EDIT: spelling is hard
Edited, Aug 31st 2011 4:13pm by Bijou
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The gbaji conundrum
The gbaji conundrumFollow
This thread was intended to discuss gbaji's overwhelming hypocrisy, but this works, too.
EDIT: spelling is hard
Edited, Aug 31st 2011 4:13pm by Bijou
EDIT: spelling is hard
Edited, Aug 31st 2011 4:13pm by Bijou
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Technogeek wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Gbajitheclueless wrote:
In the overwhelming majority of date rape cases, the woman involved said "yes" many times before saying "no". Perhaps instead of just teaching people that "no means no", we should teach people when they should be saying no?
Got some facts to back this up, or are you just projecting?
Um... We're talking about date rape, right? Do I really have to spell this out for you?
In other words, no, you don't. You're just a misogynist, own it.
Jesus. It's kinda part of the definition
Quote:
date rape n. forcible sexual intercourse by a male acquaintance of a woman, during a voluntary social engagement in which the woman did not intend to submit to the sexual advances and resisted the acts by verbal refusals, denials or pleas to stop, and/or physical resistance. The fact that the parties knew each other or that the woman willingly accompanied the man are not legal defenses to a charge of rape, although one Pennsylvania decision ruled that there had to be some actual physical resistance.
"Voluntary social engagements" do usually involve multiple decisions to agree or disagree with any given choice along the way. While I suppose there's a rare case of someone being date raped while attending a lecture on campus or something, usually there's a "date" involved. Hence, the name. Dates usually involve choices like going out to eat, going dancing, drinking, going jointly to a private location, etc.
I guess I did have to spell it out. Really? Why does it always seem like some people ask the most moronic questions?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Technogeek wrote:
Gbajitheclueless wrote:
In the overwhelming majority of date rape cases, the woman involved said "yes" many times before saying "no". Perhaps instead of just teaching people that "no means no", we should teach people when they should be saying no?
Got some facts to back this up, or are you just projecting?
Um... We're talking about date rape, right? Do I really have to spell this out for you?
In other words, no, you don't. You're just a misogynist, own it.
Jesus. It's kinda part of the definition
Quote:
date rape n. forcible sexual intercourse by a male acquaintance of a woman, during a voluntary social engagement in which the woman did not intend to submit to the sexual advances and resisted the acts by verbal refusals, denials or pleas to stop, and/or physical resistance. The fact that the parties knew each other or that the woman willingly accompanied the man are not legal defenses to a charge of rape, although one Pennsylvania decision ruled that there had to be some actual physical resistance.
"Voluntary social engagements" do usually involve multiple decisions to agree or disagree with any given choice along the way. While I suppose there's a rare case of someone being date raped while attending a lecture on campus or something, usually there's a "date" involved. Hence, the name. Dates usually involve choices like going out to eat, going dancing, drinking, going jointly to a private location, etc.
I guess I did have to spell it out. Really? Why does it always seem like some people ask the most moronic questions?
The way you wrote this statement of yours implies that the woman agreed to sex originally, then changed her mind. Perhaps you're just bad at English? Is that what you were implying, or did you just write it poorly?
gbaji wrote:
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
I'm turned around because I don't think that a woman should be blamed for going to a man's house and having a night cap then getting raped...?
I never said she should be blamed. Not once.
No. You implied it. Heavily.
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
Let me be clear: I have never said that a woman shouldn't be cautious. Of course they should.
And yet you have vehemently attacked any suggestion that she take any sort of precautions at all. All I have said in this thread is that women should take precautions and not assume that the guy they're with will be a perfect gentleman once they're alone.
I have not attacked any such suggestion. I have said that your attitude suggests that the woman be blamed for putting herself in the situation where she has been raped. Which is true.
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
But you're suggesting that a woman practically cloister herself lest she be raped.
Nope. There's a whole range between what I've said and that. You're doing that "all or nothing" thing again.
I'm not sure how you equate "avoid ending out alone, drunk, in the bedroom of a guy you only know casually", to "don't date or kiss, or have fun... ever". Bit of an excluded middle there.
No, I equate:
gbaji wrote:
The assumption of date rape is that there are guys who aren't going to take "no" for an answer once they've had dinner, gone to the movie, ate popcorn, had drinks, invited her back to his place, and starts making his moves.
and:
gbaji wrote:
Most date rape scenarios follow a pattern where the woman says "yes" about a half dozen times to different things before she ends out alone in a bedroom half undressed with the guy she then says "no" to.
to "don't date or kiss, or have fun... ever."
gbaji wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
Gbaji, rape is not ever the woman's fault. Ever.
I agree 100%. What in my post made you think otherwise?
This you fucking moron:
gbaji wrote:
In the overwhelming majority of date rape cases, the woman involved said "yes" many times before saying "no". Perhaps instead of just teaching people that "no means no", we should teach people when they should be saying no.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
gbaji wrote:
This. I'm not talking about what you wear or where you go. I'm talking about making smart choices when in social settings. Most date rape scenarios follow a pattern where the woman says "yes" about a half dozen times to different things before she ends out alone in a bedroom half undressed with the guy she then says "no" to. Even ignoring the question of what was actually said or done when it was just the two of them, we can correctly say that there were numerous things she could have done to avoid getting into that situation in the first place.
...
In the overwhelming majority of date rape cases, the woman involved said "yes" many times before saying "no". Perhaps instead of just teaching people that "no means no", we should teach people when they should be saying no?
Doesn't matter. No means no, no matter when it was said. I don't care how hard up the dude is, he can just let her out the door then go molest a washcloth in the bathroom.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
Technogeek wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Quote:
date rape n. forcible sexual intercourse by a male acquaintance of a woman, during a voluntary social engagement in which the woman did not intend to submit to the sexual advances and resisted the acts by verbal refusals, denials or pleas to stop, and/or physical resistance. The fact that the parties knew each other or that the woman willingly accompanied the man are not legal defenses to a charge of rape, although one Pennsylvania decision ruled that there had to be some actual physical resistance.
"Voluntary social engagements" do usually involve multiple decisions to agree or disagree with any given choice along the way. While I suppose there's a rare case of someone being date raped while attending a lecture on campus or something, usually there's a "date" involved. Hence, the name. Dates usually involve choices like going out to eat, going dancing, drinking, going jointly to a private location, etc.
I guess I did have to spell it out. Really? Why does it always seem like some people ask the most moronic questions?
The way you wrote this statement of yours implies that the woman agreed to sex originally, then changed her mind. Perhaps you're just bad at English? Is that what you were implying, or did you just write it poorly?
Huh? Where do you get this? I said that she agreed to go out to eat, then to go dancing, then to drink, then to go jointly to a private location. You're inserting your own assumptions in there.
The definition said is involves a "voluntary social engagement". What do you think that means? And no... It does not mean that she originally intended to have sex and then changed her mind. It means that she voluntarily engaged in some sort of social activity with the guy. WTF?
You're really reaching here.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Debalic wrote:
Doesn't matter. No means no, no matter when it was said. I don't care how hard up the dude is, he can just let her out the door then go molest a washcloth in the bathroom.
Edited, Aug 31st 2011 7:33pm by lolgaxe
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
So, your original statement of:
is very non specific in what the woman is saying "yes" to. You poorly worded it, leading people to misunderstand you. Your inability to admit you were wrong in anything whatsoever, is not a strength.
Quote:
In the overwhelming majority of date rape cases, the woman involved said "yes" many times before saying "no". Perhaps instead of just teaching people that "no means no", we should teach people when they should be saying no?
is very non specific in what the woman is saying "yes" to. You poorly worded it, leading people to misunderstand you. Your inability to admit you were wrong in anything whatsoever, is not a strength.
Belkira wrote:
No, I equate:
and:
to "don't date or kiss, or have fun... ever."
gbaji wrote:
The assumption of date rape is that there are guys who aren't going to take "no" for an answer once they've had dinner, gone to the movie, ate popcorn, had drinks, invited her back to his place, and starts making his moves.
and:
gbaji wrote:
Most date rape scenarios follow a pattern where the woman says "yes" about a half dozen times to different things before she ends out alone in a bedroom half undressed with the guy she then says "no" to.
to "don't date or kiss, or have fun... ever."
Which is excluding the middle.
Like say, do all those things minus getting undressed in a room with the guy.
Further muddying the water is the nonzero number of people who prefer a somewhat more adversarial bedroom approach.
He's not condoning the actions, rather saying people should be smarter about predicting the potential consequences.
Gbaji does have a legitimate view here, however unsuccessfully he is defending it.
Edited, Aug 31st 2011 7:47pm by Timelordwho
Just as Planned.
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
Gbaji, rape is not ever the woman's fault. Ever.
I agree 100%. What in my post made you think otherwise?
This you fucking moron:
gbaji wrote:
In the overwhelming majority of date rape cases, the woman involved said "yes" many times before saying "no". Perhaps instead of just teaching people that "no means no", we should teach people when they should be saying no.
Why do you interpret that as me saying the woman is at fault? What I'm saying is that we should be teaching women when to say no. And I don't mean "wait until he's forcing himself on you to say no". I mean, decide if you think it's a good idea to go off alone with this guy you just met before doing so. I mean, decide whether it's a good idea to get falling down drunk without some friends around to make sure some guy doesn't take advantage of you before doing so. And if you decide that those are bad ideas, say "no", when the guy asks you to do them.
This is no different than teaching people to lock their cars, or to not leave their valuables in plain sight, or teaching children not to talk to strangers. I still just find it interesting that in this one area, somehow it's wrong for us to do this. It's offensive to suggest that it's a good idea to teach women that some guys out there aren't going to respect them and aren't going to take a "no" answer to sex and to take precautions to reduce the likelihood that they find themselves in that situation?
I don't see it. What it does do is confirm my earlier statement that there seems to be this odd push to teach young women to be victims and come forward about it afterwards rather than not be victims in the first place. Don't you see that by being so negative towards even the suggestion that we should focus on avoiding dangerous situations that you're reinforcing this very mixed message I talked about earlier. Teaching guys that "no means no" is great and all. But in all likelihood, the guys who are in the classes and sensitivity seminars being taught that aren't the guys you need to worry about.
Dunno, I just think it's a foolish approach to the issue. There's a very real and very dangerous world out there, and I really do believe that some of the messages young women are being given result in them having a false sense of security. I'm not advocating locking themselves up in ivory towers or anything. But I think that providing young women with better tools to be able to maybe see danger coming before it's too late would be a better approach.
How is that wrong, much less "disgusting"?
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Because the way you said it makes it look like you're blaming the woman, is all. For someone who writes as much as you do you should learn to be more concise.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most date rape scenarios follow a pattern where the woman says "yes" about a half dozen times to different things before she ends out alone in a bedroom half undressed with the guy she then says "no" to.
So if the woman says yes to dinner, yes to a movie, yes to splitting the popcorn, yes to drinks afterward, the guy is going to be confused when she says no to sex? I knew men could be simple, but this is just ridiculous.
Technogeek wrote:
So, your original statement of:
is very non specific in what the woman is saying "yes" to. You poorly worded it, leading people to misunderstand you. Your inability to admit you were wrong in anything whatsoever, is not a strength.
Quote:
In the overwhelming majority of date rape cases, the woman involved said "yes" many times before saying "no". Perhaps instead of just teaching people that "no means no", we should teach people when they should be saying no?
is very non specific in what the woman is saying "yes" to. You poorly worded it, leading people to misunderstand you. Your inability to admit you were wrong in anything whatsoever, is not a strength.
Nad's figured it out right off the bat. I thought in context that what I was saying was pretty clear.
But for those who thought otherwise: I was talking about all the choices leading up to ending out alone, perhaps drunk, perhaps semi-nude, perhaps already making out with a guy, and then saying "no" to actual intercourse. I was talking about saying "yes" to going to dinner, "yes" to going dancing, "yes" to having drinks, "yes" to making out with the guy, "yes" to going back to his place, and "yes" to making out on his bed. In a typical date rate scenario, the woman has said "yes" to numerous choices along the way. That's not to say she was wrong, or to blame for those choices, just that at any point she could have chosen to end the evening, but didn't.
I'm saying that teaching women to say "no" before they end out half naked in some guys bedroom, and out of public view will minimize their odds of being date raped. I don't think it's a bad idea to teach young women that the best time to end the evening with someone you don't trust 100% is before you are alone with them in an intimate setting. Again, this is not about blame. It's about educating women about precautions they can take while dating. As I've said repeatedly, this is no different than locking your doors, or hiding your valuables. In a perfect world, none of us would have to do those things.
But we don't live in a perfect world.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Timelordwho wrote:
Gbaji does have a legitimate view here, however unsuccessfully he is defending it.
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Nilatai wrote:
Because the way you said it makes it look like you're blaming the woman, is all. For someone who writes as much as you do you should learn to be more concise.
I think it's about 10% the way I've said it, and 90% the way some posters have chosen to interpret what I've said. Don't blame me because some posters go out of your way to look for something in my post to be offended by.
If someone was actually unsure what I meant, they could have asked instead of leaping to conclusions and calling me names. And yeah, I agree with the "more concise" issue, but honestly no matter how clearly I try to write things, it seems like someone will still find a way to twist it around to mean something I didn't intend. I don't think you know just how often I'll write something, realize someone might take it the wrong way, then re-write it. There's a point at which I just can't predict every possible mind-bending way someone might choose to view what I've written.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
Because the way you said it makes it look like you're blaming the woman, is all. For someone who writes as much as you do you should learn to be more concise.
I think it's about 10% the way I've said it, and 90% the way some posters have chosen to interpret what I've said. Don't blame me because some posters go out of your way to look for something in my post to be offended by.
If someone was actually unsure what I meant, they could have asked instead of leaping to conclusions and calling me names. And yeah, I agree with the "more concise" issue, but honestly no matter how clearly I try to write things, it seems like someone will still find a way to twist it around to mean something I didn't intend. I don't think you know just how often I'll write something, realize someone might take it the wrong way, then re-write it. There's a point at which I just can't predict every possible mind-bending way someone might choose to view what I've written.
That's because you write too much. You say things that contradict your own argument in the next paragraph.
Less is more.
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.
LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
gbaji wrote:
1. Like say "no" when the guy asks you to come with him, alone, to his place after a night of drinking and dancing and making out unless you actually want to have sex with him.
2.I should be able to just keep my money in a pile on my front step.
1. = Trust nobody. Nice world-view you want to teach.
2. = Don't ever dress in a way that makes you look sexy.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
ALSO: What Nil said.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Aaaaand, I hate to triple, but:
Since I hear no argument about the troll theory from gbaji, I'm going with the "scary" option.
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
I've maintained for years that Gbaji is the best troll of them all. He has to be doing it on purpose. Any other explanation is scary.
Since I hear no argument about the troll theory from gbaji, I'm going with the "scary" option.
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
So if the woman says yes to dinner, yes to a movie, yes to splitting the popcorn, yes to drinks afterward, the guy is going to be confused when she says no to sex? I knew men could be simple, but this is just ridiculous.
Nad's figured it out right off the bat. I thought in context that what I was saying was pretty clear.
TLW, gbaji has a valid view here...?
I say again, of course women should be cautious. But to suggest that if she's not, it's sort of her own fault is ridiculous. A woman can be stark naked laying in a guy's bed, say no, and it still be rape if he forces it on her.
Also, to say that "focusing" on getting rapists in jail is bad is also ridiculous.
The underlying point of thinking ahead and not walking down a dark alley is great. I get that. But suggesting that you teach women when to say no instead of a man that "no means no," and suggesting that if a woman agrees to going out with a man, agrees to dinner, agrees to popcorn at a movie, and even goes home and lets him feel her up then she's partially to blame for being raped, that's going entirely too far, and it is not ever, ever a valid view.
Friar Bijou wrote:
Aaaaand, I hate to triple, but:
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
gbaji wrote:
Nilatai wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
Gbaji, rape is not ever the woman's fault. Ever.
I agree 100%. What in my post made you think otherwise?
This you fucking moron:
gbaji wrote:
In the overwhelming majority of date rape cases, the woman involved said "yes" many times before saying "no". Perhaps instead of just teaching people that "no means no", we should teach people when they should be saying no.
Why do you interpret that as me saying the woman is at fault? What I'm saying is that we should be teaching women when to say no. And I don't mean "wait until he's forcing himself on you to say no". I mean, decide if you think it's a good idea to go off alone with this guy you just met before doing so. I mean, decide whether it's a good idea to get falling down drunk without some friends around to make sure some guy doesn't take advantage of you before doing so. And if you decide that those are bad ideas, say "no", when the guy asks you to do them.
This is no different than teaching people to lock their cars, or to not leave their valuables in plain sight, or teaching children not to talk to strangers. I still just find it interesting that in this one area, somehow it's wrong for us to do this. It's offensive to suggest that it's a good idea to teach women that some guys out there aren't going to respect them and aren't going to take a "no" answer to sex and to take precautions to reduce the likelihood that they find themselves in that situation?
I don't see it. What it does do is confirm my earlier statement that there seems to be this odd push to teach young women to be victims and come forward about it afterwards rather than not be victims in the first place. Don't you see that by being so negative towards even the suggestion that we should focus on avoiding dangerous situations that you're reinforcing this very mixed message I talked about earlier. Teaching guys that "no means no" is great and all. But in all likelihood, the guys who are in the classes and sensitivity seminars being taught that aren't the guys you need to worry about.
Dunno, I just think it's a foolish approach to the issue. There's a very real and very dangerous world out there, and I really do believe that some of the messages young women are being given result in them having a false sense of security. I'm not advocating locking themselves up in ivory towers or anything. But I think that providing young women with better tools to be able to maybe see danger coming before it's too late would be a better approach.
How is that wrong, much less "disgusting"?
So the couple goes out, they have dinner, movie, dancing, whatever. He asks her to go back to his house. He's not made one move all night, barely even touched her. He says he wants her to come back to his house (or he wants to go to her house) just to talk some more, get to know her better. It's been a great date and she has no reason to believe he's lying to her.
They get in the house, five minutes later he's pressuring her for sex. She really didn't see this coming. He's laid a trap, and now she's caught.
Is this the woman's fault? When should she have said no? How should she have seen this coming?
How about this: "Men are assholes".
Except me, of course.
Except me, of course.
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
gbaji wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Most date rape scenarios follow a pattern where the woman says "yes" about a half dozen times to different things before she ends out alone in a bedroom half undressed with the guy she then says "no" to.
So if the woman says yes to dinner, yes to a movie, yes to splitting the popcorn, yes to drinks afterward, the guy is going to be confused when she says no to sex? I knew men could be simple, but this is just ridiculous.
Technogeek wrote:
So, your original statement of:
is very non specific in what the woman is saying "yes" to. You poorly worded it, leading people to misunderstand you. Your inability to admit you were wrong in anything whatsoever, is not a strength.
Quote:
In the overwhelming majority of date rape cases, the woman involved said "yes" many times before saying "no". Perhaps instead of just teaching people that "no means no", we should teach people when they should be saying no?
is very non specific in what the woman is saying "yes" to. You poorly worded it, leading people to misunderstand you. Your inability to admit you were wrong in anything whatsoever, is not a strength.
Nad's figured it out right off the bat. I thought in context that what I was saying was pretty clear.
But for those who thought otherwise: I was talking about all the choices leading up to ending out alone, perhaps drunk, perhaps semi-nude, perhaps already making out with a guy, and then saying "no" to actual intercourse. I was talking about saying "yes" to going to dinner, "yes" to going dancing, "yes" to having drinks, "yes" to making out with the guy, "yes" to going back to his place, and "yes" to making out on his bed. In a typical date rate scenario, the woman has said "yes" to numerous choices along the way. That's not to say she was wrong, or to blame for those choices, just that at any point she could have chosen to end the evening, but didn't.
I'm saying that teaching women to say "no" before they end out half naked in some guys bedroom, and out of public view will minimize their odds of being date raped. I don't think it's a bad idea to teach young women that the best time to end the evening with someone you don't trust 100% is before you are alone with them in an intimate setting. Again, this is not about blame. It's about educating women about precautions they can take while dating. As I've said repeatedly, this is no different than locking your doors, or hiding your valuables. In a perfect world, none of us would have to do those things.
But we don't live in a perfect world.
Right, teaching women to never interact with men would minimize rape.
But it's everyone else who's being impractical by suggesting that "no means no" is worth teaching, huh?
Edited, Sep 1st 2011 9:04am by Eske
How did we let gbaji make rape a grey area?
Recent Visitors: 227
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (227)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The gbaji conundrum
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC