The Pitters' Place

Sure she calls herself a feminist, but that doesn't make it so. Her achievements are egalitarian, so therefore she's NOT a feminist. If you believe that men and women are equal, you can't be a feminist.




This is the line of debate being used by someone in another forum right now.

I just don't even what.

That's an extremely common anti-feminist argument, unfortunately.

Well she didn't identified as a feminist before and I don't blame her. But I'm extremely glad she turned around because she is such a respected figure and we need more women like her.

Gendo wrote:Sure she calls herself a feminist, but that doesn't make it so. Her achievements are egalitarian, so therefore she's NOT a feminist. If you believe that men and women are equal, you can't be a feminist.




This is the line of debate being used by someone in another forum right now.

Have you been trolling MRA forums lately?
Most feminists are egalitarians. Myself included.

Well, that explains the comments on feminist articles going "lol feminists would hate this".

Well the guy has now regressed all the way to "if she didn't want to have sex with him she shouldn't have gotten drunk". Seriously.

Well, she clearly actually did want it. We absolutely do not live in a rape culture.

This guy makes Vegas look like a feminist.

OMG! Can we kill people like that?

This is really pissing me off. I'm basically having this conversation with more than one person.

Me: You don't take advantage of women sexually.
Them: What if you're both drunk though?
Me: You don't take advantage of women sexually.
Them: But what if she really does want it despite what she says?
Me: You don't take advantage of women sexually.
Them: But how do you know if she's actually consenting or not?
Me: You don't take advantage of women sexually.
Them: But this seems like a double standard; if the guy is drunk than no one says the woman raped him!
Me: YOU FUCKING DON'T TAKE ADVANTAGE OF WOMEN SEXUALLY!!

Them: But what if she really does want it despite what she says?

...wtf

Although, what about in cases where both of them are drunk *and* consent to sex? If it's just one of them who's drunk and consenting, I can see that a responsible partner would recognize that the other person might not be able to properly consent and should say no, but if both are drunk I'm not sure how either of them would have the presence of mind to go "hey, we're drunk, perhaps we shouldn't do this."

I've never been drunk, so I don't know how much control a person actually has then.

If they both consent to sex, then they both consent to sex. No rape. Although in order to consent one must have enough of one's faculties to actively and willingly participate in the act.

So what happens when both are drunk and neither party is in enough control of their facilities, and then one suggests sex and the other agrees? Assuming that it wasn't pre-planned by the initiator, it would seem that neither can properly consent under those circumstances, but it doesn't make sense that it would be called mutual rape either, or that people should never have sex while drunk.

(Not being rhetorical - I agree with Gendo, but I've always been curious about the ethics of the above scenarios.)

In that case, when there's no malicious intent, it's just two drunk people having sex, happens all the time. Nothing wrong with it outside of maybe some irresponsibility.

Ok, thanks! I got confused a moment there since one of the OP quotes Gendo listed was "What if you're both drunk though"

Right, but often times you can have 2 drunk people, and one of them can pressure the other into sex, and use the fact that the other is drunk to get sex. In this case, just because both people are drunk doesn't mean that neither did anything wrong. If one person is the aggressor, while the other person is reluctant and only gives in because of alcohol, that's the problem.