Understanding what consent actually IS

[JLives]

The feminazis call it rape even if you made no outward sign of saying, "stop". If it appears consensual at the time, but the next day the chick has second thoughts, and says she was pretty loaded at the time and wouldn't have given her consent had she been sober, that is rape according to the feminists.

You just know there will be an insightful post on gender equality when a poster uses the term feminazi. The term just oozes a well thought out opinion of a male on women's issues.

[FreeRights]

You just know there will be an insightful post on gender equality when a poster uses the term feminazi. The term just oozes a well thought out opinion of a male of women's issues.

Is rape and consent a women's issue?

[JLives]

Yes, even when it concerns men. Feminism is a man's issue too.

[FreeRights]

Feminism is fine, but are you suggesting that consent and rape is not a men's issue?

[whatwhat]

Feminism is fine, but are you suggesting that consent and rape is not a men's issue?

Of course consent and rape is also a men's issue. But technically, feminism fights for the equal rights of all sexes so the male side of consent and rape falls under the category of feminism as well.

[whatwhat]

I have a problem with this definition of rape. I'm likely going against the grain, but that's fine.

Rape is rape and I absolutely think that non consensual sex would be dealt with heavily and criminally.

But when a girl or a guy is too drunk to say no? The partner is likely very intoxicated too. I'm not defending sex in this manner, but should the responsibility not fall on both participants? One person made an irrational choice to have sex, and the other made an irrational choice to accept it.

But there are feminists who believe the irrational decision of the woman makes her unable to properly give consent. The equally irrational decision by the male is rape.

Does this actually make sense?

If the girl or guy is to drunk to say no, then they aren't accepting it. If someone is so drunk to the point where they can not even talk then you shouldn't be having sex with them. Even if at one point during the night they were all over you, and then got to drunk and can't talk and is slurring their words, stumbling, etc then at that moment they can not give consent so you should not have sex with them.

This whole topic totally falls under rape shaming. Like its the girls/guys fault for drinking so much they got raped. It should be about teaching society what consent is and not teaching rape victims that its their fault they got raped because they were drunk.

Why even risk it? If the person you want to have sex with is to drunk to give consent (which has to be pretty drunk) they may possibly view it as rape, so why even risk it? Wait until the morning like a respectful person.

[FreeRights]

My point is, if a female can get so intoxicated where she is unable to give consent, wouldn't it also be true that a male can be so intoxicated that he will act irresponsibly as well?

[Glacier]

You just know there will be an insightful post on gender equality when a poster uses the term feminazi. The term just oozes a well thought out opinion of a male on women's issues.

Please see whatwhat's post on what a feminazi is. It is not a regular feminist, but the more extreme ones who don't stop at equality.

[Barney Google]

Dido...Consent and rape are equally an all sexes inclusive issue. Male, female...whatever...these are social issues.


IMHO...if anyone is so drunk or OUT OF IT that they are acting irresponsibly enough to engage in any kind of activity with another person's body without that person's FULL conscious consent then, I think, it's rape/assault.
You get drunk, you rob a bank or run over someone with a vehicle and kill them...what's the difference? The robbery still occurred...the death still happened. Are the use of drugs or alcohol an excuse to commit any crime? Frankly, again IMHO, if ANYONE, inebriated or not, can look at a completely out of it person or an unconscious prostrate body and decide that this is a good time to engage in sex with them/it then it's a decision that THEY made...and it's rape and assault.

[whatwhat]

My point is, if a female can get so intoxicated where she is unable to give consent, wouldn't it also be true that a male can be so intoxicated that he will act irresponsibly as well?

Drunk people doing irresponsible acts is not a new concept. People get drunk and drive, vandalize, kill people, assault people, etc. All those acts are illegal and using the excuse of being too drunk is not accepted. So why should that be an excuse for rape?

If a guy is to the point where they have lost all concept of laws/respect for others that they are going to "act irresponsibly" I really hope that they wouldn't be able to get it up.

[Glacier]

Here's an excellent article:

Feminist Enemy Number One

Lately, there’s a lot of talk among feminists about the need to keep women safe. The rape culture is allegedly inescapable, and trigger warnings are appended to college syllabi to protect sensitive souls from reminders of any past cause of pain, from “neuro-atypical shaming” to mention of “how much a person weighs.” But it turns out that if you dare to debunk feminist myths, you’re the one that really needs protection.



For years now, Christina Hoff Sommers, author of Who Stole Feminism? and The War Against Boys, has been promoting what she calls, in the title of her latest book, Freedom Feminism. This view, she writes, “stands for the moral, social, and legal equality of the sexes,” but also for women’s freedom—including the freedom to embrace traditional femininity. “Efforts to obliterate gender roles can be just as intolerant as the efforts to maintain them,” she writes, and “theories of universal patriarchal oppression or the inherent evils of capitalism are not in [freedom feminism’s] founding tablets.” Above all, Sommers’s approach is moored in reality, not utopian notions of social justice.

Sommers’s efforts to spread her gospel have annoyed many academic feminists for years, but recently the response to her has gone from confrontational to hostile. “I have never stopped going to campuses, and I’ve been going to law schools. But I have rarely faced protests,” she tells The Weekly Standard. “I used to face vigorous debate, and the young women would come ready to argue—and that was fine, that’s what I was there for. But this is different, and it only started happening this year.”

At Sommers’s speech in April at Georgetown University, multiple undercover policemen were placed in the audience. At Oberlin, also in April, uniformed police officers never let her out of their sight and after her speech escorted her in a police car from the campus to a dinner. In May, she was the guest of honor at a Washington, D.C., meetup of “Gamergate” supporters—video gamers concerned about radical feminism’s influence in the video game industry (more on that later). In response, Salon and Daily Beast columnist Arthur Chu started a social media campaign to pressure the bar where the gamers were meeting to drop the event and sent emails to the venue accusing them of hosting a “right-wing hate group.” Despite the pressure, the owner of the bar, Local 16, emailed Sommers to tell her they “would never keep any group out. This is America.” A bomb threat soon followed, necessitating a heavy police presence and a tour of Local 16 by bomb-sniffing dogs.

Through all this, Sommers says, “I didn’t feel threatened. I’d never known feminists to be violent.” Her calm in the face of feminist extremism is in marked contrast to the fury of her critics. “I am a threat to their health, to their mental well-being. That attitude is new,” she says. “Before, they might have thought, ‘Oh, her views on feminism are reactionary.’ But now it’s that her views are a threat.”

Indeed, an inability to distinguish between threats and disagreements seems to be a hallmark of this contemporary feminism. Sommers is scary precisely because she doesn’t shy away from heightening the contradictions. Where op-ed writers have patiently picked apart the discredited “wage gap” statistics feminists insist on recycling, Sommers shows up in the proverbial lion’s den, calmly points her finger at the scolds-in-training, and challenges them to prove their commitment to female equality by changing their major to the lucrative and male-dominated field of petroleum engineering.

These days, campus feminists make no attempt to debate Sommers on substance. Instead, she routinely faces attempts to shun her, silence her, or distort her message. After her Georgetown speech, there were demands that the student group that had hosted her remove the protesters from video of the event. A university administrator warned that if the upset students weren’t edited out, “Georgetown [would] need to step in.”

Got that? Protesters showed up at a public event to draw attention to their message—but then realized that footage showing ostensible adults holding signs saying “Trigger Warning: Antifeminist” was an embarrassment to the students and bad PR for the school, so they wanted it censored. Another embarrassment is young feminists’ ignorance. When Sommers joked at Oberlin that the Junior Anti-Sex League had occupied campus feminism, a voice from her audience yelled, “What the hell is that?”

Before Sommers’s speech at Oberlin, 150 feminists signed a letter to the campus newspaper claiming that, among other libelous assertions, Sommers was a “rape denialist” for daring to poke holes in the improbable campus rape statistics bandied about. (According to an article in Slate last year, the commonly spouted figure that one-quarter of college women are victims of rape or attempted rape “would mean that young American college women are raped at a rate similar to women in Congo, where rape has been used as a weapon of war.”) The Oberlin letter was titled “In Response to Sommers’ Talk: A Love Letter to Ourselves” and urged students to boycott the speech and attend another event hosted in a “safe space.” While Sommers went on to address a full lecture hall, the Oberlin Review reported that “the alternative event, ‘We’re Still Here,’ was attended by approximately 35 students and one dog.” Disappointingly, the Review did not elaborate on how exactly Sommers’s presence on campus had managed to traumatize the dog.

The intensity of the opposition Sommers is facing may be new, but its seeds were planted a few years ago. Sommers says some of the opposition to her is a logical consequence of government policy. In 2011 the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice told campuses they were obligated under Title IX of the Civil Rights Act to protect women from harassment—even exposure to sexual language and innuendo—and that they had to lower their standards for determining guilt. “The colleges panicked, but it empowered that contingent. .  .  . The ‘drama feminists’ suddenly could hold the school hostage because they could threaten lawsuits under Title IX,” she says.

Sommers has forged an entire career by brushing up against drama feminists. As a professor of ethics in the 1980s, she recalls being surprised by the reaction to a paper she presented at the American Philosophical Association. “I argued against the increasing radicalism of feminist theory and its fixation on doomed projects—like overthrowing ‘male science’ with ‘women’s ways of knowing.’ My plea for moderation was not appreciated. Gender theorists in the audience hissed and stomped their feet. I was excommunicated from the church of feminism on the spot.”

But despite rubbing some of her peers the wrong way, Sommers thrived, in part because she wasn’t completely alone. There were a number of prominent “second-wave” feminists—Wendy Kaminer, Katie Roiphe, Mary Lefkowitz, Cathy Young, and others—who were also questioning whether the political program of the feminist left was good for women. For a while, their thinking was in vogue, and they earned plaudits not usually given to heretics. In 2000, The War Against Boys was a New York Times Notable Book of the Year. Those days are gone.

For more than a decade, Sommers has been happily ensconced in the think tank world at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. She’s still a Democrat and says she’s “pro-choice, pro-gay, pro-trans—I mean, I’m just in favor of personal liberty.” She’s quick to add, “This does not save me from being called a right-wing crank [by the feminist establishment], because you have to go along with their increasingly paranoid version.”

Sommers may not be scoring any points for feminist orthodoxy, but don’t discount envy as a reason she’s increasingly targeted. Unlike a lot of feminists, Sommers has escaped the academic ghetto. In feminism, cultural relevance has always been the coin of the realm, and Sommers is awash in it right now, thanks to her involvement in the controversy over sexism in the culture of video games. And for anyone who hasn’t been paying attention, video games are bigger business than Hollywood.

Gamergate’s origins are murky—it started with the online revelation that a well-known feminist video game developer was cheating on her boyfriend with, among others, her married boss. Somehow the surrounding revelations unspooled so as to confirm the suspicions of many gamers that a cabal of influential industry players and journalists was trying to impose a politically correct agenda on video games. Now hordes of video game fans call Gamergate their movement to enforce ethics and reject political correctness in the video game industry.

As for Sommers, she says she hasn’t played a video game since “Pac-Man in a bar in Cambridge, Mass., in 1980.” But when an Entertainment Software Association study last year claimed that most video game players were adult women, the anti-Gamergate crowd seized on the news as proof that the video game industry needed to stop focusing on shoot-’em-ups in favor of female-friendly games.

The topic was ripe for Sommers’s “Factual Feminist” YouTube series. Once again, the feminist “facts” were incorrect. “There are casual game players—and there are hard-core gamers for whom highly complex, competitive video games are a primary life passion,” she explained. “Adult women are not a key demographic here. Researchers at UCLA have been studying the pastimes of college freshmen for more than 40 years. For incoming freshmen, 65 percent of girls but fewer than 19 percent of boys said they played no video games at all in a typical week.”

Gamergate supporters began passing Sommers’s Factual Feminist video around, and in the first three weeks it garnered over 440,000 views and 7,700 comments—pretty impressive for a think tank scholar talking into a camera. Sommers is now referred to by Gamergaters as “Based Mom,” with “based” being video game slang for cool.

To some extent, Sommers is walking a fine line by defending Gamergate. She has repeatedly condemned Internet harassment and threats against women; there are indeed unsavory and misogynist elements among hard-core video gamers. But her personal example of reasoned debate has had a positive influence on the controversy, which otherwise might have embodied everything that’s wrong with arguing online. Her allegedly enlightened critics in the video game community have mainly indulged in glorified name calling. Video game website Polygon called Sommers a “reactionary” and said her supposed indifference to video game sexism was an “irresponsible abrogation of our shared humanity.”

There’s a certain novelty to feminist agitation invading video games, but what’s at issue is still the notion there’s only one valid way to think about women’s lives, and it assumes they’re victimized by every aspect of the culture.

[Barney Google]

I don't understand what your point is Glacier, with regards to consent.
This thread is about consent...male or female or any other...not about feminism or antifeminism.

There is another thread that perhaps would be better suited for your interests regarding feminism...
For your reference:

The feminist movement is getting out of control.

viewtopic.php?f=31&t=58542

[Glacier]

They are inter-related. Mostly it's the out of control feminists who think there's an epidemic of people who don't understand what consent is. It's a manufactured problem which is why I don't know anyone who doesn't know what consent is.

[Barney Google]

They are inter-related. Mostly it's the out of control feminists who think there's an epidemic of people who don't understand what consent is. It's a manufactured problem which is why I don't know anyone who doesn't know what consent is.

..."out of control feminists"? "Epidemic"? Perhaps that could be said about a lot of issues and the people who are passionate about them....GMOs, climate change, homelessness, child poverty, right to life, abortion, etc.. There are a lot of people, that it seems, today who appear to not understand or get the concept of boundaries and pushing limitations to the extreme. Not sure if the topic of consent is a 'manufactured' problem though. From my experience and insight it certainly seems that consent IS an issue...and one that has varying degrees of Social grey areas.

[JLives]

They are inter-related. Mostly it's the out of control feminists who think there's an epidemic of people who don't understand what consent is. It's a manufactured problem which is why I don't know anyone who doesn't know what consent is.

I don't even know where to start. This is a misguided, uneducated, out of touch statement from start to finish.

What is an out of control feminist? Is that a woman who you just want to shut up because you're tired of hearing about it?

There is a huge problem with people who don't understand what consent it. I'm not going into details but I have personally experienced it and nobody who witnessed it did a thing about it. There is no such thing as non-consensual sex, it's called rape. There is sex and there is rape. It is most certainly not a manufactured problem and it happens to real people every damn day. In some cases encouraged by their peers.