The pendulum swings back

[Teallaura]

Clearly, this thread isn't about the guys getting into trouble, so don't bring that here. Rather, it is pointing out the irony of feminists pushing for strict regulations of sexual behaviour and enforcing standards and sexual roles which were previously decried as 'sexist'.

Not sympathetic to them, either.

[Christianbookworm]

I dont think I would make a very good looking barbie doll.

I was referring to a doll's lack of certain attributes... that make boys boys and girls girls. It could be done genetically. Reproduce asexually.

[Sparko]

Here's something interesting...

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-st...s-9795580.html
Apple and Facebook offer egg-freezing services to hang on to talented female employees

[KingsGambit]

Most Christians seem upset about this law but really, I'm okay with anything that will discourage casual sex among a young population.

[Teallaura]

Most Christians seem upset about this law but really, I'm okay with anything that will discourage casual sex among a young population.

The problem isn't that it discourages casual sex but that it creates a double standard that criminalizes the male's behavior and infantalizes the female's. I'm highly dubious that it will discourage casual sex - we're talking about an age group that doesn't believe bad things can happen to them.

[KingsGambit]

I'm highly dubious that it will discourage casual sex - we're talking about an age group that doesn't believe bad things can happen to them.

I spent three years working overnight college dorm security. Unfortunately, I know this is completely true.

[Christianbookworm]

The problem isn't that it discourages casual sex but that it creates a double standard that criminalizes the male's behavior and infantalizes the female's. I'm highly dubious that it will discourage casual sex - we're talking about an age group that doesn't believe bad things can happen to them.

What's funny is that girls mentally mature before boys do. I guess it's not someone's fault if they walk down a dark alley and get mugged either..

[KingsGambit]

What's funny is that girls mentally mature before boys do. I guess it's not someone's fault if they walk down a dark alley and get mugged either..

You're correct, it's not their fault. That doesn't mean that we can't advise them not to do it.

[Teallaura]

What's funny is that girls mentally mature before boys do. I guess it's not someone's fault if they walk down a dark alley and get mugged either..

In present, semi-sane, law a woman is obligated to make herself understood by word or deed that she no longer consents. In the case of an attacker, no consent is given nor, under duress, can it be. She has no obligation to say anything - he's still unquestionably guilty.

It's in the cases where consent could be reasonably presumed from word or deed and is withdrawn that the trouble starts. Absent duress (an implied threat, for example) the woman is obligated to make herself understood and if she fails to do so, there is no rape. Not because she wanted to have sex but because the guy legitimately believed he had her consent and had no way to know otherwise.

In the case of drunken behavior where no duress or violence is alleged I think we should just lock them both up. I'm not nice, really. Okay, seriously, if she doesn't know for certain and he was in no better shape there can never be proof either acted in bad faith - so why is this even in court?

[Christianbookworm]

You're correct, it's not their fault. That doesn't mean that we can't advise them not to do it.

I was saying it wasn't a smart idea to go down dark alleys. So, their fault, but they still don't deserve it!

[Teallaura]

It's NOT their fault - they cannot be at fault for merely being where they have a legal right to be. Might be really stupid but the victim's lack of propriety, caution or common sense in no way makes the victim the person at fault. The attacker ALWAYS bears the fault where no justification (she hit me first!) exists. And no, running down a dark alley stark naked does not constitute 'justification'. Insanity, yes; justification, NO!

[Christianbookworm]

It's NOT their fault - they cannot be at fault for merely being where they have a legal right to be. Might be really stupid but the victim's lack of propriety, caution or common sense in no way makes the victim the person at fault. The attacker ALWAYS bears the fault where no justification (she hit me first!) exists. And no, running down a dark alley stark naked does not constitute 'justification'. Insanity, yes; justification, NO!

I think we have two different definitions of fault... I agree with you, but if it were a fictional character that just got killed as a result of a dumb decision...

[Sparko]

I think we have two different definitions of fault... I agree with you, but if it were a fictional character that just got killed as a result of a dumb decision...

[Teallaura]

They did something stupid but didn't do anything to create the danger.

[Christianbookworm]

They did something stupid but didn't do anything to create the danger.

Correct. It's still a good idea to not make stupid decisions. But making a dumb decision that kills you wouldn't be suicide. It would be sad that you got killed. I just don't like it when people act like there is nothing you can do to reduce the risk of becoming a victim.