Are you ready to go #SomewhereOvertheRainbow #Thursday #December5th #Miami #Mondrian #ArtBasel #PlayWithUs #HealingMagic #Friends #FriendsWithYou #Rainbow #Magic
<div align=”center”> <table style=”color: black; background: #eeeeee”border=”0” cellpadding=”0” cellspacing=”2”> <tr> <td bgcolor=”#eeeeee”> <div align=”center”> Personality Disorder Test Results <table style=”color: black; background: #dddddd”border=”0” cellpadding=”0” cellspacing=”4” bgcolor=”#dddddd”> <tr> <td><a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder_info.html#paranoid”>Paranoid</a></td> <td width=”50”>||||||||||||||||||</td> <td width=”30”>78%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder_info.html#schizoid”>Schizoid</a></td> <td width=”50”>||||||||||</td> <td width=”30”>38%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder_info.html#schizotypal”>Schizotypal</a></td> <td width=”50”>||||||||||||||||||||</td> <td width=”30”>86%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder_info.html#antisocial”>Antisocial</a></td> <td width=”50”>||||||||||||||||</td> <td width=”30”>62%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder_info.html#borderline”>Borderline</a></td> <td width=”50”>||||||||||||||||||</td> <td width=”30”>74%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder_info.html#histrionic”>Histrionic</a></td> <td width=”50”>||||||||||||||||</td> <td width=”30”>62%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder_info.html#narcissistic”>Narcissistic</a></td> <td width=”50”>||||||||||||||</td> <td width=”30”>58%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder_info.html#avoidant”>Avoidant</a></td> <td width=”50”>||||||||||||||||</td> <td width=”30”>62%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder_info.html#dependent”>Dependent</a></td> <td width=”50”>||||||||||||||||||||</td> <td width=”30”>86%</td> </tr> <tr> <td><a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder_info.html#obsessive-compulsive”> Obsessive-Compulsive</a></td> <td width=”50”> ||||||||||||||||</td> <td width=”30”>66%</td> </tr> </table> </div> </td> </tr> </table> <a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_disorder.html”> Take Free Personality Disorder Test</a><br><font size=”1”><a href=”http://similarminds.com/personality_tests.html”>Personality Test</a> by <a href=”http://similarminds.com/”>SimilarMinds.com</a></font> </div>
For the love of god, “Blurred Lines” is not about rape—it’s about a girl who is acting out in a club because she isn’t happy in her relationship, and she’s sending out mixed signals because she’s conflicted. She wants to think of herself as a “good girl” because one part of her believes cheating is wrong, but the part of her that wants to cheat is all up on this guy and those actions speak louder than her token assertions of good character. The blurred lines are morality—not consent!; and he professes to hate said lines because he’s not sure if SHE’S going to give into her animal nature or not, so he keeps trying in no uncertain terms to make it known where he stands. Nowhere in the song is anybody talking about or implying doing someothing against someone’s will. Yes, the guy’s are portraying (a) skeezy character[s] but not rapists! They’re leaving the door open for their bravado to be shot down, so they’re taking calculated risks by laying their lascivious cards on the table. End of story.
In regards to the people who continue to get their undergarments all knotted up over “Blurred Lines”, I want to play them some Ying Yang Twins and crack the fuck up as they collapse weeping onto the floor in the fetal position exclaiming to the heavens that “The Whisper Song” is a crime against humanity. Meanwhile, I’ll be shaking my head at the painfully apparent fact that they are incapable of seeing the humour in deliberately exaggerated displays of masculine game-spitting in song-form. Believe it or not, a not-insignificant proportion of women respond to these kinds of pick-up lines in real life, because that’s their thing, so of course guys are gonna try. And when they do, wouldn’t you say it’s better if they just make their true intentions known so those uninterested can clear away? Never mind all the songs where women are flirting with men and saying an infinite number of permutations of “I can see that you want this” etc., and the discussion is quickly proven to be infantile in its inception.
Faith is forced consent… . In common parlance we say a man commands confidence. We do not trust a man simply because we have willed to, or even because we desire to. And we cannot distrust a man simply because we wish or will to do so. We trust a man because we have evidence that to us appears sufficient, evidence of trustworthiness. When to our apprehension a man presents evidence of trustworthiness we cannot but trust him, even though we hate his trustworthiness and would wish the opposite to be the case. His trustworthiness may be the ruin of what we think to be our interests, but we cannot but trust him (e.g. the criminal who wants to evade justice, arraigned before a judge whom he believes to be just and fair, may do everything in his power to do away with the judge. But why? Because he trusts him.) We cannot but believe in his reliability and truthfulness.
Them: [Sexist/Racist joke or statement]
Me: Hey that’s uncool and offensive.
Them: FREE SPEECH! You’re infringing on my free speech by telling me my words are offensive. I can say whatever I want and you can’t stop me. I’m so sick of political correctness, it’s ruining this country! People get offended WAY too easily nowadays. Just stop letting it bother you and you won’t be offended.
Me: You are a straight white man so your opinion on gender/racial oppression is less valid.
Them: Oh my god that is so racist/sexist how dare you oppress me!
The point is that the other person made a joke, and you chose to take it as a personal insult, whereas you were making a serious statement specifically directed at someone like him, unambiguously depreciating his worth as a human being, and thus violating your own professed standards. Unfortunately, upon further examination, your standard is not only invalid and hypocritical, but sociopathic because it stacks the deck so that your “enemy” is unable to gain footing in any kind of confrontation with you. You smugly presuppose your own validity by virtue of not being straight/white/male/etc. and that makes you infinitely worse than someone making a fucking joke. You are an infant, and people like you used to make me ashamed to be a woman, but I realized that that inclination for shame was giving such people far too much power over me. Feminists are the only people in my life who have ever made me feel lesser for being female. But then I realized they wanted me to feel as weak as they did to flatter their vanity and validate/mitigate their profound underlying insecurities about their ineptitude as human beings, and I stopped caring.
The rallying-cry of losers everywhere.
why is it that were always told not to get tattoos at a young age because we “will regret it later on” when we are basically told to choose a career path by age 18? i’d rather be 40 years old with a tattoo that meant something to me when i was young than be 40 years old not wanting to get out of bed to go to a job that i hate because i was forced to decide on a career in my teens
Very often in discussions about rape it’s pointed out that rape doesn’t need to involve force. This is of course true: if someone clearly indicates non-consent, it doesn’t actually matter whether force was used, it’s still rape.
This isn’t the issue in question, though. See, many feminists take it one step further, stating that even if someone verbally consents it may still have been rape because they were not capable of consent at the time. Sound fishy? Maybe. The most common reason, of course, is self-induced intoxication involving alcohol or other recreational drugs. Note though that this doesn’t cover cases where the person was intoxicated against their will, or drugged without their knowledge, as that directly implies a lack of agency. (Though actual cases of spiked drinks are pretty much a myth, regardless of what advocates may say.) This also doesn’t cover cases where someone is passed out or completely insensible, as they’re literally incapable of giving consent.
So let’s start by looking at the classic case: a man and a woman go out, get drunk, have sex. Well, if we accept that they can’t be capable of consent, then they’re both rapists, and they both go to jail. If we accept that they are capable of consent, no wrong’s been done. Unless you’re being sexist, it really doesn’t matter, and the reality is that these cases are much like why we don’t normally accuse middle-schoolers of statutory rape: they may not have been able to consent, but they were equally unable to consent so we ignore it because neither can really be held as victimizing the other. Because of this, we pretty much have to discard all of these cases out of hand.
What happens, though, if only one person is drunk? Let me paint you a picture.
A man goes out with his friends to a party. He has four drinks, then another four. The night goes fuzzy. The next morning, he wakes up next to a woman he doesn’t know and she’s ugly or fat or unpopular or otherwise someone he wouldn’t sleep with sober. He freaks out.
Hilarious, right? Let’s try again.
A woman goes out to a party. She has four drinks, and the night goes fuzzy. The next morning she wakes up next to a strange man, naked. She panics.
We didn’t find the second one funny, did we? Why was that? Why is the woman a victim of rape, but the man only a victim of his own bad decision? Why don’t we care? Was it because of the alcohol, or because the victim was male? For that matter, why is it that we are totally familiar with these if phrased in the style they were above, but if we swapped the genders between them they’d be unrecognizable even though these depict the exact same events, the only difference being the phrasing? This all betrays the double standard, so let’s quash that right away. Either all intoxicated sex is rape, or not all intoxicated sex is rape. We’ll start with the first one, by taking it to its logical (and absurd) conclusion:
- Rape is rape, and all rape is equally bad.
- Any sex had while you are drunk is rape, no matter whether you consented or even actively pursued it. Anybody who tells you it’s your fault is victim-blaming.
- Therefore, if someone gets drunk and forcibly rapes someone, they are a victim of rape as much as the person forcibly assaulted.
Since the conclusion is absurd, we must accept that at least one premise is invalid, and in this case there are problems with both. See, we accept that someone is criminally responsible when they are drunk, which is why drunk drivers go to jail. If someone chooses to become drunk, and then breaks a law, we do not allow them to defend themselves by saying they were intoxicated. Why does this not work the same where sex is concerned? Why the refusal to hold people accountable for their sexual actions while drunk? This would not be unreasonable, but it would sure as hell take some justification. Also, how would this work with other crimes? If I ask to borrow someone’s car to pick up some extra beer and chips because they drank all our beer, did I just commit theft? If I ask a drunk friend at a bar to come back to my place to watch the game because the bar TV sucks, did I just kidnap them? What if they regret it, or they only agreed because they were drunk? Seems to be the same scenario, doesn’t it?
Lots of questions, and no answers. It doesn’t help that consent and blame are hardly black and white. Once again, an analogy: if I walk across a highway with my eyes closed, obviously the drivers carry some blame if they hit me. However, do I not share the blame for impairing myself and then doing something stupid? How is alcohol different? If I voluntarily impair my ability to make decisions, am I not partly responsible for the result? While intoxicated, it’s certainly the responsibility of others to make allowances to a degree (being aware that the bar for coercion is much lower, for example) but I am also accountable for my behaviour after I voluntarily choose to administer a behavior-altering drug to myself with the full knowledge of what that would do. It’s not victim blaming to hold me responsible for my actions while drunk, and sex is an action just like any other.
How about another scenario: I’m at a party, sitting down and minding my own business. An attractive (though intoxicated) woman approaches me and starts attempting to have sex with me. I sit there, and do nothing. I don’t speak with her, actively touch her, or do anything to either help or hinder her. If she succeeds in having sex with me, I am now a rapist. A law such as this would give me not only a duty to act (to stop her) but also makes me criminally responsible for her actions.
See the problem?
Now take a step further backwards. If someone intoxicated approaches me for sex, and while I do nothing to specifically encourage this person I nonetheless physically involve myself in the sex. (That is, I have sex with them but did not initiate it or encourage them until it was already happening.) Same thing, at least from a commonsensical perspective.
Any law which defines intoxicated sex as rape is quite literally rendering men criminally responsible for women’s bad decisions. This is a clear issue, and a flagrant violation of common sense. Rendering asymmetrical intoxication direct grounds for a rape charge effectively creates a duty to act, something that’s generally not supposed to happen under Canadian and US law. This basically means that most criminal law cannot ever compel someone to do something, at least not directly. If someone falls into a lake in front of you and drowns, a law cannot be made which would call you a murderer if you failed to help. There are exceptions to this rule, but they’re pretty specific. For example, in most jurisdictions an accredited physician or EMT has a duty to act to help someone, though whether that falls under criminal proceedings, licensing boards or simple professional standards depends on the place. Similarly, it’s illegal to make a law which makes one person directly responsible for the crimes or actions of another. Either way, this advocates men as the custodians of women’s well-being. It tells them, “It’s your job to decide whether she’s too drunk. If you go ahead and she regrets it it’s your fault and you should be punished, regardless of what she did at the time.” It ends up making men responsible not for what women say, but for how they feel and think. It tells them that it’s not even as simple as waiting until she says “yes,” but that they have to decide whether that “yes” is somehow valid, even if they are intoxicated themselves.
Even coercion, though, is not simple because there are two distinct types: positive and negative. For example, suppose I tell someone intoxicated a flagrant lie which makes them believe there would be extremely negative consequences if they didn’t have sex with me. Clearly this is objectionable, because if they genuinely believed it I’m effectively threatening them into having sex with me, and that’s obviously rape. This is “negative” coercion, or by another name “blackmail.”
The opposite is “positive” coercion, where the person believes there will be positive consequences to having sex with me, whether those are stated or unstated. For example, if I managed to convince her I’m very very rich without actually promising her anything. This is a very different kind of coercion to the other. (Note that this doesn’t cover offering her something in exchange for sex and then refusing to pay. Technically speaking at that point it’s a dispute over a business transaction, she’s a prostitute and the appropriate reaction is to sue me for breach of contract.)
In positive coercion, the other person is an entirely willing participant, even if it’s only because they’re selfish and want something they think I have. As such, it has to be treated differently than negative coercion because they’re not under what could be termed “duress”. In the sexual arena, at least, we can hardly count this as “coercion” at all.
Finally, what if that person being intoxicated simply lowered their inhibitions, made them less “prudish”, so to speak? (In some ways this is my case, because I tend to generally be very uncomfortable being intimate with people I’m not very familiar with, and alcohol makes me much more comfortable and by extension much more willing to engage in some form of sex.) Unless I purposefully caused the person to become intoxicated without their direct consent, I can’t be described as having been “coercive”. They chose to become intoxicated, made what might have been a poor decision and then regretted it, the same way millions of people do every weekend. Just because that “poor” decision was sex doesn’t make their partner a rapist.
Perhaps we should be defining rape somewhat differently, then. One possible definition would be:
Sex where the victim, if they believed they had the ability to walk away without any form of consequence, would have chosen to do so and that fact was clearly evident.
So, in a case of “forcible” rape, clearly they’d rather not (to put it mildly) and that fact is evident. In the first case of coercion, again, they didn’t want to in the first place, and the same is true of any other case where they were under duress. If they’re too drunk to be coherent, there’s again quite clear nonconsent. However, if a person is foolish enough to do something voluntarily while under the influence that they later regret, then they need to take responsibility for their actions. It’s neither reasonable, nor fair, nor constitutional to hold one person legally responsible for the actions of another person not in their direct care. Too bad the politicians forgot about that.
The final question, and one that has never been answered, remains. What defines “drunk”? Is one beer “drunk”? For some people, maybe, but for me that literally might as well have been water. Is six beers “drunk”? For some people that might be “passed out on the couch”, for me that’s “pleasantly buzzed”. I mean, my standard “loosen up and relax” drink has three shots of vodka in it. So we can’t define drunk as “X drinks”. Similarly, my reflexes are finely tuned. I can still run and function almost perfectly even when my judgment is probably severely impaired, so it’s not likely that I’d look obviously drunk either. I know plenty of people who might not appear drunk even when they are (along with at least one person who has a talent for appearing drunk when he isn’t). Thus we can’t define “drunk” by appearance either. What about BAC? (Blood Alcohol Content) For starters, you’ve just told everybody they have to breathalyze their sex partners (and overwhelmingly due to culture that’ll be a burden on men), and even then, people can react very differently even with the same BAC. I know people who I’d trust more to drive at twice the legal BAC limit than others at half of it, because even with that amount of alcohol in their blood they’re still more competent. We can’t use BAC either. What’s left? We’ve ruled our the amount they’ve drunk (which you can’t necessarily know), the way they act, their BAC….what’s left?
Turns out the only reliable assessment of how drunk someone is is their own….you know, the one they’re apparently not competent to provide because they’re drunk. (Meaning that literally the only valid assessment is theirs after they sober up, which really voids the whole point.) As such, I’d say that a sensible person can only take the position that if a person is capable of giving some form of affirmative consent or participating actively in the sex act they cannot be defined as “too intoxicated to consent”, as their consent at that point is predicated on the most valid assessment of their inebriation we can have: their own assessment of “am I too drunk to do this”. Similarly, to place any burden of assessment on the (presumably) male partner is not just misogynist, it’s misandrist and creates an unacceptable duty to act. It’s misogynist because it places a man in authority over her experiences and judgement, and claims that he is fundamentally more rational than her and that it’s his job to make the decision. It’s misandrist because it places on men responsibility for women’s actions, and it creates a duty to act because it forces men to actively repulse a woman attempting to have sex with him if she is deemed unacceptable, as simply lying back and doing nothing would cause him to be labeled a rapist.
If a woman willingly and knowingly intoxicates herself and then does something that she later regrets, that’s her responsibility. To say anything else is to compare women to children, people who do not have personal autonomy. As feminists, that’s the exact thing you’re supposed to be combating. If a man tells a woman that he wants to have sex with her, it’s not his fault if she’s drunk herself stupid enough to say yes when she ordinarily wouldn’t. To say otherwise is to consider men the custodians of women, that “patriarchy” thing feminists claim to oppose.
Drunk (or stoned) sex is not rape. Drugging someone, spiking their drink, forcing them to drink, refilling their drink when they’re not looking, or assaulting them after they’ve passed out….that is rape. Drunk sex, however, is not, and every avenue of argument leads to the conclusion that criminalizing it is not only misogynist and misandrist, but idiotic and outright illegal.
For a bit more discussion of the alcohol issue see here, here, and here.
Why Straight Pride is super gross and bigoted, and if you support if we can’t be friends
A presentation by me.
Since apparently some people don’t fucking get it.
I get what you’re trying to say here but saying that people who have “straight pride” are bigots is way off base and will only paint your movement as another radical steaming pile of shit.
How about we all just go on about our business with dignity. No one needs to feel proud of their sexual orientation or un-proud of it. It shouldn’t matter, so live like it doesn’t, or no one’s going to do it for you, and the same self-pitying overcompensation bullshit cycle goes on forever.