goemaw.com
General Discussion => The New Joe Montgomery Birther Pit => Topic started by: Mrs. Gooch on November 16, 2017, 11:21:20 AM
-
I'd like to do a thought experiment. I'm going to list 10 scenarios. Please tell us which of these scenarios you think are ok and which are definitely not ok and which are maybe just a little bit inappropriate. I am interested to see where some people draw a line and how it differs between people. TIA
1. Two 14 year-olds kiss (with tongue).
2. After a year of dating, a 14.9 year-old and a 18.1 year-old have sexual intercourse.
3. After their a first date (to the prom), an 18 year old year old (Senior) and a 14 year old (Freshman) have sexual intercourse. The Freshman wasn't planning on having sex but didn't protest because the Senior is popular.
4. Two fast food co-workers fool around after work. This includes removal of pants but no intercourse. One is 16. The other is the 20 year-old shift manager.
5. A hot celebrity shows their genitals to a fan back stage in the dressing room. They did not ask permission but the fan smiled.
6. A 28 year-old asks a 14 year-old out on a date.
7. 3 friends are playing strip poker. After most of the clothes are off, one of them forcefully pulls another into a bedroom and locks it. The third has to almost break the door down to get them to stop.
8. A drunk person forcefully puts his/her hand down the pants of another person without warning.
9. Two drunk people have sex. Neither of them expressed consent.
10. As a joke, a person grabs the butt of another person. They are acquaintances but not good friends.
-
None of those are good ideas, mrs gooch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
None of those are good ideas, mrs gooch.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
OK, maybe I should be more clear. Which of these are sexual assault/harassment/misconduct?
-
2,3,4,5,6,7,8,10
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
2 3 5 6 7 8 10
4 was the hardest but I guess depends on state laws.
Personally it’s wrong but that wouldn’t be illegal in ks.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
okay: 1, 9
-
I'd like to do a thought experiment. I'm going to list 10 scenarios. Please tell us which of these scenarios you think are ok and which are definitely not ok and which are maybe just a little bit inappropriate. I am interested to see where some people draw a line and how it differs between people. TIA
1. Two 14 year-olds kiss (with tongue). - Who cares
2. After a year of dating, a 14.9 year-old and a 18.1 year-old have sexual intercourse. Too big of an age differences. I understand the idea of Romeo and Juliet Laws and the 4 years gap after age 15 thing, but I would pretty much codify that to be the age of the individual in years / 2 + 7 Rounding up for ages like 19. So I 18 year old could be with a 16, 19 & 20 with 17, and every other age on it's all adults, so then who cares. I guess though who would be willing to come forward to provide proof. I honestly doubt if under dating scenarios anyone would turn this particular situation in, and the DA could use some discretion, but still, they should wait.
3. After their a first date (to the prom), an 18 year old year old (Senior) and a 14 year old (Freshman) have sexual intercourse. The Freshman wasn't planning on having sex but didn't protest because the Senior is popular. Statutory rape
4. Two fast food co-workers fool around after work. This includes removal of pants but no intercourse. One is 16. The other is the 20 year-old shift manager. Statutory harassment, if they turn it in
5. A hot celebrity shows their genitals to a fan back stage in the dressing room. They did not ask permission but the fan smiled. Sexual misconduct but if everyone is of age, it should be a rather minor crime
6. A 28 year-old asks a 14 year-old out on a date. Hell no
7. 3 friends are playing strip poker. After most of the clothes are off, one of them forcefully pulls another into a bedroom and locks it. The third has to almost break the door down to get them to stop. Even if you remove the strip part out that's doing something against someone's will, could be battery/assault
8. A drunk person forcefully puts his/her hand down the pants of another person without warning. Some sort of misdemeanor sexual assault
9. Two drunk people have sex. Neither of them expressed consent. Not sure, kind of an offsetting penalty replay first down sort of deal. Don't think either was in the right or wrong, also bet many random hookups happen this way
10. As a joke, a person grabs the butt of another person. They are acquaintances but not good friends. Low grade version of 8, but that should end with a "Hey, don't do that that isn't right/cool" Could be charges but I think you'd have a lot of people subject to this violation, a lot.
-
Do you care about the genders involved? There are a lot of people who would consider #9 a sexual assault, depending on the genders.
-
In 8th grade, our girls had a grab ass contest. Whomever forcefully grabbed the most football players butts by the end of the day, won. I feel violated now.
-
Those were just the times tho...
-
I don't care about their gender really, but political affiliation would really clear things up for a lot of ge'ers
-
I don't care about their gender really, but political affiliation would really clear things up for a lot of ge'ers
Sometimes 27 displays remarkable self awareness
-
#2 would be more like the parents having a problem with it and trying to get it prosecuted.
-
I lived #2, but she was 15 and a half and her parents approved and gave consent, so I definitely feel like it's a case by case scenario.
Also, any hot gems from last years election of Franken attacking Trump for "locker room" talk? I'd love to see those about right now.
-
Yikes
-
"parental consent"
-
"parental consent"
Did they know you were having sex? Or did they just consent to the dating?
-
I cannot even imagine a father who would "consent" for an 18 yr old guy to sleep with his 15 yo daughter. Belongs in Alabama thread? Worse?
-
Yeah. I can't imagine asking a father if it's ok for you to have sex with his daughter at any age, really.
-
"parental consent"
Did they know you were having sex? Or did they just consent to the dating?
The mom took her to the doctor to get her on birth control. They took me everywhere. They loved me. I should clarify, we started dating 2nd semester of my Senior year and dated for 3 years after that. I believe she turned 16 at my graduation.
-
Outside the first one, everything in the list seems pretty bad to me, some worse than others of course.
And wacky, my goodness. I mean, you just never seem to be able to top yourself sometimes.
-
When we broke up, he called me saying it has to workout. We were too perfect for each other and they thought of me as part of the family. Freaking out over a 3 year difference is pretty laughable tho. Carry on.
-
Outside the first one, everything in the list seems pretty bad to me, some worse than others of course.
And wacky, my goodness. I mean, you just never seem to be able to top yourself sometimes.
This has been brought up down here before. It was only a matter of time before it got brought back up. I was with her until I was 21 and she was 18.
-
3 years isn't a big deal to me.
15 years old is though.
JMHO.
-
"parental consent"
Did they know you were having sex? Or did they just consent to the dating?
The mom took her to the doctor to get her on birth control. They took me everywhere. They loved me. I should clarify, we started dating 2nd semester of my Senior year and dated for 3 years after that. I believe she turned 16 at my graduation.
Which of course, I was still a virgin at that point, so nothing had been done, but carry on your judgement goons.
-
Why did she need to be on birth control if you were a virgin?
-
3 years isn't a big deal to me.
15 years old is though.
JMHO.
Yeah, small town living next to Lawrence. As Sophomores, our girls were already dating KU guys. Guys always dated younger due to these circumstances or talked to girls from Baldwin, out of town, etc.
-
Why did she need to be on birth control if you were a virgin?
That was later on when things were getting serious and I started school at K-State.
-
okay: 1, 9
I'd even say 9 isn't OK in a lot of circumstances
-
okay: 1, 9
I'd even say 9 isn't OK in a lot of circumstances
Which person is the assaulter and which is the assaultee?
-
okay: 1, 9
I'd even say 9 isn't OK in a lot of circumstances
Which person is the assaulter and which is the assaultee?
As I said, it depends on the circumstances.
-
Weird thread.
-
Leeann Tweeden is a rough ridin' clown taking advantage of our false outrage society. Al Franken kissed this person as she admitted as a skit, and he did not grope her tits. He mocked grabbing her tits over the top of a kevlar vest as a clear joke. Her contention that she was asleep in all of that gear is laughable. For the sake of our society I hope Franken fights back and he has allies courageous enough to call a very obvious space a very obvious spade.
-
Thanks mrs gooch, good thread
-
Leeann Tweeden is a rough ridin' clown taking advantage of our false outrage society. Al Franken kissed this person as she admitted as a skit, and he did not grope her tits. He mocked grabbing her tits over the top of a kevlar vest as a clear joke. Her contention that she was asleep in all of that gear is laughable. For the sake of our society I hope Franken fights back and he has allies courageous enough to call a very obvious space a very obvious spade.
I think calling for an ethics investigation of himself is a pretty good way to handle it. Not 100% sure though. What he did was pretty weird.
-
Leeann Tweeden is a rough ridin' clown taking advantage of our false outrage society. Al Franken kissed this person as she admitted as a skit, and he did not grope her tits. He mocked grabbing her tits over the top of a kevlar vest as a clear joke. Her contention that she was asleep in all of that gear is laughable. For the sake of our society I hope Franken fights back and he has allies courageous enough to call a very obvious space a very obvious spade.
I think calling for an ethics investigation of himself is a pretty good way to handle it. Not 100% sure though. What he did was pretty weird.
I agree on the ethics investigation, I hope he uses it to expose her pretty obvious exaggerations
-
Leeann Tweeden is a rough ridin' clown taking advantage of our false outrage society. Al Franken kissed this person as she admitted as a skit, and he did not grope her tits. He mocked grabbing her tits over the top of a kevlar vest as a clear joke. Her contention that she was asleep in all of that gear is laughable. For the sake of our society I hope Franken fights back and he has allies courageous enough to call a very obvious space a very obvious spade.
I think calling for an ethics investigation of himself is a pretty good way to handle it. Not 100% sure though. What he did was pretty weird.
I agree on the ethics investigation, I hope he uses it to expose her pretty obvious exaggerations
I agree with MIR, he has sniffed out the bs on this one. We agree on a lot of things lately. MIR does your bs detector work on the judge Moore accusations too?
-
I? don’t understand #9. How do 2 people have sex without either one giving consent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I? don’t understand #9. How do 2 people have sex without either one giving consent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
They don't. Sounds like they had unknown casual college sex on that one.
-
Leeann Tweeden is a rough ridin' clown taking advantage of our false outrage society. Al Franken kissed this person as she admitted as a skit, and he did not grope her tits. He mocked grabbing her tits over the top of a kevlar vest as a clear joke. Her contention that she was asleep in all of that gear is laughable. For the sake of our society I hope Franken fights back and he has allies courageous enough to call a very obvious space a very obvious spade.
I think calling for an ethics investigation of himself is a pretty good way to handle it. Not 100% sure though. What he did was pretty weird.
I agree on the ethics investigation, I hope he uses it to expose her pretty obvious exaggerations
Another perspective that I don't disagree with:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-missed-a-chance-to-draw-a-line-in-the-sand-on-sexual-misconduct/?ex_cid=538fb
-
3 years isn't a big deal to me.
15 years old is though.
JMHO.
Yeah, small town living next to Lawrence. As Sophomores, our girls were already dating KU guys. Guys always dated younger due to these circumstances or talked to girls from Baldwin, out of town, etc.
This has come up a weird amount of times on this board.
-
You can judge bub, but I honestly don't care. 3 years isn't a big difference, but there's definitely some weird line drawn down the sand once one loved one goes to college. I just find it a bit hypocritical.
-
Wacky, bud, the 3 years difference isn’t what anyone is even talking about.
-
I’m just saying, Wacky is like a poet managing to work this motif into so many different threads.
-
Badge of honor
-
ogden has the same problem iirc
-
Well it relates with this thread and I'm throwing myself out there that one of us, disgusted as you maybe, had said scenario. I wasn't a creep. Her family told me she had a crush on me and they really liked me, so she was my first love. If we were together nowadays nobody would blink an eye. She contacted me every year up until my engagement.
-
I? don’t understand #9. How do 2 people have sex without either one giving consent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Neither of them expressed their consent.
In today's society guys are told they should get "enthusiastic consent" to make sure they are not raping anyone. But what if they don't? Is there a possibility that they raped the girl because she was too drunk to consent? But then wasn't he too drunk to consent too?
-
I? don’t understand #9. How do 2 people have sex without either one giving consent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Neither of them expressed their consent.
In today's society guys are told they should get "enthusiastic consent" to make sure they are not raping anyone. But what if they don't? Is there a possibility that they raped the girl because she was too drunk to consent? But then wasn't he too drunk to consent too?
I read it as one or both of them being too drunk as to give consent.
-
Not okay: too drunk to give consent
Okay: standard, run-of-the-mill drunk
-
Right, they're are both too drunk to consent. But in a real life guy/girl scenario it might be considered that he raped her. But in reality they both raped each other.
-
why do you have to be drunk? what if you're sober and neither gives consent?
-
Right, they're are both too drunk to consent. But in a real life guy/girl scenario it might be considered that he raped her. But in reality they both raped each other.
Girls can't rape guys.
-
why do you have to be drunk? what if you're sober and neither gives consent?
That could happen too. But if you are drunk it could be argued that you can't legally give consent so I was making this scenario as more a clearly did not give consent situation.
-
Right, they're are both too drunk to consent. But in a real life guy/girl scenario it might be considered that he raped her. But in reality they both raped each other.
Girls can't rape guys.
How about sexually assaulting him?
-
Right, they're are both too drunk to consent. But in a real life guy/girl scenario it might be considered that he raped her. But in reality they both raped each other.
Not okay: when there could be confusion about who raped whom
-
I’m just saying, Wacky is like a poet managing to work this motif into so many different threads.
Almost as many times as mentioning the drink specials at Bar Louie.
-
I? don’t understand #9. How do 2 people have sex without either one giving consent?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Neither of them expressed their consent.
In today's society guys are told they should get "enthusiastic consent" to make sure they are not raping anyone. But what if they don't? Is there a possibility that they raped the girl because she was too drunk to consent? But then wasn't he too drunk to consent too?
I’m not sure I’ve ever been given enthusiastic consent.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Right, they're are both too drunk to consent. But in a real life guy/girl scenario it might be considered that he raped her. But in reality they both raped each other.
Girls can't rape guys.
How about sexually assaulting him?
Yes.
-
uh, a woman can def rape a man
-
uh, a woman can def rape a man
Apparently nobody watched leftovers here.
-
uh, a woman can def rape a man
Well of course she can but no one will believe him.
-
We'll have to wait another 25 years for this to come out unfortunately.
-
Right, they're are both too drunk to consent. But in a real life guy/girl scenario it might be considered that he raped her. But in reality they both raped each other.
Neither raped the other. They certainly didn't "rape each other." That's just stupid. If you think that's even possible, I'd suggest you have stretched the definition of rape too far. Thought experiment: try telling that to a real rape victim. Good grief.
What it does mean is that if one person accuses the other of rape, the accused can't claim that the accuser consented. But that still doesn't automatically make the accused guilty of rape. (And it would certainly be interesting if the accused turned the tables and claimed the accuser committed rape because the accused likewise did not consent).
To avoid this potential legal absurdity, some states have clarified that having sex with someone who is too drunk to give consent is only rape if the accused understood that the the other person is incapacitated. That means neither side is guilty of rape if they were both truly drunk - it's just two drunk people having sex. Which happens all the damned time.
-
Right, they're are both too drunk to consent. But in a real life guy/girl scenario it might be considered that he raped her. But in reality they both raped each other.
Neither raped the other. They certainly didn't "rape each other." That's just stupid. If you think that's even possible, I'd suggest you have stretched the definition of rape too far. Thought experiment: try telling that to a real rape victim. Good grief.
What it does mean is that if one person accuses the other of rape, the accused can't claim that the accuser consented. But that still doesn't automatically make the accused guilty of rape. (And it would certainly be interesting if the accused turned the tables and claimed the accuser committed rape because the accused likewise did not consent).
To avoid this potential legal absurdity, some states have clarified that having sex with someone who is too drunk to give consent is only rape if the accused understood that the the other person is incapacitated. That means neither side is guilty of rape if they were both truly drunk - it's just two drunk people having sex. Which happens all the damned time.
Leave it to ol K-S-U to take a hard stance on what is and isn't "real rape"
-
Leeann Tweeden is a rough ridin' clown taking advantage of our false outrage society. Al Franken kissed this person as she admitted as a skit, and he did not grope her tits. He mocked grabbing her tits over the top of a kevlar vest as a clear joke. Her contention that she was asleep in all of that gear is laughable. For the sake of our society I hope Franken fights back and he has allies courageous enough to call a very obvious space a very obvious spade.
I think calling for an ethics investigation of himself is a pretty good way to handle it. Not 100% sure though. What he did was pretty weird.
I agree on the ethics investigation, I hope he uses it to expose her pretty obvious exaggerations
Another perspective that I don't disagree with:
https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/democrats-missed-a-chance-to-draw-a-line-in-the-sand-on-sexual-misconduct/?ex_cid=538fb
Proof that really smart people can have really dumb opinions. I mean he should have used his eyes to form the opinion on the photo in the first place, but I wonder if he has changed his mind since it has been revealed that she asked for that pose to be done.
-
Leeann Tweeden is a rough ridin' clown taking advantage of our false outrage society. Al Franken kissed this person as she admitted as a skit, and he did not grope her tits. He mocked grabbing her tits over the top of a kevlar vest as a clear joke. Her contention that she was asleep in all of that gear is laughable. For the sake of our society I hope Franken fights back and he has allies courageous enough to call a very obvious space a very obvious spade.
I think calling for an ethics investigation of himself is a pretty good way to handle it. Not 100% sure though. What he did was pretty weird.
I agree on the ethics investigation, I hope he uses it to expose her pretty obvious exaggerations
I agree with MIR, he has sniffed out the bs on this one. We agree on a lot of things lately. MIR does your bs detector work on the judge Moore accusations too?
When I initially heard it, yeah I thought the timing was fishy and weird. The 30+ sources, and mall banning later, that creep definitely perved on teenage girls. However, the Beverley Young stuff seems like about 10 steps farther than the other allegations, but I can't call her a liar because unlike Tweeden, there's no contradictory evidence.
-
Leeann Tweeden is a rough ridin' clown taking advantage of our false outrage society. Al Franken kissed this person as she admitted as a skit, and he did not grope her tits. He mocked grabbing her tits over the top of a kevlar vest as a clear joke. Her contention that she was asleep in all of that gear is laughable. For the sake of our society I hope Franken fights back and he has allies courageous enough to call a very obvious space a very obvious spade.
I think calling for an ethics investigation of himself is a pretty good way to handle it. Not 100% sure though. What he did was pretty weird.
I agree on the ethics investigation, I hope he uses it to expose her pretty obvious exaggerations
I agree with MIR, he has sniffed out the bs on this one. We agree on a lot of things lately. MIR does your bs detector work on the judge Moore accusations too?
When I initially heard it, yeah I thought the timing was fishy and weird. The 30+ sources, and mall banning later, that creep definitely perved on teenage girls. However, the Beverley Young stuff seems like about 10 steps farther than the other allegations, but I can't call her a liar because unlike Tweeden, there's no contradictory evidence.
Beverley’s yearbook stuff is unraveling, Moore’s attorney said get that evidence in here and we will have handwriting analysis done on it, then yesterday Allred admits they are not sure Moore signed it and did not take Moore up on the offer. This one hasn’t felt real to me either.
-
I milked a cow by hand. It was fun. I even slapped bossy on the butt. Big udders, warm, she didn’t like to be milked. Maw would of killed me if I used these techniques on critters. Of course many people have stooped to animals when it comes to sex. Proof. These questions.
-
Reno makes an interesting point
-
Well it relates with this thread and I'm throwing myself out there that one of us, disgusted as you maybe, had said scenario. I wasn't a creep. Her family told me she had a crush on me and they really liked me, so she was my first love. If we were together nowadays nobody would blink an eye. She contacted me every year up until my engagement.
So what happened? Why'd you break this girl's heart?
-
Wacky knows he's a creeper. Why else would he name the sexual assault thread as Wackycat Harvey Weinstein Thread?
-
Well it relates with this thread and I'm throwing myself out there that one of us, disgusted as you maybe, had said scenario. I wasn't a creep. Her family told me she had a crush on me and they really liked me, so she was my first love. If we were together nowadays nobody would blink an eye. She contacted me every year up until my engagement.
So what happened? Why'd you break this girl's heart?
You know how this story ends. She started banging a KU linebacker at 17. :dubious:Wacky knows he's a creeper. Why else would he name the sexual assault thread as Wackycat Harvey Weinstein Thread?
SD named that thread.
-
Actually, I did not know that. Sorry bud.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Leave it to ol K-S-U to take a hard stance on what is and isn't "real rape"
It is a real problem the way the we are watering down terms to where they don't mean anything anymore. If Harvey Weinstein and George HW Bush both have "sexual assault victims", then the term "sexual assault" doesn't mean anything anymore. When two drunk people having sex together is called "rape", it minimizes the term to nothingness.
The left has done the same with racism and bigotry of all sorts in recent years. It's horribly counterproductive to a movement that is well-intentioned.
-
Leave it to ol K-S-U to take a hard stance on what is and isn't "real rape"
It is a real problem the way the we are watering down terms to where they don't mean anything anymore. If Harvey Weinstein and George HW Bush both have "sexual assault victims", then the term "sexual assault" doesn't mean anything anymore. When two drunk people having sex together is called "rape", it minimizes the term to nothingness.
The left has done the same with racism and bigotry of all sorts in recent years. It's horribly counterproductive to a movement that is well-intentioned.
I don't know that being drunk should be considered a valid defense for someone's actions.
-
Actually, I did not know that. Sorry bud.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
It's all good. :eye:
-
Leave it to ol K-S-U to take a hard stance on what is and isn't "real rape"
It is a real problem the way the we are watering down terms to where they don't mean anything anymore. If Harvey Weinstein and George HW Bush both have "sexual assault victims", then the term "sexual assault" doesn't mean anything anymore. When two drunk people having sex together is called "rape", it minimizes the term to nothingness.
The left has done the same with racism and bigotry of all sorts in recent years. It's horribly counterproductive to a movement that is well-intentioned.
This! ^
-
Leave it to ol K-S-U to take a hard stance on what is and isn't "real rape"
It is a real problem the way the we are watering down terms to where they don't mean anything anymore. If Harvey Weinstein and George HW Bush both have "sexual assault victims", then the term "sexual assault" doesn't mean anything anymore. When two drunk people having sex together is called "rape", it minimizes the term to nothingness.
The left has done the same with racism and bigotry of all sorts in recent years. It's horribly counterproductive to a movement that is well-intentioned.
I don't know that being drunk should be considered a valid defense for someone's actions.
It never is nor should it be.
-
Leave it to ol K-S-U to take a hard stance on what is and isn't "real rape"
It is a real problem the way the we are watering down terms to where they don't mean anything anymore. If Harvey Weinstein and George HW Bush both have "sexual assault victims", then the term "sexual assault" doesn't mean anything anymore. When two drunk people having sex together is called "rape", it minimizes the term to nothingness.
The left has done the same with racism and bigotry of all sorts in recent years. It's horribly counterproductive to a movement that is well-intentioned.
I don't know that being drunk should be considered a valid defense for someone's actions.
For it to be rape, wouldn't being drunk have to be considered a valid defense for one party's actions but not the other?
-
Leave it to ol K-S-U to take a hard stance on what is and isn't "real rape"
It is a real problem the way the we are watering down terms to where they don't mean anything anymore. If Harvey Weinstein and George HW Bush both have "sexual assault victims", then the term "sexual assault" doesn't mean anything anymore. When two drunk people having sex together is called "rape", it minimizes the term to nothingness.
The left has done the same with racism and bigotry of all sorts in recent years. It's horribly counterproductive to a movement that is well-intentioned.
I don't know that being drunk should be considered a valid defense for someone's actions.
It isn't. But it's also not so simple when both people are drunk.
The problem arises when schools impose bright line, zero tolerance standards because they don't have the training, experience, or wherewithal to fully and fairly investigate sexual assault claims. So instead, they simply say: (1) no consent = rape, and (2) drinking alcohol = no consent. Put those two things together, and having sex with a drunk person is always rape (or at least "sexual misconduct" under most school policies). But if both people are drunk, it logically follows under this zero-tolerance standard that they both raped each other.
This is what Mrs. Gooch literally said above. Which, of course, is stupid. I think even Mrs. G realizes how stupid that sounds. Every thinking person would readily acknowledge that there is no such thing as mutual rape. But that's the absurdity you reach based upon these bright line tests.
To avoid this absurdity, universities just discriminate against men, assuming that they are always the perpetrator in drunk sex situations. This discrimination is even worse than the mutual rape absurdity. It leads to situations like what happened here: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html) That article will make you cringe.
In reality, we all know that there's no such thing as mutual rape, and we all know that a guy isn't always a rapist in drunk sex situations. This isn't some game or a matter of, "well, we have to protect women at all costs thing." Rape is a horrible crime. A false rape charge is likewise horrible. Both have to receive serious consideration.
So how do you disentangle the messy situation of "drunk sex?" Where is the line between regrettable judgment and rape? Well, for starters, divide the facts from the law. The facts are often going to be murky, but very important, so let's set that aside for a moment.
The law actually isn't that hard. Some states define having sex with someone who is incapacitated as rape (and drunk generally means incapacitated), but also qualify that this situation isn't rape if the accused likewise lacked the ability to understand that the person was incapacitated. Take Ohio's law, for example:
[No person shall engage in sexual activity when] the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.
Basically, this provides an out for "mutual drunk sex" that one party later comes to regret. And that's just common sense. But then it comes down to the facts.
Obviously, a guy being a little bit drunk is not going to be a defense to having sex with a girl who is passed out in the back room. That's rape. And a guy being so black-out drunk that he can't even realize his "partner" is passed out is likewise not reasonable. You have to look at the actions of both parties. The guy, even if drunk, knew or should have known full damn well the girl was passed out. She took no steps to initiate or have sex. He "did all the work." But if both parties were conscious and took steps to having sex (getting into a room together, getting into bed together, taking off clothes, kissing, etc.), that's probably not rape just because both were drunk. So police look at the facts. They talk to witnesses. They read text messages (helpfully, millennials keep a running audit log of their behavior via text and tweet). They perform an investigation that schools are not competent to do.
What schools can and should do is take steps to avoid these situations!! For starters, ban alcohol on campus, and no more co-ed campus housing. It is ironic that the feminist movement pushed for co-ed dorms, and they have become a cesspool of drunk sex situations.
-
Leave it to ol K-S-U to take a hard stance on what is and isn't "real rape"
It is a real problem the way the we are watering down terms to where they don't mean anything anymore. If Harvey Weinstein and George HW Bush both have "sexual assault victims", then the term "sexual assault" doesn't mean anything anymore. When two drunk people having sex together is called "rape", it minimizes the term to nothingness.
The left has done the same with racism and bigotry of all sorts in recent years. It's horribly counterproductive to a movement that is well-intentioned.
I mean, you kind of have a point, but overall both are a net positive. Calling out pieces of crap for groping/etc. even if it isn't "real rape" does more for society than "watered down sexual assault" does harm, just as calling out racism that might not be as bad as the KKK is better for society than white people being able to sing the n-word at a rap show is bad for society.
-
These aren’t real controversies, btw. A little sexual harassment training is helpful, but 90% of “confusion” in all these actual cases is based on partisans trying to find a way to condemn other people while not condemning their own.
Here’s a tip: if you think you’re approaching a “fine line” or entering a “gray area,” just stop.
-
I think even Mrs. G realizes how stupid that sounds.
I hope you realize that I was actually trying to point out the absurdity of it by pointing out that applying the same logic to both people they would have been considered to rape each other. I don't really think there is an offense of mutual rape.
-
Here's another mutual rape situation: On Shameless where Debbie (15) is hanging out/drinking with a 24 year old guy who had no intention of having sex with her. Then after he passes out drunk, she has sex with him. So she raped him (he did not give consent) but he statutory raped her (15 can't give consent, the adult shouldn't have been drinking with a minor).
-
man, debbie loves to party
-
Spoiler alert, what the eff MG?
-
But were Debbie’s parents cool with it?
-
Another pro tip guys, if you are ugly and she isn't, it's over the line
-
Here's another mutual rape situation: On Shameless where Debbie (15) is hanging out/drinking with a 24 year old guy who had no intention of having sex with her. Then after he passes out drunk, she has sex with him. So she raped him (he did not give consent) but he statutory raped her (15 can't give consent, the adult shouldn't have been drinking with a minor).
It's not statutory rape without a conscious movement.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
But were Debbie’s parents cool with it?
Here mom is no where to be found pychopath and her dad is a no where to be found drug addict; so yeah I think they were fine with it.
-
Spoiler alert, what the eff MG?
Sorry. That happened like 3 season ago.
-
Spoiler alert, what the eff MG?
Sorry. That happened like 3 season ago.
:( I'm only on season 2
-
Look away 8man
Debbie's parents want someone to take care of her, so they're totally cool with it. They forced her upon a handicap person so she had a place to stay and live and for her baby to be taken care of.
-
I think even Mrs. G realizes how stupid that sounds.
I hope you realize that I was actually trying to point out the absurdity of it by pointing out that applying the same logic to both people they would have been considered to rape each other. I don't really think there is an offense of mutual rape.
I realize that now. Thanks.
-
To avoid this absurdity, universities just discriminate against men, assuming that they are always the perpetrator in drunk sex situations. This discrimination is even worse than the mutual rape absurdity. It leads to situations like what happened here: http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/double_x/doublex/2015/02/drunk_sex_on_campus_universities_are_struggling_to_determine_when_intoxicated.html) That article will make you cringe.
I thought the Occidental situation was ridiculous, but that was a really good read and part of an important conversation to have. Brought up a lot of good points.
-
Look away 8man
Debbie's parents want someone to take care of her, so they're totally cool with it. They forced her upon a handicap person so she had a place to stay and live and for her baby to be taken care of.
Debbie's parents should be in jail
-
Sounds like she's related to Brenda from "Brenda's Got a Baby".
-
Look away 8man
Debbie's parents want someone to take care of her, so they're totally cool with it. They forced her upon a handicap person so she had a place to stay and live and for her baby to be taken care of.
Debbie's parents should be in jail
Wanting someone to take care of their daughter is the least of their offenses.
-
They pawned her off because their incapable tho
-
Evidently sex is only consensual if all parties involved have entered into a binding contract, both signed and notarized.
this thread :facepalm:
-
Mrs. Gooch, I have been rasslin with the quandary you have proposed. Hillary Rodman Clinton, the spokething for all women, provided the answer when ask about AL Franken
""I deeply regret what he did," Clinton said. "There's no excuse for his behavior. But he's called for an investigation. He's apologized to the woman involved." She went on to say that is "the kind of accountability I’m talking about.” “I don't hear that from Roy Moore or Donald Trump.”
So these lecherous men just need to admit and apologize, and everything is just great and hunkydory about them. Sheesh ....
-
Evidently sex is only consensual if all parties involved have entered into a binding contract, both signed and notarized.
this thread :facepalm:
Dave Chappelle was way ahead of the curve again.
https://youtu.be/VIgHVlb151c
-
I can imagine a 30 day period for public comment.
-
Evidently sex is only consensual if all parties involved have entered into a binding contract, both signed and notarized.
this thread :facepalm:
Yeah consensual sex is really difficult to navigate
:flush:
-
Evidently sex is only consensual if all parties involved have entered into a binding contract, both signed and notarized.
this thread :facepalm:
Yeah consensual sex is really difficult to navigate
:flush:
Well slackcat just said in another thread that every time he's alone with a woman he gets accused of rape so maybe it really is a difficult concept for him
-
Evidently sex is only consensual if all parties involved have entered into a binding contract, both signed and notarized.
this thread :facepalm:
Yeah consensual sex is really difficult to navigate
:flush:
Well slackcat just said in another thread that every time he's alone with a woman he gets accused of rape so maybe it really is a difficult concept for him
It's always interesting when someone goes from completely off my radar to revealing themselves as a likely awful person. Like, he could have stayed off the radar, but no, has to play the "men are accused of rape too often" card multiple times.
-
Self awareness for weirdos like Pence is essential.
-
Evidently sex is only consensual if all parties involved have entered into a binding contract, both signed and notarized.
this thread :facepalm:
Yeah consensual sex is really difficult to navigate
:flush:
It sure can be when alcohol is involved and when you take a very restrictive view of consent when alcohol is involved. Which is a lot, on both counts.
-
certified sex haver reporting in. AMA!
-
certified sex haver reporting in. AMA!
Is it even possible to have seks with a woman and not be accused of something by that crazy feminist?!
-
certified sex haver reporting in. AMA!
Is it even possible to have seks with a woman and not be accused of something by that crazy feminist?!
for a lot of the neckbeards in this thread? probably not.
-
What's your chaperone's name?
-
Evidently sex is only consensual if all parties involved have entered into a binding contract, both signed and notarized.
this thread :facepalm:
Yeah consensual sex is really difficult to navigate
:flush:
It sure can be when alcohol is involved and when you take a very restrictive view of consent when alcohol is involved. Which is a lot, on both counts.
if you take a "very restrictive view of consent" it is way easier to avoid being accused of rape than taking a non restrictive view of consent. Whether alcohol is involved or not!
-
Where do you keep such a massive amount of paperwork?
-
What's your chaperone's name?
Joey Freshwater
-
certified sex haver reporting in. AMA!
how many times have you been accused of rape? How many times were you falsely accused of rape?
-
What's your chaperone's name?
Bernie Bernstein
-
Third party observation pretty kinky.
-
Third party observation pretty kinky.
Every orgy needs a witness
-
What's your chaperone's name?
Joey Freshwater
This checks out
-
Ok what if two people consent to having sex, but unbeknownst to one, the other is actually the identical twin of the person they thought they were consenting to?
-
Ok what if two people consent to having sex, but unbeknownst to one, the other is actually the identical twin of the person they thought they were consenting to?
Rape by deception
-
What if they are BOTH secret twins? Mutual rape by deception?
-
What if they are BOTH secret twins? Mutual rape by deception?
I think so, yes. You've stumbled upon one of the few solutions to this puzzle.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
the idea that a drunk person can't give consent is stupid. if you voluntarily impair yourself, then whatever you voluntarily decide to do while impaired is your fault.
-
the idea that a drunk person can't give consent is stupid. if you voluntarily impair yourself, then whatever you voluntarily decide to do while impaired is your fault.
Goodness
-
Leave it to ol K-S-U to take a hard stance on what is and isn't "real rape"
It is a real problem the way the we are watering down terms to where they don't mean anything anymore. If Harvey Weinstein and George HW Bush both have "sexual assault victims", then the term "sexual assault" doesn't mean anything anymore. When two drunk people having sex together is called "rape", it minimizes the term to nothingness.
The left has done the same with racism and bigotry of all sorts in recent years. It's horribly counterproductive to a movement that is well-intentioned.
Why is interpretation of racism a matter of left and right in your mind? Tim Scott has been vocal about being a victim of racism, does that make him a RINO? Also you, as a white man, aren't allowed to determine what's racist and bigoted. You have no base line to know how that feels.
-
Evidently sex is only consensual if all parties involved have entered into a binding contract, both signed and notarized.
this thread :facepalm:
Yeah consensual sex is really difficult to navigate
:flush:
It sure can be when alcohol is involved and when you take a very restrictive view of consent when alcohol is involved. Which is a lot, on both counts.
Nah, no it can't. Back in the Aggieville days, I hit eject more than once when we were both drinking. If you want to know, you know. The problem is not in the drinking but in the desperation of the male offender.
-
I'd like to do a thought experiment. I'm going to list 10 scenarios. Please tell us which of these scenarios you think are ok and which are definitely not ok and which are maybe just a little bit inappropriate. I am interested to see where some people draw a line and how it differs between people. TIA
1. Two 14 year-olds kiss (with tongue).
Stern talking to from Mom
2. After a year of dating, a 14.9 year-old and a 18.1 year-old have sexual intercourse.
17.1yo dating 13.9yo is almost as mumped up as a 18.1yo rough ridin' a 14.9yo
3. After their a first date (to the prom), an 18 year old year old (Senior) and a 14 year old (Freshman) have sexual intercourse. The Freshman wasn't planning on having sex but didn't protest because the Senior is popular.
Gross-jail the SR
4. Two fast food co-workers fool around after work. This includes removal of pants but no intercourse. One is 16. The other is the 20 year-old shift manager.
Gross-Fire the managet
5. A hot celebrity shows their genitals to a fan back stage in the dressing room. They did not ask permission but the fan smiled.
Pervert-jail
6. A 28 year-old asks a 14 year-old out on a date.
Pedophile-jail
7. 3 friends are playing strip poker. After most of the clothes are off, one of them forcefully pulls another into a bedroom and locks it. The third has to almost break the door down to get them to stop.
Improbable scenario, and that third "friend" needs a spanking
8. A drunk person forcefully puts his/her hand down the pants of another person without warning.
Happens all the time--guessing if a did it, would be assault, if girl did it would be ok
9. Two drunk people have sex. Neither of them expressed consent.
Mutual nonconsent=mutual consent
10. As a joke, a person grabs the butt of another person. They are acquaintances but not good friends.
Lol, wgaf
-
you, as a white man, aren't allowed to determine what's racist and bigoted.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
you, as a white man, aren't allowed to determine what's racist and bigoted.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Yes, white people that try to determine what’s racist and bigoted have no basis, and are bad people/ pieces of crap.
-
11. Guy is taking a piss on a tree near the 15th green. Cart girl approaches and sees stream of piss, but not penis. knowing he's exposed, she continues to approach so she can see his peener. Cart girl is 13.999999999 years old. Golfer was told in by the club manager there'd be no beverage cart that day.
-
you, as a white man, aren't allowed to determine what's racist and bigoted.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Thanks to the amazingly thoughtful contribution, you've undoubtedly swayed my opinion.
-
you, as a white man, aren't allowed to determine what's racist and bigoted.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Yes, white people that try to determine what’s racist and bigoted have no basis, and are bad people/ pieces of crap.
What's that all about 27? No one said that.
-
you, as a white man, aren't allowed to determine what's racist and bigoted.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Hey sys, I don't want to get into personal stuff but I'm very comfortable making the observation that you're likely a sack of crap. Using that word as a full blown adult is rough ridin' abhorrent, there is literally no reason to use it. I know you are an educated person with a vocabulary more enhanced than your average nine year old so I have a hard time understanding why you would ever use that word.
-
Yeah sys, why can't you use grown up words and phrases? Like 'sack of crap.'
-
Yeah sys, why can't you use grown up words and phrases? Like 'sack of crap.'
If you're too stupid to understand the difference then that's on you, you're not though.
-
Hey sys, I don't want to get into personal stuff but I'm very comfortable making the observation that you're likely a sack of crap. Using that word as a full blown adult is rough ridin' abhorrent, there is literally no reason to use it. I know you are an educated person with a vocabulary more enhanced than your average nine year old so I have a hard time understanding why you would ever use that word.
you, as a mentally normal human, aren't allowed to determine what words are offensive to the mentally impaired.
-
Hey sys, I don't want to get into personal stuff but I'm very comfortable making the observation that you're likely a sack of crap. Using that word as a full blown adult is rough ridin' abhorrent, there is literally no reason to use it. I know you are an educated person with a vocabulary more enhanced than your average nine year old so I have a hard time understanding why you would ever use that word.
you, as a mentally normal human, aren't allowed to determine what words are offensive to the mentally impaired.
:lol:
-
That was clever. :)
-
NY Times editorial on what would be happening if Hillary would have been elected.
"It is also interesting to speculate: If Hillary were in the Oval, would some women have failed to summon the courage to tell their Weinstein horror stories because the producer was also a power behind the Clinton throne? As Janice Min, the former editor of The Hollywood Reporter, told me, when Barack Obama stepped off a stage and into Weinstein’s arms for a big hug after giving a $400,000 speech as an ex-president in the spring, it sent a signal that the ogre was in a protected magic circle."
-
Hey sys, I don't want to get into personal stuff but I'm very comfortable making the observation that you're likely a sack of crap. Using that word as a full blown adult is rough ridin' abhorrent, there is literally no reason to use it. I know you are an educated person with a vocabulary more enhanced than your average nine year old so I have a hard time understanding why you would ever use that word.
you, as a mentally normal human, aren't allowed to determine what words are offensive to the mentally impaired.
Is that what you were attempting to do? If so maybe I gave you too much credit for being smart. 8 man was talking about people, specifically leftists, weaponizing racism. My point was it's easy to dismiss any claim of racism on its face if you have never been a victim of it. A white person calling a black person a n-word is unquestionably racist, no one would argue against it, you don't have to be black to know that. Your little device falls flat for me because like saying n-word, calling someone Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is inarguably awful because our society has been told so over and over again.
If I said I felt the salesman a brooks brothers is racist because he followed me around at a distance without actually helping me. There would inevitably be people who would defend the salesman, or minimize my feelings, because they've never been in that position. If I said the the same salesman called me a n-word no one would justify that.
If a person with Down syndrome said they were being mistreated because someone told then they were brave, there would be confusion about why that would make someone feel less than. If that same person said they were called a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) there would be universal condemnation for the person who said it.
I won't change a single persons mind on this or even cause someone to think a bit more critical about it, that's fine, it's my fault for treating people here differently than I would any other group of internet strangers. I'll try to be better.
-
You should have more faith in people, MIR. If you really think white people who have not been the subject of racism cannot contribute to the conversation, then why wouldn’t the same apply to sexual assault or police violence?
Really, it sounds very similar to people like Wacky criticizing Kaepernick because he was raised by white parents and is rich.
-
you, as a white man, aren't allowed to determine what's racist and bigoted.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Yes, white people that try to determine what’s racist and bigoted have no basis, and are bad people/ pieces of crap.
What's that all about 27? No one said that.
I was agreeing with you, and then added the last part because I believe it.
Al Sharpton has said that the most despicable people he has ever dealt with are the white liberals that patronize him.
-
If a bunch of white people think something isn't racist toward black folks, but one black person does, I think that one black person gets veto power in the racist/not racist dispute. I also think that's what MiR was trying to get at.
I'm not sure if the one black person gets to do the same int the reverse situation where the whites think something isn't racist but one black does not. :dunno:
-
If a bunch of white people think something isn't racist toward black folks, but one black person does, I think that one black person gets veto power in the racist/not racist dispute.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
-
You should have more faith in people, MIR. If you really think white people who have not been the subject of racism cannot contribute to the conversation, then why wouldn’t the same apply to sexual assault or police violence?
Really, it sounds very similar to people like Wacky criticizing Kaepernick because he was raised by white parents and is rich.
you, as a white man, aren't allowed to determine what's racist and bigoted.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Yes, white people that try to determine what’s racist and bigoted have no basis, and are bad people/ pieces of crap.
What's that all about 27? No one said that.
I was agreeing with you, and then added the last part because I believe it.
Al Sharpton has said that the most despicable people he has ever dealt with are the white liberals that patronize him.
Thank you both for questions/statements that allow me to clarify.
It isn't that white people can't observe what's racism and what's not. However, it can be very difficult for a white person to understand why a person of color perceives a certain situation as racist because they've never been in that situation or felt that feeling. It's a lot easier to dismiss these feelings as playing the race card or trying to score political points or whatever other dismissal that can be mustered up. Yes, white people absolutely have the ability/capacity to be sympathetic, I was specifically addressing the ability/capacity to be dismissive.
And cat27, I do not believe that a lack of racial sympathy always or even most of the time, equates to the offender being a bad person/piece of crap. I do wish people of color didn't have to work so hard to be believed when we talk about racism.
-
If a bunch of white people think something isn't racist toward black folks, but one black person does, I think that one black person gets veto power in the racist/not racist dispute. I also think that's what MiR was trying to get at.
I'm not sure if the one black person gets to do the same int the reverse situation where the whites think something isn't racist but one black does not. :dunno:
The issue with white people determining racism in black people is that some have started to weaponize/bastardize what racism is. I had a dude tell me that Obama saying "if I had a son he'd look like Trayvon Martin" was racist towards. Same dude said Al Sharpton believing Twana Brawley was also racist. That's extreme but our mainstream is filled with many white people claiming racism whenever Shaun King, Bomani Jones, Ta-Nehisi Coates, etc. point out injustice. Look at how many people call Jemele Hill racist, it's ridiculous.
-
If a bunch of white people think something isn't racist toward black folks, but one black person does, I think that one black person gets veto power in the racist/not racist dispute.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Yeah, p Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). That rule only makes sense if you're unwilling/unable to evaluate situations yourself. If Michigancat means in a group discussion, I understand his point; there's no doubt that would be considered taboo. But if he means in the cool reflection of his private thoughts, that's pretty disappointing and not at all productive. Racism is a virus that should be identified and targeted wherever it exists, but an essential element of that is precise diagnosis. Enabling hysteria--or stifling critical thought--will do more harm than good. I doubt we'll ever be able to get rid of it root-and-stem, but I do think that younger generations are far more tolerant, and over the next decades we will make great strides. But it will require critical thought, which Michigancat's rule does not promote. In the end, it (bigotry) is really an arbitrary thing, and I think observation and honest discussion can mitigate it, with the benefit of time.
-
Society gets to decide what is and is not racist, not one person.
More importantly, and far more intellectually than most of the drivel above, sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt you.
-
Hey sys, I don't want to get into personal stuff but I'm very comfortable making the observation that you're likely a sack of crap. Using that word as a full blown adult is rough ridin' abhorrent, there is literally no reason to use it. I know you are an educated person with a vocabulary more enhanced than your average nine year old so I have a hard time understanding why you would ever use that word.
you, as a mentally normal human, aren't allowed to determine what words are offensive to the mentally impaired.
Is that what you were attempting to do? If so maybe I gave you too much credit for being smart. 8 man was talking about people, specifically leftists, weaponizing racism. My point was it's easy to dismiss any claim of racism on its face if you have never been a victim of it. A white person calling a black person a n-word is unquestionably racist, no one would argue against it, you don't have to be black to know that. Your little device falls flat for me because like saying n-word, calling someone Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is inarguably awful because our society has been told so over and over again.
If I said I felt the salesman a brooks brothers is racist because he followed me around at a distance without actually helping me. There would inevitably be people who would defend the salesman, or minimize my feelings, because they've never been in that position. If I said the the same salesman called me a n-word no one would justify that.
If a person with Down syndrome said they were being mistreated because someone told then they were brave, there would be confusion about why that would make someone feel less than. If that same person said they were called a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) there would be universal condemnation for the person who said it.
I won't change a single persons mind on this or even cause someone to think a bit more critical about it, that's fine, it's my fault for treating people here differently than I would any other group of internet strangers. I'll try to be better.
Are you saying that calling a post on a message board Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and calling a person with Down Syndrome a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to their face is the same thing? I mean, I'm guessing you would never call a person with Down Syndrome a sack of crap right to their face, but you were fine posting it on a message board. Same thing.
-
If a bunch of white people think something isn't racist toward black folks, but one black person does, I think that one black person gets veto power in the racist/not racist dispute.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Yeah, p Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). That rule only makes sense if you're unwilling/unable to evaluate situations yourself. If Michigancat means in a group discussion, I understand his point; there's no doubt that would be considered taboo. But if he means in the cool reflection of his private thoughts, that's pretty disappointing and not at all productive. Racism is a virus that should be identified and targeted wherever it exists, but an essential element of that is precise diagnosis. Enabling hysteria--or stifling critical thought--will do more harm than good. I doubt we'll ever be able to get rid of it root-and-stem, but I do think that younger generations are far more tolerant, and over the next decades we will make great strides. But it will require critical thought, which Michigancat's rule does not promote. In the end, it (bigotry) is really an arbitrary thing, and I think observation and honest discussion can mitigate it, with the benefit of time.
The people who were wrong about the racist thing absolutely should think critically and discuss why they were wrong. And the offended should be prepared to articulate and discuss why the said action was racist.
-
I am on the same page with what you are talking about MIR.
Calling white people that loosely throw around the term racist bad person/pieces of crap is more of slam against people that water down the term as a internet put down. That’s my point.
-
Society gets to decide what is and is not racist, not one person.
As history has shown, society can get it way wrong
-
If a bunch of white people think something isn't racist toward black folks, but one black person does, I think that one black person gets veto power in the racist/not racist dispute.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Yeah, p Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). That rule only makes sense if you're unwilling/unable to evaluate situations yourself. If Michigancat means in a group discussion, I understand his point; there's no doubt that would be considered taboo. But if he means in the cool reflection of his private thoughts, that's pretty disappointing and not at all productive. Racism is a virus that should be identified and targeted wherever it exists, but an essential element of that is precise diagnosis. Enabling hysteria--or stifling critical thought--will do more harm than good. I doubt we'll ever be able to get rid of it root-and-stem, but I do think that younger generations are far more tolerant, and over the next decades we will make great strides. But it will require critical thought, which Michigancat's rule does not promote. In the end, it (bigotry) is really an arbitrary thing, and I think observation and honest discussion can mitigate it, with the benefit of time.
The people who were wrong about the racist thing absolutely should think critically and discuss why they were wrong. And the offended should be prepared to articulate and discuss why the said action was racist.
You seem to be begging the question, no?
-
I'm going to assume that sys and spracne use the words n-word, spic, chink, et al. when not in mixed company. I'm certain they wouldn't use the phrase when they are in the presence of someone who they perceive to have an intellectual disability. It also goes to how they think of the capabilities of someone who may be diagnosed with an intellectual disability that they perceive the internet is some sort of safe place free of people with Down syndrome or whomever else those guys think can't read and enjoy the internet.
-
If a bunch of white people think something isn't racist toward black folks, but one black person does, I think that one black person gets veto power in the racist/not racist dispute.
that's Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!).
Yeah, p Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). That rule only makes sense if you're unwilling/unable to evaluate situations yourself. If Michigancat means in a group discussion, I understand his point; there's no doubt that would be considered taboo. But if he means in the cool reflection of his private thoughts, that's pretty disappointing and not at all productive. Racism is a virus that should be identified and targeted wherever it exists, but an essential element of that is precise diagnosis. Enabling hysteria--or stifling critical thought--will do more harm than good. I doubt we'll ever be able to get rid of it root-and-stem, but I do think that younger generations are far more tolerant, and over the next decades we will make great strides. But it will require critical thought, which Michigancat's rule does not promote. In the end, it (bigotry) is really an arbitrary thing, and I think observation and honest discussion can mitigate it, with the benefit of time.
The people who were wrong about the racist thing absolutely should think critically and discuss why they were wrong. And the offended should be prepared to articulate and discuss why the said action was racist.
You seem to be begging the question, no?
I'm listening and considering what you're saying.
-
Hey sys, I don't want to get into personal stuff but I'm very comfortable making the observation that you're likely a sack of crap. Using that word as a full blown adult is rough ridin' abhorrent, there is literally no reason to use it. I know you are an educated person with a vocabulary more enhanced than your average nine year old so I have a hard time understanding why you would ever use that word.
you, as a mentally normal human, aren't allowed to determine what words are offensive to the mentally impaired.
Is that what you were attempting to do? If so maybe I gave you too much credit for being smart. 8 man was talking about people, specifically leftists, weaponizing racism. My point was it's easy to dismiss any claim of racism on its face if you have never been a victim of it. A white person calling a black person a n-word is unquestionably racist, no one would argue against it, you don't have to be black to know that. Your little device falls flat for me because like saying n-word, calling someone Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is inarguably awful because our society has been told so over and over again.
If I said I felt the salesman a brooks brothers is racist because he followed me around at a distance without actually helping me. There would inevitably be people who would defend the salesman, or minimize my feelings, because they've never been in that position. If I said the the same salesman called me a n-word no one would justify that.
If a person with Down syndrome said they were being mistreated because someone told then they were brave, there would be confusion about why that would make someone feel less than. If that same person said they were called a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) there would be universal condemnation for the person who said it.
I won't change a single persons mind on this or even cause someone to think a bit more critical about it, that's fine, it's my fault for treating people here differently than I would any other group of internet strangers. I'll try to be better.
Are you saying that calling a post on a message board Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) and calling a person with Down Syndrome a Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) to their face is the same thing? I mean, I'm guessing you would never call a person with Down Syndrome a sack of crap right to their face, but you were fine posting it on a message board. Same thing.
You can't possibly be this stupid. I'm saying you wouldn't use the word Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) in a room in which you perceive using that word might hurt someone in the room, so why do it anywhere else? I can assume two things based on the use of that word so flippantly; either you would use that word no matter your company, or you think someone being hurt by that word is incapable of reading it here. One makes you a horrible person, the other is a misguided, horrible false assumption.
I would perfectly comfortable calling someone who uses the word Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) or advocates for its use, a sack of crap, anywhere anytime. I'd take great pleasure in calling said people pieces of crap to their faces.
Why the eff are you even on this board? How close are we to one of your look at me I'm on a politics board telling all the people in it how stupid politics are?
-
I'm going to assume that sys and spracne use the words n-word, spic, chink, et al. when not in mixed company. I'm certain they wouldn't use the phrase when they are in the presence of someone who they perceive to have an intellectual disability. It also goes to how they think of the capabilities of someone who may be diagnosed with an intellectual disability that they perceive the internet is some sort of safe place free of people with Down syndrome or whomever else those guys think can't read and enjoy the internet.
Are you suggesting that only non-white people have intellectual disabilities? I find that both highly offensive and ignorant, tbh.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
Can't believe MIR is trying to draw a cultural equivalence between the 'n' word and Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). How Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is that?
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
-
I can't believe he doesn't like my 'look at me I'm on the politics board telling everyone how stupid politics are' posts.
-
What if someone thought they were consenting to sex with their identical twin, but secretly the twin was actually a clone?
-
I also want to explore the various permutations of known and unknown gender and sexual identities.
-
I also want to explore the various permutations of known and unknown gender and sexual identities.
This is actually a pretty interesting thought. Like, if a man has sex with someone who is anatomically a female but identifies as a gay male, but specifically conceals their gender identity in order to have gay sex with a straight person, is that rape?
-
What if a nerdy guy was wearing the same Halloween or homecoming costume as a popular jock and president of a rival fraternity and the jock's girlfriend thought the nerd was the jock and had sex with him in the moon bounce house.... would that be rape even if the said girlfriend thought it was the best sex she had ever had?
-
Def rape unless the costume was pure coincidence.
-
How about a panty raid, rape?
-
I also want to explore the various permutations of known and unknown gender and sexual identities.
I read a facebook post once where a guy was cheating on his girlfriend so she talked her friend into having sex with the guy. I am not sure if the friend was transgender or just a cross dresser/drag queen....the boyfriend thought the friend was a girl but then after the encounter the friend said something is his deep male voice. (I guess they must have done anal for the boyfriend to not realize that he had a penis???)
I don't think anyone ever said "This person is female". So was it rape by deception or was it the boyfriend's own fault for assuming the friend's gender?
-
What if a nerdy guy was wearing the same Halloween or homecoming costume as a popular jock and president of a rival fraternity and the jock's girlfriend thought the nerd was the jock and had sex with him in the moon bounce house.... would that be rape even if the said girlfriend thought it was the best sex she had ever had?
Rape if the nerd knew that the chick thought he was the boyfriend. I don't think rape by deception laws were enacted until around 2000 though.
-
I also want to explore the various permutations of known and unknown gender and sexual identities.
I read a facebook post once where a guy was cheating on his girlfriend so she talked her friend into having sex with the guy. I am not sure if the friend was transgender or just a cross dresser/drag queen....the boyfriend thought the friend was a girl but then after the encounter the friend said something is his deep male voice. (I guess they must have done anal for the boyfriend to not realize that he had a penis???)
I don't think anyone ever said "This person is female". So was it rape by deception or was it the boyfriend's own fault for assuming the friend's gender?
And that's why you always leave a note
-
What if a nerdy guy was wearing the same Halloween or homecoming costume as a popular jock and president of a rival fraternity and the jock's girlfriend thought the nerd was the jock and had sex with him in the moon bounce house.... would that be rape even if the said girlfriend thought it was the best sex she had ever had?
you are a menace and the fact that you walk freely among us chills me to my core
-
What if a nerdy guy was wearing the same Halloween or homecoming costume as a popular jock and president of a rival fraternity and the jock's girlfriend thought the nerd was the jock and had sex with him in the moon bounce house.... would that be rape even if the said girlfriend thought it was the best sex she had ever had?
Rape if the nerd knew that the chick thought he was the boyfriend. I don't think rape by deception laws were enacted until around 2000 though.
I didn't mention what year this happened.
-
Damn. That's on old ass movie.
(https://uploads.tapatalk-cdn.com/20171120/599a5b18213f7e59dfaa7b761ef8e5d2.jpg)
-
Stan Gable was awesome
-
FYI, I use the word "Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)" at work all the time.
-
I say erection to my coworkers a lot
-
FYI, I use the word "Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)" at work all the time.
i say Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), but not Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), or very seldom Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). i accept mir's observation that Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is a word passing into a slur. however, i think it's a stupid process and i'll fight a rearguard action on my favorite local message board for years past when it may be logical to give up.
-
Honestly, when someone uses the word "Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)" it tells me they are at least 30 years old and not very creative.
-
Eminem used it on snl and it was not muted like the other naughty words
-
FYI, I use the word "Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!)" at work all the time.
i say Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), but not Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!), or very seldom Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!). i accept mir's observation that Fake Sugar Dick (WARNING, NOT THE REAL SUGAR DICK!) is a word passing into a slur. however, i think it's a stupid process and i'll fight a rearguard action on my favorite local message board for years past when it may be logical to give up.
I know this is long dead but I haven't been back here since this was being talked about. I need you and everybody else to know that I ask that this word not be used as a personal request and not as a request for PC. I've seen that word used flippantly and I've seen that word used as a weapon, the problem is for a segment of people the effect is the same, it's heart breaking and completely gratuitous. I'm not interested in censorship but if someone I hold in any regard at all uses the word I'll always flinch, always express how I feel about it. I'll never understand why it's more socially acceptable to use that word more than racial slurs.
Look up Rosa Marcellino she's an actual real life hero.
end rant, thanks for reading
-
It's ok in the context that I use it in, just like when lib says erection at work.
-
It's ok in the context that I use it in, just like when lib says erection at work.
as a verb?
-
It's ok in the context that I use it in, just like when lib says erection at work.
as a verb?
Yes.
-
Let's say that you are a public figure and you have slapped some asses in the past. And now you realize that you shouldn't have done that, it was wrong, and you don't plan on doing it any more. What should you do now? Should you out yourself or just keep quiet and hope no one else reports you?
-
Dur, you keep quiet you snitch
-
Yeah the smart move is to keep quiet, eventually the Wheel of Outrage will land on something else.
-
Let's say that you are a public figure and you have slapped some asses in the past. And now you realize that you shouldn't have done that, it was wrong, and you don't plan on doing it any more. What should you do now? Should you out yourself or just keep quiet and hope no one else reports you?
when questioned you say it was a low back pat and nothing more
-
Viral short story.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
-
Viral short story.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
Well she wasn't wearing any pants so.......
-
Women are too complicated
-
What do you think about the king & queen of Bhutan? They first met when she was 7 and he was 17.
He'd been so moved by her beauty and inner goodness, that he'd got down on his knees and said: "When you grow up, if I am single and not married and if you are single and not married, I would like you to be my wife, provided we still feel the same."
Then 14 years later they got married. He even gave up his right to have multiple wives.
-
super creepy
-
Viral short story.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
Why did I read that
-
Viral short story.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
Why did I read that
I has the same feeling. One of those things like: well I made it this far surely it’s almost over.
-
Viral short story.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
Why did I read that
I has the same feeling. One of those things like: well I made it this far surely it’s almost over.
Are you fools serious?
-
I got through about 3 paragraphs and had to stop because of the horrendous writing.
-
I actually enjoyed the writing quite a bit
-
I read the whole thing (yes, I looked at the side bar and could tell how long it was).
And it seemed like a situation that has happened thousands of times.
-
the writing was fine, i just want to know why i read it
-
Drugs?
-
Did chum put that in here because he thinks it was sexual assault?
-
Two consenting adults went on a date and banged after. Literally happens every day all over the world. Thankfully she didn't accuse him of rape and ruin his life.
-
Did chum put that in here because he thinks it was sexual assault?
Nope.
-
People's responses to it seem to be pretty revealing, though.
-
But where were the cats?
-
I too was expecting cats. There was enough foreshadowing of it.
-
I think it's implied the cats watched
-
Viral short story.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
Why did I read that
I has the same feeling. One of those things like: well I made it this far surely it’s almost over.
Are you fools serious?
I am legit curious as to why you are so incredulous about this. What were your thoughts?
FTR, I thought it was very well written.
-
I too was expecting cats. There was enough foreshadowing of it.
i think the title implies she was putting out fire with gasoline
-
Idk, this just seems obnoxiously bad to me:
Not so cute that she would have, say, gone up to him at a party, but cute enough that she could have drummed up an imaginary crush on him if he’d sat across from her during a dull class—though she was pretty sure that he was out of college, in his mid-twenties at least.
-
You gotta give some license to fiction writing. It’s trying to convey a feeling just as much as an idea.
-
Cute couple
-
Except for the very end it’s pretty easy to imagine this as a romantic comedy starring Seth Rogan.
-
Idk, this just seems obnoxiously bad to me:
Not so cute that she would have, say, gone up to him at a party, but cute enough that she could have drummed up an imaginary crush on him if he’d sat across from her during a dull class—though she was pretty sure that he was out of college, in his mid-twenties at least.
I think that sentence conveys a ton of information about both characters - you get a decent feel for how the guy looks, but more importantly, it establishes her mindset as a shy girl who still gets crushes in class.
-
Viral short story.
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/12/11/cat-person
Why did I read that
I has the same feeling. One of those things like: well I made it this far surely it’s almost over.
Are you fools serious?
I am legit curious as to why you are so incredulous about this. What were your thoughts?
FTR, I thought it was very well written.
I thought it was great, but I really like short stories. As for reasons to read it:
1) Um, you said yourself it was well written
2) A lot of women said it was important to them
3) It's a freaking viral short story, it's good to experience that type of pop culture IMO
Also worth a quick read (if you can get over the goddam vox headline with a comma before explained):
https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/12/12/16762062/cat-person-explained-new-yorker-kristen-roupenian-short-story
-
I'd seen it lambasted by pvegs on twitter, tweeted w/o comment by a Hot 97 DJamer and then finally posted in this thread. I was distracted the whole way trying to figure out why it was viral.
-
No clue why it's viral but I like vodka sodas so maybe let's not assume it's all true.
-
I was distracted the whole way trying to figure out why it was viral.
yeah this is me also.
if i came across it in a book of short stories i would have loved it. but i got there from the pit so i was confused the whole time
-
If you read the pit, you should maybe have a better understanding of why it went viral than if you didn't.
-
I was confused at what Red Vines were and I why I have never of it before.
-
I was confused at what Red Vines were and I why I have never of it before.
Not a chronicles of Narnia fan?
-
I have not seen the film or read the book.
-
[youtube]https://youtu.be/sRhTeaa_B98[/youtube]
-
between Wayne's World and the SNL short as well as being an american grown up I find it astonishing you've never heard of that candy
-
Let's say that you are a public figure and you have slapped some asses in the past. And now you realize that you shouldn't have done that, it was wrong, and you don't plan on doing it any more. What should you do now? Should you out yourself or just keep quiet and hope no one else reports you?
https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/12/14/570717348/filmmaker-morgan-spurlock-posts-online-confessional-of-sexual-misconduct
-
Red vines are way better than twizzlers
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk