The radical idea that women are people

Things that don't belong anywhere else. (Check first).

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

User avatar
Hammer
Because all of you look like nails.
Posts: 5491
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Hammer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:19 pm UTC

The "what if I can't tell she/he''s too drunk" thing is a dodge. Sorry, but it is. If you can't tell, assume he/she is too drunk and behave accordingly. Since you probably are capable of telling whether a person appears to be aware of and responding to reality and walking without help and stuff, you can probably figure it out. Pretending that you can't is just setting up an excuse or rationalization for behavior you know is not ok and catering to that excuse is, to my mind, both patronizing to adults who want to drink a beer or two and damaging to our ability to identify and deal with rape cases like Sophy's. If she was in the condition she described, there is no way he couldn't tell she was too drunk. He made a decision to ignore her condition. This person actually sums up my personal views pretty well.
"What's wrong with you mathematicians? Cake is never a problem."

User avatar
Toeofdoom
The (Male) Skeleton Guitarist
Posts: 3446
Joined: Wed Jan 10, 2007 10:06 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Toeofdoom » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:23 pm UTC

Spoilered because hammer ninja'd the point anyway. It may help explain *why* if my 5 am logic makes any sense.

Spoiler:
22/7 wrote:
Spuddly wrote:And nowhere do I lump all women into the same category. There are plenty of women who are capable of having sex without needing to get drunk. I am merely talking of the subset of women who go out and drink, with the intention of hooking up with a guy they wouldn't have slept with if they weren't drunk (for whatever reason). How does one separate these women from the ones that are actually raped? And I don't mean this in a post-hoc way, I mean, if I'm out at a bar, how do I tell? At what point is she too drunk to give consent, yet still be able to give consent? If she's drunk, and says yes because her judgment is impaired, but would have otherwise said no, that is rape. But at the time she is saying yes, how do I know she's actually saying no?
Please tell me you see how those are the same.


I think this might clarify this a little (assuming I understood what spuddly meant). If the women are changing their decision solely because they would enjoy sex more now or some equivalent reason, then consent can be given. If they're changing their mind partly due to impaired or altered judgment and would not have without that effect, then consent cant be given. Of course, it is impossible to tell which.

The important difference is *why* she is agreeing now, but would not have otherwise, and the question is "how can you tell?" The only way to tell for sure is if they specify what their decision was earlier which may not have happened.

Even then there comes the fact that circumstances might have changed since that decision was made, and decisions about whether to continue or stop could change at any time, possibly being altered by impaired judgment. The line is very hazy, and the only way you can really tell at this point is to ask the woman after she sobers up. At which point it's probably a little too late.

I think there is a line here but no-one can really see it clearly. It's also FAR better to err on the safe side (that being the not-at-all-drunk side of the line). If you want to know what the legal line is, obviously look up the laws in your area. I'm not going to condemn sex with drunk people but there are sets of circumstances where it would certaintly be wrong. If the case isnt one of those, it might be okay. Just might.

So yeah, your definition is this: It might be okay, but you can't tell until afterwards. Maybe not even then. You got that? There's no way to tell.
Hawknc wrote:Gotta love our political choices here - you can pick the unionised socially conservative party, or the free-market even more socially conservative party. Oh who to vote for…I don't know, I think I'll just flip a coin and hope it explodes and kills me.

Website

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:27 pm UTC

I know it is law in MA...

and just in general, don't have sex with someone in any state of weakness if you have any (even teeny tiny) reasons to believe they would not do it sober. This has been my life long rule. I never want to be the cause of something someone regrets. If I am entering into something and I am unsure, I ask repeatedly, and ask for evidence they are not just thinking it is a good idea while drunk.

No one wants to be someone else's regret. Just say no kids.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Rinsaikeru » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:38 pm UTC

This is why I rarely drink very much, except in situations where I am with close friends I trust very much--and even then, trust can be broken. It isn't that women are absolved of responsibility for their own actions and decisions--it's that the person who asks for consent from someone currently unable to properly give it is at fault here when they act on this dubious level of consent.
Rice Puddin.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:42 pm UTC

Hammer wrote:The "what if I can't tell she/he''s too drunk" thing is a dodge. Sorry, but it is. If you can't tell, assume he/she is too drunk and behave accordingly. Since you probably are capable of telling whether a person appears to be aware of and responding to reality and walking without help and stuff, you can probably figure it out. Pretending that you can't is just setting up an excuse or rationalization for behavior you know is not ok and catering to that excuse is, to my mind, both patronizing to adults who want to drink a beer or two and damaging to our ability to identify and deal with rape cases like Sophy's. If she was in the condition she described, there is no way he couldn't tell she was too drunk. He made a decision to ignore her condition. This person actually sums up my personal views pretty well.


I agree with this. But this disagrees with the claim I quoted where, if you have sex with a drunk woman, it is rape. The line is drawn in a different place according to your linked article, and what Quixotess posted.

Toeofdoom wrote:Spoilered because hammer ninja'd the point anyway. It may help explain *why* if my 5 am logic makes any sense.

Spoiler:
22/7 wrote:
Spuddly wrote:And nowhere do I lump all women into the same category. There are plenty of women who are capable of having sex without needing to get drunk. I am merely talking of the subset of women who go out and drink, with the intention of hooking up with a guy they wouldn't have slept with if they weren't drunk (for whatever reason). How does one separate these women from the ones that are actually raped? And I don't mean this in a post-hoc way, I mean, if I'm out at a bar, how do I tell? At what point is she too drunk to give consent, yet still be able to give consent? If she's drunk, and says yes because her judgment is impaired, but would have otherwise said no, that is rape. But at the time she is saying yes, how do I know she's actually saying no?
Please tell me you see how those are the same.


I think this might clarify this a little (assuming I understood what spuddly meant). If the women are changing their decision solely because they would enjoy sex more now or some equivalent reason, then consent can be given. If they're changing their mind partly due to impaired or altered judgment and would not have without that effect, then consent cant be given. Of course, it is impossible to tell which.

The important difference is *why* she is agreeing now, but would not have otherwise, and the question is "how can you tell?" The only way to tell for sure is if they specify what their decision was earlier which may not have happened.

Even then there comes the fact that circumstances might have changed since that decision was made, and decisions about whether to continue or stop could change at any time, possibly being altered by impaired judgment. The line is very hazy, and the only way you can really tell at this point is to ask the woman after she sobers up. At which point it's probably a little too late.

I think there is a line here but no-one can really see it clearly. It's also FAR better to err on the safe side (that being the not-at-all-drunk side of the line). If you want to know what the legal line is, obviously look up the laws in your area. I'm not going to condemn sex with drunk people but there are sets of circumstances where it would certaintly be wrong. If the case isnt one of those, it might be okay. Just might.

So yeah, your definition is this: It might be okay, but you can't tell until afterwards. Maybe not even then. You got that? There's no way to tell.


Thanks.

I still think this is bogus:
"Even then there comes the fact that circumstances might have changed since that decision was made, and decisions about whether to continue or stop could change at any time, possibly being altered by impaired judgment. The line is very hazy, and the only way you can really tell at this point is to ask the woman after she sobers up. At which point it's probably a little too late."

It's hardly fair to put a man who sleeps with a woman who is intoxicated that wouldn't have said yes to sex otherwise (excluding women who are too drunk to be coherent, coordinate properly, etc) in the same category as someone who violently rapes women.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
Hammer
Because all of you look like nails.
Posts: 5491
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Hammer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 6:52 pm UTC

Spuddly wrote:I agree with this. But this disagrees with the claim I quoted where, if you have sex with a drunk woman, it is rape. The line is drawn in a different place according to your linked article, and what Quixotess posted.

It doesn't really. There is a difference between a person who is "drunk" and a person who has had a drink. Drunk = Intoxicated. Intoxicated is defined as stupefied or noticeably impaired. Note the "toxic" in the word. A person who is stupefied or noticeably impaired cannot reasonably consent.

A person who has had a beer is probably not drunk, although some people do have a very low tolerance and if they shows signs of being drunk, you should assume they are. If they are giggling like idiots and answering every question with "Yeah! Sure!" including ones that are not yes/no questions, taking their "Yeah! Sure!" to your question about having sex as consent is not reasonable. They are impaired and you know it.

Err on the side of caution. It's the right thing to do. It's what a person who gives a damn about the other person beyond using them as a sex toy does. As Sophy said, do you really want to be the object of "Oh my God, what did we/you/I do?"

It's hardly fair to put a man who sleeps with a woman who is intoxicated that wouldn't have said yes to sex otherwise (excluding women who are too drunk to be coherent, coordinate properly, etc) in the same category as someone who violently rapes women.

That is why, as with many crimes, criminal definitions of rape include different degrees.
"What's wrong with you mathematicians? Cake is never a problem."

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:09 pm UTC

Hammer wrote:
Spuddly wrote:I agree with this. But this disagrees with the claim I quoted where, if you have sex with a drunk woman, it is rape. The line is drawn in a different place according to your linked article, and what Quixotess posted.

It doesn't really. There is a difference between a person who is "drunk" and a person who has had a drink. Drunk = Intoxicated. Intoxicated is defined as stupefied or noticeably impaired. Note the "toxic" in the word. A person who is stupefied or noticeably impaired cannot reasonably consent.

A person who has had a beer is probably not drunk, although some people do have a very low tolerance and if they shows signs of being drunk, you should assume they are. If they are giggling like idiots and answering every question with "Yeah! Sure!" including ones that are not yes/no questions, taking their "Yeah! Sure!" to your question about having sex as consent is not reasonable. They are impaired and you know it.

Err on the side of caution. It's the right thing to do. It's what a person who gives a damn about the other person beyond using them as a sex toy does. As Sophy said, do you really want to be the object of "Oh my God, what did we/you/I do?"


In which cases, there are hundreds of rape cases on my campus every week, including both males and females alike.
This definition seems too broad.

And I have been in those situations, the "oh god, what'd we do". It just never struck me as rape because, well, that's what kids on my campus do on Friday night (and every where I've been where there has been any sort of drinking scene). The women wouldn't be out getting drunk and chatting up guys, and the guys wouldn't be getting drunk and chatting up girls if they considered it rape, would they? I mean if they considered the consequences of bad, drunken sex as actual rape. Have any of you done Greek life events? It's all about getting drunk and hooking up and talking about how awful/awesome last night was. Calling that rape puts the responsibility for bad decision making on the wrong person.

Something I haven't mentioned about telling when someone else is drunk or not is that the other person is often drunk, too. I get drunk, my judgment becomes impaired, and I have difficulty telling how drunk other people are. I've stopped drinking, and being around drunk people, is, well, a lot different when you're sober. They actually seem drunk. I anticipate a "being drunk is no excuse", but that strikes me as something of a double standard. I have lots of male friends who routinely are more drunk than the women they sleep with. It's not like they're going to be capable of telling if she's capable of giving consent.

It seems to me that there is too much gray area in the after-the-fact period, when the woman is allowed to evaluate whether or not she would have slept with the guy, and decide if it's rape or not. At least, under some of these definitions.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:15 pm UTC

Spuddly wrote: It's not like they're going to be capable of telling if she's capable of giving consent.

The problem. This easily becomes bad things. Like when they feel like they have been teased. I have had to literally hit people like this because they did not understand I was not flirting with them, and that they should not touch me the way they are.
This. Is. Bad.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:24 pm UTC

Hammer wrote:
Spuddly wrote:It's hardly fair to put a man who sleeps with a woman who is intoxicated that wouldn't have said yes to sex otherwise (excluding women who are too drunk to be coherent, coordinate properly, etc) in the same category as someone who violently rapes women.

That is why, as with many crimes, criminal definitions of rape include different degrees.


But it still ruins the man's life. You get put on a registry and everyone thinks you're a horrible monster, despite it being a drunken misunderstanding. I mean, getting the wrong signals for hours, then told the next morning you're a rapist? "Yeah, sorry, I wouldn't have slept with you sober. That was rape." Does that mean every fat, ugly chick I slept with drunk, that I wouldn't have touched otherwise, makes them rapists?

sophyturtle wrote:
Spuddly wrote: It's not like they're going to be capable of telling if she's capable of giving consent.

The problem. This easily becomes bad things. Like when they feel like they have been teased. I have had to literally hit people like this because they did not understand I was not flirting with them, and that they should not touch me the way they are.
This. Is. Bad.


Oh, absolutely. No means no.

What I mean is this:
A woman is giggling like an idiot, clearly drunk to anyone sober. Unfortunately I am not sober.
She "consents" to having sex with me, though it's not really consent, since she is drunk, and her yes could actually mean no. Because I am too drunk, I do not notice that she is too drunk.
She decides that she did not want to have sex with me, that she regrets it, that she wouldn't have done it sober. Now it becomes rape.

This happens so frequently, at least in my own personal experience and of friends, that I find it difficult to believe it is rape.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
SecondTalon
SexyTalon
Posts: 26528
Joined: Sat May 05, 2007 2:10 pm UTC
Location: Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Mars. HA!
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby SecondTalon » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:30 pm UTC

And yet, it is.
heuristically_alone wrote:I want to write a DnD campaign and play it by myself and DM it myself.
heuristically_alone wrote:I have been informed that this is called writing a book.

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby mochafairy » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:35 pm UTC

Just because it's "the norm" doesn't mean it's right.
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie

User avatar
Hammer
Because all of you look like nails.
Posts: 5491
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Hammer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:36 pm UTC

Spuddly wrote:It seems to me that there is too much gray area in the after-the-fact period, when the woman is allowed to evaluate whether or not she would have slept with the guy, and decide if it's rape or not. At least, under some of these definitions.

You are picking out the definitions that suit you and ignoring the realities. I don't believe that you do not understand this concept. You just don't like what it means. It means that you can't have sex you might otherwise have gotten. Too bad. These are excuses and they are excuses that more and more people are simply not willing to accept.

I am not talking about regret or "buyers remorse". I'm talking about making a decision when you have impaired your ability to make decisions and another person accepting that decision as if you were not impaired. Yes, some people get drunk and "agree" to or seek sex. When you choose to have sex with a person who is clearly impaired, you need to be aware that you may be raping that person. I repeat: you are choosing to risk that you are raping someone. The assumption that any person who is drunk and talking to a person of the opposite sex is willing to accept sex is logically flawed. It is certainly not putting the burden of bad decision making on the wrong person. More than one person made a decision. There are many things that person could agree to or seek that you (if you were any kind of decent person) would attempt to prevent or refuse because you know they are only doing/seeking said thing because they are too drunk to know better. The rules don't change because they happen to be agreeing to something you want. Be a better friend than that.

I'm sorry that college students may need to bear the terrible burden of needing to retain a reasonable degree of coherence in order to get laid, but I'm sure they can muddle through somehow.

[edit as I just read some of your other stuff] If you get drunk and hit someone with your car, you are responsible. If you get drunk and rape someone, you are responsible. Grow up. The we were both just so drunk (yet could still manage to perform the act without vomiting, unconsciousness and impotence) is hardly the norm case.
"What's wrong with you mathematicians? Cake is never a problem."

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Jessica » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:42 pm UTC

A rape accusation can ruin a guys life. You're right.

A rape will ruin a woman's life.
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:50 pm UTC

Hammer wrote:
Spuddly wrote:It seems to me that there is too much gray area in the after-the-fact period, when the woman is allowed to evaluate whether or not she would have slept with the guy, and decide if it's rape or not. At least, under some of these definitions.

You are picking out the definitions that suit you and ignoring the realities. I don't believe that you do not understand this concept. You just don't like what it means. It means that you can't have sex you might otherwise have gotten. Too bad. These are excuses and they are excuses that more and more people are simply not willing to accept.


You're right, I don't like what it means. It means I've been raped.
It hardly seems fair to people who actually get raped to classify my drunken hookups as rape.
It also means I'm a rapist.

I don't know which is more disconcerting; that I'm a rapist, or a rape victim.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Rinsaikeru » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:54 pm UTC

You don't like what it means--does that mean you'll change? Are you going to keep on keeping on or are you going to actually think about what consent is, who can give consent and what compromises given consent?
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Hammer
Because all of you look like nails.
Posts: 5491
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Hammer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 7:56 pm UTC

Spuddly wrote:You're right, I don't like what it means. It means I've been raped.
It hardly seems fair to people who actually get raped to classify my drunken hookups as rape.
It also means I'm a rapist.

I don't know which is more disconcerting; that I'm a rapist, or a rape victim.

You are correct and it is disturbing. It is "actual" rape.

Yes, if a woman had sex with you while you were drunk, especially if you would never have slept with her sober (I won't address your expression of your criteria), you may have been raped. You were placed at risk of STDs, unintentional fatherhood and a host of emotional consequences while you were impaired. It is up to you to decide for yourself if this matters to you.

If you accepted the "consent" of drunk women, it is up to them to decide.

You should be disturbed by both these situations. I hope this disturbance is sufficient to change the choices you make and accept from others.
"What's wrong with you mathematicians? Cake is never a problem."

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:00 pm UTC

All of this brings us back to a very important feminist issue actually. Well, a few if you really think about it.

-Issues with women saying no. Even when the no is clear to most people, it is not taken seriously. Some women have difficulty physically saying 'no' leading to more trouble. We live in a culture where women are raised to not upset people and make everyone like them. Also, men saying no to sex, since men are supposed to always want it. This has many implications on interaction especially between males and females.

-We are looking at an example of something that is common. Because it is common it is not seen as damaging. Because it recognizing 'banging a drunk slut' as rape makes many people rapists, these rapes have their importance removed. I know men who have been raped this way, and it effected them similarly to how it effected me. It is not okay, and being common points out too many problems for me to go into right now. How about lets all decided we will forgo the limited pleasure of getting laid if there is any chance we could be raping someone? Great.

-This also brings up one big problem feminism faces. For people to see all the injustices in the world they might have to recognize one that benefited them while hurting someone else. People do not like the idea of this, so instead of opening their eyes and avoiding behaviors they pretend the problem and injustice is not there.
Spoiler:
"The wayfarer,
Perceiving the pathway to truth,
Was struck with astonishment.
It was thickly grown with weeds.
"Ha," he said,
"I see that none has passed here
In a long time."
Later he saw that each weed
Was a singular knife.
"Well," he mumbled at last,
"Doubtless there are other roads.""
-The Wayfarer by Stephen Crane
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:04 pm UTC

Rinsaikeru wrote:You don't like what it means--does that mean you'll change? Are you going to keep on keeping on or are you going to actually think about what consent is, who can give consent and what compromises given consent?


Dunno.
I've been in a stable, serious relationship for two years, and it looks like it's going to stay that way for awhile. I doubt it will be vomit-stained frat parties when (if, says the optimist) I return to the dating game. A different scene will have different rules, no doubt.

Hammer wrote:(I won't address your expression of your criteria)


I'm sorry. I was being crass. They were unattractive people, inside and out. People I had no want or intention of knowing sexually. But I did.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
Hammer
Because all of you look like nails.
Posts: 5491
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Hammer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:11 pm UTC

Spuddly wrote:I'm sorry. I was being crass. They were unattractive people, inside and out. People I had no want or intention of knowing sexually. But I did.

OK. Why are you willing to accept that? I suspect your answer is going to be something along the lines of that you decided to get drunk with full knowledge and acceptance that such a thing might happen. Which is fine. You made that choice. However, there is no way to tell from the outside that the drunk person has indeed made that choice. If you assume that, if they are in a particular location and drinking, then they are okay with having sex with whoever happens to undress them, you are making a dangerous and unsupported assumption. You might be wrong and the consequences of being wrong may be severe both for you and for the drunk person you took advantage of. Choosing to take that risk on behalf of yourself is pretty stupid. Choosing to take it on behalf of someone else may turn out to be criminal. It is certainly ethically questionable. Again, be a better friend than that.
"What's wrong with you mathematicians? Cake is never a problem."

ADXCKGuy
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:23 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA, U.S.A., North America, Earth, Sol system, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Universe
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby ADXCKGuy » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:14 pm UTC

Spuddly wrote:
sophyturtle wrote:Example (spoilered for personal example of one of the times I was raped):
[spoiler]
Rape happens all the time, and the only time it has any social punishments is when it is stranger rape. Otherwise, half the time the victim is seen as asking for it.


Oh god. ONE of the times you were raped? That's horrible!
Unfortunately multiple experiences are not uncommon. I think this is for 2 reasons: 1) if you have experienced a traumatic event, you are more likely to be sensitive to occurences that people who have never been through the major trauma would fail to recognize as rape and 2) ( on this point I can only speak for myself and a few girls I have talked to, not for every survivor in the world or on this forum) there are certain ways in which people make themselves vulnerable( or make themselves appear vulnerable), such as becoming somewhat intoxicated, dressing sharply, flirting heavily, or being sexually adventurous in general. It is reasonable to be more cautious after a rape, but if we enjoy those things, giving them up would a) be suggesting that the rape was primarily our fault for having fun and wanting to look and feel good, which it is generally agreed is not true, and b) it would curtail our general enjoyment of life, which is just... wrong. Dealing with trauma is enough of a disruption, we should not have to change our whole lifestyles because of the actions of assholes.
22/7 wrote:
Spuddly wrote:And nowhere do I lump all women into the same category. There are plenty of women who are capable of having sex without needing to get drunk. I am merely talking of the subset of women who go out and drink, with the intention of hooking up with a guy they wouldn't have slept with if they weren't drunk (for whatever reason). How does one separate these women from the ones that are actually raped? And I don't mean this in a post-hoc way, I mean, if I'm out at a bar, how do I tell? At what point is she too drunk to give consent, yet still be able to give consent? If she's drunk, and says yes, but would have otherwise said no, that is rape. But at the time she is saying yes, how do I know she's actually saying no?
Please tell me you see how those are the same.
They are technically the same, but the second bolded bit I don’t really buy. There are certain inhibitions that we have that are not grounded in logic. We are sometimes afraid of dancing or getting up to do karaoke, for example, because we worry what people will think. But our friends knowing that we find this embarassing and yet allowing us to do it when we are buzzed and more open to trying things is not equivalent to someone forcing us, say at gunpoint, to do these things that we would not normally do. In fact, many of us will “fortify our courage” by drinking specifically to get over these inhibitions. So, it IS in fact possible that you might be attracted to someone, but decline when sober to sleep with that person because, say, you are worried about what your friends would think. You might, consciously or subconsciously, drink to rid yourself of that inhibition. That is a case in which you would say no sober but yes drunk, and it is not rape because you are not doing something you don’t want to do, you are doing something that you want to do but have been denying yourself for no good reason.

The sticking point, though, is that it is NOT the other person’s determination to make. As others have pointed out, when dealing with someone who may not be capable of sound judgement, one must err on the side of the caution. Meaning that the other person should not accept a proposition from you when you’re drunk( and certainly should not initiate while you are drunk), because while it might not be rape, it might indeed be, and that is not an acceptable risk to take at any level.
Spuddly wrote:Does that mean every fat, ugly chick I slept with drunk, that I wouldn't have touched otherwise, makes them rapists?
Pretty much, yes, especially if she knew you would not do it sober. She took advantage of you. Not that you would ever get the charges to stick, given societal gender-bias. You would only have a slim chance, maybe, if she gave you an STD. Also you don’t have to worry about becoming pregnant from sleeping with a woman( and more fucked up? Your rape charge against a woman would be LESS likely to work if she got knocked up, while hers against you would have MORE merit). Also, women have a general tendency to be more traumatized. Not being one, I don’t know why. Perhaps it relates to the stereotypes of men placing less importance on individual sexual experiences, or repressing trauma instead of dealing with it?
Spuddly wrote:Oh, absolutely. No means no.

What I mean is this:
A woman is giggling like an idiot, clearly drunk to anyone sober. Unfortunately I am not sober.
She "consents" to having sex with me, though it's not really consent, since she is drunk, and her yes could actually mean no. Because I am too drunk, I do not notice that she is too drunk.
She decides that she did not want to have sex with me, that she regrets it, that she wouldn't have done it sober. Now it becomes rape.

This happens so frequently, at least in my own personal experience and of friends, that I find it difficult to believe it is rape.
Ah, this is a tricky one. Rape, or a drunken mistake? I really don’t understand how when two parties are both intoxicated, and both give consent when neither is really in a state to think through the consequences of their actions, one of them should be held responsible to the point of criminal liability while the other is merely a victim. That is clearly injust. I guess the only thing I can say here is that they should BOTH be erring on the side of caution on each other’s behalf and not having sex, as I mentioned in my point above.
Jessica wrote:A rape accusation can ruin a guys life. You're right.

A rape will ruin a woman's life.
So everyone is miserable and traumatized over something that may have just been stupid and not malicious. Great. The whole thing isn’t fair to anyone.
Note that something being a mistake does not absolve someone of responsibility for something, but in the case where it is a mistake and not a malicious act, the focus should be on the party at fault making amends, not being punished purely for the sake of needing to pay for a crime through suffering. I do, honestly, hold the guy who was as or more intoxicated than me less responsible and less contemptible than those who were completely sober and had me at some sort of disadvantage.
*sigh* I guess the main lesson here is what Hammer said: if you want to get laid without risk of being raped or raping someone, you need to NOT HAVE SEX if you and your partner are not reasonably coherent.

And I think the disturbing thing here is that it sounds like two people who would not want to sleep together sober can MUTUALLY violate each other in ways that could be considered rape while both are intoxicated. Ick.



I am trying to keep up, but failing, so on sophy’s return to feminism as a topic, I will just say this: injustice works both ways. How many people do you know who take a man seriously when he says he does not want to have sex even if he is physically capable( erect)? Or take him seriously when he says he was raped by a woman( or a man he penetrated rather than being penetrated by)? Clearly we do, being sensitive to such issues. But society in general does not.




Man you guys post fast:
Hammer wrote:
Spuddly wrote:I'm sorry. I was being crass. They were unattractive people, inside and out. People I had no want or intention of knowing sexually. But I did.

OK. Why are you willing to accept that? I suspect your answer is going to be something along the lines of that you decided to get drunk with full knowledge and acceptance that such a thing might happen.
Even if that is what he says, which I feel less sure of than you, I don’t believe it’s really true. I believe it would just be what he tells himself now as a coping mechanism for unpleasant experiences. I think very few, if any, people of either sex REALLY get drunk accepting that they may be violated and do something potentially harmful, physicially or emotionally, that they would actively seek to avoid for good reason while sober.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:31 pm UTC

Hammer wrote:
Spuddly wrote:I'm sorry. I was being crass. They were unattractive people, inside and out. People I had no want or intention of knowing sexually. But I did.

OK. Why are you willing to accept that? I suspect your answer is going to be something along the lines of that you decided to get drunk with full knowledge and acceptance that such a thing might happen. Which is fine. You made that choice. However, there is no way to tell from the outside that the drunk person has indeed made that choice. If you assume that, if they are in a particular location and drinking, then they are okay with having sex with whoever happens to undress them, you are making a dangerous and unsupported assumption. You might be wrong and the consequences of being wrong may be severe both for you and for the drunk person you took advantage of. Choosing to take that risk on behalf of yourself is pretty stupid. Choosing to take it on behalf of someone else may turn out to be criminal. It is certainly ethically questionable. Again, be a better friend than that.


I don't know. Probably because being destructive is fun. I'm just glad it never caught up with me. I don't really want to go into it. It's offtopic, anyway.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

T-Form
Posts: 240
Joined: Tue Oct 28, 2008 11:16 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby T-Form » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:33 pm UTC

Hammer wrote:If you get drunk and hit someone with your car, you are responsible. If you get drunk and rape someone, you are responsible. Grow up. The we were both just so drunk (yet could still manage to perform the act without vomiting, unconsciousness and impotence) is hardly the norm case.

I don't think you have to be drunk to the level of vomiting/unconsciousness/impotence for consent to become questionable. Excluding drink-spiking, to get to that point, you have to first reach a point where your judgement is impaired enough that those last few drinks actually sound like a good idea. If someone can't tell that the next drink is going to lead to blacking out or vomiting in the toilet, they're not really capable of consenting to sex either. Furthermore, the ability to decide not to do stupid things starts to fade away well before that.

"impotence" also suggests that you're defining rape as requiring a successful attempt at some sort of penetration, which seems pretty limited; there are various other types of sex that amount to much the same thing as far as consent goes.

User avatar
Hammer
Because all of you look like nails.
Posts: 5491
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Hammer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:39 pm UTC

T-Form wrote:"impotence" also suggests that you're defining rape as requiring a successful attempt at some sort of penetration, which seems pretty limited; there are various other types of sex that amount to much the same thing as far as consent goes.

I am not suggesting that definition of rape. My point was simply that the ability to describe specific situations that may be difficult to sort out the morning after does not invalidate the primary message.

Regardless, why do threads about feminism invariably become discussions about whether women were really raped if either or both (assuming only two) parties were any particular degree of drunk? There really is more to feminism and womens' issues than that, y'know...
"What's wrong with you mathematicians? Cake is never a problem."

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:44 pm UTC

Ok.

Can we talk about the patriarchy?
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
sophyturtle
I'll go put my shirt back on for this kind of shock. No I won't. I'll get my purse.
Posts: 3476
Joined: Thu Mar 20, 2008 4:19 pm UTC
Location: it's turtles all the way down, even in the suburbs
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby sophyturtle » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:52 pm UTC

I tried a little while back, but you all got distracted.
I understand, I get distracted too.
I want to get to a place where I am neither conforming nor rebelling but simply being.

User avatar
JayDee
Posts: 3620
Joined: Sat Nov 10, 2007 3:13 am UTC
Location: Most livable city in the world.
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby JayDee » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:54 pm UTC

Hammer wrote:Regardless, why do threads about feminism invariably become discussions about whether women were really raped if either or both (assuming only two) parties were any particular degree of drunk? There really is more to feminism and womens' issues than that, y'know...

Well, this thread is (most threads are) only particularly active when someone comes along with a disagreement. There aren't many feminism related things that people both disagree with and feel strongly about, maybe?
The Mighty Thesaurus wrote:I believe that everything can and must be joked about.
Hawknc wrote:I like to think that he hasn't left, he's just finally completed his foe list.

ADXCKGuy
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:23 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA, U.S.A., North America, Earth, Sol system, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Universe
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby ADXCKGuy » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:56 pm UTC

Hammer wrote:Regardless, why do threads about feminism invariably become discussions about whether women were really raped if either or both (assuming only two) parties were any particular degree of drunk? There really is more to feminism and womens' issues than that, y'know...
It’s not invariable... there is the other perennial topic of whether the true definition of feminism is equality or misandry. :roll:

User avatar
Rinsaikeru
Pawn, soon to be a Queen
Posts: 2166
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 5:26 am UTC
Location: Toronto
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Rinsaikeru » Wed Dec 17, 2008 8:58 pm UTC

Then there's the third option---"Why don't we just call feminism something else?"
Rice Puddin.

User avatar
Hammer
Because all of you look like nails.
Posts: 5491
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Hammer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:01 pm UTC

ADXCKGuy wrote:
Hammer wrote:Regardless, why do threads about feminism invariably become discussions about whether women were really raped if either or both (assuming only two) parties were any particular degree of drunk? There really is more to feminism and womens' issues than that, y'know...
It’s not invariable... there is the other perennial topic of whether the true definition of feminism is equality or misandry. :roll:

Well, I know what my definition is, but I'm not sure there is One True Way. Feminism takes a number of forms and they don't all agree with each other. We don't share a hive mind. :D
"What's wrong with you mathematicians? Cake is never a problem."

User avatar
Jessica
Jessica, you're a ...
Posts: 8337
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 8:57 pm UTC
Location: Soviet Canuckistan

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Jessica » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:02 pm UTC

Oh feminism threads...
doogly wrote:On a scale of Mr Rogers to Fascism, how mean do you think we're being?
Belial wrote:My goal is to be the best brain infection any of you have ever had.

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Quixotess » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:20 pm UTC

ADXCKGuy wrote:2) ( on this point I can only speak for myself and a few girls I have talked to, not for every survivor in the world or on this forum) there are certain ways in which people make themselves vulnerable( or make themselves appear vulnerable), such as becoming somewhat intoxicated, dressing sharply, flirting heavily, or being sexually adventurous in general. It is reasonable to be more cautious after a rape, but if we enjoy those things, giving them up would a) be suggesting that the rape was primarily our fault for having fun and wanting to look and feel good, which it is generally agreed is not true, and b) it would curtail our general enjoyment of life, which is just... wrong.

...

Or maybe it's because we live in a society, as I said, where rape is just pretty fucking common and is bound to happen to lots of people more than once, and has nothing at all to do with the behavior of the victim in question.

I'm just going to throw out some links pertaining to rape culture now:
Rape Apologist Bingo makes these discussions bearable for me.
What Does it Take by Cara at the Curvature asks what needs to happen before a woman can be considered rapeable.
Geez, When Will Women Stop Getting Themselves Raped Already by Liss at Shakesville talks about bullshit victim blaming when it comes to victims who were drunk and Liss's own rape:
Left to my own devices, I never would have been raped. The rapist was really the key component to the whole thing. I was sober; hardly scantily clad, I was wearing sweatpants and an oversized t-shirt; I was at home; my sexual history was, literally, nonexistent—I was a virgin; I struggled; I said no. There have been times since when I have been walking home, alone, after a few drinks, wearing something that might have shown a bit of leg or cleavage, and I wasn't raped. The difference was not in what I was doing. The difference was the presence of a rapist.

I know you weren't trying to blame victims here, but that's what I saw.

Then there's that comment thread (warning: browser-crasher) at Shakesville which I have propagated more than once here:
Liss again wrote:I am particularly struck (once again) by the number of women who have been assaulted multiple times, and the number of women who have been assaulted by healthcare workers. Something I've rarely spoken about to anyone is having been molested by a physician's assistant when I was 16 while getting an MRI. I didn't tell anyone because I'd just been raped a few months earlier, and I thought that everyone would think I was either lying about two incidents so close together or think I was some kind of fucked-up abuse magnet.

I wonder how many women can catalogue multiple sexual assaults, but don't, for the same reason. Who only talk about having been raped, or molested, or whatever their "worst" assault was, and leave the rest out. I do that. I talk about having been raped, and say it as though it was only the once, even though he assaulted me multiple times. And I feel extremely uncomfortable saying I was repeatedly raped, molested by a healthcare provider, sexually harassed and groped (once quite seriously) multiple times on public transport, and harrassed and groped on the street on numerous occasions. I hate the litany. And I hate even more the reason I don't like providing it -- because I am worried that I will be judged for it, and because I am worried that all my work will be tainted by it and, worse, dismissed because of it. "Oh, she's just that angry chick who hates the world because she's been sexually assaulted a bunch of times..."


*waits to be ninja'd*

Oh, have we moved on now?

Hammer wrote:Regardless, why do threads about feminism invariably become discussions about whether women were really raped if either or both (assuming only two) parties were any particular degree of drunk? There really is more to feminism and womens' issues than that, y'know...

Because this is a question that men are greatly concerned with? I have a really hard time interpreting it any way other than "how far can I go without crossing the line?"
Raise up the torch and light the way.

User avatar
Hammer
Because all of you look like nails.
Posts: 5491
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Hammer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:33 pm UTC

Quixotess wrote:Because this is a question that men are greatly concerned with? I have a really hard time interpreting it any way other than "how far can I go without crossing the line?"

While some men seem to be asking that question, others seem to be expressing genuine fear and the kind of anger that is often the initial reaction to having to deal with information that makes you very uncomfortable and puts you in conflict with your own assumptions and (sometimes) selfish wants.

Adjusting the way you think is not an easy thing to do, especially when it may force you to see past actions in a very unpleasant light. People go through a process, and sometimes that process involves arguing back and denial and trying to make the thing you don't want to be true not be true. Learning is not always a gentle peaceful process. C'est la vie.
"What's wrong with you mathematicians? Cake is never a problem."

ADXCKGuy
Posts: 380
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:23 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA, U.S.A., North America, Earth, Sol system, Orion Arm, Milky Way, Universe
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby ADXCKGuy » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:38 pm UTC

Quixotess wrote:I know you weren't trying to blame victims here, but that's what I saw.
I have noticed that a lot of people seem to think that when I state the simple fact that many rapists target certain behaviors, appearances, etc., even when I explicitly state that that is NOT a reason that women( or men) should give up those things.( I notice you left out that bit of context in quoting.) It’s merely equivalent to saying that people who go to school are more likely to die in a school shooting - that doesn’t mean people should stop going to school. It means that shooters should stop firing guns at those people, just as rapists should stop targeting the people they do.
Quixotess wrote:
Hammer wrote:Regardless, why do threads about feminism invariably become discussions about whether women were really raped if either or both (assuming only two) parties were any particular degree of drunk? There really is more to feminism and womens' issues than that, y'know...

Because this is a question that men are greatly concerned with? I have a really hard time interpreting it any way other than "how far can I go without crossing the line?"
Well I am a man greatly concerned with that question and yet I have no interest going far, or even near, with any woman( or drunk boy), AND we have agreed that women cross this line all the time and are rarely called on it or made to feel remorseful, so perhaps a new interpretation is in order.

Hammer, I would have liked to have taken this discussion to a more appropriate thread, but I am not sure what thread that would be? If one springs to mind and you can provide a link, I don’t mind ceasing it in this thread.

User avatar
Hammer
Because all of you look like nails.
Posts: 5491
Joined: Thu May 03, 2007 7:32 pm UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Hammer » Wed Dec 17, 2008 9:43 pm UTC

ADXCKGuy wrote:Hammer, I would have liked to have taken this discussion to a more appropriate thread, but I am not sure what thread that would be? If one springs to mind and you can provide a link, I don’t mind ceasing it in this thread.

*putting my mod hat on to talk about thread positioning*
I'm not sure there is one. This discussion has been had many times in a number of different threads. It's my theory that this is the xkcd fora "godwin" topic. If you want to stop talking about it then just stop and post on a different issue or question.
"What's wrong with you mathematicians? Cake is never a problem."

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Quixotess » Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:19 pm UTC

Oh poo, I don't know whether we want to keep having this conversation. PM me, don't reply, or reply here, whichever.
Spoiler:
ADXCKGuy wrote:I have noticed that a lot of people seem to think that when I state the simple fact that many rapists target certain behaviors, appearances, etc.,

Oh this is a fact is it. And a simple one. Then it should be easy for you to find me citations.

Here's something I wrote about why I have a problem with what you're saying even though you're not saying that women "should have to" change their behavior.

over here yo wrote:Most rapes, as you probably know, are not committed by strangers. The most dangerous place for a woman to be, statistically, is in her own home with a man she trusts. So the idea that rape is only committed by men who hate women, or men who get their jollies from violence, is harmful because it distances men from rape. "I don't find violence sexy; I couldn't be a rapist." Not really. Anyone could become a rapist. Our culture doesn't exactly discourage the objectification of women or their value as only sex objects or their subjugation by men. The existence of such concepts as grey rape show that most people in our culture don't really understand what rape usually looks like.

It also is one side of a coin, the other side being victim blaming. No one wants to think that they could rape, and no one wants to think that they could be raped, so we otherize the rapists and we otherize the survivors. "Well, it happened because she was wearing that. She went there. She drank this. What's her profession? What's her sexual history? What's her sexual history with the rapist? Oh, well that explains it."

Same with rapists. "Oh, it's because he hates women. he gets his jollies off of violence. there's something wrong with his mind. That explains it."

Obviously the two characterizations don't really match up. What explains rape as we experience it in our society is the culture that encourages it.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:25 pm UTC

If you are a young woman, you are more likely to be raped:
http://www.allacademic.com/meta/p_mla_a ... index.html

[edit]
Sorry, that was just an abstract.
Here are some other stats:
http://www2.ucsc.edu/rape-prevention/statistics.html

Over 80% of all females raped are under the age of 25.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby 22/7 » Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:51 pm UTC

I imagine college has something to do with that.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 10:57 pm UTC

Likely.

61% are under age 18, though.

That's really horrible. Makes sense, though. Minors are typically more vulnerable than adults.
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.

User avatar
Quixotess
No. Cookies.
Posts: 3243
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 7:26 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Quixotess » Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:10 pm UTC

On a semi-related note that may be a new topic, my building is having forums for the possibility of co-ed suites. The guy I was talking to about it said that the college would "never ever not a chance" consider co-ed rooms, but because my building is supposed to be a bit freer, co-ed suites might happen. I didn't go to the last forum...the only thing I would figure out to say is "What will you do to reduce the likelihood of rape? Consent workshops? Sexual harassment seminars? You got to do something." And nobody likes to hear the word "rape," especially not from fat girls. ("Yeah, what do you have to worry about?" "Don't flatter yourself." being actual things I've been told. LOLsob)

I also was looking at the statistics for rape at my college campus, and they are happy to inform me that over the past three years there have been a grand total of five sex offenses, and only three on campus!

...Uh-huh. That would certainly make my college quite the anomaly, wouldn't it? I don't buy this for a second.
Raise up the torch and light the way.

Spuddly
Posts: 264
Joined: Sat Mar 01, 2008 7:11 pm UTC

Re: Feminism (split from 'nfessions)

Postby Spuddly » Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:15 pm UTC

Quixotess wrote:I also was looking at the statistics for rape at my college campus, and they are happy to inform me that over the past three years there have been a grand total of five sex offenses, and only three on campus!

...Uh-huh. That would certainly make my college quite the anomaly, wouldn't it? I don't buy this for a second.


What's their definition of rape?
Give me your eyes;
I need sunshine.


Return to “General”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 27 guests