sebster wrote:

 Bromsy wrote:
Maaaan, I spent a few months shelving books at a Barnes and Noble... you need to go look at the covers of some romance novels.

No, maybe you could do with reading more closely in future, though.

I said there's plenty of female fantasies, mentioning the recent 50 Shades thing, and certainly all those romance novels do the trick as well. But the point is these are not the fantasies portrayed in comic books, which are almost entirely focused on a young male audience.

Dude, look at your standard muscle bound comic book hero, then look at the cover of your standard trashy romance novel, 9/10 it's the same guy with a Fabio haricut.... and in a kilt frequently for some reason.

I'm not disagreeing with your point about where comic books are intended audience wise, and their depiction of what a manly man should look like, but Bromsy's point that the comicbook Man(tm) bears more then a passing resemblance to the romance novel Man(tm) is a fair one.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Dude, look at your standard muscle bound comic book hero, then look at the cover of your standard trashy romance novel, 9/10 it's the same guy with a Fabio haricut.... and in a kilt frequently for some reason.

I'm not disagreeing with your point about where comic books are intended audience wise, and their depiction of what a manly man should look like, but Bromsy's point that the comicbook Man(tm) bears more then a passing resemblance to the romance novel Man(tm) is a fair one.

Maybe, if we look entirely at the pec size then Fabio and Captain America are bit similar. Point taken.

But it's more than just the look. The guy in the comic book swaps between wounded male ego and ultraviolence. The guy in the romance novel swaps between insufferable romantic pining and dashing heroism/martyrdom.

This is because one appeals to boys, and one appeals to girls.

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:
And Frazzled are you really promoting physical violence as an acceptable alternative?

Yep. A good rabbit punch to the manbag would have straightened the situation right up. Plus it would be epic filmage.

Do people really think thats ok?

Yep

Because all it takes is one wrong guy and suddenly your daughter is lying in a gutter beaten and broken.

You clearly missed the "Genghis" part of Genghis Connie there didn't you. She could beat hell out 99% of the people at a comic convention now, much less when she's that age.

Violence is never the answer

Tell Hitler that.

unless your in actual physical harm and to promote it otherwise is horribly dumb. And please spare me some stupid weiner dog comment or how you'll shoot that person or some such.

You seem personally invested, insulted even. Here lie down on this couch. Have a cookie.
[img]http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/downloadAttach/3862.page[/img

But Im glad that my theory has been helped along. Rude comments to woman = evil. Physical violence to a man = you go girl!

And Mannahain thats gotta be one of the worst most one sided summaries Ive ever seen. I get it you dont like any of our arguments, some dumb posts aside. That doesn't invalidate them though. I get you think a woman could never do something with an ulterior motive and that anyone that thinks different from you is a misogynistic cretin, but really, nobody here knows but her.

So what? Lets assume she went there Paris Hilton style to make a name and then make bank. Its all good until the geeks - and lets be real thats what they were, Dorito eating manboys who probably outclassed here in the mammary size department- go wannabe rape posse on her.

Men are pigs. Where are the other men correcting them on their behavior?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I found something on which I agree with Dutch.

Women don't need to be kicking guys in the balls, as a rule. Being prepared to deal with a physical confrontation if needed is a useful skill for anyone, of course, but there's rarely justification to start one.

They don't need to. Its a nice option. Its like chocolate icecream. I don't need an extra scoop with M&Ms folded in and covered with hot chocolate. I want it.

Frankly your average grrrl could beat helloutta most people at a comic convention.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 whembly wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I found something on which I agree with Dutch.

Women don't need to be kicking guys in the balls, as a rule. Being prepared to deal with a physical confrontation if needed is a useful skill for anyone, of course, but there's rarely justification to start one.

Okay... kicking the jewels in this case is excessive.

No no. excessive is getting a hammer for the job.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 DutchKillsRambo wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:
I found something on which I agree with Dutch.

Women don't need to be kicking guys in the balls, as a rule. Being prepared to deal with a physical confrontation if needed is a useful skill for anyone, of course, but there's rarely justification to start one.

Appropriate use of force kids. Bad words don't rate a beating. However should someone lay hands on someone aggressively, no matter the gender of the individual being attacked, I must admit I heartily support a good kick between the uprights as an initial disabler. Cheap? Yes. Unfair? The only fair fight is the one you win and the street isn't a sparring ring.

Yes but thats not what anyone was advocating. Frazzled, whembly and quite a few others were saying she should have punched him or kicked him right there no stage. As if acting like a child would give her the upper hand.

You're right. She should have smashed a folding chair over him and then kick him until the police come and have to drag her out, still screaming and kicking him. After all never fight fair.
Its what a chola would do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mannahnin wrote:
Well, it did go 20 pages, and I think just about every possible dumb thing to say on the subject has already been said.

You underestimate our ability to say dumb things. We have two or so more pages...


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:

 Kaldor wrote:

 LordofHats wrote:
typical douche baggery

The behaviour that sparked this thread is NOT typical douchebaggery. It's sexual harassment, and should be viewed and treated as such.

Having people look at your tits and ask you what bra size you are is NOT sexual harassment.

Try it at work in front of your boss. Tell us how it works out.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
So any guy who's ever stared at a woman has committed sexual harassment?

You're not fething serious? That's so stupid it's not worth refuting.

Comments are. COmments will get you sued and fired in a workplace environment. What are you...twelve?

I have to point out like fraz, it really is wholly irresponsible to tell your daughter to hit men, because modern men have had to deal with modern women, and as a result a great many will happily chin them.

I have hit.. Let me think... Four or five women. One hit me with a bottle and got uppercutted, one kneed me in the balls and got thrown down some stairs, and one threw a glass of wine on me, wore my pint of Guinness shortly afterwards and then threw about 4 punches at me and also got chinned.

The point is, irresponsible dads teach daddy's girl to hit men and then they think it's perfectly acceptable and utterly without consequences.

Responsible dads like mattys say, never ever hit a woman, but demand the same back, and if one wants to fight like a man, fething hit her like one.

I'm a nice bloke, I've been with my missus for six years and have never laid a glove on her, because she is nice too and only shouts when she is angry.

If you really are teaching her to act like one of those awful women who thinks they can march around beating men up, I suggest you change direction, because seriously a great many men subscribe to my philosophy. If a bird throws more than 3 in my direction she gets a bat in the mouth.

Obviously I don't kick them when they are down or anything...

I'm a gentleman don't you know!

 mattyrm wrote:
I have to point out like fraz, it really is wholly irresponsible to tell your daughter to hit men, because modern men have had to deal with modern women, and as a result a great many will happily chin them.

I have hit.. Let me think... Four or five women. One hit me with a bottle and got uppercutted, one kneed me in the balls and got thrown down some stairs, and one threw a glass of wine on me, wore my pint of Guinness shortly afterwards and then threw about 4 punches at me and also got chinned.

The point is, irresponsible dads teach daddy's girl to hit men and then they think it's perfectly acceptable and utterly without consequences.

Responsible dads like mattys say, never ever hit a woman, but demand the same back, and if one wants to fight like a man, fething hit her like one.

I'm a nice bloke, I've been with my missus for six years and have never laid a glove on her, because she is nice too and only shouts when she is angry.

If you really are teaching her to act like one of those awful women who thinks they can march around beating men up, I suggest you change direction, because seriously a great many men subscribe to my philosophy. If a chicken throws more than 3 in my direction she gets a bat in the mouth.

Obviously I don't kick them when they are down or anything...

I'm a gentleman don't you know!

YOu lost me completely after you said you threw your Guinness on her. That poor poor beer. Barbarian!!!!

 mattyrm wrote:
. One hit me with a bottle and got uppercutted, one kneed me in the balls and got thrown down some stairs, and one threw a glass of wine on me, wore my pint of Guinness shortly afterwards and then threw about 4 punches at me and also got chinned.

.. rest of the night out was alright though yeah ?

 reds8n wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
. One hit me with a bottle and got uppercutted, one kneed me in the balls and got thrown down some stairs, and one threw a glass of wine on me, wore my pint of Guinness shortly afterwards and then threw about 4 punches at me and also got chinned.

.. rest of the night out was alright though yeah ?

That was just Matty's morning in the Starbucks line, also known as regular Tuesday. Its hell getting that triple mocha decaf latte.

 reds8n wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
. One hit me with a bottle and got uppercutted, one kneed me in the balls and got thrown down some stairs, and one threw a glass of wine on me, wore my pint of Guinness shortly afterwards and then threw about 4 punches at me and also got chinned.

.. rest of the night out was alright though yeah ?

Good one!

Seriously though, it was common as feth in barrack towns where birds hate blokes because of the gak they do. I once wrote a girl for a mate saying he got killed in an avalanche when we were in Norway, I hope he didnt bump into her again.

I'm not saying men aren't proper bastards sometimes, I'm just saying its ridiculously irresponsible to tell chicks to chin people! My old man trained me.. I always count to three (legally covered in case of CCTV or witnesses) and if they are still swinging I fething drop them. A woman can throw a good punch, one chick hit me right in the throat (this is the one I couldn't defend against the flurry of punches one handed so I tragically had to mash my cheesy chips into her face) and it properly fethed me.. what if they get a lucky punch, hit you on the temple and then fully boot the feth out of you?

Its sensible to defend yourself against violence regardless of the sex of the attacker.. when that fat fether in the kebab shop shifted her ample frame with surprising agility and rabbit punched me in the windpipe I was gasping for breath and I desperately squished my almost full tray of freshly made scran into her grid! The one who bottled me on the side of the napper (just because she was singing and I said "feth me, can't you bloody whistle?!" ) I put my hand to my head, and when my palm came away red I chinned the fether...

Anyway, what I'm driving at is that its never acceptable to chin someone for a bit of verbal. Its always the same with the girls that do it. They escalate the situation and then resort to violence because they think they can. The chick I hoyed down the stairs in a club needlessly called me a name (a spotty fether I think.. I'm not even spotty I just had a particularly large one right on my forehead at the time!) so I did the same, she then called me something else, so then I called her a name, and the next thing she is swinging at me? What the feths that all about?!

People are just like animals, they need to learn consequences.... seriously you can ask my missus. I was spinning some of my always popular "acts of violence on women" yarns at a party a few months ago and some chick who didn't know me very well actually asked my missus If I had ever hit her and she said "of course not" and she then said "I have never hit him either though even when I am super annoyed with him, because I know he would hit me back!"

Fear of retaliation is the way to have a purposely harmonious relationship. Just look at the nuclear deterrent!

You realize what you're really saying is that there are wimminz almost the equal of the mighty Matty. they could undoubtedly kill many a mortal man.

Tough chicks there, almost as tough as Latinas. Almost.
(ok not by a country mile but still tough).

 Frazzled wrote:

Violence is never the answer

Tell Hitler that.

Not a fan of the Godwin but yes, violence is often the answer.

 Frazzled wrote:
You realize what you're really saying is that there are wimminz almost the equal of the mighty Matty. they could undoubtedly kill many a mortal man.

Tough chicks there, almost as tough as Latinas. Almost.
(ok not by a country mile but still tough).

I'm not even remotely saying that.. All I am saying is what I started the entire discussion about, and thats that if you teach your daughter to strike men, then a man will strike her back, and thats not a good thing. Especially the balls man.. Its not like on comedy Hollywood movies where it instantly drops you to the floor, it just makes you wince in pain and then any sense of restraint vanishes.

All im saying is, don't teach the kid to knee guys in the balls or she might end up getting a smack in the mouth off a big bloke.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Violence is never the answer

Tell Hitler that.

Not a fan of the Godwin but yes, violence is often the answer.

"If violence isn't the answer, you're not using enough!"
-Curtis LeMay


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You realize what you're really saying is that there are wimminz almost the equal of the mighty Matty. they could undoubtedly kill many a mortal man.

Tough chicks there, almost as tough as Latinas. Almost.
(ok not by a country mile but still tough).

I'm not even remotely saying that.. All I am saying is what I started the entire discussion about, and thats that if you teach your daughter to strike men, then a man will strike her back, and thats not a good thing. Especially the balls man.. Its not like on comedy Hollywood movies where it instantly drops you to the floor, it just makes you wince in pain and then any sense of restraint vanishes.

All im saying is, don't teach the kid to knee guys in the balls or she might end up getting a smack in the mouth off a big bloke.

What if you teach your daughter to be like Grandma, and if they displease you run them over?

What if you teach your daughter like you teach your son, that if they strike someone else they might strike back?

 mattyrm wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You realize what you're really saying is that there are wimminz almost the equal of the mighty Matty. they could undoubtedly kill many a mortal man.

Tough chicks there, almost as tough as Latinas. Almost.
(ok not by a country mile but still tough).

I'm not even remotely saying that.. All I am saying is what I started the entire discussion about, and thats that if you teach your daughter to strike men, then a man will strike her back, and thats not a good thing. Especially the balls man.. Its not like on comedy Hollywood movies where it instantly drops you to the floor, it just makes you wince in pain and then any sense of restraint vanishes.

All im saying is, don't teach the kid to knee guys in the balls or she might end up getting a smack in the mouth off a big bloke.

Quoted for truth. Being bunched in the balls hurts but it's nothing compared to what a guy can and would do to a woman.

 Frazzled wrote:

What if you teach your daughter to be like Grandma, and if they displease you run them over?

Much better, no danger of getting a punch in the mouth then.

May be some legal issues though.. especially if she gets sued... and then you know she's going to be running to Daddy to settle the bill.

honestly as far as teaching girls to fight back, I say yes, but with moderation. when my sister took a class at her school on self defense that was really just a confidence booster I decided to teach her the real universal weak points (eyes, joints, kidneys, ect.) then when someone tried to grope her at a party she grabbed the guy's hand and bent his finger in a way it's not supposed to bend until he begged for mercy. no permanent damage, just like I taught her. I was so proud of her.

 Yojiro wrote:
What if you teach your daughter like you teach your son, that if they strike someone else they might strike back?

Er...I taught them don't start the fight but by God finish it and finish it so onesidedly you'll never be bothered again. I don't know how mom raised you people, but thats how I was raised.

(Also how to drink chickory coffee but I digress)


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 mattyrm wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You realize what you're really saying is that there are wimminz almost the equal of the mighty Matty. they could undoubtedly kill many a mortal man.

Tough chicks there, almost as tough as Latinas. Almost.
(ok not by a country mile but still tough).

I'm not even remotely saying that.. All I am saying is what I started the entire discussion about, and thats that if you teach your daughter to strike men, then a man will strike her back, and thats not a good thing. Especially the balls man.. Its not like on comedy Hollywood movies where it instantly drops you to the floor, it just makes you wince in pain and then any sense of restraint vanishes.

All im saying is, don't teach the kid to knee guys in the balls or she might end up getting a smack in the mouth off a big bloke.

Come on we know thats what you're really saying. Now time to man up and apologize for abusing that poor innocent Guiness, who never did any harm to you.
OT what do you count Guinness as? Its too much to be a beer, and if you say malt liquor here, people think bad cadillacs and mad dog 40 40.

 dogma wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Violence is never the answer

Tell Hitler that.

Not a fan of the Godwin but yes, violence is often the answer.

"Anyone who clings to the historically untrue — and thoroughly immoral — doctrine that "violence never solves anything" I would advise to conjure up the ghosts of Napoleon Bonaparte and of the Duke of Wellington and let them debate it. The ghost of Hitler could referee, and the jury might well be the Dodo, the Great Auk, and the Passenger Pigeon."

Couldn't resist.

Indeed good sir.

If an injury has to be done to a man it should be so severe that his vengeance need not be feared.
-Niccolo Machiavelli

 mattyrm wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

What if you teach your daughter to be like Grandma, and if they displease you run them over?

Much better, no danger of getting a punch in the mouth then.

May be some legal issues though.. especially if she gets sued... and then you know she's going to be running to Daddy to settle the bill.

Well, once again, Grandma comes to the rescue.
"Remember GC, do like Grandma did and be sure to run them over twice."
-Rule #2: Double Tap -Zombieland


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
You realize what you're really saying is that there are wimminz almost the equal of the mighty Matty. they could undoubtedly kill many a mortal man.

Tough chicks there, almost as tough as Latinas. Almost.
(ok not by a country mile but still tough).

I'm not even remotely saying that.. All I am saying is what I started the entire discussion about, and thats that if you teach your daughter to strike men, then a man will strike her back, and thats not a good thing. Especially the balls man.. Its not like on comedy Hollywood movies where it instantly drops you to the floor, it just makes you wince in pain and then any sense of restraint vanishes.

All im saying is, don't teach the kid to knee guys in the balls or she might end up getting a smack in the mouth off a big bloke.

Quoted for truth. Being bunched in the balls hurts but it's nothing compared to what a guy can and would do to a woman.

I had an ex that wouldn't punch you. She'd just stab you. Which is worse?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 yeri wrote:
honestly as far as teaching girls to fight back, I say yes, but with moderation. when my sister took a class at her school on self defense that was really just a confidence booster I decided to teach her the real universal weak points (eyes, joints, kidneys, ect.) then when someone tried to grope her at a party she grabbed the guy's hand and bent his finger in a way it's not supposed to bend until he begged for mercy. no permanent damage, just like I taught her. I was so proud of her.

Brings a tear to my eye.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Yojiro wrote:
What if you teach your daughter like you teach your son, that if they strike someone else they might strike back?

Er...I taught them don't start the fight but by God finish it and finish it so onesidedly you'll never be bothered again. I don't know how mom raised you people, but thats how I was raised.

(Also how to drink chickory coffee but I digress)

We Portuguese lot are a very peaceful people.

"Look there's no fuss, can't we discuss this over a beer or something?" Is how I was raised.

 Yojiro wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Yojiro wrote:
What if you teach your daughter like you teach your son, that if they strike someone else they might strike back?

Er...I taught them don't start the fight but by God finish it and finish it so onesidedly you'll never be bothered again. I don't know how mom raised you people, but thats how I was raised.

(Also how to drink chickory coffee but I digress)

We Portuguese lot are a very peaceful people.

"Look there's no fuss, can't we discuss this over a beer or something?" Is how I was raised.

I was raised by a foreigner. My mom was from Louisiana.*

*This explains a lot actually.
Damn now I may have to go to Treebeards for lunch.

 Frazzled wrote:

I had an ex that wouldn't punch you. She'd just stab you. Which is worse?

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

You honestly need to watch less action films. I can't remember the last time I watched one that *didn't* feature a 120lb woman kicking the gak out of 200lb men.

 Testify wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I had an ex that wouldn't punch you. She'd just stab you. Which is worse?

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

You honestly need to watch less action films. I can't remember the last time I watched one that *didn't* feature a 120lb woman kicking the gak out of 200lb men.

Not been in a knife fight before I take it.
I had an ex that would stab you. She was crazy. Hence my perspectyive is a little different.
Everyone should have at least one crazy ex in their past just to provide the proper context for when you meet your wife.

Now the gal before her was a chola. She wasn't crazy. She was downright scary. Yea!

It's not about strength, it's about skill. my sister and I once beat four fifth graders when we were in third (me) and first (her) grade. they just tried to blindly punch and kick, where as we approached it with a strategy and skill. the key to beating a bigger and stronger opponent is to use their mass against them. I'm just going to state for the record that in that fight they learned that sir Issac Newton is one badgak dude in a fight.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I had an ex that wouldn't punch you. She'd just stab you. Which is worse?

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

You honestly need to watch less action films. I can't remember the last time I watched one that *didn't* feature a 120lb woman kicking the gak out of 200lb men.

Not been in a knife fight before I take it.
I had an ex that would stab you. She was crazy. Hence my perspectyive is a little different.
Everyone should have at least one crazy ex in their past just to provide the proper context for when you meet your wife.

Now the gal before her was a chola. She wasn't crazy. She was downright scary. Yea!

Dude, I *am* the crazy ex. Shame I lost my knife in Edinburgh

 Testify wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

I had an ex that wouldn't punch you. She'd just stab you. Which is worse?

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

You honestly need to watch less action films. I can't remember the last time I watched one that *didn't* feature a 120lb woman kicking the gak out of 200lb men.

Not been in a knife fight before I take it.
I had an ex that would stab you. She was crazy. Hence my perspectyive is a little different.
Everyone should have at least one crazy ex in their past just to provide the proper context for when you meet your wife.

Now the gal before her was a chola. She wasn't crazy. She was downright scary. Yea!

Dude, I *am* the crazy ex. Shame I lost my knife in Edinburgh

Just like an Aggie, bring a knife to a gunfight.

 Testify wrote:

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

That's not only deeply sexist, its dangerously wrong.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Yojiro wrote:
What if you teach your daughter like you teach your son, that if they strike someone else they might strike back?

OT what do you count Guinness as? Its too much to be a beer, and if you say malt liquor here, people think bad cadillacs and mad dog 40 40.

I believe it is known as a "stout."

You'd think that if people learned anything from comic books, its that ladies can be just as deadly as dudes. Especially with sharp things

Anyone is dangerous with a knife. All it takes is one low blow and that's it.

 yeri wrote:
It's not about strength, it's about skill.

Its about both. Pretending that strength doesn't matter is nonsense. Size and strength don't entail a victory, but they are huge advantages.

 RossDas wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Yojiro wrote:
What if you teach your daughter like you teach your son, that if they strike someone else they might strike back?

OT what do you count Guinness as? Its too much to be a beer, and if you say malt liquor here, people think bad cadillacs and mad dog 40 40.

I believe it is known as a "stout."

Stout eh? thats an apt term.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Yojiro wrote:
Anyone is dangerous with a knife. All it takes is one low blow and that's it.

Usually multiple blows are what happens, but thats the point of the knife. I hope that cuts through all the nonsense.

Well yes, if you wanna be technical about it! One kick to the jewels and then it's Stabby time!!!!!

 dogma wrote:

 Testify wrote:

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

That's not only deeply sexist, its dangerously wrong.

I have been attacked by a woman with a knife before. A knife isn't much use against someone who can bench more than you weigh and has a fist bigger than your jaw

One of the reasons I never carried my (perfectly legal) knife in public was because it was useless in self defence. Punching someone as quickly and as hard as I can is far more effective than making sure I had the right angle/place, and since I have no training at all it'd basically be useless.

Unless you're going to argue that a highly trained female assassin would be handy with a knife in which case yes, I would agree. That's why I don't date assassins

You'll never get to go on any crazy adventures with that attitude sir.

 dogma wrote:

 yeri wrote:
It's not about strength, it's about skill.

Its about both. Pretending that strength doesn't matter is nonsense. Size and strength don't entail a victory, but they are huge advantages.

quite right sir, I guess I should have phrased it differently. strength and size help, but IMHO not as much as skill.

 dogma wrote:

 Testify wrote:

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

That's not only deeply sexist, its dangerously wrong.

Yeah... on the plus side this is why I support and actively encourage women carrying firearms! The great equalizer ladies and gentlemen!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Testify wrote:

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

That's not only deeply sexist, its dangerously wrong.

Yeah... on the plus side this is why I support and actively encourage women carrying firearms! The great equalizer ladies and gentlemen!

Not if only one side has them!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Testify wrote:

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

That's not only deeply sexist, its dangerously wrong.

Yeah... on the plus side this is why I support and actively encourage women carrying firearms! The great equalizer ladies and gentlemen!

Are you being serious? It's bad enough that Frazzled managed to get away with every single post being a fething troll but not you too.

How did we go from hot chicks in cosplay costumes to knives and firearms?

I want to see Bigguns, not Big Guns!

What about bigguns with big guns?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Testify wrote:

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

That's not only deeply sexist, its dangerously wrong.

Yeah... on the plus side this is why I support and actively encourage women carrying firearms! The great equalizer ladies and gentlemen!

Its actually quite effective. It makes you more polite so you don't escalate stupid situations, and is handy for when the zombies attack.

When jogging with the young wiener SWMBO likes to take along pepper spray, although she often ends up carrying Rodney halfway through (this is known as surprise attack wiener dog NOMNOMNOM!). On the weeks Rusty the Tank dog is there, she just takes him. Plus, if she's tired she could just ride him back.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Testify wrote:

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

That's not only deeply sexist, its dangerously wrong.

Yeah... on the plus side this is why I support and actively encourage women carrying firearms! The great equalizer ladies and gentlemen!

Are you being serious? It's bad enough that Frazzled managed to get away with every single post being a fething troll but not you too.

Er....this is the USA. He's probably very serious. SWMBO has a very choice 9mm full of wide mouth bass in case of emergency.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
What about bigguns with big guns?

Beat me to it!

 Testify wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:

 dogma wrote:

 Testify wrote:

A woman with a knife is still just a woman. Assuming her boyfriend is a big bastard she still doesn't have a chance.

That's not only deeply sexist, its dangerously wrong.

Yeah... on the plus side this is why I support and actively encourage women carrying firearms! The great equalizer ladies and gentlemen!

Are you being serious? It's bad enough that Frazzled managed to get away with every single post being a fething troll but not you too.

I'm quite serious. Gun control whiners complain in every gun thread that comes up about how dangerous guns are. Well when you're a 90lb woman about to be attacked by a 200lb man suddenly dangerous doesn't seem so bad does it? As a tool, and given the nature of a tool a gun doesn't care how physically strong you are, it all comes down to the mind and how much time you're willing to put down to training. Many of the female shooters I know are better shots then me and my male friends.

I have to admit. I was hoping for something with bikini's.

You guys are making me think outside th box!

Now thats mor elike it!

 Testify wrote:

I have been attacked by a woman with a knife before. A knife isn't much use against someone who can bench more than you weigh and has a fist bigger than your jaw .

You're in for an awful, awful wake-up call.

Isn't this proving we're all uncouth barbarians?

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Isn't this proving we're all uncouth barbarians?

shh... Keep posting'em!

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
...a gun doesn't care how physically strong you are...

Yes it does. A 90lb girl firing a .357 is going to have issues.

TIL: Sharp metal is no match for MANLY MUSCLES. I need to get PUMPED and BENCH so I can SHATTER BLADES with my FISTS.

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:


Isn't this proving we're all uncouth barbarians?

Stop objectifying you barbarian!

I'm sorry, more pics need to be studied...
Its almost like those gals who dress like superheroes. I wonder if they ever get harassed about it?

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
...a gun doesn't care how physically strong you are...

Yes it does. A 90lb girl firing a .357 is going to have issues.

Why? GC was firing a 9mm Beretta 92 free hand and weighed considerably less than 80 lb at the time. Contrary to Hollywood a .357 is not much snappier.

 Frazzled wrote:
I'm sorry, more pics need to be studied...
Its almost like those gals who dress like superheroes. I wonder if they ever get harassed about it?

 dogma wrote:

 KalashnikovMarine wrote:
...a gun doesn't care how physically strong you are...

Yes it does. A 90lb girl firing a .357 is going to have issues.

Why? GC was firing a 9mm Beretta 92 free hand and weighed considerably less than 80 lb at the time. Contrary to Hollywood a .357 is not much snappier.

Considering their models at photo shoots for the most part....

and honestly proper stance matters a lot more then size and weight ever will. Maybe if you're packing a .44 magnum or something but I know plenty of women you could consider "petite" who just love their snub nose .357s. 9mm/40S&W semi automatics seem to be the most popular amongst both genders though.

And cheaper ammo.

I used to love to take de wimminz out to shoot the .44. BLAM!!! They always loved it.

I saw a 40SW Revolver the other day...it was confusing as anything but a same ammo back up gun and then...why?

Please stay on-topic.

On topic, as I said, dress like that near a building site, a working mens club or a Naval base.

Men are bastards.. geeks are more polite than most frankly. She would have copped way more gak giving an interview on Camp Pendleton.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:

Remind me, how effective is a gun when you're about a yard away from someone?

Pretty awesome like mate, especially for a pistol. You're unlikely to miss for starters!

Builders in the UK have a "better business" code which prevents the workers from passing comments on women in the street.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Builders in the UK have a "better business" code which prevents the workers from passing comments on women in the street.

dot dot dot.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
Builders in the UK have a "better business" code which prevents the workers from passing comments on women in the street.

That sounds like a hostile work environment.

 mattyrm wrote:
On topic, as I said, dress like that near a building site, a working mens club or a Naval base.

Men are bastards.. geeks are more polite than most frankly. She would have copped way more gak giving an interview on Camp Pendleton.

And yes I'd heartily encourage Ms. Caruso and any other women to support their local military bases by dressing up and doing USO shows. You'd be surprised how many people on base enjoy comic books.

 Testify wrote:

 Mannahnin wrote:

I can get behind two of the above eight sentiments my fellow Dakkanauts have expressed. Which is not a good ratio. I think our community is mostly better than this junk. And can be better than it is.

Never go to a club. I have (female) friends who've had their genitals groped in clubs, and that's just what i'm willing to put on dakka. Men, and by men I do explicitly mean people with penises, are bastards.

Sometimes they want that to happen. I will agree a lot take it too far though. I've had to physically cock block a guy multiple times before. He jsut wouldn't get the clue And I wouldn't say to never go to a club, I'd say be prepared and have a couple friends.

Of course, the actual incidence of sexual harassment has nothing to do with whether it is okay or whether we should talk openly about it not being okay.

Given that you define staring at a girl as "sexual harassment" I am loathe to get into technicalities with you.

*sigh* Asshats ruin the fun for everyone, again.

In all honesty, they should have security walking around, and not the wheezy, limp-wristed douchetools they get for these things. I mean actual security to walk around and make sure gak like this doesn't happen.

These cockbites need to get taught some manners, by actual men, via fists. Lots of fists.

 Testify wrote:
Given that you define staring at a girl as "sexual harassment" I am loathe to get into technicalities with you.

He doesn't define that way. The law does. In the US at least there have been multiple court rulings on this. Go ahead and Google it.

Under what law is 'staring' sexual harassment? Last I checked, no one gets prosecuted for staring, or even sued.

 LordofHats wrote:
Under what law is 'staring' sexual harassment?

The US, apparently. See a girl with an amazing rack at work and stare too long? Get the sack.

Obviously there's endemic rape and abuse in sections of the arts/media, but no one cares about that right.

 Testify wrote:
Given that you define staring at a girl as "sexual harassment" I am loathe to get into technicalities with you.

I didn't give that as a definition. But just like your parents should have taught you, staring someone down -- especially a stranger in a public place -- is extremely rude. Whether or not it constitutes sexual harassment is something to be determined with the facts of an actual case rather than hypothetical-based hysteria-mongering.

So...staring at someone is considered sexual harassment? Rude, I get. But illegal?

Does anyone else see this as just a bit insane?

I stare at guys too, until they look away (the cowards) or I look away (not because I'm a coward. Because there's something totally interesting on my phone dude! ).

I've been stared/gawped at by girls and I find it flattering. I honestly don't see the problem, as long as it's not a symptom of underlying social ineptitude.

 Manchu wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Given that you define staring at a girl as "sexual harassment" I am loathe to get into technicalities with you.

I didn't give that as a definition. But just like your parents should have taught you, staring someone down -- especially a stranger in a public place -- is extremely rude. Whether or not it constitutes sexual harassment is something to be determined with the facts of an actual case rather than hypothetical-based hysteria-mongering.

On a serious note, for no reason me and my missus have ever been able to figure out with logic, America is really fethed up sexually.

My missus personally knows chicks who got raped... more than one anyway. And I figured she was bullshitting me, but apparently not, something crazy like 1/5 American birds get raped, its ridiculously high compared to the UK, and for the fething life of me I cant imagine why, I've lived in the states and the culture is almost identical.

Plus we have a higher percentage of these lads, you would figure that puts us on an instant decline.. they have been at it again by the way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/23/nine-men-charged-with-child-sex-offences_n_2006673.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk1&pLid=133606

I'd start another thread but KK just locks them.

 LordofHats wrote:
Under what law is 'staring' sexual harassment? Last I checked, no one gets prosecuted for staring, or even sued.

In as much as other things are. I mean it's not like you can (successfully), be sued personally for sexual harassment because of a one-off comment, stare or anything else that constitutes sexual harassment. Catcalling, as tacky,potentially hurtful and generally douchey as it is, isn't breaking the law. These kinds of things have to take place on a consistent and deliberate basis and/or in a workplace to be actionable in anyway. That's not unique to staring ,it's true of all forms of sexual harassment. Staring has however, been found to be a behavior that does count as sexual harassment in those circumstances.

 mattyrm wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Testify wrote:
Given that you define staring at a girl as "sexual harassment" I am loathe to get into technicalities with you.

I didn't give that as a definition. But just like your parents should have taught you, staring someone down -- especially a stranger in a public place -- is extremely rude. Whether or not it constitutes sexual harassment is something to be determined with the facts of an actual case rather than hypothetical-based hysteria-mongering.

On a serious note, for no reason me and my missus have ever been able to figure out with logic, America is really fethed up sexually.

My missus personally knows chicks who got raped... more than one anyway. And I figured she was bullshitting me, but apparently not, something crazy like 1/5 American birds get raped, its ridiculously high compared to the UK, and for the fething life of me I cant imagine why, I've lived in the states and the culture is almost identical.

Plus we have a higher percentage of these lads, you would figure that puts us on an instant decline.. they have been at it again by the way.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/10/23/nine-men-charged-with-child-sex-offences_n_2006673.html?icid=maing-grid7%7Cuk%7Cdl1%7Csec1_lnk1&pLid=133606

I'd start another thread but KK just locks them.

I wonder what source gave the one in five figure. Was there not a group that were counting consented drunken one night stands as rape on the basis that the woman later regretted it, plus other sexual encounters that didn't involve someone being forced to have intercourse?

Are we really going to get into the extremely lax definition of "rape" by some people? I'm sure we've been through that before.

Remember the original topic?

 RossDas wrote:

I wonder what source gave the one in five figure. Was there not a group that were counting consented drunken one night stands as rape on the basis that the woman later regretted it, plus other sexual encounters that didn't involve someone being forced to have intercourse?

If someone is extremely drunk, on tweaked out on drugs, asleep or otherwise not able to make coherent decisions, they cannot grant consent. Sex without consent is rape. Again, this is not "One Group" this is the law.

General Rule of Thumb: If someone is in a state where they probably won't be able to remember agreeing to something later, they probably can't legally agree to anything anyway.

 Testify wrote:
Given that you define staring at a girl as "sexual harassment" I am loathe to get into technicalities with you.

Thats not just us. Thats the law and the EEOC enforces it with enthusiasm.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 LordofHats wrote:
Under what law is 'staring' sexual harassment? Last I checked, no one gets prosecuted for staring, or even sued.

You should check then. Thats the real deal. Leering is an excellent way to get a harassment case going.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:
I stare at guys too, until they look away (the cowards) or I look away (not because I'm a coward. Because there's something totally interesting on my phone dude! ).

I've been stared/gawped at by girls and I find it flattering. I honestly don't see the problem, as long as it's not a symptom of underlying social ineptitude.

Carefuly about that with dogs though. I had a crazy bird dog (you know I'm starting to notice a trend here) that had been abused, complete with actual dent in his skull. If you stared at him more than 20 seconds he would flip out like a crazy homeless guy and attack you.

 Chongara wrote:

General Rule of Thumb: If someone is in a state where they probably won't be able to remember agreeing to something later, they probably can't legally agree to anything anyway.

By that logic, I've been raped.

Except, I haven't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Carefuly about that with dogs though. I had a crazy bird dog (you know I'm starting to notice a trend here) that had been abused, complete with actual dent in his skull. If you stared at him more than 20 seconds he would flip out like a crazy homeless guy and attack you.

What do you think happens when a 16 stone man kicks a dog in the head?

I'm surprised it took me this long to find this thread.

Has anyone posted Dave Chappelle's take on this issue yet? I don't feel like looking through all twenty-three pages, and it sums up my thoughts nicely.

Eh, what the hell. On the off chance it hasn't been posted (VNSFW): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8K1KHqi9bXc

 Testify wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

General Rule of Thumb: If someone is in a state where they probably won't be able to remember agreeing to something later, they probably can't legally agree to anything anyway.

By that logic, I've been raped.

Except, I haven't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Carefuly about that with dogs though. I had a crazy bird dog (you know I'm starting to notice a trend here) that had been abused, complete with actual dent in his skull. If you stared at him more than 20 seconds he would flip out like a crazy homeless guy and attack you.

What do you think happens when a 16 stone man kicks a dog in the head?

Look, whatever tough guy. I really couldn't care less if you didn't feel violated after having sex you couldn't consent to. Just do the world (and yourself), a favor and keep your dick out of anyone who isn't in a lucid state of mind.

 Testify wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

General Rule of Thumb: If someone is in a state where they probably won't be able to remember agreeing to something later, they probably can't legally agree to anything anyway.

By that logic, I've been raped.

Except, I haven't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Carefuly about that with dogs though. I had a crazy bird dog (you know I'm starting to notice a trend here) that had been abused, complete with actual dent in his skull. If you stared at him more than 20 seconds he would flip out like a crazy homeless guy and attack you.

What do you think happens when a 16 stone man kicks a dog in the head?

When a stoned man kicks a dog? er what???

 Frazzled wrote:

When a stoned man kicks a dog? er what???

Allow me to translate:

"I weigh 224lbs and I'm a total bad ass. If any kind of pansy ass dog tried to get up all in my grill, I'd just give him a quick swift kick in the head and totally pwn that sucker because I don't take no guff"

 Chongara wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

General Rule of Thumb: If someone is in a state where they probably won't be able to remember agreeing to something later, they probably can't legally agree to anything anyway.

By that logic, I've been raped.

Except, I haven't.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Carefuly about that with dogs though. I had a crazy bird dog (you know I'm starting to notice a trend here) that had been abused, complete with actual dent in his skull. If you stared at him more than 20 seconds he would flip out like a crazy homeless guy and attack you.

What do you think happens when a 16 stone man kicks a dog in the head?

Look, whatever tough guy. I really couldn't care less if you didn't feel violated after having sex you couldn't consent to. Just do the world (and yourself), a favor and keep your dick out of anyone who isn't in a lucid state of mind.

Earlier in this thread you quite brazenly said that sex with anyone who was drunk or on drugs was rape. You can have your morality, I can have mine.

 Chongara wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

When a stoned man kicks a dog? er what???

Allow me to translate:

"I weigh 224lbs and I'm a total bad ass. If any kind of pansy ass dog tried to get up all in my grill, I'd just give him a quick swift kick in the head and totally pwn that sucker because I don't take no guff"

Oh. Well:
1. I'm just saying some dogs get weird about that.
I guess I should point out:
2. Kodiak bears are in the dog family...
3. I think we need a suitable doggie pic:

23 pages from a incident from comic con....makes me want to drop 40K....

 Jihadin wrote:
23 pages from a incident from comic con....makes me want to drop 40K....

I don't think anything about 40k makes people more given to this "the whore deserved it" mentality we've seen 23 pages of here. They brought it to 40k with them, I suspect.

 Manchu wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
23 pages from a incident from comic con....makes me want to drop 40K....

I don't think anything about 40k makes people more given to this "the whore deserved it" mentality we've seen 23 pages of here. They brought it to 40k with them, I suspect.

Honestly it's a fairly common attitude. It's really more a reflection of broader trends than anything else. Though I suspect the general boys-club nature of Wargaming in general, and 40k in particular makes it a bit easier for people to be loud about it than in other settings. Especially on the ol' interwebs.

Yeah Manchu beat that drum some more. She didn't deserve, she just shouldn't be surprised whenissue put herself in tha position with an obvious outcome. 20+ pages and your blinders are still firmly in place. At least you stick to your guns.

 Testify wrote:

Earlier in this thread you quite brazenly said that sex with anyone who was drunk or on drugs was rape. You can have your morality, I can have mine.

Just understand that your "Morality" could easily leave another human being feeling devastated, and land you in jail. It's well within your power to not feel violated and not enforce your right to only have sex when you're able to consent. However going forward and interacting with other people under the assumption that they can actually give consent, when they can't has a great potential to turn out horribly.

Stop equating drunken sex with rape. It makes me think you must have had some very confusing experiences at some point in your life.

No need to get personal, since it's against the rules.

Meanwhile: if you cannot consent, there is no consent; if there is no consent, then it is rape.

Pretty easy.

Rape-

noun
1. The unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.


There you go. So there's no confusion, we also have:

statutory rape

1. sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, which age varies in different states.

There arent varying degrees of rape, there's rape and then there's not rape. Simple enough?

Fethed up sex isn't rape. *Maybe* if someone was rolling balls and they literally have no way to say no, but normally there's a big difference between "that girl had one wine cooler" and "she just got roofied." If no guy ever made a move when a girl was mildly inebriated no one would ever get laid, and that's the closest thing to evil I could imagine. Any person who gives up that much control while still retaining the ability to speak and stand up and pour themselves another drink just has poor judgment and foresight. Women want to be used sometimes, and that's not bad or something anyone who's a sexually mature adult should be afraid of. This harkens back to that awareness point I raised earlier, knowing a person and knowing how to read people to determine what's acceptable and what isn't.

 AustonT wrote:
Yeah Manchu beat that drum some more. She didn't deserve, she just shouldn't be surprised whenissue put herself in tha position with an obvious outcome. 20+ pages and your blinders are still firmly in place. At least you stick to your guns.

20+ pages and you still haven't figured out what's going on. OR maybe you have and you just really believe that women deserve to be sexually harassed but, since you know only a dirtbag would say that, you decided to hide behind a nonsequitur?

Whether or not Caruso was surprised about being sexually harassed has no bearing whatsoever on her feeling offended at having been sexually harassed nor does it have anything to do with her publicly talking about it.

Strangely, I have made this remark, and I'm sure you have read it, more than once. And yet you continue to fail to address it. You cannot explain what one thing has to do with the other -- aside from the obvious implication that "she shouldn't be surprised" actually means "it's her fault." You talk of me beating a drum but it is actually you who are going on and on and on about something which on its face has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

But, for those of you just tuning in, don't take my word for it. Here's what AustonT had to say on page 3:

 AustonT wrote:
I think chicks that go to comic cons dressed in skimpy outfits know what they are inviting, and shouldn't be surprised when they get it.

(my bolding) You see, it's not just that "she shouldn't be surprised." Why, in AustonT's opinion, shouldn't she be surprised? Because he thinks she invited that kind of behavior. She was asking for it, huh?

It occurred to me that maybe you meant something other than "it's her fault" by reiterating again and again and again that "she shouldn't be surprised." I guess I should have known that you have no trouble taking delusional positions before now -- especially after you accused me of white knighting someone who has basically no chance of ever seeing this discussion.

 Manchu wrote:
No need to get personal, since it's against the rules.

Meanwhile: if you cannot consent, there is no consent; if there is no consent, then it is rape.

Pretty easy.

Chongora said that sex while someone was drunk or on drugs was rape, regardless of consent. Presumably he thinks it's impossible to give consent in such a situation.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Simple enough?

I should hope so. Sex where all parties do not consent is rape.

 Frankenberry wrote:
Rape-

noun
1. The unlawful compelling of a person through physical force or duress to have sexual intercourse.
2. Any act of sexual intercourse that is forced upon a person.


There you go. So there's no confusion, we also have:

statutory rape

1. sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of consent, which age varies in different states.

There arent varying degrees of rape, there's rape and then there's not rape. Simple enough?

Depends on the jurisidiction. IN many jurisidictions Manchu's statement above is a felony act. Its called different things but guess what - to ze klink mit you!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Testify wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
No need to get personal, since it's against the rules.

Meanwhile: if you cannot consent, there is no consent; if there is no consent, then it is rape.

Pretty easy.

Chongora said that sex while someone was drunk or on drugs was rape, regardless of consent. Presumably he thinks it's impossible to give consent in such a situation.

So do courts actually. Its called "impairment. " COntracts signed while impaired can be void or voidable too.

KNowing is half the battle!

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Fethed up sex isn't rape. *Maybe* if someone was rolling balls and they literally have no way to say no, but normally there's a big difference between "that girl had one wine cooler" and "she just got roofied."

Yes, there is a big difference between those two things. However there are certainly states other than "was intentionally drugged" that count as being unable to give consent. Look someone who is tipsy after a few drinks, is feelin' it and getting a bit more outgoing than they usually are is fine to consent.

Someone who is stumbling around, can't form coherent sentences and insists that "I'm a monster I'm gonna eat you" in slurred almost unintelligible tone while tugging at your clothes and suggesting you have sex, while perhaps amusing to observe, isn't in a state of mind where they can have consent to having sex.

What if both parties are completely off the rocker?

 Chongara wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Fethed up sex isn't rape. *Maybe* if someone was rolling balls and they literally have no way to say no, but normally there's a big difference between "that girl had one wine cooler" and "she just got roofied."

Yes, there is a big difference between those two things. However there are certainly states other than "was intentionally drugged" that count as being unable to give consent. Look someone who is tipsy after a few drinks, is feelin' it and getting a bit more outgoing than they usually are is fine to consent.

Someone who is stumbling around, can't form coherent sentences and insists that "I'm a monster I'm gonna eat you" in slurred almost unintelligible tone while tugging at your clothes and suggesting you have sex, while perhaps amusing to observe, isn't in a state of mind where they can have consent to having sex.

...so no one should ever have sex with someone who is very inebriated?

I wasn't speaking from a legal standpoint, I was speaking from the absolute, definitive standpoint. Although, i do understand that the legal portions vary from place to place.

The definition of rape doesn't change depending on who you're talking to, it's forever the same thing. You just have people who want to justify evil disgusting gak because they are moral-less pieces of trash.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
...so no one should ever have sex with someone who is very inebriated?

Let's rephrase: if you have the opportunity to have sex with someone who is totally inebriated be aware that if you do it what you're doing might be considered rape by a court.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

 Chongara wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Fethed up sex isn't rape. *Maybe* if someone was rolling balls and they literally have no way to say no, but normally there's a big difference between "that girl had one wine cooler" and "she just got roofied."

Yes, there is a big difference between those two things. However there are certainly states other than "was intentionally drugged" that count as being unable to give consent. Look someone who is tipsy after a few drinks, is feelin' it and getting a bit more outgoing than they usually are is fine to consent.

Someone who is stumbling around, can't form coherent sentences and insists that "I'm a monster I'm gonna eat you" in slurred almost unintelligible tone while tugging at your clothes and suggesting you have sex, while perhaps amusing to observe, isn't in a state of mind where they can have consent to having sex.

...so no one should ever have sex with someone who is very inebriated?

Correct.

It should also be noted that I have never had sex with a drunk person. I have had sex. I also personally know people who have also had sex with not-drunk people, both in and out of relationships. The idea that the only time people "get laid" is when they and/or their partners are about to black out is plainly silly at best and dangerous at worst.

 Manchu wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
...so no one should ever have sex with someone who is very inebriated?

Let's rephrase: if you have the opportunity to have sex with someone who is totally inebriated be aware that if you do it what you're doing might be considered rape by a court.

Define totally inebriated.

Very very (very) drunk but clearly up for it? That's grand.

Passed out? Obviously, that's not cool.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

It should also be noted that I have never had sex with a drunk person

Epic. Face. Palm.

I could smell the moral superiority a mile away (legal aspect I have no issue with). I can't continue this particular aspect of this conversation without breaking rule #1. Good day sir.

So anyway, back to how some girl getting web traffic is worse than her being made into a masturbatory fantasy.

 Testify wrote:

Define totally inebriated.

If they've lost the majority of their motor control, and can't seem to string together coherent thoughts: They probably can't string together coherent thoughts. If they can't string together coherent thoughts, they can't make informed decisions. Including the decision to have sex.

See the example in my post you face palmed at.

 Chongara wrote:

 Testify wrote:

Define totally inebriated.

If they've lost the majority of their motor control, and can't seem to string together coherent thoughts: They probably can't string together coherent thoughts. If they can't string together coherent thoughts, they can't make informed decisions. Including the decision to have sex.

See the example in my post you face palmed at.

Just be aware that you are in the extremely small minority on this one. 19 out of 20 men wouldn't think twice, mainly because they'd be bladdered as well.

Actually, that's a big part of it. I'd never take advantage of someone who was very drunk when I was sober, that'd just be wrong.

You only need worry about having sex with an intoxicated person if the morning after they accuse you of rape.

At that point, even if they had consented the night before, you are in trouble.

It's a judgement call if you ever find yourself in that situation.

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You only need worry about having sex with an intoxicated person if the morning after they accuse you of rape.

At that point, even if they had consented the night before, you are in trouble.

It's a judgement call if you ever find yourself in that situation.

We both know it's virtually impossible to prove rape in that situation. 99 times out of 100 the girl will say nothing and simply get on with her life. The 1% of the time she does, there's no way it'd make it to court.

 Testify wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You only need worry about having sex with an intoxicated person if the morning after they accuse you of rape.

At that point, even if they had consented the night before, you are in trouble.

It's a judgement call if you ever find yourself in that situation.

We both know it's virtually impossible to prove rape in that situation. 99 times out of 100 the girl will say nothing and simply get on with her life. The 1% of the time she does, there's no way it'd make it to court.

But I thought that the courts all discriminated against white men because they're baddy bad-guise!

Take advantage of her because she'll either keep her mouth shut or no one will take her seriously? That's a rather sleazy outlook.

It was an observation on the human condition. I've only ever had sex with girls I was in a relationship with, or knew very very well. But I know girls that has happened to, and as horrible as it sounds, it's really not the end of the world. Life goes on, and unless she has a boyfriend there's not much to be done about it.

Even if she does have a boyfriend, or male friends, she'll often simply want to keep quiet and move on. Sure it sucks, but that's the world we live in.

 Testify wrote:
It was an observation on the human condition. I've only ever had sex with girls I was in a relationship with, or knew very very well. But I know girls that has happened to, and as horrible as it sounds, it's really not the end of the world. Life goes on, and unless she has a boyfriend there's not much to be done about it.

As with AustonT, I'll ask you: what does "life going on" have to do with whether something is right or not?

 Manchu wrote:
Take advantage of her because she'll either keep her mouth shut or no one will take her seriously? That's a rather sleazy outlook.

Understatement of the century. You'd think there'd be some merit in not wanting to traumatize someone.

 Chongara wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
Take advantage of her because she'll either keep her mouth shut or no one will take her seriously? That's a rather sleazy outlook.

Understatement of the century. You'd think there'd be some merit in not wanting to traumatize someone.

C'est la vie, is apparently the counterargument?

daedalus wrote:
But I thought that the courts all discriminated against white men because they're baddy bad-guise!

I have a black friend who got arrested for "beating" his white girlfriend. The cops arrested him the moment they got there, but later in court the evidence revealed through photographs he had several large bruises, broken glass in his skin and ONLY his blood spilled on the floor, on top of the fact that he was trying to flee the scene by reaching for his motorcycle gear and only moving towards the door which she had prevented him from leaving through. The case was easily thrown out. I asked him about it later and he said if they had just gotten really drunk and had relations then the fight would have never happened. Ok, I made up the last part, but yeah, if you're a white guy in that kind of trouble you're really not as bad off as some others in our society

Edit: As a side note, not everyone thinks sex is traumatic. Some people kinda like it. Others REALLY like it. Some, eh- not so much. Not everyone is the same.

 Manchu wrote:

 Testify wrote:
It was an observation on the human condition. I've only ever had sex with girls I was in a relationship with, or knew very very well. But I know girls that has happened to, and as horrible as it sounds, it's really not the end of the world. Life goes on, and unless she has a boyfriend there's not much to be done about it.

As with AustonT, I'll ask you: what does "life going on" have to do with whether something is right or not?

Wait, we're discussing right and wrongs? Oh dear.

 Testify wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Testify wrote:
It was an observation on the human condition. I've only ever had sex with girls I was in a relationship with, or knew very very well. But I know girls that has happened to, and as horrible as it sounds, it's really not the end of the world. Life goes on, and unless she has a boyfriend there's not much to be done about it.

As with AustonT, I'll ask you: what does "life going on" have to do with whether something is right or not?

Wait, we're discussing right and wrongs? Oh dear.

I got that impression. I mean, somebody did say this:

You can have your morality, I can have mine.

I just can't recall who though, can you?

 Testify wrote:
Wait, we're discussing right and wrongs? Oh dear

Uh yeah. I notice "oh dear" is something of a stock phrase next to a Union Jack but it's no substitute for an actual response.

Well, this thread has been fething quality so far.... Its bounced about more than a naked hurdlers ball-bag, I hope that the narcissistic bird with the smashing tits is typing her name in on google and happens to browse it.

I do like her tits. Smashing, as you say.

STOP OBJECTIFYING HER YOU MYSOGENSITS! LEAVE BRITNEY ALONE!

Wait, who were we talking about? What?

If there's anything we can learn from all of this, it's that if you're going to ask a girl to spank your ass and what her cup size is, get her drunk first.

Am I the only one proposing lock time for... this?

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
If there's anything we can learn from all of this, it's that if you're going to ask a girl to spank your ass and what her cup size is, get her drunk first.

Am I the only one proposing lock time for... this?

Lock time for this was about 20 pages ago probably.

 mattyrm wrote:
Well, this thread has been fething quality so far....

I can honestly say, I had no idea that so many Dakkanauts could get on board with women being sexually harassed -- and deserving it no less -- before this thread. So it has been an eye opener. Like I posted earlier, I understand now why my wife insists on waiting in the car if I stop by the comic book shop or games store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Lock time for this was about 20 pages ago probably.

Yes, we could have locked it as "a hopeless case" as soon as you -- on page one -- posted:

 daedalus wrote:
Step 1: Dress up to attract attention around unattractive people who characteristically have problems with social interaction, ESPECIALLY with women.

Step 2: Act surprised and outraged. Alert the media, because step 1 was still not enough attention.

Step 3: I blame the victim.

It could have been locked even earlier -- sadly you were not the first to make such comments. But like I mentioned to Matty, it has been interesting to see just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

 Testify wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
...so no one should ever have sex with someone who is very inebriated?

Let's rephrase: if you have the opportunity to have sex with someone who is totally inebriated be aware that if you do it what you're doing might be considered rape by a court.

Define totally inebriated.

.

Do you really want a jury of twelve opeople who are not your peers to decide that for you, when your life hangs in the balance?

 Manchu wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Well, this thread has been fething quality so far....

I can honestly say, I had no idea that so many Dakkanauts could get on board with women being sexually harassed -- and deserving it no less -- before this thread. So it has been an eye opener. Like I posted earlier, I understand now why my wife insists on waiting in the car if I stop by the comic book shop or games store.

But like I mentioned to Matty, it has been interesting to see just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

So innocent. Heck if you thought this was a fun ride, next time try asking why some "game store" types why they don't have a girlfriend. You'll get a whole 'nother round of sad, creepy and out of touch.

There are reasons I only game with my private club.

 Testify wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You only need worry about having sex with an intoxicated person if the morning after they accuse you of rape.

At that point, even if they had consented the night before, you are in trouble.

It's a judgement call if you ever find yourself in that situation.

We both know it's virtually impossible to prove rape in that situation. 99 times out of 100 the girl will say nothing and simply get on with her life. The 1% of the time she does, there's no way it'd make it to court.

You think that do you? Also do you have a few thousand (what do the British call pounds) er pounds laying around for a legal defense? Because baby you're gonna need it.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
...so no one should ever have sex with someone who is very inebriated?

Let's rephrase: if you have the opportunity to have sex with someone who is totally inebriated be aware that if you do it what you're doing might be considered rape by a court.

Define totally inebriated.

.

Do you really want a jury of twelve opeople who are not your peers to decide that for you, when your life hangs in the balance?

I doubt there's a jury that would send someone down for rape when both people are very drunk. You seriously think a democratic country would send someone to jail when the only witness was someone who was very, very drunk? Even if it was actual rape that wouldn't be nearly enough. There'd need to be actual witnesses.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Chongara wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Well, this thread has been fething quality so far....

I can honestly say, I had no idea that so many Dakkanauts could get on board with women being sexually harassed -- and deserving it no less -- before this thread. So it has been an eye opener. Like I posted earlier, I understand now why my wife insists on waiting in the car if I stop by the comic book shop or games store.

But like I mentioned to Matty, it has been interesting to see just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

So innocent. Heck if you thought this was a fun ride, next time try asking why some "game store" types why they don't have a girlfriend. You'll get a whole 'nother round of sad, creepy and out of touch.

Literally everyone in my gaming group has a girlfriend. I resent that you stereotype nerds in this way, in fact I think they are much less aggressive than "normal" men.

Some of the people I game with have multiple girlfriends.

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
Some of the people I game with have multiple girlfriends.

Sound like my sort of person.

Unless you're from Salt Lake City.

You're missing the point. The point is not "I won't get caught." The point is "don't rape people." Don't rape them, don't sexually harass them, don't be a jerkwad generally.

 Manchu wrote:

 mattyrm wrote:
Well, this thread has been fething quality so far....

I can honestly say, I had no idea that so many Dakkanauts could get on board with women being sexually harassed -- and deserving it no less -- before this thread. So it has been an eye opener. Like I posted earlier, I understand now why my wife insists on waiting in the car if I stop by the comic book shop or games store.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 daedalus wrote:
Lock time for this was about 20 pages ago probably.

Yes, we could have locked it as "a hopeless case" as soon as you -- on page one -- posted:

 daedalus wrote:
Step 1: Dress up to attract attention around unattractive people who characteristically have problems with social interaction, ESPECIALLY with women.

Step 2: Act surprised and outraged. Alert the media, because step 1 was still not enough attention.

Step 3: I blame the victim.

It could have been locked even earlier -- sadly you were not the first to make such comments. But like I mentioned to Matty, it has been interesting to see just how deep this rabbit hole goes.

Man, I don't see it that way at all, my point is that you and many others are just taking the whole thing way too seriously.

And its really unfair to say that about not taking your missus to the comic book or games store, I take my missus there and she gets no hassle, she gets plenty in the pub.

Basically, attractive people get lewd comments directed at them, thats the end of it. It happens millions of times every day, and it isnt a big issue, the people that do it are crass, but the people that have it thrown at them should have thicker skins if they get super offended by it. If we were all so easy to upset, then the world would be flooded in tears, kids get raped, babies die, hobos masturbate themselves to death.. a child starves to death every second right? Such is life when the population is in the billions, should we all spend all day every day crying about all the misery and injustice in the world?! Of course not!

Honestly, I can't believe how badly you and others have taken it.. All I will say is that

1. You have been totally unfair to the gaming/nerd community, who are probably less pervy than say.. regular bar patrons, builders, military people. You seem to be painting us all as big fat neck beards with no social skills.

2. Most people (Even Auston) in my book weren't saying "you should sexually harass people" or "Its acceptable to sexually harass people" they were just saying "its not that big a deal"

And it really isn't.

Its common as muck, and 99% of people don't go ape gak about it, ergo, the 1% are overreacting, its not the 99% are being silly is it?

 Testify wrote:
I resent that you stereotype nerds in this way, in fact I think they are much less aggressive than "normal" men.

Until the internet comes into play ...

Or, for some douchebags, a comic book convention, a cameraman, and a group of geeky followers.

I'm seeing some connections between the two, actually.

 Manchu wrote:
Yes, we could have locked it as "a hopeless case" as soon as you

You mean that part where I accuse one party of looking for attention and the other party for being social fething misfits, and being only surprised by the fact that it doesn't happen more, again, and in plain English, WITHOUT CONDONING IT, and then get to listen to you rage on me (and others) about how shocking and unbelievable this is, and how we're not only bad people for not being filled with self-righteous moral outrage, but likely participate in that behaviour ourselves?

I bet my missus has had lewd comments thrown at her a few hundred times in her life, shes nearly 27.

I reckon none of them were from wargamers.

And for what it's worth, I'm not sure how life is in your cloistered ivory tower, but I see and hear raunchier things when I'm at the bar on a Saturday night. It's not nerds man, it's people. Get some scope.

*Ahem*

Misogyny.

Misogynist.

... That is all....

 Testify wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:
You only need worry about having sex with an intoxicated person if the morning after they accuse you of rape.

At that point, even if they had consented the night before, you are in trouble.

It's a judgement call if you ever find yourself in that situation.

We both know it's virtually impossible to prove rape in that situation. 99 times out of 100 the girl will say nothing and simply get on with her life. The 1% of the time she does, there's no way it'd make it to court.

Then you will have nothing to worry about, and I wish you well in your adventures.

mattyrm wrote: I bet my missus has had lewd comments thrown at her a few hundred times in her life, shes nearly 27.

I reckon none of them were from wargamers.

Other than the ones from you, obviously

Kilkrazy wrote:
Then you will have nothing to worry about, and I wish you well in your adventures.

As I said above, i've only ever had sex with girls I was in a relationship with or very close to.

This thread has made me sad

 mattyrm wrote:
you and many others are just taking the whole thing way too seriously

This thread would have been done in a page if not for people insisting that not only is this instance of sexual harassment not very serious but also she had it coming. The idea that anybody deserves to be sexually harassed, no matter how you dress it up, is pretty fething serious.

 mattyrm wrote:
And its really unfair to say that about not taking your missus to the comic book or games store, I take my missus there and she gets no hassle, she gets plenty in the pub.

Just a sec, my friend. I'm not talking about where I take my wife. I'm talking about where my wife doesn't like to go after going there a few times. I didn't read this story and tell my wife she's not allowed down the comic or game store. My wife started to refuse to go because and said the people there we often creepy and awkward and I thought she was being a bit too sensitive until I saw these attitude come flat out ITT thanks to the anonymity of the internet.

 mattyrm wrote:
You have been totally unfair to the gaming/nerd community, who are probably less pervy than say.. regular bar patrons, builders, military people. You seem to be painting us all as big fat neck beards with no social skills.

Not only have I already addressed this, both throughout the thread and even in this very post, but Caruso herself also addressed it -- she clearly stated that most fellas at cons don't behave this way. But what I've seen here suggests that there are a lot of severely bad attitudes out there, not getting explicitly expressed in person, and to which I'm not especially sensitive as a bloke.

 mattyrm wrote:
2. Most people (Even Auston) in my book weren't saying "you should sexually harass people" or "Its acceptable to sexually harass people" they were just saying "its not that big a deal"

AustonT explicitly posted that this girl invited the sexual harassment she experienced by dressing as Black Cat. Good luck defending that.

The guys harassing the chick was uncalled for. It's not okay. She seems to be getting along just fine, but it doesn't mean it shouldn't have happened and I don't think anyone disagrees. If she wants to make a blog post about it nothing is stopping her and she's not a "bad person" for it. Women (and men) can dress how they want and no one should give them undue crap for it and if someone does, feth them. They deserve to be called out. Calling someone out doesn't make you weak or a bad person. That's the part I don't get. If it's "newsworthy" or not is the sole concern of the newspapers themselves.

 daedalus wrote:
You mean that part where ...

No I mean the part where you interpreted the case of Caruso being sexually harassed as the case of Caruso intentionally entrapping less sophisticated people and, being unsatisfied with their attention, deceiving the media so she could get more attention. You remember, this part:

 daedalus wrote:
Step 1: Dress up to attract attention around unattractive people who characteristically have problems with social interaction, ESPECIALLY with women.

Step 2: Act surprised and outraged. Alert the media, because step 1 was still not enough attention.

Step 3: I blame the victim.

You even nicely summarized your position there in point 3.

 Testify wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Testify wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:
...so no one should ever have sex with someone who is very inebriated?

Let's rephrase: if you have the opportunity to have sex with someone who is totally inebriated be aware that if you do it what you're doing might be considered rape by a court.

Define totally inebriated.

.

Do you really want a jury of twelve opeople who are not your peers to decide that for you, when your life hangs in the balance?

I doubt there's a jury that would send someone down for rape when both people are very drunk. You seriously think a democratic country would send someone to jail when the only witness was someone who was very, very drunk? Even if it was actual rape that wouldn't be nearly enough. There'd need to be actual witnesses.

I submit your honor he doesn't know the US court system. Its not his fault. He's British. They have something called "loser" pays.

OK witnesses see you two together. They see she is drunk. She says she was drunk. Are you saying she wasn't drunk?
If she's "drunk" you lost my boy.

 daedalus wrote:
And for what it's worth, I'm not sure how life is in your cloistered ivory tower, but I see and hear raunchier things when I'm at the bar on a Saturday night. It's not nerds man, it's people. Get some scope.

Nerd creep might not be quite as a loud or overt as it is in a typical "meat market"-club type environmental, but it's certainly is staggeringly and alienating to people. Ultimately the numbers you see around you speak for yourselves. All these nerdy hobbies are overwhelmingly male dominated and it has nothing to do with women not enjoying them. The environment is generally hostile to women, the ones that stick around generally have either a high tolerance or are just a bit of a different personality who isn't bothered by certain things.

Really this issue a bit complex, and I don't have the energy address it fully right now.

 Manchu wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
You mean that part where ...

No I mean the part where you interpreted the case of Caruso being sexually harassed as the case of Caruso intentionally entrapping less sophisticated people and, being unsatisfied with their attention, deceived the media so she could get more attention.

Can you highlight the part where I condoned or endorsed their (the nerds) behavior?

"Victim" is a strong word. Someone who gets raped or mugged or murdered is a victim. A girl in a skimpy outfit who gets oggled is not.

 daedalus wrote:

 Manchu wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
You mean that part where ...

No I mean the part where you interpreted the case of Caruso being sexually harassed as the case of Caruso intentionally entrapping less sophisticated people and, being unsatisfied with their attention, deceived the media so she could get more attention.

Can you highlight the part where I condoned or endorsed their (the nerds) behavior?

Where in my statement that you quoted do I accuse you of condoning or endorsing their behavior? What I said is that you twisted this story about a woman getting sexually harassed into a story of a woman who is taking advantage of nerds and the media to get attention. It's not quite the same thing, to your very limited credit, even if it reaches very much in the same direction. In other words, you're not saying they're great guys. But you are saying she's a narcissistic bitch.

 Manchu wrote:
You're missing the point. The point is not "I won't get caught." The point is "don't rape people." Don't rape them, don't sexually harass them, don't be a jerkwad generally.

it weren't for the topic, that would sigworthy.

 Frazzled wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
You're missing the point. The point is not "I won't get caught." The point is "don't rape people." Don't rape them, don't sexually harass them, don't be a jerkwad generally.

it weren't for the topic, that would sigworthy.

The problem being a distinct lack of people in this thread saying it was okay to rape people. They weren't.

 Testify wrote:

mattyrm wrote: As I said above, i've only ever had sex with girls I was in a relationship with or very close to.

OK , that could be misinterpreted...