disparagus_impact
No bio...
User ID: 4132
Yet coyotes and dogs are considered different species.
Well, for one thing, if her date tries to force himself on her using one of the aforementioned excuses, he is less likely to gain her acquiescence and more likely to end up with a face full of pepper spray, a kick to the nadgers, and/or a court summons.
And how does that work out for your daughter? The context being one of these:
Alice stays overnight at Bob's house
Alice got drunk and pursued sex with every other man in their circle
Alice eagerly consented to sex with Bob last week, and it does not change
Alice and Bob declared at a large public ceremony and in official records that they intended to have an ongoing sexual relationship
I'm not advocating rape or anything but one must remember that men's facial bones are a lot sturdier than women's bones, and the same punch in the face has very different effects between the two. There are men out there who will tank several bullets before being incapable of further violence, and since all that matters to you is the practicality of consent and not the context in which it takes place, prioritizing violent resistance could spell big trouble for your daughter. Sometimes rape turns into murder.
After all, if Alice was previously having enthusiastic sex with Bob and Bob is a rapist, perhaps Alice has a thing for rapists.
Of course if you never told Alice that perhaps she should not be inebriated in the company of hulking gang members with face tattoos and multiple convictions for violent crimes, and you hold dear that whatever choices Alice make are reasonable ones that should never be looked at if she ever gets victimized, perhaps Bob is, shocker, prone to raping.
If Alice somehow survives one 'consent incident' with Bob, would you enthusiastically support her going drinking with Bob the following week?
This is apparently the accusation leveled against Eric Swalwell, that the same woman was taken advantage of in 2 separate instances of intoxication around him.
I am referring to the simpler case in which Alice does not want to be intimate with Bob, makes this quite clear to him, and he forces himself on her anyway.
How could she make it clear to him if Bob is too drunk to consent and presumably understand that she is not consenting?
And if they don't, what stops Alice from channeling Lorena Bobbitt?
Indeed why aren't women just killing rapists left and right? This is just another version of choosing the man or the bear, and women pick the man.
They are certainly not immune to such, but someone who publicly avers that, if a woman does XYZ, he is entitled to coitus with her regardless of her preferences, and to take it forcibly if she does not agree, is probably (1.) more dangerous, and (2.) not someone I want raising children.
Sounds like a character straight out of the latest top-selling romantasy.
How do you define a breadwinner husband? There are 4 considerations I can see.
Making a certain amount of money commensurate with a small family size with room for growth, ability to adapt to changing circumstances, etc.
Having a decent family that can and wants to provide local support to your new family.
Being averagely disposed psychologically, without some obvious schizophrenia or other mental afflictions that may come in late twenties but might be indicated by similar problems in older family members.
Last one would be that he actually wants to settle down and provide for a family, which is not as common as it used to be, along with the first.
Optional 5th is belonging to the same faith/church, which is solved by only fishing in members of your church, but then it's a matter of weeding out all of the bachelors that do not fit the previous criteria.
Which is a lot more practical if we establish a standard that "No person is ever justified in forcing himself on another person, regardless of what choices that other person made.", thus reducing the number of potential perpetrators.
How is talking to your daughter going to reduce the number of potential perpetrators? Or are you talking about a different kind of action you are simultaneously undertaking to affect wider society? If you believe that a more comprehensive 'consent maximalist' approach is needed on a societal level, do you also simultaneously advocate for the mass importation of men from countries notorious for a comparatively more 'laisser-faire approach to consent', so to speak? 'Bad hombres' as one quite laisser-faire man himself put it.
then yes, society owes her such a promise.
Do you also teach your children that the most important consideration while crossing the street is whether or not the light says they are owed the right-of-way, and not whether or not the fast-travelling vehicles actually stop?
Giving her advice that (1.) she can follow while still dating people of the gender to which she is attracted, and (2.) will steer her towards people who are not pre-positioned to decide that they are entitled to take advantage of her.
Given the fallout of the #MeToo movement in the past few years, is it not questionable whether the most vocal proponents of a maximalist approach to consent are not also themselves prone to consent infractions?
It seems likely to me that the people who need to come up with complicated rules around intoxication and consent in the first place probably are involved in higher-than-average 'complicated' sexual situations that may or may not have to involve a judge at some point.
Whether enthusiastic consent can be invalidated by intoxication is a matter which will have to be left for a later time.
Isn't that the crux of the matter? If her being intoxicated invalidates her 'enthusiastic consent', his being intoxicated also invalidates his own 'enthusiastic consent' to the rape, he is being falsely accused of what he did not consciously engage in.
Similarly for killing a family while drunk driving. Somehow the important factor is not whether or not the booze cruiser purposefully plowed into the minivan, but that they decided to get drunk in the first place.
In my humble opinion, it should be illegal to serve young women alcohol, as they may unknowingly be carrying a child, to spare potential fetal alcohol syndrome.
Until they get back to civilisation....
If
I don't really understand this consent-maximizing worldview.
What is the point of these statements? The best way to avoid rape is to avoid being in the physical proximity of any given person that would rape you.
What does telling your daughter this accomplish exactly?
it does not change if Alice got drunk and pursued sex with every other man in their circle
Are you making a formal promise that she can freely get intoxicated around any given man and if anything she does not like happen, some kind of system will provide satisfying retribution on her behalf? Are you also teaching your sons that it is their duty to go and start fights with drunk men who are 'preying' on women who are enthusiastically following your teachings?
Is it rape if she is drunk? Is it rape if he is drunk? Is it murder if the killer of your son is drunk?
This does not change if Alice stays overnight at Bob's house rather than risk dying of hypothermia
If your daughter is stranded on an island with Bob and Bob controls the one safe shelter, is it rape if they have sex? Sometimes the choice is between rape and murder, I suppose, or manslaughter by exposure.
But either way, nobody is likely to adjudicate any kind of justice or protection on her behalf any time soon. Making your daughter more fearful of consequences of being alone with a man might actually prevent her from taking that far-away vacation in a plane with a man that led her to being stranded on the island, however.
All of these sting but truth still stings today. Now that there are almost no practical barriers to success, African-Americans still lag behind. They still lag behind fresh-off-the-boat immigrants who recently learned English as a second language.
The nations of Asia and Africa are moving with jetlike speed toward gaining political independence, but we still creep at horse and buggy pace toward gaining a cup of coffee at a lunch counter.
I'm curious about what he would have thought of the current state of the respective nations of Asia and Africa. Would he have changed his mind about the necessity of political independence for Africans after witnessing decades of barbaric civil wars, horrible mismanagement... etc?
Can somebody predict the next thing African-Americans will blame their relative lack of success on in the next century?
DEI elevating useless sycophants and grifters, attempting to shoehorn black talent into a 'systemic racist' white academic system instead of focusing efforts on building a separate black one? White people refusing to have children that black parents could send their kids to school with to 'integrate' them? The racist government-subsidized industrial food system? The coke-to-diabetes pipeline? Greedy marketing executives forcing black mothers to feed liquid corn syrup to their innocent children?
"No sir, Please sir, I'm one of da good ones see!"
That sounds better than whatever you are trying to do here. Is this post an attempt to convince the racists that they should include you and people like you in the future? My understanding of present-day white racists is that the violence and attitude are exactly what they would rather do without.
Note that in some ways the racists of slavery or Jim Crow days were perhaps less racist than the current racists. I don't know of any anti-black racist who would let a Mammy into their house to nurse their children. There are certainly white racists in nursing homes being taken care of by black workers, but I can't imagine that this was their own device.
While I'm sympathetic to the straightforward expectation from a black US citizen to get some considerations from other Americans, I do not understand why some people think they deserve to live in the vicinity of white people. I would never move to China and demand the Chinese people start supporting me and share the products of their hard work.
Regarding actual slavery, I would wager a guess that your best bet is still team White Power. Actual slavery is still going on in Africa and the Middle-East, as is traditional in these areas when Europeans people are not controlling them. It seems to me that East Asians are also less accepting of Black people than Europeans. What I'm saying is that if you in the future were at risk of being captured by some kind of enemy forces, you probably should be hoping that they are Europeans rather than any other race.
Just like it would seem that a Black highschool celebration would be more likely to get shot at than the equivalent White highschool celebration, in the US.
Therefore actually being friendly with White people may in some way be the best option for you. Even if that may hurt your ego.
Would it help to simply read what she has to say about it?
Yesterday I spoke to a Christian pastor from Gaza. There are children starving. And Christians have been killed and injured, as well as many innocent people.
If you are an American Christian, this should be absolutely unacceptable to you.
Just as we said that Hamas killing and kidnapping innocent people on Oct 7th is absolutely unacceptable.
Are innocent Israeli lives more valuable than innocent Palestinian and Christian lives? And why should America continue funding this?
Is it really unbelievable that a right-wing Christian would say such a thing?
Why not both?
There has clearly been mass disinformation in Western nations in recent decades. Journalists will go on air and lie broadly about infectious diseases, government actions, wars, crimes, war crimes, weapons of mass destructions, who pays them etc. Many Jews would be found in prominent positions within their ranks, such as Barri Weiss. Lack of truth will generate skepticism.
Then comes the second part, there is a biological, natural component among many humans referred to as pattern recognition. People will naturally associate stimuli with concepts upon sufficient exposure. This is where the antisemitism will get generated.
There is a very simple solution to the Israeli problem that nobody ever seems to suggest, conversion. Many Jews have historically benefited from simply integrating to the majority population of the country they lived in. Unfortunately, the Jews that are currently remaining are the ones that have generations of experience of earnestly refusing to integrate to the local majority population, and to take in the commands of their respective prophets.
This stubbornness explains why the Israelis seem to be stuck between a rock and a hard place, too weak to single-handedly eradicate their enemies, too strong to play dirty like their enemies without losing their more-compassionate allies. So what if they get hated? Should we have Russians on American TV airing their grievances against anti-Russian sentiment on college campuses? Why this desperate need to be liked anyway?
If you're willing to corrupt supply chains and plant bombs in your enemies' pockets in foreign countries, why are you surprised that your enemies will send lone gunners to target your allies in foreign countries?
Why trouble yourself with pro-Palestinian protests on American college campuses instead of building ammo factories in Israel? Why are AIPAC representatives training American congressmen instead of training IDF recruits?
This whole antisemitism thing is quite funny in the years when some other international crisis overshadows what the Israelis do routinely, and the demand for antisemitism by politically-motivated people is greater than the supply.
- Prev
- Next

I read a book about the adventures of Rene Caillié who travelled alone in West Africa to reach Timbuktu at a time when most European explorers would not survive the tropical fevers. Probably this one. The area was under Moorish control so he disguised himself as a Moor, learned Arabic, pretended he wanted to convert, was essentially a hobo at times, very determined guy.
More options
Context Copy link