There might not be any rapist at the party until they become one at that party. It’s not like they’re born a rapist. It’s a consequence of their own actions.
If you haven’t raped anyone, but would if you thought consequences wouldn’t come back to you, then you’re a rapist.
…and if you haven’t raped anyone, but you’re drunk and high and an attractive person of the appropriate sex who is also drunk and high suggests sex then?
Never believe that anti-Semites are completely unaware of the absurdity of their replies. They know that their remarks are frivolous, open to challenge. But they are amusing themselves, for it is their adversary who is obliged to use words responsibly, since he believes in words. The anti-Semites have the right to play. They even like to play with discourse for, by giving ridiculous reasons, they discredit the seriousness of their interlocutors. They delight in acting in bad faith, since they seek not to persuade by sound argument but to intimidate and disconcert. If you press them too closely, they will abruptly fall silent, loftily indicating by some phrase that the time for argument is past.
90%+ of the population has no morals aside from legal/religious consequences. Of those people most don’t rape because they have no interest in doing so.
That’s 100% not how that works. You’re getting into thought crime territory. You’re not a rapist until you rape. You’re not a murderer until you murder. You can’t accuse someone of something they might do.
Ya this whole post and the general movement around it is just meant to razz men up before an important election by making deceitful arguments about men having some kind of original rape sin. The people making these posts are not acting in good faith. OP mostly posts articles that are all about politics, and mostly about Donald Trump. Think about how you consume media at a time like this.
I get the sentiment but I’m willing to bet a vast majority of people genuinely think they would “just do the right thing in that situation.” But people underestimate the temptation in the moment. They’ve never actually thought to try and put themselves in that situation, or what they might do, they just thought “of course im a good person” and left it at that.
And naturally the mere suggestion of “thinking it out” is met with ridicule. “How can you even consider it?! This should be a fast, easy answer!!”. When not thinking about it at all is what contributed to it happening.
but I’m willing to bet a vast majority of people genuinely think they would “just do the right thing in that situation.” But people underestimate the temptation in the moment.
Big “I’m not a sinner because I want to get into heaven” energy.
I’m saying people seem to think in their head they are a good person so they will just naturally do “the right thing” all the time. Then they get blindsided by their actual thoughts or feelings when they’re actually in that situation.
Especially when it’s someone they care about. Try to imagine the person you love the most committed some heinous crime. Would you immediately call the police and turn them in? Or would you hesitate due to personal feelings?
“Oh, but they would never do that.”
Yeah, and that’s exactly my point. Just thinking something will “never happen” leaves you at the mercy of your feelings in the moment, which most people would be very surprised to learn about themselves is not always so honorable.
I’m saying people seem to think in their head they are a good person so they will just naturally do “the right thing” all the time. Then they get blindsided by their actual thoughts or feelings when they’re actually in that situation.
It’s pretty clear, but plenty of the religious people I’ve interacted with have effectively told me they don’t sin because of their religion, or they wouldn’t do something specifically because their religion forbids it. Not because they don’t want to do it, because ‘god’ says no.
Other people can get their morals from their own self, and don’t have to worry about what they would do in the moment in a situation like that. And this isn’t me talking shit. I’ve been in that situation with female identifying friends multiple times, and taking advantage of them in that state literally never crossed my mind. Because I have an internal moral compass that doesn’t need external motivation to not be a fuck head and abuse someone like that.
Ok, I can see the connection but I wasn’t really aiming for the religious angle when I used the word “temptation”, I just thought it best described what was happening.
It’s kind of similar to when people criticize someone for “selling out” when they themselves have never been offered an obscene amount of money to compromise their morals. When in reality they would probably “sell out” for much less.
I never accused you of or criticized you for taking that angle, but that doesn’t change that it’s the same energy I’ve seen all my life from those sorts of people.
Whether intentional or not, it feels like the argument is working to offload responsibility from the abuser for the abuse with an implication that anyone could fall victim to the situation, rather than it being a personal failing for choosing to engage in the abuse.
I may just be sensitive to that line of argumentation, but I can’t stand seeing it in practice. Abusers choose to engage in abuse, and a lot of time they’re just continuing the cycle because that’s what they know. And the only way to break the cycle is to call out the mentality and hope people can change, be it themselves or their argument/thought patterns. But standing by changes nothing.
A lot of non religious people get their morals internally. We dont need threat of hell, or the carrot of heaven, because its pretty clear what is and isnt socially acceptable
Anecdotal evidence: I’m a frat boy who has been in this situation multiple times. I can’t even understand how that would be tempting to a non-rapist; the sex wouldn’t even be good! My layman understanding is that it’s about power, not horny.
This situation came up so often that we had a standard procedure of getting the girls rehydrated and in a cab.
IMHO the problem isn’t that most men want to rape, it’s that most men would cover for an alleged rapist friend. They value their gender team over basic decency.
You’re also thinking describing an extreme scenario. What about the scenario when you’re both drunk and just too impaired to make good decisions? The other person isn’t in the right mind to consent but you were both fooling around before you both got too fucked up. That’s a scenario where bad decisions get made. From my understanding the facilitating of those scenarios is “rape culture”. Not every case is going to be a simple as one person was sober and the other was passed out.
You make it seem like when someone is drunk they may do anything. If I killed someone while I was drunk I wouldn’t just chuckle “sorry I wasn’t myself”. I would feel extreme remorse and want to repent for the harm I caused.
That’s exactly what everyone says. And legally that is the case in a lot of places.
That’s how a lot of these cases are. Even the Cornell one started off as her voluntarily having sex with 3 of them, which she then claimed were also rape.
Hell I’ve personally been in that situation. At a buddy’s party drunk. Someone wife brought a friend and she was all over me, getting me to drink more. Telling other people she was gonna get me in bed. Then the next day tried to tell her friend that she was too drunk to consent and that I raped her. If I didn’t have literally 20 eyewitnesses to her being the instigator and her texting her friend during the party that she was going to seduce me, then I would have been charged with rape. Despite being the one that under the same logic would have actually been the one that was raped.
What temptation? It is not a donut at 2am when you are on a diet. If you find yourself with someone your hate in a situation to commit the perfect crime, would you kill them, would that be tempting? Jesus.
Actually proving the second part of my comment true so thanks for that. The idea that everyone will “just do the right thing” all the time is incredibly naive imo. Not meaning that as an insult either.
Idk where you’re from, but if you were alone in a room with Donald Trump, or Putin, or Netanyahu, and there was a confirmed 0% chance you would get caught, you would seriously not even consider killing them?
In my head I predicted that strawman argument, maybe I should have edited my comment to preemptively reply to it, but anyways.
Your putting the question “If I had the opportunity to punish a heinous criminal that got away with it would I do it?”, actually your examples are even more “clear cut”, they are “If I had the opportunity to punish and stop a heinous criminal from continuing to actively is killing a bunch of people, would I do it?” This are very different questions. That is not what I mean and I think it is pretty clear.
What temptation? It is not a donut at 2am when you are on a diet. If you find yourself with someone your hate in a situation to commit the perfect crime, would you kill them, would that be tempting? Jesus.
YOU’RE the one arguing about killing someone and getting away with “the perfect crime”… why would you even try to make that comparison if you already knew that they weren’t at all the same??
Just seems disingenuous and ignoring the fact that thinking good people will just always do good things leaves people woefully unprepared if they ever find themselves in a questionable situation.
But you may have been raised a rapist when the messaging is women are objects of desire with limited purpose in life, which includes satisfying men’s vanity, but also treating them like we’re all their moms the rest of the time…
Even then, you’re not raised a rapist, you would have been raised someone who is more likely to become a rapist. You aren’t that until you actually become it. I don’t think we should be accusing anyone of anything before they’ve even done it. You should absolutely call out any shitty behavior that leads you to suspect they’ll do harm to others wither it’s rape, murder, or some other crime. By saying they already were a rapist or raised as a rapist you’re taking away their free agency and kind ironically saying it wasn’t their fault that’s just how they were raised.
Thought provoking comment, thanks. If I’m interpreting what you’re saying correctly, there are people who find rape attractive, where they get off on the idea of raping someone. But a person feeling that way should not be called a rapist, because that’s a term that should be reserved for those who have actually committed the act of rape. Perhaps some psychological or medical term should be used for the rape-attracted instead?
That’s interesting, and complicates my worldview slightly. To shift topic, I’d begun to separate the idea of a pedophile from a child rapist. Because if someone has attractions to children, it’s not the same thing as that person being sexually involved with them. At first this seems to reinforce what I interpret you’re saying. Where the same term “pedo” is inappropriately used for both those who have and haven’t hurt children.
However, in the “pedo” case those who haven’t hurt children had the name first, and then that name was extended by popular culture to also mean those who have hurt children. Whereas with rapist it’s the reverse, where the common term is for the person who has committed the act, but there isn’t a common term for one who hasn’t.
And there’s a third case. In some cases we’ve begun to separate actions and defining a person by them. For example, “alcoholic” vs “someone with alcohol use disorder”, because someone can receive treatment and stop using alcohol. So, is there a potential third term for someone who stops raping? I think not, at least not anytime soon. There’s no known effective treatment for having attractions. For example, conversion therapy to “cure” homosexuality was nothing less than torture and also a complete failure. Chemical castration doesn’t remove attractions either, just sex drive. Modern therapy for various attractions involves helping the person accept the attraction not trying to remove the attraction. Therefore, if someone rapes once does that mean they should be forever defined as a rapist? In the present day, I’d say yes. Perhaps in the future we’ll have advanced our knowledge of medicine and the mind to be able to change attractions, but right now that’s simply not possible.
A lot of people seem to hate the idea that someone who is capable of coming up with or having some sort of affinity towards an activity and someone who has already committed that activity are separate. Mostly, they would point out that you need active pressure of society or laws to prevent the behavior.
Personally, I think active prevention, separating the concepts of impulse from activity, and working with people who are generally maladapted to society, but haven’t committed any actual harm would be a good thing, but these kinds of concepts have a lot of pushback from people.
If you’re willing to commit rape, you’re already a rapist even if you haven’t done it yet. Not legally, of course, but morally speaking there’s no difference between wanting to do it and doing it.
I just think it’s interesting that even in that short comment, you avoid assigning blame to the rapist and instead choose the passive “someone gets raped”.
Kinda like when cops shoot people. It’s always “person of interest was shot” instead of “the police shot the suspect”.
Hey can you do me a favor real quick? Please go back and read the sentence immediately before the one you’re talking about. Specifically the part that says “someone who has committed rape.”
There might not be any rapist at the party until they become one at that party. It’s not like they’re born a rapist. It’s a consequence of their own actions.
If you haven’t raped anyone, but would if you thought consequences wouldn’t come back to you, then you’re a rapist.
…and if you haven’t raped anyone, but you’re drunk and high and an attractive person of the appropriate sex who is also drunk and high suggests sex then?
Oh i don’t entertain this kind of thing.
Bold of you to assume that people don’t rape only because they fear the consequences
They’re saying that if that is the only reason someone doesn’t rape, then from a moral perspective they’re essentially a rapist.
90%+ of the population has no morals aside from legal/religious consequences. Of those people most don’t rape because they have no interest in doing so.
That’s 100% not how that works. You’re getting into thought crime territory. You’re not a rapist until you rape. You’re not a murderer until you murder. You can’t accuse someone of something they might do.
Ya this whole post and the general movement around it is just meant to razz men up before an important election by making deceitful arguments about men having some kind of original rape sin. The people making these posts are not acting in good faith. OP mostly posts articles that are all about politics, and mostly about Donald Trump. Think about how you consume media at a time like this.
I get the sentiment but I’m willing to bet a vast majority of people genuinely think they would “just do the right thing in that situation.” But people underestimate the temptation in the moment. They’ve never actually thought to try and put themselves in that situation, or what they might do, they just thought “of course im a good person” and left it at that.
And naturally the mere suggestion of “thinking it out” is met with ridicule. “How can you even consider it?! This should be a fast, easy answer!!”. When not thinking about it at all is what contributed to it happening.
Big “I’m not a sinner because I want to get into heaven” energy.
I dont even know what that’s supposed to mean.
I’m saying people seem to think in their head they are a good person so they will just naturally do “the right thing” all the time. Then they get blindsided by their actual thoughts or feelings when they’re actually in that situation.
Especially when it’s someone they care about. Try to imagine the person you love the most committed some heinous crime. Would you immediately call the police and turn them in? Or would you hesitate due to personal feelings?
“Oh, but they would never do that.” Yeah, and that’s exactly my point. Just thinking something will “never happen” leaves you at the mercy of your feelings in the moment, which most people would be very surprised to learn about themselves is not always so honorable.
It’s pretty clear, but plenty of the religious people I’ve interacted with have effectively told me they don’t sin because of their religion, or they wouldn’t do something specifically because their religion forbids it. Not because they don’t want to do it, because ‘god’ says no.
Other people can get their morals from their own self, and don’t have to worry about what they would do in the moment in a situation like that. And this isn’t me talking shit. I’ve been in that situation with female identifying friends multiple times, and taking advantage of them in that state literally never crossed my mind. Because I have an internal moral compass that doesn’t need external motivation to not be a fuck head and abuse someone like that.
Ok, I can see the connection but I wasn’t really aiming for the religious angle when I used the word “temptation”, I just thought it best described what was happening.
It’s kind of similar to when people criticize someone for “selling out” when they themselves have never been offered an obscene amount of money to compromise their morals. When in reality they would probably “sell out” for much less.
I never accused you of or criticized you for taking that angle, but that doesn’t change that it’s the same energy I’ve seen all my life from those sorts of people.
Whether intentional or not, it feels like the argument is working to offload responsibility from the abuser for the abuse with an implication that anyone could fall victim to the situation, rather than it being a personal failing for choosing to engage in the abuse.
I may just be sensitive to that line of argumentation, but I can’t stand seeing it in practice. Abusers choose to engage in abuse, and a lot of time they’re just continuing the cycle because that’s what they know. And the only way to break the cycle is to call out the mentality and hope people can change, be it themselves or their argument/thought patterns. But standing by changes nothing.
Ok that’s fair, I can get pretty defensive and misread what people are actually saying online.
I guess i was trying to issue a warning more than offload responsibility.
A lot of non religious people get their morals internally. We dont need threat of hell, or the carrot of heaven, because its pretty clear what is and isnt socially acceptable
Anecdotal evidence: I’m a frat boy who has been in this situation multiple times. I can’t even understand how that would be tempting to a non-rapist; the sex wouldn’t even be good! My layman understanding is that it’s about power, not horny.
This situation came up so often that we had a standard procedure of getting the girls rehydrated and in a cab.
IMHO the problem isn’t that most men want to rape, it’s that most men would cover for an alleged rapist friend. They value their gender team over basic decency.
You’re also thinking describing an extreme scenario. What about the scenario when you’re both drunk and just too impaired to make good decisions? The other person isn’t in the right mind to consent but you were both fooling around before you both got too fucked up. That’s a scenario where bad decisions get made. From my understanding the facilitating of those scenarios is “rape culture”. Not every case is going to be a simple as one person was sober and the other was passed out.
You make it seem like when someone is drunk they may do anything. If I killed someone while I was drunk I wouldn’t just chuckle “sorry I wasn’t myself”. I would feel extreme remorse and want to repent for the harm I caused.
So why does the same not apply to sex?
Why is it if two people are both drunk and have sex, that only one is at fault?
If a woman is drunk and goes to a drunk guy at a party and tells him she wants to have sex, why does that make him a rapist?
It doesn’t.
That’s exactly what everyone says. And legally that is the case in a lot of places.
That’s how a lot of these cases are. Even the Cornell one started off as her voluntarily having sex with 3 of them, which she then claimed were also rape.
Hell I’ve personally been in that situation. At a buddy’s party drunk. Someone wife brought a friend and she was all over me, getting me to drink more. Telling other people she was gonna get me in bed. Then the next day tried to tell her friend that she was too drunk to consent and that I raped her. If I didn’t have literally 20 eyewitnesses to her being the instigator and her texting her friend during the party that she was going to seduce me, then I would have been charged with rape. Despite being the one that under the same logic would have actually been the one that was raped.
FWIW I’m only talking about situations like this meme, the Cornell 7, and what I’ve seen personally. Not disputing that nuanced situations exist.
Fair enough. Just seems like it’s a cartoonish scenario without any ambiguity that really isn’t worth pondering.
What temptation? It is not a donut at 2am when you are on a diet. If you find yourself with someone your hate in a situation to commit the perfect crime, would you kill them, would that be tempting? Jesus.
Actually proving the second part of my comment true so thanks for that. The idea that everyone will “just do the right thing” all the time is incredibly naive imo. Not meaning that as an insult either.
Idk where you’re from, but if you were alone in a room with Donald Trump, or Putin, or Netanyahu, and there was a confirmed 0% chance you would get caught, you would seriously not even consider killing them?
In my head I predicted that strawman argument, maybe I should have edited my comment to preemptively reply to it, but anyways.
Your putting the question “If I had the opportunity to punish a heinous criminal that got away with it would I do it?”, actually your examples are even more “clear cut”, they are “If I had the opportunity to punish and stop a heinous criminal from continuing to actively is killing a bunch of people, would I do it?” This are very different questions. That is not what I mean and I think it is pretty clear.
What strawman? This was your literal quote
YOU’RE the one arguing about killing someone and getting away with “the perfect crime”… why would you even try to make that comparison if you already knew that they weren’t at all the same??
Just seems disingenuous and ignoring the fact that thinking good people will just always do good things leaves people woefully unprepared if they ever find themselves in a questionable situation.
But you may have been raised a rapist when the messaging is women are objects of desire with limited purpose in life, which includes satisfying men’s vanity, but also treating them like we’re all their moms the rest of the time…
Even then, you’re not raised a rapist, you would have been raised someone who is more likely to become a rapist. You aren’t that until you actually become it. I don’t think we should be accusing anyone of anything before they’ve even done it. You should absolutely call out any shitty behavior that leads you to suspect they’ll do harm to others wither it’s rape, murder, or some other crime. By saying they already were a rapist or raised as a rapist you’re taking away their free agency and kind ironically saying it wasn’t their fault that’s just how they were raised.
Thought provoking comment, thanks. If I’m interpreting what you’re saying correctly, there are people who find rape attractive, where they get off on the idea of raping someone. But a person feeling that way should not be called a rapist, because that’s a term that should be reserved for those who have actually committed the act of rape. Perhaps some psychological or medical term should be used for the rape-attracted instead?
That’s interesting, and complicates my worldview slightly. To shift topic, I’d begun to separate the idea of a pedophile from a child rapist. Because if someone has attractions to children, it’s not the same thing as that person being sexually involved with them. At first this seems to reinforce what I interpret you’re saying. Where the same term “pedo” is inappropriately used for both those who have and haven’t hurt children.
However, in the “pedo” case those who haven’t hurt children had the name first, and then that name was extended by popular culture to also mean those who have hurt children. Whereas with rapist it’s the reverse, where the common term is for the person who has committed the act, but there isn’t a common term for one who hasn’t.
And there’s a third case. In some cases we’ve begun to separate actions and defining a person by them. For example, “alcoholic” vs “someone with alcohol use disorder”, because someone can receive treatment and stop using alcohol. So, is there a potential third term for someone who stops raping? I think not, at least not anytime soon. There’s no known effective treatment for having attractions. For example, conversion therapy to “cure” homosexuality was nothing less than torture and also a complete failure. Chemical castration doesn’t remove attractions either, just sex drive. Modern therapy for various attractions involves helping the person accept the attraction not trying to remove the attraction. Therefore, if someone rapes once does that mean they should be forever defined as a rapist? In the present day, I’d say yes. Perhaps in the future we’ll have advanced our knowledge of medicine and the mind to be able to change attractions, but right now that’s simply not possible.
A lot of people seem to hate the idea that someone who is capable of coming up with or having some sort of affinity towards an activity and someone who has already committed that activity are separate. Mostly, they would point out that you need active pressure of society or laws to prevent the behavior.
Personally, I think active prevention, separating the concepts of impulse from activity, and working with people who are generally maladapted to society, but haven’t committed any actual harm would be a good thing, but these kinds of concepts have a lot of pushback from people.
I can’t tell if you’re being sarcastic or not… But there are legitimately people that do rape roleplay.
If you’re willing to commit rape, you’re already a rapist even if you haven’t done it yet. Not legally, of course, but morally speaking there’s no difference between wanting to do it and doing it.
There is a huge, giant fucking massive difference between someone that would plausibly commit rape and someone who has committed rape.
The main difference is in one case, someone gets raped.
Well, yeah. There’s a huge difference for the victim. But I wouldn’t say lack of opportunity is a moral victory for the would-be rapist.
Interesting use of passive voice.
Brother really had no argument.
“Erm you use the wrong there/their. The’refour your argument is invalid”-ass response
I just think it’s interesting that even in that short comment, you avoid assigning blame to the rapist and instead choose the passive “someone gets raped”.
Kinda like when cops shoot people. It’s always “person of interest was shot” instead of “the police shot the suspect”.
Hey can you do me a favor real quick? Please go back and read the sentence immediately before the one you’re talking about. Specifically the part that says “someone who has committed rape.”
Honestly, its a poor worded post. Pretty sure, no one would invite actual rapists to parties.
People invite actual rapists to parties all the time. Most victims know their rapists before the rape happens.
But do they know if they are a rapist? Even then, there are definitely people who knowingly invite rapist to a party. Epstein famously did that.
Yes and no. As you said, there are many such cases of people knowingly inviting rapists to parties.
Sounds like something only a rapist would give reason to rape. Starts with never asking for permission. Ends with that too.