armypilot: Ok, if you want to pretend you never said what you said, fine.
If your comments weren't worth repeating, they weren't worth posting in the first place, I'm glad you concede that point.

It wasn't worth repeating what the OTHER GUY SAID. Jeez.

armypilot: blah blah blah

I'm wrong about nothing I said, and didn't lie either. You're being obtuse.

armypilot: I never said you said that men can't get raped. I said that you said when both are drunk, it is almost always the man's fault. I then pointed out that if a man is responsible when both are drunk, he has to, logically, be responsible when only he is drunk.

This is the flaw in your reasoning. I said it was a gray area, but when both are drunk, it IS almost always the man's fault. I never said, and don't believe, that when only the man is drunk, that he is responsible. In fact I said the opposite, earlier on. It is not logical to assume that if only the man is drunk, that he is responsible. He is unable to give consent, and would then be the victim. And I said exactly this. You pointing out what you assume to be logical is not "my allegation". That was all you.

MagSeven: Abacus9: armypilot: You just said exactly what I was insinuating you we're saying except you left out where you called the poster's allegations ridiculous.

It wasn't worth repeating.

armypilot: You also left out the part where you said, without qualifier, that in such situations it was prior planning on the part of the guy. You didn't back off on this until I pointed it out.

I didn't say absolutely 100% of the time either. It was a generalization, and only applied to the part where they were both drunk. I've already explained this, and had you read my comments earlier in the thread, you would know this (as everyone else here seems to).

armypilot: Listen, I don't get anything for being right. No reward, no applause, nothing tangible. This isn't just me attacking you randomly, though I am attacking you. Consider what I'm saying minus your ego

Uh, you're not right, and this has nothing to do with ego. It has to do with you being an ass for no reason.

What I'm saying is that you said, point blank, that in these situations, the man is responsible and acted with malice aforethought. I'm pointing out, that in making that assertion, you are being just as bad as those you rail against. We have examples here in this thread that men can be raped by women. Either we, as a society, need to hold both or neither accountable (read:equality under the law) in that situation or we need to throw up our hands and make the decision that rape is ok for some, not for others.

I never said men couldn't get raped. Again, I was talking about a very specific circumstance, and even admitted it was a gray area. Stop being disingenuous.

I get that you aren't saying that only men can rape, but this sentence of yours :"The fact that this sort of thing happens at all, where both are drunk, is basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy."
That is very one sided and farked up on a few levels. I can see where Armypilot (I assume), myself and any other guy who doesn't rape women can get ...

I admit I was generalizing, based on what I've seen troglodytes do in college. I knew some creeps that would try to avoid responsibility by saying "Hey, I was drunk too!" when in reality they had planned it that way. I'm not saying it's 100% of the time.

Abacus9: MagSeven: Abacus9: armypilot: You just said exactly what I was insinuating you we're saying except you left out where you called the poster's allegations ridiculous.

It wasn't worth repeating.

armypilot: You also left out the part where you said, without qualifier, that in such situations it was prior planning on the part of the guy. You didn't back off on this until I pointed it out.

I didn't say absolutely 100% of the time either. It was a generalization, and only applied to the part where they were both drunk. I've already explained this, and had you read my comments earlier in the thread, you would know this (as everyone else here seems to).

armypilot: Listen, I don't get anything for being right. No reward, no applause, nothing tangible. This isn't just me attacking you randomly, though I am attacking you. Consider what I'm saying minus your ego

Uh, you're not right, and this has nothing to do with ego. It has to do with you being an ass for no reason.

What I'm saying is that you said, point blank, that in these situations, the man is responsible and acted with malice aforethought. I'm pointing out, that in making that assertion, you are being just as bad as those you rail against. We have examples here in this thread that men can be raped by women. Either we, as a society, need to hold both or neither accountable (read:equality under the law) in that situation or we need to throw up our hands and make the decision that rape is ok for some, not for others.

I never said men couldn't get raped. Again, I was talking about a very specific circumstance, and even admitted it was a gray area. Stop being disingenuous.

I get that you aren't saying that only men can rape, but this sentence of yours :"The fact that this sort of thing happens at all, where both are drunk, is basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy."
That is very one sided and farked up on a few levels. I can see where Armypilot (I assume), myself and any other guy who doesn't rape wome ...
Ok. As long as you admit you were generalizing. I also can't say your generalization is accurate, but I guess it is from your experience. Not so much mine.  I know there are some predators out there who will absolutely get farked up and/or get girls farked up and take advantage according to plan, but in my experience it isn't the majority (or maybe I know really good people, God willing.). Believe it or not, a guy and a girl can both get farked up and have full recollection of what they are doing. My last two long term relationships were a result of us both being drunk and just deciding to go for it and we had a whole drunken discourse of "oh we shouldn't do this, we work together or we shouldn't do this our mutual friends will find out..." Long story short, we both did it, both loved it and kept doing it over and over for around a year and a half/currently. Some of my friends, male and female have had marriages form from a mutually consensual drunken hookup. None of any of it planned out in some sort of Rape-Man master-plan.

Abacus9: This is the flaw in your reasoning. I said it was a gray area, but when both are drunk, it IS almost always the man's fault.

You have presented absolutely no factual evidence whatsoever that your assertion regarding fault is based upon anything other than the sexist belief that men are mindless animals whose only motivation is to stick their penises in something and will stop at nothing to achieve that goal.

No wonder armypilot is calling you out on your bullshiat.

Abacus9: I admit I was generalizing, based on what I've seen troglodytes do in college. I knew some creeps that would try to avoid responsibility by saying "Hey, I was drunk too!" when in reality they had planned it that way. I'm not saying it's 100% of the time.

I bet you would be shocked to find out that there exist women who, although they want to fark the hot guy while they're sober, will wait until they're drunk to do it so that they have a built in 'excuse' for exercising the kind of 'slutty' behavior that a good girl would never, ever do.

Some people drink to lower their inhibitions and then act on the desires that they have while sober. Your attitudes about men are still hateful and sexist, just as they would be if you were 'generalizing' about women.

Abacus9: serial_crusher: Abacus9: People don't always act logically after a traumatic experience. You are no different, no matter how robotic you try to be, tough guy

I don't like the mentality that says that instinctive behavior is automatically acceptable and should therefore be approved.  People don't always obey the speed limit.  People don't always hold their farts in until they're in a different room from their friends.

You're comparing rape victims to people who break laws and have no consideration for their friends. I can see why it's so easy for you to blame the victim, you think of them as the bad person in the scenario.

Ah yes, all comparisons are invalid.  One of my favorite Internet arguments.
At least be honest about it.  I wasn't comparing "rape victims" to speeders and farters.  I was comparing rape victims who are too weak to report it to the police.  If you're going to summarize that, summarize it as "weak people", not "rape victims".

But, if you want a closer comparison, consider Good Samaritan/duty-to-assist laws.  People in general have an obligation to help others in emergencies.  You witness a crime and don't do anything to help (i.e. calling the police), you're not fulfilling your obligation.
Being the victim instead of a bystanding witness doesn't change that obligation at all.  If you know there's a rapist on the loose, you're obligated to report him to the police so they can stop him from raping anybody else.

So yeah, a person who lets a violent crime go unreported is a "bad person" in whichever scenario they're in.

heili skrimsli: Abacus9: This is the flaw in your reasoning. I said it was a gray area, but when both are drunk, it IS almost always the man's fault.

You have presented absolutely no factual evidence whatsoever that your assertion regarding fault is based upon anything other than the sexist belief that men are mindless animals whose only motivation is to stick their penises in something and will stop at nothing to achieve that goal.

Notice the words in bold. And when you read my comments in context of everything else I said in the thread, you will know that this is based on my own personal observation.

No wonder armypilot is calling you out on your bullshiat.

Abacus9: I admit I was generalizing, based on what I've seen troglodytes do in college. I knew some creeps that would try to avoid responsibility by saying "Hey, I was drunk too!" when in reality they had planned it that way. I'm not saying it's 100% of the time.

I bet you would be shocked to find out that there exist women who, although they want to fark the hot guy while they're sober, will wait until they're drunk to do it so that they have a built in 'excuse' for exercising the kind of 'slutty' behavior that a good girl would never, ever do.

Some people drink to lower their inhibitions and then act on the desires that they have while sober. Your attitudes about men are still hateful and sexist, just as they would be if you were 'generalizing' about women.

I'm not saying you're wrong. I just don't think it's as common. Notice that I was just making a general statement.

serial_crusher: Abacus9: serial_crusher: Abacus9: People don't always act logically after a traumatic experience. You are no different, no matter how robotic you try to be, tough guy

I don't like the mentality that says that instinctive behavior is automatically acceptable and should therefore be approved.  People don't always obey the speed limit.  People don't always hold their farts in until they're in a different room from their friends.

You're comparing rape victims to people who break laws and have no consideration for their friends. I can see why it's so easy for you to blame the victim, you think of them as the bad person in the scenario.

Ah yes, all comparisons are invalid.  One of my favorite Internet arguments.
At least be honest about it.  I wasn't comparing "rape victims" to speeders and farters.  I was comparing rape victims who are too weak to report it to the police.  If you're going to summarize that, summarize it as "weak people", not "rape victims".

But, if you want a closer comparison, consider Good Samaritan/duty-to-assist laws.  People in general have an obligation to help others in emergencies.  You witness a crime and don't do anything to help (i.e. calling the police), you're not fulfilling your obligation.
Being the victim instead of a bystanding witness doesn't change that obligation at all.  If you know there's a rapist on the loose, you're obligated to report him to the police so they can stop him from raping anybody else.

So yeah, a person who lets a violent crime go unreported is a "bad person" in whichever scenario they're in.

You're basically calling the victim a criminal for not reporting the assault against them. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if that's what you're actually saying, then you are an idiot.

Firethorn: Abacus9: I see your point, and it can be a bit of a gray area. I'm just saying that in the case where they're both drunk, it's almost always the girl who didn't consent. The guy knows what he's doing, and is the one doing the actual penetrating. This is done willingly. The sentence of yours that I've bolded is sort of ridiculous. The fact that this sort of thing happens at all, where both are drunk, is basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy.

There are women out there that do the same.

Sure, it's just not as common. I was talking generally.

There are legislators out there that want to make it so that if a woman(specifically a WOMAN) is too drunk to drive, she's too drunk to consent to sex.  That's sexist on a wide number of ways, against both men and women.  As others have mentioned, the 'drunk hookup' happens fairly frequently.

Legally speaking, I think that if you can be charged with a felony for drunk driving, you should be liable for any sexual acts you *consent to* while drunk or otherwise intoxicated.  Don't want to wake up next to some horror that causes you to want to chew off your arm to get away?  Don't get that drunk.

The difference is that drunk driving is illegal, and in that instance you would be a criminal. If you're raped, you're a victim. Nobody deserves it. You're making the same sort of argument that if she dressed too slutty, and gets raped, that she is somehow responsible. No.

Roofies, drinks spiked with more alcohol than they're supposed to have, etc...  Are a different matter.  I'm talking about voluntary intoxication.alking generally.

I know, so am I (sorry, but the italics won't shut off for some reason).

OgreMagi: Abacus9: The usual objection when both people are drunk is based on a nonviolent hypothetical, where both people enthusiastically engage in sex. However, the drunkenness definitionally means it wasn't consentual. She could have been in a dominant cowoy position and lowered herself onto his member and it wouldn't matter. She is drunk and therefore not giving consent. But so is he - he is not giving consent either. That is the scenario that creates the troubling asymmetry.

I see your point, and it can be a bit of a gray area. I'm just saying that in the case where they're both drunk, it's almost always the girl who didn't consent. The guy knows what he's doing, and is the one doing the actual penetrating. This is done willingly. The sentence of yours that I've bolded is sort of ridiculous. The fact that this sort of thing happens at all, where both are drunk, is basically just planning ahead on the part of the guy.

No, it's not "sort of ridiculous".  That exact scenario happened to me.  I wasn't planning on staying around, but she offered me wine and was coming on to me.  We ended up partying and doing the dirty.   I went to sleep a bit drunk.  Later that night she woke me up in exactly that manner described above.

No, I didn't have a problem with that.  But you are implying that because she was drunk I was guilty of a crime and that it was premeditated.

Sorry, I didn't mean in all cases. I just meant that it is less likely. I don't think you are guilty of a crime, but it happens more than a lot of people would expect. Was she drunk too?

Dokushin: Abacus9: when both are drunk, it IS almost always the man's fault.

According to you, a woman  cannot give consent while drunk, and a man  can give consent while drunk.  Why the difference?

A man cannot give consent while drunk either, but is much more likely to be culpable for a crime.

Abacus9: You're basically calling the victim a criminal for not reporting the assault against them. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if that's what you're actually saying, then you are an idiot

Wouldn't go so far as to say criminal.  Remember earlier when I compared it to speeding or farting?  Well, it's worse than both of those, but not anywhere near as bad as actually doing the raping.

serial_crusher: Abacus9: You're basically calling the victim a criminal for not reporting the assault against them. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but if that's what you're actually saying, then you are an idiot

Wouldn't go so far as to say criminal.  Remember earlier when I compared it to speeding or farting?  Well, it's worse than both of those, but not anywhere near as bad as actually doing the raping.

Failing to report your own rape is worse than speeding? Sorry, I don't get your reasoning. Failing to report a crime is wrong if you're witness to one, not victim of one. Especially in a case where someone is raped. It's humiliating, and then you get subjected to all sorts of questioning that you'd rather not answer, invasive testing when you'd rather be left alone. Many victims end up with symptoms very similar to PSTD. I agree that they should report the crime, but I understand if they don't.

Dokushin: Abacus9: A man cannot give consent while drunk either, but is much more likely to be culpable for a crime.

Why can't a man give consent while drunk?  Isn't it because his reasoning is impaired?

Yes.

  Why does this still leave him culpable for a crime, when he's doing the same thing the woman is?

It doesn't necessarily, but it could, and is more likely for the man to be guilty than the woman (in the case of him planning it ahead of time - I know pigs that have done this). They're not really doing the same thing: he's doing the penetrating, she's the one being invaded (possibly).

  How do you demonstrate, let alone prove, culpability here?  You use the word "crime" specifically, which sets a high standard of proof; how do you support it?

I don't. Like I said, it's a gray area, and a he said/she said. I don't really know how you would go about proving this sort of thing, but I guess that's what the criminal justice system is for.

Firethorn: Abacus9: Many victims end up with symptoms very similar to PSTD. I agree that they should report the crime, but I understand if they don't.

This is pretty much my thought on the matter.

Statistics I've read show that there's something like a 20-30% conviction rate for reported rapes.  The typical rapist is a serial rapist, so they aren't stopping until they're arrested(and convicted).  Each rapist has, on average, 17-18 completed rapes before they're caught.  The military, on the other hand, drops that down to 6 completed rapes, on average, with a higher report and conviction rate.

If women who were raped would just report it, we could drop the number of rapes down to something like 1/4-1/6th it's current rate.

I was talking mostly about date rape, which is probably more prevalent in colleges than anywhere else. The sad thing is, it's rarely reported. Partly due to the victim's reluctance, but it's also a lot harder to prove. One person's word against another. But I do agree that it may change if people would start reporting it more.

/completed rapes?