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.
I was gonna reply to your direct reply to me but I think your account is important and fits well with your other comment to reply all together.
First I want to make It clear that It sucks what happened to you, I am sorry about what happened, I can only imagine the trauma and panic that such betrayal or framing could do to someone, and I am glad that there was a lot of proof and everything was clear out at the end.
I once watched a podcast about Nordic countries prisons and sentences and someone mentioned a phrase that stayed with me ever since. They said “Extreme and anecdotal cases make bad laws” and since then I think a more general expression would be “extreme cases make bad public policy”. The point being avoiding gut feeling emotional reaction that may lead to worst outcome or even the opposite of what was intended. It can be good as a starting point, to evaluate if something needs to be done or change but It needs to be just that, a starting point that then goes on to be based on scientific and statistical data.
Although one of the parts lying is a really hard problem to solve in “one said the other said” situations there is a lot of scientific and statistical data to get to the policy of “Believing the woman”, "A drunk woman cannot consent " and so forth. The reason being, the data shows that rape is under reported, that the victim faces a number of challenges just go forward with an accusations and that it puts a lot of risks on the victim, they are ostracized, people tend to not believe in them, they say it is their fault, etc etc. The point being, the data points out that is really costly socially and personally for a victim of sexual assault to come forward and so is very unlikely that the person is lying. Also the data shows that there is very little cases of a someone lying of being victim of SA. And none of the appeal to believe the woman is law, the slogan is an appeal to have better policy for a starting point in an allegation, for the people coming forward to be treated seriously. No one is being convicted of rape based on a single unsubstantiated account.
I know that your point is about “what if both parties were drunk”, it is the same principle, same data.
Anyway,.I already talked too much, but I hope my hamblings made sense.
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.
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.
I was gonna reply to your direct reply to me but I think your account is important and fits well with your other comment to reply all together.
First I want to make It clear that It sucks what happened to you, I am sorry about what happened, I can only imagine the trauma and panic that such betrayal or framing could do to someone, and I am glad that there was a lot of proof and everything was clear out at the end.
I once watched a podcast about Nordic countries prisons and sentences and someone mentioned a phrase that stayed with me ever since. They said “Extreme and anecdotal cases make bad laws” and since then I think a more general expression would be “extreme cases make bad public policy”. The point being avoiding gut feeling emotional reaction that may lead to worst outcome or even the opposite of what was intended. It can be good as a starting point, to evaluate if something needs to be done or change but It needs to be just that, a starting point that then goes on to be based on scientific and statistical data.
Although one of the parts lying is a really hard problem to solve in “one said the other said” situations there is a lot of scientific and statistical data to get to the policy of “Believing the woman”, "A drunk woman cannot consent " and so forth. The reason being, the data shows that rape is under reported, that the victim faces a number of challenges just go forward with an accusations and that it puts a lot of risks on the victim, they are ostracized, people tend to not believe in them, they say it is their fault, etc etc. The point being, the data points out that is really costly socially and personally for a victim of sexual assault to come forward and so is very unlikely that the person is lying. Also the data shows that there is very little cases of a someone lying of being victim of SA. And none of the appeal to believe the woman is law, the slogan is an appeal to have better policy for a starting point in an allegation, for the people coming forward to be treated seriously. No one is being convicted of rape based on a single unsubstantiated account.
I know that your point is about “what if both parties were drunk”, it is the same principle, same data.
Anyway,.I already talked too much, but I hope my hamblings made sense.
Yeah she was raped by those men. It wasn’t only because she was under the influence either.
Agreeing to sex with two men doesn’t mean she consented to a gang rape.
Didn’t say she wasn’t. The four that came in later were absolutely rapists.
But she willingly and voluntarily consented to sex with three men, then later claimed they raped her.
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.