Utopia Talk / Politics / It was rape / Seb's speak pt2

Pillz Member	Sun Jan 21 14:30:14 Carry on
Seb Member	Sun Jan 21 15:00:18 Delude: "Amazing that everything you took of mine and took it out of context." I didn't so much take it out of context so much as you wrote a post that was completely unclear as to what you were referring to. As I explained, I had to parse your words as best I could, and I answered them explicitly conditional on the best understanding I could make of them. Here is what you wrote, in full: ____ "It seems many have a strange idea of what consent is; where "woah relax, let's chill out" apparently can be unambiguously taken to mean "go down on me"." As it escalated to that point as it deviated from intercourse. If this was a crime as it being perceived and attached to the 'metoo' movement. You would think the lady involved would go to the police and file a report. But no, advances were too much for her. She participated in the sexual endeavors. She regretted it. Shared her experience and exploited it. But you want to continuously play the card that she only participated because she feared for her safety. ___ "As it escalated to that point as it deviated from intercourse." What is the subject of this sentence. It? What does it mean? The actions? How am I suposed to know if you don't include it. Given the preceeding quotation from me, which suggested many had the belief that "woah, chil out" denotes consent for oral sex; and because you appear to be objecting to the point, the only sensible reading of this sentence was: "As [their interactions] escalated to that point [and] as [those actions] deviated from intercourse [then yes, "woah chill out" does indicate consent]". If that's not the case, can you clarify what you were origionally trying to say using more specific language. "If this was a crime as it being perceived and attached to the 'metoo' movement." Similarly "If [these actions] were a crime as [they are] being perceived and attached to the "me too" movement" - again highly ambiguous sentence - in what way do you mean the events attached to the "me too" movement? And this sentence ends abruptly. If it was a crime then... what? I assume the next sentence completes this though. I.e. "If she thought this was a crime, wouldn't she have gone to the police?" - but that is exactly how I origionally interpreted your point and my response stands. I genuinely do not understand what you are trying to say in these sentences. It's quite possible that English is your second language - I don't know - and you undoubtably speak my language better than I yours - but please recognise that the way you've constructed them leads them highly ambiguous.
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 15:11:52 And here is my point. There was activity that happened between them that ended up in a sexual nature, without intercourse. Ultimately it was consensual. She wasn't raped. She regretted it as she now feels that it went to far and she felt uncomfortable. Her prerogative, she text him expressing her discontent. She joined the 'metoo' campaign to jump on the bandwagon. The end.
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 15:13:23 No, it is quite possible that you are trying to read too much into something.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 21 16:14:40 Deluxe: That's an assertion not an argument. How can "woah, let's slow down. Chill out" be taken to mean "perform oral sex on me"? At that point in time, what basis for consent was there?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 16:21:30 More and more people are replicating the same results. It is my prediction that in 2018 we will have the mathematical proof for a new UP law, that anything that can be misconstrued by The seb will be misconstrued by The seb. Anything that _is_ for you, _is not_ for The seb. It is the third law of UP. The First law explains Hot Rod and the second law explains lulzgul.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 16:26:14 "I didn't so much take it out of context so much as you wrote a post that was completely unclear as to what you were referring to" A semi-intellectual person asks questions instead of assuming and injecting things, to then admit that it was _completely_ unclear what the other person was referring to. Fascinating how honest you are about being completely dishonest and full of shit :)
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 16:28:55 So we have it on record, seb does not take things out of context, he will invent the context whole cloth when bits and pieces are missing.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 21 16:41:28 Nim: Pay attention. "I'm not sure what you are trying to say here, I am parsing this as: "As it escalated to that point, and as it deviated from intercourse then yes, it does mean consent". " That's a good faith attempt to respond to an ambiguous point. Delude can simply respond "no, that's not what I'm saying". It is really quite senseless to say this is in very some way unreasonable or offensive given he can reasonably say "no, you've misunderstood me" given I've started off saying his meaning is unclear to me. This is distinct from your (spurious) claims that I invent positions and attribute them to you.
Seb Member	Sun Jan 21 16:42:18 Nim thinks this is dishonest. Perhaps he can explain where the deception is occurring?
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 16:58:59 "At that point in time, what basis for consent was there? " "...he briefly performed oral sex on her, and asked her to do the same thing to him. She did,..." And then?
Seb Member	Sun Jan 21 17:17:27 Delude: So, that's after the fact. Not at the point in time. He's been told no. He ignores her. He performs a sex act on her instead. You can't say that because she briefly goes down on him afterwards, that made the previous event consensual. As I've pointed out, her options at that point are limited. The whole dynamic has changed. And get entire encounter there after is her trying to get out of the whole situation and him repeatedly ignoring that. Genuinely, I find this really odd. Again, I ask you, would you ever behave in the way Ansari does here?
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 17:21:53 It doesn't matter how you or I would behave. The fact is; "...he briefly performed oral sex on her, and asked her to do the same thing to him. She did,..." Consent established of sexual activity. As you asked previously; "How can "woah, let's slow down. Chill out" be taken to mean "perform oral sex on me"? At that point in time, what basis for consent was there? " Answer was given. Are you saying that wasn't consent by her?
jergul large member	Sun Jan 21 17:26:25 Nimi Fabricating a lot of shit there, bro. Do more drugs, they make you smert.
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 17:26:47 The problem is that you're omitting a detail that no one specifically knows and the author of the article may know of and may have omitted. The fact that after she said "chill, relax." He could have asked if he could go down on her. The only part that is detailed is that he performed it and he asked her to reciprocate, to which she consented. Now do you see there the conundrum may be versus your over-analytical assessment to interject something that none of us know specifically other than she was upset, and text him the next day expressing her discontent. I am sure a lot of victims would take the time to do that... What is established is that the date did not go well for her and that he isn't a great mind-reader.
jergul large member	Sun Jan 21 17:29:23 Delude Still struggling with concept of not putting stuff into other people without being absolutely certain they are ok with it. We know what almost certainly happened: he tried to nag her into having sex with him. Penetration of any orfice takes nagging into sexual assault territory.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 17:31:04 I understand that it is difficult for you to understand where anyone is coming from on this. A good faith argument is not to "parse" (being another version of "so you are saying") and then argue against this "parsed" understanding of an ambiguous statement in several paragraphs. That is being seb. A good faith approach to an ambiguous statement would entail you actually being interested in first understanding the position or unraveling the ambiguity, meaning a question mark. To then assess what if any follow up questions are necessary. It goes well beyond this as you have time and time again shown yourself impervious to correction down the road. Whatever first impression you have of something is etched with a laser in your brain. Incorrigible is fitting word.
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 17:31:07 jergul still struggling with that this was a bad date?
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 17:32:25 "We know what almost certainly happened: he tried to nag her into having sex with him. Penetration of any orfice takes nagging into sexual assault territory. " nagging or not, sexual activity happened and she participated. Care to say she didn't?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 17:40:18 How many times do you need to get consent and how long is each specific consent valid? In what cultural context does "slow down" mean stop? If we are naked and have been making out and I want to fuck and they say slow down, going down on them to me is slowing things down. If it isn't for the other person, then they are obligated to tell me, no! even slower! Jesus christ, how fucking hard is this?
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 17:43:37 Also, let us not overlook that the author's narration of the story supports that possibly there was consent through and through as the work "hesitant" was used. Versus another descriptive adjective that she "denied", "said no", or "declined." No, the word used was hesitant. Which leaves the actions thereafter open. With omission of details and specifically stated details. It goes back to what the author is wanting to convey as to what the woman was sharing in regards to her experience. But what is also known is she did consent to other sexually activity. Regardless how jergul feels if it was nagging. Perhaps peer-pressure or pressured would be better utilized. Nonetheless it doesn't take away the consensual activity that occurred. And it also doesn't indicate that she herself felt that she was criminally sexually assaulted, other than participating in acts that she regretted. You can go round about all day long you to. But, this isn't rape. This was a bad date.
Dukhat Member	Sun Jan 21 17:44:23 Seb talks like the virgin who is always friendzoned. It wasn't rape so fuck this bitch for trying to ruin Aziz's career over her own helplessness. Fucking retarded thing to even be arguing about.
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 17:45:41 word* you two*
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 17:48:18 "How many times do you need to get consent and how long is each specific consent valid? In what cultural context does "slow down" mean stop? If we are naked and have been making out and I want to fuck and they say slow down, going down on them to me is slowing things down. If it isn't for the other person, then they are obligated to tell me, no! even slower! Jesus christ, how fucking hard is this? " Nim, the problem is that they think there is only one way for sexual activity to actually occur. And just like Ken Starr hung on up Bill Clinton's receiving blow jobs in the Starr Report. Jergul is hung up on fingers in the mouth. Like it triggered a repressed memory.
hood Member	Sun Jan 21 17:50:54 "He's been told no. He ignores her. He performs a sex act on her instead." What? If he ignores her, wouldn't he have stuck his dick in it? He didn't. Can you clearly detail what happened between "let me get condoms" + "whoa relax" and then "Aziz is performing oral"? Seriously. Did she also refuse oral? How did she do that, what was the detail? And no, her "let's chill out" is not valid, as it was very specifically in response to going to get condoms.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 17:54:31 I fully understand why feminists think all men or most men are rapist scumbags, because there is an significant number of male feminists who are wolves in sheeps clothing. http://www...ur-mp-socialists-a7893001.html Beware the male feminist http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjojBUsTzG0&t=1057s If I was a rapist or some other sexual deviant, I would not be so openly anti-feminist, that would be stupid.
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 17:59:00 " Did she also refuse oral? How did she do that, what was the detail?" Seb answered that with "she wanted to survive the attack." And let it happen, in the last thread.
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 18:01:14 Because "generally" men will rape women. SEB: "Be more forceful verbally, at the risk of provoking a violence. Generally, men who don't stop when given a clear verbal signal will use force. So there's risk there. " Delude: Quite clear that Aziz is not necessarily a violent person. And no generally men will not use force. You have a few who would. This is rather a careless remark made using 'generally.' You may want to reconsider.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 18:01:45 "survive the attack" lol and then she sends a text to her attacker the next day, she doesn't file a police report and instead post the story anonymously.
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 18:02:23 Yep.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 18:06:54 The numbers where crunched in Sweden. 1% of the population commit 63% of the violent offences.
hood Member	Sun Jan 21 18:13:11 "Seb answered that with "she wanted to survive the attack." And let it happen, in the last thread." That's why I asked for detail instead of just his opinion.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 18:14:28 It is also very typical of seb to butcher a string of event into unrelated incoherent pieces and argue against them on their own.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 18:29:37 It is so obvious because most of us I dare say have been in a similair situation, she says lets take it slower and you take it back _one_ notch and se how that goes. Sex in built on momentum. I was making out with this girl, sleeping over in a church mind you, she was yanking my junk and I was grinding her twat, I didn’t ask for consent I inched my fingers inside, until things got too heated after a good minute of finger fucking and she unfingered herself with a hip motion, a non verbal sign to let’s slow things down. She said not here, frustrated I moaned nawwwkay fine. Did I rape her?
hood Member	Sun Jan 21 18:33:11 Did you order white wine?
delude Member	Sun Jan 21 18:34:27 you were naggy. /jergulmode
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 18:35:00 No whine at all, nothing not even a diet pepsi. Im fucked aint I, she is coming for me too...
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sun Jan 21 18:36:44 lulz *wine
Dukhat Member	Sun Jan 21 20:23:34 "I fully understand why feminists think all men or most men are rapist scumbags, "If I was a rapist or some other sexual deviant, I would not be so openly anti-feminist, that would be stupid." @Nimatzo - That literally made no fucking sense. Because some liberal men are hypocrites, all of them must be? And because you are not an anti-feminist, you are not a rapist. Holy fucking shit you are stupid or raped someone and have so much cognitive dissonance, you no longer make sense. Go fucking kill yourself.
Dukhat Member	Sun Jan 21 20:34:29 you are an anti-feminist*, you can't be a rapist.
Pillz Member	Sun Jan 21 21:11:06 Disagree with feminism = confirmed rapist, according to cuckhat I wish I hadn't read that but oh well, I guess we keep lowering the bar for stupidest poster on UP.
Cherub Cow Member	Sun Jan 21 21:57:39 [Nimatzo]: "I suffered through the entire thing and holy fuck what a disaster. As the "interview" was going on and this so called journalist kept saying "so you are saying [insert thing that Peterson did not say]" I kept thinking, seb is that you? Because it reminded me of all the bad faith "questions" and disasters of discussions I have had with seb." lulz :D .. I said the same thing about that interview in a comment I posted in UGT. [Me in UGT]: "It's a 30 minute video, but it's a good listen/watch. The interviewer tries to constantly misrepresent Peterson ... either in bad faith or in poor comprehension — kind of like Seb does in UP"
Dukhat Member	Sun Jan 21 23:14:58 Whatever, he posted some dumb bullshit anecdotes about "liberal" guys being rapists as if a few anecdotes means shit and then concludes it with some non-sequitur about how rapists wouldn't be dumb enough to be anti-feminist. Fucking black-and-white nonsense that made no sense.
Kaylana Moderator	Mon Jan 22 00:32:40 I guess I was sick that day when you guys were educated on how there is only one type of "sex," being pens to vagina, and thus rape and sexual assault can only occur in the legal and intentional definition when the pens has penetrated the vagina. Not fingers or mouths. While I agree Grace should have been more forthright in her refusal to do anything uncomfortable, that doesn't make her deserving of that treatment, or at fault for being pushed and pressured, which Aziz was clearly being pushy and forceful. Her description of the signals she gave were transparent enough, and any guy who could continue while claiming not to notice hesitancy, or being "swift to get it over with" or trying to move on to something else, is not a man I would personally ever want to be stuck in a room with. So shame on any of you if you've never taken note of a woman's non verbal signals that she's not feeling it tonight, or worst of all, you keep trying to "warm her up" in some misguided social learning that a woman just needs convincing that she'll enjoy it, and she's too nice or self-conscious or feeling nervous or guilty to reject you for the umpteenth time in a row. I've got news for you buckos, a woman who has to give in to your pressure is doing it because of one of the aforementioned emotions I just gave you, not lust. And that makes you scum. If her account is flawlessly true, which I expect it is because it so closely echoes many a date I've had to force off of me or even steady partner who was convinced my mood would be changed if they could just paw me hard and long enough, then she was, by every definition ive ever seen of it, assaulted. Seb, thank you for fighting this fight. How easy it is for all of us to fall into the trap of "justifications."
Pillz Member	Mon Jan 22 00:59:19 ^ will post later but the tldr of what I'll say is Lol
Kaylana Moderator	Mon Jan 22 01:22:31 And that reaction is precisely the reason why there is such a thing as rape culture.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 01:52:16 Nim: No, good faith argument is to be clear about ambiguity when it appears and exhibit about what you interpret someones words to mean. Everything was clear and above board, open to challenge and correction. There's no basis for claiming dishonesty here. The fact to are falling back on such tired and pathetic process arguments is because you don't actually have a point to raise.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 01:57:17 Kaylana: Eloquently put. The strange thing is, I've put the question repeatedly "who here would actually behave as Aziz" and none will respond. Two explanations that come to mind are: "of course I wouldn't, at best it's sinister as fuck, but it undermines my argument so I won't address the question" or "well I would, but i recognise at best it's sinister as fuck so I'm not going to admit I'd behave that way." Eye opening.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 02:07:26 Delude: It seems you want to use events in the future to justify events in the past. To my knowledge, information does not flow back in time. When Ansari performed oral sex on her, how did he know she'd reciprocate? After he did that, having been told no and ignored her, how can he know she isn't trying to do the minimum needed to get out of the situation? He can't have. You're entire argument hinges on rape not being committed based on things Ansari cannot have known at the time he undertook his actions. Doesn't that clearly demonstrate how far out of normal bounds his behaviour was. Far from Ansari being guilty of not being psychic, your argument appears to be that he's not guilty because he was psychic. "Hesitant" Seriously - would you'd have sex with a woman who was hesitant? There seems to be this idea that having sex with a woman who is less than enthusiastic and hasn't actively (or even vigorously) refused is ok. Guys. Guys. It's not. That's how these rape situations start. It's really really simple. Have sex with women that actively want to have sex with you. If they are hesitant, that's a no no. That means they don't really want to have sex with you. That means there is a substantial risk you are making someone very uncomfortably. Don't do it.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 02:09:29 Nim: For someone who claims dishonesty and smearing... "Beware the male feminist " Is quite hard to beat!
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 02:10:47 Hood: It was specifically a refusal only of vaginal intercourses eh? So if he'd stuck it up her arse instead, that'd be totally legit? You guys have a seriously warped idea about how this stuff works.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 02:18:44 Nim: "is so obvious because most of us I dare say have been in a similair situation, she says lets take it slower and you take it back _one_ " Exactly. *Back* one. He didn't though. He took it forward one, from kissing to going down on her. First night, sex with a stranger, "woah, slow down there, let's chill", you go back to kissing and caressing, see if she makes the next escalation, wait a bit and suggest something else. You know you do. If some people's sexual MO is "what can I get away with", you can't be surprised if one time you fuck it up, do something someone seriously objects to, and end up in court. Hence I have zero sympathy for fucks like Ansari, and find it completely bizarre that you lot seem intent on trying to protect a supposedly grey space that nobody who isn't looking to push the margins ever finds themselves in.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 02:22:12 Seriously, what kind of mentality would flirt with pushing someone less than enthusiastic about sex into sex? It ammounts to treating them as an object and the law something to be gamed.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 03:07:31 You guys are your own worst enemy. Rape culture is ridiculous concept - but it's perfectly normal to pressure women into sex. You need to start off to get them into it. Explicit consent laws are ridiculous - but actually how can we know we have consent? She didn't object to the specific acts I wanted to do? You guys - more so than those actually committing sexual assault - with your normalising heavy pressure and insisting that there's plausible deniability in clear cut cases - are basically ruining sex for the rest of us! If you convince society that the only way to protect women from abusers is increasingly awkward and bureaucratic requirements because men lack the emotional intelligence to understand when it's ok to have sex and when not, you can't be surprised. You should also recognise at that point, it's not the evil feminists imposing this; you are the guys creating this need, and its primary purpose is to protect you from accidentally raping people because you are stridently arguing it's impossible for you to know otherwise. Save us from the overgrown man-children that can't handle the responsibility of being autonomous adults.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 22 04:30:45 ”Flawlessly true” Because how someone percieves and remembers something can ever be flawlessly true.
delude Member	Mon Jan 22 05:05:11 "It seems you want to use events in the future to justify events in the past. To my knowledge, information does not flow back in time. When Ansari performed oral sex on her, how did he know she'd reciprocate? After he did that, having been told no and ignored her, how can he know she isn't trying to do the minimum needed to get out of the situation?" No. What I am saying is that none of us know exactly what was going through both of their heads in terms of the actions that took place. You ask that question, which is ridiculous in regards to how did he know she would reciprocate. I am going to imagine that he didn't know, but it was a gamble, hence why in her own admittance and what the author of the article conveyed. She was asked, and she did. He was only told to slow down and chill in regards to intercourse. It is undetermined and as I pointed out in a post later a detail that is omitted if he even asked her if he could perform oral sex on her. What is conveyed and this was by the author is that he went ahead anyway. My point is that is something we don't know specifically. So the reader has a choice to make -- they continued to make out, caressed, and he took the lead on some actions testing the waters ( or jergul would put it nagging) and ultimately made it to oral sex. We are left with she was going with it consensually. And we only know after the fact that ultimately she was uncomfortable in that situation. Then expressed her dismay and discontent towards the end of the night. "You guys are all the same." To further the notion, the next day or so she took the time to express her frustration to him via text. So this leaves us thinking -- 1) She went with it, hated the date, didn't like where it went. He went too far, even though she continued to the activity in reciprocation. And was uncomfortable and he was too caught up in the moment to realize that. 2) Perhaps he should have been more responsible realized the tell signs, and not had pressured her. But ultimately, she expressed her discontent. If this was something that she felt she was assaulted, a reasonable person would think she would have gone ahead and filed a police report. So I ask the question, why do you think she did not? Why do you think she took the time instead to text her assaulter? There is a lot more to the texts that were exchanged than what is revealed in the article. "He can't have. You're entire argument hinges on rape not being committed based on things Ansari cannot have known at the time he undertook his actions. Doesn't that clearly demonstrate how far out of normal bounds his behaviour was. Far from Ansari being guilty of not being psychic, your argument appears to be that he's not guilty because he was psychic." My opinion he is not guilty of rape due to many contributing factors that have been relayed already. The concept of him not being a psychic or poorly reading body behavior is one of those factors. But it does not negate the fact that as the situation progress, the reciprocation by her would also lead him that he can continue the path of other sexual gratification. That may be his intent, but ultimately, which as I pointed out previously none of us know exactly how she was feeling at certain points and time. What we do know is the author stated that when it came to intercourse, she made the suggested to slow down on that part. Everything else is now open for interpretation, but you already have made the conclusion. I pointed this out to you before, but you conveniently ignore it and not address it. Even Hood had pointed this out. This is a detail that is omitted from the article. So now we only have conjecture. The problem with that is that you believe what you say are facts at that point where I have stood my stance that it was my opinion. ""Hesitant" Seriously - would you'd have sex with a woman who was hesitant? There seems to be this idea that having sex with a woman who is less than enthusiastic and hasn't actively (or even vigorously) refused is ok. Guys. Guys. It's not. That's how these rape situations start. It's really really simple." One, he didn't have sex with her. They had foreplay. For all we know and which is relayed once again with the details that is revealed, she wasn't too keen on sexual intercourse. Now, this also may lead us to think she didn't like everything else that occurred either, but we only know that after the fact. Not during, all of this is expressed after the fact. You keep playing the time-table in the course of your argument. How about taking that into consideration? "Have sex with women that actively want to have sex with you. If they are hesitant, that's a no no. That means they don't really want to have sex with you. That means there is a substantial risk you are making someone very uncomfortably. Don't do it." I don't appreciate your inference and wish quite honestly you would shut the fuck up with your condescending remarks in regards for some of us having an opinion about the situation that occurred because we don't agree with you. So honestly, you can go fuck yourself on that accord. What I have conveyed, expressed, and took my stance on. Is that, yes, what he did and I even alluded to this in the previous thread. He was stupid, pressured, and went too fast for the situation and he should have been more aware. But he wasn't, but this also isn't a case where I feel that she was so sexually assaulted or raped based upon her responses and actions taken thereafter. Which is also something that you are ignoring. Maybe in the future, you read what I've said. Not try to over analyze and take things out of context. "The strange thing is, I've put the question repeatedly "who here would actually behave as Aziz" and none will respond. Two explanations that come to mind are: "of course I wouldn't, at best it's sinister as fuck, but it undermines my argument so I won't address the question" or "well I would, but i recognise at best it's sinister as fuck so I'm not going to admit I'd behave that way." Eye opening." Now you can really go fuck yourself on this accord. Why? I have stated my position and my views on his behavior as I've said previously. But I do not think because you didn't specific answers to your specific question is that it is ultimately irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The point to this is that none of us really would know, because we are not in that situation. We don't know how things were flowing. We have more of a narration from the author than we do specifically from the woman that went on the date. Even though it is her account. I will go a step further and state though, and I know you weren't paying attention and this may contribute to the answer you are wanting. But it seems he was universally panned by everyone and mocked. Which leads me to believe that the other posters would not necessarily behave in such a manner. I can't speak for them specifically, but I think its more on the lines of irrelevancy. Not so much of your claim that we support "rape" and "rape culture." More of an objective view based upon information that we know.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 05:30:59 Delude It was a bad date on the most part. Spiced up with episodes of sexual assault. Don't put stuff into other people unless you are very sure they want it. So take sticking things into other people out of any nagging routine you might have finely honed.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 05:34:55 Seb I suspect they have to normalize it because they have done it. The only thing interesting here is external erogenous zones. How much friction is acceptable before nagging turns into assault. Actual penetration is a no-brainer. Don't do that into any orfice with anything unless sure.
Delude Member	Mon Jan 22 05:47:23 So jergul resorts to hot rod logic.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 22 05:55:37 Did you watch the video or read the article seb? Not likely, those are the words of FEMALE feminists. Pwned?
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 06:01:39 Delude Just logic Everyone has nagged. Not knowing the boundary between nagging and sexual assault makes it very likely a person has passed that boundary. I am assuming you have nagged and you are demonstrating you do not know the boundaries. Feel free to add alcohol and weakened judgement into the mix. In nimis case add steroids and acid. Slam-dunk
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 22 06:06:26 Exactly. *Back* one. Kissing. Lets have sex. No slow down. Ok I will go down on you. Back one step.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 06:08:21 Sticking something different into a different orifice is not slowing down. It is sexual assault.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 06:10:29 Actually, the same orifice. But we know you don't get this even without being jacked up nimi.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 06:10:58 Delude: "What I am saying is that none of us know exactly what was going through both of their heads in terms of the actions that took place." They were kissing. He suggested sex. She said no. He performed as sex act on her anyway. If you don't want to speculate on the unknowable inner thoughts, hat's really all there is to say about the issue. It's clear cut. We don't need to know their inner minds at this point. His intent - insofar as required to meet definition of sexual assault - is clear and meets mens rea. Under those jurisdictions that have intent as a factor you don't need to intend not to have consent, just to intend to have sexual gratification. Her refusal of consent was explicit. In law, he'd have to prove at the very least that he had reasonable grounds to think it consensual. This is where speculative arguments come in - as an attempted defence: not as a requirement for the prosecution. So, sure, you might inferring she reciprocation after the fact indicates she consented despite her clear no. However she described it as briefly and unenthusiastically. And follows with increasing attempts to get away from him or remove his hands from her. That shows she felt pressured, unsafe and was seeking to escape. If one is going to speculate beyond her words, the picture emerges not of someone consenting, but someone being harassed and coerced into sex. I've given some examples of why one might reciprocate to try and de-escalate such a situation. Ultimately, as a defence for Ansari, this doesn't stack up. In the end, the unambiguous facts, without relying on any dodgy attempts to read the tea leaves are that she said no, he ignored it. Consent doesn't simply mean the absence of sufficiently unambiguous refusal. And few reasonable people would say the scenario is one they would continue to attempt to have sex with a woman in. Finally, if people really feel whole consent thing is blurry and we have to draw a line, let's draw it here. Better douchebags with poor judgement go to jail than other people have to be subjected to unwanted sexual activity. A society that condones this behaviour is one that condones the reasonable percentage of times this kind of scenario results in someone being sexually assaulted when they really didn't want it.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 06:10:58 Delude: "What I am saying is that none of us know exactly what was going through both of their heads in terms of the actions that took place." They were kissing. He suggested sex. She said no. He performed as sex act on her anyway. If you don't want to speculate on the unknowable inner thoughts, hat's really all there is to say about the issue. It's clear cut. We don't need to know their inner minds at this point. His intent - insofar as required to meet definition of sexual assault - is clear and meets mens rea. Under those jurisdictions that have intent as a factor you don't need to intend not to have consent, just to intend to have sexual gratification. Her refusal of consent was explicit. In law, he'd have to prove at the very least that he had reasonable grounds to think it consensual. This is where speculative arguments come in - as an attempted defence: not as a requirement for the prosecution. So, sure, you might inferring she reciprocation after the fact indicates she consented despite her clear no. However she described it as briefly and unenthusiastically. And follows with increasing attempts to get away from him or remove his hands from her. That shows she felt pressured, unsafe and was seeking to escape. If one is going to speculate beyond her words, the picture emerges not of someone consenting, but someone being harassed and coerced into sex. I've given some examples of why one might reciprocate to try and de-escalate such a situation. Ultimately, as a defence for Ansari, this doesn't stack up. In the end, the unambiguous facts, without relying on any dodgy attempts to read the tea leaves are that she said no, he ignored it. Consent doesn't simply mean the absence of sufficiently unambiguous refusal. And few reasonable people would say the scenario is one they would continue to attempt to have sex with a woman in. Finally, if people really feel whole consent thing is blurry and we have to draw a line, let's draw it here. Better douchebags with poor judgement go to jail than other people have to be subjected to unwanted sexual activity. A society that condones this behaviour is one that condones the reasonable percentage of times this kind of scenario results in someone being sexually assaulted when they really didn't want it.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 06:13:32 I actually think that we have nailed the source of your rabid anti-feminism/humanism You have done horrible things from a feminist or humanist perspective. Therefore, humanism and feminism is evil.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 06:13:44 Nim: Bubba says "Can I stick my dick in arse Nim" Nim says "No" Bubba sticks dick in Nims mouth. This is not sexual assault. Bubba tool it back one.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 06:15:02 last@nimi (of course)
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 06:18:17 Nim: Female? So what? It is not as though anything a woman says is automatically feminist and that there aren't disagreements within feminism. How juvenile an argument can you get?
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 22 06:38:30 Not saying it does, just a response to your waa that _I_ am smearing you. Don't shoot the messenger bro.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 22 06:41:34 Obviously there is a lot of disagreement among feminist on how they should view male feminists. Many of them think are the worst sexists.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 06:43:52 Since we are reposting stuff from the last thread: http://the...s-lack-of-viewpoint-diversity/ Note, I had never heard of her before. Her viewpoints on the sexual assault were outlandish enough for me to look at her bio.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 22 06:46:37 I explained months ago, that I think "feminism" is used by some sexual deviants as camouflage. It attracts them, like priesthood attracted pedophiles. Once you label yourself as a male feminists you are also signaling, "I am on your side, I am not a threat".
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 22 06:48:32 Just to be clear, neither you or lulzgul have given me reason to believe you are rapists.
Delude Member	Mon Jan 22 06:54:10 "Delude Just logic" Hot rod logic. Jergul: "man accused of murder." A person defends him. He must condone murder.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 22 06:58:37 "Bubba says "Can I stick my dick in arse Nim" Nim says "No" Bubba sticks dick in Nims mouth." Ah yes the classic prison rape is the perfect comparison, of course, of course.
Kaylana Moderator	Mon Jan 22 07:04:36 Just going to put this out there: Oral sex isn't foreplay. It's a type of sex. Maybe he did or didn't climax but whether or not a person "finishes" is not a definition of sex either. What decade are you guys from?? If you are equating what is "normal" behavior to "common" behavior, which is what it reads as here, then stop making the fallacious conclusion that "common" behavior is "acceptable" and "justifiable." Normal is a mutually exclusive concept from morally correct. Just because it's common place doesn't mean it *sshould * be common. Also nagging anyone for sex us never okay. Ever. You ask once. You get your answer. You accept it and move on to a different activity. If the only way you are getting laid is by repeatedly cajoling and convincing your significant other to sleep with you, then 1) how sad for you, but more importantly 2) that is unhealthy for both of you. Isn't that utterly exhausting and kind of damaging to your own ego too? I haven't been with a man who "nagged" me for sex since my late teens because quite frankly, there are better men out there and that is the treatment that I consider "normal." For such a group of "free-thinkers," many of you are appallingly stuck in the protestant past.
Kaylana Moderator	Mon Jan 22 07:06:38 Hate typing on a mobile device. I'm done.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 22 07:13:11 We can talk about the nuances of misbehavior without everything being rape or contributing to "rape culture". At least some of us "free thinkers" can.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 07:15:31 Delude False analogy. A man habitually does things that are borderline illegal and demonstrates he does not understand they are borderline illegal. Is it fair to assume he has crossed the line into illegality quite regularly? Kaylana You have found men clever enough to know they should not nag with you. But they probably do anyway (you want to watch a show. He suggests its 9.30 and better you head to be for a "fresh start" the next day. Is he nagging. To me it would be obvious that he is using a spurious argument to get you to head to bed before you are tired enough to sleep for other purposes). But I at least was simply trying to draw the destinction between unacceptable and criminal. Going in for a hug clothed, but with an erect penis is for example unacceptable, but probably not illegal. Baby-steps. Even metoo is only about pushing the limits (the penis example would be illegal from a position of authority).
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 07:24:38 "Just to be clear, neither you or lulzgul have given me reason to believe you are rapists." The problem with that is lack of normalizing crime. A crime does not characterize a person in the victorian sense we use terms like murderer/rapist etc. You see it clearer using modernized terminology: Sexual Assaultist does not have the same ring to it. Ironically, if the theshold for sexual assault convictions is lowered, then we also have to lessen the social stigma attached to convictions. Paying the debt to society has to ultimately mean the person is debt-free.
Delude Member	Mon Jan 22 07:25:04 Not a false analogy. You have claimed that due to me or some of us expressing a viewpoint that differs from yours. Is that someone we condone the actions or done it ourselves. So I can only conclude that if I defend a person who had been accused of murder. By that logic I must have either murdered someone myself or condone the actions. You introduced that variable. Not me. It's hot rod logic. And it's stupid and disingenuous.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 07:29:58 Delude I have given you the premise for the argument. For the argument to fall, you have to attack the premise. 1. We all nag 2. There is a boundary between nagging and criminal assault 3. You have demonstrated not seeing that boundary 4. You have almost certainly crossed the boundary between nagging and sexual assault. Feel free to attack the argument at any of those points, instead of drawing a false analogy.
Delude Member	Mon Jan 22 07:37:22 There is no false analogy. I am going by what you have stated that prompted the response. Your contempt in form of quips is prevalent. Ultimately, along with Seb as you see his deductions. Is that due to a defense and not agreeing to your views. We must be all guilty of sexual assault because we have "normalized" it. So from what I take from you is that If someone should ever be accused of murder. And I defend it. Hot rod logic will say that either I've murdered someone or condone such actions. Or are you going to have me believe that you and Seb did not infer that? I mean there are posts currently in this thread demonstrating that sentiment.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 07:40:13 Delude Ultimately, you could say: 1. I don't nag 2. (that one seems a bit hard to refute) 3. I see the boundary, but it is past penetration 4. I would never penetrate anyway as I am a gentleman. Or somesuch. Going for victime status is very HR. Not cool, bro.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 07:44:14 Nim: Who said anything about prison?
Delude Member	Mon Jan 22 07:45:16 No self victimization or pity. Your contemptuous quips is what I am going with. You could say that you just don't have a point and just trolling.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 07:47:03 Its incidentally more about you condemning those who condemn what we consider sexual assault. There are lots of ways you could de-escalate if you so desired. Mainly be recognizing the validity of the position, but disagreeing in the specific circumstance. The woman has the right to self-identify and she is not actually identifying as the victim of sexual assault. Legal recourse is available to her, but she is limiting her actions to social condemnation. Which is also her right. In sum, it seems she thinks he was right on the border of sexual assault, but did not pass it beyond social awareness being a sufficient form of reaction. She was there after all, so knows more of the nuance than we ever will. Or somesuch.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 07:48:10 I had 4 points. Which you are choosing not to engage and instead insist I am victimizing you somehow. As illustrated by your false analogy. Not cool, bro.
Seb Member	Mon Jan 22 07:50:13 Nim: I was objecting to your hypocritical cant not your implied slur. I feel dropping that tidbit in there is no different from my flip comment about wondering into the back story of handmaids tale. Given your propensity to cry foul and label anything that upsets you as dishonest you might want to decide what is acceptable behaviour and stick to it if you want to avoid charges of hypocrisy.
Delude Member	Mon Jan 22 07:52:02 As jergul continues his contemptuous quips.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 07:56:15 You are running with being a victim of my contempt? heh. Contempt is too strong a word. Overbearing perhaps.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Mon Jan 22 07:57:32 "Bubba" being the classical prison rape cellmate. I reciprocate in jest, but clarified I don't think you are a rapist. Have you clarified anything of the sort, when I have objected to your slurs? No you double down. So suck it.
Delude Member	Mon Jan 22 07:58:11 "They were kissing. He suggested sex. She said no. He performed as sex act on her anyway." They were kissing, he suggested sex by stating grabbing a condom. She said slow down lets chill. [An event missing]. He performs oral sex and asked he to reciprocated. She agrees and does. Fixed.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 07:58:54 Nimi I will clarify: Steriods+clubbing+acid Yah, you have crossed the line.
Delude Member	Mon Jan 22 07:59:42 "You are running with being a victim of my contempt? heh. Contempt is too strong a word. Overbearing perhaps." You continue, I call it out. Seems fair to me consider in your actions.
Delude Member	Mon Jan 22 08:00:44 There we go, jergul not insinuating anything at all with the inference towars Nim.
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 08:04:11 Lol delude, I was not insinuating at all. High risk behaviour combined with boundary unawareness moves likelihood to certainty. Its in his past, but does explain his present. (by humanist and feminist perspectives I have commited sexual assault. Humanism and Feminism are therefore evil).
jergul large member	Mon Jan 22 08:07:21 "Calling out" SUch a powerful reaction. You go, girl.
	show deleted posts