Here’s the bravely anonymous alpha blogger behind “Danger & Play ~ An online magazine for alpha males” explaining “Why You Should Cheat on Your Girlfriend.” I’ve bolded my favorite bit:
Haters will tell you to, “Man up! Break up with your girlfriend if you’re not happy.” They are missing the point. You want to have your cake, and to eat it too. Steady, reliable pussy and the occasional strange is the best of all worlds.
Cheating is a lot of fun, and it’s something I highly recommend. It’s way more exhilarating than bungee jumping, and few things feel as good as banging your girlfriend on the same day you banged some strange.
Cheating keeps your game tight. The best way to regulate your girlfriend is knowing you can bang chicks as hot or hotter than your girl. Well, when you cheat, this isn’t hypothetical. It’s reality.
Somehow I’m guessing there’s a lot more “hypothetical” than “reality” going on in this guy’s posts.
You don’t want an exclusive relationship? Fine. There’s no law saying you have to be in one. You can date casually and non-exclusively. You can have an open or polyamorous relationship. There are a lot of people out there in relationships, yet happily fucking other people outside of them. They’re just above board with it.
But that’s not what’s going on with our PUA friend here. With his talk about “regulat[ing]” girlfriends, he seems more interested in fucking over his girlfriend (assuming such a creature really exists) than he is in fucking strangers (sorry, “stranges”).
That’s not “Game.” That’s just being a dick.
But, hey, Nietzsche! He’s BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL! Or, as he puts it in a comment, “Shame and guilt are beta.”
You know, if you have to go around telling everyone what an Nietzschean ubermensch you are, you’re probably aren’t much of a Nietzschean ubermensch.
Aww, I think I’m on moderation or something on the guy’s blog. He may now edit my comments to his hearts content, and I can do nothing to stop him! Woe is me!
… I know it was spam, but come on… You just know this guy gets his Alpha thrills from toying with trolls.
Simon: yeah that lady is crazy. There’s no condoning that kind of behavior for whatever reason.
kirby: Aw lame. Ah well. It was fun while it lasted. I’m sure he’s crying into a bucket of chicken by now.
Simon: Did you just say that, “She was drunk,” should be a defense when someone in charged with rape?
I do think there’s tipsy and then there’s drunk. If someone’s had a couple drinks and they’re a little bit silly but still walking steady, talking clearly, emotionally levelheaded–I think they can consent to sex. I’d be cautious if I’d never had sex with them before, and extra cautious if I didn’t know them well enough to know what they were like sober and how well they held their liquor, but I wouldn’t say a tipsy person can’t consent.
But I also think that this distinction gets twisted the other way far too often, when someone is raped while blackout staggering drunk, and then everyone tries to claim “they were just tipsy! What, is it rape if someone has one drink?”
If someone is drunk enough to be throwing up or acting “disgusting,” then they are way too goddamn drunk.
For what it’s fucking worth, if someone is drunk and you have sex with them, that’s not rape unless the person is so drunk that they cannot legally consent. There’s no clear line, but let’s say it happens somewhere around the point of stumbling around and puking and slurring words and of course applies to passed out drunk people as well — same as in your theft example.
If someone is drunk but not so drunk that they cannot legally consent, then it’s not rape unless you’ve used force or threats and/or they’ve put up some amount of resistance, generally. So, if the drunk (but able to legally consent) person “gives you $50,” or if they simply don’t say “no” when you ‘take the $50,” or if they say no but don’t fight back when you “take the $50,” the law typically doesn’t see it as rape.
Sucks balls, but there it is. (Different jurisdictions may vary, of course.)
Sucks even more balls when you consider that most rapists are predators who plan their rapes. They look for drunk people who aren’t going to be able to remember clearly what happened, or be believed, or be able to fight back.
The more you learn about this shit, the more ludicrous false rape fears are. Most of the US still has a “no means yes” standard, and you’re afraid/i> of false accusations?
It isn’t that fucking hard, just don’t sleep with people who are drunk enough to put a person in any doubt of their ability to fully consent. If you can’t approximate how drunk someone is, then don’t have sex with people who have been drinking and risk raping someone. Apparantly, you don’t have sex with drunk people yourself and survive just fucking fine. The fact that you think you getting off or just being lazy outweighs another person’s interest in not being raped is fucking creepy.
Common sense doesn’t say that at all. I would not take things from people who I thought would not give them to me sober. I do not make a habit of trying to steal from people or rip them off in general. For some of us, being an asshole isn’t “common sense”. Also, a person’s body is not equal to a piece of property.
Many jurisdictions will not uphold a contract of sale made while intoxicated. Giving a drunk person your car keys makes you civilly liable for injuries as well.
Because we are talking about a person who is too impaired to fully consent. They are therefore not doing it voluntarily, they are being raped. Just because boxers volunteer to punch each other doesn’t mean you can go about punching people whenever you like who haven’t fully agreed to it.
@Laviana, it isn’t only aimed at women, I certainly do not think it is okay to have “sex” with men or people of other genders who are too drunk to fully consent. As to the issue of the people who are okay with others doing sexual stuff to them while they are incapacitated, this is more analogous to people who are okay with their partners waking them up with sex (that is, beginning a sex act while the person is asleep). Some people are okay with it or like it, but you can’t make that assumption and risk raping someone, you have to know ahead of time when they are not incapacitated and get permission (a comparable case with drinking would be two sober people who sit down together and say “let’s get drunk and then have lots of sex”). You cannot assume a drunk person is one of the people who is okay with people doing stuff to them while they are drunk. So, the proper response as the other person is to not take the risk of raping someone and instead respond to an advance with something like “I am flattered, but you are rather drunk right now. If you would like, I could give you my number and if you are still interested when you sober up, call me.” While this does mean you would not be having sex with the drunk people who would be okay with you doing sexual stuff to them while they are incapacitated, it also means that you are not taking a significant risk of raping someone.
“And so at least it should be a defense because I’m sick that sober people have to give much thought about how intoxicated exactly someone is before they can assume consent.”
Wow, life must be so hard for you, not just being able to assume that drunk people consent to whatever you’d like them to consent too. Observe as this tiny violin plays just for you.
My running list of Brandon comments just gets more and more picturesque. He keeps ending on such great notes. This time it’s “You see it as sexual exploitation. I see it as sexual protection.”
Uh oh. Did I break the italics?
Sorry in advance if I did. Damn rage.
I think ppl are talking past each other again xD
Simon, what specific kinds of situations are you imagining when you’re talking about this…
Even with your money scenario… if somebody is drunk and gives you 50$ it’s not the same as if they’re drunk and barely able to stand and you take their wallet,and say “it’s okay if I borrow this right?” and take their slurred confused response as consent.
But I also think that this distinction gets twisted the other way far too often, when someone is raped while blackout staggering drunk, and then everyone tries to claim “they were just tipsy! What, is it rape if someone has one drink?”
Exactly. These discussions always turn into “so if she had one drunk and grabbed my hand and said “let’s go back to my room and fuck!” and is enthusiastically consenting the whole time, therefore it’s RAPE!!!!?????!!!111??222″
-_-
I think it’s being twisted in that way because a lot of people know damn well that they’re in the habit of fucking people who’re too drunk to know what they’re doing, and they don’t like having it pointed out to them that this is ethically unacceptable. It’s a classic overreaction out of defensiveness.
FWIW, some screen shots of before and after of Ubermensch’s comments sections.
http://imgur.com/a/rGufK
I often wonder why “just let them sober up and then call them in the morning and you can have sex after” isn’t an option. I wonder how much for some ppl is “because they wouldn’t consent if they were sober”. >_>
It’s seriously either this or that they don’t want consensual sex; they want to rape. David Lisak has done a lot of studies on rapists, and they’re pretty fascinating. A quote from him:
“The most common rape is a non-stranger assault where the victim is picked out by the offender at a party, at a bar. The degree of acquaintance between them is usually very, very incidental. It is really just the perpetrator finding a particular individual who they’re going to target. And so if they’re in a bar, if you’ve got a predator in a bar, he’s not going to look for the most sober individual in the bar. He’s going to look for the most intoxicated individual. In fact, he’ll look for the individual who is not only intoxicated but seems to be doing outrageous things.”
Or even “fall asleep cuddling them, wake up in the morning, commiserate over your shared hangovers, and then have sex if you both feel OK”. There are many options available, as long as you don’t approach sex like it’s a military incursion into hostile territory.
@ Ami
There are many options available, as long as you don’t approach sex like it’s a military incursion into hostile territory.
*GASP*
WHAT OTHER WAY TO APPROACH IT IS THERE? o:
THERE ARE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SEX IN SITUATIONS WHERE EVERYONE IS DELIGHTED TO BE THERE AND IS HAPPY ABOUT THE SEX AFTERWARDS?
Lies. Evil feminist lies.
@felixBC:
I totally have some more screen shots, if you’re interested. Not sure how to transmit them though…
Ubermenchandplay is kind of picky in what he edits, removes etc. Most of my comments are unchanged, but he did delete one. Apparently he can handle being called out for endangering somebody’s safety, but he can’t stand that I pointed out Johnny_B’s use of imaginary people to make a point in his 5:42pm comment? I don’t get it.
All’s fair in love and war, I guess.
@Moewicus:
He’s deleted three or four of mine… Yet some snark has been left standing for some reason.
@CassandraSays:
No, in my life I have very few contact with those people and I’m happy for that.
One of the five precepts of Buddhism is to abstain from “drink that causes heedlessness”.
I’m not a Buddhist, but “heedlessness”, could there be a better word?
Why not cure the real problem?
But no, everybody else has to accommodate to people who suffer from self-inflicted heedlessness.
Since we will never agree on this one and you take this way to personally, I’ll rest my case.
Always these personal attacks. What do you know about me? Close to nothing.
Today I learned that not raping someone is accommodating them.
Geez, talk about bending over backward and going out of your way.
What I know about you, Simon, is that you’re oddly resistant to the basic notions of how one lives appropriately as part of a community. It’s funny that you should use a Buddhist quote – I can see why the religion wouldn’t work for you, given its focus on compassion.