If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Huffington Post)   Student charged with an honor code violation for "intimidating" her rapist by speaking publicly   (huffingtonpost.com) divider line 1269
    More: Sick, Chapel Hill, honor code, sex crimes, Office of Civil Rights, Amherst College, art fair, U.S. Department of Education, graduate students  
•       •       •

28390 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Feb 2013 at 10:17 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



1269 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-02-26 06:26:07 AM

dready zim: Genevieve Marie: dready zim: You know, all I can think of is the other thread where men were trying to convince women that `that guy friend` actually really wants to hit you like the fist of an angry god and the women were all like "Nah, he`s my friend, he wouldn`t do that"

Then those women went out for a friendly drink with that guy and ended up in this thread...

Sigh. The whole "Oh ladies, any time you're friends with a guy, it can't be because he likes you and values you as a human, it is clearly all just a ruse to get to your vagina" trope is pretty obnoxious too.

You may find it obnoxious but that doesn`t stop it being true.


My best friend is a man. We've been best friends for twelve years. We lived together for three. Our friendship has always been platonic and neither of us has ever tried to change that. If that's why we're friends, he's playing a hell of a long game.
 
2013-02-26 06:26:29 AM

Legios: Genevieve Marie: Legios: vygramul: Abacus9: robohobo: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x478]

0/10

Thing is, this is based on a bit of a fallacy in thinking. We hold drunk people accountable all the time. If a drunk driver crashes into another drunk driver and kills them, the surviving driver is still charged with manslaughter even though both of them were drunk.

Drinking and driving is a criminal offence because of the ability to kill someone else because of your lack of awareness (and driving is a privilege). Being just drunk not so much.

Nor is anyone at fault for the fact that someone chose to rape them when they were drunk. The rapist is the person who made an active choice to take advantage of someone. Being drunk while woman is not a crime that deserves punishment by rape. That should be totally obvious and I should never have to point that out to anyone ever.

I completely agree. I was purely pointing out that one is a criminal offence because of the affect it has on someone else's life. Not that the fact that they were drunk that they "deserved" it. They're all cognitive choices, one way or another. But being intoxicated doesn't give someone else the right to impose their will upon you.


I completely agree but also, just being drunk does not make it rape. If a drunk person comes up with the idea of having sex and then tomorrow doesn`t remember then he can`t go out and say to everybody "I was raped."
 
2013-02-26 06:27:26 AM

Genevieve Marie: GranoblasticMan: This is one of the most depressing threads I've read on Fark.

This isn't actually abnormal for a thread about a rape case that appears on the main page. Fark's actually not even the worst place on the internet to have a thread like this.


I has a sad because you are right.
 
2013-02-26 06:30:49 AM

Legios: Genevieve Marie: Legios: vygramul: Abacus9: robohobo: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x478]

0/10

Thing is, this is based on a bit of a fallacy in thinking. We hold drunk people accountable all the time. If a drunk driver crashes into another drunk driver and kills them, the surviving driver is still charged with manslaughter even though both of them were drunk.

Drinking and driving is a criminal offence because of the ability to kill someone else because of your lack of awareness (and driving is a privilege). Being just drunk not so much.

Nor is anyone at fault for the fact that someone chose to rape them when they were drunk. The rapist is the person who made an active choice to take advantage of someone. Being drunk while woman is not a crime that deserves punishment by rape. That should be totally obvious and I should never have to point that out to anyone ever.

I completely agree. I was purely pointing out that one is a criminal offence because of the affect it has on someone else's life. Not that the fact that they were drunk that they "deserved" it. They're all cognitive choices, one way or another. But being intoxicated doesn't give someone else the right to impose their will upon you.


If I was unclear, my example was focused on how the drunk driver doesn't get out of the manslaughter charge just because they were both drunk, meaning the drunk rapist doesn't get out of a rape charge even though they were both drunk.
 
2013-02-26 06:31:50 AM

vygramul: If I was unclear, my example was focused on how the drunk driver doesn't get out of the manslaughter charge just because they were both drunk, meaning the drunk rapist doesn't get out of a rape charge even though they were both drunk.


Ah, that makes so much more sense. Thank you for clarifying.
 
2013-02-26 06:32:27 AM

dready zim: Legios: Genevieve Marie: Legios: vygramul: Abacus9: robohobo: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x478]

0/10

Thing is, this is based on a bit of a fallacy in thinking. We hold drunk people accountable all the time. If a drunk driver crashes into another drunk driver and kills them, the surviving driver is still charged with manslaughter even though both of them were drunk.

Drinking and driving is a criminal offence because of the ability to kill someone else because of your lack of awareness (and driving is a privilege). Being just drunk not so much.

Nor is anyone at fault for the fact that someone chose to rape them when they were drunk. The rapist is the person who made an active choice to take advantage of someone. Being drunk while woman is not a crime that deserves punishment by rape. That should be totally obvious and I should never have to point that out to anyone ever.

I completely agree. I was purely pointing out that one is a criminal offence because of the affect it has on someone else's life. Not that the fact that they were drunk that they "deserved" it. They're all cognitive choices, one way or another. But being intoxicated doesn't give someone else the right to impose their will upon you.

I completely agree but also, just being drunk does not make it rape. If a drunk person comes up with the idea of having sex and then tomorrow doesn`t remember then he can`t go out and say to everybody "I was raped."


Assuming she explicity consents, yes. Otherwise it can technically be rape. (Also there's state laws on this. Even if she is drunk and says "yes" her consent is invalid because she is intoxicated.)
The rule really is, if she's sober and says yes, you're okay. If she's remotely intoxicated and says yes, don't be a moron and go "Whoo!"

Otherwise yes, she can. And it's legally valid.
 
2013-02-26 06:37:27 AM

Legios: dready zim: Legios: Genevieve Marie: Legios: vygramul: Abacus9: robohobo: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x478]

0/10

Thing is, this is based on a bit of a fallacy in thinking. We hold drunk people accountable all the time. If a drunk driver crashes into another drunk driver and kills them, the surviving driver is still charged with manslaughter even though both of them were drunk.

Drinking and driving is a criminal offence because of the ability to kill someone else because of your lack of awareness (and driving is a privilege). Being just drunk not so much.

Nor is anyone at fault for the fact that someone chose to rape them when they were drunk. The rapist is the person who made an active choice to take advantage of someone. Being drunk while woman is not a crime that deserves punishment by rape. That should be totally obvious and I should never have to point that out to anyone ever.

I completely agree. I was purely pointing out that one is a criminal offence because of the affect it has on someone else's life. Not that the fact that they were drunk that they "deserved" it. They're all cognitive choices, one way or another. But being intoxicated doesn't give someone else the right to impose their will upon you.

I completely agree but also, just being drunk does not make it rape. If a drunk person comes up with the idea of having sex and then tomorrow doesn`t remember then he can`t go out and say to everybody "I was raped."

Assuming she explicity consents, yes. Otherwise it can technically be rape. (Also there's state laws on this. Even if she is drunk and says "yes" her consent is invalid because she is intoxicated.)
The rule really is, if she's sober and says yes, you're okay. If she's remotely intoxicated and says yes, don't be a moron and go "Whoo!"

Otherwise yes, she can. And it's legally valid.


Where's the burden of proof? How can she prove she was too drunk to truly consent or not, versus just feeling bad after the fact? Cameras everywhere? Legal contracts? 24 hour chaperones? Robots?  He said/she said nonsense. Don't jump in shark infested waters and you won't get eaten.
 
2013-02-26 06:39:17 AM

robohobo: Don't jump in shark infested waters and you won't get eaten.


It always amuses me that there are men who make this particular analogy and don't recognize that THEY are acting like all men are rapists- and they're not doing it in a measured way for their own self-protection.

Seriously, men as sharks? Being near one if you're incapacitated is inherently dangerous?

I apparently think much more highly of men than you do.
 
2013-02-26 06:40:45 AM

Genevieve Marie: robohobo: Don't jump in shark infested waters and you won't get eaten.

It always amuses me that there are men who make this particular analogy and don't recognize that THEY are acting like all men are rapists- and they're not doing it in a measured way for their own self-protection.

Seriously, men as sharks? Being near one if you're incapacitated is inherently dangerous?

I apparently think much more highly of men than you do.


PEOPLE are sharks. Lets not pretend women never ever take advantage of other people in weakened states.
 
2013-02-26 06:41:58 AM

Theaetetus: IgG4: Theaetetus: IgG4: She sounds like a trouble maker to me. Multiple accusations against various men, exploiting what ever means she has at her disposal to make her political position heard? Sounds like trouble to me.

Hey, everyone! Sociopath Alert! Set your Farkies.

IgG4:"But I'm just making a joke! Get a sense of humor!"

Sure, sure, Sociopath.
[i1094.photobucket.com image 300x250]
We're on to your kind.

What the hell are you talking about?

The proper response is, "oh, shiat, I didn't mean that seriously. Gosh, I now realize that was as inappropriate as McFarlane's jokes last night. I disavow that entire post and beg forgiveness."

Helpful tip: you can copy-paste the above via the edit menu.


The original joke was fine, and I didn't watch the Oscars because its just rich people blowing each other. However, I'm assimg you meant the onion's joke about calling the little girl a coont. Either way, get over yourself.
 
2013-02-26 06:43:37 AM

robohobo: PEOPLE are sharks. Lets not pretend women never ever take advantage of other people in weakened states.


So humans should completely isolate themselves from others and never drop their guard for a second, less they get burned- and if they do, that's their fault?

That's healthy.
 
2013-02-26 06:49:46 AM

Genevieve Marie: robohobo: PEOPLE are sharks. Lets not pretend women never ever take advantage of other people in weakened states.

So humans should completely isolate themselves from others and never drop their guard for a second, less they get burned- and if they do, that's their fault?

That's healthy.


I think what robohobo is saying is that all people are sharks and any stories about true charity or selfless acts are a myth in someone's imagination.
 
2013-02-26 06:50:34 AM

Genevieve Marie: dready zim: Genevieve Marie: dready zim: You know, all I can think of is the other thread where men were trying to convince women that `that guy friend` actually really wants to hit you like the fist of an angry god and the women were all like "Nah, he`s my friend, he wouldn`t do that"

Then those women went out for a friendly drink with that guy and ended up in this thread...

Sigh. The whole "Oh ladies, any time you're friends with a guy, it can't be because he likes you and values you as a human, it is clearly all just a ruse to get to your vagina" trope is pretty obnoxious too.

You may find it obnoxious but that doesn`t stop it being true.

My best friend is a man. We've been best friends for twelve years. We lived together for three. Our friendship has always been platonic and neither of us has ever tried to change that. If that's why we're friends, he's playing a hell of a long game.


has he come out yet?

/jk
 
2013-02-26 06:51:24 AM

robohobo: Legios: dready zim: Legios: Genevieve Marie: Legios: vygramul: Abacus9: robohobo: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x478]

0/10

Thing is, this is based on a bit of a fallacy in thinking. We hold drunk people accountable all the time. If a drunk driver crashes into another drunk driver and kills them, the surviving driver is still charged with manslaughter even though both of them were drunk.

Drinking and driving is a criminal offence because of the ability to kill someone else because of your lack of awareness (and driving is a privilege). Being just drunk not so much.

Nor is anyone at fault for the fact that someone chose to rape them when they were drunk. The rapist is the person who made an active choice to take advantage of someone. Being drunk while woman is not a crime that deserves punishment by rape. That should be totally obvious and I should never have to point that out to anyone ever.

I completely agree. I was purely pointing out that one is a criminal offence because of the affect it has on someone else's life. Not that the fact that they were drunk that they "deserved" it. They're all cognitive choices, one way or another. But being intoxicated doesn't give someone else the right to impose their will upon you.

I completely agree but also, just being drunk does not make it rape. If a drunk person comes up with the idea of having sex and then tomorrow doesn`t remember then he can`t go out and say to everybody "I was raped."

Assuming she explicity consents, yes. Otherwise it can technically be rape. (Also there's state laws on this. Even if she is drunk and says "yes" her consent is invalid because she is intoxicated.)
The rule really is, if she's sober and says yes, you're okay. If she's remotely intoxicated and says yes, don't be a moron and go "Whoo!"

Otherwise yes, she can. And it's legally valid.

Where's the burden of proof? How can she prove she was too drunk to truly consent or not, versus just feeling bad after the fact? Cameras everywhere? Leg ...


"Third, sexual assault can occur when the victim was
too intoxicated to consent. Regarding the latter cases, the victim's level of
intoxication must be proven; however,"rape law essentially dispenses with
the force requirement by finding that the force necessary for penetration is
sufficient." Thus, the issue at trial will generally be whether the victim
was incapacitated to the point of not being able to consent"

If you want an interesting read - http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_prosecuting_alcohol_facilitated_sexual_as s ault.pdf ( National District Attorney Association's document on "Prosecuting Alcohol-Facilitated Sexual Assault")
 
2013-02-26 06:51:30 AM

Legios: dready zim: Legios: Genevieve Marie: Legios: vygramul: Abacus9: robohobo: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x478]

0/10

Thing is, this is based on a bit of a fallacy in thinking. We hold drunk people accountable all the time. If a drunk driver crashes into another drunk driver and kills them, the surviving driver is still charged with manslaughter even though both of them were drunk.

Drinking and driving is a criminal offence because of the ability to kill someone else because of your lack of awareness (and driving is a privilege). Being just drunk not so much.

Nor is anyone at fault for the fact that someone chose to rape them when they were drunk. The rapist is the person who made an active choice to take advantage of someone. Being drunk while woman is not a crime that deserves punishment by rape. That should be totally obvious and I should never have to point that out to anyone ever.

I completely agree. I was purely pointing out that one is a criminal offence because of the affect it has on someone else's life. Not that the fact that they were drunk that they "deserved" it. They're all cognitive choices, one way or another. But being intoxicated doesn't give someone else the right to impose their will upon you.

I completely agree but also, just being drunk does not make it rape. If a drunk person comes up with the idea of having sex and then tomorrow doesn`t remember then he can`t go out and say to everybody "I was raped."

Assuming she explicity consents, yes. Otherwise it can technically be rape. (Also there's state laws on this. Even if she is drunk and says "yes" her consent is invalid because she is intoxicated.)
The rule really is, if she's sober and says yes, you're okay. If she's remotely intoxicated and says yes, don't be a moron and go "Whoo!"

Otherwise yes, she can. And it's legally valid.


You may have missed it but in my example it is a MAN who cannot remember. Can HE also claim rape? You would seem to say `yes` unless you have a sexist viewpoint on this issue...
 
2013-02-26 06:52:43 AM

dready zim: Legios: dready zim: Legios: Genevieve Marie: Legios: vygramul: Abacus9: robohobo: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x478]

0/10

Thing is, this is based on a bit of a fallacy in thinking. We hold drunk people accountable all the time. If a drunk driver crashes into another drunk driver and kills them, the surviving driver is still charged with manslaughter even though both of them were drunk.

Drinking and driving is a criminal offence because of the ability to kill someone else because of your lack of awareness (and driving is a privilege). Being just drunk not so much.

Nor is anyone at fault for the fact that someone chose to rape them when they were drunk. The rapist is the person who made an active choice to take advantage of someone. Being drunk while woman is not a crime that deserves punishment by rape. That should be totally obvious and I should never have to point that out to anyone ever.

I completely agree. I was purely pointing out that one is a criminal offence because of the affect it has on someone else's life. Not that the fact that they were drunk that they "deserved" it. They're all cognitive choices, one way or another. But being intoxicated doesn't give someone else the right to impose their will upon you.

I completely agree but also, just being drunk does not make it rape. If a drunk person comes up with the idea of having sex and then tomorrow doesn`t remember then he can`t go out and say to everybody "I was raped."

Assuming she explicity consents, yes. Otherwise it can technically be rape. (Also there's state laws on this. Even if she is drunk and says "yes" her consent is invalid because she is intoxicated.)
The rule really is, if she's sober and says yes, you're okay. If she's remotely intoxicated and says yes, don't be a moron and go "Whoo!"

Otherwise yes, she can. And it's legally valid.

You may have missed it but in my example it is a MAN who cannot remember. Can HE also claim rape? You would seem to say `yes` unless you have a sexist vi ...


Of course, if he feels that the sex happened without his consent. It's happened before. It's rare, but it does happen.
 
2013-02-26 06:53:28 AM

Genevieve Marie: robohobo: PEOPLE are sharks. Lets not pretend women never ever take advantage of other people in weakened states.

So humans should completely isolate themselves from others and never drop their guard for a second, less they get burned- and if they do, that's their fault?

That's healthy.


People get burned. It happens. There's a certain amount of personal responsibility one must undertake, though. Not getting near blackout drunk at a party, for one. Not driving drunk, for another. If two buddies go out for a drink, and one talks the other into getting way more drunk than they wanted to and they both take seperate cars home and both get into accidents, it's not just the smooth talkers fault.
 
2013-02-26 06:54:23 AM

Amos Quito: Don't y'all DARE be 'cusin no Norf Car'lina rape victim of lyin, now.

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 320x297]

[img2-cdn.newser.com image 240x160]

Sumboddy mite git hurt.


Still doing everything in your power to demonstrate you're not a bigot, I see.
 
2013-02-26 06:54:27 AM
She didn't report the rape to the police?

Stupid biatch is stupid.
 
2013-02-26 06:55:05 AM

dready zim: Legios: dready zim: Legios: Genevieve Marie: Legios: vygramul: Abacus9: robohobo: [25.media.tumblr.com image 850x478]

0/10

Thing is, this is based on a bit of a fallacy in thinking. We hold drunk people accountable all the time. If a drunk driver crashes into another drunk driver and kills them, the surviving driver is still charged with manslaughter even though both of them were drunk.

Drinking and driving is a criminal offence because of the ability to kill someone else because of your lack of awareness (and driving is a privilege). Being just drunk not so much.

Nor is anyone at fault for the fact that someone chose to rape them when they were drunk. The rapist is the person who made an active choice to take advantage of someone. Being drunk while woman is not a crime that deserves punishment by rape. That should be totally obvious and I should never have to point that out to anyone ever.

I completely agree. I was purely pointing out that one is a criminal offence because of the affect it has on someone else's life. Not that the fact that they were drunk that they "deserved" it. They're all cognitive choices, one way or another. But being intoxicated doesn't give someone else the right to impose their will upon you.

I completely agree but also, just being drunk does not make it rape. If a drunk person comes up with the idea of having sex and then tomorrow doesn`t remember then he can`t go out and say to everybody "I was raped."

Assuming she explicity consents, yes. Otherwise it can technically be rape. (Also there's state laws on this. Even if she is drunk and says "yes" her consent is invalid because she is intoxicated.)
The rule really is, if she's sober and says yes, you're okay. If she's remotely intoxicated and says yes, don't be a moron and go "Whoo!"

Otherwise yes, she can. And it's legally valid.

You may have missed it but in my example it is a MAN who cannot remember. Can HE also claim rape? You would seem to say `yes` unless you have a sexist vi ...


Yes, he can. Legally it's more tricky because of physiology, you're likely to get medical experts claiming (in court) he couldn't possibly get it up if he was that drunk. But absolutely. I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this. Statistically the rape of females is statiscially more prevalent, but not saying they're exclusive

/male
//studied psychology, criminology and justice
 
2013-02-26 06:56:17 AM

Genevieve Marie: robohobo: PEOPLE are sharks. Lets not pretend women never ever take advantage of other people in weakened states.

So humans should completely isolate themselves from others and never drop their guard for a second, less they get burned- and if they do, that's their fault?

That's healthy.


This rapohopo twatwaddle is trying to out-troll Firstnationalbastard in yet another of Fark's "biatches-talk-too-much-so-let's-whing e-about-them-interminably" teste-fests. He's not very good at it and is certainly not in the Bastard's league.
 
2013-02-26 06:58:34 AM

Genevieve Marie: It's rare, but it does happen.


Only 1,267,000 victims in 2010.

/CDC NISVS 2010
 
2013-02-26 06:58:43 AM

Legios: Yes, he can. Legally it's more tricky because of physiology, you're likely to get medical experts claiming (in court) he couldn't possibly get it up if he was that drunk. But absolutely. I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this. Statistically the rape of females is statiscially more prevalent, but not saying they're exclusive

/male
//studied psychology, criminology and justice


I think what's going on here is that he is suggesting if both of them were drunk, what stops him, when she files charges that she didn't give consent, from filing charges of his own, stating he didn't give consent.
 
2013-02-26 07:00:25 AM

Genevieve Marie: Seriously, men as sharks?


Not all fish in the sea are sharks but sharks are in the sea and are fish.

I am not a shark but I am aware of their existence. I am constantly aware there may be one near me, or just out of view when I swim or dive. Just because I see angelfish, pufferfish and rays does not mean I should not stay alert for sharks.

It would be stupid to swim without some protection in waters known to have sharks by claiming "This fish I have known for 12 years is not a shark so all the other fish are not sharks"
 
2013-02-26 07:06:02 AM

vygramul: Legios: Yes, he can. Legally it's more tricky because of physiology, you're likely to get medical experts claiming (in court) he couldn't possibly get it up if he was that drunk. But absolutely. I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this. Statistically the rape of females is statiscially more prevalent, but not saying they're exclusive

/male
//studied psychology, criminology and justice

I think what's going on here is that he is suggesting if both of them were drunk, what stops him, when she files charges that she didn't give consent, from filing charges of his own, stating he didn't give consent.


Then we're moving more in to social "acceptance". We start moving in to the fact that the male was the penetrator (literally and figuratively). If we move back to the drink driving scenario, the female is a pedestrian, not driving. The male is the driver.

The male in most circumstances is the driver, the act of sexual perpetration. It gets all kinds of farked up when that happens though... Whether the male accepts the act, whether the female understands the act, what if, what if... and so forth.

The consent is the females to give, not the males to assume. If he's drunk and she didn't consent then it IS his fault because he was drunk in the act of penetration, much the same that is was his idea to get drunk and drive the car.

I'm not saying I agree, and honestly the whole concept is hard to wrap your head around and I'm not sure if I ever really could. But that's the public perception. Males don't/can't get raped, and only males rape.
 
2013-02-26 07:07:39 AM

Quinsisdos: Genevieve Marie: It's rare, but it does happen.

Only 1,267,000 victims in 2010.

/CDC NISVS 2010


That's all men who are forced to penetrate - not just the ones who can't remember.  (Table 2.2 is the only one with  1,267,000 in it.)
 
2013-02-26 07:08:44 AM

Legios: vygramul: Legios: Yes, he can. Legally it's more tricky because of physiology, you're likely to get medical experts claiming (in court) he couldn't possibly get it up if he was that drunk. But absolutely. I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this. Statistically the rape of females is statiscially more prevalent, but not saying they're exclusive

/male
//studied psychology, criminology and justice

I think what's going on here is that he is suggesting if both of them were drunk, what stops him, when she files charges that she didn't give consent, from filing charges of his own, stating he didn't give consent.

Then we're moving more in to social "acceptance". We start moving in to the fact that the male was the penetrator (literally and figuratively). If we move back to the drink driving scenario, the female is a pedestrian, not driving. The male is the driver.

The male in most circumstances is the driver, the act of sexual perpetration. It gets all kinds of farked up when that happens though... Whether the male accepts the act, whether the female understands the act, what if, what if... and so forth.

The consent is the females to give, not the males to assume. If he's drunk and she didn't consent then it IS his fault because he was drunk in the act of penetration, much the same that is was his idea to get drunk and drive the car.

I'm not saying I agree, and honestly the whole concept is hard to wrap your head around and I'm not sure if I ever really could. But that's the public perception. Males don't/can't get raped, and only males rape.


What if the female is out being a drunk pedestrian? That's illegal too. Being drunk at home is a good deal safer. If she's drunkenly wandering the streets and not paying attention to where she's walking and gets hit by a sober driver...Who's at fault?
 
2013-02-26 07:09:15 AM

Genevieve Marie: Thunderpipes: Rape is bad. Dude does it, he needs his ass kicked hard and thrown in jail. Everyone should agree on that. But there needs to be heavy laws in place to protect guys too. The Duke case was a spectacular example of how lopsided the justice system is against men.

You're probably not even worth responding to, but disgusting and obnoxious misogyny aside, do you not realize how insanely stupid it is to use a case that got thrown out and where the prosecutor was disbarred and all the men were exonerated as an example of how unfair the justice system is to men?


What do you htink would have happened if the parents of the players weren't loaded?

What do you think would have happened if her story wasn't so easily verifiably false?
 
2013-02-26 07:09:47 AM

Genevieve Marie: dready zim: Genevieve Marie: dready zim: You know, all I can think of is the other thread where men were trying to convince women that `that guy friend` actually really wants to hit you like the fist of an angry god and the women were all like "Nah, he`s my friend, he wouldn`t do that"

Then those women went out for a friendly drink with that guy and ended up in this thread...

Sigh. The whole "Oh ladies, any time you're friends with a guy, it can't be because he likes you and values you as a human, it is clearly all just a ruse to get to your vagina" trope is pretty obnoxious too.

You may find it obnoxious but that doesn`t stop it being true.

My best friend is a man. We've been best friends for twelve years. We lived together for three. Our friendship has always been platonic and neither of us has ever tried to change that. If that's why we're friends, he's playing a hell of a long game.


I`ve known a man play a game so long the woman got married, had kids, the kids grew up, the marriage failed and it was decades from the first meeting, after the divorce (I guess from your point of view `taking advantage` of her post divorce mental state) he said "I`ve always liked you, you know" and they started dating. Does my personal tale match yours in trying to prove or disprove the point that most men who are friends with women would bone them given the consequence free chance? As has been pointed out, most rapes are by someone you know, through the use of drink or drugs. Maybe there would be less if women thought "Yeah, he would given the chance" a bit more instead of "He would never think of me that way,he is my friend" and getting a nasty surprise...

A negative event can be a possible outcome of a situation you have placed yourself in and you can still not be at fault. You can however be aware it is a possible outcome and if possible take steps to avoid it.

Just to be clear, this is not putting the blame for rape anywhere except in the hands of the rapist. For example, if you walk into the bad part of town wearing lots of gold you might reasonably expect to be mugged and the fault of the mugging would belong completely to the mugger who should control their desire for your gold. You should not have to hide your gold to avoid being mugged (think `slut walk`) but there might be places or situations you wouldn`t want to flash a lot of gold about in...
 
2013-02-26 07:11:09 AM

Popular Opinion: i'm sure there are real sociopaths in the sample, but most (imho) just learned to do whatever they want, as long as they think they can get away with it.
they grow up knowing dad cheats on mom and his tax return...
certainly no fear of eternal damnation lol....
frightening and sad how common this is....


I have seen a lot of moronic explinations for date rape, but this takes the cake.

Parental infidelity and lack of religious beliefs?

You are a first rate moron.
 
2013-02-26 07:17:42 AM

robohobo: Legios: vygramul: Legios: Yes, he can. Legally it's more tricky because of physiology, you're likely to get medical experts claiming (in court) he couldn't possibly get it up if he was that drunk. But absolutely. I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this. Statistically the rape of females is statiscially more prevalent, but not saying they're exclusive

/male
//studied psychology, criminology and justice

I think what's going on here is that he is suggesting if both of them were drunk, what stops him, when she files charges that she didn't give consent, from filing charges of his own, stating he didn't give consent.

Then we're moving more in to social "acceptance". We start moving in to the fact that the male was the penetrator (literally and figuratively). If we move back to the drink driving scenario, the female is a pedestrian, not driving. The male is the driver.

The male in most circumstances is the driver, the act of sexual perpetration. It gets all kinds of farked up when that happens though... Whether the male accepts the act, whether the female understands the act, what if, what if... and so forth.

The consent is the females to give, not the males to assume. If he's drunk and she didn't consent then it IS his fault because he was drunk in the act of penetration, much the same that is was his idea to get drunk and drive the car.

I'm not saying I agree, and honestly the whole concept is hard to wrap your head around and I'm not sure if I ever really could. But that's the public perception. Males don't/can't get raped, and only males rape.

What if the female is out being a drunk pedestrian? That's illegal too. Being drunk at home is a good deal safer. If she's drunkenly wandering the streets and not paying attention to where she's walking and gets hit by a sober driver...Who's at fault?


Well in that case legally the driver.

Wow, this really is a shiatty analogy. It's about the fact that consent is always explicit, no matter what. And if s/he isn't able to give it, then it can be classified as rape. It isn't about the fact that the next more s/he regrets it. It's about the fact they weren't cognitively able to provide consent.

The fact that she's drunk doesn't give her the right to be hit, even if she's being an ass and wandering along the highway.
 
2013-02-26 07:19:43 AM
Gawd these threads are depressing. Some of you are truly awful human beings.
 
2013-02-26 07:20:32 AM

Legios: I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this


Legios: Dready Zim: just being drunk does not make it rape. If a drunk person comes up with the idea of having sex and then tomorrow doesn`t remember then he can`t go out and say to everybody "I was raped."

Assuming she explicity consents, yes. Otherwise it can technically be rape. (Also there's state laws on this. Even if she is drunk and says "yes" her consent is invalid because she is intoxicated.)
The rule really is, if she's sober and says yes, you're okay. If she's remotely intoxicated and says yes, don't be a moron and go "Whoo!"

Otherwise yes, she can. And it's legally valid.



.......
 
2013-02-26 07:21:21 AM

Legios: robohobo: Legios: vygramul: Legios: Yes, he can. Legally it's more tricky because of physiology, you're likely to get medical experts claiming (in court) he couldn't possibly get it up if he was that drunk. But absolutely. I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this. Statistically the rape of females is statiscially more prevalent, but not saying they're exclusive

/male
//studied psychology, criminology and justice

I think what's going on here is that he is suggesting if both of them were drunk, what stops him, when she files charges that she didn't give consent, from filing charges of his own, stating he didn't give consent.

Then we're moving more in to social "acceptance". We start moving in to the fact that the male was the penetrator (literally and figuratively). If we move back to the drink driving scenario, the female is a pedestrian, not driving. The male is the driver.

The male in most circumstances is the driver, the act of sexual perpetration. It gets all kinds of farked up when that happens though... Whether the male accepts the act, whether the female understands the act, what if, what if... and so forth.

The consent is the females to give, not the males to assume. If he's drunk and she didn't consent then it IS his fault because he was drunk in the act of penetration, much the same that is was his idea to get drunk and drive the car.

I'm not saying I agree, and honestly the whole concept is hard to wrap your head around and I'm not sure if I ever really could. But that's the public perception. Males don't/can't get raped, and only males rape.

What if the female is out being a drunk pedestrian? That's illegal too. Being drunk at home is a good deal safer. If she's drunkenly wandering the streets and not paying attention to where she's walking and gets hit by a sober driver...Who's at fault?

Well in that case legally the driver.

Wow, this really is a shiatty analogy. It's about the fact that consent is always e ...


Okay, fine. What is SHE's the drunk driver, offers a drunk bar patron a ride. They smash. But officer, He MADE me drive. What then? Is the woman always innocent by default?
 
2013-02-26 07:21:55 AM

Genevieve Marie: Nor is anyone at fault for the fact that someone chose to rape them when they were drunk. The rapist is the person who made an active choice to take advantage of someone. Being drunk while woman is not a crime that deserves punishment by rape.


Many, many men have got drunk and woken up next to women with whom they would not have slept had they been sober. Do you also consider these women to be rapists?
 
2013-02-26 07:24:09 AM

Abacus9: True, but this is not even remotely the same thing. In fact, the errors in judgment mad buy a drunk driver are exactly why a rape victim is not held accountable for being raped while drunk.


We hold drunk drivers responsible for the acts they commit while drunk.
 
2013-02-26 07:25:26 AM

dready zim: Legios: I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this

Legios: Dready Zim: just being drunk does not make it rape. If a drunk person comes up with the idea of having sex and then tomorrow doesn`t remember then he can`t go out and say to everybody "I was raped."

Assuming she explicity consents, yes. Otherwise it can technically be rape. (Also there's state laws on this. Even if she is drunk and says "yes" her consent is invalid because she is intoxicated.)
The rule really is, if she's sober and says yes, you're okay. If she's remotely intoxicated and says yes, don't be a moron and go "Whoo!"

Otherwise yes, she can. And it's legally valid.


.......


The topic of conversation was about the rape of females. The further post I made indicates gender neutrality. Males can be raped, however if you want to talk about statistical significance, it leans strongly towards females. But yes, males can and are raped.

/For ellipses use three
 
2013-02-26 07:27:16 AM

vygramul: If I was unclear, my example was focused on how the drunk driver doesn't get out of the manslaughter charge just because they were both drunk, meaning the drunk rapist doesn't get out of a rape charge even though they were both drunk.


If two drunk people (whether MM, FM or FF is irrelevant here) have sex together, which one is the rapist?
 
2013-02-26 07:27:51 AM

orbister: vygramul: If I was unclear, my example was focused on how the drunk driver doesn't get out of the manslaughter charge just because they were both drunk, meaning the drunk rapist doesn't get out of a rape charge even though they were both drunk.

If two drunk people (whether MM, FM or FF is irrelevant here) have sex together, which one is the rapist?


the one with a higher body fat percentage
 
2013-02-26 07:28:20 AM

orbister: Abacus9: True, but this is not even remotely the same thing. In fact, the errors in judgment mad buy a drunk driver are exactly why a rape victim is not held accountable for being raped while drunk.

We hold drunk drivers responsible for the acts they commit while drunk.


Acts they commit upon others, not acts that are committed upon themselves for being drunk. If they faceplant and end up in hospital, they'll cop shiat about it, but not a criminal charge.

robohobo:
Okay, fine. What is SHE's the drunk driver, offers a drunk bar patron a ride. They smash. But officer, He MADE me drive. What then? Is the woman always innocent by default?

If he literally forced her to drive then yes, she is innocent. She was effectively a hostage in that situation being forced to perform the actions under duress.
 
2013-02-26 07:28:56 AM

Genevieve Marie: The scenario I described earlier in the thread- the one that's more indicative of most university sexual violence- would you consider that a reasonable allegation of rape?


BS.

Most university sexual violence happens when drunk, not when walking home from class.
 
2013-02-26 07:30:07 AM

Legios: orbister: Abacus9: True, but this is not even remotely the same thing. In fact, the errors in judgment mad buy a drunk driver are exactly why a rape victim is not held accountable for being raped while drunk.

We hold drunk drivers responsible for the acts they commit while drunk.

Acts they commit upon others, not acts that are committed upon themselves for being drunk. If they faceplant and end up in hospital, they'll cop shiat about it, but not a criminal charge.

robohobo:
Okay, fine. What is SHE's the drunk driver, offers a drunk bar patron a ride. They smash. But officer, He MADE me drive. What then? Is the woman always innocent by default?

If he literally forced her to drive then yes, she is innocent. She was effectively a hostage in that situation being forced to perform the actions under duress.


I think the analogy is being taken way beyond any usefulness.
 
2013-02-26 07:30:39 AM

orbister: vygramul: If I was unclear, my example was focused on how the drunk driver doesn't get out of the manslaughter charge just because they were both drunk, meaning the drunk rapist doesn't get out of a rape charge even though they were both drunk.

If two drunk people (whether MM, FM or FF is irrelevant here) have sex together, which one is the rapist?


Going by this thread, it's always the male. Always. Reminds me of a video I see pop up every now and again on porn sites where this chick at a sex party blows a guy, excitedly gets the facial, but two seconds later gets all cryfaced after it sinks in what she's done. But remember, it's his fault.
 
2013-02-26 07:30:52 AM

Legios: I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this.


Legios: The consent is the females to give


Legios: If we move back to the drink driving scenario, the female is a pedestrian, not driving. The male is the driver.


Because you are stating law and it is weighted against men in this area. That is why your comments appear weighted toward females.
 
2013-02-26 07:31:37 AM

Genevieve Marie: Of course, if he feels that the sex happened without his consent. It's happened before. It's rare, but it does happen.


It's actually extremely common, but is trivialised by people who say "Don't be silly. You can't have been raped by a woman, Only men rape, and they do it all the time."
 
2013-02-26 07:32:33 AM
So many posts... I guess you guys really love rape.
 
2013-02-26 07:33:21 AM

dready zim: Legios: I'm... Not entirely sure why you're thinking I'm taking the female side of this.

Legios: The consent is the females to give

Legios: If we move back to the drink driving scenario, the female is a pedestrian, not driving. The male is the driver.

Because you are stating law and it is weighted against men in this area. That is why your comments appear weighted toward females.


It is literally how the law perceives it and how many people do. So apologise if that came across as my view(s).

vygramul: Legios: orbister: Abacus9: True, but this is not even remotely the same thing. In fact, the errors in judgment mad buy a drunk driver are exactly why a rape victim is not held accountable for being raped while drunk.

We hold drunk drivers responsible for the acts they commit while drunk.

Acts they commit upon others, not acts that are committed upon themselves for being drunk. If they faceplant and end up in hospital, they'll cop shiat about it, but not a criminal charge.

robohobo:
Okay, fine. What is SHE's the drunk driver, offers a drunk bar patron a ride. They smash. But officer, He MADE me drive. What then? Is the woman always innocent by default?

If he literally forced her to drive then yes, she is innocent. She was effectively a hostage in that situation being forced to perform the actions under duress.

I think the analogy is being taken way beyond any usefulness.


I completely agree.
 
2013-02-26 07:33:24 AM

robohobo: orbister: vygramul: If I was unclear, my example was focused on how the drunk driver doesn't get out of the manslaughter charge just because they were both drunk, meaning the drunk rapist doesn't get out of a rape charge even though they were both drunk.

If two drunk people (whether MM, FM or FF is irrelevant here) have sex together, which one is the rapist?

Going by this thread, it's always the male. Always. Reminds me of a video I see pop up every now and again on porn sites where this chick at a sex party blows a guy, excitedly gets the facial, but two seconds later gets all cryfaced after it sinks in what she's done. But remember, it's his fault.


yeah but 2/3rds of his problem is gays
 
2013-02-26 07:33:28 AM

Legios: orbister: Abacus9: True, but this is not even remotely the same thing. In fact, the errors in judgment mad buy a drunk driver are exactly why a rape victim is not held accountable for being raped while drunk.

We hold drunk drivers responsible for the acts they commit while drunk.

Acts they commit upon others, not acts that are committed upon themselves for being drunk. If they faceplant and end up in hospital, they'll cop shiat about it, but not a criminal charge.

robohobo:
Okay, fine. What is SHE's the drunk driver, offers a drunk bar patron a ride. They smash. But officer, He MADE me drive. What then? Is the woman always innocent by default?

If he literally forced her to drive then yes, she is innocent. She was effectively a hostage in that situation being forced to perform the actions under duress.


But in this case he didn't. She was more than happy to drive him until consequences, then it's all his fault. That's the thing. This shiat is impossible to prove, yet it's almost always HIS fault.
 
2013-02-26 07:34:34 AM

dready zim: Just to be clear, this is not putting the blame for rape anywhere except in the hands of the rapist. For example, if you walk into the bad part of town wearing lots of gold you might reasonably expect to be mugged and the fault of the mugging would belong completely to the mugger who should control their desire for your gold. You should not have to hide your gold to avoid being mugged (think `slut walk`) but there might be places or situations you wouldn`t want to flash a lot of gold about in...


Sigh. And the property analogy begins. The idea that just existing while female- having a body that exists in a culture that commoodifies female bodies- is somehow irresponsible.
 
Displayed 50 of 1269 comments

First | « | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report