For sure... no posters on 2+2 would explicitly endorse that drunk sex = rape either.

LOOOOOOL keeeeeeed

LOL on the way to congratulating microbet for being right you accidentally proved him wrong. Turns out, surprise surprise, it isn't about "rules" or "due process" or anything even loosely related to "reality", it's just seething white kid rage at a world that sometimes pretends women and POC matter.

Peak microbet right here.

Hey, bet, given that tfd kinda sorta just admitted it totally is just misogyny, any thoughts on how the rest of us that figured that out on page 1, while you continue to pop into this thread from time to time to broadcast that you have no idea what's going on but you're pretty sure ikes is making some good points? Good points you can't, you know, actually explain. Good points you certainly aren't man enough to say you agree or disagree with them. But definitely good points.

Maybe, and this is just a general thought, you could actually what people write instead of guessing at what you maybe generally think they could be saying?


Naw.

Meh, not that I'm wrong about the point in general, but I can see the $5 criteria not being met.

I wasn't trying to even imply that a specific rule was broken in some case itt, but that conservatives felt there was.

Not sure I really want to delve into the 5 or whatever cases ikes has been talking about and the school proceedings. Yeah, I'm sure I don't.

I know the alternative explanation for ikes' being upset is that he's sympathetic to frat boys accused of rape and not women who have been raped, but considering most of the posts from fly and ikes it seems pretty bizarre for you, fly, to think you're that much better of a person. That it's not just something general that comes out in relatively abstract discussions online. But, then, I do think this persona of yours is a bit of a game.

I'm not necessarily interested in talking about the same things you are. Too bad. I'm certainly not obsessed with talking about posters (as in 2p2 posters) though you unfortunately drag me into it.

Why don't you ask the people from your hearing? You know, the totally not made up one?

There isn't a coherent thought in this, just a bunch of assertions. "Feminists believe women should be treated as kids." But I bet you think that in child custody hearings, feminists believe they should get custody 100% of the time, right? Is that because feminists believe it's OK for kids (aka women) to have custody over other kids?

Or maybe you're just applying whatever strawman fits best at any given time.

I'm in the ikes camp. Senorkidd is being silly

I don't have to ask, I heard it myself. "Intoxicated and incapacitated mean the same thing" was the quote from the panel member to the respondent. The student appealed the decision based in part on that exact quote. The appeal was denied.

Could care less whether you believe it or not.

No one believes you

I bet you believe that feminists argue that joint custody should be presumed. NOW certainly didn't.

I've just seen enough of the contradictions that I don't care what you think feminism stands for. In fact this entire thread is about the contradiction between sex positive feminism and protecting women from making "bad" choices. You pointed this out yourself. This stance is mutually exclusive yet held by it's proponents.

The posters ITT will look at the poster and change "intoxicated" to "incapicated" because they are incapable of reconciling that women being protected from drunken hook-ups but being able to enjoy their sexuality uninhibited are fundamentally incompatiable. You can chase them down, albeit slowly, on the fact that they think if the woman has had a few to drink then she can't consent (by college standards). But the light-bulb that this is both patronising to women and very risky for men just doesn't seem to turn on.

The thing is, if you take what they preach at full value. Then pretty much 98% of the adult population are rapists (including the proponents ofc). This is a ridiculous postion to be in. But they insist that they are simply punishing more "rapists" which from my perspective seem to have mostly just fallen with the other 98% of the population. So in practice the system that could arise from this that he's a rapist if she says he is.

This position is clearly not fair and is open to abuse. And all fly can do is call everyone who disagrees with him a misogynist.

You raise a valid point in that it is ridiculous to say a woman who's had quite a few drinks can't have sex even if she wants to without her male partner being open to accusations of rape.

I wonder if that's ever caused a problem but even assuming it has we have to realise why this problem arises. It's an artifact of trying to find a solution to the problem of rape and in the absence of a perfect solution we sometimes have to make do with an imperfect one.

Which I guess just comes back to how big a problem we think these sorts of rapes are. Too big imo, you might disagree.

Lol you made the exact same mistake! Are you that far below the curve that it's unbelievable?

Not related to rape at all but there's plenty of relation to 'drunk'.

What do you guys think of the De'Andre Johnson case? Should the woman be charged with anything at all? There's a video here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGGdlL5U61U

The guy is facing charges for misdemeanor battery and has been dismissed from his team. The woman will not be facing any charges according to the State Attorney's Office.

Apparently she called him a f****** n**** and hit him twice.

Should be charged with rape IMO

I'm sure it's held by some of them. Plenty of people hold hypocritical positions. But you're the one making blanket assertions about what feminism stands for, not me. All I did was point out something that's pretty obvious: the ORIGIN of sex-positive feminism is, um, feminist.

But the some are those who seem to have lobbying influence. Again I used the word malleable to describe what feminism stands for. Both sex postive and sex negative feminism are viable standpoints.

You can choose to disagree with either stance, but what is so insidious with changing between the two is that the gender contract that arises will be patently onesided.

Going back to feminism wants to treat women like kids, I mispoke. It wants to treat women like spoiled teenagers who have all the freedom with minimal accountability to go with it.

Take the abortion issue. They argue her body, her choice (which I 100% agree with), but then seem to think that saddling an unwilling biological father with the costs of bringing up said child is fair. Her body, her choice, her responsibility is my stance. If the father is unwilling, then she has to find a way to provide from her own resources, or have an abortion, or give it up for adoption.

This had nothing to do with my point.

But you were responding to my post. So...

1. Most of these laws (meaning child support etc.) are built around the best interests of the child, not what's fair to either parent.

2. Do you think that the woman should have the equal and opposite right? I'm going to take a stab and say that you haven't thought about this in the slightest. Should the woman be able to carry the child to term and then just give it to the father and absolve herself of any legal responsibility? He can just put it up for adoption, of course.

I mean, pregnancy is inherently unfair re: the sexes. It's not as if that's some sort of mystery. The woman has the right of termination because it's growing in her body. It's not as if she's allowed to bring it to term and THEN make unilateral decisions about the child's welfare at every turn.

Men who don't want to take responsibility for supporting the children they make are the ones who sound like spoiled teenagers. If they don't want the responsibility of a possible pregnancy, they shouldn't be thrusting their junk into the honey pot.

Actually the "best" interests of the child doesn't seem to be that important. If the "best" interests of the child were important to the State then appropriately vetting the parents would be a greater concern. It's not btw.

You see her body, her choice, her responsibilty is very simple. During pregnancy she has to make the decision that is in the best interests for the child. If she cannot afford the upkeep of the child, then she has to deal with the consequences.

The second you add "but can't we make the man pay, afterall he had sex so he should have forseen the possibility" the problem becomes two-fold.

1. The woman can and will make decisions which are against the childs best interest but in her own.

2. The same freedom granted to women (fairly I might add) about autonomy of parenthood is being denied to men. Feminists telling men they should be financially responsible for the upkeep of a child they did not want is as abhorrent as Pro-lifers telling women they should be forced to bear a child they do not want.

Please get this, it is not bringing women upto the social, economic and political sphere as men. This is granting them a privelage which men do not have. Practice the equality you preach or I'm going to keep on ragging on you.

What "suing for paternity" is in practice is I want a child/ren and I want you to help me fund them. The child is effectively being used as a pawn.

Did you put any thought into this whatsoever? That position isn't the equal and opposite right. The man cannot force the woman to have the child. Noonce can force the woman to do anything in this regard. Whether a life is brought into this world is entirely her decision. There is no equal and opposite right here.

So I guess the closest to the equal and opposite in this case would be could the father force the mother to bear the child, which I think would be monstrous.

I mean if the father wanted the child and your example happened, then she did him a massive favour by surrogating for him. If not well he can abandon his rights and responsibilities for the child.

Your example was really poor, I would like to stress that again. Noone should be forced to be a parent, it's that simple. (Ben Affleck- Holden McNeil) "Am I getting through to you at all????"

Jesus christ autocrat, pregnancy used to be unfair when there wasn't an abort option. Natures a bitch and that's why we study science to get around that fact.

You do understand that tradionalism was built around pregnancy being inherently unfair right? (please god don't make me have to explain that one to you)

She makes the unilateral decision whether the child comes to exist or not. She should be able to make the unilateral decision whether to raise it alone or not.
If there is a father figure then no, the decisions won't be entirely her own.
If there isn't a father figure then shes back to making unilateral decisions. At which point she can fund her own decisions, like adults do.

LOL. I knew one you of you would say something so transparently a double standard

Go on Chesspain, defend your statement

"Best interest of the child," verbatim, is in pretty much every state law on the subject. I've seen some stats showing that women have it easier, which I tend to believe. Not disagreeing on that point at all. But that's separate from a discussion of what actually is best for the child, and you're not having that discussion, you're just talking about a fairness issue between the mother and father.

...wat. Your "equal and opposite" right makes absolutely no sense in this context. The right I am talking about is the right that YOU implied you wanted to exist: you think the man should be able to terminate his parental responsibilities, just like the woman can.

But if the father can do that, why shouldn't the woman be allowed to carry to term and then abandon responsibility to the father? That's what you think the father should be able to do, right? He says "I don't want this" and is absolved of any financial (or other) responsibility. So the woman should be able to choose not to get an abortion, but still give up responsibility. That would be a right equal to the one you want granted to the man (who, after all, doesn't have to make any decision re: abortion).

It works better if you are able to read what I'm saying.

It's still unfair, bro. If both parties want the child, who do you think it's generally harder on? Even if she wants to terminate, she still has to have the procedure done, while the dude doesn't. Not rocket science here.

I don't think you "have" to explain this to me because this sentence doesn't actually mean anything.

tf-d,

The whole thing with men and women equally deciding whether or not to have sex.

Women bearing the children.

Women having all the choice on abortion or not.

Both men and women being equally liable for raising the children.

It all seems like the best system considering biology.

Best interest(sic)of the child is just a bunch of words in the context. The child had the chance of not existing, that might have been in it's best interests, the best interests might be for it to be put for adoption..etc.

In this case "best interest(sic) of the child" means forcing a financial responsibility onto an unwilling parent because the mother couldn't be bothered to do what actually was in the best interests of the child.

It susbisdises the mother not the child. Like housing benefit subsidises landlords not the tenants. Like food stamps subsidises Wal-mart and not the employees of Wal Mart. Are you still struggling to see my politics yet?

Or do I have to ironically argue a pro-life stance to show their stance mirrors yours?

Well auto, your example was so flawed it had me confused to as where your coming from. So I will explain this simply for you. The woman can enforce fatherhood on the mother. That's the problem. Your equal and opposite was the mother enforcing fatherhood on the father, but physically rather than financially.

And as far as abandoning the rights and responsibilities to parenthood goes. Women already have that auto. There is no equal and opposite here I'm afraid.

And what does the father who does not want a child but given the physical possesion of one and legal responisbility? He absolves himself by putting it up for adoption. Just like the woman can put her child up for adoption. Seriously dude, I have no case to answer to here. You need to think this one through.

I can, you're just not making a very good case.

Again this argument is ridiculous.

"If both parties want the child, who do you think it's generally harder on?"

It's harder to speak generally on this than you think. But in my parents case, my Dad. He was a single parent when me and my brother were teenagers and had to deal with us and a serious job, while my Mum stayed with the husband she thought was bad for us.

Remember there are many years of parenthood after the pregnancy itself.

No it's meaning was pretty obvious. Pregnancy used to non-remdiable. So forcing fathers to pay for their kids made sense. The second it became remediable, forcing fathers to pay for their (biological) kids where the mother had a fair chance to opt out is just subsidising the mother's choice.