On this thing called "rape culture"

Nevin73 wrote:
OG_slinger wrote:

Stanford rapist Brock Turner was released from prison last week and he's hiding out in his parents house in a suburb of Dayton, OH.

This has drawn a group of protesters, a couple of which thought signs with harsh language weren't enough so they brought along their AR-15s as well.

Not a big fan of people brandishing their weapons as a form of intimidation, but it's nice to see it be done for a positive reason once in a while. Actually I'm rather conflicted on it.

Paleocon" wrote:

taking a gun to a protest, you are not a protester. You are something very different and the implications of your presence are deeply unamerican.

The American Justice System failed big time, but I can't see how brandishing weapons helps anything.

Yeah, I'm with Nomad and Paleocon on this one. Protesting the guy - fine. Bringing guns? Not cool at all. Yes, he's a world-class scumbag (and from the sounds of it, so is his dad, and the judge that sentenced him), but bringing guns to a protest turns it into a threat.

If you can't open carry when a known rapist moves into your neighborhood, what's the point of having the law?

Jayhawker wrote:

If you can't open carry when a known rapist moves into your neighborhood, what's the point of having the law?

Good point. What's the point of having any of the insane gun laws the US has?

Don't carry any guns at all ffs it's supposed to be a First World country isn't it

I don't know whether to vomit on my keyboard or wait until I can make it to the bathroom.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/jhz3fs5.png)

There's so much wrong here I can't even begin to unpack it.

At least one part makes sense: When you're full of coke, you're probably not going to judge the situation well enough to understand whether your intended partner is consenting.

I don't mean that as an excuse. I mean that as something that men should be aware of before they become intoxicated.

wordsmythe wrote:

At least one part makes sense: When you're full of coke, you're probably not going to judge the situation well enough to understand it is irrelevant to you whether your intended partner is consenting.

Yeah, but.

Don't do drugs that turn you into a narcissistic ego-monster, kids.

<— Does not have any experience with using coke.

wordsmythe wrote:

<— Does not have any experience with using coke.

Me neither. Precisely because I've spent time around coke-fiends.

"Hey, do you want to be a crushing asshole to everyone around you AND have no self-awareness of that fact?"

"Boy howdy do I!"

*shhhhhnuuuuuuuuuuuuuuurt*

Maq wrote:

I don't know whether to vomit on my keyboard or wait until I can make it to the bathroom.

IMAGE(http://i.imgur.com/jhz3fs5.png)

There's so much wrong here I can't even begin to unpack it.

I hope they keep his penis in the evidence room until the end of the trial than.

From what I've *ahem* heard, cocaine makes you a more stimulated/amplified version of you. I can see how quickly that becomes a bad situation when an asshole is using it.

It's also a great decongestant. Or so I've heard.

Chairman_Mao wrote:

From what I've *ahem* heard, cocaine makes you a more stimulated/amplified version of you. I can see how quickly that becomes a bad situation when an asshole is using it.

It's also a great decongestant. Or so I've heard.

But it smells terrible.

Bonus_Eruptus wrote:
Chairman_Mao wrote:

From what I've *ahem* heard, cocaine makes you a more stimulated/amplified version of you. I can see how quickly that becomes a bad situation when an asshole is using it.

It's also a great decongestant. Or so I've heard.

But it smells terrible.

Only until it numbs your olfactory nerve!

Just another indication that American Psycho wasn't exactly satire...

wordsmythe wrote:

At least one part makes sense: When you're full of coke, you're probably not going to judge the situation well enough to understand whether your intended partner is consenting.

I'm going to call bullsh*t on this line of reasoning. With the possible exception of being exceedingly drunk, almost everyone is perfectly capable of reading social cues will high on most readily available recreational drugs.

If someone is a sufficient monster that they would rape someone while on coke then frankly the coke is incidental.

In the broader picture a lot of people's behaviour on drugs is a reflection of the expectations around those drugs. If we continue to expect that people on drugs (coke) can't judge social situations then in turn people on drugs will continue to not bother trying.

If your sexual partner is crying, it's probably a good idea to take a time out and make sure she's okay and consenting. End of.

sometimesdee wrote:

If your sexual partner is crying, it's probably a good idea to take a time out and make sure she's okay and consenting. End of.

I mean, you would think... but I suspect that requires empathy or compassion, and I also suspect that may be short supply for the massive ego that dude's also sporting.

sometimesdee wrote:

If your sexual partner is crying, it's probably a good idea to take a time out and make sure she's okay and consenting. End of.

Exactly. I mean how do you even... you know... maintain if your partner is crying unless you're a goddamn sociopath?

Maq wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

If your sexual partner is crying, it's probably a good idea to take a time out and make sure she's okay and consenting. End of.

Exactly. I mean how do you even... you know... maintain if your partner is crying unless you're a goddamn sociopath?

Maq wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

If your sexual partner is crying, it's probably a good idea to take a time out and make sure she's okay and consenting. End of.

Exactly. I mean how do you even... you know... maintain if your partner is crying unless you're a goddamn sociopath?

To be fair, I hear cocaine helps you maintain through most everything.

Also, the articles tell a bit more. He started from behind and didn't notice the crying until later... Supposedly.

Maq wrote:
sometimesdee wrote:

If your sexual partner is crying, it's probably a good idea to take a time out and make sure she's okay and consenting. End of.

Exactly. I mean how do you even... you know... maintain if your partner is crying unless you're a goddamn sociopath?

I maintained through puppies crying because they didn't want to be in their crates and even that was difficult... a human being crying? Nope. Hell, 2nd time I had sex with my exwife, I couldn't maintain because of the vague sense that she wasn't into it (she wasn't, but hilarious reason, quick discussion, back to normal after).

DanB wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

At least one part makes sense: When you're full of coke, you're probably not going to judge the situation well enough to understand whether your intended partner is consenting.

I'm going to call bullsh*t on this line of reasoning. With the possible exception of being exceedingly drunk, almost everyone is perfectly capable of reading social cues will high on most readily available recreational drugs.

If someone is a sufficient monster that they would rape someone while on coke then frankly the coke is incidental.

In the broader picture a lot of people's behaviour on drugs is a reflection of the expectations around those drugs. If we continue to expect that people on drugs (coke) can't judge social situations then in turn people on drugs will continue to not bother trying.

I'm willing to concede that I'm potentially monstrous, if that helps, but I've seen enough people making assumptions while drunk/high at parties or clubs that I'm going to continue telling guys to get things figured out while they're sober rather than believe they'll read situations correctly later.

DanB wrote:
wordsmythe wrote:

At least one part makes sense: When you're full of coke, you're probably not going to judge the situation well enough to understand whether your intended partner is consenting.

I'm going to call bullsh*t on this line of reasoning. With the possible exception of being exceedingly drunk, almost everyone is perfectly capable of reading social cues will high on most readily available recreational drugs.

I can readily call bullsh*t on that DanB's line of reasoning too. Pretty much every readily available recreational drug explicitly affects your ability to accurately judge and respond to social cues. Weed does (paranoia anyone?), ecstasy definitely does ("I love you, man"), meth does ("f*ck it Jerry, that dude doesn't understand what we're trying to do here, just keep shovelling"), coke does ("we own this f*cking town!"), don't even get me started on psychedelics (ever seen a room full of people tripping balls and literally unable to communicate with each other? I have).

There's a reason you should never have sex with someone for the first time while intoxicated. It's consent-kryptonite.

If you're not allowed to drive after consuming the illicit substance because it might cause you to be unable to correctly react to a situation, you should probably not be having sex after consuming said illicit substance.

Demosthenes wrote:

If you're not allowed to drive because it might cause you to be unable to correctly react to a situation, you should probably not be having sex while doing it.

You might want to reconsider that sentence, or add a f*ckton of caveats. Otherwise, it could apply to conditions such as blindness, epilepsy...

sometimesdee wrote:

You might want to reconsider that sentence, or add a f*ckton of caveats. Otherwise, it could apply to conditions such as blindness, epilepsy...

Well, sh*t. You're right. My apologies on the ableism (spelling may be wrong there, Google Spellcheck is failing me).

It's a pretty Puritanical view of sex, too. The last few posts are dangerously close to "all alcohol/drug fueled sex is rape." And while maybe a case can be made for it in theory, it's Dworkin levels of ideological purity.

Maybe it makes me a Puritan, but yeah, I think consent should come when both parties are sober. I told my brothers that, and I plan to teach my son that.

<-not a lawyer: From a legal standpoint , if nothing else, I think I agree with worsmythe here, I'm pretty sure contract law requires sobriety before one can consent/agree to a contract and indeed the witness, if required, often has to sign stating that the signee was in fact sober.

Sure most people probably don't have a written contract to whip out and clarify things before sex* but nonetheless as far as the law goes I would think the same standard of sobriety would apply to oral consent to engage in a sexual activity.

*maybe they should? outlining what's okay, not okay, acknowledging known STIs, establishing expectations as to pregnancy precautions or lack of, etc

Seth wrote:

It's a pretty Puritanical view of sex, too. The last few posts are dangerously close to "all alcohol/drug fueled sex is rape." And while maybe a case can be made for it in theory, it's Dworkin levels of ideological purity.

And that's why I was careful to qualify it.

Jonman wrote:

There's a reason you should never have sex with someone for the first time while intoxicated. It's consent-kryptonite.

I saw your qualification, which is why I said dangerously close and not actually saying the thing. Thank you for your careful language, btw.

The fact is that reality doesn't reflect this goal in any way, and I'm not sure it should. Our species has been using drugs to have sex since well before this forum was invented, and will continue well after this forum is defunct. Bringing up things like contract law or universal sober consent is just laughable. It's a far more useful expenditure of resources to make the concept of consent sink deep enough into cultural standards that it is considered while intoxicated. Then you only have issues when one or more members suffers memory loss of the consent.