Dennis Prager says women campus assualts lie

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

That's a good point, as rape is definitely a word grenade capable of blowing up most previously civil discussions. Also, I think a lot of the resistance to the perceived flippancy of the awareness movement around scenarios involving alcohol is that it's very possible for someone who is unacceptable as a sober sexual partner to become good enough with "beer goggles". In fact, it's even possible (usually only for a habitual heavy drinker) to "black out" (ie not retain a clear memory of the previous night's events) while still having enough physical and mental control in the moment to make deliberate (albeit usually poor) decisions. Thus, it's entirely possible for someone to affirmatively consent or even initiate sex and then wake up the next morning beside someone they would never sleep with sober, and possessing only hazy memory fragments to assume a rape had occurred. I should not have to explain why many (non-rapey) men would find this scenario terrifying, particularly ones who hope to hook up with someone out of their league.

[Beowulf]

The problem I have isn't calling guys who get girls blackout drunk rapists. Because they are. The problem is expanding the definition of rape such that a guy doesn't know, and can't know if an act is rape, because it hinges on a mental state that he doesn't know: the girl's reaction once she gets sober. The phenomenon is called beer goggles for a reason. Just because a girl has had a couple drinks doesn't mean she cannot consent. But if you define rape such that regret afterward is a retroactive cancellation of consent, then how can a guy avoid it?

[The Romulan Republic]

An obvious solution is to not have sex with anyone who's drunk. The correct attitude is if its ambiguous weather there's consent, don't do it. Frankly, if you have sex with someone who's drunk and get accused of rape, I don't have much in the way of sympathy.

Also, though you're acting like this issue is just about males having sex with drunk females and getting in trouble, having sex with someone who's drunk is something both men and women can do and something both men and women can object to, even if women are in more danger of being raped.

[cmdrjones]

Nobody would say they are the same thing but honestly this sets the bar insanely low. How much of a neanderthal do you have to be in order for "please do not grab my butt" to be met with "It's just a light touch, I think you are over-reacting a little bit."

He also glosses right over the fact, because he is an idiot, that spousal rape is a major problem. If his wife really is receiving unwanted, forced kisses from him regularly then yeah, he's assaulting her.

Really people, is this so hard? Is this seriously so hard?

interesting... so a marriage contract obligates a wife to do.... what exactly?

[cmdrjones]

Just because "sexual assault" can be as little as unwanted kisses that does not mean that the entirety of the problem consists of unwanted kisses. This is an entitled white male who has never, ever tried to understand what it is like to live as anything else. He doesn't know and doesn't care to know and he wants the votes of people who do not want to be held responsible for their behavior.

I am in college, have a genuine case of Asperger's, admit to be a reclusive loner and yet I still manage to avoid accidentally kissing the few girls that also attend college. In fact I managed to avoid accidentally kissing girls my whole life. Even if its as "minor" as being kissed without consent, why should women have to bear this behavior?

Oh, right, because men think that any sexual interest is a result of having a manly aura and thus always-welcome signs of worship, and can only think that for women this is somehow the same. He should ask his wife whether she would be happy if strangers forced her to withstand being kissed without their consent. Or maybe he should have a go at it himself by men, he clearly thinks that it is not somehow bad.

Why should women have to bear this behavior? well dude, if you ever interested in having actual physical contact with a woman of any sexual nature at all ever, then, at some point she should have to "bear" SOME kind of touching at some point... and if she has to send you a monogramed invitation.... you may be waiting a while.


As for his wife being happy with strangers kissing her... well, he aint a stranger now is he?

[cmdrjones]

There are two douche bag parties here, those who want to under report the problem to ignore it away and those who want to over inflate it so that they can be a draconian in their solutions as possible. The second one you might think is less of an evil until you consider that the obvious hyperbole in the messaging of the second makes the first easier to accomplish.

Who are the second parties though? Do they actually exist? I mean, I think people show these numbers to demonstrate how scary the situation is, and that fearmongering causes problems too, sure. But this sounds like the nebulous "scientists" that want to inflate global warming figures. I am not saying there may be individuals and some small communities of wackos who want to drop the hammer, is there really any evidence of people over-inflating assault statistics for any other reason than consciousness-raising?

Is there a harm outside whatever harm can be inferred by increasing hyperbole in news reports? Do we know if this hyperbole is because this group has an internal reason to inflate numbers or if it is only in reaction to the suppression of numbers related to maintaining the social status quo?

I'm not going to say it is not a problem at all, but if it is a problem, where does it come from and where is the harm being done?

As always... Cui buono?

The money for all of these womyns studies this and take back the night that have to come from somewhere, right? If the problem is SOO severe, then we MUST DO SOMETHING NOW (tm) TEH WIMMINZ IZ DYING!!!

[cmdrjones]

The second parties are the stereotypical "angry feminists who hate all men" that Prager is scapegoating. They may be few in number, but their impact far exceeds their numbers, because they represent a viewpoint that scares the hell out of many men. Plus, much like Dennis Prager, they say absurd an ridiculous things (for example, "all sex is rape") in order to rile people up and get reactions out of them.

If the goal is to reduce incidences of rape on college campuses, then conflating (primarily) women who are actually raped with women who have their butts grabbed and treating the two as if they are exactly the same isn't helpful. Neither action is acceptable, but the reaction to unwanted butt grabbing should probably be public shaming rather than 25 years in prison, while the reaction to rape shouldn't be "she asked for it" but prison time.

When stereotypical "angry feminists" treat unwanted kissing as exactly the same as rape, it gives the neanderthals an excuse to legitimize women who are victims of serious sexual assaults.

THIS

[cmdrjones]

Okay. So, how many guys would freak out if another dude they didn't know that was built like a linebacker groped their ass and gave them a smooch? Would it be legitimate for them to feel threatened?

Comparison doesn't work.... it'd have to be a 7 foot amazon woman... remember, these are HETEROsexual assaults

[cmdrjones]

Mongoose: Yeah, it's a little frightening that these discussions tend to center on the dangers of getting carried away in dealing with the problem - the idea of false rape allegations hypothetically becoming a problem for men is considered more serious and urgent than the actual widespread rape of women that is already happening.

False rape allegations are a problem for men. According to the FBI nearly 10% of rape allegations are untrue or false.

And do me a favor and please head off any tantrum or tirade before you begin. I am in no way minimizing or approving of rape simply because I point out the very real fear that some men have of being falsely accused of rape. Both things (rape, and being falsely accused of rape) are bad, and false accusations are harmful to efforts to actually reduce or eliminate rape, because they perpetuate the idea that many/most women are lying about rape. High profile false accusations (like Duke lacrosse) may be even worse, because they cause people to question and doubt women who have actually been raped as liars and attention seekers.

It's not that being falsely accused of rape isn't something that happens, or that it isn't a serious problem for someone it happens to. That's not the point.

You asked nicely, but nope, alas, you're getting the full SJW tantrum. :p

You are to some extent minimizing(though I wouldn't say approving of) rape when you bring up "but what if false allegations omg" because that isn't a problem on anywhere near the same scale that rape is a problem for women, yet it's always 50% of these discussions. Pretty much all the women in my life are afraid to walk around by themselves at night for fear of being raped.

Now, if we were living in a society where the vast majority of men were terrified to be in a room alone with a woman without a witness for fear of a false allegation, a society where 1/4 of college age men were falsely accused of rape at some point in their lives, then yeah, I would definitely approve of the amount you and many others fret about false allegations. But that's not the case so yes, you are focusing on the wrong thing here.

I'll see your 'false allegations of rape is less of a problem than actual rape' and raise you the "yes means yes" law. If you think that men Don't engage in social interactions with liberal women for fear of being brought up on charges then you haven't been in the modern military or corporate worlds. Most guys I know do the "look left, look right" thing whenever beginning an honest conversation. Also by your own SJW standards its not the frequency of an event but the seriousness of it, so if rape ruins womens lives and being falsely accused of rape ruins mens lives, even if both are rare, why shouldn't we treat them both seriously? Oh and one more thing, if we take rape ever so seriously, then why has no one brought up the FBI crime statistics breaking down rape victims and aggressors by race and then refocused all of the SJW energy in teaching (black) men not to rape (white) women? The question answers itself....

[madd0ct0r]

Nobody would say they are the same thing but honestly this sets the bar insanely low. How much of a neanderthal do you have to be in order for "please do not grab my butt" to be met with "It's just a light touch, I think you are over-reacting a little bit."

He also glosses right over the fact, because he is an idiot, that spousal rape is a major problem. If his wife really is receiving unwanted, forced kisses from him regularly then yeah, he's assaulting her.

Really people, is this so hard? Is this seriously so hard?

interesting... so a marriage contract obligates a wife to do.... what exactly?

I don't know what fucking backwards shitcreek of a place you're from, but here in the civilised world marrying a woman doesn't give you special privileges to beat, abuse, sexually assault or rape her, including forcing yourself on her when she doesn't want it.

[Covenant]

Nobody would say they are the same thing but honestly this sets the bar insanely low. How much of a neanderthal do you have to be in order for "please do not grab my butt" to be met with "It's just a light touch, I think you are over-reacting a little bit."

He also glosses right over the fact, because he is an idiot, that spousal rape is a major problem. If his wife really is receiving unwanted, forced kisses from him regularly then yeah, he's assaulting her.

Really people, is this so hard? Is this seriously so hard?

interesting... so a marriage contract obligates a wife to do.... what exactly?

Being married obliges her to do nothing. Nothing. What kind of a miserable old fuck are you?

Why is it these idiots crawling out of the woodwork now?

[cmdrjones]

Nobody would say they are the same thing but honestly this sets the bar insanely low. How much of a neanderthal do you have to be in order for "please do not grab my butt" to be met with "It's just a light touch, I think you are over-reacting a little bit."

He also glosses right over the fact, because he is an idiot, that spousal rape is a major problem. If his wife really is receiving unwanted, forced kisses from him regularly then yeah, he's assaulting her.

Really people, is this so hard? Is this seriously so hard?

interesting... so a marriage contract obligates a wife to do.... what exactly?

Being married obliges her to do nothing. Nothing. What kind of a miserable old fuck are you?

Why is it these idiots are all so new? I swear we need to suspend registration for a bit to cut down on the spam. Each of these micro-posts are so easy to swat down that it is barely worth doing.

Ah so if a marriage is a contract between two parties that obligates the one to do nothing at all, why should any sane man engage in such a contract? Also, why are you so visibly upset at answering a few simple questions?

[cmdrjones]

Nobody would say they are the same thing but honestly this sets the bar insanely low. How much of a neanderthal do you have to be in order for "please do not grab my butt" to be met with "It's just a light touch, I think you are over-reacting a little bit."

He also glosses right over the fact, because he is an idiot, that spousal rape is a major problem. If his wife really is receiving unwanted, forced kisses from him regularly then yeah, he's assaulting her.

Really people, is this so hard? Is this seriously so hard?

interesting... so a marriage contract obligates a wife to do.... what exactly?

I don't know what fucking backwards shitcreek of a place you're from, but here in the civilised world marrying a woman doesn't give you special privileges to beat, abuse, sexually assault or rape her, including forcing yourself on her when she doesn't want it.

That's not an answer, but... okay i'll bite. I don't know of any vows that ask a woman to sign up to be beaten or abused... (outside of that dar al islam that is...) we'll have to be careful with sexual assault... because if we go with the legal definition to include 'unwanted kisses' then Mr Prager may have a point. As for Rape and "forcing yourself on her when she doesn't want it" I generally agree, but i would hazard a question: Does this mean that in a marriage a woman is the sole arbiter of sexual relations? if so, why would a man sign up for such a deal? If a man has no claim on a woman's sexuality... why does she have a claim on his? Would it be okay if, in a marriage such as you propose, that a woman does NOT want sex and a man does, and he has NO rights to her body, could she then get upset if he goes out and finds a girlfriend/escort/hooker/stripper?

[Covenant]

Ah so if a marriage is a contract between two parties that obligates the one to do nothing at all, why should any sane man engage in such a contract? Also, why are you so visibly upset at answering a few simple questions?

I'm mad because you made a giant mess here. Look at all those posts! That could have been ONE post with several references, but you were just a lazy fuck and did them all individually. Also, you're using the same idiotic language cues as the other shit-brains we've been dealing with recently. Seeing someone use the term "SJW" in an un-ironic way is just depressing for everyone else in the room, because it means we need to stop discussion to deal with some infantile asshole.

Also, I had attempted to edit my previous post before it got quoted, I mischaracterized you as a new person. That was knee-jerk.

Your language is also incredibly sexist. Why should any "sane man" get married? If you're asking about a religious "marriage contract" then I have no fucking idea, I'm not religious so I have no idea why you'd want that. The term for a secular authority like a government is "marriage license" and it entitles you to the benefits (tax breaks, visitation rights, legal spousal privilege in a court of law, etc) which are otherwise denied to you.

So if a sane man wants to give his family the full benefit of a wedded status (healthcare, for example) then yeah, he'd want that.

[The Romulan Republic]

That's not an answer, but... okay i'll bite. I don't know of any vows that ask a woman to sign up to be beaten or abused... (outside of that dar al islam that is...) we'll have to be careful with sexual assault... because if we go with the legal definition to include 'unwanted kisses' then Mr Prager may have a point. As for Rape and "forcing yourself on her when she doesn't want it" I generally agree, but i would hazard a question: Does this mean that in a marriage a woman is the sole arbiter of sexual relations? if so, why would a man sign up for such a deal? If a man has no claim on a woman's sexuality... why does she have a claim on his? Would it be okay if, in a marriage such as you propose, that a woman does NOT want sex and a man does, and he has NO rights to her body, could she then get upset if he goes out and finds a girlfriend/escort/hooker/stripper?

Nobody has a right to control who anyone else has sex with. Women can't force men to have sex. And men can't force women to have sex. Simple.

A man can choose to get sex from someone else, as can a woman, but their partner can choose to leave them for it. Simple. Equal.

[cmdrjones]

Ah so if a marriage is a contract between two parties that obligates the one to do nothing at all, why should any sane man engage in such a contract? Also, why are you so visibly upset at answering a few simple questions?

I'm mad because you made a giant mess here. Look at all those posts! That could have been ONE post with several references, but you were just a lazy fuck and did them all individually. Also, you're using the same idiotic language cues as the other shit-brains we've been dealing with recently. Seeing someone use the term "SJW" in an un-ironic way is just depressing for everyone else in the room, because it means we need to stop discussion to deal with some infantile asshole.

Also, I had attempted to edit my previous post before it got quoted, I mischaracterized you as a new person. That was knee-jerk.

Your language is also incredibly sexist. Why should any "sane man" get married? If you're asking about a religious "marriage contract" then I have no fucking idea, I'm not religious so I have no idea why you'd want that. The term for a secular authority like a government is "marriage license" and it entitles you to the benefits (tax breaks, visitation rights, legal spousal privilege in a court of law, etc) which are otherwise denied to you.

So if a sane man wants to give his family the full benefit of a wedded status (healthcare, for example) then yeah, he'd want that.

Oh sorry. I was responding to each person separately. It was my way of trying to be respectful. As for my typing style, how dare you use your shaming language on me! you have no idea of what culture I come from! Trigger warning! trigger warning! seriously though, You do reveal one OTHER important thing in your reply. You aren't religious and you recognize that religious marriage ceremonies are different than secular marriages (or should be) which is good, very prescient. But I would also like to point out that as far as the law is concerned they are treated the same way. if you go before a judge and claim that your covenant marriage allows you sex three times each week, six times on friday or whatever and that your wife can't divorce you, the judge will laugh you out of the courtroom... and before you shout: GOOD! you also have to recognize that for even moderate men, now that the legal state sponsored marriage is the only game in town, that tax benefits, healthcare benefits and so on do not hold a CANDLE to marrying a woman who, by your standards has NO OBLIGATIONS whatsoever, and then taking the 50% risk of her initiating divorce, taking away your kids, and taking half of your stuff, and that's assuming she doesn't want to get nasty.

[cmdrjones]

That's not an answer, but... okay i'll bite. I don't know of any vows that ask a woman to sign up to be beaten or abused... (outside of that dar al islam that is...) we'll have to be careful with sexual assault... because if we go with the legal definition to include 'unwanted kisses' then Mr Prager may have a point. As for Rape and "forcing yourself on her when she doesn't want it" I generally agree, but i would hazard a question: Does this mean that in a marriage a woman is the sole arbiter of sexual relations? if so, why would a man sign up for such a deal? If a man has no claim on a woman's sexuality... why does she have a claim on his? Would it be okay if, in a marriage such as you propose, that a woman does NOT want sex and a man does, and he has NO rights to her body, could she then get upset if he goes out and finds a girlfriend/escort/hooker/stripper?

Nobody has a right to control who anyone else has sex with. Women can't force men to have sex. And men can't force women to have sex. Simple.

A man can choose to get sex from someone else, as can a woman, but their partner can choose to leave them for it. Simple. Equal.

Ok got it. Then Marriage has no meaning because it is no different than being sinlge. Thank you.

[The Romulan Republic]

God you're stupid. Or, more likely, you're a rape-defending liar. Well, I guess you could be both.

Marriage has legal benefits. It also has symbolic (and in some cases religious) meaning. It is not in any way just about sex.

Clear now?

[Thanas]

As always... Cui buono?

The money for all of these womyns studies this and take back the night that have to come from somewhere, right? If the problem is SOO severe, then we MUST DO SOMETHING NOW (tm) TEH WIMMINZ IZ DYING!!!

Hey new guy, learn how to talk in an adult manner.

So far your record in this thread contains of a lot of shitposting and my limit with idiots coming in here is about used up.

Ok got it. Then Marriage has no meaning because it is no different than being sinlge. Thank you.

Are you a fucking idiot, visually impaired or else? Please explain to me how you just managed to miss the reply by covenant to the benefits marriage implies. If I see another shitpost of yours in here I'll toss the whole thing out.

[Covenant]

you also have to recognize that for even moderate men, now that the legal state sponsored marriage is the only game in town, that tax benefits, healthcare benefits and so on do not hold a CANDLE to marrying a woman who, by your standards has NO OBLIGATIONS whatsoever, and then taking the 50% risk of her initiating divorce, taking away your kids, and taking half of your stuff, and that's assuming she doesn't want to get nasty.

Not only does she have no obligations, you have no obligations. You seriously have no idea how this actually works in legal practice. If you are so worried then ask for a pre-nup so you seperate your assets.

Oh sorry. I was responding to each person separately. It was my way of trying to be respectful.

It's a pain in the ass. It's not like people get a notification when you reply to them. Format your posts so people can see your arguments and then reply to the relevant sections.

But I would also like to point out that as far as the law is concerned they are treated the same way.

Of course they are. They are the same thing. The power to join people in marriage arises from governments (as odd as it sounds) and not from religious institutions. You can be married by a justice of the peace or the captain of a ship, after all, you have no need to ever deal with a religious institution. They're treated the same because they are the same: the people who think their religious marriage has a legal exemption to human rights are in error.

[SCRawl]

Ok got it. Then Marriage has no meaning because it is no different than being sinlge. Thank you.

First of all: there will be no trolling here. I'm not sure yet if that's your purpose, but if it is, you will not be staying in our company much longer.

I also don't know if you're an adult, but if you are I have no idea how you could have gotten to be one without understanding what a marriage is, and what it is not. It is a kind of legal partnership. It is not a license for sex, which we do not need here in the secular world. At no time can any such agreement obviate the need for consent, although some concessions must be carved out for the notion of implied consent for people in long-term relationships.

So if you're not a troll, stop acting like one. If you are a troll, just make it easy on everyone and stop coming here before we make you stop coming here.

[amigocabal]

Well, it's probably an uphill battle because, in the popular mindset, rape is a crime that is right up there with murder in terms of severity. A lot of men probably wouldn't even consider the idea that persistently pressuring a woman to have sex (alcohol or no alcohol), is remotely worthy of the word "rape", which should be something reserved for gang members and psychopaths. The word "rapist" doesn't usually conjure up the idea of a douchebag college senior - it conjures up the image of like, this guy or something - basically violent gang members and other ruthless criminals who brutalize women.

So naturally men don't want to be associated with that, or even consider that any sexual encounters they've had with women are anything remotely like that. The long-term solution is a cultural shift via education, but it's going to be an uphill battle because the word "rape" is an extremely powerful word which will constantly act as a stumbling block in this conversation. It's going to be difficult to equate persistently pressuring a woman to have sex, and like - violently assaulting and sexually brutalizing a woman. Since the word "rapist" conjures up the latter scenario this sort of resistance is expected.

So the solution is what? Downplay the significance of rape? Claim it is not as bad as petty theft? Tell rape victims, "when your purse is snatched, your purse is gone; you were raped, yet your vagina is still there."? I am sure the social response to such a campaign will be quite positive, right?

[Zixinus]

Why should women have to bear this behavior? well dude, if you ever interested in having actual physical contact with a woman of any sexual nature at all ever, then, at some point she should have to "bear" SOME kind of touching at some point

So women must bear unwanted and uncomfortable molesting behaviour for the hypothetical benefit of pathetic males who cannot develop healthy sexual relationships?

Why?

and if she has to send you a monogramed invitation.... you may be waiting a while.

Or we can develop, you know, a relationship? That thing where we have a mutually understood each other' boundaries and where I KNOW I can grab her butt? By previous experience with that person and communication. She would signal this by giving such incredible subtle clues as smiling at me when I do this and not moving away?

Are you pretending to be a drunk, clueless college student for the sake of trolling? Because it really looks that way.

[cmdrjones]

Why should women have to bear this behavior? well dude, if you ever interested in having actual physical contact with a woman of any sexual nature at all ever, then, at some point she should have to "bear" SOME kind of touching at some point

So women must bear unwanted and uncomfortable molesting behaviour for the hypothetical benefit of pathetic males who cannot develop healthy sexual relationships?

Why?

and if she has to send you a monogramed invitation.... you may be waiting a while.

Or we can develop, you know, a relationship? That thing where we have a mutually understood each other' boundaries and where I KNOW I can grab her butt? By previous experience with that person and communication. She would signal this by giving such incredible subtle clues as smiling at me when I do this and not moving away?

Are you pretending to be a drunk, clueless college student for the sake of trolling? Because it really looks that way.

Are you sure that men who are forward with women are ALL pathetic? also, I said "some kind of touching at some point" you equated that with molestation.... perhaps we're not talking about the same things, no?

The original discussion was ABOUT drunk clueless college students, not those in established relationships. Those in established relationships don't have to worry about such things... supposedly.

[amigocabal]

The problem I have isn't calling guys who get girls blackout drunk rapists. Because they are. The problem is expanding the definition of rape such that a guy doesn't know, and can't know if an act is rape, because it hinges on a mental state that he doesn't know: the girl's reaction once she gets sober. The phenomenon is called beer goggles for a reason. Just because a girl has had a couple drinks doesn't mean she cannot consent. But if you define rape such that regret afterward is a retroactive cancellation of consent, then how can a guy avoid it?

He can not.

and that is why we, as a society, call it for what it is- bullshit.

No one can have a few drinks, kill someone while driving drunk, and then credibly argue that since they were drunk, they really did not choose to drive and should not be considered responsible.

similarly, if no one can have a few drinks, consent to the cops searching them, and then argue that the stash of cocaine the cops found should be thrown out because drunkenness invalidated the consent.

So the rationale is, if someone consents to sex while drunk, that consent is still valid. It is still consent. Period.

(I do wonder why the whole cosnet-is-invalid-while-drunk standard is only being propsed for sexual matters. Why not drunk driving (an element of DUI law is that the drunk driver chose to drive) or warrantless searches)?