The F-word (Feminism)

[Kenkay]

No, both participants being drunk has resulted in rape trials getting thrown out.

Once again, it's about ultimate culpability. If I found someone blackout drunk and convinced them to kill someone for me, believe me, I would be legally liable too.

Not guilty by mental defect. Drunk drivers and impaired drivers have tried this defense many times and failed. Yet you can get out of a legally binding contract if you were drunk when you entered into it and you can't consent to sex while drunk. This is the double standard. I'm talking about the morality here. If you are not mentally fit at the time of committing the crime or can not help in your own defense at trial you are not guilty because you were not responsible for your actions. If you can not be expected to honor a legally binding contract or are not mentally fit enough to consent to sex then how can you be mentally fit enough to be held accountable for criminal acts? And there may have been cases thrown out because both parties were drunk. But not even close to all of them. I was a witness in one such case where both he and she were hammered. He went to jail. She's a victim.

anyway. In the , oviedo 40 days and 40 nights a manwhore decides to give up sex for lent as an attempt to get right with himself. Towards the end of the 40 days his jealous ex finds him passed out drunk cuffed to his bed. He had his friend cuff him there because he was afraid he would screw up his abstinence. Crazy ex comes in gets him hard and screws him. His new girlfriend finds him like that gets pissed and storms off. Woman in the audience at the theater yells out and I quote. "Fuck that whoop his cheating ass" all the women in the audience cheer and agree with him.

Back to the movie, him trying to get his girl back. He has to apologize to her because his crazy ex fucked him while he was passed out.

Again double standard. Not because of what he had to do in the movie to get the girl. But because of the reaction from the crowd. Had that been a woman passed out cuffed to the bed you would have seen a very different reaction.

A week after the movie aired there was some controversy about that scene. There was a well known woman's rights activist that made an off handed comment during an interview. She actually said, men can't be raped.

My own girlfriend at the time, who had herself been a victim of a brutal rape actually told me yeah, he cheated on her. He got hard. Uhm sorry sweetheart. Does that mean because your body had an orgasm during your rape that he was making love to you? Yeah. Dick thing to say. But the point was valid.

 

[Trygon]

Holy SHIT, did you actually throw your GIRLFRIEND'S RAPE into her face TO PROVE A POINT!?

 

[Kenkay]

Like I said it was a dick thing to say. But needed to be said. But thank you for ignoring the other points I made in my post.

 

[SweetKissHardBite]

WHO IN FUCKTOPIA FILMED THAT SCENE FOR A LIGHTHEARTED ROM-COM!? o___oU

Seriously!? I knew things in Rom-Com-town were bad, but SERIOUSLY!? And I dunno if Ken's answer could even count as a dick move, I mean, its like after seeing some guy getting run over by a car in a movie, turn around and tell you: See that penis there? THAT keeps you from getting run over, that was all movie magic, it doesn't happen in real life

Sorry, I'm ranting a bit, but who even says a thing like: Men can't get raped, only vaginas can

 

[Kenkay]

WHO IN FUCKTOPIA FILMED THAT SCENE FOR A LIGHTHEARTED ROM-COM!? o___oU

Seriously!? I knew things in Rom-Com-town were bad, but SERIOUSLY!? And I dunno if Ken's answer could even count as a dick move, I mean, its like after seeing some guy getting run over by a car in a movie, turn around and tell you: See that penis there? THAT keeps you from getting run over, that was all movie magic, it doesn't happen in real life

Sorry, I'm ranting a bit, but who even says a thing like: Men can't get raped, only vaginas can

Guess it just goes to show how bad it's gotten? That men rape is seen as funny, that it's seen as his fault. I mean even if we go the route of "he was hard, thus some part of him wanted it, so cheating" we have to consider that men can get hard at the drop of a hat about anything. That is another comedy trope isn't it? The inappropriate boner. So, if flag poles are standing to attention in the middle of a high school report at the front of a class, or in the middle of talking to a girl they like, how in God's name can it be "this is always 100% what he wants to happen" in the case of a gal climbing on top of him with him blasted out of his skull, delirious, or actively telling her "no". The dehumanization of men in this society is sickening and it is truly laughable that feminists think women suffer in that way. I find a great deal of feminist points and ideological theories become more true when you invert the genders being talked about.

And then the outrage over objectification of women. Gals. Those porn stars make hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. The men? They're called props.

 

[Trygon]

Like I said it was a dick thing to say. But needed to be said. But thank you for ignoring the other points I made in my post.

I generally find sociopaths lack the frame of reference needed to communicate effectively. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you're hopelessly rockheaded, and not totally devoid of empathy.

Even a stone can be made useful, after all.

Please bear in mind that there's no accounting for the personal vagaries of individual judges. What happened to your buddy sounds like a miscarriage of justice, the way you tell it. I'd imagine he had a crap lawyer.

Not guilty by mental defect. Drunk drivers and impaired drivers have tried this defense many times and failed. Yet you can get out of a legally binding contract if you were drunk when you entered into it and you can't consent to sex while drunk. This is the double standard. I'm talking about the morality here. If you are not mentally fit at the time of committing the crime or can not help in your own defense at trial you are not guilty because you were not responsible for your actions. If you can not be expected to honor a legally binding contract or are not mentally fit enough to consent to sex then how can you be mentally fit enough to be held accountable for criminal acts? And there may have been cases thrown out because both parties were drunk. But not even close to all of them. I was a witness in one such case where both he and she were hammered. He went to jail. She's a victim.

You failed to grasp the point of my earlier example, that when another party influences someone who is inebriated, that person has some responsibility for what follows.

If you sign a contract giving away your house, or if you give away your body, so to speak, the person that accepted your house/genitals can be reasonably assumed to be up to no good, if the victim, upon sober reflection, feels victimized.

If you drive a car/kill a man, the definition of victim shifts. Nobody has stuffed you into your car and thrown a brick on the gas pedal (And if someone did, they would be prosecuted, which was my initial example).

Starting to see a delineation now, or are you going to continue stubbornly insisting that a third party profiting doesn't change the situation at all?

 

[Kenkay]

You completely ignored the point and shifted the focus to your obscured view of the discussion at hand. But thank you very much for the witty insults. They are a sign of a loosing argument.

To be able to claim that you are not responsible for your actions when you commit a crime you must show that you were not in control of your faculties. By stating that a drunk person is not in control of their faculties and can not consent to sex you validate my claim.

 

[Trygon]

k buddy. I'm out. Good luck with that personality disease.

 

[SweetKissHardBite]

Gotta love how Feminists (Who tend to think of themselves as 'progressive') almost invariably show their true colors resort to personal attacks and name calling the minute their arguments are proven wrong (Kind of makes me think of debating Creationists)

In any case, I don't think someone getting themselves drunk should have a free pass on anything, if you got yourself there, you better be ready to get yourself out, if someone, says, drugs you with the especific intent of getting something out of you, then sure, there you got a crime, but if I go out, get myself blackout drunk and then jump some unsuspecting guy, why is it diferent if we have sex (I'm the victim) than if I punch him (He the victim)?

Or am I supposed to believe that just cause I got a vagina, I'm unable to give sex, just to 'recieve' sex?

Back on to that awful movie tho *Shivvers* I am just at a loss of words, sometimes I get surprised by how anti-male regular media gets, how hateful and spiteful against guys, just to please women

 

[SweetKissHardBite]

I get it, the natural, instinctual urge to protect women makes us feel like we should step in and do "the honorable thing" for her because she is a (generally) more vulnerable and important member of the species.

That's it, right there, you hit the nail in the head, even now, no, specially now, women will get a free pass for being both more vulnerable (We aren't, we are the most protected people, by both law and human nature) and more imprtant (we aren't, we might have been in the cave time, because we are the limiting factor in reproduction, but seriously, that hasn't been an issue in how long now?), so I hope we can give that: Women are magic, shit a break

I'm a human being, I'm not magic, I worth as much as any of you (Not more, not less), its great males put others infront of them, if it wasn't for that instinct, we wouldn't had made it this way, but we as a society are taking it for granted

And Feminism is exploiting both those things, those bitches

 

[MellowYellow]

Given the current direction of this thread (Which is to say, unpleasant and involving unnecessary snipes between users) it is hereby closed until further notice.