• rekabis@lemmy.ca
    4·
    20 hours ago

    Even a “yes” can, and frequently is, converted into a “no” retroactively, sometimes well after the act. It all comes down to feelings before facts and how she personally prefers to interpret the event regardless of the passage of time.

    And unless the entire action is videotaped and notarized, as a man you are defined as being in the wrong 100% of the time.

    Plus, as a man you are also faced with epic levels of societal hypocrisy that you have no ability to counteract, regardless of how things actually went.

    The only rational and sane risk-assessment analysis for any man in the lower-90% is to consider ALL responses a “no”, and to just walk away.

    It’s actually that simple.

    • Doomsider@lemmy.world
      3·
      19 hours ago

      Yeah going to have to call bullshit here. First of all a retroactive no is not something that is a chargeable offense. Most SA goes unreported and only a small fraction of what is reported is ever investigated and even a smaller amount is ever successfully prosecuted.

      She said he said is usually ignored by the police so it never reaches anywhere close to what you seem concerned about. Not only is this backed up by statistical evidence, as a social worker and a person whose had the privilege to talk to many women about this I can attest that only a couple out of hundreds ever got any justice.

      The whole lives ruined thing is a misnomer that is born out with tons of men in power who never get in trouble. You hear about a few cases of men being held accountable and somehow extrapolate that into a common occurrence. It isn’t.

      You can even look to POTUS who is an epic rapist still walking free after thousands of SAs in his lifetime. The Metoo movement turned out to be a sad joke with only a small handful of men in power successfully prosecuted. The backlash against the Metoo movement has been epic though with police, prosecutors, and judges all ensuring that justice will never be served.

      If you don’t feel that any women would ever consent to have sex with you without changing her mind later, you are welcome to that opinion. Considering your mindset I would actually agree with you here as consent is less about yes and more about caring for another person.

      On the other hand, if you get to know someone and build trust over time and they like you in that way things will happen naturally. I am hoping that you experience this if you are open to it. As you said it, it really is that simple.

      • rekabis@lemmy.ca
        1·
        17 hours ago

        tons of men in power who never get in trouble.

        Here, people, is an absolutely exquisite example of the Apex Fallacy in action: using the 1% to 0.1% of men that fit the conditions and applying that case to the other 99% who don’t have these characteristics and could never achieve the same prosecutorial immunity.

        For the vast majority of men, even the insinuation of sexual malfeasance is enough to destroy careers and marriages.

        Hell, even good samaritans lose everything, and they did absolutely nothing wrong.

        • Doomsider@lemmy.world
          1·
          13 hours ago

          Out of every 1,000 sexual assaults that occur, only about 310 are reported. Of those, approximately 50 lead to an arrest, 28 cases result in a felony conviction, and only 25 perpetrators end up incarcerated.

          These stats do not show an epidemic of men getting convicted and actually show the polar opposite. A society that is indifferent to SA.

          Up to 30% of men in college will admit to committing a SA. Those are the ones willing to admit. How many men get kicked out of college for SA?

          Large universities found that, on average, colleges suspend only 1 in every 12,400 students and expel only 1 in every 22,900 students annually for sexual misconduct.

          Woah sounds like no one is doing shit. This is the reality that dwarfs your fantasy about men losing everything.

          The few that do generally deserve it, but I am sure you can drum up some questionable cases. These pale in comparison to reality and trying to consider an outlier as what is common is just pure ignorance on anyone’s part that does.

          So no, the reality is almost no one faces any consequences at all.

          • rekabis@lemmy.ca
            1·
            14 hours ago

            Let me put something else in your pipe to smoke:

            Women rape men as frequently as men rape women.

            And now the real surprise: when asked about experiences in the last 12 months, men reported being “made to penetrate” - either by physical force or due to intoxication - at virtually the same rates as women reported rape (both 1.1 percent in 2010, and 1.7 and 1.6 respectively in 2011).

            In other words, if being made to penetrate someone was counted as rape - and why shouldn’t it be? - then the headlines could have focused on a truly sensational CDC finding: that women rape men as often as men rape women.

            And yet, where are the convictions of female rapists??

            crickets

            If you want to clean house, start with your own.

            And the real kicker comes down to these three points:

            1. It took the FBI until 2015 to even begin recording female-on-male rape as rape, because before then it wasn’t considered rape. And so national law enforcement stats for female-on-make rape in America just don’t exist before 2015.
            2. Many police precincts still use software that hard-codes the victim as female and the perp as male, further frustrating justice by creating “erroneous” records that are trivial to dismiss, and preventing a full accounting of the problem by preventing correct gender identification of the victim and perp.
            3. Almost all men have been brainwashed to think that it is impossible for a woman to rape a man, be it physical or psychological coercion, so many of these male victims don’t even realize they have been victimized.

            And the disparity of how society treats male rapists vs female rapists gets horrifically misandrist once you truly examine the rape of minors.

            Because many male children raped by adult women get traumatized by the legal system as it extracts child support from them to pay their rapist for her crimes. And society celebrates and trivializes these rapes, with the media calling them “trysts” and “romps” and doing everything in its power to absolve the rapists of responsibility by making it look like the child was the aggressor.

            • Doomsider@lemmy.world
              1·
              14 hours ago

              Is that your coup de grâce?

              Let me tell you a story about my daughter when she was a teenager. She had a guy friend and one time they were playing around trying to one up each other and he said he lost his virginity to his babysitter when has was thirteen. My daughter immediately apologized and said she was sorry that happened to him. He was confused because no one had ever explained to him that he was raped. He had a realization that day.

              I was very proud of my daughter. I am not sure what part of social worker you don’t understand.

              At any rate, in this study you neglect to realize that man on man rape far exceeds woman on man rape unless you are counting molestation. Read that again, the majority of rapes are from other men.

              I have worked closely with crisis shelters and I have seen all walks of life. That is how I see through the bullshit.

  • Maxxus@sh.itjust.works
    4·
    1 day ago

    I’m going to scroll through this whole comment section and not see a single Sexy Losers reference, aren’t I?

    Edit: bjoern’s restored my faith in shitposting.

  • gmtom@lemmy.world
    18·
    2 days ago

    I might get hate for this, but you can still consent when you’re drunk, so long as you’re not like barely conscious drunk or you’re not being manipulated coerced by someone.

    • humorlessrepost@lemmy.worldEnglish
      19·
      2 days ago

      Yeah, as an alcoholic, I don’t think every sexual encounter I’ve had in the past decade or more was mutual rape.

      • WorldsDumbestMan@lemmy.todayEnglish
        2·
        1 day ago

        If both are drunk, neither can rape and it is kind of seen like animals fucking naturaly. You both wake up as non-animals and are horrified by the ugly person on the other side that you fucked.

  • GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today
    3·
    1 day ago

    Aight, I know this comment is gonna bite me later, but I gotta speak my piece. I’m playing devil’s advocate here. Beastiality, zoophilia, whatever you wanna call it… It isn’t always a case of raping the animal. What is consent? It is ultimately an extremely arbitrary idea that humans fling around. For human-on-human interactions, obviously society has cemented it as something with clear-cut lines and rules. But, that’s pretty much where it ends for us. Consent from animals is not something we ever seriously consider in any way.

    Think about it. Did domesticated species, which we have dominated for our benefit, consent? Do dogs consent to anything we put them through as our pets? Do cats? Birds? Bugs?! The answer is no. We cannot communicate with other animals. So we forgo consent when it comes to the animals we interact with. Even when it comes to things that really has no direct benefit to the animal.

    All I’m saying is, rape is rape, for sure. But when it comes to inter-species erotica, as a man once called it, it can’t all be rape. Because animals rely on instinct more than anything, especially when it comes to sex. I guarantee a horse will show you when it doesn’t appreciate it being touched in the no-no spot.

    Okey doke. Bring on the rain. 🙂‍↕️

    • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
      5·
      1 day ago

      If you can adequately prove to me that the animal understood and consented then what happens between you and the goat is your own business.
      It takes more than enthusiastic participation: it also requires the ability to appropriately conceptualize what’s being consented to. It’s why drugging someone and then using their enthusiasm as consent doesn’t fly, or why a 13 year old can’t consent to a relationship with someone much older than them.

      A goat understands goat sex well enough that we all generally agree they can consent if they’re obviously into it.
      A goat does not understand interspecies sex well enough to consent, regardless of their interest or arousal.

      At best your claim is that sometimes it’s closer to “statutorily raping” an animal, commonly known as “rape”.

      So put the horse back in the barn before you let the horse out of the barn.

      • GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today
        1·
        1 day ago

        Consent does not matter. To say it matters in this instance is insanely hypocritical. Unless you have that stance on literally every other aspect of our dominating other species for both our and their own benefit.

        Statutory rape is a legal term for humans. It is not something that applies to other animals. Rape is rape. Since consent does not matter with animals, the best we can do is infer using context. Is the animal restrained in any way? Have they drugged the animal? What’s the relationship between the animal and person? Etc.

        • ricecake@sh.itjust.works
          2·
          1 day ago

          If, as you say, consent doesn’t matter for animals, then you can’t rape one at all and we can fall back to the more conventional “abuse”, “mistreatment” or “animal cruelty”.

          Your “contextual inference” seems to be the inference of consent, so I’m confused by what you mean. If consent doesn’t matter then clearly it doesn’t matter if the goat is tied to a pole.

          I’m not seeing the hypocrisy. If you kill a goat, you’re a goat killer. If you buy a puppy, you’re a puppy buyer. If you fuck a goat you’re a goat fucker, and unless you passed the impossibly high bar of proving consent, you’re a non-consensual goat fucker, commonly called a “goat rapist”.

          • GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today
            1·
            1 day ago

            You know what, this has actually given me something to think about. I’ll concede. Thank you for challenging my view on this.

    • Billegh@lemmy.world
      7·
      1 day ago

      I don’t really care about the hill you’ve chosen to die on, but I will sit here and watch what happens.

    • LonelySea@reddthat.com
      2·
      1 day ago

      So…

      Most of our domesticated species actively and wilfully participated in their own domestication in one way or another, because they realized that hanging around humans was good for their survival. Especially cats. They were basically unchanged and never selectively bred past “hey my good mouser had kittens, you want one neighbor?” up until about 200 years ago.

      Animals can absolutely tell you “fuck right off I do not want that right now,” but they can also be trained to tolerate a lot against their own wishes (i.e. veterinary procedures) Which… Don’t use that against them just for your pleasure. That’s sadistic. And gross.

      Add in that most female animals do not engage in sex for pleasure, barring a select few species that should not be kept as pets, and you have your answer. Don’t be gross. Keep your deviancy to yourself and your chosen, consenting, adult, human partners.

      • GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today
        1·
        1 day ago

        Your best argument is it’s gross. That’s something I agree on. My argument is that not all beastiality is rape as defined by our understanding of consent with animals.

    • absentbird@lemmy.world
      3·
      1 day ago

      I don’t think anyone is arguing that animals have no understanding of consent, I think the issue is that there’s a communication barrier in dealing with humans (I.e. they can’t say ‘yes’)

      Zoologists have a pretty robust understanding of rape and consent within the animal kingdom, but it’s always through observing interactions between animals.

      • GimmeUrBelt@lemmy.today
        2·
        1 day ago

        The point is consent is something that doesn’t matter to the conversation of people who do the deed with animals. I think a much more productive line of questioning would be: Is the animal restrained in any way? Have they drugged the animal? What’s the relationship between the animal and person?

    • musicjunkie@lemmy.world
      1·
      1 day ago

      Idk how porn brained you have to be to conflate owning/training a pet with raping animals and whether this a shitpost or you actually think you cooked but approximately 0% of your comment holds any actual logical meaning