Do they still make these posters?

I feel like there's a saying, something about hell and intentions.

So charge the woman with rape charges as well. It's either both were raped or neither were. He was drunk and she took advantage of him.

It's heavily implied she consented while intoxicated, which is impossible according to the poster, and is therefore considered rape, even though both were under the influence

It’s the gross assumption that the man won’t regret his actions. Or that he wouldn’t be shamed and ridiculed just for trying to claim he didn’t want it.

You do better.

People always picture a huge unattractive woman when this gets brought up.

But one of my college roommates got raped by a girl who was at least "an 8".

They had hooked when he was blackout and she was just tipsy. He wanted nothing to do with her tho, and told her that repeatedly. She was just hot, young, and had never been turned down before.

So like a week later we have a party he's not at. She showed up early, had two beers, then went to "wait" in his bed. Even though everyone was telling her not to do that.

When he shows up, still wants nothing to do with her, so just gets blacked out at the party instead of kicking her out of his bed asap. I guess trying to wait her out and hoping she'd eventually give up.

By the time he finally goes to bed, he's blacked out and she's been in there line 6-8 hours and completely sober.

Next morning she teased him about how they had sex again but he kept falling asleep during it.

If he was a chick, no one would argue that the second time was rape. Hell, we'd have probably fought a guy if he kept insisting he was going to "wait" in a drunk girls bed who was clear she didn't want anything to do with him.

Seinfeld raped those toys because she ate turkey

Then why wouldn't she be charged with rape?

Drunk people can't consent, not just drunk women. That's the point of contention.

Edit: it's worth mentioning that there are definitely limits to this statement. If two people at the nightclub have had several drinks and decide to hook up, that's probably okay. They're two consenting adults, even though they're legally drunk. The issue is when one of the people is significantly impaired, to the point where they can't really think clearly and consent or object. Just having a few beers and fucking isn't a crime, and anyone who thinks it is is a prude.

You're right, drunk people can't consent.

That is not what the poster says.

The poster states, in no unclear terms, that drunk WOMEN cannot consent. This is clearly evident by the scenario being laid out as the same for both parties, but one, the male, was accused of rape.

I mean, the "#NotAllMen" incels tend to come out of the woodwork any time they see something like this.

Good to see more people linking to this. Hey, if you're an American reading this comment and that link is still blue, turn it purple. lt's arguably the most important video on the internet for every American to watch.

Permanently Deleted

These nuances are why this poster is absolute shit, though. Sex, rape, and consent are such incredibly deep, complicated topics that you really can't boil them down to a poster and have it touch on a fraction of what it needs to.

Right now, this poster very much makes it out to always be the guy's fault. That's an issue, even if it's not the case. I can see this poster having an inverse effect. The people who need to understand it have a knee jerk counter reaction, and the people who have enough understanding to deduce the nuance already aren't raping people.

The poster is at best worthless, a tree gives its life for that, or it's actively harmful.

Yeah but isn't the whole crux of the thing that people aren't responsible enough to give consent while drunk?

But if you're not responsible for your actions while drunk, then why is the man responsible for his actions while drunk? Is a drunk man considered responsible enough to determine the sobriety of the people he's with?

I mean sure don't have sex with a lady if she's way too drunk, but that can be difficult to determine. I've been in situations where I was out with a woman who was so drunk she could barely walk and yeah, obviously that was a no go (though the next morning it all worked out). But what is the limit on how many drinks a lady can have before she's no longer able to consent? Is this a scenario where there needs to be a breathalyzer involved?

And yeah, I've woken up with women I wouldn't have been with had I been sober. Was I raped? Nah, I was just being a drunken idiot.

Yes, but did Josie unreasonably believe that Jake would consent to sex with her while sober?

What if Jake wouldn't have consented if sober, because although he thought Josie was a smoking hot sex goddess and would probably consent to some hanky panky next week, he had only broken up with Janie a few days prior and wouldn't want to hurt her by moving on too soon, does that still make it rapey?

Permanently Deleted

If the poster reframes it as "this is how the police treat you" then I see it being a lot more favorable. If it also took a slightly less hard-line stance, insisting on affirmative consent for instance, it'd also fly better. Overall the message and intent of the poster is clearly a good one, but it's touching an area where every single person is so vastly different on, that nuance MUST be taken into consideration, or it's just going to hit wrong.

Feminism is about equality. As long as we still have frequent female firsts, we're gonna need feminism. For example, we've been in space for 50 years, and just last year we had our first entirely female spacewalk. We are only now planning on sending a woman to the moon. Last year, the number of female CEOs finally outnumbered males... Named John.

We need equality, and in many cases, that means we need to improve the ways we as a society treat women.

That is actually a major concern for feminism atm. The old guard stands by the term but it's toxic to the people it needs to reach.

You ask an angry young man if he's a feminist, he'll say no.

You ask him if he agrees with most feminist points, he'll usually say yes.

It's not about consent, it's about penis bad. Really, though, it goes either way.

But it has “laughter” in it, so it surely can’t be that bad

It’s kind of a gray area. If you do something that kills someone and a reasonable person could not have foreseen the possibility of the death, then it’s just an accident. They don’t need a term for it because you won’t be prosecuted. This would be like if you gave someone a banana and they ate it and died and neither of you knew that they had a banana allergy.

Manslaughter is when you could have reasonably foreseen the death before you did the thing that caused the death. This would be like driving too fast on a wet road losing control and killing your passenger.

Third degree homicide is a step beyond that. You are doing something that you know is stupid at this point. This would be like driving with a blindfold on and crashing and killing your passenger.

Second degree is when you know that what you’re doing is very likely to kill someone. This would be like shooting a gun down a crowded street, aiming at a tree, but hitting a person and killing them instead.

First is when you kill somebody and you meant to kill them. Obvious.

All the examples I gave could arguably be in an adjacent category depending on the exact facts. It all has to do with the mental state of the person who is doing the dangerous thing. What did they mean to do? Could they have reasonably foreseen that what they are doing could result in a death? Factors like intoxication, mental illness, and emotional disturbance all affect a person’s mental state. There is nuance to that as well. If you know you become violent when you get drunk then you are less likely to successfully convince a jury that you didn’t know what you were doing. Some people get drunk or high to give themselves the nerve to commit a crime.

Google patriarchy and toxic masculinity for more information

That's wild! I set why you need a penis to own property or to vote or lead a company, but to rape??

And I don't care if people mistake my joke about the patriarchy for a patriarchal joke. I don't care about downvotes

C'mere kids! I'm gonna tie you to the radiator and grape you in the mouth!

So wait, let me get this straight. Are you saying that it's the same thing to hold down and force someone, or coerce them with threats etc, as it is to get them drunk (not maliciously, just over the course of a natural evening together)and end up sleeping together? I don't think you necessarily are, but I just want to make sure.

Assuming we're on the same page there, then what I'm saying is that these two cases need a -legal- difference, since they're clearly morally different. Both can end up being damaging to the other party, but one is clearly violating someone's rights, and the other has a lot of nuance around it.

Any consequences are going to be mostly based upon how the situation appears. If the facts tell a different story, it will be an uphill battle to change the perception.

Successful suicide rates are higher, as men tend to use more lethal means (firearms most commonly). Unsuccessful suicide rates among women are higher, as they tend to prefer pills or cutting.

Its the Gender Paradox of Suicide

CDC data demonstrates that men account for over 76% of suicide deaths in the United States each year. The CDC also found that there are 3.3 male suicide deaths for every female suicide death. In contrast, in research studies, women are two to three times more likely to discuss thoughts of suicide than men, and there are approximately three female suicide attempts per every one male suicide attempt.

Though replace "alimony" with "child support". Alimony is ex-spouse support and generally involves a longer relationship with the man as the breadwinner.

On the other hand, it's far too easy to dismiss someone's concerns over them being easily manipulated rather than finding out that maybe they're coming from somewhere more well thought out, that just happens to come to the same conclusion...

Clearly the drunk man would be guilty or rape because he wasn't in a state to clearly assertain consent from the sober woman.