fyi: it’s “drugs”
I want to live in a world where all women feel completely safe running around stark naked.
please, what about literally everyone else’s pair of eyes?
it me i’m the woman who would do this
okay maybe not stark naked but definitely at least tits out
I had a man apologize to my husband once because he saw my tits.
I fumed. My husband doesn’t own my tits. Those are my tits! I’ll show 'em if I fucking wanna.
Vanta & Velma do a tits battle !
mine are the most recent post on my profile :3
10/10 cute clicker
If both people show up drunk and take drugs, who is the rapist? both? neither? o.O
The one who takes advantage of the state of the other to force a sexual relationship.
The man lol obviously
What man? The “people” in question are obviously two womem.
Obviously not mem.
I just wonder which fucking assholes downvoted this.
Rapists.
So the numbers match the statistics? Probably.
I’m all for other people’s decisions but as an unconsenting party to whatever the fuck is going on I don’t think I’d be comfortable with the situation, even if she was.
Is the censored word drags?
It’s drfucks
No, it’s clearly drfuckgs.
You left out the G. It’s very important, helps give insight to the word’s etymology, history, and context.
TRUE!!! I forgot it’s only a silent letter not an invisible one… shaking smh my head in shamefully…
Why is drugs considered a more upsetting word than rape? Like literally what the fuck
ragebait repost from corporate social media: it’s quite common there to censor random letters and words, or make some deliberate grammar mistakes, so people will comment about it and will boost the post organically. I hate that it appears here as well, because people just mindlessly repost it with the builtin bait
If this is genuine: it’s drugs. This is about the cornell rape.
It’s not genuine. It’s making fun of the fact that the post chose to censor one letter from the word “drugs” despite it being painfully obvious what that one letter was, and the fact that the far more offensive word “rape” went through uncensored twice.
So, most p*rties
Underrated comment.
mhm mhm
but also do not show up naked to a party unless it’s a nude party cause otherwise thats literally sexual harassment
Don’t do it if you’re a man. If you’re a woman, it’s not really going to bother anyone.
Hard disagree. Don’t be like that, enforce equality.
Women are simply inherently less scary to see naked.
Don’t fuck with that “men are inherently scary/bad/worse than women” bullshit, you’re just a fucking bastard dickhead.
?
Gross. I’d rather a naked man any day. Heck, twice a day.
clothes are a civilization wide psyop to make nudity exciting. What does that mean though for people who dress animals in human-style clothing 🧐 a coat for a horse in the winter is one thing but a cowboy hat for a dog is something very different I fear
So if horses someday are commonly dressed and then one day in that alt-future timeline we see a horse undressed, we all become Mr. Hands? I don’t think that’s how that works.
It’s so strange to me that the argument of she was drunk and / or on drugs so strange.
These are reasons that she could never consent. Therefore any sexual act with her would be assault
It feels so weird to me that they think this is some kind of “gotcha”.
It’s victim blaming. He didn’t do anything wrong. She was naked and drunk. She was asking for it.
Its the typical shaming. The attempt to blame the victim. Always so wrong but seems for a lot of people legit.
Does it make more sense if it’s presented as
If a woman goes to a party, she won’t be raped unless there’s a rapist there.
This holds true even if she’s on drugs and naked.Because the drugs aren’t the point
That phrasing makes more sense, but has less shock value.
The more interesting one is what if both are under the influence of alcohol/drugs?
It really depends on the situation. Two people of similar intoxication levels can consent. But at the same time when with an intoxicated person you need to be making certain they’re moving forward with you and consenting.
At least that’s my perspective as someone who will get involved with strangers while drinking at bars.
When someone’s blacked out or unable to enthusiastically consent (ie advance the acts of their own volition without being pressured or otherwise coerced) then they fundamentally can’t consent
Just because two people who are sober can consent doesn’t mean two people who are intoxicated can
Just to be safe, get even drunker than them.
Two people of similar intoxication levels can consent.
The whole point is that intoxicated people can’t consent - like at all.
So if two intoxicated people have sex, they’re always raping each other?
If only one person is intoxicated is it always rape?
The answer is yes, because intoxication is involved.
Removed by mod
The point here is that any intoxication is bad - negative is its characteristic. Doubling that negativity doesnt make it any better than if it was just one person intoxicated.
I once raped my wife, then. She was drunk, came back home drunk and wanted to fuck me hard. I told her I didn’t feel like it was right to have sex with her in such condition, but she just didn’t want to hear about my decent comments and told me to get off my high horses and just fuck her. So I did. Should I be ashamed of myself? Because, I’m not, it’s not like its something easy to forget, but in a good way.
I think you’re still responsible for the crimes you commit while drunk/high.
I think the point is then: who is the victim?
It’s hard for two unconscious people to have sex. One of them has to be conscious enough to be able to move. Even if they are drunk they are still responsible for having sex with unconscious person.
It may depend on jurisdiction but usually it’s illegal to have sex with someone unable to consent. I think that if they are drunk but are still consenting (verbally or non-verbally) it’s not considered rape.
I honestly would vouch for a similar figure to the designated driver. I’ll call it the designated handler, some sort of a box staff of allies trying to keep you in the fight, but also checking if you are okay to continue.
I’ve always been a total wierdo, but even at sixteen, when I was a desperate, frustrated incel, if a girl (in this case, a peer) had to get sloshed to be into me, it’d freak me out.
Pretty much through my entire romantic career, meeting at a bar instead of a café was a red flag. Sex always seemed like a sober activity. Or more exactly, sex supplies its own drugs. Morover, once someone was not coherent enough to do crosswords, it was clear they weren’t clear headed enough to consent to fluid exchange.
Granted, there are two factors that inform this attitude: One is my parents were sloppy drunks and went to sloppy-drunk parties. And I never wanted to be like that. The other is I made my way into the kink community in my twenties, and mixing drugs or booze with kink was
geberalltgenerally known to be dangerous like mixing drugs and booze with motor vehicles or guns. (At least in my corner of the kink community. Also breath-control was a no-no and kids seem to be choking each other all over the place, nowadays.)But then, I’ve never been a frat dude, or even the kind of guy who’d ever be sponsored to join a Greek house.
Kinda same. Even in my most incel times my most fucked up fantasies there the other party was getting totally ravaged, the reason it was sexy was because they consented, because they wanted it, because they were feeling pleasure from it. It was sexy because I was able to empathize with the imaginary other.
I guess fantasy me doesn’t really care about hammered sex, but real me would never be that hammered and would instantly be worried if the OP happened, can’t get aroused if I’m worried. Crazy how some guys are.
Mom always ruined my birthdays 😔
For career day, did your dad also show up with the teacher’s catalytic converter?
Seeing people defend the Cornell 7 has made me want a fucking matriarchy
I wanted one since long before then. I am a bit worried we’ll end up with a strongly conservative matriarchy that won’t look severely different than what we have now, but I think the only chance we have to swing left of ‘left’ is to shake up the patriarchy.
Changing the boot rarely helps. Anarchy would be the true change.
Anarchy sounds nice until you have a task big enough to require people to work together, or to do shitty work no one wants to do, or to deal with outside aggressors, or to resolve conflict.
There’s probably something in between anarchy, dictatorship, republic, communism that works, but we haven’t found it yet.
This has been solved many many times. Kropotkin addresses this in Mutual Aid. You form confederations, and call regular meetings to form pacts and mutual trade.
Ironically anarchy doesn’t mean no governance, it means no state and government. A good anarchist society would have plenty of agreed upon rules and expectations, they just wouldn’t be enforced by a body of monopolistic violence.
Villages of quisi to fully anarchist peoples operated for centuries and millennia in this form of communal structure until the nation-state was born in the late medieval ages and spread abroad through European colonialism.
I was pretty sure that the first agrarian societies led away from community rule towards state rule.
The outside aggressors are a legitimate problem, but anarchist societies (e.g. Catalonia) have dealt with the others just fine.
One might argue that a 3-year test just post civil war wasn’t a solid shakedown cruise.
I’m fairly certain the US would just devolve into internal armed conflict and a return to slavery.
Alternatively, one could argue that they accomplished quite a lot in the context of wartime shortages of resources, betrayals, etc. Just as one example, they expanded bus service all over Barcelona while also making it free and more frequent, by having the bus workers run everything democratically.
Perhaps, but since just about every other system has already devolved into internal armed conflict and slavery at various points, it seems like a good idea to try the one that hasn’t yet.
Admittedly I’m worried if we put women in charge, they’ll be TERFs
Was it too much to hope they dropped and broke the mold with Rowling?
Yeah, that could also be a bad way to go, I think we’re nearly as likely to get there with the current patriarchy path in a gen or two.
If someone shows up drunk and naked and starts taking drugs you should stay away from them no mater which sex they are. I mean stay away forever.
Unless it’s a swingers thing, but then they all know what they’re getting themselves into.
Hey, I’d just be excited to have a cool new friend to do drugs with, and if I take off my clothes it’s not sexual, it’s purely about being on the same mental level
For me it’s more likely to be “Jesus fuck how is it so hot all of a sudden?”
Some people see the naked girl railing lines on the couch and think, “oh dear I hope she’s SAFE, I hope she learns self control”. I see someone that I can sit there on molly with for the next hour while she trauma dumps and I’m like “damn girl that is seriously crazy you’ve been through so much, damn, that’s life though right??”
Fyi it takes 5 seconds to edit the words back in…or just rewrite this yourself. It’s text on white background.
Took my brain 0 seconds to auto correct though. Hardly seems worth the effort.
It’s a principal thing. Censorship on corporate social media trains people how to think and what’s okay or not okay to talk about. Importing that shit here I think it’s harmful. I care, you don’t. Okie dokie.
Posting an image of text without an alt attribute is the epitome of not giving a shit about other people.
