…when a drunk woman couples with a drunk man, the drunk man is somehow still responsible, while the woman is a victim, because she’s drunk.
…when a drunk woman couples with a drunk man, the drunk man is somehow still responsible, while the woman is a victim, because she’s drunk.
that is because the answer to “hold her liquor “used to be
by the ears
Judgy Bitch has a more detailed take on this topic (and in her usual subtle way!)
http://judgybitch.com/2013/10/16/well-well-well-look-at-this-is-the-conversation-about-rapeculture-starting-to-take-on-a-shade-of-sanity/
when reading the post article, my first reaction was, it becomes rape when found out/caught, and that sentiment is also conveyed in Maureen’s link
have attended a few college “parties”, when I used to travel, at age 33-35 (yes I could pass for a college student at that age:-)))), I can assure that many of these victims come on pretty strong after only a drink or 2. So they are largely victims of their own stupidity
This might not be the ongoing theme at a local college’s “Sex Week” festivities.
I remember a girl twenty something who, when I took her to her place, she QUICKLY gulped down three beers and got down to buisness.
Love Christmas Holidays!
All she asked was not to tell my younger brother. She was his teacher.
There is a purposeful conflation of two separate acts.
Act 1: a male person sees a woman passed-out from being drunk and does, or attempts to perform a sexual act without her conscious consent.
Act 2: a drunk chick getting laid.
‘Act 1’ IS RAPE, and I don’t know a person who would disagree; nor would condone such an act. Furthermore, this illegal act can only be perpetrated by a man on a drunk woman, as that’s the way the equipment works.
If ‘Act 2’ is considered rape, then I will suggest that most every dude I’ve ever known, or who has ever lived, is guilty of multiple episodes of rape.
I believe there is a deliberate attempt to conflate these two different acts as a way to criminalize all men. This is the objective of this blatantly absurd blending of these two completely different situations. JMO
Furthermore, I am glad I am married, and do not have sons so I do not have to deal with this nonsense personally.
BTW, here is a partial list of other things I glad for:
– my kids and wife being of mixed race, so when they come for us crackers they will be spared
– that I am a man, so that when Sharia law is reality, I will benefit from the misogynistic rules; and, get to inflict such rules on the libtards who helped bring Sharia here(really looking forward to this one, “don’t make Homez smack a libtard b1@tch”)
indiana homez >
“‘Act 1’ IS RAPE, and I don’t know a person who would disagree; nor would condone such an act.”
You haven’t heard from SDA LAS yet, he defends foreign and domestic pedophiles all the time on SDA.
I specifically said “person”, not troll.
now, now, be nice, Lassie thinks it’s a person
This brings Women to the level of children. Which of course was intended.
You see Ladies don’t have the brains or intelligence to conduct themselves is the message. They must be protected from themselves is the meme.
Quite right Indiana Homez. There were a number of times when I was in university where, under the modern “rape” definition, it would be hard to know who “raped” who as the women I met at a party was as drunk as I was.
Women have to take responsibility for their actions and the vast majority of men are interested in a woman who’s awake and eager whereas one has to be a pervert to prefer passed out women. The only contact I have with women passed out at parties is to put them into a left-lateral position so they won’t aspirate when they vomit.
“They must be protected…”
Thanks RD for the great segway… where I can promote one of my all time favorite tv rants:
“Personally, I hate sexual harassment laws. The original force behind them were disgruntled lesbians who felt they were not given the same opportunities. Along with ugly women, who are jealous of pretty women who got all the breaks in the work force. My cause to action is simple, women are victims. They need special help. Look, at the evolution of these sexual harassment laws. What we are really saying is women really should qualify under the Federal Disablity Act. They are less able. They cannot cope with romance in the office. They cannot contend with having to do a job and have a man smile at them. It is too much. Look where we use to be, first quid pro quo, then hostile enviorment, and now Sienfeld episodes. Women can’t take it they bruise too easily. The laws are here to protect the weak and most vulernable in society. She is woman, protect her!”
– Richard Fish, “The Playing Field”
Minor pet peeve: Unless you can ride it to work, it’s a “segue”.
=)
That’s not what the beer commercials say, they say it’s our good looks that are responsible.
To be fair, some types of conservatives want to conflate these two acts as well because ??? I’m not exactly sure why – A dislike of women, religion, rejection issues?
Teaching women to protect themselves from Act 1 and that Act 2 is not a crime does not mean Act 1 should not be a crime. Maybe it would help some people around here by imaging a different slightly different situation: change it to acts perpetrated on a drunk young man by another man who outweighs him by 50+ pounds and has intentionally got the victim drunk.
I have to disagree with your second comment though. I had a supervisor who harassed a number of female staff members and it is not about “romance” or not being able to handle a smile. It’s about the creepiness of having someone talk only to your chest or having to make sure he’s not following you up the stairs or worrying if he’ll fail you on your probationary period if you tell him to FO. Harassment by an a-hole and fun flirtation/banter enjoyed by two coworkers are very different situations.
Make me a sandwich.
In contrast to The Creep supervisor we had a foreman who had a lock installed in one of the outer buildings where we worked. He told us girls to keep the door locked and to call the control room if The Creep showed up. He’d then send another worker out there until The Creep left. Of those two types of men, Max certainly doesn’t remind me of the foreman.
A very politically incorrect book on rape from a biological perspective:
http://www.amazon.com/Natural-History-Rape-Biological-Coercion/dp/0262700832
I was struck by some of the scientific studies on “rape avoidance” behaviour by women. Apparently pregnant women are less likely to exhibit rape avoidance behaviour than women who are not pregnant.
So researchers decided to look at the behaviour of women on birth control pills – women who were experiencing a faux pregnancy.
Guess what? Women on the pill exhibited a reduction in rape avoidance behaviour.
So how many of these women getting sloshed at frat parties are on the pill?
I have tried to use this example several times on forums discussing rape – even quoting the sources. My comments get deleted every time.
If you keep that up I won’t let you blow me.
Congratulations, max: The stupidity of your last two comments has surpassed that of every troll who’s ever posted here.
What a disappointment. If you’re even half a man you’ll apologize.
“If ‘Act 2’ is considered rape, then I will suggest that most every dude I’ve ever known, or who has ever lived, is guilty of multiple episodes of rape.”
There IS a reason Jimmy Buffett wrote a song called,”Why Don’t We get Drunk and Screw”.