Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/11/13 08:59 AM, Memorize wrote: I'm just tired of you people attempting to have it both ways.

Notice the bit about how he was using the law, and not opinion to justify himself?

On one hand, your voluntarily being drunk and making an idiotic decision such deciding to steal, drive, and fight can't be used as a defense for your stupid behavior.

He did make some good, valid, LEGAL points as to why. It's not like he said "I as the individual believe it shouldn't be this way, so therefore I shall say it isn't". He said "The LAW says it isn't this way, therefore it isn't".

But one other hand, if you agree to doing certain other things (like Sex... because with you idiot left wingers, somehow the most ridiculously of stupid excuses become legitimate when it comes to anything sex related)

Define anything? Because there's a lot of situations when it comes to sex I don't think is legitimate, and I'm sure to you I'm a raging "left winger".

it magically becomes a solid excuse to avoid your own personal responsibility.

Except it didn't, that wasn't the argument he made, that isn't the argument most were making. That's the argument of the straw man left winger you so dearly keep wishing will come into these threads to debate with you.

The only reason why you people are even taking that position is because you're imagining it happening to a woman rather than a man.

I'm not taking any position like that. If the woman says no, it's rape. If the man says no, it's rape. The scenario the OP presented is not compatible with a defense. The only way it's defensible is in a case where both parties agree, and then one party turns around after the fact and says there wasn't consent, this rarely happens, but it does happen. That's why the police INVESTIGATE these claims rather then just say "oh they said they were raped, so they must have been, because nobody ever lies about such a thing".

At 8/13/13 08:11 PM, HibiscusMallow wrote:

At 8/11/13 06:49 PM, supergandhi64 wrote:

At 8/11/13 06:00 PM, HibiscusMallow wrote: how does the law find out what happened without the appropriate documents?

what are you even talking about

--supergandhi64

word of mouth isn't good enough proof in a court of law, if you want to stop people taking advantage of drunk women you need to make it illegal to have sex with a blood alcohol content above 0.2 without documentation

not a bad idea actually. here's a better one: make premarital sex illegal. that would completely eliminate all doubt surrounding rape & sexual abuse. there'd only be legal & illegal with no grey at all

--supergandhi64

At 8/14/13 06:55 AM, supergandhi64 wrote: not a bad idea actually. here's a better one: make premarital sex illegal. that would completely eliminate all doubt surrounding rape & sexual abuse. there'd only be legal & illegal with no grey at all

Rape can still happen within the context of marriages.

At 8/13/13 11:48 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

I'm not taking any position like that. If the woman says no, it's rape. If the man says no, it's rape. The scenario the OP presented is not compatible with a defense. The only way it's defensible is in a case where both parties agree, and then one party turns around after the fact and says there wasn't consent, this rarely happens, but it does happen.

Exactly!

But you should really go back and re-read his initial posts.

They didn't have anything to do with the law. It was "if you don't want to be accused of rape, then keep it in your pants."

I just pointed out that he would never accept that argument for 85% of abortions. I found that funny.

My reply to him had nothing to do with anyone saying "no."

At 8/14/13 03:48 PM, Memorize wrote: Exactly!

But you should really go back and re-read his initial posts.

They didn't have anything to do with the law. It was "if you don't want to be accused of rape, then keep it in your pants."

I just pointed out that he would never accept that argument for 85% of abortions. I found that funny.

My reply to him had nothing to do with anyone saying "no."

There's a pretty big difference between having an abortion and getting raped. Can you figure out what it is, and why your strawman makes no sense?

At 8/14/13 03:48 PM, Memorize wrote: They didn't have anything to do with the law. It was "if you don't want to be accused of rape, then keep it in your pants."

A man who wants to reduce and lower their chances of being falsely accused of rape should avoid casual sex. Casual sex invites such accusals either through providing a factual basis from which they can arise (consentual sex) or it can result in situations where consent is questioned, openly iffy, or falt out nonexistant. In short keep it in your pants and you don't add fuel to the potential fire.

The same thing goes for women. If a woman doesn't want to ge raped, they should not travel alone in the darkness, and perhaps the most often made mistake, they should not get drunk without support. Darkness is the best place for predators to attack and they choose prey based on vulnerability and nothing says "vulnerable" more than a woman alone. On top of that, most of the "was there consent?" rapes occur when the woman gets drunk and is not with a supporting group who can either stop her, or protect her when she can no longer make decisions for herself and defend herself.

It flies both ways, although as the problems and motives for each issue are very different, the exact needs for each gender to avoid their selective problem is quite different.

At 8/14/13 09:05 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

A man who wants to reduce and lower their chances of being falsely accused of rape should avoid casual sex. Casual sex invites such accusals either through providing a factual basis from which they can arise (consentual sex) or it can result in situations where consent is questioned, openly iffy, or falt out nonexistant. In short keep it in your pants and you don't add fuel to the potential fire.

Which is my point: You wouldn't accept this argument under a different scenario.

At 8/14/13 08:57 PM, Feoric wrote:

There's a pretty big difference between having an abortion and getting raped. Can you figure out what it is, and why your strawman makes no sense?

He wasn't talking about being raped. He was specifically talking about being falsely accused of it.

Way to go, dumbass.

At 8/14/13 11:24 PM, Memorize wrote: Which is my point: You wouldn't accept this argument under a different scenario.

Are you trying to say that we wouldn't tell a woman to not have sex as it lead to rape or false accusations of rape against her?

Women don't really have to fear false accusations of rape (as if many men do either) so they do not need to avoid it the same way a man (who is afraid of statitically negligible outcome) would.

As for rape, sex doesn't increases the chances for a woman to get raped. Being vulnerable and inhibiting decision-making ability are the biggest factors that lead to it.

Just like women don't really have the fear of being falsely accused of rape, most men don't have the fear of being raped. It can happen, but it is rare and the circumstances are very different. So, yes, this is a situation where different things are required of men and women, not because of sexism, but because of reality.

At 8/15/13 12:19 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

Are you trying to say that we wouldn't tell a woman to not have sex as it lead to rape or false accusations of rape against her?

... You can't read for shit.

At 8/14/13 11:24 PM, Memorize wrote: He wasn't talking about being raped. He was specifically talking about being falsely accused of it.

Way to go, dumbass.

I was specifically referring to you trying to mock the "if you don't want to be accused of rape, then keep it in your pants" statement; ie, drawing a comparison between that as a justification for an abortion when the original discussion was about rape. So are you trolling or are you just functionally retarded? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer is both.

At 8/15/13 04:40 AM, Feoric wrote:

I was specifically referring to you trying to mock the "if you don't want to be accused of rape, then keep it in your pants" statement; ie, drawing a comparison between that as a justification for an abortion when the original discussion was about rape. So are you trolling or are you just functionally retarded? Don't bother answering, it's a rhetorical question. We all know the answer is both.

You: "There's a pretty big difference between having an abortion and getting raped."

He wasn't talking about getting raped, nor was I talking about someone being sexually assaulted.

HE was specifically talking about being FALSELY ACCUSED of rape, and that if you are, then "you brought it on yourself."

English mother fucka, can you read it?

At 8/15/13 03:39 AM, Memorize wrote: ... You can't read for shit.

Then tell me what your "different scenario" is. FYI, it's really hard to read something you never wrote.

Okay, I don't even understand why we still need to debate over this. Rape is rape is rape is rape. If you have sex with someone, regardless of gender, and they, AT THE TIME, did not want to have sex with you, then it's rape.

Yes, there is a double standard, but women are raped far more often than men, because of the patriarchal culture in which we live. A man sleeps with a lot of women, he's called a stud, and gets pats on the back from his compatriots. A woman sleeps with a lot of men, and she's called a slut, and gets shamed by men and women alike. Men are often pressured to sleep around, while women are pressured to keep their virginity. And female virginity is a huge deal, while it's hardly ever important to men. So, some men force themselves onto women to feel adequate, much in a similar way that women starve themselves and wear lots of makeup to feel adequate. TLDR; society is screwed up- but men have it easier, and if you think men have it harder, then quit lying to yourself and try walking in high heels even once.

At 8/16/13 03:54 PM, Aquabreeze wrote: Yes, there is a double standard, but women are raped far more often than men,

It depends on the country you live in. In one like the UK or USA, its actually far closer than you are assuming, and it creates a double standard against men.

because of the patriarchal culture in which we live.

oh wow

At 8/16/13 03:54 PM, Aquabreeze wrote: A man sleeps with a lot of women, he's called a stud, and gets pats on the back from his compatriots. A woman sleeps with a lot of men, and she's called a slut, and gets shamed by men and women alike.

And its the other way around for cases of rape. If a woman gets raped its the worst thing ever after murder and genocide, if a man gets raped he needs to toughen up. People like you can only see in black and white.

At 8/16/13 03:54 PM, Aquabreeze wrote: Yes, there is a double standard, but women are raped far more often than men, because of the patriarchal culture in which we live.

I blame the matriarchal culture we live in for defining rape as forced penetration while excluding forced envelopment.

TLDR; society is screwed up- but men have it easier, and if you think men have it harder, then quit lying to yourself and try walking in high heels even once.

What are the stats on rape when including forced envelopment?
Who commits the most amounts of suicide?
Who is the largest perpetrator of non-reciprocal domestic violence?
Who has the least amount of abuse shelters?
Who gets custody of the kids regardless of capabilities?
Who goes to war?
Who works the mines?
Who rushes forward into danger to save the other gender?
Who are the first ones to board the lifeboats?
Who dies in the workplace deaths?
Who gets the higher court sentences for the exact same crime?
Who are the homeless?
Who gets the most funding for their relatively equal types of cancer?
What is the difference in average amount of hours worked each week between the genders?

But omg, there's like, advertisements and stuff that tell women to be skinny so patriarchy.

At 8/17/13 01:53 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 8/16/13 03:54 PM, Aquabreeze wrote: Yes, there is a double standard, but women are raped far more often than men, because of the patriarchal culture in which we live.

I blame the matriarchal culture we live in for defining rape as forced penetration while excluding forced envelopment.

Rape, colloquially, DOES include that. However, one thing you miss out here is that unless drugged a man (more or less) has control over their erection. If a man does not want sex, it is very difficult to induce an erection other than chemically.

The case of rape involing a man are more of the case involving penetration of the anus, or forced performance of a sexual act (usually, oral or masturbation). It happens, a lot. However, it still happens at a rate that pales in comparison to even just the amount of reported full vaginal rapes of women.

At 8/17/13 02:36 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Rape, colloquially, DOES include that. However, one thing you miss out here is that unless drugged a man (more or less) has control over their erection. If a man does not want sex, it is very difficult to induce an erection other than chemically.

Erections are a completely natural response to stimuli. You ever get an erection for no reason, or just touching of any sort even when you're not in the mood? It is a basic biological response, hardly indicative of whether or not somebody actually wants it. Shit, some women even orgasm during their rape. The body can be fucked up like that and betray your mind. And no, rape does not colloquially include that for most people. Just look at all the people who think boner=not rape.

The case of rape involing a man are more of the case involving penetration of the anus, or forced performance of a sexual act (usually, oral or masturbation). It happens, a lot. However, it still happens at a rate that pales in comparison to even just the amount of reported full vaginal rapes of women.

Yeah, sodomy of other men by men happens at rates nowhere near the same rate as forced penetration of women.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_report2010-a.pdf

Go to table 2.2 on page 19. Being forced to penetrate is considered "Other Sexual Violence." When we purposefully define rape in an exclusionary manner for women, no fucking shit they aren't going to have as large of numbers as men being considered rapists. Almost an even split for males being forced to penetrate, and females being forcefully penetrated.