Men's Rights Movement

[Velaniz]

You asked for my opinion on what *I* would be, and I gave you reasoning why my opinion is irrelevant.

Don't be mad I'm not qualified to know what *I* would be while drunk when I never have been.

I was criticising your snark with the "chicks" bit.

- - - Updated - - -

Women on GHB can be raped even when they're the "pilot". This is because GHB destroys inhibitions and compromises informed consent.

Wait - so if she's drunk but does all the work such that you're effectively just a realistic blow-up doll, then you're still a rapist?

[Rukentuts]

I was criticising your snark with the "chicks" bit.

How is chicks offensive? It's literally saying I don't fuck dudes either.

Wait - so if she's drunk but does all the work such that you're effectively just a realistic blow-up doll, then you're still a rapist?

That's how it goes with GHB. Because it trashes her inhibitions and destroys informed consent.

[Deleted]

Dont fall for it GHB is a Daterape drug people dont take it on purpose dont use it in that small dosesages and of cource its just to score a cheap point in the following line of arguments.

Regarding the definitioon of Rape.
Woman cannot rape underage children by that definition too because she doesnt penetrate them under normal circumstances. Pure sexism that definition of rape.

[Endus]

Why do you keep making scenarios where the guy is about as active as a corpse?

The answer is no of course, not rape. But why oh why do you make these scenarios?

Because, when you remove the man's specific actions, you have a hypothetical where you can actually see if you think the intoxication makes her incapable of consent.

Your response was that intoxication isn't a factor. Which means it shouldn't be if the guy is more active. Obviously, there comes a point where he can be engaging in coercive action, and that is rape, but the intoxication isn't very relevant, as long as she's not so intoxicated she's incapable of fending him off.

If she's engaging actively and willingly in the activities, she's not being raped, basically. Even if she IS drunk.

[Rukentuts]

By that definition a Woman canot rape udnerage children too because she doesnt penetrate them. Pure sexism that definition of rape.

"by any body part"

It'd help if you read.

- - - Updated - - -

people dont take it on purpose

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-Hydroxybutyric_acid#Medical_use

[Moondance]

Anyone who thinks that males are subjected to greater amounts of discrimination and abuse than females is dangerously stupid. Females are expected to be perfect at all sorts of contradictory things, and are judged for whichever they choose not to be. Women are expected to be both beautiful and modest, submissive and independent, innocent and slutty, career-minded and devoted mothers, etc. etc. If a man spends his entire life making tiny houses out of popsicle sticks people say "what a pioneer!" If a woman is successful in her career people say "why isn't she a mother?" Their bodies are scrutinized in ways ours are not. They get paid less, get sexually assaulted at a shockingly high rate, etc. etc.

"Men's rights" is the most pathetic movement ever, because it is just privileged assholes whining.

Infracted: Please don't insult entire groups of people with whom you disagree politically.

I really like you. Shame you got infracted.

I side with this guy, because men's rights can be made fun of just like women's rights.
There are loads of valid points when it comes to how men are treated unfairly and have social expectations, but some stuff being brought up is just... No.

[Endus]

How is chicks offensive? It's literally saying I don't fuck dudes either.

That's how it goes with GHB. Because it trashes her inhibitions and destroys informed consent.

We've already been over how deliberately spiking somebody's drink is a completely separate issue to someone's own self-intoxication.

[Velaniz]

How is chicks offensive? It's literally saying I don't fuck dudes either.

Thought you were trying to be witty and saying that you didn't fuck baby chickens. But you're saying you're not gay either?

That's how it goes with GHB. Because it trashes her inhibitions and destroys informed consent.

The concept of consent only applies in a situation where there is mutual activity. In my scenario, it is entirely one-way, and not in the direction you might think.

[Rukentuts]

Thought you were trying to be witty and saying that you didn't fuck baby chickens. But you're saying you're not gay either?

My last post on this tangent: that's what I'm saying.

- - - Updated - - -

The concept of consent only applies in a situation where there is mutual activity. In my scenario, it is entirely one-way, and not in the direction you might think.

I read your scenario.

- - - Updated - - -

We've already been over how deliberately spiking somebody's drink is a completely separate issue to someone's own self-intoxication.

Or just being impaired. And that's my last response to you as well; as it's clear we will never agree.

[Velaniz]

My last post on this tangent: that's what I'm saying.

- - - Updated - - -

I read your scenario.

- - - Updated - - -

Or just being impaired. And that's my last response to you as well; as it's clear we will never agree.

So you think inebriation absolves you of any hand you might've had in anything at all. If you drink a lot, pounce on someone, have intercourse with them, and the whole time they never did anything but say yes and let you have their way with them, that somehow still makes THEM the rapist, because they didn't exercise your responsibility for you.

Do you not see a problem with that? If you do, then we can continue going through my hypotheticals through which I intend to demonstrate how I "measure" how bad laws are (as you put it). If you don't see a problem with that, then we have nothing more to discuss on the matter.

[Rukentuts]

So you think inebriation absolves you of any hand you might've had in anything at all. If you drink a lot, pounce on someone, have intercourse with them, and the whole time they never did anything but say yes and let you have their way with them, that somehow still makes THEM the rapist, because they didn't exercise your responsibility for you.

Do you not see a problem with that?

I don't have a problem if their cognitive functions were impaired.

[Xarkan]

You'll see why. also because no one's responded to them yet.



Good. Someone's responded. Okay then. You've accepted that it shouldn't be rape if she'd the primary pilot. Now I'll modify the scenario a bit. Everything else remains the same. You're slightly drunk, she's really drunk. But this time, you felt like some missionary. You did it for a short while until she decided she liked it better with her on top. Your input is no longer 0%, but maybe now ten percent. She did ninety percent of the work. Do you think you're a rapist yet??

Consent is not necessarily verbal, it can be non verbal. Any scenario that involves either verbal or non verbal consent will probably be consent as long as it is not withdrawn and is able to be withdrawn. The issue comes when you take active interest in causing a situation where the girl is unable to give any consent (or to state or show not giving or no longer giving consent) or is unable to realize what she is doing (which is not the same as drunk, Endus commented above somewhere on it, i think the example was spiking the girls drink causing her to be significantly more drunk than she realizes and is prepared for) or make use of a situation where you know others have taken such an active interest. Or something like that. Not gonna check the phrasing for lawyer proofness.

Or put another way, if the girl reaches for the zipper, zips it down, pulls out the tool and starts sucking on it (the tool not the zipper..) then regardless of her not having said yes to anything she is not being raped either. In theory of course the guy might be in the process of being raped but that was not the point i was going for. I was going for illustrating non verbal consent.

I think i phrased in an earlier post, regarding my opinion, as we do not want a society where people try to force beer on a girl until they can get their way with her.

Edit: Ehmn my bias is inherent in this, being male and with no interest in sexual relations with men i write girl (yes i am sexist, i should write woman) but that does not mean this does not mean the same thing if the person described as the girl and girl is male

Because her feelings in the morning don't change what happened the previous night.

Did not say it did :P Or put another way life is full of regrets. Question is if we should not do our utmost not to become other peoples regrets or something

[Eroginous]

I been reading about the Men's Rights Movement https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men's_rights_movement

What do you guys think about Men's Rights Movement?

I do agree with their points about Child custody, Adoption, Marriage strike and Reproductive rights.

I think their other views are bullshit

There are fundamental problems with any 'ism' or movement that stretches far beyond beliefs or ideas. As a progressive minded individual, I am inclined to agree with major points of inequality raised by the movement. However, I am reluctant to call myself a 'men's right activist' because that label implies that I care exclusively about men's rights. That when it comes to MRA issues, I would disregard non MRA issues and only focus on MRA issues because that's somehow more important or useful to that group of people.

Well, this behavior and those labels are divisive and don't really accomplish the goals people set out to accomplish. The idea that you could characterize the plight of one group of people and then march in protest about it to raise a positive awareness, is ridiculous at best. Activism groups tend to generate a lot of negative stigma socially because their behavior can be downright offensive and then it becomes negative or taboo to associate with people from that group.

On top of that, activism is very poor at enacting social progress. Many people look to the days of former rights movement and incorrectly attribute success to the behavior of marching in the streets or holding rallies. Laws don't change because you get a bunch of people together in a city and shout your beliefs over bullhorns. Laws change because you've taken the appropriate steps within your state or federal legislature to get bills introduced and voted on.

Just look at Washington and Colorado's recreational weed campaigns. People didn't gather in huge groups and march on their capital while smoking weed to get those measures passed. Instead, they raised money and put together a campaign to change laws on a state level. Those campaigns were successful because no one marched on the capital smoking weed.

So when I hear groups of people marching topless to attain women's right to be topless, I facepalm IRL and shake my head. What's the point of being an activist if you don't know the first thing about changing laws?

[Xarkan]

let me enlighten you about some things about anatomy, the penetrating organ is affixed to the Male body, so to have a definition that requires penetration, excludes the gender lacking in natural penetrating organs from the definition of rape, (that would be female) and that by very simple logic, equates to Sexism!

Women have hands too. Or is that too graphic for the limitations of the RoC?

[Rukentuts]

Women have hands too.

The definition also allows any object that isn't a body part to qualify.

[nextormento]

Both Rukentuts and Didactic are pursuing a line of thought that can't hold a serious argument. Your ability to google stuff doesn't tie in with your actual knowledge of the issue. It's nice that you want to pursue a discussion, though, but you are both lacking some fundamental understanding of the arguments you hold and. I wouldn't want to sound dismissive, but I seriously think you should actually inform yourselves before drawing conclusions; because so far, you both seem to have an idea of how things should work and cling to any source that barely supports your claims without taking the time to actually read said sources. And it appears to me neither of you have much expertise in the field; which doesn't mean you can't draw a discussion, simply that your ability to relate to factual cases might be clouded.

Bringing up and again the 'informed consent' bit does very little to support your claims. I'm unsure if you actually don't know that it exclusively applies to healthcare or you are bot trying to be candid about it and push misconceptions. But the average age of these forums is low enough for us to need to be clear on these issues. And the clear unhindered truth is that consent to sex needs to be freely, coherently, unambiguously given, and that it is a very important concept. But we also need to make it clear that this consent is not a fully legal signed contract, and that implied consent is a thing of its own. Because it's also important to let young people enjoy their sex life without them thinking it's an obstacle race against the law.

People will drink, and people will have sex. Drunk sex happens, like it or not. In fact, we could argue that one of the driving forces -obviously not the only one- to get intoxicated is precisely to loosen up and impair your judgement. This, however, doesn't mean that you're any less responsible when it comes to any activity -sex, driving, fighting, etc.-. It doesn't mater if you regret anything: you were responsible of your acts. Being drunk is not a free pass for rejecting responsibilities when you regret anything: you were mature enough to sip that couple shots and so you are mature to act in consequence.

If arguments comparing drunk sex to drunk driving keep arising it's because they want to focus on who needs to hold responsibility. It's just a means to show how absurd the situations can get when you fully apply your high bar. Absurdities ranging from both parties raping each other to deeming prostitutes unable to give consent.

And while it's true that sex needs more than one party, you can't make the -supposedly- non inebriated one responsible for your decisions. The mere fact that you keep trying to push the 'it is the other party the one inducing to sex' shows your inability to relate to the issue. More so, when this is simply a retort of the misconception that some teenagers hold along the lines of 'sex is something you get or you are given'. It's neither: sex happens among two -or more- parties.

Inhibition is a trait we carry through culture. And along with it we carry ways to drop it and are constantly seeking for more. But we can't design any morality around it; much less so laws. At the end of the day, you might realize that we need to care a whole lot about rape victims. But to do so, we need to keep track of what rape implies so the concept keeps being relevant. We need to fully detach it from patriarchy theories, or victim blaming and rape culture, for those are only trying to push political agendas instead of actually trying to help out in situations that mater.

[Deleted]

"by any body part"

It'd help if you read.

- - - Updated - - -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma-H...id#Medical_use

90% of all sexual activity is D into V - m8 (heterosexual only, duh)

and besides even if in your mind that still don't qualify as sexism what about these two scenarios:
a female orders, at gunpoint, a man to give her head, since no penetration occurs this is not rape according to the definition.
a man orders, at gunpoint, a female to give him head, since penetration occurs it is rape.
but the definition is not sexist?

PS

Women have hands too. Or is that too graphic for the limitations of the RoC?

RoC?
also see above

[Velaniz]

I don't have a problem if their cognitive functions were impaired.

You consider alcohol to be something that undermines one's capacity for rational thought? What about hormones which induce seual arousal though? In a state of arousal, you make a lot of decisions you wouldn't make otherwise, and your capacity for rational thought is undermined much the same way. What if the party that got pounced on was sober, but rather had their cognitive functions "impaired" by the hormones flowing through them which were stimulated by that other person pouncing on them?

[Endus]

Or just being impaired. And that's my last response to you as well; as it's clear we will never agree.

The difference is, the law's on my side, and your argument leads to ridiculous conclusions, like how every drunken one-night-stand involves two people raping each other against their wills, simultaneously.

Unless you're making the argument that only men can rape, in which case you're just resorting to outright misandry. Or that women are such fragile flowers that they can't possibly help but be victimized at every turn, which is outright misogyny. But one of those two is really the only way your argument stands up.

[Velaniz]

Consent is not necessarily verbal, it can be non verbal. Any scenario that involves either verbal or non verbal consent will probably be consent as long as it is not withdrawn and is able to be withdrawn. The issue comes when you take active interest in causing a situation where the girl is unable to give any consent (or to state or show not giving or no longer giving consent) or is unable to realize what she is doing (which is not the same as drunk, Endus commented above somewhere on it, i think the example was spiking the girls drink causing her to be significantly more drunk than she realizes and is prepared for) or make use of a situation where you know others have taken such an active interest. Or something like that. Not gonna check the phrasing for lawyer proofness.

Or put another way, if the girl reaches for the zipper, zips it down, pulls out the tool and starts sucking on it (the tool not the zipper..) then regardless of her not having said yes to anything she is not being raped either. In theory of course the guy might be in the process of being raped but that was not the point i was going for. I was going for illustrating non verbal consent.

I think i phrased in an earlier post, regarding my opinion, as we do not want a society where people try to force beer on a girl until they can get their way with her.



Did not say it did :P Or put another way life is full of regrets. Question is if we should not do our utmost not to become other peoples regrets or something

ah. Then you do agree that drunk sex isn't rape regardless of which party is drunk, or if both of them are, so long as the element of consent is there.