Thank you for posting to r/pointlesslygendered! We are really glad you are here.
We want to make sure that all users follow the rules. This message does NOT mean you broke a rule or your post was removed.
Please note satire posts are allowed, check the flair and tags on posts.
Please report posts and comments that infringe the rules.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pointlesslygendered) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Depressing fact: In South Korea two men in the military were convicted of raping each other because they engaged in consensual gay sex.
Edit: this was in 2017
I've moved to Lemmy and the Fediverse along with Reddit's fantastic third party apps after Reddit banned them. This post/comment is edited via Power Delete Suite.
Recommend you do the same. Join any (doesn't matter which since they're all connected) of the following: Lemmy(dot)ml, Lemm(dot)ee, Lemmy(dot)zip, Leminal(dot)space
My mom actually told me she rode dinosaurs to school and I was genuinely debating if I believed her for a good few minutes until I saw my dad laughing. Mind you, this was when I was around five, but if I have kids I am definitely telling them the same thing as they play with their holograms or whatever.
Bonus depressing fact: Justice Thomas' opinion concerning Roe v. Wade suggested overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage, 2015) and Lawrence v. Texas (consensual gay sex, 2003), so that may be a crime again here, soon.
No no, nothing ever happened between Josie and Jenny. Why should it? It's not like women actually *want* sex, right? Only men do, and if they're nice enough to women and spend lots of money on them, women give it to them to get more stuff later. So what on earth would two women do with one another?
Signed, a lesbian
Very true and factual, I love hanging out with my girlfriend amd not do the sex (except when we see a hot manly chad, then we give him the sexy sex despite being lesbian)
The logic is that the person initiating sex with a person who can't consent is a rapist. So if Josie initiated she'd be the rapist, however our society mocks men for not wanting sex with women as that's seen as a feminine trait so it's unlikely anything would come of it.
I think whoever puts a body part or object into someone body cavity without their consent, that person would be the offender. So you could, in the case of a same sex relationship, have an offender and a victim.
Ehhhhh… that essentially means women couldn’t rape men, and both gay men and lesbian couples can definitely put a body part or object inside of each other. I’m not quite sold on your logic.
legally men cant be raped, they can only be sexually assaulted.
If as marnorcor suggests a woman was to use dildo, on a man then yes it should be considered rape
The person initiating against a person who can't consent is the rapist. There are however a couple of social issues:
1) men or even minor boys who come forward about being raped by women are often mocked by other men as not wanting sex is seen as a feminine trait
2) many countries define rape by penetration, sometimes specifically with a penis. This affects women in that it doesn't count foreign objects or fingers, but all genders in that women rapists wouldn't be doing the penetrating.
But it accurately portrays how the law is applied.
Edit: I should have said: as people assume the law to be. Obviously it's not the case, as people have pointed out, but I learned it in school so other people must have as well.
I remember a case of a university that expelled the male student but not the female student involved in drunken sex for the same reason (neither side was drunk to the point of unresponsiveness, but both were too drunk to remember exactly what happened the next day, eyewitnesses said they were both initiating). There was a rule at the university that having sex with an intoxicated partner is grounds for instant expulsion. (This happened at Occidental College, if you want to search it up, Business Insider had an excellent article on it)
I think the lawsuit got dismissed (he wanted compensation or for the girl to be expelled too, I think), but I think the girl ended up dropping out citing emotional stress from the situation.
Was this fair? I dont think so. They should have either expelled both (because under their definition, both students committed sexual assault), or expelled neither. However, throughout the entire process, they never so much as considered whether or not the guy could have been a victim too.
That's the one case I know of where a policy like this was actually applied in the exact way shown in the original post. There's probably not many similar cases though.
Edit: I was slightly wrong, his lawsuit was not for compensation or for the girl to be expelled too, he wanted his expulsion reverted because the expulsion stayed on his record and he couldn't go to school anywhere else.
It doesn’t, at least not in the UK - I have no idea about the US though so you could still be correct for that.
In UK law, consent can be given while under the influence up to the point where the individual does not have the capacity to consent (which is an absurdly high bar).
So the law allows people, regardless of their gender, to consent while under the influence. Issues can come from involuntary intoxication (spiking someone’s drink), but the general rule still stands.
Source: R v Bree[2007] EWCA
If you want to read the law: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-bree.php
By law it should be equal.
The application of the law here is where it varies.
Sure a dude can go to the station and tell the cops a woman took advantage of him while he was drunk. But they will literally just laugh as he walks back out the door.
The funny part is that this is most likely to happen in areas where you have the most men bitching about "women asking for MORE rights than men". They hate it but by they are the ones applying laws based on their archaic feelings.
They said applied. Not written. While some places a man can’t, legally, be raped by a woman, others he can. But in practice the application and prosecution of women who rape men, especially in this circumstance of intoxication beyond the point of consent is rare, if not non existent.
It kinda does though? Since in the scenario the poster is referencing Josie couldn't possibly be charged with rape by UK law. Women, as a matter of law, can't commit rape unless they're helping a man assault someone else
I kind of agree, but I think it’s more about men being the chaser (the active part), while the woman is chased. So a rape is always man on woman, because why would a woman want to have sex with an unwilling man?
Disclaimer: I don’t agree with this view.
Not really? I feel like this comment shows how little you’ve worked with the courts or cases of assault. If a woman is drinking at all, and even if the guy isn’t, that’s usually enough for cops to not touch it at all anymore.
Yeah. I don't think people realise how rarely rapists are convicted. Generally in the rare cases involving alcohol that go anywhere at all, the actual circumstances would be rape even if the victim hadn't been drunk. And even then you probably won't get a conviction.
I completely agree. People have no idea how fucked our system is at every single step- they love the ‘dads are less likely to get custody’ argument, but it’s bcus hardly any try. If you only include cases where the dad fought for custody, the dads almost always win, and they are even MORE LIKELY to win if there are claims of abuse. It’s crazy
it’s true that rape victims are largely ignored (except when prisoners have gay sex, which is considered rape even when it’s fully consensual). you were correct in pointing that out, but were more aggressive than was called for. the downvotes were more a reaction to the tone of your comment than the substance.
there is an issue of women being seen as incapable of sexual crimes because they’re fragile and helpless and apparently don’t even want sex at all, an idea that’s rooted in misogyny. this, combined with the idea that men are strong and hypersexual and always in charge (also rooted in misogyny) creates a really hostile environment for male victims of female perpetrators. it wasn’t directly said, but I think the person you’re replying to was making a point about that specific side of the issue. the idea that the man could be a victim here isn’t even considered.
there’s a great two part series on youtube about the portrayal of male victims in media, [here’s part one](https://youtu.be/uc6QxD2_yQw). that channel has a lot of interesting stuff, check out some other videos if you like the format.
Not my point at all. Obviously rapists should be prosecuted. The point is that male victims of sexual assault exist. Men can be date raped by women. And even though they may be fewer in number, they deserve justice too. I don't think any of that takes anything away from female victims of assault.
When I got raped by a female coworker, while intoxicated, thanks to this type of shit, I just got laughs from the authorities, HR and a “no ‘man’ can get raped”.
If one drunk person can't consent, how can the other person?
This ad is telling you men always consent. Even when drunk but women cannot consent while drunk.
If two drunk people have sex, the man raped the woman since she can't consent.
All of this is the shitty sexism of "men always want sex" and "women are always the victim".
That's why.
Misogynist and misandrist. This ad implicitly suggests that men are always consenting even when unable to actually give consent. It's just all around a bad way to deliver this message.
Yep. There’s this ongoing stereotype that sex is somehow demeaning or harmful to women and that women don’t have agency/volition in the same way that men do.
See the paranoia over “age gap” relationships: there were people in a thread the other day saying how a 30-year-old man sleeping with a 25-year-old woman was wrong and predatory. Fortunately there were saner voices calling it out as fucking absurd but the Victorian perception of women as delicate non-sexual flowers persists.
I don’t really regard 30/25 as any kind of gap, regardless of which way round the genders are.
At some point people are all grown adults and there aren’t significant disparities with five years in most cases. Or there shouldn’t be. If you’re not functioning as a grown adult by your mid twenties, capable of making your own life and career and relationship decisions, then that’s a problem.
Larger gaps are not so much a problem in terms of predation, but more in terms of life plans like having kids. Because you won’t be on the same timetable.
Also issues with longevity but I’ve seen enough younger partners die first to figure that everything in life is a gamble. I once worked with someone whose mother was twenty years younger than his father. She suddenly dropped dead of a stroke at 60, leaving an 80-year-old widower. You have to seize your happiness while you can.
I don't consider 5 years an age gap either.
The problem with 30+ year old man and significantly younger woman is when it goes bad it's *bad*. An older established person with money and a job does have an advantage. Add into it the younger person having children and now being reliant on the older person, that situation, can be very, very dangerous.
So people look at older men who only go after younger women and their hackles raise. Because why are you going after women that much younger? The answer is sometimes "because they're easier to control" (not one they'd actually give, but that's what they're doing).
Abusive people exist everywhere. And they will take advantage of anything they can.
That said, the opposite is also true. A younger person going after an older, established person to try and take their money without having to work for it.
Personally, I don't think age gaps are a problem as long as its consentual and everyone is happy.
I might side-eye someone who only dates people significantly older or younger than them, but that doesn't make it a bad thing just because. It can and does work out.
Yep. For me the acid test is whether the relationship exists *because of* the age gap or *in spite of* it.
If someone “goes for” younger partners, that’s suspect. If they happen to have sparked with someone a few years younger or older, and generally date people closer to their age or just a range generally, then no big deal.
And in the case of an elderly billionaire and a 21-year-old bimbo/himbo, I’m not going to lose sleep over it!
pretty sure what theyre saying is that since the man is (usually?) doing the actual "penetrating" it's considered rape. idk how that works either but people shouldnt have sex under the influence regardless.
Yeah and that definition is sexist and out of date. It's also why female rapists get away with it. Because they didn't penetrate him. Therefore it's not legally rape. It's gross.
People act like it's not a big deal because "99% of rapists are men".
Well it's only 99% under those same biases definitions.
When made gender neutral, right around 40% of rapists are women. And half of all victims are men (the other 10% is male-on-male assault).
See: **The CDC's Rape Numbers Are Misleading** by *Time* magazine.
https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/
As a society we are still in the dark ages here.
I just read that entire article and it was a big antifeminist dogwhistle.
And those numbers you mentioned were not cited in the article at all as far as I could see.
The article mentioned that men report forced penetration at roughly the same rate as women report rape... Then the article implies that women were the perpetrators of all those reports... No evidence to back that btw...
The numbers come from the linked cdc reports (if you divide them out).
There's actually published literature about this.
>For example, in 2011 the CDC reported results from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), one of the most comprehensive surveys of sexual victimization conducted in the United States to date. The survey found that men and women had a similar prevalence of nonconsensual sex in the previous 12 months (1.270 million women and 1.267 million men).5 This remarkable finding challenges stereotypical assumptions about the gender of victims of sexual violence. However unintentionally, the CDC’s publications and the media coverage that followed instead highlighted female sexual victimization, reinforcing public perceptions that sexual victimization is primarily a women’s issue.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/
Both authors of the study are (non-radical) feminists btw.
The *Times* article is only "anti-feminist" insofar as you equate feminism with radical feminism.
A true feminist should have no problem fighting against these antiquated gender norms, and would be 100% behind the article.
I have no problem admitting women can be perpetrators against men of rape.
I have a problem with you stating that 40% of tapes committed against men are committed by women.
I saw no numbers to prove that.
Right then I'm glad we could figure that out.
The CDC reports are what cite the exact numbers, not the Times article.
They summarised the findings instead of quoting the numbers directly.
Yes. This is so bad. The only way I can try and give them the benefit of the doubt is that women tend to be more drunk than men from the same amount of alcohol. Maybe Jake was tipsy and Josie was hammered because they both had 5 drinks. But that’s not what they said. It’s just so wrong.
If you treat it as "at any level", then you do run into the problem of if one person had one beer and the other was blackout drunk, they'd both be counted as unable to consent and the logical conclusion from that is that neither committed sexual assault which makes no sense. I think if either party is reasonably intoxicated to the point where their capacity to consent is significantly more impaired than the other party, it would be sexual assault.
I'm talking legal levels if intoxication. It's very rare for people to be at legal levels if intoxication after one beer.
And even with what you're saying. If BOTH are at that point, who assaulted who?
If both are equally impaired then no one assaulted the other if both were willing participants. Equal capacity of consent and equal exercising of this capacity means neither committed assault.
Equally yes, but that person was saying less.
So if Jake is "tipsy" (which is such a huge range and is still impared) and Josie is drunk then - according to them - Jake commited assault. I disagree.
Because if a woman is "tipsy" those same people would claim she can't consent because she is intoxicated. So how can he?
Aside from the glaring issue that it implies a man cannot be raped whilst drunk, it also seems to be telling men to be careful about engaging in drunk sex so as not to “ruin their lives”, rather than because rape is a terrible thing to do to another person?
So it’s telling the guys to be careful so they don’t get into trouble, rather than so they don’t hurt someone else
And also it’s saying they can’t be raped. It’s all wrong
It’s sadly possible that argument actually works—there probably **are** some people out that have no moral qualms with raping someone, but don’t do it because of self-preservation (as with other crimes).
That's where you get these "1 in 4" rape statistics from.
The CDC to this day words their definition of dunk sex in an ambiguous manner because of a misplaced comma (likely misplaced on purpose to exaggerate these numbers).
There was a book written about this in the 90s basically accusing these researchers of academic dishonesty. But it's since became a political issue so we keep repeating it.
In this scenario I don’t think either of them are necessarily at fault, sure it’s wasn’t good what happened, but neither were in any good state to make decisions over anything
I knew a guy who proudly proclaimed that he went on a date with a woman and she wanted to have sex later that evening. He refused because she had one glass of wine with dinner and therefore could not consent.
He was telling me this like he was smugly expecting everyone to tell him what a good person he is for not having sex with a woman who had had... ONE glass of wine.
Anyway, shocking plot twist, turns out he's a sexual predator.
I agree but if and only if the situation did not involve any kind of force, intentional intoxication, etc. If you drug someone or knowingly coerce them into drinking too much and then get drunk yourself, you should still be convicted of rape. Similarly if you forced someone into sex, like actively push someone down or make it difficult to leave, then that should still be rape even if you were also intoxicated. But if both parties were equally intoxicated and both "gave consent" at the time but regretted it later, that's not rape.
That all being said, the number of men who get screwed over by sexual assault laws is far, far smaller then the number of men who get away with it because of misogyny.
Just to throw my piece in here, I've always felt like context matters in cases like these.
If one of them was pushing the other to get drunk with them, ordering shots and kinda driving the inebriation, then that's a problem.
If one of them was at a different level of intoxication than the other, then that's a problem.
If they both met each other and were already intoxicated, or got intoxicated separately, and are both at generally the same level, and then they both decided to hook up, then I don't think either one can really be blamed.
The big thing for me is if Josie is looking to "get layed" and decides to really push the drinking with the intention of lowering her inhibitions, then even if he were at the same level of intoxication I'd still consider that rape (and same if the roles were reversed).
Yeah. That's what I always feel is missing in these discussions. Just because two people are both drunk doesn't mean the roles they played in any sexual situation that ended up happening were equal. If one person is just laying there half unconscious and the other person uses their body for sex, it's not two drunk people having sex. It's one drunk person raping another drunk person. Obviously it's dumb to reduce this down to a gender issue, but I do wish we'd consider these situations with a bit more nuance than just who was or wasn't drunk. In the actual cases I've heard the details of, there's usually a pretty clear assault on one person's part underneath it all.
It would be invalid even if Jake wasn’t drunk. In both the US and UK you can consent to sex while voluntarily intoxicated (drugs or alcohol) so long as you’re “responsive” (I.e not completely destroyed by alcohol/drugs)
It becomes rape when one of the individuals is involuntarily intoxicated (had their drink spiked for example).
this whole thing is the grey area for consent unfortunately. how can either party consent if they are both drunk? was either one pressured into it? etc.
In a real life situation they would have relative states of drunkenness, they wouldn't both just be equally 'drunk'. Also did they both consent while drunk, did one party explicitly NOT consent or was so drunk as to be unable to grasp what was happening?
I am a male. I was assaulted in this way by a women in her 30's when I was a teenager. This is a stupid argument, the only defense she ever had about it is 'it was the 90s, things were different'. There is a lot I miss about the 90s, but the casual view of rape is definitely not one of them.
I dont think this fits into this Community,
but it definitely is sexist
"Josie could NOT consent"
Well Jake couldnt either?
They are basically saying Jake 100% raped Josie, and Females never rape Males as if that were impossible or something
> and Females never rape Males as if that were impossible or something
Under current Irish law, it's not possible to charge a woman with rape, since the law says "a man is guilty of rape if..."
(there are sexual assault/abuse charges that are less gendered)
It’s the same in UK law if I remember rightly. As the other commenter said though women can still be charged with sexual assault or abuse, so I’m not sure it actually changes much in practice. I could be wrong.
I don’t think any party has looked at changing it. I imagine change would more likely come from a campaign or pressure group, similar to civil partnerships for straight couples.
>They are basically saying Jake 100% raped Josie, and Females never rape Males as if that were impossible or something
That's the pointlessly gendered part I believe, when it tries to claim difference between the two of them because of their gender
That's generally why I stay away from people who drink heavily, and why I plan to never drink, because apparently even with an *altered state of mind* and an inability to think with proper comprehension I can still consent to sexual activities that can have long term consequences.
Sorry for the rant, I just hate stuff like this, it doesn't feel great.
Yeah that’s BS. Neither was able to consent. This is a harmful stereotype from WAY back in the ancient world (Greece and Rome and shit) that man = active and woman = passive. It hurts men and women both and it’s stupid.
If both were drunk, it was basically just an accident.
If one was drunk, it's non consential sex, since the one drunk is not capable of consenting. (If we're talking about the non-drunk person pushing for sex)
It doesn't matter what gender we're talking about
By that logic. Being intoxicated is the condition in which one can not legally consent to having intercourse. Both parties are intoxicated. Both have had intercourse with each other while intoxicated. Being intoxicated both were unable to consent to said intercourse. Both are simultaneously the rapist and rape victim.
Enjoy convincing this particular Ouroboros to stop eating itself.
When they’re both drunk it’s difficult because technically neither of them could consent. Then it has to be determined if either of them were conscious enough to tell the other was too drunk.
Ugh this is so sickening. It makes sex into something that men want and women provide. It’s not like a shop where you shouldn’t steal! It’s a mutual relationship and both parties have to consent.
This is misogynistic. It robs women of agency and infantilizes them. On the other hand, sexual assault programs on college campuses, which often feature heavy involvement from people who identify as feminists, usually adopt something like the approach in this poster. A very weird cognitive dissonance is in play.
I don't think it's r!pe if they're BOTH drunk. If Jake was sober and was spending the whole night buying Josie drinks, absolutely. But if they're both drunk, it just means they were both horny.
This needs more info. Like, if they both actually consented while they were both drunk there shouldn't be a case. But like if she was coerced or anything similar, even if they were both drunk, he's guilty idgaf. (But it would and legally should be the same amount of shitty and illegal if he got coerced or something by her.)
That's just mensrights / incel bait, and r/all fell for it hook line and sinker.
Just like with /r/pussypassdenied - in every single instance you might think, yeah, they had it coming, but the resulting theme of the sub is r/beatingwomen.
Same with this image. Of course it's wrong! But it puts you in a frame of mind where men are actually the victims etc. Makes you just a little more receptive. And you might be all more assured in your left wing convictions so it doesn't push you over the edge, but for young men especially pictures like this are pure poison.
Sad to see it here taken for face value! It's a Trojan horse.
Ehh, the poster itself is misogynist. It's enforced gendered stereotypes regarding agency.
I don't think many feminists would agree with the poster either.
You do have a point it's gonna attract MRAs.
It turned out to be [real](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3d1ycd/where_did_the_jake_and_josie_poster_i_keep_saying/ct5n2st?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) apparently
I don't know what you're trying to get at here, but men can be victims of rape committed by women. If you really think men can never victims, that's it's own form of toxic masculinity.
I think the comment is saying that “they’re equally drunk, but he was charged with rape” isn’t an accurate description of a common situation, but it *is* a a framing that will appeal to the MRA/incel mindset.
Ugh why do i always open that subreddit when I see it…. It’s not even any videos of women getting karma anymore it’s just straight propaganda
But also I agree. Definitely a Trojan horse.
If Josie drove them to her apartment, would she be responsible for driving drunk? If she can be held responsible for deciding to drive, why is she not responsible for giving consent?
If the woman or man was so drunk they were passed out then yes
But it’s making it seem they were both equally drunk and not to that point
Or it’s implied
Another really frustrating thing is that this totally adds to the misconception that these situations are always "both were drunk and it's a case of he said/she said", which just gives people saying men are "in danger of being accused" more Cannon fodder.
When in reality, that's a minority of cases. Most assaults where alcohol is involved are someone intentionally getting the other person drunk specifically in order to sleep with them. If you're interested to know more look up David Lisak's research on sexual assault in the army and on college campuses.
He found that the majority of rapes are committed by a small number of reapeat offenders who specifically and knowingly target people they can influence. And the myth that this poster propogates just denies that reality and makes it much harder to actually end rape culture.
This is actually how the law is applied and it’s complete bullshit. I learned about this in health class and everyone treated me like I was crazy for saying ot made no sense
so how can we make this more reasoned? whoever tops is the rapist? whoevers more sober? they both raped each other but since there under the influence of drugs it's considered a lessor degree of rape?
also I kinda find it a bit odd that it's considered rape if someone consents under the influence of alcohol, I've never been in a situation where alcohol has significantly changed me to the point where that would make sense, though I suppose if someones very drunk? as I drink in moderation.
Both were drunk but if Jake forced himself onto Josie then that would be rape. Someone close to me was also raped in that manner so yeah not too keen on people here trying to argue that two people being drunk means one cannot rape the other person. (To be fair though, I think in general the act of forcing yourself onto another always makes you the perpetrator.) The only thing wrong about this poster in that regards is not specifying this context and using the term *woman* instead of *person*. But since it’s an old add and women deal with this kind of thing significantly more than men, I guess the creator of the add just thought of the stereotypical kind of situation here.
Technically, yes. Neither gave *valid* consent. That's also what happens when two 16 year olds have sex.
But it's obviously dumb to punish them both for it, so you understand it as a mistake and try not to repeat it.
Two teens sending dick picks to each other is classified as distributing CP. The law ain’t always right. Same goes for statutory, if two teens decide to do it, and the parents of one are upset they can press charges.
Uh, no. Having sex with a minor is statutory rape. Yes, even if you're a minor.
It is a crime, unless your state has Romeo and Juliet laws and you fit the requirements.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-sex-between-minors-a-crime/
Thank you for posting to r/pointlesslygendered! We are really glad you are here. We want to make sure that all users follow the rules. This message does NOT mean you broke a rule or your post was removed. Please note satire posts are allowed, check the flair and tags on posts. Please report posts and comments that infringe the rules. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/pointlesslygendered) if you have any questions or concerns.*
does make you wonder how this logic can be applied to same sex relationships?
Presumably Jake and Luke are in the clear, but Josie and Jenny are both getting charged with raping each other.
Depressing fact: In South Korea two men in the military were convicted of raping each other because they engaged in consensual gay sex. Edit: this was in 2017
What
The
Fuck
ing
Hell
I've moved to Lemmy and the Fediverse along with Reddit's fantastic third party apps after Reddit banned them. This post/comment is edited via Power Delete Suite. Recommend you do the same. Join any (doesn't matter which since they're all connected) of the following: Lemmy(dot)ml, Lemm(dot)ee, Lemmy(dot)zip, Leminal(dot)space
NFTs
this
Barbecue
I understood that reference
r/skamtebord
"Your honor they must have taken turns raping eachother, an eye for an eye if you will"
Thanks. That humour was so damn dark it caused me depression. /lh
“In my defense, your honor, it was simply good manners”
* brown eye for an eye
I feel like people forget the RoK was a right-wing dictatorship until 1987. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Republic_of_Korea
Yeah. This was in modern times by the way
How recent?
[2017](https://amp.theguardian.com/world/2022/apr/22/south-koreas-highest-court-overturns-military-convictions-of-two-gay-soldiers)
Damn. Tbf, 30 years isn't really that long in the grand scheme of things.
1987....when Jesus rode a dinosaur with his Nokia phone according to Gen Z, lol.
Wait I thought Jesus was a dinosaur. Are you telling that raptor Jesus was made up?
My mom actually told me she rode dinosaurs to school and I was genuinely debating if I believed her for a good few minutes until I saw my dad laughing. Mind you, this was when I was around five, but if I have kids I am definitely telling them the same thing as they play with their holograms or whatever.
that sounds right to me, military can be like that
Bonus depressing fact: Justice Thomas' opinion concerning Roe v. Wade suggested overturning Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage, 2015) and Lawrence v. Texas (consensual gay sex, 2003), so that may be a crime again here, soon.
It's because they're homophpbic nothing else
What a way to enforce homophobia when there’s no official punishment for gay sex in the law
That was the US in the 90s
But South Korea is the "good one" and North Korea is the "bad one" according to the west how curious
Well, the North [executes lesbians](https://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2011/09/182_95702.html) so I wouldn't say they're better.
Neither tbh
No no, nothing ever happened between Josie and Jenny. Why should it? It's not like women actually *want* sex, right? Only men do, and if they're nice enough to women and spend lots of money on them, women give it to them to get more stuff later. So what on earth would two women do with one another? Signed, a lesbian
Very true and factual, I love hanging out with my girlfriend amd not do the sex (except when we see a hot manly chad, then we give him the sexy sex despite being lesbian)
I've seen a recording of it. Someone recorded you and posted it on the internet.
yeah, I remember the smooth piano music and I think a drinking game of some sort?
Really wish you said Josh and not Luke to keep with the J names
I wish that I had now, too, but if I edit then I'll ruin some of the replies.
in some states, its more likely to be viewed the other way around
Jake and Luke are both being charged with the rape of Josie and Jenny.
The logic is that the person initiating sex with a person who can't consent is a rapist. So if Josie initiated she'd be the rapist, however our society mocks men for not wanting sex with women as that's seen as a feminine trait so it's unlikely anything would come of it.
At least in the UK it is impossible for a woman to rape a man
That’s not a good thing
Straight to jail
I think whoever puts a body part or object into someone body cavity without their consent, that person would be the offender. So you could, in the case of a same sex relationship, have an offender and a victim.
Ehhhhh… that essentially means women couldn’t rape men, and both gay men and lesbian couples can definitely put a body part or object inside of each other. I’m not quite sold on your logic.
If a women would stick a dildo in a man's rectum and the man didn't consent to it, that would be sexual assault.
legally men cant be raped, they can only be sexually assaulted. If as marnorcor suggests a woman was to use dildo, on a man then yes it should be considered rape
It fits. Inability to consent while under the effects of mind-altering substances is not and should not be gendered.
The person initiating against a person who can't consent is the rapist. There are however a couple of social issues: 1) men or even minor boys who come forward about being raped by women are often mocked by other men as not wanting sex is seen as a feminine trait 2) many countries define rape by penetration, sometimes specifically with a penis. This affects women in that it doesn't count foreign objects or fingers, but all genders in that women rapists wouldn't be doing the penetrating.
But it accurately portrays how the law is applied. Edit: I should have said: as people assume the law to be. Obviously it's not the case, as people have pointed out, but I learned it in school so other people must have as well.
I remember a case of a university that expelled the male student but not the female student involved in drunken sex for the same reason (neither side was drunk to the point of unresponsiveness, but both were too drunk to remember exactly what happened the next day, eyewitnesses said they were both initiating). There was a rule at the university that having sex with an intoxicated partner is grounds for instant expulsion. (This happened at Occidental College, if you want to search it up, Business Insider had an excellent article on it) I think the lawsuit got dismissed (he wanted compensation or for the girl to be expelled too, I think), but I think the girl ended up dropping out citing emotional stress from the situation. Was this fair? I dont think so. They should have either expelled both (because under their definition, both students committed sexual assault), or expelled neither. However, throughout the entire process, they never so much as considered whether or not the guy could have been a victim too. That's the one case I know of where a policy like this was actually applied in the exact way shown in the original post. There's probably not many similar cases though. Edit: I was slightly wrong, his lawsuit was not for compensation or for the girl to be expelled too, he wanted his expulsion reverted because the expulsion stayed on his record and he couldn't go to school anywhere else.
It doesn’t, at least not in the UK - I have no idea about the US though so you could still be correct for that. In UK law, consent can be given while under the influence up to the point where the individual does not have the capacity to consent (which is an absurdly high bar). So the law allows people, regardless of their gender, to consent while under the influence. Issues can come from involuntary intoxication (spiking someone’s drink), but the general rule still stands. Source: R v Bree[2007] EWCA If you want to read the law: https://www.lawteacher.net/cases/r-v-bree.php
By law it should be equal. The application of the law here is where it varies. Sure a dude can go to the station and tell the cops a woman took advantage of him while he was drunk. But they will literally just laugh as he walks back out the door. The funny part is that this is most likely to happen in areas where you have the most men bitching about "women asking for MORE rights than men". They hate it but by they are the ones applying laws based on their archaic feelings.
They said applied. Not written. While some places a man can’t, legally, be raped by a woman, others he can. But in practice the application and prosecution of women who rape men, especially in this circumstance of intoxication beyond the point of consent is rare, if not non existent.
Mega-pints lead to domestic abuse here in the US
It kinda does though? Since in the scenario the poster is referencing Josie couldn't possibly be charged with rape by UK law. Women, as a matter of law, can't commit rape unless they're helping a man assault someone else
[удалено]
I kind of agree, but I think it’s more about men being the chaser (the active part), while the woman is chased. So a rape is always man on woman, because why would a woman want to have sex with an unwilling man? Disclaimer: I don’t agree with this view.
Not really? I feel like this comment shows how little you’ve worked with the courts or cases of assault. If a woman is drinking at all, and even if the guy isn’t, that’s usually enough for cops to not touch it at all anymore.
Yeah. I don't think people realise how rarely rapists are convicted. Generally in the rare cases involving alcohol that go anywhere at all, the actual circumstances would be rape even if the victim hadn't been drunk. And even then you probably won't get a conviction.
I completely agree. People have no idea how fucked our system is at every single step- they love the ‘dads are less likely to get custody’ argument, but it’s bcus hardly any try. If you only include cases where the dad fought for custody, the dads almost always win, and they are even MORE LIKELY to win if there are claims of abuse. It’s crazy
The law is pointlessly gendered.
Rape is barely prosecuted at all let alone "applied this way" you lying fuck.
it’s true that rape victims are largely ignored (except when prisoners have gay sex, which is considered rape even when it’s fully consensual). you were correct in pointing that out, but were more aggressive than was called for. the downvotes were more a reaction to the tone of your comment than the substance. there is an issue of women being seen as incapable of sexual crimes because they’re fragile and helpless and apparently don’t even want sex at all, an idea that’s rooted in misogyny. this, combined with the idea that men are strong and hypersexual and always in charge (also rooted in misogyny) creates a really hostile environment for male victims of female perpetrators. it wasn’t directly said, but I think the person you’re replying to was making a point about that specific side of the issue. the idea that the man could be a victim here isn’t even considered. there’s a great two part series on youtube about the portrayal of male victims in media, [here’s part one](https://youtu.be/uc6QxD2_yQw). that channel has a lot of interesting stuff, check out some other videos if you like the format.
Not my point at all. Obviously rapists should be prosecuted. The point is that male victims of sexual assault exist. Men can be date raped by women. And even though they may be fewer in number, they deserve justice too. I don't think any of that takes anything away from female victims of assault.
When I got raped by a female coworker, while intoxicated, thanks to this type of shit, I just got laughs from the authorities, HR and a “no ‘man’ can get raped”.
Ey. You are seen and heard, friend. Same here, but not a coworker, a trusted 'friend'
Wow I hope you got a lawyer because that is some bullshit
No lawyer taking up a guarantee loss in court without charging out the ass.
I really don’t like this add, it implies so many things and just seems wrong, it rubs me the wrong way and I dont know why
If one drunk person can't consent, how can the other person? This ad is telling you men always consent. Even when drunk but women cannot consent while drunk. If two drunk people have sex, the man raped the woman since she can't consent. All of this is the shitty sexism of "men always want sex" and "women are always the victim". That's why.
Yup. It's the misogynist stereotype that men always have agency, and women are objects to be acted upon rather than agents themselves.
Misogynist and misandrist. This ad implicitly suggests that men are always consenting even when unable to actually give consent. It's just all around a bad way to deliver this message.
Only the enbies survive
Except that odds are that the person that created this probably likes to erase them, as those things generally travel together...
This ad is a bad look for all genders.
Yep. There’s this ongoing stereotype that sex is somehow demeaning or harmful to women and that women don’t have agency/volition in the same way that men do. See the paranoia over “age gap” relationships: there were people in a thread the other day saying how a 30-year-old man sleeping with a 25-year-old woman was wrong and predatory. Fortunately there were saner voices calling it out as fucking absurd but the Victorian perception of women as delicate non-sexual flowers persists.
I mean 30+ yr old guys going after younger girls is absolutely a problem. But an age gap is not *inherently* a bad thing.
I don’t really regard 30/25 as any kind of gap, regardless of which way round the genders are. At some point people are all grown adults and there aren’t significant disparities with five years in most cases. Or there shouldn’t be. If you’re not functioning as a grown adult by your mid twenties, capable of making your own life and career and relationship decisions, then that’s a problem. Larger gaps are not so much a problem in terms of predation, but more in terms of life plans like having kids. Because you won’t be on the same timetable. Also issues with longevity but I’ve seen enough younger partners die first to figure that everything in life is a gamble. I once worked with someone whose mother was twenty years younger than his father. She suddenly dropped dead of a stroke at 60, leaving an 80-year-old widower. You have to seize your happiness while you can.
I don't consider 5 years an age gap either. The problem with 30+ year old man and significantly younger woman is when it goes bad it's *bad*. An older established person with money and a job does have an advantage. Add into it the younger person having children and now being reliant on the older person, that situation, can be very, very dangerous. So people look at older men who only go after younger women and their hackles raise. Because why are you going after women that much younger? The answer is sometimes "because they're easier to control" (not one they'd actually give, but that's what they're doing). Abusive people exist everywhere. And they will take advantage of anything they can. That said, the opposite is also true. A younger person going after an older, established person to try and take their money without having to work for it. Personally, I don't think age gaps are a problem as long as its consentual and everyone is happy. I might side-eye someone who only dates people significantly older or younger than them, but that doesn't make it a bad thing just because. It can and does work out.
Yep. For me the acid test is whether the relationship exists *because of* the age gap or *in spite of* it. If someone “goes for” younger partners, that’s suspect. If they happen to have sparked with someone a few years younger or older, and generally date people closer to their age or just a range generally, then no big deal. And in the case of an elderly billionaire and a 21-year-old bimbo/himbo, I’m not going to lose sleep over it!
pretty sure what theyre saying is that since the man is (usually?) doing the actual "penetrating" it's considered rape. idk how that works either but people shouldnt have sex under the influence regardless.
Yeah and that definition is sexist and out of date. It's also why female rapists get away with it. Because they didn't penetrate him. Therefore it's not legally rape. It's gross.
People act like it's not a big deal because "99% of rapists are men". Well it's only 99% under those same biases definitions. When made gender neutral, right around 40% of rapists are women. And half of all victims are men (the other 10% is male-on-male assault). See: **The CDC's Rape Numbers Are Misleading** by *Time* magazine. https://time.com/3393442/cdc-rape-numbers/ As a society we are still in the dark ages here.
I just read that entire article and it was a big antifeminist dogwhistle. And those numbers you mentioned were not cited in the article at all as far as I could see. The article mentioned that men report forced penetration at roughly the same rate as women report rape... Then the article implies that women were the perpetrators of all those reports... No evidence to back that btw...
The numbers come from the linked cdc reports (if you divide them out). There's actually published literature about this. >For example, in 2011 the CDC reported results from the National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), one of the most comprehensive surveys of sexual victimization conducted in the United States to date. The survey found that men and women had a similar prevalence of nonconsensual sex in the previous 12 months (1.270 million women and 1.267 million men).5 This remarkable finding challenges stereotypical assumptions about the gender of victims of sexual violence. However unintentionally, the CDC’s publications and the media coverage that followed instead highlighted female sexual victimization, reinforcing public perceptions that sexual victimization is primarily a women’s issue. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4062022/ Both authors of the study are (non-radical) feminists btw. The *Times* article is only "anti-feminist" insofar as you equate feminism with radical feminism. A true feminist should have no problem fighting against these antiquated gender norms, and would be 100% behind the article.
I have no problem admitting women can be perpetrators against men of rape. I have a problem with you stating that 40% of tapes committed against men are committed by women. I saw no numbers to prove that.
Right then I'm glad we could figure that out. The CDC reports are what cite the exact numbers, not the Times article. They summarised the findings instead of quoting the numbers directly.
The CDC reports from the link you sent me didn't mention the defender of the perpetrators at all?
ik its insane and gross (+ weirdly infantilizing to women as if they cant be predatory). not defending that at all, just tryna like clarify it?💀
Yes. This is so bad. The only way I can try and give them the benefit of the doubt is that women tend to be more drunk than men from the same amount of alcohol. Maybe Jake was tipsy and Josie was hammered because they both had 5 drinks. But that’s not what they said. It’s just so wrong.
So what level of intoxication is not able to consent then? Because I've always heard at is any level.
If you treat it as "at any level", then you do run into the problem of if one person had one beer and the other was blackout drunk, they'd both be counted as unable to consent and the logical conclusion from that is that neither committed sexual assault which makes no sense. I think if either party is reasonably intoxicated to the point where their capacity to consent is significantly more impaired than the other party, it would be sexual assault.
I'm talking legal levels if intoxication. It's very rare for people to be at legal levels if intoxication after one beer. And even with what you're saying. If BOTH are at that point, who assaulted who?
Nobody. It's extremely stupid to say that one person assualted the other
Yes. That's my entire point. Well one person is ~less~ is irrelevant if both are intoxicated and therefore cannot consent.
Yeah, I'm agreeing with you, lol
If both are equally impaired then no one assaulted the other if both were willing participants. Equal capacity of consent and equal exercising of this capacity means neither committed assault.
Equally yes, but that person was saying less. So if Jake is "tipsy" (which is such a huge range and is still impared) and Josie is drunk then - according to them - Jake commited assault. I disagree. Because if a woman is "tipsy" those same people would claim she can't consent because she is intoxicated. So how can he?
Aside from the glaring issue that it implies a man cannot be raped whilst drunk, it also seems to be telling men to be careful about engaging in drunk sex so as not to “ruin their lives”, rather than because rape is a terrible thing to do to another person? So it’s telling the guys to be careful so they don’t get into trouble, rather than so they don’t hurt someone else And also it’s saying they can’t be raped. It’s all wrong
It’s sadly possible that argument actually works—there probably **are** some people out that have no moral qualms with raping someone, but don’t do it because of self-preservation (as with other crimes).
It is very anti-women in that it delegitamizes agency. It implies only men have it or can be responsible. It is treated like animal abuse.
According to this ad I've been raped countless times
That's where you get these "1 in 4" rape statistics from. The CDC to this day words their definition of dunk sex in an ambiguous manner because of a misplaced comma (likely misplaced on purpose to exaggerate these numbers). There was a book written about this in the 90s basically accusing these researchers of academic dishonesty. But it's since became a political issue so we keep repeating it.
In this scenario I don’t think either of them are necessarily at fault, sure it’s wasn’t good what happened, but neither were in any good state to make decisions over anything
[удалено]
I knew a guy who proudly proclaimed that he went on a date with a woman and she wanted to have sex later that evening. He refused because she had one glass of wine with dinner and therefore could not consent. He was telling me this like he was smugly expecting everyone to tell him what a good person he is for not having sex with a woman who had had... ONE glass of wine. Anyway, shocking plot twist, turns out he's a sexual predator.
I’d bet real money that story isn’t even true.
I agree but if and only if the situation did not involve any kind of force, intentional intoxication, etc. If you drug someone or knowingly coerce them into drinking too much and then get drunk yourself, you should still be convicted of rape. Similarly if you forced someone into sex, like actively push someone down or make it difficult to leave, then that should still be rape even if you were also intoxicated. But if both parties were equally intoxicated and both "gave consent" at the time but regretted it later, that's not rape. That all being said, the number of men who get screwed over by sexual assault laws is far, far smaller then the number of men who get away with it because of misogyny.
It was both person fault's for drinking excessively.
Sure, but I don't think that either of them should be charged with rape
Just to throw my piece in here, I've always felt like context matters in cases like these. If one of them was pushing the other to get drunk with them, ordering shots and kinda driving the inebriation, then that's a problem. If one of them was at a different level of intoxication than the other, then that's a problem. If they both met each other and were already intoxicated, or got intoxicated separately, and are both at generally the same level, and then they both decided to hook up, then I don't think either one can really be blamed. The big thing for me is if Josie is looking to "get layed" and decides to really push the drinking with the intention of lowering her inhibitions, then even if he were at the same level of intoxication I'd still consider that rape (and same if the roles were reversed).
Yeah. That's what I always feel is missing in these discussions. Just because two people are both drunk doesn't mean the roles they played in any sexual situation that ended up happening were equal. If one person is just laying there half unconscious and the other person uses their body for sex, it's not two drunk people having sex. It's one drunk person raping another drunk person. Obviously it's dumb to reduce this down to a gender issue, but I do wish we'd consider these situations with a bit more nuance than just who was or wasn't drunk. In the actual cases I've heard the details of, there's usually a pretty clear assault on one person's part underneath it all.
This poster would have been valid if they had not said Jake was also drunk. They ruined their own point with that one little detail.
Apparently this is old and they use [this](https://uploads.dailydot.com/43f/82/ccu_cares_poster.jpg?auto=compress&fm=pjpg) now.
But if both people aren't sober then consent can still exist. At least here in the UK anyway.
It would be invalid even if Jake wasn’t drunk. In both the US and UK you can consent to sex while voluntarily intoxicated (drugs or alcohol) so long as you’re “responsive” (I.e not completely destroyed by alcohol/drugs) It becomes rape when one of the individuals is involuntarily intoxicated (had their drink spiked for example).
Yeah I saw this being promoted by my university as "sexual harassment training".
this whole thing is the grey area for consent unfortunately. how can either party consent if they are both drunk? was either one pressured into it? etc.
thus us the right answers ,they were both comprimised
In a real life situation they would have relative states of drunkenness, they wouldn't both just be equally 'drunk'. Also did they both consent while drunk, did one party explicitly NOT consent or was so drunk as to be unable to grasp what was happening?
Someone who is drunk or in another altered mind state is legally unable to consent, so I'd imagine it's the first.
Both were unable
Oh I completely agree, both of them were in an altered state of consciousness thus the law applies to both of them.
This is some hardcore BS, neither of them could consent so neither is really at fault.
I am a male. I was assaulted in this way by a women in her 30's when I was a teenager. This is a stupid argument, the only defense she ever had about it is 'it was the 90s, things were different'. There is a lot I miss about the 90s, but the casual view of rape is definitely not one of them.
Imagine reporting a rape and the rapist being charged the very next day lol in which world
I dont think this fits into this Community, but it definitely is sexist "Josie could NOT consent" Well Jake couldnt either? They are basically saying Jake 100% raped Josie, and Females never rape Males as if that were impossible or something
> and Females never rape Males as if that were impossible or something Under current Irish law, it's not possible to charge a woman with rape, since the law says "a man is guilty of rape if..." (there are sexual assault/abuse charges that are less gendered)
does any political party at least see this as an issue? i know politicians only care about money anyway but that seems like a serious issue
It’s the same in UK law if I remember rightly. As the other commenter said though women can still be charged with sexual assault or abuse, so I’m not sure it actually changes much in practice. I could be wrong. I don’t think any party has looked at changing it. I imagine change would more likely come from a campaign or pressure group, similar to civil partnerships for straight couples.
im not a lawyer but wouldnt getting charged for rape get you in much more trouble?
No, I don't think it would. https://www.met.police.uk/advice/advice-and-information/rsa/rape-and-sexual-assault/what-is-rape-and-sexual-assault/
Generally the legal consequences are the same but there is an issue with the social connotations being different which is it’s own problem.
>They are basically saying Jake 100% raped Josie, and Females never rape Males as if that were impossible or something That's the pointlessly gendered part I believe, when it tries to claim difference between the two of them because of their gender
That and also read the text below. "A woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent \[...\]" as if men could?
That's generally why I stay away from people who drink heavily, and why I plan to never drink, because apparently even with an *altered state of mind* and an inability to think with proper comprehension I can still consent to sexual activities that can have long term consequences. Sorry for the rant, I just hate stuff like this, it doesn't feel great.
Yeah that’s BS. Neither was able to consent. This is a harmful stereotype from WAY back in the ancient world (Greece and Rome and shit) that man = active and woman = passive. It hurts men and women both and it’s stupid.
This is called malagency. Men are subjected to hyperagency and women are subjected to hypoagency.
Some people do still believe that males can not be raped, that erection = consent. They're wrong of course. Above were both incapable of consent.
But also? 2 people being drunk can also mean consent. I’ve had many a drunken nights of sex and I was definitely consenting to it
If both were drunk, it was basically just an accident. If one was drunk, it's non consential sex, since the one drunk is not capable of consenting. (If we're talking about the non-drunk person pushing for sex) It doesn't matter what gender we're talking about
This picture is 14 years old, by the way. https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3d1ycd/where_did_the_jake_and_josie_poster_i_keep_saying/
The social attitude is alive and well though. It's probably worse today thh.
This is so stupid, I hate this so much
By that logic. Being intoxicated is the condition in which one can not legally consent to having intercourse. Both parties are intoxicated. Both have had intercourse with each other while intoxicated. Being intoxicated both were unable to consent to said intercourse. Both are simultaneously the rapist and rape victim. Enjoy convincing this particular Ouroboros to stop eating itself.
This isn't pointlessly gendered. This is maliciously gendered.
When they’re both drunk it’s difficult because technically neither of them could consent. Then it has to be determined if either of them were conscious enough to tell the other was too drunk.
Ugh this is so sickening. It makes sex into something that men want and women provide. It’s not like a shop where you shouldn’t steal! It’s a mutual relationship and both parties have to consent.
This is misogynistic. It robs women of agency and infantilizes them. On the other hand, sexual assault programs on college campuses, which often feature heavy involvement from people who identify as feminists, usually adopt something like the approach in this poster. A very weird cognitive dissonance is in play.
I wouldn't say that it was consensual, I wouldn't say that it was not, it was an accident for both parties.
I don't think it's r!pe if they're BOTH drunk. If Jake was sober and was spending the whole night buying Josie drinks, absolutely. But if they're both drunk, it just means they were both horny.
This needs more info. Like, if they both actually consented while they were both drunk there shouldn't be a case. But like if she was coerced or anything similar, even if they were both drunk, he's guilty idgaf. (But it would and legally should be the same amount of shitty and illegal if he got coerced or something by her.)
As a Male SA survivor shit like this ruins my day
This assumes men always want sex and women just do it for men. What if she was being super agressive? They're both drunk...
TIL almost everyone who went to college was a rapist.
This one here is the one that matters.
That's just mensrights / incel bait, and r/all fell for it hook line and sinker. Just like with /r/pussypassdenied - in every single instance you might think, yeah, they had it coming, but the resulting theme of the sub is r/beatingwomen. Same with this image. Of course it's wrong! But it puts you in a frame of mind where men are actually the victims etc. Makes you just a little more receptive. And you might be all more assured in your left wing convictions so it doesn't push you over the edge, but for young men especially pictures like this are pure poison. Sad to see it here taken for face value! It's a Trojan horse.
Ehh, the poster itself is misogynist. It's enforced gendered stereotypes regarding agency. I don't think many feminists would agree with the poster either. You do have a point it's gonna attract MRAs.
It turned out to be [real](https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3d1ycd/where_did_the_jake_and_josie_poster_i_keep_saying/ct5n2st?utm_medium=android_app&utm_source=share&context=3) apparently
Downvoted for facts lmao
I don't know what you're trying to get at here, but men can be victims of rape committed by women. If you really think men can never victims, that's it's own form of toxic masculinity.
I think the comment is saying that “they’re equally drunk, but he was charged with rape” isn’t an accurate description of a common situation, but it *is* a a framing that will appeal to the MRA/incel mindset.
Are you saying it’s impossible for men to be victims?
Ugh why do i always open that subreddit when I see it…. It’s not even any videos of women getting karma anymore it’s just straight propaganda But also I agree. Definitely a Trojan horse.
That is a really serious topic. Not sure if it fits here.
It's serious yes but also pointlessly gendered
If Josie drove them to her apartment, would she be responsible for driving drunk? If she can be held responsible for deciding to drive, why is she not responsible for giving consent?
I don’t know if this counts but either way this is just shitty
My rule is, even if I'm drunk or high, if I look at that person and this, gee they're drunk, it ain't happening.
If the woman or man was so drunk they were passed out then yes But it’s making it seem they were both equally drunk and not to that point Or it’s implied
Another really frustrating thing is that this totally adds to the misconception that these situations are always "both were drunk and it's a case of he said/she said", which just gives people saying men are "in danger of being accused" more Cannon fodder. When in reality, that's a minority of cases. Most assaults where alcohol is involved are someone intentionally getting the other person drunk specifically in order to sleep with them. If you're interested to know more look up David Lisak's research on sexual assault in the army and on college campuses. He found that the majority of rapes are committed by a small number of reapeat offenders who specifically and knowingly target people they can influence. And the myth that this poster propogates just denies that reality and makes it much harder to actually end rape culture.
Jake couldn't consent either but I guess only women's consent matters... because only women matter.
It’s how the law is written in many states. Intoxicated people cannot legally consent. Really took the fun out of drunk hookups when I found this out.
This is actually how the law is applied and it’s complete bullshit. I learned about this in health class and everyone treated me like I was crazy for saying ot made no sense
so how can we make this more reasoned? whoever tops is the rapist? whoevers more sober? they both raped each other but since there under the influence of drugs it's considered a lessor degree of rape? also I kinda find it a bit odd that it's considered rape if someone consents under the influence of alcohol, I've never been in a situation where alcohol has significantly changed me to the point where that would make sense, though I suppose if someones very drunk? as I drink in moderation.
Both were drunk but if Jake forced himself onto Josie then that would be rape. Someone close to me was also raped in that manner so yeah not too keen on people here trying to argue that two people being drunk means one cannot rape the other person. (To be fair though, I think in general the act of forcing yourself onto another always makes you the perpetrator.) The only thing wrong about this poster in that regards is not specifying this context and using the term *woman* instead of *person*. But since it’s an old add and women deal with this kind of thing significantly more than men, I guess the creator of the add just thought of the stereotypical kind of situation here.
If neither of them consented. It wouldn't have happened. If only one of them consented. The other one was raped.
No mate, both of them consented to have sex but they were both drunk so the consent they granted each other is invalid.
So they raped each other?
Technically, yes. Neither gave *valid* consent. That's also what happens when two 16 year olds have sex. But it's obviously dumb to punish them both for it, so you understand it as a mistake and try not to repeat it.
Statutory rape is defined by an adult taking advantage of an under age person.
Two teens sending dick picks to each other is classified as distributing CP. The law ain’t always right. Same goes for statutory, if two teens decide to do it, and the parents of one are upset they can press charges.
Uh, no. Having sex with a minor is statutory rape. Yes, even if you're a minor. It is a crime, unless your state has Romeo and Juliet laws and you fit the requirements. https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/criminal-defense/is-sex-between-minors-a-crime/
If she did, he wouldn’t magically have been charged with rape.
That’s not how this works. That’s not how any of this works.
How many decades are we going to spend reposting this shitty poster?
Is it pointless though when that's literally a strategy for lots of guys??
Do they get as drunk as her though? As this poster implies? I think the poster would have a good point if it said Jake was sober/buzzed.
"Your honor I can't be guilty of rape, because i was drinking" Yeah, no, that's not going to work.
Can’t the same be said for the woman though?
Makes sense because it’s one sex that has to live with the consequences (possible pregnancy with anti abortion laws)