Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest: A Rorschach test for misogynists
Looks like another evil lying bitch, doc.
Some highlights, by which I mean lowlights, of a recent discussion on The Spearhead of IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest on sexual assault charges. The Spearheaders, naturally, have some unique and interesting perspectives on the case:
Black women (like the accuser) are all a bunch of liars. Run away!
Reality May 18, 2011 at 11:04
I knew it was going to be a black woman- I suspected from the second I heard about this. Crystal Magnum anyone? Don’t want to make this a racial issue- but how can you avoid it? You take 5 ounces of Female/Feminist hate and deception, add 8 ounces of the stereotypical black thing of always sniffing around for a lawsuit, stir .. and you have more than enough reason to avoid black women even more vigorously than women in general.
The case is somehow all about how badly “beta” men are discriminated against by evil women:
Commander Shepard May 18, 2011 at 11:53
Typically false rape allegations are made when a woman realizes she’s slept with a beta but doesn’t want her rep taking a hit and wants to avoid feeling like crap (betas are icky) my gut tells me either this is a totally fabricated set up (politically motivated) or Strauss-Kahn is getting a lesson in how betas have to apologize everyday for their existence.
She’s accusing him because she’s got AIDS and therefore (?) wants to make a quick buck, ethics be damned:
Avenger May 18, 2011 at 18:55 …
Since she has AIDS she knows that an infection could take her out at any time and she has a teenage daughter. A person like this will certainly not think like a normal person and may very well do something for a lump sum of cash since she has nothing to lose and may have some resentment towards men and doesn’t care what happens to this one guy. She also may be thinking that if she dies at least her daughter will have the money. This is not someone I would trust. …
I predict that Strauss will be released on bail tomorrow. He’ll pay the female’s lawyer some money and then the whole thing will just fade away.
He’s probably innocent, but he’s a white-hating Commie Jew bastard, so ha ha:
goldenfetus May 18, 2011 at 09:57
Libertarian here. I doubt this guy is guilty. Seems unlikely, yet possible. But as observed, this guy is a White-hating elite Marxist Jew. So while I agree that political disagreement is not sufficient grounds for wishing false-rape accusation/conviction on him, I submit that his hostility toward my people coupled with his general evil is enough to justify the enjoyment of his suffering. We can’t forget that his politics are what makes this possible in the first place, or ignore the ‘reap what you sow’ component here.
As a white guy, I’d like to say that goldenfetus does not in fact speak for “my people.”
And before anyone steps in to complain that I’ve picked the “outliers” in the discussions, the fanatics whose opinions aren’t shared by the MRA masses, I will note that (as is generally the case with Spearhead comments I quote) all of the comments here have gotten numerous upvotes from Spearhead readers, and only a handful of downvotes, if any. In other words, they represent something close to the Spearhead conventional wisdom. (And by “wisdom” here I mean “offensive idiocy.”)
Posted on May 19, 2011, in evil women, men who should not ever be with women ever, MGTOW, misogyny, MRA, racism, rape, rapey, reactionary bullshit, the spearhead, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 210 Comments.
Well the regular thats making the false allegations about rape comes off as the thug, and Elam looks like some one responding in kind.
I don’t see the statement the poster made as a “false allegation/accusation”. It’s just an opinion that the poster wouldn’t be surprised “if”. It doesn’t even meet the definition of defamation. Obviously, the poster did not state as a “fact” that he was a rapist. There are several MRA’s I wouldn’t be surprised if they were abusers or rapists based on certain things they have written. I’d bet there are multitudes of people who have low opinions of several MRA’s, including Elam. And you know, we’re all entitled to our opinions, our right to free speech, and all that. He doesn’t hold back on his low opinions of people. He has the right to express them - and so does everyone else.
lol: You pointed to the top post as an refutation of, “The MRA’s are already accusing the alleged victim in the DSK case of being a liar”.
You said that post shows, The Spearhead is saying that the woman is likely telling the truth, which is true… for the single guy who wrote it. The comments there, however, support the contention that MRAs are accusing the accuser of being a liar.
Note also that the person you are saying is wrong, is using the words, “alleged victim.” Kendra is giving the accused the benefit of the doubt, in direct contradiction of your accusation of “all the lies” in this one thread.
As to lies. Your link to “A man is a rape supporter if” is a lie. Thats not an allegation of rape. It’s an accusation of supporting rapists. That’s a lot different.
BUt you want to have it all ways. The Spearhead is representative of the MRA movement, but most MRA suporters won’t have anything to do with the comments there, and would rather it wasn’t there.
Nonsense. If they really felt that way they would do what happens here. They’d read the posts and make comments. If they disliked a comment they’d downvote it, thus making it clear that the MRA community doesn’t agree with that sort of thing and thus discouraging it.
But they don’t.
Because they don’t. This is like anit… show me the MRA sites that aren’t festering swamps in the comments sections. If you can’t, explain to me how I am supposed to know that 1: “its still a minority and the bulk of mras would rather that commentary wasn’t there in the first place and 2: how you can support that while contending that rapes aren’t underreported the same way that MRA types who aren’t the misogynist asshats in the comments at MRA blogs are the minority (that it, “underreported).
Nobby, I’m not claiming “that your very existence is a lie”.
If you have been lead to believe that your existence is defined by a left wing political construct that constructs and uses misinformation about rape and abuse as a platform to fear monger and rabble rouse, the problem is with the construct, not you or me.
Pecunium
If you only read the selected comments from the spearhead and mgtow, thats all you will see. I take it you know what Plato’s cave
Whats more, men that have been abused by women, in a culture that excludes and mocks them and have been caught up in a legal system that apparently aids and abets their abusers, have every right to be angry.
Captain Bathrobe
You condone false accusations of rape because you are in a culture (feminism) that encourages it, not everyone sees a false allegation of rape as a water pistol, especially not those that have been killed, tortured, raped, burned at the stake, lost everything or killed themselves because of a false allegation of rape.
See, now I think you’re just being willfully obtuse. Either that, or you’re the world’s biggest drama queen-or, if you like, drama king.
lol: Ah… the “culture = poltical construct” argument.
When we all know that ‘misandrist culture” is a political construct of the male supremacist movement, meant to convince men who have no actual idea of what the culture they grew up in actually requires to maintain itself and can be convinced an increase in equality is actually a foul supression of, “men’s natural rights”, brought about by the radical, and evil-minded, feminists who want to emasculate all boys; so the false idea that women are just as intelligent and capable as men can be eradicated and everyone will be happy again, just like they were before women got the vote, and the pill, and the right to have a bank account, and live without a man to clean up and put out for whenever he was in the mood.
A couple of things:
I’m aware of that Elam post, and don’t want it discussed here.
NWO, I’ve taken that IP off the moderation list.
Eoghan, I’m now about 200% convinced you and Lol are one and the same. Making the same arguments, using the same language, with the same writing style (lots of run-on sentences), etc etc. If it walks like a Eoghan, and quacks like a Eoghan …
Lol:
Eoghan:
If you’re not Eoghan, you clearly studied under him.
So, Lol/Eoghan, I’d prefer it if you simply acknowledged that you are one and the same. Now that I can moderate comments properly, I will actually allow you to post here, though if you start routinely misrepresenting other people and being disruptive you will go on moderation.
Speaking of Elam, in a post titled “No Means No. Sure, Whatever.” he’s defending young men in a Yale fraternity who were banned from recruiting or activities on campus for five years for chanting “No means yes, yes means anal,” and,” “My name is Jack, I’m a necrophiliac[sic], I f*ck dead women.”.
Whacked.
Pecunium
“so the false idea that women are just as intelligent and capable as men”.
You need to learn what the mens movement is, the mens movement position is that women should be treated like and held to the same standards as men, and that we should embrace equality as in equal opportunity and equality under the law, thats why its at odds with feminism which preaches a modified form of chivalry.
@Bee…Under Penal Code 261 one of the provisions for determining rape is “too intoxicated to consent to the activity,”
You said there was no law. You either lied or were in error. The “law” says “too intoxicated” and not “incapacitated.” What constitutes too intoxicated? If a woman the next day “feels” she was “too intoxicated” to legally consent reguardless of the amount she drank than a “rape” must have occured, since there is no specific blood alchohol content specified as “too intoxicated.”
Well, theres your “law.” I’m not saying the vast majority of women would ever do this. However if a mere 1/10th of one percent of women use this law a year in this country thats 160 thousand a year. So over a 40 year period that 6.4 million men who have been or have had an attempted incarceration levied against them. This means there will always be a minimum of at least 4% of the population of men who have had this done to them. And this is just one law.
Now I highly doubt MRAs were beating down the white house door to enact this law. So who was it? The State will of course be more than happy to gain all that power.
Thanks Dave.
You need to learn what the mens movement is, the mens movement position is that women should be treated like and held to the same standards as men, and that we should embrace equality as in equal opportunity and equality under the law
@lol…yeah, right. The only people who would believe that is someone who had never read a single post on a MRM blog.
Lol/Eoghan: All right. This clinches it.
Lol:
Eoghan:
http://manboobz.com/2010/11/26/your-fertility-symbol-my-body/comment-page-1/#comment-2980
Dude, you are virtually the only person I’ve ever seen who actually uses “rabble rouse” as a verb.
So you’re going on moderation now.
lol: Where are these other MRAs? The reasonable one’s you say are refusing to inhabit The Spearhead, Roissy, Stand Your Ground, Rex Patriarch, The Antifmeminist, Elusive Wapiti, etc.?
If they are the majority you claim them to be, where are they? Why aren’t they the face of the movement? Why do they the hate-mongers have the podium?
Why are the lurkers supporting you in e-mail.
Wait…. I know, they are scared. They see how mean we are. How’ve we’ve savaged you… how we’ve put you to public shame an obloquy for your reasonable explanations that saying there is a rape culture, and that people who do x,y, and z support rape is just the same as being falsely accused of rape and the realise that if they come here and say rape accusations need to be thoroughly investigated, and those which turn out to be maliciously false ought to be prosecuted; and those which aren’t should have the rapists prosecuted, they will get worse.
I see it now. They know that if they argue for, e.g. a court appointed mediator who is the advocate of the child; and beholden to neither parent, who should make a recommendation as to custody and support with no other interest than what it best for the child… we will hunt them down and kill them, because of how harshly you’ve been treated.
I understand now. I was so foolish. How could I be so blind?
Thank you. Really. Thank you.
Are you talking about California Penal Code 261? I’m finding…
261 (a)(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the
accused. (4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused.
Perhaps that’s not what you’re referring to? Please let me know if it’s a different state’s law that you were quoting — I’m only finding CA come up in a quick google search.
It’s true that state laws generally don’t give a bright line analysis for when a person is too intoxicated to consent. Here is one law blog’s analysis of CA case law on the above quoted statute:
“In short, a case involving the alleged rape of an intoxicated woman requires a determination of whether her intoxication prevented her from exercising reasonable judgment and a consideration of all the circumstances to determine whether the victim’s mental impairment was so great that it deprived the victim of the ability to exercise reasonable judgment –- merely being “tipsy” is not enough.”
lol: To be a bit more serious (in tone). You can’t pull that “if you knew what the men’s movement was about” routine on me.
Why? Because, while I don’t make the diverting hobby of it that Dave does (I have photos to take, bread to bake, torture and politics to write about… and Dave does a better job at this than I would) I’ve gone around the block a few times. I’ve read the blogs, and the books, and the newspaper columns.
I see how the MRAs define equality. It’s not a good definition, and it assumes a twisted sort of marxism; assuming that “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” is a rule for social interaction which allows one to decide that women “need X” and that “X” happens to put them in the kitchen, and rearing the children while men do all that hard thinking and voting and stuff, so the hamsters in the little women’s minds don’t die of exhaustion from spinning the wheel.
I’ve read it. Don’t lie to me about what it says.
Bee: That law also has an out for the accused: this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused. That lets someone say, “I didn’t know” and the courts have to show a reasonable person would have known.
It’s not as bad as the case in Canada where a guy tried to beat a rape charge, by saying he didn’t know the victim was passed out, he thought she was dead. (It was in the Northwest Territories, IIRC and she was passed out drink, outside, in the middle of winter).
He lost.
@Bee…One law blogs analysis doesn’t mean anything. All you’ve done is excused someones bad behavior, just like the law blog. Besides, unless the breathalizer test was given immediately following the “act of sex” to determine alchohol levels its pointless. So if the accusation was given the day after, “too intoxicated” comes down to what exactly? The answer of course is the accuser “felt” she was “too intoxicated” to give consent.
I just can’t understand your aversion to holding someone accountable for their actions, (if its a woman). I’ve already given my opinion of violent rapists, I believe it went something like 50 lashes in the town square and 20 years in prison. Yet somehow I’m slavey, less than a pig according to C bathrobe and countless other derogatory remarks, as well as a rape apologist.
@Pecunium:
Wow, “I wasn’t trying to commit rape, I was trying to commit necrophilia!” Got to give him credit for creativity, I guess.
If it’s any consolation, NWO, I consider you be above the average intestinal parasite, depending on the parasite. I’m a reasonable man.
Slavey: I’m not excusing anyone’s bad behavior. I quoted a statute to you, and then found a link to a law blog that contained analysis of the case law that spoke to that statute. The case law (that’s a judge’s opinion from a case, and it governs lower courts in that state unless overturned) from People v. Giardino (2000) 82 Cal.App.4th 454 says:
“When interpreting the phrase ‘prevented from resisting,’ the jury must determine whether, as a result of intoxication, the victim lacked the legal capacity to give valid consent based on a reasonable and informed use of judgment.
“In deciding whether the level of the victim’s intoxication deprived the victim of legal capacity to give consent, the jury must consider all of the circumstances, including the victim’s age and maturity.”
So, that’s the law. That’s not my opinion, or a lawyer’s opinion, that is California law.
NWO said: “One law blogs analysis doesn’t mean anything.”
But what if it’s Bob Loblaw’s Law Blog?
Confidential to Lol/Eoghan: If you want your comments to go through, I suggest you start with a bit of honesty.
Exactly Bee, thats the “law.” And being a man I’m on the bad side of that “law” because for a man to even attempt to say “I was too intoxicated” would get him laughed off the planet. It seems the “law” has a “side” to it.
Ok, hey…? I have been raped twice in my life (this is not including the myriad of different ways that men have tried to sexually assault me- which were NOT rape, luckily, I have krav maga and street fighting experience. I digress…) and I still date and have sex with men- as many as possible, heh. Before I am labeled ‘hypergamous’-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypergamy
I have no children, have never been married, and never intend to do either. I am mostly hetero, so I am (very!) attracted to men. Despite the COUNTLESS times I have been harassed and mistreated by SOME (read: quite a few) men, I still continue to have wonderful relationships with men. How would it be fair to generalize about all men that way? It seems like that would keep me from meeting many, many potentially awesome dudes- and be very lonely! Each human is different, regardless of gender- give em a chance!
And, hey, mediumdave: thanks for those links for supporting male rape victims. I know more of those guys than should be right (:C)… and more than half have NEVER told anyone or talked about it with anyone close (I keep a LOT of secrets for my friends), even their parents and partners. There is stigma for them, too- although it seems slightly different than the shit women put up with- NOT better or worse, just different. I will post them on my Facebook; I know a few of my friends on there might find it helpful. Again, thanks. :3
AAAAH, Bob Loblaw!!! XD Dammit, you made me shoot sun tea out my nose, David…
Exactly Bee, thats the “law.” And being a man I’m on the bad side of that “law” because for a man to even attempt to say “I was too intoxicated” would get him laughed off the planet. It seems the “law” has a “side” to it.
Where does it make reference to gender, NWOaf? When I read it, it said, “victim.” Victims can be male or female, right?
You seem to be making a bizarre assertion, to the effect that the law will not permit you to charge a woman with rape, if she has drugged you and then rape you, solely on the basis of your gender.
I’m going to hazard a guess and say that as usual, you are pulling this opinion out of your ass and won’t be able to show us the evidence for your beliefs.
There are cultural barriers to men being able to charge women with rape-mostly sexist myths about the nature of “real rape” and “real rapists.” You know, the myths that feminists fight to destroy. But any legal barriers exist only in your mind. Well, let me qualify that. In states with archaic definitions of rape that require p-i-v penetration for it to be rape, you won’t be able to charge a woman with rape. But you will be able to charge her with sexual assault.
Care to join feminists in trying to change those archaic definitions so that male victims of rape get justice too?
No SallyStrange, I’ll pass on joining the Marxist feminist regime. I doubt handing more power to the State would help anything. I don’t believe in the State being all things to all people.
As far as “pulling things out of me ass” I gave you your law as evidence. Your faction lobbied and had this law enacted. I guess you can always wash your hands and claim innocense.
Since there is only one definition of “rape” (forced sex). Why would I want to change reality into a political tool that benefits no one while handing power to the State.
I always answer questions but get no answers. So anyone try and answer me these question.
A man and a woman are drinking.
1)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to drive and gets into an accident is “he” culpable?
2)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to walk and falls and injures herself is “he” culpable?
3)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to shoplift is “he” culpable?
4)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to have sex is “he” culpable?
its the same game that feminism has been playing against heterosexual males, using rape and abuse by a minority to stereotype men, masculinity and society, but feminism has power and is pushing for a situation where all a woman has to do is point her finger, its already the case with DV.
And women are the most protected abusers, not white males.
That’s not true o_o;; As somebody who actually works w/ social service agencies (as well as having been through them, both ways), and working with shelters incl men’s shelters… that’s not true at all o_O;; And this isn’t ideological… this isnt’ cuz ppl are MRAs or nething… it’s just not true.
I mean I’m sure that theoretically some ppl prolly think it’s true (should I bring up my BABIP baseball analogy again? xD ) but that just means they’re lacking in factors and information to add in, since real life doesn’t fit the theory (and the thing about abuse/rape/assault is that it’s not a theoretical thing to be used in ideological theories… it’s real, there are real ppl out there who need real help
).. and real life is where we need to help real survivors (male, women or however they identify 
) … female survivors don’t get easy treatment in courts, or are even often believed (or even think they will be believed) and male survivors face similar issues b/c of stereotypes that men are too strong to be abused and women too weak to be abusers 
and men’s and women’s shelters work together… and feminists do not have all this wonderful power you suggest either o_O
It’s not actually how reality and real society works… and it SUCKS for male and female survivors that there is so much stigma and BS out there… but ppl are working to fix it, men and women, agencies and shelters… and one of the big issues is intersectionality and the lack of that understanding in social services, so white cis straight abled males and white cis straight abled females are the ones who have an “easier” time (and statistically face less chances of abuse and rape), which isn’t that they have it EASY just that other ppl can’t even ACCESS these systems… :\
But the solution isn’t blowing up feminism or anti-oppression or men’s shelters, that’d make it worse :\ It’s fighting rape culture (which includes MEN, as I keep saying, feminism can’t believe men aren’t raped b/c we have SHELTERS FOR THEM, reality disagrees with theory, so theory should change
OR you could get involved w/ reality! shelters always need more volunteers and donations 
or create a fund for abused men, or open your door or offer a couch to any homeless or abused men on the Spearhead who need help… regardless of ideology, I always encourage ppl to help, b/c real ppl out there are suffering, and it’s not a game 
) and oppression and stigma and the lack of understanding in intersectionality. Everybody should be safe and never face abuse, assault or rape. 
It seems to me that the solution is easy… don’t fuck drunk women. Hell, you can even administer a field sobriety test to be really sure, and if she fails… don’t fuck her!
I know, it totally sucks and is probably a human rights violation somewhere that you can’t actually fuck her, and y’all probably suspect somewhere deep down inside that the only women who’ll fuck you are ones who have had their inhibitions severely reduced*. But on the other hand, MRAs always whine about how feminists accuse them of being uncontrolled beasts - so why not prove them wrong by refraining from engaging in sexual activity you know to be of questionable morality/legality?
* You’re probably right, but that means that you need to become a better person, not fuck drunk women to get laid.
NWOslave said: A man and a woman are drinking.
1)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to drive and gets into an accident is “he” culpable?
2)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to walk and falls and injures herself is “he” culpable?
3)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to shoplift is “he” culpable?
4)If she makes a concious choice after drinking to have sex is “he” culpable?
So, you realize that we can answer these on the basis of who has committed the crime, right?
1. Drunk driving is a crime. Absent extenuating facts (does social host liability apply?), the drunk driver would be responsible.
2. No crime committed here, absent extenuating facts.
3. Shoplifting is a crime. The shoplifter would be responsible.
4. No crime committed here based on your facts. If the woman in question was so drunk that a reasonable person would say that she lacks the ability to give valid consent, yes: a person who took advantage of her incapacitated state and raped her would have committed a crime, and would be the one who was responsible for that crime.
“You take 5 ounces of Female/Feminist hate and deception”
And so once again, we see some typical pathetic, ironic, hypocritical drivel from the MRAs. They claim the female sex and those who identify as feminists are hateful and deceptive, yet MRAs are some of the most hateful people around.
I don’t get it. I just don’t get it. It’s almost like really believable trolling, yet I think these people are being serious. How can so many men believe such shit? It doesn’t make any sense…
Bee, it’s a wasted effort. The law says that a person who takes advantage of a person’s incapacitation/intoxication is committing a crime. NWOslave has decided the law really means a “woman” who is intoxicated/incapacitation can be raped by a “man”.
Never mind that the law does say that. His idea that social distinctions, and cultural prejudice are such that no charge of rape will be supported at trial isn’t, to his mind, proof that the social understanding of rape is wrong. No, it means feminists have it in for men.
@Pecunium…If a woman is drunk and buys something she can’t afford can she just give it back and claim the contract null and void? Could she claim she was taken advantage of? Just because a woman is drunk at the time she is still accountable.
No one forced you to get drunk. No one forced you to make a decision to have sex while drunk. You, as a woman chose both to drink and have sex while drunk. Feminists love to go on and on about how they love sex and they own their sex. Well if thats the case the own up to the responsibilities.
Are you an equal or do you need special protection like a child. I was drunk so I can’t be held responsible for the desicions I make while drinking. You’re a big girl now act like it. You chose to drink, you chose to have sex while drinking, grow up. Equality means be accountable for your actions at all times.
Also incapication/intoxication doesn’t mean “a girl has a drink and then says “let’s fuck” and the guy is a rapist!” -_-;; Kinda like “unconsciousness” doesn’t mean “I feel drowsy”. xD And that’s not how the law is applied (nor is it an AUTOMATIC, which is one of the myths of the justice system, that trials are essentially “did you have a drink miss?” “yes” “did you have sex with her while she had alcohol in her system sir?” “yes” “GUILTY! NEXT!” Again, maybe this is what some ppl ASSUME b/c tv/googling the law/etc has helped them construct this, but the good thing about this is that it’s not theory, there’s a reality, and in real life this isn’t generally true (you can always sit in on a court case, or talk to rape shelter counsellors, or rape survivors (any gender) or lawyers, or etc) Given that none of us are lawyers (as far as I know), it’s meaningless in general to argue about how we personally interpret the law we just googled
B/c it’s gonna be ironically “ey said/ey said” xD But the whole “she has any BAC and anybody she wants to f- has raped her!” that’s not how the law is interpreted IRL, and it’s not gender specific. 
If ppl dun BELIEVE this tho, there’s easy ways to verify since real life is just outside the door!
NWOslave: If a woman is drunk and buys something she can’t afford can she just give it back and claim the contract null and void?
Sometimes yes, sometimes no. (Mostly no.)
“Courts are usually not very sympathetic to people who claim they were intoxicated when they signed a contract. Generally a court will only allow the contract to be avoided if the other party to the contract knew about the intoxication and took advantage of the intoxicated person, or if the person was somehow involuntarily intoxicated (e.g. someone spiked the punch).”
From this site.
But you’re looking at this backwards. If a drunk person is murdered, would the murderer be able to use the victim’s drunkenness as an excuse? If a drunk person is physically assaulted, would his assailant be off the hook? (Answers: No.)
Intoxication can be a defense in some crimes, too, when the perpetrator is drunk. Something about the perpetrator needing to form specific as opposed to general consent. Read the wikipedia article about intoxication defenses and you’ll know as much as I do about that. It’s not a defense, as I’m sure you know, for rape.
But that’s a completely separate issue. You appear to be looking at this in a way that puts the blame squarely on the victim, and not the person who committed the crime.
The idea, NWOslave, is that one partner is sober enough to still have good judgement while the other partner does not. If a salesperson pressured an intoxicated person into making an unwanted purchase, then, yes, you can make a compelling case for fraud. It’s less of a crime, though, because most purchases don’t also violate bodily autonomy the same way rape does.
The crime isn’t that a couple splits a bottle of wine on a date, goes home, has sex and then declares it rape. That happens every night in this country, and it’s usually considered a good time by everyone involved. The crime is more along the lines of a rapist fucking a woman who is intoxicated to the point of being blackout drunk, who isn’t even aware of what’s going on, much less that there’s penetration occurring. The point is that she’s too drunk to even put up much of a fight.
And what about the man’s responsibility for his actions when around a drunk woman?
No Lady Victoria von Syrus, the idea is equality. If a man is drunk and has sex with a sober woman “she” is not to blame for his consent to sex, correct? Well?
Imagine if I came here and said I had a few drinks and had sex with a sober woman, and cried how she “took advantage of me.” You’d laugh in my face and rightfully so. Grow up, if I’m drinking I’m still accountable for my actions, so are you. And I already stated blacked out would be rape. As long as you’re concious it’s not.
Actually, NWOslave, if a guy told me that he was drunk and a woman took advantage of him sexually, I would take that very seriously.
Blacked-out drunk is rape, but there is also a line before a person blacks out where they cannot consent. Example: A person who is so drunk that they cannot form words. A person who is so drunk that they can say “no” but are not able to physically stop someone from touching them. A person who is so drunk that they cannot understand what is happening. A person who is so drunk that they can speak but do not make sense. A person who is so drunk that they have lost motor control of their body.
None of those people are unconscious, mind you, but they are bright line examples of what too drunk to consent looks like.
No, actually, I would not laugh in your face. I would be shocked, tell you what had happened to you was awful and ask how you were handling it and if there was anything I could do to help. I’d probably give you some links for support groups, in case you’d find them useful. The webcomic Something*Positive actually dealt with this in an old storyline, where a woman had sex with a man who was whacked out of his mind on pain meds (i.e., unable to give meaningful consent). Everyone except the woman in question did not doubt it was rape, and even she eventually realized she’d done something wrong. I think highly of the artist for being able to tackle the subject in the way he did.
Women can certainly rape men (and other women), and those women should be held accountable for their actions, the same way we would hold a man accountable who had raped a woman or another man.
Here’s a hint: if you tell a woman (or man) that another woman took advantage of you and raped you while you were drunk, and that woman laughs in your face, she’s probably not a feminist. Not every woman is a feminist - many women adhere to traditional gender norms and expectations, one of which is that a man cannot be raped by a woman - a gendered expectation as false as the idea that a woman in a short skirt invites her own rape.
Some facts about rape of men. (and yes, I do think those definitions of rape, are rape. Non-consent = rape)
Some facts about male rape
I happen to think spousal/partner rape can be female on male: and is vastly under-reported.
And nonsense like NWOslave’s crap here is a huge part of the reason why, and it’s incredibly “misandrist”.
Ohhhh Pecunium, you really dooooo want to help men. You must be going to the Holly school of “helping men.” She prattles on with this same, “why do you hate men so much” claptrap. Let me help ya out, nobody is buying what you’re selling, OK.
Riddle me this riddler. If a woman isn’t responsible for her actions while drunk, is a man responsible for his actions while drunk? Because if you excuse her action for being drunk, you have to excuse his actions for being drunk. Thats how equality works.
Shorter NWOaf: “Facts? I don’t need no steeenking facts!”
If a woman isn’t responsible for her actions while drunk, is a man responsible for his actions while drunk? Because if you excuse her action for being drunk, you have to excuse his actions for being drunk. Thats how equality works.
Indeed. That is how equality works. What’s puzzling is why you seem to insist that a drunk woman needs to take responsibility for the actions of any people who happen to be around her while she’s drunk.
NWOslave: If a woman isn’t responsible for her actions while drunk, is a man responsible for his actions while drunk? Because if you excuse her action for being drunk, you have to excuse his actions for being drunk. Thats how equality works.
I’ve already answered this above, basically, but let’s go over this again.
If a person shot a drunk person, would that be murder? Yes. The fact that the victim was drunk would not excuse the shooter’s actions.
If a drunk person shot a person, would that be murder? Yes. The shooter’s drunkenness would be a defense against first-degree premeditated murder, however.
So, to answer your question: If the drunk man is a victim, he would need no “excuse” for his actions. If the drunk man has raped someone, being drunk is not an excuse. Victim =/ offender.
/rule about NWO
Yes.
That was simple.
Now… riddle me this… a man has sex with a woman, failing to get her consent… why isn’t he responsible for it?
/resume rule
Oh, for fuck’s sake, NWO. A woman is responsible for her actions when she’s drunk. She just isn’t responsible for what SOMEONE ELSE decides to do to her, whether she’s drunk or not.
It appears that NWO is a bit sloooooow.
@Brett K…No one did anything “to her.” Cause women loves sex so feminists tell me, sometimes they like to drink and have sex at the same time.
Seriously? No one here has come even CLOSE to saying that drunk sex = rape. Drunk sex = drunk sex. Non-consensual sex = rape, and alcohol is often used by rapists as a way to get a non-consenting person not to resist too much. As are other drugs; as are threats; as is physical force.
I’ve had drunk (consensual) sex, and I’ve been raped while under the influence of alcohol (conscious, but barely). They are not the same thing, and if you honestly believe that they are then you really aren’t worth talking to.
They are not the same thing, and if you honestly believe that they are then you really aren’t worth talking to.
I think you’ve summed the issue up quite nicely, Brett.
CB… yep. Brett has figured out why I have the rule of not trying to deal with what NWOslave offers up as argument.
I should probably stop feeding the trolls, shouldn’t I?
It can be really, really hard to resist sometimes. I’ve succumbed on many an occasion. Oh well, just take it one day at a time.
Brett K: Sometimes one succumbs, or falls victim. So long as one doesn’t make a serious habit of it, it’s ok. Like strong drink, to be done in moderation, though at times one needs to go on a bender.
Sometimes the question must be asked: evil or stupid?
Other times, the answer is clearly “both”.
Maybe we should form a 12-step group…
But seldom is the question asked: “is NWO learning?”
Mostly because we know he’s not.
Is Slavey capable of learning? In theory, I suppose he must be, since he has enough brain power to find Man Boobz on the internet and post comments to it. However, as a practical matter, I think his poor reading comprehension skills, combined with his obsessive misogyny, make him incapable of processing any information that conflicts with his worldview.
And of course, there’s his fundamental dishonesty, but that’s a separate issue.
Dealing w/ conspiracy theorist trolls is a loser’s game :\ They come from an imaginary world that’s not reality so they can’t lose and you can’t convince them of nething except occasionally concede a point which they’ll take as confirmation of their reality. They dun concede nething since everything confirms their conspiracy theory :\ (that’s the great thing about conspiracies! It’s like the birthers.. if you dun release the certif it proves that Obama wasn’t born in the US, if you DO, it must be a forgery which proves that Obama wasn’t born in the US xD)
I am so sry to hear of what happened to you Brett, and I hope one of the trolls doesn’t show up w/ some victim blaming triggering crap
That is a super cute dogster btw Pez!
Thanks Ami. She’s a sweetie.
She’s sitting on my lap right now, making it hard to type.
Thanks Ami
I’m doing ok these days (half a decade later), but victim-blaming and rape apology still piss me off to no end.
And Johnny Pez, your dog is indeed adorable. What breed (or mix) is she, if you don’t mind my asking?
She’s a basenji.
Johnny Pez, I knew you were one of those BRAT people. The finest bloggers/basenji owners are. Good for you. That was a beautiful story about your dog friends.
Johnny Pez: Is he capable? Certainly. Is he willing? No. Look at the style of writing, there is no thought in it. It’s a stream of semi-coherent ideas. In itself that’s not a problem. I do a lot of my blog comments that way (it’s how I lose the closing paren, and sometimes drop a phrase. I need to work on that more).
But when you look at the body of his work, in a thread, or across them, the ideas in the stream don’t change. They also use stock phrases.
That means he’s not thinking critically, but more religiously. It’s not about the facts, but about the beliefs. He believes he is being oppressed. He believes the system is rigged to favor women. He believes it’s unfair to men.
And he holds it firmly, too firmly.
I believe the system favors men. I think there are ways my life is a lot easier for being white, and male. I am not married to the idea that all things favor men. I am neither married to the idea that life is a zero-sum game, and any benefit to men (or women) comes at the expense of the other.
So I can judge the facts a bit better than he can, because I still have questions, and all he has is answers.
That means he’s not thinking critically, but more religiously. It’s not about the facts, but about the beliefs. He believes he is being oppressed. He believes the system is rigged to favor women. He believes it’s unfair to men.
I’m inclined to agree with your assessment. Look at the way he trots out his litany of scapegoats: Title IX, VAWA, primary aggressor laws, etc. It doesn’t matter how many times we point out that None of These Things Mean What He Thinks They Mean. It’s as if he’s reciting Bible verses. I’ve had the same experience debating religious fundamentalists. Logic and facts are as nothing to their Articles of Faith. I’d be willing to bet that he listens to a lot of right-wing talk radio as well.
Cap’n B, you make a lot of sense. Slavey does sound like a religious fanatic. In fact, he may well be one; some of those Black Helicopter types are.
Bee, thanks. And now that the sun is out for the first time in ages, I think it’s time to go walk some dogs. Be back later.
Pecunium, thanks for the above article. I’d wondered for a while what the percentages were for heterosexual males raping homosexual males, and that confirmed my thoughts. Heterosexual males have more power than homosexual males and sexual assault is an exertion of power. So it makes sense that homosexual males would suffer more rapes than heterosexual males, and that there would be more heterosexual male rapists than homosexual ones.
NWOslave posted the following in a thread in which I explicitly forbid discussions of false rape accusations — it sometimes seems as though half of the discussions here are hijacked into being discussions of false rape accusations and I wanted one free of that.
Anyway, here’s what NWOslave wrote. If anyone wants to discuss this with him, discuss it here.
Oh NWO: Again with the lack of understanding.
In the face of overwhelming evidence of innocense[sic]
This woman has already levied a false rape allegation,
Objection: Assumes facts not in evidence.
What seems to be true is she has problems of credibility. Given the way people like you react (she isn’t a paragon of virture, therefore she lied about the rape) that increases the difficulty in getting a jury which isn’t going to be prejudiced against the prosecution case (which is hard enough in a rape case, as it is).
Since the prosecution has to decide the value for dollar, and the DA has to be re-elected, the odds of an acquittal in a high-profile case (where the accused has great wodges of money) and the aftemath thereof (think the Duke case, or the OJ case), and the facts don’t matter as much. The publicity does. Since you are an apologist for rape (because you won’t entertain the idea of it. If someone didn’t point a gun, or pull a knife, and leave her battered and bruised then you say it’s all “buyer’s remorse”) you, of course are going to say it was all made up.
But the truth… we’ll probably never know, because the facts will never be aired and DSK and the rape apologists will get the airplay, and she will be accused (with no presumption of innocence) of lying, and fabricating and being out to get him.
But go ahead, keep bearing that false witness (because you don’t know, even though you pretend to). That’s the Christian thing to do.