fyi: it’s “drugs”
Seeing people defend the Cornell 7 has made me want a fucking matriarchy
I wanted one since long before then. I am a bit worried we’ll end up with a strongly conservative matriarchy that won’t look severely different than what we have now, but I think the only chance we have to swing left of ‘left’ is to shake up the patriarchy.
Changing the boot rarely helps. Anarchy would be the true change.
Anarchy sounds nice until you have a task big enough to require people to work together, or to do shitty work no one wants to do, or to deal with outside aggressors, or to resolve conflict.
There’s probably something in between anarchy, dictatorship, republic, communism that works, but we haven’t found it yet.
This has been solved many many times. Kropotkin addresses this in Mutual Aid. You form confederations, and call regular meetings to form pacts and mutual trade.
Ironically anarchy doesn’t mean no governance, it means no state and government. A good anarchist society would have plenty of agreed upon rules and expectations, they just wouldn’t be enforced by a body of monopolistic violence.
Villages of quisi to fully anarchist peoples operated for centuries and millennia in this form of communal structure until the nation-state was born in the late medieval ages and spread abroad through European colonialism.
The outside aggressors are a legitimate problem, but anarchist societies (e.g. Catalonia) have dealt with the others just fine.
One might argue that a 3-year test just post civil war wasn’t a solid shakedown cruise.
I’m fairly certain the US would just devolve into internal armed conflict and a return to slavery.
Perhaps, but since just about every other system has already devolved into internal armed conflict and slavery at various points, it seems like a good idea to try the one that hasn’t yet.
Admittedly I’m worried if we put women in charge, they’ll be TERFs
Was it too much to hope they dropped and broke the mold with Rowling?
Yeah, that could also be a bad way to go, I think we’re nearly as likely to get there with the current patriarchy path in a gen or two.
mhm mhm
but also do not show up naked to a party unless it’s a nude party cause otherwise thats literally sexual harassment
Don’t do it if you’re a man. If you’re a woman, it’s not really going to bother anyone.
Hard disagree. Don’t be like that, enforce equality.
Women are simply inherently less scary to see naked.
Don’t fuck with that “men are inherently scary/bad/worse than women” bullshit, you’re just a fucking bastard dickhead.
?
Gross. I’d rather a naked man any day. Heck, twice a day.
clothes are a civilization wide psyop to make nudity exciting. What does that mean though for people who dress animals in human-style clothing 🧐 a coat for a horse in the winter is one thing but a cowboy hat for a dog is something very different I fear
If someone shows up drunk and naked and starts taking drugs you should stay away from them no mater which sex they are. I mean stay away forever.
Unless it’s a swingers thing, but then they all know what they’re getting themselves into.
It’s so strange to me that the argument of she was drunk and / or on drugs so strange.
These are reasons that she could never consent. Therefore any sexual act with her would be assault
It feels so weird to me that they think this is some kind of “gotcha”.
The more interesting one is what if both are under the influence of alcohol/drugs?
It really depends on the situation. Two people of similar intoxication levels can consent. But at the same time when with an intoxicated person you need to be making certain they’re moving forward with you and consenting.
At least that’s my perspective as someone who will get involved with strangers while drinking at bars.
When someone’s blacked out or unable to enthusiastically consent (ie advance the acts of their own volition without being pressured or otherwise coerced) then they fundamentally can’t consent
Just because two people who are sober can consent doesn’t mean two people who are intoxicated can
Two people of similar intoxication levels can consent.
The whole point is that intoxicated people can’t consent - like at all.
So if two intoxicated people have sex, they’re always raping each other?
If only one person is intoxicated is it always rape?
The answer is yes, because intoxication is involved.
Not what I asked.
The point here is that any intoxication is bad - negative is its characteristic. Doubling that negativity doesnt make it any better than if it was just one person intoxicated.
I once raped my wife, then. She was drunk, came back home drunk and wanted to fuck me hard. I told her I didn’t feel like it was right to have sex with her in such condition, but she just didn’t want to hear about my decent comments and told me to get off my high horses and just fuck her. So I did. Should I be ashamed of myself? Because, I’m not, it’s not like its something easy to forget, but in a good way.
Just to be safe, get even drunker than them.
I think you’re still responsible for the crimes you commit while drunk/high.
I think the point is then: who is the victim?
It’s hard for two unconscious people to have sex. One of them has to be conscious enough to be able to move. Even if they are drunk they are still responsible for having sex with unconscious person.
It may depend on jurisdiction but usually it’s illegal to have sex with someone unable to consent. I think that if they are drunk but are still consenting (verbally or non-verbally) it’s not considered rape.
I honestly would vouch for a similar figure to the designated driver. I’ll call it the designated handler, some sort of a box staff of allies trying to keep you in the fight, but also checking if you are okay to continue.
Its the typical shaming. The attempt to blame the victim. Always so wrong but seems for a lot of people legit.
It’s victim blaming. He didn’t do anything wrong. She was naked and drunk. She was asking for it.
Does it make more sense if it’s presented as
If a woman goes to a party, she won’t be raped unless there’s a rapist there.
This holds true even if she’s on drugs and naked.Because the drugs aren’t the point
I feel the rave/techno scene is like that (at least in Europe)…. And among all my friends that got raped/SA I didn’t heard yet a single one that got raped at a rave/techno party. Not saying it doesn’t happen but it feels much less than “socially respectable” parties, ex boyfriends, friends of friends, etc.
I wonder if it is because people that are attracted by that scene are in a certain way or the community has a strong culture of consent or something else.
But I would love to read if there is any statistical study on correlation between certain “scenes” and sexual abuse… and if there is a rational explanation on the causation
MDMA is the best drug
But I would love to read if there is any statistical study on correlation between certain “scenes” and sexual abuse…
I fear rave metrics are probably mostly impossible to collect. Anonymous events with illegal substances don’t generate a lot of usable data
So true! ME TOO!
If someone is high on drugs and/or drunk, does that also mean I can rob them without consequences, or the rule only applies for rape?
If they’re naked they’re not going to have a lot of possessions :(
I’ve heard you can get good money for a kidney.
Better check the ol’ prison wallet
Those are nice ear rings
Normally that would be me and it’s still not ok then either.
Is there a handy rhyme (like with snakes) to help the average so-and-so spot these rapists in the wild?
Collar touches shoulder, be a little bolder. Collar touches ears, believe your fears.
Is this supposed to make no sense?
I think the implication is that a simple collar, like a dog collar or a lock collar implies someone who is a sub who may appreciate being approached.
If they have a full latex suit or something that goes from their clavicle all the way up their neck to their ears, maybe you want to be wary they are a dominatrix about to beat your ass.
Lmao 🤣. my understanding was that it was about shirt collars. Frat boys trend to pop their shirt collars where as normal guys just wear their shirts normally.
Interesting interpretation, but the original question was asking how to spot rapists.
I’ve been in the leather scene for nearly my entire adult life and I’ve never heard anything like this before
you’re going to have eliα :neofox_confused:
But my collar goes around my neck? :/c
Collar touches ears, you need a tailor. Or maybe a cosmetic surgeon 😂
Or a cosmic surgeon
Dregs
Drygs
Drags
Drigs
Drögs
Drꚙgs
Drægs
Drøgs
So, most p*rties
Underrated comment.
Hey, I’d just be excited to have a cool new friend to do drugs with, and if I take off my clothes it’s not sexual, it’s purely about being on the same mental level
For me it’s more likely to be “Jesus fuck how is it so hot all of a sudden?”
Some people see the naked girl railing lines on the couch and think, “oh dear I hope she’s SAFE, I hope she learns self control”. I see someone that I can sit there on molly with for the next hour while she trauma dumps and I’m like “damn girl that is seriously crazy you’ve been through so much, damn, that’s life though right??”
Then she has sex with an other drunk drugged guy and he is a rapist…
Don’t bring nuance here, people don’t like it.
Well let’s add some nuance then. If he didn’t then go on a group chat and advertise the gang rape then maybe he wouldn’t be in much trouble. How intoxicated was he if he was able to get more people in to rape? Is that the behavior of someone who was assaulted?
Am I the only one thinking consent isn’t enough?
I mean, a few of you at least have ever had sex with someone who was not participating, just being passive, clearly “accepting but not willing”. Am I the only one to find it a turn off?
To make love together requires a cooperation… of course not to “fuck someone” but this one is supposed in a domination, but if you need that some one be passed out to dominate them, what do you think of yourself?
If you want a sex toy, please buy it in some shop, it has never been that easy. If you want to make love, you need to seduce someone enough so they are genuinely willing to do it with you.
“Enthusiastic sober consent” should be the bare minimum. If they’re sober, but only kind of into it, that’s a “no”. If they’re enthusiastic but drunk or high, it’s a “no” until they sober up and confirm that they really want to.
Some people find it sexy to behave as sex toys or to be treated as such. Some people like to be dominated and moved around. Not everyone wants to make love, some people just want to fuck, or even to be fucked. You may find this unjust, but I feel like, in your writing, you just think about how you feel yourself, and not about how others experience their sexuality as if they were somehow broken if it doesn’t look like love and cooperation to you.
The partners are both willing, and they agree on how to do it? I am totally fine with them doing it in their way. And may one act as a slave and the other as a master, with their rules and their limit ; I see it as a form of cooperation.
If one of the partner is forced, or accept for secondary reasons (they don’t really want sex, or not that way) ; here I see a problem.
It is just the same if they are more than 2 partners. As long as they are all willing it, for it, and as it is, I find it fine.
Also, sometimes, you may be willing to try something, and find out you do not like it (you at least have this experience with food). It is important, I think, to respect the others even when they change their mind. You would not either, I think, force someone to finish a full plate of something they don’t like just because they have accepted to try to please you…
Yes, we agree. No is no, no matter when and what happened before. The message I replied before, felt more rigid.
There are more flavors than vanilla.
You’re right and it’s tragic. It’s part of the punching down systems these guys benefit from when they climb in the hierarchies, the old boys’ club. I’m a guy and have seen how guys can benefit in life, but shouldn’t use it to hurt others. Same thing in many families, supernatural groups, sports, frats, military, and right-wing politics. People cant wait for their turn to punch down on someone and it’s indoctrinated as normal and good. They all hide their abusive ways, where real truth stands in the open. Tribalism, right/wrong obedient to authority, it’s easier than having real convictions, and just go along with what was brainwashed into them. And again these guys benefit from their privilege and get mad when that word is used, since their ego takes over and they have not ego awareness as we all need, but that’s part of these unhealthy systems.
A very sad thing is that, unless we take care of it, we are all bound to value this “winning male” behaviour as not only normal but also as good! The ones aware don’t need to make an effort to see how wrong it is… but take a young adult male who became a successfull influencer or businessman, how surprising would it be that he abused sexualy of someone? Isn’t it in the pack with the success? Of course it should not be… but we would need that young men grow understanding that abusing others is gross and a lesser thing.
And so, breaking idols out of abusive behavior isn’t just to piss off their fans. It is to make abuse incompatible with success. To turn “yes, of course, he is such a man!” into “he fucked up, he is such a looser!”… which would be a nice step taken against patriarchy, and hopefully not the last one!
Abolish the patriarchy.
Completely agree with you. I honestly feel a little sick if someone says they were doing it as a favor to me. Don’t do that. If you aren’t into it, just tell me. I can take of myself in that case.
Thank you!
And yes, lets have a fun time together doing something we are both willing to do together! It will be a better time for everyone!
Exactly this. Hell, I’ve had instances where one of my partners just isn’t into it, or something happens and they’re not feeling it anymore, and it just takes all the enjoyment out of it.
Consent, connection, and enjoyment are critical for me.
Current definition of consent actually excludes the apathetic/numb/freeze/fawn response you described. So yes consent is still enough, but only if its modern definition not outdated “they didn’t resist strongly enough for me to feel bad and stop”
Current definition of consent actually excludes the apathetic/numb/freeze/fawn response you described. So yes consent is still enough, but only if its modern definition not outdated “they didn’t resist strongly enough for me to feel bad and stop”
Source?
I haven’t seen educational resources around consent ignore body language. I’ve seen plenty of men ignore women’s freeze/fawn reactions, but never in the course of educating people on consent.
I said the same thing as you just did, please read again.
Current definition of consent actually excludes the apathetic/numb/freeze/fawn response you described.
I’m not necessarily disagreeing with you, I just haven’t seen this particular claim in actual educational areas about consent. What current definition are you using?
I meant “yes means Yes!” principle that some advocate for.
I believe this is the source I first heard the idea from
Basically the idea is that “No means no” is outdated and doesn’t cover majority of rape cases where no one technically says no.
The updated one to replace “No means no” is “Yes means Yes!”, also called affirmative/enthusiastic consent or something.
Ah see I was in the mindset that “yes means yes” is the current consent shorthand. Thank you for the links!
therapist are the worst
