Debalic wrote:
How about this: "Men are assholes".
Except me, of course.
Except me, of course.
ITT: Debalic sets women up for date-
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The gbaji conundrum
The gbaji conundrumFollow
ITT: Debalic sets women up for date-
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
How did we let gbaji make rape a grey area?
Gbaji goes through all sorts of rationalizations and logical contortions to feel better about voting Republican.
I'll leave it to the reader to decide if that's relevant here since I'd hate to get ragebanned over Gbaji throwing a hissy fit.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
He should apologize to guenny for throwing the previous hissy fit.
Nadenu wrote:
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?
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?
Gbaji's making his point very badly, and I'm not sure it's a point that needs to be made really, but he's not saying it's the victim's fault.
He's saying that there are men who will commit date rape regardless, so women should be somewhat cautious, and make sure they are sending the right signals. That's all fine and good, but he's implying that right now women are being encouraged to do absolutely whatever they want and not be careful, which I really don't think is the case. He's addressing a problem that's not there, and then when you try to find the reason, because there isn't a problem you look for other reasons, and infer that he wants to put the blame on the victim, when really he doesn't.
Edited, Sep 1st 2011 9:49am by Xsarus
01001001 00100000 01001100 01001001 01001011 01000101 00100000 01000011 01000001 01001011 01000101
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
You'll always be stupid, you'll just be stupid with more information in your brain
Forum FAQ
Sir Xsarus wrote:
Nadenu wrote:
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?
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?
From everything I've read, that situation is under the umbrella of what he's been suggesting. Guys that are capable of rape don't necessarily identify themselves as such. There's no practicality in what he's saying, because he's basically listed every common, necessary thing that a girl would have to do to start a relationship as something that puts her at risk for rape.
It's stupid, and he's just being contrary because of his compulsive need to mount some token opposition to any point about womens' rights. Give him enough time, and I'll bet you he'll slip up and commit the blame the victim fallacy, too, because that's always been his inclination (whether he'd admit it or not). You shouldn't try to save his point for him.
Edited, Sep 1st 2011 11:52am by Eske
Sir Xsarus wrote:
He's saying that there are men who will commit date rape regardless, so women should be somewhat cautious, and make sure they are sending the right signals.
If they're going to commit rape regardless, the "signals" don't really matter.
Quote:
That's all fine and good, but he's implying that right now women are being encouraged to do absolutely whatever they want and not be careful, which I really don't think is the case.
Agreed there. As I recall, "date rape education" was a lot of "Don't take drinks from guys, don't let your drink leave your sight, go on first dates in groups, have a plan, make yourself clear, etc etc" Even recently when I've been on campuses, the stuff never said "do whatever you want because it's all their fault!" so there hasn't been some sea change since my four-year days.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Friar Bijou wrote:
Debalic wrote:
How about this: "Men are assholes".
Except me, of course.
Except me, of course.
ITT: Debalic sets women up for date-
Not quite, but I appreciate the sentiment. 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.
Belkira wrote:
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.
Yes, it's still rape. I don't think anyone is arguing that. But using your own scenario of a woman laying naked on a bed, if she isn't willing to acknowledge that the chances of her getting raped in that situation are greater than if she wasn't there, then she shouldn't be there in the first place.
It's not about blame. It's about acknowledging that rape happens and it is a possibility. It's also about acknowledging that certain choices a women makes may increase the chances of it happening.
I missed most of the last page, and am still playing catchup. At least the scenarios are getting more interesting now.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
I guess I'm strange for going to a movie with a woman, having dinner, and maybe even a drink at her house and not raping her.
No kidding you mean I could have had sex last night even though the mood was not going that way at all. Damn I must not be a real man.
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.
Raolan wrote:
Yes, it's still rape. I don't think anyone is arguing that. But using your own scenario of a woman laying naked on a bed, if she isn't willing to acknowledge that the chances of her getting raped in that situation are greater than if she wasn't there, then she shouldn't be there in the first place.
My guess would be that if a woman ended up in that situation, she wanted to have sex at first, then changed her mind. Which is completely acceptable. Suggesting that she's even partially to blame (i.e. she shouldn't have been there, or she should know when to say no as opposed to men knowing that no means no) is asinine.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Raolan wrote:
Yes, it's still rape. I don't think anyone is arguing that. But using your own scenario of a woman laying naked on a bed, if she isn't willing to acknowledge that the chances of her getting raped in that situation are greater than if she wasn't there, then she shouldn't be there in the first place.
My guess would be that if a woman ended up in that situation, she wanted to have sex at first, then changed her mind. Which is completely acceptable. Suggesting that she's even partially to blame (i.e. she shouldn't have been there, or she should know when to say no as opposed to men knowing that no means no) is asinine.
What's asinine is thinking we live in a perfect world where every wish or command is going to be obeyed by everyone involved. What's also asinine is thinking that just because it shouldn't happen it won't, so there's no point in considering the circumstances before a decision is made.
A women does have the right to change her mind, but she should also recognize that some guys may not accept being told no once things get to that point. I understand people change their mind for whatever reason, but that's not a situation a women should be putting herself in if she has any doubt about whether or not she wants to do it.
Quote:
A women does have the right to change her mind, but she should also recognize that some guys may not accept being told no once things get to that point. I understand people change their mind for whatever reason, but that's not a situation a women should be putting herself in if she has any doubt about whether or not she wants to do it.
Hey, women, stop making us rape you.
Admiral Lubriderm wrote:
Quote:
A women does have the right to change her mind, but she should also recognize that some guys may not accept being told no once things get to that point. I understand people change their mind for whatever reason, but that's not a situation a women should be putting herself in if she has any doubt about whether or not she wants to do it.
Hey, women, stop making us rape you.
If those types of guys didn't exist then this really wouldn't be a problem now would it?
Raolan wrote:
What's asinine is thinking we live in a perfect world where every wish or command is going to be obeyed by everyone involved. What's also asinine is thinking that just because it shouldn't happen it won't, so there's no point in considering the circumstances before a decision is made.
Where is this coming from? I've been saying that of course a woman needs to recognize dangerous situations and have forethought. I have never argued otherwise.
I have simply argued against comments like "she shouldn't put herself in that situation" or "she should be told when to say no instead of focusing on telling guys that no means no." None of this is helpful, and it makes the woman feel that the blame is partially her fault. It makes women hesitant to report a rape. It makes women ashamed when a man rapes her when she tells him no, when she trusts where she shouldn't.
Raolan wrote:
A women does have the right to change her mind, but she should also recognize that some guys may not accept being told no once things get to that point. I understand people change their mind for whatever reason, but that's not a situation a women should be putting herself in if she has any doubt about whether or not she wants to do it.
I suppose people should realize that someone else might drink and drive, so they should never, ever get in a car and drive anywhere, either?
Raolan wrote:
A women does have the right to change her mind, but she should also recognize that some guys may not accept being told no once things get to that point. I understand people change their mind for whatever reason, but that's not a situation a women should be putting herself in if she has any doubt about whether or not she wants to do it.
Yeah, live your life in fear. That's the spirit.
How does it feel to be such a coward?
I almost wish varus would get into this discussion to explain how he's so irresistible that girls aren't really saying "no" to him.
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.
Belkira the Tulip wrote:
Raolan wrote:
What's asinine is thinking we live in a perfect world where every wish or command is going to be obeyed by everyone involved. What's also asinine is thinking that just because it shouldn't happen it won't, so there's no point in considering the circumstances before a decision is made.
Where is this coming from? I've been saying that of course a woman needs to recognize dangerous situations and have forethought. I have never argued otherwise.
I have simply argued against comments like "she shouldn't put herself in that situation" or "she should be told when to say no instead of focusing on telling guys that no means no." None of this is helpful, and it makes the woman feel that the blame is partially her fault. It makes women hesitant to report a rape. It makes women ashamed when a man rapes her when she tells him no, when she trusts where she shouldn't.
Raolan wrote:
A women does have the right to change her mind, but she should also recognize that some guys may not accept being told no once things get to that point. I understand people change their mind for whatever reason, but that's not a situation a women should be putting herself in if she has any doubt about whether or not she wants to do it.
I suppose people should realize that someone else might drink and drive, so they should never, ever get in a car and drive anywhere, either?
It's not an issue of blame, persay, but rather a rational realization of how things work. Lets say the woman "put herself in a compromised position, where someone could rape her, either by misinterpretation or malice". This does not preclude her right for legal action against the aggressor. The victim should not receive blame, but taking a calculated risk is better than an un-calculated one, and in some cases, will allow for better outcomes.
To equate this with your second example: There are many more drunk drivers cruising around at 3AM than during the day. If one crashes into you, they are liable, and can be taken to court. But recognizing that this is the case allows you to plan to drive at a different time of day if you are worried about it, or pay more attention to the way people are driving when driving in the early morning hours to protect yourself.
Just as Planned.
The problem is they're having an argument around dimensions that don't intersect. Neither is really disagreeing with the other's point, but they're disagreeing with the importance of what the other is saying.
Yes, a woman who paints a bulls-eye on her ****** and dances naked on an all male pirate ship that has been three years at sea is both making it extremely likely a crime will be committed against her while still not reducing or alleviating the seriousness of culpability on the men's part of the offense.
Yes, a woman who paints a bulls-eye on her ****** and dances naked on an all male pirate ship that has been three years at sea is both making it extremely likely a crime will be committed against her while still not reducing or alleviating the seriousness of culpability on the men's part of the offense.
Allegory wrote:
The problem is
Nah, nah, I ain't got a problem.
It's you with the problem.
Allegory wrote:
The problem is they're having an argument around dimensions that don't intersect. Neither is really disagreeing with the other's point, but they're disagreeing with the importance of what the other is saying.
I don't disagree with that.
About 25% of reported rapes are marital rapes. I guess women shouldn't get married?
I never thought gbaji was saying that it's the woman's fault. I *did* think he came across as saying men can't help themselves and shouldn't be held accountable in case a woman was mildly attractive and spoke to them.
Allegory wrote:
Yes, a woman who paints a bulls-eye on her ****** and dances naked on an all male pirate ship that has been three years at sea is both making it extremely likely a crime will be committed against her while still not reducing or alleviating the seriousness of culpability on the men's part of the offense.
I'd assume anyone doing that probably has some sort of weird disease by now, and the men will probably get slapped with a bit of karma.
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Nadenu wrote:
I never thought gbaji was saying that it's the woman's fault. I *did* think he came across as saying men can't help themselves and shouldn't be held accountable in case a woman was mildly attractive and spoke to them.
Ugh. I can't figure out which position is more reprehensible.
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.
Recent Visitors: 203
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (203)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- The gbaji conundrum
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC