A man is a rape supporter if...

Taking advantage of a tipsy woman is off the wall, sir, particularly if she doesn't have much dating experience and trusts that her date would not take advantage of her when she is not herself from being drugged or drinking.

Then that woman should refrain from drinking sir. For a woman to go to a bar and get drunk and get picked up by an equally drunk guy (and that's usually the way it works) then cry rape the next day because she is upset at what happened is unfair PERIOD. That's not to acknowledge that some guys go to bars and prey on drunk women, they do; but the fact is if that those women didn't choose to go to a bar (or party or whatever) and get drunk then they couldn't have been "taken advantage of" in the first place.

You'd have a pretty hard time convincing a medical panel that a man who gets it up is drunk, sir. My advice to you is don't date drunk ladies.

You must be kidding. I've had sex drunk plenty of times, as have millions of other guys. And of course you are placing all the burden on men, simple solution don't drink if you don't want to have drunk sex. male or female.
 
Then that woman should refrain from drinking sir. For a woman to go to a bar and get drunk and get picked up by an equally drunk guy (and that's usually the way it works) then cry rape the next day because she is upset at what happened is unfair PERIOD. That's not to acknowledge that some guys go to bars and prey on drunk women, they do; but the fact is if that those women didn't choose to go to a bar (or party or whatever) and get drunk then they couldn't have been "taken advantage of" in the first place.

You'd have a pretty hard time convincing a medical panel that a man who gets it up is drunk, sir. My advice to you is don't date drunk ladies.

You must be kidding. I've had sex drunk plenty of times, as have millions of other guys. And of course you are placing all the burden on men, simple solution don't drink if you don't want to have drunk sex. male or female.

No, I'm not kidding.
 
Hate to point out the obvious here, but I did not write the blog I linked to. ?The idea that anyone supports rape if they go to a strip club, or believes in freedom of speech, or even if he likes FemDom porn (He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present) is so ludicrous I thought everyone would enjoy the laugh. Apparently some people here actually believe this claptrap though. Why else would anyone neg rep me over it?

I was wondering why several seemed to think you wrote the blog you quoted.

My guess is some people are really stupid.

They're not stupid, just operating on emotional instinct. Liberals usually fall into this category.
 
I have a problem with the notion that a man can be prosecuted for rape if the act occurred when both parties were willingly intoxicated and (at the time) consented.

If a man can be prosecuted for that, why can't a woman be prosecuted for the same thing?
A boner means you've consented.
 
I have a problem with the notion that a man can be prosecuted for rape if the act occurred when both parties were willingly intoxicated and (at the time) consented.

If a man can be prosecuted for that, why can't a woman be prosecuted for the same thing?
A boner means you've consented.

then like wise a wet pussy means a woman has consented :cuckoo:


Of course neither is true.
 
You'd have a pretty hard time convincing a medical panel that a man who gets it up is drunk, sir. My advice to you is don't date drunk ladies.

You must be kidding. I've had sex drunk plenty of times, as have millions of other guys. And of course you are placing all the burden on men, simple solution don't drink if you don't want to have drunk sex. male or female.

No, I'm not kidding.

Then you are insane. Drunkenness in no way prevents sex or an erection. The fact that all the blame is squarely on the man is absolute bullshit. She had a choice and she made a choise. The worst part is that you don’t even have to know. She might just wake up and decide that she does not want her husband thinking she cheated on him. There needs to be protection and rape is a horrible crime but it seems the law can never find a decent middle in these cases. It is either you can rape your wife legally 50 years ago or you have to get a consent form today.
 
drivel....
Oh, yeah. And probably a serious hatred of women.

Why else lie about what they think?

And this is from a dbag that thinks airport screenings are sexual molestation.

Hate to point out the obvious here, but I did not write the blog I linked to. ?The idea that anyone supports rape if they go to a strip club, or believes in freedom of speech, or even if he likes FemDom porn (He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present) is so ludicrous I thought everyone would enjoy the laugh. Apparently some people here actually believe this claptrap though. Why else would anyone neg rep me over it?
Nice backtrack. That would make this the very first time you quoted something in your OP that you didn't agree with.

:doubt:
 
You must be kidding. I've had sex drunk plenty of times, as have millions of other guys. And of course you are placing all the burden on men, simple solution don't drink if you don't want to have drunk sex. male or female.

No, I'm not kidding.

Then you are insane. Drunkenness in no way prevents sex or an erection. The fact that all the blame is squarely on the man is absolute bullshit. She had a choice and she made a choise. The worst part is that you don’t even have to know. She might just wake up and decide that she does not want her husband thinking she cheated on him. There needs to be protection and rape is a horrible crime but it seems the law can never find a decent middle in these cases. It is either you can rape your wife legally 50 years ago or you have to get a consent form today.

I just posted this on another thread:

According to the new OCR guidelines, any college that accepts federal funding or federal student loans (close to 100% of our nation’s colleges) must now employ a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases. This lowered standard replaces the traditionally accepted standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which, according to most triers of fact, is close to 100% confidence of guilt. In contrast, “preponderance of evidence” means the campus judiciary only needs to be 50.01% confident that a person is guilty of a given offense – even if that offense is rape, which, regardless of degree, is always a serious felony.

Crying Rape - Mike Adams - Townhall Conservative

What do you think?
 
Oh, yeah. And probably a serious hatred of women.

Why else lie about what they think?

And this is from a dbag that thinks airport screenings are sexual molestation.

Hate to point out the obvious here, but I did not write the blog I linked to. ?The idea that anyone supports rape if they go to a strip club, or believes in freedom of speech, or even if he likes FemDom porn (He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present) is so ludicrous I thought everyone would enjoy the laugh. Apparently some people here actually believe this claptrap though. Why else would anyone neg rep me over it?
Nice backtrack. That would make this the very first time you quoted something in your OP that you didn't agree with.

:doubt:

You're an idiot, he posted it to point out that he didn't agree with it.


MORON
 
Oh, yeah. And probably a serious hatred of women.

Why else lie about what they think?

And this is from a dbag that thinks airport screenings are sexual molestation.

Hate to point out the obvious here, but I did not write the blog I linked to. ?The idea that anyone supports rape if they go to a strip club, or believes in freedom of speech, or even if he likes FemDom porn (He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present) is so ludicrous I thought everyone would enjoy the laugh. Apparently some people here actually believe this claptrap though. Why else would anyone neg rep me over it?
Nice backtrack. That would make this the very first time you quoted something in your OP that you didn't agree with.

:doubt:

Pointing out the obvious again, I quite often post links to stupid things to make a point about them being wrong. The fact that I commented that it seems if you like sex you are a rapist was indicative of how I actually feel about the link itself.

Want to try again?
 
No, I'm not kidding.

Then you are insane. Drunkenness in no way prevents sex or an erection. The fact that all the blame is squarely on the man is absolute bullshit. She had a choice and she made a choise. The worst part is that you don’t even have to know. She might just wake up and decide that she does not want her husband thinking she cheated on him. There needs to be protection and rape is a horrible crime but it seems the law can never find a decent middle in these cases. It is either you can rape your wife legally 50 years ago or you have to get a consent form today.

I just posted this on another thread:

According to the new OCR guidelines, any college that accepts federal funding or federal student loans (close to 100% of our nation’s colleges) must now employ a "preponderance of the evidence" standard of proof in sexual harassment and sexual assault cases. This lowered standard replaces the traditionally accepted standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt, which, according to most triers of fact, is close to 100% confidence of guilt. In contrast, “preponderance of evidence” means the campus judiciary only needs to be 50.01% confident that a person is guilty of a given offense – even if that offense is rape, which, regardless of degree, is always a serious felony.

Crying Rape - Mike Adams - Townhall Conservative

What do you think?
Insane, again. I cannot se e how anyone is comfortable changing such a basic tenant to law as proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though this is not ‘law’ but rather campus policy the harm that is caused when you are accused and assumed to be guilty of rape is enormous. That crime is seen as particularly heinous due to the fact that you are harming the helpless. That is not to say that a woman is helpless but in this situation it is quite true. Add to that the permanent damage that you can cause to ones ‘soul’ with a crime like that and what you get is something closer in people’s minds to a killer rather than an assaulter. Even on the presumption of innocence, just being accused of rap can cause great harm to your life. There should NEVER be anything other than the required beyond a reasonable doubt before assuming guilt. Here, we assume things for debating purposes and other internet sites do the same but such things should never be done in any fashion that is exposed to the public from an official source sugh as the school or a news agency. It is so destructive to the people involved. Besides that, what happened to waiting on punishment until the court decided things as that is where the legalities lie. I did find this interesting though:

Under my plan, any time a collegiate man is charged with rape his accuser is automatically charged with criminal libel. If she fails to prove her case then she is automatically convicted and expelled.

Interesting idea and I do think that anyone purposely falsely charging another with rape should go to prison there is problems with extreme views on this side of the argument as well. Rape is a difficult crime to prove and also difficult to get victims to actually accuse their attackers because the extreme mental abuse that goes with rape. I would not want to allow policies that discourage the reporting and convicting of rapists. As with the crime itself, this should require the same ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ as proof.
 
Last edited:
Hate to point out the obvious here, but I did not write the blog I linked to. ?The idea that anyone supports rape if they go to a strip club, or believes in freedom of speech, or even if he likes FemDom porn (He watches any pornography in which sexual acts are depicted as a struggle for power or domination, regardless of whether women are present) is so ludicrous I thought everyone would enjoy the laugh. Apparently some people here actually believe this claptrap though. Why else would anyone neg rep me over it?
Nice backtrack. That would make this the very first time you quoted something in your OP that you didn't agree with.

:doubt:

Pointing out the obvious again, I quite often post links to stupid things to make a point about them being wrong. The fact that I commented that it seems if you like sex you are a rapist was indicative of how I actually feel about the link itself.

Want to try again?

I truly think about half the posters on this board, at least, can't read well enough to understand basic posts. Can't count how many posts I've seen totally misread because some idiot couldn't grok simple English.
 
Nice backtrack. That would make this the very first time you quoted something in your OP that you didn't agree with.

:doubt:

Pointing out the obvious again, I quite often post links to stupid things to make a point about them being wrong. The fact that I commented that it seems if you like sex you are a rapist was indicative of how I actually feel about the link itself.

Want to try again?

I truly think about half the posters on this board, at least, can't read well enough to understand basic posts. Can't count how many posts I've seen totally misread because some idiot couldn't grok simple English.

Apparently some people can not comprehend simple English themselves. ;)
 
Pointing out the obvious again, I quite often post links to stupid things to make a point about them being wrong. The fact that I commented that it seems if you like sex you are a rapist was indicative of how I actually feel about the link itself.

Want to try again?

I truly think about half the posters on this board, at least, can't read well enough to understand basic posts. Can't count how many posts I've seen totally misread because some idiot couldn't grok simple English.

Apparently some people can not comprehend simple English themselves. ;)


Do what?
 

Well, I do have to concede the point. When someone just throws a post out there that is completely irrelevant and makes no sense standing on its own, I don't understand it.

Okay, to explain myself (though I don't think it is necessary).

I understood everything Quantum was saying and I also understood everything you were saying. I know you didn't understand him, or was conveniently blind to it, even though he was clear on his position from the start.

SO, it would seem you do not understand simple English yourself and try to make the one you are attacking seem as if he was the one not understanding. This is the exact actions of someone proven to be wrong but do not want to admit it.

And BTW, my post was not standing alone, it was in responce to your post to Quantum. Just another thing you conveniently did not understand.
 
Last edited:
See what I mean. :D

Well, I do have to concede the point. When someone just throws a post out there that is completely irrelevant and makes no sense standing on its own, I don't understand it.

Okay, to explain myself (though I don't think it is necessary).

I understood everything Quantum was saying and I also understood everything you were saying. I know you didn't understand him, or was conveniently blind to it, even though he was clear on his position from the start.

SO, it would seem you do not understand simple English yourself and try to make the one you are attacking seem as if he was the one not understanding. This is the exact actions of someone proven to be wrong but do not want to admit it.

And BTW, my post was not standing alone, it was in responce to your post to Quantum. Just another thing you conveniently did not understand.

Dude, reread the thread. I know EXACTLY what QW was saying and my post about reading comprehension was aimed at those who thought he was agreeing with the thoughts in the the blog he posted. If that didn't apply to you then I wasn't talking to you. :rofl: Turns out you can't follow a thread though
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top