Some highlights, by which I mean lowlights, of a recent discussion on The Spearhead of IMF head Dominique Strauss-Kahn’s arrest on sexual assault charges. The Spearheaders, naturally, have some unique and interesting perspectives on the case:
Black women (like the accuser) are all a bunch of liars. Run away!
Reality May 18, 2011 at 11:04
I knew it was going to be a black woman- I suspected from the second I heard about this. Crystal Magnum anyone? Don’t want to make this a racial issue- but how can you avoid it? You take 5 ounces of Female/Feminist hate and deception, add 8 ounces of the stereotypical black thing of always sniffing around for a lawsuit, stir .. and you have more than enough reason to avoid black women even more vigorously than women in general.
The case is somehow all about how badly “beta” men are discriminated against by evil women:
Commander Shepard May 18, 2011 at 11:53
Typically false rape allegations are made when a woman realizes she’s slept with a beta but doesn’t want her rep taking a hit and wants to avoid feeling like crap (betas are icky) my gut tells me either this is a totally fabricated set up (politically motivated) or Strauss-Kahn is getting a lesson in how betas have to apologize everyday for their existence.
She’s accusing him because she’s got AIDS and therefore (?) wants to make a quick buck, ethics be damned:
Avenger May 18, 2011 at 18:55 …
Since she has AIDS she knows that an infection could take her out at any time and she has a teenage daughter. A person like this will certainly not think like a normal person and may very well do something for a lump sum of cash since she has nothing to lose and may have some resentment towards men and doesn’t care what happens to this one guy. She also may be thinking that if she dies at least her daughter will have the money. This is not someone I would trust. …
I predict that Strauss will be released on bail tomorrow. He’ll pay the female’s lawyer some money and then the whole thing will just fade away.
He’s probably innocent, but he’s a white-hating Commie Jew bastard, so ha ha:
goldenfetus May 18, 2011 at 09:57
Libertarian here. I doubt this guy is guilty. Seems unlikely, yet possible. But as observed, this guy is a White-hating elite Marxist Jew. So while I agree that political disagreement is not sufficient grounds for wishing false-rape accusation/conviction on him, I submit that his hostility toward my people coupled with his general evil is enough to justify the enjoyment of his suffering. We can’t forget that his politics are what makes this possible in the first place, or ignore the ‘reap what you sow’ component here.
As a white guy, I’d like to say that goldenfetus does not in fact speak for “my people.”
And before anyone steps in to complain that I’ve picked the “outliers” in the discussions, the fanatics whose opinions aren’t shared by the MRA masses, I will note that (as is generally the case with Spearhead comments I quote) all of the comments here have gotten numerous upvotes from Spearhead readers, and only a handful of downvotes, if any. In other words, they represent something close to the Spearhead conventional wisdom. (And by “wisdom” here I mean “offensive idiocy.”)
The idea, NWOslave, is that one partner is sober enough to still have good judgement while the other partner does not. If a salesperson pressured an intoxicated person into making an unwanted purchase, then, yes, you can make a compelling case for fraud. It’s less of a crime, though, because most purchases don’t also violate bodily autonomy the same way rape does.
The crime isn’t that a couple splits a bottle of wine on a date, goes home, has sex and then declares it rape. That happens every night in this country, and it’s usually considered a good time by everyone involved. The crime is more along the lines of a rapist fucking a woman who is intoxicated to the point of being blackout drunk, who isn’t even aware of what’s going on, much less that there’s penetration occurring. The point is that she’s too drunk to even put up much of a fight.
And what about the man’s responsibility for his actions when around a drunk woman?
No Lady Victoria von Syrus, the idea is equality. If a man is drunk and has sex with a sober woman “she” is not to blame for his consent to sex, correct? Well?
Imagine if I came here and said I had a few drinks and had sex with a sober woman, and cried how she “took advantage of me.” You’d laugh in my face and rightfully so. Grow up, if I’m drinking I’m still accountable for my actions, so are you. And I already stated blacked out would be rape. As long as you’re concious it’s not.
Actually, NWOslave, if a guy told me that he was drunk and a woman took advantage of him sexually, I would take that very seriously.
Blacked-out drunk is rape, but there is also a line before a person blacks out where they cannot consent. Example: A person who is so drunk that they cannot form words. A person who is so drunk that they can say “no” but are not able to physically stop someone from touching them. A person who is so drunk that they cannot understand what is happening. A person who is so drunk that they can speak but do not make sense. A person who is so drunk that they have lost motor control of their body.
None of those people are unconscious, mind you, but they are bright line examples of what too drunk to consent looks like.
No, actually, I would not laugh in your face. I would be shocked, tell you what had happened to you was awful and ask how you were handling it and if there was anything I could do to help. I’d probably give you some links for support groups, in case you’d find them useful. The webcomic Something*Positive actually dealt with this in an old storyline, where a woman had sex with a man who was whacked out of his mind on pain meds (i.e., unable to give meaningful consent). Everyone except the woman in question did not doubt it was rape, and even she eventually realized she’d done something wrong. I think highly of the artist for being able to tackle the subject in the way he did.
Women can certainly rape men (and other women), and those women should be held accountable for their actions, the same way we would hold a man accountable who had raped a woman or another man.
Here’s a hint: if you tell a woman (or man) that another woman took advantage of you and raped you while you were drunk, and that woman laughs in your face, she’s probably not a feminist. Not every woman is a feminist – many women adhere to traditional gender norms and expectations, one of which is that a man cannot be raped by a woman – a gendered expectation as false as the idea that a woman in a short skirt invites her own rape.
Some facts about rape of men. (and yes, I do think those definitions of rape, are rape. Non-consent = rape)
Some facts about male rape
I happen to think spousal/partner rape can be female on male: and is vastly under-reported.
And nonsense like NWOslave’s crap here is a huge part of the reason why, and it’s incredibly “misandrist”.
Ohhhh Pecunium, you really dooooo want to help men. You must be going to the Holly school of “helping men.” She prattles on with this same, “why do you hate men so much” claptrap. Let me help ya out, nobody is buying what you’re selling, OK.
Riddle me this riddler. If a woman isn’t responsible for her actions while drunk, is a man responsible for his actions while drunk? Because if you excuse her action for being drunk, you have to excuse his actions for being drunk. Thats how equality works.
Shorter NWOaf: “Facts? I don’t need no steeenking facts!”
If a woman isn’t responsible for her actions while drunk, is a man responsible for his actions while drunk? Because if you excuse her action for being drunk, you have to excuse his actions for being drunk. Thats how equality works.
Indeed. That is how equality works. What’s puzzling is why you seem to insist that a drunk woman needs to take responsibility for the actions of any people who happen to be around her while she’s drunk.
NWOslave: If a woman isn’t responsible for her actions while drunk, is a man responsible for his actions while drunk? Because if you excuse her action for being drunk, you have to excuse his actions for being drunk. Thats how equality works.
I’ve already answered this above, basically, but let’s go over this again.
If a person shot a drunk person, would that be murder? Yes. The fact that the victim was drunk would not excuse the shooter’s actions.
If a drunk person shot a person, would that be murder? Yes. The shooter’s drunkenness would be a defense against first-degree premeditated murder, however.
So, to answer your question: If the drunk man is a victim, he would need no “excuse” for his actions. If the drunk man has raped someone, being drunk is not an excuse. Victim =/ offender.
/rule about NWO
Yes.
That was simple.
Now… riddle me this… a man has sex with a woman, failing to get her consent… why isn’t he responsible for it?
/resume rule
Oh, for fuck’s sake, NWO. A woman is responsible for her actions when she’s drunk. She just isn’t responsible for what SOMEONE ELSE decides to do to her, whether she’s drunk or not.
It appears that NWO is a bit sloooooow.
@Brett K…No one did anything “to her.” Cause women loves sex so feminists tell me, sometimes they like to drink and have sex at the same time.
Seriously? No one here has come even CLOSE to saying that drunk sex = rape. Drunk sex = drunk sex. Non-consensual sex = rape, and alcohol is often used by rapists as a way to get a non-consenting person not to resist too much. As are other drugs; as are threats; as is physical force.
I’ve had drunk (consensual) sex, and I’ve been raped while under the influence of alcohol (conscious, but barely). They are not the same thing, and if you honestly believe that they are then you really aren’t worth talking to.
They are not the same thing, and if you honestly believe that they are then you really aren’t worth talking to.
I think you’ve summed the issue up quite nicely, Brett.
CB… yep. Brett has figured out why I have the rule of not trying to deal with what NWOslave offers up as argument.
I should probably stop feeding the trolls, shouldn’t I?
It can be really, really hard to resist sometimes. I’ve succumbed on many an occasion. Oh well, just take it one day at a time. 🙂
Brett K: Sometimes one succumbs, or falls victim. So long as one doesn’t make a serious habit of it, it’s ok. Like strong drink, to be done in moderation, though at times one needs to go on a bender.
Sometimes the question must be asked: evil or stupid?
Other times, the answer is clearly “both”.
Maybe we should form a 12-step group…
But seldom is the question asked: “is NWO learning?”
Mostly because we know he’s not.
Is Slavey capable of learning? In theory, I suppose he must be, since he has enough brain power to find Man Boobz on the internet and post comments to it. However, as a practical matter, I think his poor reading comprehension skills, combined with his obsessive misogyny, make him incapable of processing any information that conflicts with his worldview.
And of course, there’s his fundamental dishonesty, but that’s a separate issue.
Dealing w/ conspiracy theorist trolls is a loser’s game : They come from an imaginary world that’s not reality so they can’t lose and you can’t convince them of nething except occasionally concede a point which they’ll take as confirmation of their reality. They dun concede nething since everything confirms their conspiracy theory : (that’s the great thing about conspiracies! It’s like the birthers.. if you dun release the certif it proves that Obama wasn’t born in the US, if you DO, it must be a forgery which proves that Obama wasn’t born in the US xD)
I am so sry to hear of what happened to you Brett, and I hope one of the trolls doesn’t show up w/ some victim blaming triggering crap 🙁
That is a super cute dogster btw Pez! 😀