/lit/ - Literature

>>5384274
OP here btw I am aware people will harrass me on 4chan because I am a woman, I have posted here before. I am prepared, but please. Let us be reasonable

>>5384274
...What?

Consent is not a complicated thing, OP.
You either want to have sex with someone or you don't.

>>5384274

What empirical basis exists for hegemony and the effects you claim?

the only way to repent for being a privileged pig is to become a tranny sissy and serve the bbc

>merchant.jpg

>>5384274
Yeah, you know, it's cool. Just rape whomever and you know....profit.

wait, but what if a black guy rapes somebody? wouldn't it be racist to complain?

You are presenting superficial arguments with holes incredibly big while sort of passing around current topics. If anything that op looks like a troll post, if not read more.

>>5384274
rape is a spook.

so fuck you sweety cheeks.

>>5384286
Every advertisement on every bus.

>>5384282
No because there's so much pressure placed on women through the sexualisation in the media for them to have sex with men when men want it.

>>5384282

The idea being presented in the OP is that people are shaped by their society, and are invariably subjected to injustices that they have no innate defense against because of the circumstance of their birth.

In seeking protection for everyone from those perceived injustices - the OP only mentions rape, but there is also economic exploitation, intellectual suppression, cultural suppression, etc. - the OP seeks a way to eliminate the dynamics of power that allow these circumstances to exist in the first place.

Essentially, the idea is that there are people within the power dynamic who do not realize that they are being subjected to these injustices, and so their responses to "harm" being inflicted upon them are inherently irrational and not reflective of their best interests. OP seeks to protect these people and provide them with a future where these injustices will not harm them any longer, even if - through their ignorance - they willingly allow themselves to be harmed right now.

I'm not going to pretend like I agree at all with how OP is applying this logic, but that's the logic behind it.

>>5384323

>Every advertisement on every bus

That's not empirical proof. I want hard evidence that there is an organized hegemony in place that consciously institutes the effects you described in the OP.

>>5384327
A convoluted way of saying life isn't fair.

>>5384335
Well you're not going to get 'hard' (not even going to comment on the phallic conotations of this word) proof because the people that control your so-called empiricism are those who generate this culture of rape, and they're not going to release the results on their successes. It'd be like the US military revealing how they won the Iraq war.

>>5384342

Pretty much. If you were to tell them that, though, they would reply that they are trying to make life fair for everyone.

>>5384281
Also, what's the point of coming in hot like this?
>OP here btw I am aware people will harrass me on 4chan because I am a woman, I have posted here before. I am prepared, but please. Let us be reasonable

If you're already assuming we're going to be annoyed/provoked by your presence, why not rephrase your argument? Why even post in the first place.

>oh my womyn perspective, des anon patriarchs can never understand
>still i wunna i tell um how dums they are

And you talk about cultural pressure and entitlement.... well, WHO is entitled to WHAT and WHO is pressured to do WHAT and WHY?

You're really just throwing big words around and hoping that they'll stick to something at this point. I mean honestly, you've barely said anything other than "consent can't be consent because mah patriarchy".

Just because you replace the word privilege with "entitlement" doesn't make you any less of a tumblr social justice whore.

>>5384327
>In seeking protection for everyone from those perceived injustices - the OP only mentions rape, but there is also economic exploitation, intellectual suppression, cultural suppression, etc. - the OP seeks a way to eliminate the dynamics of power that allow these circumstances to exist in the first place.

Won't this just create new dynamics of power? Rule of law is not null power.

>>5384363

Of course. That's the point, they want power.

>>5384274
>We call "yes" consent, but with so much pressure, with such a culture of entitlement, does "yes" really mean "yes"?
every sex is rape!

Framing consent as an answer to a question is problematic. It makes it seem like a reactionary mechanism, responding to the entitlement the world seems to have at large to our bodies.


>>5384327
We can intellectualise consent as much as we like, but predominantly the impact is made by rape culture. As individuals it is very hard to work yourselves out of these systems of rape culture.

>>5384345
Why should I believe what you just said?

It is possible you are right, it is possible you are wrong. You are not giving any evidence that can be verified to make sense of your claims.

You have a conspiracy theory. You need to do more work before this conversation goes anywhere, because you are on the same level with:

The magic cat in my closet is oppressing men by mind controlling women to believe in feminism. I will not give you proof of this because the cat is of course keeping the proof away from us. Also if you are a woman I will not listen to your argument because you are already part of the problem.

Do you see how the method and structure of your argument can be used for ANY argument? You need something else to get this going.

No hard feelings.

>>5384353
I wasn't aware I was 'coming in hot'. This is how I usually type.

>blur blurrh shit opinions
>btw i am grill
>if you disagree u r misoguny

Jesus Christ grow up. If you really were a feminist you would realise that you should be able to make an argument based on the strength of your arguments alone. Nobody cares whether you have a fanny or not on /lit/

>>5384323
By that logic isn't there just as much pressure for men to want to have sex with women due to this "sexualization in the media". Or are men just not smart enough to pick up on those sorts of things? Doomed to float ideally through life aroused by artificial stimuli and perpetually confused as to the origins of such stimuli? What dazed and belligerent creatures we will surely become after a lifetime of this; it's no wonder we're all one Gap advertisement away from brutally raping the first female we come in contact with.

>>5384385
>Why should I believe what you just said?
Because I bet you never listen to anyone you consider 'below' you, and so now would be a perfect time to do so. I wouldn't say I was below you, but I know you would. They way you're talking to me is quite condescending and ultimately indicative of the patriarchy you're trying to defend (poorly, I might add)

>>5384374

That is a pleasant depiction of a female cat-human. If she were a real, physical being I would like to consensually cuddle with her, but only if the power dynamics under which she was formed allow her to lucidly consent. Otherwise I would just stare blankly at a wall and ignore her completely, out of fear I might infringe her basic cat-human rights by accidentally glancing in her direction.

>>5384387
>I wasn't aware I was 'coming in hot'
>OP here btw I am aware people will harrass me on 4chan because I am a woman, I have posted here before. I am prepared, but please. Let us be reasonable

Well you said you were aware of this phantom you created, so that is quite confusing on you're part.

I mean, you assume that trouble is coming, assume it for one reason rather than another, and then when someone says, why would you do that voluntarily without trying to make the situation work out in your favor, you try to guilt that anon saying you werent "aware" of what you just said you were "aware" about?

This conversation is getting very toxic very fast.

SPOOKS MOTHERFUCKERS.

SPOOKS.

HAVENT LEARNED ANYTHING YED?

>>5384350
>>5384366
All part of the plan.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8fQoGMtE0EY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3qkf3bajd4

>>5384345
i guess 9/11 was an inside job too was it?
know any cool shops i could buy a tinfoil hat?

>>5384400
>people will harrass me because I am a woman
>I am a woman

I didn't know being a woman was now considered 'coming in hot'. I feel the need to identify my gender because 4chan users always assume anon is a male

>>5384398
>basic cat-human rights

but that's a fox!

Why is it that a woman isn't responsible for getting drunk and passing out but a man is responsible when he gets drunk, gets behind the wheel of a car, and kills someone in a crash?

The entire idea that the onus isn't on a person to try and prevent bad things happening to them is ridiculous, which is why feminism and the phrase "rape culture" is asinine.

I fully expect these people to discontinue locking their doors at night because the logical conclusion of this ideology is that the onus is not on them to protect themselves from robbers.

>>5384413

Oh god, what have I done. I'm a monster.

>>5384387
>I am aware people will harass me

Assuming that we're either incapable of sharing or understanding your point of view or that we're all simply mean spirited (this isn't quite /b/... yet)

>Be reasonable (repeated from OP)

Assuming that we're all completely mindless and that without your "respectful directing of the debate" we'll immediately plunge into some sort of rape joke Anarchic hell hole.

Tell me, if this really is how you normally start a conversation, do you often find people being unreasonable with you? Belligerent or angry or just plain rude? Perhaps it isn't as much society as it is you? Worth some thought, at least.

There is no rape culture you stupid faggot.

>>5384396
>Because I bet you never listen to anyone you consider 'below' you
Youre assuming this without good reason. You are not entitled to assumptions, and you are not fooling anyone. Everyone is reading this a writing you off because of it. Ethical or not, that is what you are doing to yourself.

>I wouldn't say I was below you, but I know you would.
No you dont. You dont know that, you are talking nonsense now.

>They way you're talking to me is quite condescending and ultimately indicative of the patriarchy you're trying to defend

No I didnt. It was very neutral, and I even said at the end, just incase I had offended you, that there were no hard feelings and that I was only trying to help.

Asking for evidence is not defending the patriarchy. You are making assumptions with justification. Why do you feel you are entitled to this? Do you think asking for justification is part of the patriarchy? What other option is there?

>>5384415
0/10

>>5384274
>in an age like our own, when fears, hatreds, and loyalties of a directly political kind are near to the surface of everyone’s consciousness….
>In our world there will be no emotions except fear, rage, triumph, and self abasement. Everything else we shall destroy -everything. Already we are breaking down the habits of thought which have survived from before the Revolution. We have cut the link between child and parent, and between man and man, and between man and woman. No one dares trust a wife or a child or a friend any longer. But in the future there will be no wives and no friends. Children will be taken from their mothers at birth, as one takes eggs from a hen. The sex instinct will be eradicated. Procreation will be an annual formality like the renewal of a ration card. We shall abolish the orgasm. Our neurologists are at work upon it now. There will be no loyalty, except loyalty toward the Party. There will be no love, except the love of Big Brother. There will be no laughter, except the laugh of triumph over a defeated enemy. There will be no art, no literature, no science. When we are omnipotent we shall have no more need of science. There will be no curiosity, no employment of the process of life. All competing pleasures will be destroyed. But aIways—do not forget this, Winston—always there will be the intoxication of power, constantly increasing and constantly growing subtler. Always, at every moment, there will be the thrill of victory, the sensation of trampling forever on an enemy who is helpless. If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face— forever.

>entire thread believes OP isn't a troll

so /lit/ is basically as bad as /pol/ now

I just don't get what the goal is. If we follow the precepts laid out in the OP and do everything we possibly can to avoid the possibility that we might hurt someone's feelings, we end up with >>5384398, where we're dehumanizing the other person by ignoring them completely. Face it, human interaction is difficult no matter what. It's not going to get easier if you refuse to wear armor and expect everyone to treat you lightly.

>>5384432

>>5384410
>I didn't know being a woman was now considered 'coming in hot'.

>>people will harrass me because I am a woman

That is what you said. What is this. Am I crazy?

You literally

just said

the answer to your question.

And mind you, this a phantom that you have decided is real. The other anon was talking about tone, how you are abrasive, mean, uncompromising, and passive-aggressive. He was saying, dont do that or people will not listen. You said, I am a woman and know that people will not listen because of this.

And then you ask, why are you saying people will not listen/come in hot, which is clearly what that anon meant by that phrase.

This is crazy town

>>5384323
>No because there's so much pressure placed on women through the sexualisation in the media for them to have sex with men when men want it.

Not really, no.

>>5384444
quad quads of deception.

>>5384432
But honestly...

I mean, why troll this subtly?
I suppose it has provoked us all to be slightly bothered... but how could that even be entertaining? No one is acting stupid out of rage... I always kind of assumed that was the point of trolling. The idea that people act entertainingly irrational when pushed to a certain threshold of anger and so therefore let's study that threshold/that irrationality. Certainly not, let's just see if we can kind of annoy a few people on /lit/ before getting a temp ban for posting a thread that doesn't relate to books in any way whatsoever.

>>5384432
yeah, i find it sad how unable /lit/ is to identify bait.

I mean, I don't even think the op is bait; it's more like satire.

>>5384458
OP here. I'm not trolling, just because i have a view different to yours doesn't make me a troll. so typical

>>5384458
This troll was blatant, no subtly involved, I thought we were all playing along while shutting down the OPs position.. right?

>>5384444
it is bait, you imbicile

>>5384468
>so typical

>>5384475
After that tumblr shenanigan I cant tell anymore

>>5384415
>Why is it that a woman isn't responsible for getting drunk and passing out but a man is responsible when he gets drunk, gets behind the wheel of a car, and kills someone in a crash?

A woman who passes out drunk is responsible for the fact that she passed out, because that is a direct consequence of drinking too much, and drinking was her choice. If she drinks herself to death, she too is responsible for her own actions.
If another person chooses to take advantage of her unconscious state, that person is responsible for their choice to do so. This is not an innate risk involved the consumption of alcohol, it's the choice of another human being who is accountable for their own actions.

A woman who gets drunk and chooses to get behind the wheel of a car is responsible for her own choice. If her choice leads her to hit and kill someone, then she is responsible.
The person she hits and kills is responsible only for the fact that they were walking on the street, they are not responsible for this woman's decision to drink and drive which leading to the incident.

One's responsibility is to avoid doing bad things to other people. One is not responsible for other people's decisions to do bad things to them. How one goes about protecting themselves from victimisation is their own business, but a criminal must be dealt with either way.

If I was OP and I decided to reveal that I was in fact b8ing, what would you say?

>>5384468
That's just it, OP.

You don't HAVE a view.

You have a fragment of a view AT BEST.

You're coming in here, which by the way is the wrong place for this kind of a discussion seeing as this has fuck all to do with books, spouting off ideas about "the patriarchy" and "sexualization" (which you can't even spell correctly) without fully realizing any of them. The most concrete piece of evidence you've posted to support literally anything you've stated was,
>Every advertisement on every bus

And you and I both know that to be a fallacy, because half the advertisements on the buses, at least the buses in my area (Minnesota, which is still included in your category of "every advertisement on every bus") do not contain images of people at all.

Worst of all, when we start to look upon your motives incredulously because how the hell can someone be so fucking stupid? Well, you know the rest.

So if you are a troll, you got what you wanted, I am angry about this. And if you aren't, please, kill yourself.

I mean that.

Kill yourself.

You are an abomination.

You will never be as smart as you want to seem to all of us.

You will never change anyone's mind about anything.

You will always be forced to live in your perceived patriarchal hell.

So you should kill yourself.

>>5384495
And if you are in fact talking to OP, and he is in fact OP, what would you say?

>>5384482

This is why "responsibility" as a binary is woefully inadequate to describe the circumstances of a crime. Cause-and-effect is a better model, in which the individuals involved are "actors" in the event.

The robbing of a convenience store has two actors: the cashier doing her job, and the the thief robbing her at gunpoint.

The groping of an unconscious person has two actors: the blacked-out partyer behind the couch, and the skeevy girl fondling his groin.

In both cases, one actor would not have been able to affect the other without both of them being present in those particular circumstances, and it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise. Regardless, the guilt of the perpetrator is still obvious. There is no dithering about "responsibility." No excuses are being made, since no excuses need to be made for a mechanistic interpretation of a crime. There is only the reality of what occurred.

>>5384482
>One's responsibility is to avoid doing bad things to other people.

But bad people will do bad things anyway, so it's therefore necessary to take steps to mitigate bad things happening. It's called personal responsibility.

>>5384427
Kill yourself.

>>5384274
>>5384281
Turmblrette pls, irrelevant information, next time keep it to yourself.

>Did you verbally consent?
If the answer was yes, move to the next question. If no, contact the authorities.
>Did you enjoy it?
If yes, case solved.

If no, why you didn't enjoy it?
If the reason for not enjoying was:
Violence (I'm talking real violence here, not mean things people said like him/her saying that your titties are saggy or your penis is small), lack of selfcontrol (One of the parts involved asked to stop mid act) or he/she didn't disclose diseases that may endanger your life then you have a case.

If your reason for not enjoying was anything else, suck it up, you made a conscious choice.

>>5384323
>pressure placed on women
>to have sex with men when men want it

I don't know if i laugh or cry that someone thinks this is true. Women hold all the power in sex nowadays, all it takes is a women saying no. Of course "no" won't work on rapists but chances are he/she would rape someone with or without consent.

What feminist fail to understand is, the majority of men are not rapists but they go all out saying the contrary. What make things even more funny, this crusader against men is turning normal people into paranoid freaks afraid to approach womyn while rapists keep raping.

>>5384500
0/10

>>5384274
What rape culture? I don't know who you hang out with, but I've never noticed this. Now Rwanda, that was some rape culture.

Also
>Do you agree with me /lit/? I'm open to new perspectives as long as you first examine your social entitlements and confront me in a way that is politically correct and respects the views of others.
Makes this look an aweful lot like bait, but whatever, I'll bite.

All this talk is so incredibly morphed by the internet, it's insane. ''men have all the power, women are helpless, men force everything'', do you people ever go outside? ever? Sure there is gender discrimination, there is also discrimination against color, looks, wealth, family name, nationality, etc. We live in a world filled with retards. Deal with it, and surround yourself by decent people.

>>5384323
>No because there's so much pressure placed on women through the sexualisation in the media for them to have sex with men when men want it.

This is bullshit. If you're this insecure, the problem is you. If you hear allusions to fucking in every single song, and think ''I must fuck someone or I won't be cool!'' then it's your fault. Admittedly, I've had sex/made out with people I didn't care for, which I didn't even really want that badly, because I thought that would somehow make me happy, I realised it didn't, I realised how dumb I was for believing it, and I moved on.

Anyways, if anything, media portrays women to have all the power anyways. The typical talk is:
Men need to fuck women from da club, as many of them as possible. You need to be the predator, they the prey, and if you succeed in convincing a lot of women to fuck you, then you are thereby inherently cool and can win any argument by appealing to the fact that you have fucked a lot of women. This doesn't count when you rape them.

Also, fuck girls who think fucking someone they didn't really like means rape. Also, fuck girls who claim people raped them to get back at them.

>>5384500
>But bad people will do bad things anyway, so it's therefore necessary to take steps to mitigate bad things happening. It's called personal responsibility.

The consequence of forgoing that personal responsibility is being victimised. The existence of a victim and their part in their own victimisation is of no consequence to society. What is of consequence to society is the fact that the other party is a criminal, and the prudent course of action to avoid further victimisation is to ensure that said criminal is dealt with.

Lock your doors, watch your drinks, keep criminals off the streets. It's all in the same realm of watching out for personal safety.

>>5384499
This is a compelling argument, I'll give you that.

But the flaw is that you've chosen two near-black-and-white situations.

The armed robber is clearly in the wrong, as is the fondler.

But what about a situation where a group of friends are getting together and two friends veer off from the group, perhaps into a bedroom or something. One of the two has had a lot more to drink than the other but the alcohol was consumed intentionally. The person is visibly inebriated but is still able to speak coherently enough for another individual to understand what they are saying. They end up having sex and the more intoxicated friend later feels violated because of how intoxicated they were. And if you do think that the less intoxicated friend is at fault, then who would be at fault if they were equally intoxicated?

>"We need to talk about __"
>rape culture
>entitlement
>problematic

Take your lazy tumblr academics off of my board, faggots. This way of thinking only contributes to your victimhood.

>>5384499

I honestly have no idea what you're trying to argue, outside of maybe "shit happens," which I don't deny.

>>5384274
>imports bourgeois subjectivity
Nice try running dog lackey.

>>5384415
>Why is it that a woman isn't responsible for getting drunk and passing out

Please. The drunk "consent" cases almost never involved a woman who is "passed out", but rather a woman who happens to be drunk and doesn't think she's capable of consent (which is bullshit).

>>5384527
This is bigger than tumbler, anon. This is subversion of the Western society and it exists outside of the internet.

>>5384515

From a mechanistic viewpoint, sex occurred between two intoxicated individuals. There is no reliable metric for lucidity, and sex is not inherently a crime, so there is no restitution for the partner that feels violated as a result of his error.

Two drunken drivers who crash into one another have no grounds to sue the other based on which one was "less drunk."

The hole in this system is that a drunk person might see another drunk person and believe that he will suffer no consequences if he does whatever he wants to that person. The onus would then fall on the other drunk person to refuse to give consent. Being unconscious means you are inherently unable to give consent, so a person would be protected in that regard, but otherwise their lucidity is matched against the perpetrators. That is the risk of being intoxicated when other people are nearby.

OP here.

I am happy with my level of bait I give myself an honest 7/10

>>5384545
You know, I wasn't on board at first, but the subtly of the first post actually turned out to be a good strategy because it got us all posting AND it made your slow descent into feminist retardation more believable.

It's an interesting topic to troll with. I mean, most things require some sort of exaggeration to be used as bait. But realistic depictions of feminazis works just as well as anything else .

>>5384545
Given you recapitulated Dworkins argument, you're both derivative and correct. Can't troll with the truth, son.

>>5384274
Nobody will harass you for being a woman. But we may do it for making retarded threads and using terms that have no meaning or basis such as body autonomy or rape culture.

>>5384555
I didn't do anything, the uni student who wrote this article did

>>5384560
>trigger warning
I swear to god, if anyone uses this word around me in real life, I'm leaving.

>>5384545
>>5384553
>>5384555
>implying
2/10
4/10 if your still at it

>>5384560
>>Can't troll with the truth
>But I copied it!
I refer you to my previous statement.

>>5384560
>trigger warning
Shoot me
How is this a thing
Sweet Jesus.

>>5384323
>No because there's so much pressure placed on women through the sexualisation in the media for them to have sex with men when men want it.

If you honestly believe this then you're clearly a child who needs her hand held. Why are you posting on the internet without your helmet?

>>5384512
>Lock your doors, watch your drinks, keep criminals off the streets. It's all in the same realm of watching out for personal safety.

This is what reasonable people would say, but there are people out there who actually think that any kind of preparation, mitigation tactic, or personal responsibility is "blaming the victim":

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/26/anti-rape-nail-polish-stop-rapists

>>5384553
>It's an interesting topic to troll with. I mean, most things require some sort of exaggeration to be used as bait. But realistic depictions of feminazis works just as well as anything else .

Poe's Law works every time.

>>5384560
>Trigger Warning: rape, harassment, and assault

Doesn't stating what the trigger warning is defeat the purpose of a trigger warning? I swear these people are fucking retarded.

>>5384563
I had a professor who used it in a lecture once. Had to stifle laughter at that.

>>5384579
I have an anti-rape nail from Poland too. I hammered it through a cricket bat, with a bunch of other nails, to make a Polish anti-rape nail bat.

>>5384583
It serves to highlight to brutal effect rape has on people. Needing a warning before an article demonstrates the monstrous effect sexual assault has on the individual's psyche

>>5384534
thank that faggot Foucault

>>5384600
Foucault has absolutely nothing to do with social justice warriors.

>>5384602
Well I would agree he didn't contribute to the emergence of SJW, but the movement certainly uses his words. So he's not completely removed from the situation

>>5384579
There is literally no other crime whose prevention is similarly approached. Who has ever seen a don't murder campaign? A don't rob campaign? Really?

The real reason we engage in these things is that, culturally, women can do no wrong. They avoid responsibility like the plague. They require total cultural acceptance in all things. They need to be able to fuck who they want when they want. They need to be able to do anything they want, compensated in ways men aren't, and when things don't go there way, they need a hug box to greet them at every failure.

Women are despicable creatures. Women are horrible. Have you ever had a relationship with one? Terrible things.

>>5384274
>Rape culture is a tricky business
particularly if the people who talk about it lie all the time, and are generally full of shit
I'd call that tricky

>>5384624
Yeah, we saw "Don't shake your baby." in Australia for the crime of baby shaking. We see just don't bash women ads all the time. Smoking and drugs are covered with "just don't do it campaigns."

It looks like your awareness of legal and tv history is pretty fucking minimal doesn't it? The governance of biopolitical subjects as unhealthy bodies requiring public service regulation in the criminal sphere has a long fucking history.

Wait a second, let me get this straight...
>>5384274
> We call "yes" consent, but with so much pressure, with such a culture of entitlement, does "yes" really mean "yes"?
So 'yes' = 'no'
>>5384536
> From a mechanistic viewpoint, sex occurred between two intoxicated individuals. There is no reliable metric for lucidity, and sex is not inherently a crime, so there is no restitution for the partner that feels violated as a result of his error.
'no' = 'yes'

Thanks /lit!

>>5384274
How can anyone using the term 'rape culture' expect to be taken seriously?

>>5384602
SJW thought is watered down Focault. It's all about power dynamics and institutions.

>>5384666
But the way SJWs go about arguing their points is retarded, and something Foucault would have vehemently protested.

Funnily enough it seems they have "appropriated" the Foucaldian grid / flow of power.

>>5384642
Baby shaking shouldn't be illegal.

>>5384274
No, I don't. Just being alive is fucking "rape culture" because you're always coerced into doing shit because that's what being human is

>>5384661
>'no' = 'yes'
feeling violated afterwards does not count as a no.

>>5384274
Also, what's with the obsession with verbal contracts? 90% of the "consent" in sex is body language and actions

i can't imagine anything less erotic than stopping at each step to make sure "it's okay"

>>5384750
>i can't imagine anything less erotic than stopping at each step to make sure "it's okay"

I would say it's a safe bet to assume that at least 90% of the women that shriek about consent and "rape culture" are disgusting hambeasts that no self-respecting person would (or has ever) touch(ed) with a 10-foot pole.

>>5384579

The only problem there comes from people potentially conflating individual precautions and a societal solutions. "Don't go down Crackhead Avenue, you'll probably get mugged" is good, valuable advice for an individual. But on a society level, that's not a solution - a solution is making Crackhead Avenue a safer street. And if society adopts the attitude of "Well of course you got mugged on Crackhead Avenue, that's your own mistake," anyone who finds themselves on Crackhead Avenue suddenly becomes an acceptable target for anyone looking for a quick mug, and the muggers are now not just the inevitable criminal statistic, their criminal behaviour is actively being nourished.

But holy shit, first world feminists over blow and simplify the issue WAY too much. Come get me when you get raped for leaving the house without a male escort and a burka, you know?
We should take all the personal precautions we can get when it comes to avoiding being victimised. As long as those precautions are not treated as solutions, there's no problem.

And yeah, there's also the problem of asshole captain hindsights swooping in to say "Well if you'd had a can of mace, this wouldn't have happened," but to take that behaviour and decide, "Well now nobody gets any mace!" is simply insane. And I mean really, NO ONE likes a captain hindsight. For feminists to take that kind of douchebag and get people on HIS side rather than theirs takes a special kind of talent.
And these kind of feminists are the same people who say "Don't teach girls not to get raped, just teach boys not to rape." But then they turn around and say "Don't teach people not to be assholes, just take away girls' potential to protect themselves so that no one can say she should have tried harder. Fuck preventing the injury, preventing the insult is what's important!"