.


----------



## Thor

uhtred said:


> Where I don't agree is that I think that sexual assault is quite common, especially in some social settings like frat parties. I consider those assaults to be very serious. People feel social pressure to drink and I think sexual assault is much more common in the presence of alcohol: it causes people to not really think through the consequences of their actions.


Yes and no. I think a lot of people do push boundaries when drunk, especially young adults. Certainly men will press themselves on the women under such circumstances. Is it an assault or an unwanted advance which is rebuffed? If the guy continues to touch her after she makes it clear she doesn't want it, then yes it is an assault.

We had a frat on campus which was well known for crazy sex activities. Orgies, gang bangs, trains. There were rumors of rapes, and eventually during my time on campus rape charges were filed against one brother there. He was acquitted (he said she said, no witnesses). A year or so later charges were filed against another brother. Idk the outcome, though the frat was permanently banned from the school.

Here's the thing. By the end of freshman orientation, every single freshman had been warned about that frat. Every single female was well aware of their reputation. If a woman walked in there, she already knew that booze and sex were expected to be happening. So now a brother comes up and kisses her and grabs her boob or butt. Is that an assault? If she has 4 shots and then gives bj's to a couple of the brothers in the living room, was that an assault? Making bad choices brings consequences which are foreseeable. She should be able to say "No" at any point and then leave, otherwise it absolutely is an assault. There's a lot of grey area in these situations.

I don't buy the idea that a person who is moderately intoxicated is incapacitated from making willful choices. They may make bad choices, such as driving their car, but they do make the choice.


----------



## uhtred

This sounds similar to some other cases I've heard. 

I honestly don't know why women would go to a frat party at a place that had a reputation for rape. I'm not blaming victims, its still not in any way their fault, but why go? Why not go to parties at places that don't have a reputation for abuse?







Thor said:


> Yes and no. I think a lot of people do push boundaries when drunk, especially young adults. Certainly men will press themselves on the women under such circumstances. Is it an assault or an unwanted advance which is rebuffed? If the guy continues to touch her after she makes it clear she doesn't want it, then yes it is an assault.
> 
> We had a frat on campus which was well known for crazy sex activities. Orgies, gang bangs, trains. There were rumors of rapes, and eventually during my time on campus rape charges were filed against one brother there. He was acquitted (he said she said, no witnesses). A year or so later charges were filed against another brother. Idk the outcome, though the frat was permanently banned from the school.
> 
> Here's the thing. By the end of freshman orientation, every single freshman had been warned about that frat. Every single female was well aware of their reputation. If a woman walked in there, she already knew that booze and sex were expected to be happening. So now a brother comes up and kisses her and grabs her boob or butt. Is that an assault? If she has 4 shots and then gives bj's to a couple of the brothers in the living room, was that an assault? Making bad choices brings consequences which are foreseeable. She should be able to say "No" at any point and then leave, otherwise it absolutely is an assault. There's a lot of grey area in these situations.
> 
> I don't buy the idea that a person who is moderately intoxicated is incapacitated from making willful choices. They may make bad choices, such as driving their car, but they do make the choice.


----------



## username77

Holdingontoit said:


> I agree. I once had to pull a freshman pledge off a drunk girl at our frat.... Would be better if more frat bros saw it that way.


Embarrassingly I was a frat-bro for a brief period. Went to a party school and pledged a fraternity, but failed out in 1 year then went into the military.

After a party people would head to the local bars, us pledges would have to clean up the place, we would keep drinking and get high while we did it. Whatever sorority they were partying with had no issue leaving their passed out sisters or pledges in the house we were cleaning because they knew we would watch out for them. Aside from pulling their boots off and putting them in a bed with a bucket, no woman was ever touched under my guard.

I've honestly never experienced anyone doing something like you witnessed. Drunk or high is one thing, I assume everyone has had sex in that state, but inebriated and incapacitated? I've never seen it attempted.


----------



## ConanHub

username77 said:


> Embarrassingly I was a frat-bro for a brief period. Went to a party school and pledged a fraternity, but failed out in 1 year then went into the military.
> 
> After a party people would head to the local bars, us pledges would have to clean up the place, we would keep drinking and get high while we did it. Whatever sorority they were partying with had no issue leaving their passed out sisters or pledges in the house we were cleaning because they knew we would watch out for them. Aside from pulling their boots off and putting them in a bed with a bucket, no woman was ever touched under my guard.
> 
> I've honestly never experienced anyone doing something like you witnessed. Drunk or high is one thing, I assume everyone has had sex in that state, but inebriated and incapacitated? I've never seen it attempted.


Then you have experienced a blessed existence in that regard.

I have seen scum trying to take advantage any place they can and very often.


----------



## EllisRedding

username77 said:


> Embarrassingly I was a frat-bro for a brief period. Went to a party school and pledged a fraternity, but failed out in 1 year then went into the military.
> 
> After a party people would head to the local bars, us pledges would have to clean up the place, we would keep drinking and get high while we did it. Whatever sorority they were partying with had no issue leaving their passed out sisters or pledges in the house we were cleaning because they knew we would watch out for them. Aside from pulling their boots off and putting them in a bed with a bucket, no woman was ever touched under my guard.
> 
> I've honestly never experienced anyone doing something like you witnessed. Drunk or high is one thing, I assume everyone has had sex in that state, but inebriated and incapacitated? I've never seen it attempted.


I think part of the problem is trying to determine really how prevalent this type of behavior is. I think some "studies" were used to state that 1 in 5 women on campus are sexually assault (hence, the "rape culture" you hear about, since if true, that is an alarming rate). However, from what I read, the studies used small sample sizes and somewhat misleading questions, most likely to achieve their desired result. Unfortunately, "studies" like this promote the idea that men are rapists, just like the advertisement does. 

I don't remember who it was, but some female actress just came out and said every guy in their 30s or older has contributed some part to the culture of sexual assault on women.

Undoubtedly there are some absolute scumbags out there, and IMO 1 rape/sexual assault is 1 too many.


----------



## samyeagar

EllisRedding said:


> I 100% agree that young men should be educated about the risk of false accusations. For better or worse, especially this day and age give social media and the social justice warriors, an accusation (especially made by a female against a male) can do an incredible amount of damage. Note, I am not saying that all the accusations being made are false, just that thanks in part to social media (FB/Twitter, etc...) there seems to be more of a "guilty until proven innocent" mentality going around.


Absolutely men should be educated to protect themselves against the possibility of a false accusation, and how to avoid situations where one could be made, even it is a simple he said, she said. The problem is, that sets up another double standard, at least in perception. Not much different than teaching women to avoid high risk situation that many seem to frown upon even suggesting, as that could be seen as perpetuating rape culture. Not to mention the general aversion some have to even mentioning the possibility of a false accusation because even simply considering the possibility of a false accusation get twisted by some into victim blaming.


----------



## Notself

So this poster is from Coastal Carolina University where it appeared for a few months in the early 2010s until smarter heads prevailed. Supposedly it was created by a group of students, which wouldn't surprise me. If it's appeared at anyone's train station, someone's trying to make a point. 

You cannot divorce the poster from the University setting. Under Title IX rules that guarantee equal education across genders, colleges and universities must police themselves with regards to rape and sexual assault. And the unanimous way they have done so is to kick out any male who is accused of sexual assault by any woman - even a third party who may have happened to see the alleged abuse.

Women in college have responded to this increase in power by creating new rules that could be described as "it's rape when I say it's rape." A woman who has a consensual but unsatisfactory sexual experience can withdraw consent long after the fact. University Star Chambers, as a rule, do not question the female account and respond by ending any chance the male party has of receiving an education.

This is a shame, because rape DOES in fact happen on campus by a few predators. But Title IX workers prefer the easy cases.

While the poster has been withdrawn, the sentiment still stands and is acted on every day on every college campus in the USA.


----------



## BioFury

Here's a radical idea: stop being a drunk. Problem solved.


----------



## RandomDude

BioFury said:


> Here's a radical idea: stop being a drunk. Problem solved.


Ey? But then how are people going to get laid without their beer goggles?


----------



## Mr The Other

SunCMars said:


> Men are real beings.
> Men are aggressors, women cannot be.
> Men enjoy sex, intimacy, women do not.
> 
> Women are not real beings.
> They are fragile flowers.
> They are not responsible adults.
> They are always girls, never reach majority.
> 
> All this is obviously incorrect.
> If both were drunk, both are implicated.
> 
> Provided that the man did not "force" himself on his equally drunk date/friend.
> That is often the case. But often is not always.


Much of this is blamed on feminism having gone to far. I have argued the opposite before and I will again. 

a) There was a time when women were like cattle and you could do as you wished (within reason). If a cow you owned was diseased, that was your misfortune and bad luck. A good owner might make sure it behaved and be suitably firm. Pretty clear for a man.

b) Then came animal rights, and as an owner, you had to make sure your creature was well taken care of and repect that it had feelings and could suffer too. If your animal misbehaved, that was your responsibility, but not an excuse to be cruel beyond firm.

c) Feminism says women are equal beings and deserve equal respect and responsibility. This is pretty straight forward for a man, and the situation I find in Denmark.

What we have in the USA and UK is that feminism got stuck between b and c. Because we are stuck in the b mindset, the relationship is the man's responsibility. It means, even when a man credits his wife for a great marriage, he can be smug and get the credit. It also means relationship counselling concentrates on what the man did wrong. 

But, at the same time, women are to be respected as equal sentient beings because we are partly getting to (c) and because that is also real life.

Society can run well with any of these three mindsets, but much of the anger about how things are is because we are in two of them at the same time. 

Things are changing, and I am not sure it is bad. I remember when I enjoyed Page 3 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page_3), now I look back at me enjoying the sight of a topless sixteen year old girl in the national newspapers and I am glad it has moved on (I suspect the internet helped as much as enlightenment).


----------



## RandomDude

Mr The Other said:


> What we have in the USA and UK is that feminism got stuck between b and c. Because we are stuck in the b mindset, the relationship is the man's responsibility. It means, even when a man credits his wife for a great marriage, he can be smug and get the credit. It also means relationship counselling concentrates on what the man did wrong.


Yes, the problem with Western feminism, I put it simply as power without responsibility when it comes to feminists, due to the culture shock of both B and C as you described very well.


----------



## uhtred

"Feminism" covers a lot of ground. There are many who want equal symmetric rights. As with any large movement though, there are extremists who want unreasonable things. The media tends to focus on extremists because they get more viewers. 



RandomDude said:


> Yes, the problem with Western feminism, I put it simply as power without responsibility when it comes to feminists, due to the culture shock of both B and C as you described very well.


----------



## RandomDude

uhtred said:


> "Feminism" covers a lot of ground. There are many who want equal symmetric rights. As with any large movement though, there are extremists who want unreasonable things. The media tends to focus on extremists because they get more viewers.


Sure, but have a look at the poster in the OP and you'll see a problem regardless of what the views of individual feminists are.


----------



## ConanHub

I don't remember who it was, but some female actress just came out and said every guy in their 30s or older has contributed some part to the culture of sexual assault on women.


> Seriously?


----------



## Holdingontoit

The problem is that men and women may be equal but they are not the same, and for this reason laws that apply equally to both genders may be equal but they may still not be "fair".
Fair is very difficult to achieve since that is a value judgment and people will disagree about what is fair.
The problem with a portion of feminism is that they are not happy with equal, precisely because they are not convinced that equal is always fair to the woman. But once you move away from equal to your version of "unequal but fair", you open yourself up to challenge from people who have a different view of what is fair. And then we get into the name calling where one group claims that some other group does not support women's right to equality because they disagree about what is fair.
So do we want equal? Or do we want "fair"? And what does "fair" mean?
And if we want "equal", does that mean equality of opportunity or equality of outcome? If men and women are not the same, equality of opportunity may not produce equality of outcome.


----------



## EllisRedding

ConanHub said:


> I don't remember who it was, but some female actress just came out and said every guy in their 30s or older has contributed some part to the culture of sexual assault on women.


Yup. It was a well known actress (not that her opinion carries more weight then any other person). A mentality like that is toxic, and really does nothing to advance whatever cause they are promoting


----------



## RandomDude

EllisRedding said:


> Yup. It was a well known actress (not that her opinion carries more weight then any other person). A mentality like that is toxic, and really does nothing to advance whatever cause they are promoting


Personally I find such mentalities at odds with how I reckon men have an instinct to protect women while they seem to think every man is out to get them!


----------



## Faithful Wife

RandomDude said:


> Personally I find such mentalities at odds with how I reckon men have an instinct to protect women while they seem to think every man is out to get them!


Men at TAM confuse me because of this. Men know that other men are potentially dangerous. They know this danger could be to themselves, their property, their children, or their women (including partners, sisters, friends, etc). And men are naturally attuned and aware of the threat of another man sniffing around in any manor. 

But then when women describe what it's like to have one of these men sniffing around us, the men at TAM get defensive. They take it personally. They feel insulted. 

It doesn't make sense to me. 

My ex always knew that there are predators everywhere (women predators too in his case) and he truly wanted to protect me. He did not feel insulted as a man if I talked about other men who seemed to be sniffing around (in any way). No, he immediately felt protective of me and was quick to determine if there was anything he needed to do or not. 

He did not get agitated if women spoke about men who are creepy. He knows some men are creepy and has seen it himself (and distanced himself from men like that deliberately). 

He did not mock and belittle the idea that there are varying levels of men being creepy all the way up to rapey and everything in between. He knows this is true and honestly feels bad that women have to put up with this, at work, and everywhere. He does his best as a man to protect those he can protect, and he doesn't imply that women are just being feminist nazis just because they do need protection from decent men.

As his wife I appreciated his understanding and protection and I felt safe in his care. 

I do not understand men who constantly doubt and belittle women who are talking about what really happens to us. It's so odd.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Faithful Wife said:


> Men at TAM confuse me because of this. Men know that other men are potentially dangerous. They know this danger could be to themselves, their property, their children, or their women (including partners, sisters, friends, etc). And men are naturally attuned and aware of the threat of another man sniffing around in any manor.
> 
> But then when women describe what it's like to have one of these men sniffing around us, the men at TAM get defensive. They take it personally. They feel insulted.
> 
> It doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> My ex always knew that there are predators everywhere (women predators too in his case) and he truly wanted to protect me. He did not feel insulted as a man if I talked about other men who seemed to be sniffing around (in any way). No, he immediately felt protective of me and was quick to determine if there was anything he needed to do or not.
> 
> He did not get agitated if women spoke about men who are creepy. He knows some men are creepy and has seen it himself (and distanced himself from men like that deliberately).
> 
> He did not mock and belittle the idea that there are varying levels of men being creepy all the way up to rapey and everything in between. He knows this is true and honestly feels bad that women have to put up with this, at work, and everywhere. He does his best as a man to protect those he can protect, and he doesn't imply that women are just being feminist nazis just because they do need protection from decent men.
> 
> As his wife I appreciated his understanding and protection and I felt safe in his care.
> 
> I do not understand men who constantly doubt and belittle women who are talking about what really happens to us. It's so odd.


I think I take this convo to a bit of an extreme. I have a visceral reaction to the Not All Men crowd. What, exactly, I wonder to myself, lurks in their minds to make them so defensive? Of the wonderful men that I know, none of them feel threatened by the notion that some of their gender are maladapted twats. Every woman I know readily accepts that there are gold digger super twats and do not feel that that is an indictment on the entire gender.


----------



## SunCMars

Faithful Wife said:


> Men at TAM confuse me because of this. Men know that other men are potentially dangerous. They know this danger could be to themselves, their property, their children, or their women (including partners, sisters, friends, etc). And men are naturally attuned and aware of the threat of another man sniffing around in any manor.
> 
> But then when women describe what it's like to have one of these men sniffing around us, the men at TAM get defensive. They take it personally. They feel insulted.
> 
> It doesn't make sense to me.
> 
> My ex always knew that there are predators everywhere (women predators too in his case) and he truly wanted to protect me. He did not feel insulted as a man if I talked about other men who seemed to be sniffing around (in any way). No, he immediately felt protective of me and was quick to determine if there was anything he needed to do or not.
> 
> He did not get agitated if women spoke about men who are creepy. He knows some men are creepy and has seen it himself (and distanced himself from men like that deliberately).
> 
> He did not mock and belittle the idea that there are varying levels of men being creepy all the way up to rapey and everything in between. He knows this is true and honestly feels bad that women have to put up with this, at work, and everywhere. He does his best as a man to protect those he can protect, and he doesn't imply that women are just being feminist nazis just because they do need protection from decent men.
> 
> As his wife I appreciated his understanding and protection and I felt safe in his care.
> 
> I do not understand men who constantly doubt and belittle women who are talking about what really happens to us. It's so odd.


I read this carefully, Dear,

As I do, did all your' posts.
You are a, uh, warm one. Nice to the touch, nice to talk to.

Yet, this former man, the one who protected you, kept the hungry men at bay.
Knew your proclivities, knew you were hot to trot [this is good, not bad!].

He protected you, your' honor, your' body.

And yet he ended up being your' ex.
Shame

Shame for him.
Good for any new men.

I read this carefully, Dear and responded carefully.
Being frank, and somewhat too honest, I likely stepped on your toes.

Stepped on your slip, pulled it down a bit, exposing your beauty, 
I know, I know, i bit off more than I can chew, I bit my lip. i let slip out more than I should.

I do like you, but then you are a women, and I do like women.
I do like you.

The Typist-

Post Script, PS for the rest:

I am worried about SunCMars. My headmate.
He is missing, out of the house.
Knowing my friend, he is not out of action.
I blame this for my thoughts and my writing.


----------



## Mr The Other

ConanHub said:


> I don't remember who it was, but some female actress just came out and said every guy in their 30s or older has contributed some part to the culture of sexual assault on women.


Oddly, this is not unreasonable if you ignore the bigger picture.

I am in my 40's and used to enjoy seeing topless teenage girls in my newspaper. I look back and find that a little distastefully.

The issue is that I have done lots of other terrible things, far, far worse. And so has everyone else, including women under 30.

There are some men who really are predators. Many have done a few bad things, but cannot accept that, because people are like that, men and women.


----------



## ConanHub

Mr The Other said:


> Oddly, this is not unreasonable if you ignore the bigger picture.
> 
> I am in my 40's and used to enjoy seeing topless teenage girls in my newspaper. I look back and find that a little distastefully.
> 
> The issue is that I have done lots of other terrible things, far, far worse. And so has everyone else, including women under 30.
> 
> There are some men who really are predators. Many have done a few bad things, but cannot accept that, because people are like that, men and women.


Well. You can certainly speak for yourself but not me.

I had sex forced on me as a child by both women and men.

When I got big enough to fight it stopped.

I have since been extremely opposed to unwanted sexual attention in any form. I have used violence on more than one occasion.

I speak against it every opportunity I get.

The idiot that made that statement insulted me, a child rape victim many times over, and a staunch protector of potential victims.

Dumb asses making moronic blanket statements that include me are not helping at all.


----------



## uhtred

I don't think everyone has done "terrible things". 

I do enjoy looking at attractive scantily clad women and my eyes may occasionally linger longer than they should - but I've never stared / cat-called etc. I see no problem with being attracted to young women, the problem is in any way *acting* on that attraction.

I've watched porn, and some people find that offensive.

I once grabbed and kissed my girlfriend when she didn't want to be kissed, but it was a legitimate case of misread signals and I stopped immediately when I recognized it. (this was in a long term relationship).

I'm not claiming perfection, and certainly have *thought* things that I shouldn't, but in terms of actions: No, I haven't done terrible things. I don't think most other people have either. 

By "terrible" I mean anything that a reasonable person would call assault, harassment, overt discrimination (as opposed to unconscious bias which is much more difficult to fix), etc. I think the idea that most people act like this really is wrong. 






Mr The Other said:


> Oddly, this is not unreasonable if you ignore the bigger picture.
> 
> I am in my 40's and used to enjoy seeing topless teenage girls in my newspaper. I look back and find that a little distastefully.
> 
> The issue is that I have done lots of other terrible things, far, far worse. And so has everyone else, including women under 30.
> 
> There are some men who really are predators. Many have done a few bad things, but cannot accept that, because people are like that, men and women.


----------



## Mr The Other

ConanHub said:


> Well. You can certainly speak for yourself but not me.
> 
> I had sex forced on me as a child by both women and men.
> 
> When I got big enough to fight it stopped.
> 
> I have since been extremely opposed to unwanted sexual attention in any form. I have used violence on more than one occasion.
> 
> I speak against it every opportunity I get.
> 
> The idiot that made that statement insulted me, a child rape victim many times over, and a staunch protector of potential victims.
> 
> Dumb asses making moronic blanket statements that include me are not helping at all.


Indeed and strong stuff.

My point was that the bigger picture includes taking into consideration that we all make errors. So, to say that we have contributed.....well, posssibly as none of us can claim to be perfect. But, by that logic women under 30 are also guilty and it becomes meaningless, a "we are all guilty" in which everything is relative.


----------



## ConanHub

Mr The Other said:


> Indeed and strong stuff.
> 
> My point was that the bigger picture includes taking into consideration that we all make errors. So, to say that we have contributed.....well, posssibly as none of us can claim to be perfect. But, by that logic women under 30 are also guilty and it becomes meaningless, a "we are all guilty" in which everything is relative.


Hmm. Ok. So she made a vacuous statement in which she forgot to include half the human race.

I agree in that it was a meaningless statement in that light.


----------



## DustyDog

EllisRedding said:


> This ad has supposedly appeared out be me (at the train station) as well as elsewhere. I have always wondered the answer to this question. If both male and female are intoxicated, how can one be held responsible and the other not? How is this not a horrible message to try and spread?


Equality takes into account past misdeads and the difference between the genders. Women are statistically, the physically weaker gender. Regrettably, in the US, some 85% of them have experienced at least one occasion of being physically pushed around or verbally threatened, or been in a situation where they felt that they "had" to provide sex to avoid physical harm.

Things like this do not happen in a vacuum, they happen in a culture. And, a culture's norms are formed by real life experiences.

So, what should a man do? I really don't know. I know what things I won't do as a man - and one of them is have sex with a woman if either of us is drunk. Even if we already have a relationship with a sexual component, I won't do that. Hell, I question the ethics of anybody who gets drunk often enough that it's even possible to contemplate choosing that night to have sex with someone. How often does one get drunk?

With all the focus right now on sexual harrassment and misbehavior, it is hard to want to be around women. I'm the kindest and gentlest man any of my lovers has encountered (according to 100% of them). Even at that, I have had, twice, sexual harrassment claims leveled against me in the workplace - both times by women whose names I did not know, and whose faces I did not recognize. 

So, how do I find dates? Very infrequently. Current GF, I met playing music - we'd known each other for a year. I don't get out much, so this is a rare case for me. As I think the close part of our relationship may have run its course, I may be in for a few years flying solo.


----------



## JustTheWife

Well you could also say that the ad has a double standard in that it says that the man's life will be ruined if he rapes a woman. Why does it talk about the man's life being ruined and not the victim of the rape??? I think for a long time this has been swept under the rug to avoid ruining the future of a "good man" or a "good student" when a good athlete or scholar gets accused. So why would an ad want to reinforce this?


----------



## ConanHub

JustTheWife said:


> Well you could also say that the ad has a double standard in that it says that the man's life will be ruined if he rapes a woman. Why does it talk about the man's life being ruined and not the victim of the rape??? I think for a long time this has been swept under the rug to avoid ruining the future of a "good man" or a "good student" when a good athlete or scholar gets accused. So why would an ad want to reinforce this?


Two drunk people having sex isn't even close to rape.

The add said he would be accused of rape even though they were both drunk and hooked up.

Double standards. That is the OP.


----------



## BobSimmons

ConanHub said:


> There is absolutely a double standard here.
> 
> Although I think most instances of actual non consent were when a not as drunk or fairly sober guy took advantage of a nearly or all the way passed out girl.
> 
> It really depends on the situation and it shouldn't immediately be assumed that the man is at fault.
> 
> One of my first sexual experiences was when I got so smashed I couldn't stand.
> 
> I found myself in a room with 3 girls doing me.
> 
> I felt like crap, the room was spinning and I was struggling although feebly.
> 
> They didn't think it was a big deal to take advantage of me and honestly, I wasn't very bothered about it upon waking the next day.
> 
> Had I been married or had a girlfriend, I would have been enraged.
> 
> If a young lady had found herself in that situation, I believe it would have been serious as life and death.
> 
> It is a double standard.
> 
> I do think women need to be just as cautious about taking advantage of drunk men as men should be towards drunk women.


Ah yes you weren't bothered about it the next day but imagine one of those girls gave you AIDS then it would have been deathly serious. 

You were raped. Male, female it doesn't matter. You were in no mind to give consent.

Quite frankly the ad is somewhat ridiculous but it's also a warning to men to be careful about what you do when you're drinking these days.


----------



## ConanHub

I


BobSimmons said:


> Ah yes you weren't bothered about it the next day but imagine one of those girls gave you AIDS then it would have been deathly serious.
> 
> You were raped. Male, female it doesn't matter. You were in no mind to give consent.
> 
> Quite frankly the ad is somewhat ridiculous but it's also a warning to men to be careful about what you do when you're drinking these days.


I was extremely young and unwise at the time but I absolutely agree with you and my thought process changed as I grew up.

I was barely into my teens when this happened.


----------



## Laurentium

The situation is complicated by the fact that humans, like other animals, do not negotiate for sex by a rational verbal discourse, but by a variety of signals, many of them instinctive and unconscious. People are often not aware of what they are doing. 

And amongst the signals that people can use in our society to indicate an interest in getting laid, is to get drunk. In the society I live in, if a man or woman is hopeful of hooking up with a new partner, one of the things they might well do is to get drunk in order to indicate to others that they are in a free-spirited mood. An air of intoxication is like wearing a badge saying "feel free to approach me". Please note, I am not advocating this - I am describing it.


----------



## uhtred

I can answer about how it affects me. I view rape / assault as horrible crimes and I am *insulted* when it is implied that I may have done these things.

Too often conversations end up blaming *men* as a group, and as a member of that group I take offense. 

This is not always true - any conversation where the blame is put on "rapists" not on on "men" I perfectly happy with. I agree that rape is a big problem. I agree that the majority of perpetrators are men. I do not agree that the majority of men are perpetrators.

To me it is just like describing violent crime as a "black" problem because more black men are in prison. Society has learned not to say things like "black men need to stop doing drugs and joining gangs". 







NobodySpecial said:


> I think I take this convo to a bit of an extreme. I have a visceral reaction to the Not All Men crowd. What, exactly, I wonder to myself, lurks in their minds to make them so defensive? Of the wonderful men that I know, none of them feel threatened by the notion that some of their gender are maladapted twats. Every woman I know readily accepts that there are gold digger super twats and do not feel that that is an indictment on the entire gender.


----------



## StillSearching

If the woman is drinking and has a car wreak she's liable.
If the woman is drinking and has sex she's not.....


----------



## Todd Haberdasher

Supposedly you can't consent while inebriated because the chemicals are impacting your thought processes. You aren't "of sound mind".

But anybody who has been a teenager knows that horomones can affect your judgement as much as alcohol can, and they are present all the time. I wonder if any of us is actually able to give completely rational, informed consent at all.


----------

