College tells freshmen to masturbate so they won’t rape, using

A picture of roo was shown without the acronym explained at all. There was a pause – and then a collective moan and groan from the audience as the implication slowly washed over everyone, including those teaching it. It was fucking hilarious. Then the acronym was revealed one at a time:

RUB.
ONE.
OUT.

Everyone lost it.

The poster said the presentation also featured vicarious toe-sucking.

Yet another said “several interpreters awkwardly signed RUB ONE OUT” for hard-of-hearing students.

#Newyork #Nyc #Reddit #Livebroadcasting RIT Uses "Roo" Character To Urge Freshman To "Rub One Out" Instead of Rape…

— Ching Geob (@PhilcamChing) August 24, 2017

Rochester radio station 95.1 also posted an sex-ed flyer from RIT’s Center for Women & Gender for April’s sexual-assault awareness month. It shows a cartoon tiger twerking. It reads: “Don’t have sex with a drunk twerking tiger. Only a sober tiger can give consent!” (The school mascot is a tiger.)

In a statement that does not appear to be linked from any other university page, and was not shared on its social-media channels, Rochester Institute of Technology did not describe the Roo slide except to say it has “sparked controversy.”

It is simply titled “A response from the Senior Vice President for Student Affairs,” Sandra Johnson, and said the Roo slide was part of a 77-slide presentation.

Johnson said the sexual-misconduct program “Alcohol and Chill” was developed by Student Counseling and Psychological Services, the Center for Student Conduct and Conflict Mediation, Center for Women and Gender and its Title IX coordinator’s office:

The format of the program was more of a “straight talk” approach, weaving in humor along with important facts and identifying resources for students. The overarching goal was to increase awareness and promote discussion about the ways we together can prevent instances of sexual misconduct on our campus.

The Roo slide was “taken out of context,” she continued:

In my opinion, this serves to underscore the complexity involved in addressing this issue. In our experience, telling students what “not to do” without talking about specific situations that are difficult to navigate is irresponsible; we addressed the subject from a place and context that students could understand. …

While some may think the program on Wednesday evening missed the mark, we’ve had positive feedback from many of the students, both new and returning, in attendance. These are difficult conversations that can be awkward and uncomfortable, and we apologize if we unintentionally offended anyone.

Johnson’s statement does not explain how a baby kangaroo from a children’s book is an effective vehicle for teaching college students about sexual misconduct.

The controversy distracted from the orientation-week message pushed by RIT’s new president, David Munson. He told students the same day as the “Alcohol and Chill” presentation that freshmen should “be open to learning and growing” and “learn how to discuss sensitive topics honestly and respectfully.”

The College Fix has asked the administration why its statement does not appear to have been communicated outside of a single webpage that is not linked elsewhere, why it fails to describe the slide’s content, and which persons and offices developed or oversaw the Roo slide.

how is this offensive?

>>172904
>Think of Roo while rubbing one out
Well that is certainly one way to kill any chance of normal sexual development.

>masturbation as a way to kill rape urges

This is gonna be damaging to sexual development in the long run.

If we're at the point of having rape urges at all, someone has already fucked up royally.

>>173042
No fag. Men are suppose to rape. Obviously in today's world its seen as barbarism, but at the dawn of time rape kept us going. Im not defending rapists btw, just dont act like that shit aint right. Rape makes babies. Plain and simple

>>172930
>All men are rapists
>Only men are rapists
>Men have no self-control

>>172904
Meanwhile, that one furry is having the best nut of his life.

>>172930
Hey Achmed, before blowing up a mall, how about setting off some firecrackers?
Hey Tyrone, before doing a drive-by how about playing some GTA?

>>173060
Your mental editor must be working overtime, considering the complete lack of gender pronouns in the slide. Women, too, can 'rub one out', and they can also take advantage of men, as you yourself implied.

Furthermore, it's dangerously easy to neglect consent, especially in a party where one or both parties are intoxicated but still criminally liable. Thus, these presentations are a necessary evil to explain these rules for the untrained layman.

>>173068
There's more than one furry at RIT
Christ the fucking place was infested with them. I went there for a visit and was apalled. Kind of disgusting, really, having to see furries walking around, acting like they're normal people.

>>173107
>Furthermore, it's dangerously easy to neglect consent, especially in a party where one or both parties are intoxicated but still criminally liable. Thus, these presentations are a necessary evil to explain these rules for the untrained layman.
Oh yeah man it's way too easy to rape someone you look away for five seconds, all of a sudden you're just raping someone out of nowhere
You don't even notice I swear

>>172905
>Yet another said “several interpreters awkwardly signed RUB ONE OUT” for hard-of-hearing students.

Nope. Never happened. You don't get to be an ASL interpreter if you can't handle content dispassionately. You don't get to not sign anal sex because you're squeamish, no interpreter would have been awkward over an acronym about flogging your dick.

That said the ppt was obviously made by a disgusting furfag and is literally disgusting. Gonna go make a Jack it to roo meme now, too bad news is text.

>>173183
> when you can't fuck the bunny
> Jack off to Roo

furfags must be ecstatic

>Evangelical mainstream america before: Don't masturbate because it's sinful and jesssuz doesn't like it.
>Evangelical mainstream america now: lord Jeeeeezus says you should masturbate because rape is more sinful. Go yankees

You burgers are a riot

Deep in the hundred acre wood

They should teach how to SPONGEBOB:

Stop
Pretending
Orgasm
Now
Guys
Enjoy
Better
Oral
Buttsex

I can't imagine why anyone would give a shit about this.

http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=26368

To see the real truth of the matter, let us take a look at the Department of Justice document Criminal Victimization in the United States, 2005.

In Table 42, entitled "Personal crimes of violence, 2005, percent distribution of single-offender victimizations, based on race of victims, by type of crime and perceived race of offender," we learn that there were 111,590 white victims and 36,620 black victims of rape or sexual assault in 2005.

In the 111,590 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was white, 44.5 percent of the offenders were white, and 33.6 percent of the offenders were black.

In the 36,620 cases in which the victim of rape or sexual assault was black, 100 percent of the offenders were black, and 0.0 percent of the offenders were white. The table explains that 0.0 percent means that there were under 10 incidents nationally.

In the United States in 2005, 37,460 white females were sexually assaulted or raped by a black man, while between zero and ten black females were sexually assaulted or raped by a white man.

What this means is that every day in the United States, over one hundred white women are raped or sexually assaulted by a black man.

>>172904
>Start beating your dick nonstop for progressivism

>Fall into porn addiction

>Heavily into rape porn after a while

>oshitnigger.mpeg

>raperaperaperaperape.jpeg

:< literally why

>>172930
"Rubbing one out" is traditionally used to describe the act of male masturbation. The reason why they made that caption in the first place was to deter sexual assault.

All the poor triggered little boys. Boo hoo

>>173199
This is about college. Meaning leftie safe space.

The religious are the right wing of America and don't trust colleges unless their dedicated to conservative thinking.

>>173272
shut up virgin lol get a job

dicks out for progress

>>172904
I'm not surprised, that kangaroo is really sexy.

>>173107
LOL wtf

>>173107
>both parties are intoxicated but still criminally liable

Haha, you and I both know only the man is criminally liable in this situation.

And I'm not saying the woman isn't liable as well because I believe it, I'm saying that because of what happens in practice.

Remember that poster? "Jack and Jill are both drunk and have sex. Jack is a rapist." (Condensed, but the message is preserved)

>>172904
It's honestly pretty solid advice

>>173268
not how it works bucko

>>173107
>>drunken sex is rape
Modern Feminism is a mistake, the sooner this ridiculous hysteria over women potentially getting their feelings hurt because they fucked some guy because they had beer googles on the better.

>>but muh clearly established consent ;_;
Shut the fuck up you autists, Human behavior doesn't work this way.

>>173380
So you're A-OK with someone coring your ass while you're passed out drunk? Hey, you 'consented' by voluntarily getting yourself drunk in the first place.

And by the way, your lack of self control and empathy isn't representative of normal 'human behaviour', at least not in any functioning society. Or do you think places like Somalia and prison-yards are the ideal of human civilisation?

>>173408
>passed out
Way to twist his words. he was talking about being drunk, not about being passed out. These two conditions are very different, yet feminists always cry rape when a drunk woman has sex with a drunk dude while both are sery much awake and aware but since the women had second thoughts the day after it suddenly is rape now.

>>172930
Maybe because it treats men categorically as potential rapists? When I attended college, the orientation consisted of a tour of the facility and information on how the school functions. You know, an actual orientation as opposed to feminist propaganda.

I rather think about Kanga instead.

i don't think that anyone willing to sexually assault someone would let a powerpoint presentation change their mind. rapists understand that they should just go jerk off, they just choose not to. they rape because they want to rape.

>>173060
generally what society thinks now. so just be sure to photocopy her drivers license, and get her to sign a note of consent.

>>173098
because the liberal fucktards might think he is training to do the act, yet they think that men masturbate to stop having the urge for sex? nope, even with having the option of sex with a consenting girl I still sometimes want to just beatoff to porn, and the reverse is also true.

>>173124
the fact that you believe having a hobby, or club or even just game that you like to do because it brings you happiness is wrong tells me you are the one in need of help sir, because we furries are quite normal compared to the not so well adjustsed nutjobs that hate someone because they like something you arent into

>>173199
this is not made by or for the intelligent americans. we do however laugh about it harder than you brits do though

>>173251
no lie, i would fuck that roo's mom, while piglet watches.

>>173268
because those idiot libtards can't process past their first thought.

>>173344
his mom looks better though

>>173463
again, would fuck roo's mom while piglet watches and screams oh dear repeatedly, and would also ask her consent to have "rape play" so I could give it to her hard while spanking her ass and pulling her tail and she tries to escape in futility because i cuffed her to the bed

>>173463
also forgot to say https://e621.net/post/index/1/kanga

>>173415
I agree with you on the drunkenness. Mostly. But If men initiate the majority of sex, men will continue to commit the majority of rape. While women do as well, it's often when they're in the position of caretaker where they will have some level of power over their victim. And they still constitute a minority. And that's the thing, initiating sex while drunk and accepting sex while drunk are still two different things.

But on the subject of whether or not a person has control of themselves: Women are statistically more neurotic than men. Their bell curves meet, so it's not a sure thing from person to person. But women experience negative emotions more often and more intensely on average. And anxiety or panic disorders are recorded around twice as often in women. That alone is logical grounds for a woman to be twice as likely to be sent into a fight or flight mode when asked for sex. Twice as likely to panic. Because a person who likely is taller than you, weighs more than you, and has more upper body strength than you has asked you to make yourself completely vulnerable to them.

You may not want to do that. But you are twice as likely to react to the situation as if your life is threatened, even when it's not. When your mind is hijacked by that notion, you may comply, even though it's not your intention to. And ignorance to crime isn't innocence from that crime. If you're speeding, you get pulled over regardless of whether or not you realize you're speeding. The officer may take pity on you. But you were still speeding. The difference between failing to recognize a situation where real consent is not given, and ignoring it, is as legally non-existant as any other crime.

And college is a place where a mass of younger people go, finding themselves suddenly unsupervised. There will be a lot of sex. OP's presentation hardly seems helpful. But establishing a shared method of giving and recognizing consent is for people only 5 or so years past puberty.

>>173488
Meant to reply to.
>>173413
As well.

Personal responsibility is still personal responsibility. It's the only responsibility that you have some means of control over.

Anyways people more likely to rape are also more likely to have less impulse control. And they are more likely to have criminal behavioral disorders that they've learned as a child. The time for intervention for that sort of person is -as- a child. It becomes disproportionately more difficult as they age, to help them help themselves. They're also gonna be less likely to make it to college in the first place.

Better to have well-made PSA's that fill in some of the gaps that otherwise well-intentioned people have in the 18 or so years they've been alive and whatever margin of that they've been aware of sex for. Because parenting or peer support doesn't always do it.

What reason would anybody have to be upset with that? Even if you have a grasp on this, shouldn't "well I'm glad that they're making sure we all do" be your line of thought?

>>173268
The exact opposite would happen. There is no correlation between the people who beat off to illegal sexual acts and the people who actually perform the acts.

>>173408
>>passed out
I never said anything about being passed out, and the fact that you think that scoffing at the idea that someone should have to cross every t and dot ever i on the consent form in order to not be a rapist indicates a lack of empathy or self-control is your stupidity, not mine.

When modern feminists talk about rape they are rarely if ever talking about someone being forced to have sex against their will. Oh and the trust fund darlings in question rarely if ever seriously give a shit about prison yards or third world nations outside of petty moralizing.

>>173488
This post is a fucking joke and the standard of consent required here is something that most men will never be able to meet because most men cannot read minds. It's also completely unenforceable without trashing the concept of a person being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. All for the sake of a woman's feelings.

Fuck that shit.

>>173516
Man if you think the only legitimate means of communication is spoken, explicit language, you must be some kind of Autist. Especially if you think everything else is some kind of mind-reading. That's the entire point of stressing consent in sex ed.

Maybe you shouldn't be fucking if you can't understand your partner well enough to tell that they don't want sex. That's the point in this ROO bullshit. Exactly the sentiment you're expressing here.

but
>It's too much effort to make sure I'm not committing a felony
OK buddy.

>>173518
>Man if you think the only legitimate means of communication is spoken, explicit language, you must be some kind of Autist.
>Maybe you shouldn't be fucking if you can't understand your partner well enough to tell that they don't want sex.
By most campus standards, the only legally valid consent to sex is spoken, explicit language. Anything else opens you to campus rape adjudications if your partner changes her mind after the fact.

>>173510
I really doubt this. For example, people who jack off to child pornography are in fact more likely to molest children.

>>173488
>>But on the subject of whether or not a person has control of themselves: Women are statistically more neurotic than men. Their bell curves meet, so it's not a sure thing from person to person. But women experience negative emotions more often and more intensely on average. And anxiety or panic disorders are recorded around twice as often in women. That alone is logical grounds for a woman to be twice as likely to be sent into a fight or flight mode when asked for sex. Twice as likely to panic. Because a person who likely is taller than you, weighs more than you, and has more upper body strength than you has asked you to make yourself completely vulnerable to them.

If this is what you want to go with then women are simply not equal to men and should be treated as such under the law. You don't get to be an independent adult and also a coddled perma-victim.

>>173518
I had a nice response to this typed up but I deleted it, see this guy's post instead.>>173522

>>173522
>By most campus standards
True. But is it honestly difficult to rephrase if you notice that somebody's still visibly uncomfortable? Or if somebody's quiet or distraught during sex, it doesn't seem to me that it's a lot to at least check in, given that they haven't actually said anything. It's just the two of you, most cases. You have nothing else to pay attention to but yourself and them.

If it's somebody I've known and am comfortable with, less language is needed because more trust is built. But with new partners, there's a lot of "this OK?" coming from both sides, as often as every time we switch positions. And it doesn't detract from the experience, nor was it difficult. Both of us, in those situations, were more comfortable because of that. But I know to do these things because I'm well into my twenties, having spent a hell of a lot more time reading about sex than doing it.

I really don't think that this is unrealistic to talk to teenagers about. Make it more nuanced than ROO? Sure. But to exclude it entirely strikes me as naive.

>>173529
There is prejudice that is useful, and there is prejudice that is obtuse. Being more aware of somebody who's statistically more likely to react neurotically is not obtuse, nor does it set a precedent of coddling. It's an expression of personal responsibility, allegedly antithetical to the left.

She has a personal responsibility to ensure that she gives consent. But she's statistically twice as likely to react in a way that compromises her ability to do that. When she can't, I have one to ensure I have consent. Otherwise this is not something that should be happening. And I don't fuck with girl who I'm not confident are capable of giving me the fullest extent of their consent. I dropped an alchoholic. I dropped an ex-abusee.

>>173533
It is unrealistic to expect that actually, as young men have a very difficult time focusing on other things when they are highly aroused and this is doubly the case when alcohol is involved.

>>173536
Yeah no, you don't get to have it both ways and I don't give a fuck if some chick gets her feelings hurt because she said yes when she really meant no due to being a neurotic idiot.

>>173538
In that case, why is it unrealistic for young men to be targeted more extensively? You really are following the same principles I am. Which is fine. But if sex ed about consent is targeted at men, then so does that with your point in mind.

>>173540
Then you could hurt somebody really bad dude. I mean all I can make is an ethical argument about personal responsibility, and a logical one for sex-ed. That's your choice if you're OK with it.

Sex takes two people to do, but one person to stop. I don't think that what I'm saying here is anything but an ethical expansion of this.

>>173543
>>In that case, why is it unrealistic for young men to be targeted more extensively?
Because this shit largely isn't going to work and has another possible effect of increasing the number of pissed off sexually frustrated men. Which is a bad thing for social stability. I mean it's not the US is the netherlands where legal prostitutes are easy acquire and relatively cheap.

>>173543
>>Then you could hurt somebody really bad dude.
Yes he could, emotionally. Know how that's best dealt with? By not being a little bitch about getting your feelings hurt.

>>173544
>it's not like...
Also a solution. But prostitution is a professional relationship where consent and terms are firmly defined. And so it's a solution because safe sex can take place in this explicit way, which works on the same premises that justify consent as a topic of sex ed. Because your goal here is to have a commonly taught means of having and maintaining a consensual relationship with somebody. But in a personal relationship, rather than a professional one. Sex ed that makes it harder to have these realtionships with people doesn't work, I agree. I agree in the same way that I disagree with abstinence.

>emotionally...
Not being a little bitch isn't a solution though. And if we know the same parts of the brain light up, whether emotional or physical pain, then it shouldn't be discarded. If somebody's a neurotic little bitch that isn't going to take well to sex, and you're not willing to go that extra distance, you shouldn't be fucking them.

>in order to get a job you need a college degree
>in order to get a college degree you need to attend mandatory political indoctrination courses
>in one of these courses you are told you are a rapist and instructed to masturbate instead of rape
what a strange world we live in

>>173555
>in order to enter a voluntary relationship you must meet the other party's terms
>In order to meet the other party's terms, you must enter a voluntary relationship with somebody else
>their terms may be disagreeable to you, but necessary if your options are defined by the market
A capitalist one.

>>173551
>Not being a little bitch isn't a solution though
Yeah it is, most of this crap is about women being emotionally harmed, not physical force or physical coercion.

>>then it shouldn't be discarded
Yes it should. Toughen the fuck up.

>>If somebody's a neurotic little bitch that isn't going to take well to sex, and you're not willing to go that extra distance, you shouldn't be fucking them.
According to your "ethics" largely influenced by tedious modern feminist propaganda maybe. Too bad for you that I don't give two shits about modern feminism.

>>172930
Armless Andy would like to have a serious chat with you

>>173574
>yeah, it is
>yes, it should
Aren't the basis of a legitimate challenge, whether or not emotional pain mimics physical pain. I can "man up" and take a cut, that's fine. I can numb that pain with ice or other anesthetics, just like I can cope with emotional pain like any other adult. Doesn't excuse the person that cut me if they meant to, or chose not to prevent it.

>Ethics...
Are moral principles which define a person's behavior, which in a voluntary relationship translates to standards.
>Tedious
Relationships between people require some level of effort to maintain according to those standards. If you don't want to deal people who are tedious, it's literally in your best interest not to fuck neurotic people. If neurotic girls are the only ass you can pull, maybe ROO's for YOO. If you've got a woman that genuinely doesn't care, good for you. That's the sort of person you should be surrounding yourself with in the first place.

>>173587
>>173574
Moreover, if your standard of being around somebody is a mutual stoicism, that's literally analogous to one of mutual emotional concern.

It's an ethical standard by which you conduct and maintain relationships. It states "If you take legal action against pains I consider insignificant, or do so in order to solicit my sympathy, I don't consider you an ethical person." if I'm at all correct about your position. And that's -your- position. But the point of consent as an inclusion to sex ed is to inform teenagers how to form mutual relationships around principles like this, which define consent.

And moreover that it's your responsibility to understand what defines consent in the person you're engaging with, and to either meet those standards as a prerequisite, or to find somebody closer to yours. Take BDSM for example. The point is to -cause- pain. Emotional or otherwise. But it's done in a way that's explicitly agreed on by all parties, and in a way that can be stopped at any time. That's what separates things from pain play from unconsensual sex.

>>173513
Have you never touched alcohol in your life? Do you realise that even if you don't 'pass out', your judgement may be impaired to the point that you may consent to things you wouldn't dare touch with a 10-foot pole sober, and you might not even recall your actions? Answer me again, and don't dodge the question; if someone plied you with alcohol/other drugs until you were intoxicated to the point they could easily take advantage of you, are you consenting simply because you said 'yes' while not in your right mind? And because you voluntarily chose to intoxicate yourself in the first place?

Like it or not, it is your responsibility to ensure your partner is fully consenting before you engage sex, and that goes both ways. I will admit that legal courts are biased towards women, but this prejudice is based on the fact that most rapists are men as >>173488 pointed out.

However, considering the arguments in >>173544, >>173540 and >>173538, I see you lot don't think much of accountability at all. Do you not comprehend the hypocrisy of claiming victimisation by 'feminists' while shirking your responsibility of judgement and self-control? Maybe you should save the advice in >>173529 for yourself.

>>173591
>most rapists are men
Two drunk people have sex. If one of them is a man and one of them is a woman, guess how many rapists there are?

Sure is a wonder why there are more male rapists.

>>173593
>men initiate the most sex
Is my point
>two men fight. One is drunk and wants a good fight, so he gets another drunkard riled up enough to insult him. The insult is enough for the first man to justify throwing a punch. The second man responds. The fight ends evenly with broken hands and noses. They're thrown out of the bar, but want legal compensation for medical fees.
Who does the law favor here?
>Or the second man yields and pleads to stop. But the first man doesn't and beats him bloody.
Or in this situation?
>The first man instead yields, and pleads the other to stop. But the second man doesn't and beats him bloody.
Or this one?

>>173593
>guess how many rapists there are

Then tell me which one of them didn't want sex while they were sober. Whoever imposed their will on the other in this scenario is the guilty party, male or female.

And yes, women can rape men, but the relative rarity of convictions has less to do with biased courts and more to do with the simple fact that it is harder for a woman to be in that position of power over a man. Furthermore, they are less likely to be reported, as men are generally loath to confessing they were exploited. Male chauvinism is a double-edged sword that victimises men as much as it does women, as MRAs are only too happy to concur.

>>173510
>yeah plenty of people who dont view scat porn have scat fetishes

>>173587
>>Aren't the basis of a legitimate challenge,
Yes they are. When you're talking about college aged young adults who are legally eligible for military service, voting rights and the ability to own firearms, feelings should not matter nearly as much as more concrete concerns. To be blunt, I see no reason why I should give a damn about "emotional trauma" being caused to people who aren't children.

>>If neurotic girls are the only ass you can pull, maybe ROO's for YOO
Nah, in that case I'll just fuck them anyway and not care what people like you have to think or say about it.

>>173591
>>Have you never touched alcohol in your life? Do you realise that even if you don't 'pass out', your judgement may be impaired to the point that you may consent to things you wouldn't dare touch with a 10-foot pole sober, and you might not even recall your actions? Answer me again, and don't dodge the question; if someone plied you with alcohol/other drugs until you were intoxicated to the point they could easily take advantage of you, are you consenting simply because you said 'yes' while not in your right mind? And because you voluntarily chose to intoxicate yourself in the first place?
People are still responsible for their actions while drunk and men who wake up next to women they wouldn't have had sex with while sober would get laughed at if they talked about how victimized they were.

>>Do you not comprehend the hypocrisy of claiming victimisation by 'feminists' while shirking your responsibility of judgement and self-control?
Feminists aren't the problem in and of themselves, it's when they get the force of law behind their idiotic ideas. And legal persecution is a very different and far more serious thing then hurt feelings.

>>173600
Nobody puts a gun in their hands, forces them to vote, or is forced to join the military. The only form of draft in America is the selective service, which is emergency conscription. What you've all outlined are choices. They're voluntary, and at 18, it becomes legal for you to make the choice to have sex with another adult.

What of college shootings, predicated on the emotional trauma of the shooter. We want our guns. And we want to own them freely and voluntarily. But we don't want shooters. What is the consideration here? Those kids were legal adults.

And you haven't defined the difference between concrete concerns or emotional ones. You say you don't consider emotional pain to have any basis to justify counteraction. But you don't provide anything to challenge whether or not emotional pain and physical pain are analogous. I've provided examples, that we see a similar physiological response to both. I've defined coping mechanisms for physical and emotional pain to be adaptive behaviors. And you provide me nothing to differentiate the coping mechanisms of one to "manning up" from another. You don't even provide me with a basis of why one might even be irrelevant while the other is. You haven't even attempted to quantify them, relative to one another. If anything, this is the major premise that we can't move forward from to even continue here. You give me nothing with that respect, except a flat refusal to even acknowledge the basis I've defined for the legitimacy of emotional pain, and its importance with consent in mind.

>the force of law...
is something you can appeal a higher court to take on, if you don't feel your case has been handled correctly. Right on up to the supreme court if your claim has some basis. And even they can be challenged on their decisions. The American law system is designed to be robust and adaptable in the face of uncertain injustices.

>>173600
>>173606
>In that case
You put yourself at risk unethically and illogically, according to the terms I've defined for consent.


If I've laid an ethical argument and you've said it's irrelevant and tedious. And if I've set up a logical defense of it, but you ignore that. All that's left is pathos, of the three appeals. Which is ironically, emotion.

(((Education system))) and (((diversity))) at work.

>>173596
Equally responsible is neither yields. When one person yields, then they is not responsible for any further damage. They are still responsible for their actions prior to the yield.

This is the difference between affirmative consent and affirmative dissent. Why is it that everyone is so focused on forcing people to ask for consent when instead we should be teaching people to voice dissent. A clear no is the best way to remove ambiguity and does not rely on the other party involved. As >>173543 stated, it takes 2 people to agree to sex and only one to stop it. Take control and learn to say no.

>>173612
Ideally, shouldn't both be taught? I don't disagree with the stress on affirmative dissent. But on terms of equal responsibility, I think it ought to be taught with affirmative consent. But maybe I haven't made a good enough concession for this?

I've been laser focused on affirmative consent as an option, but I only ever implied the latter if at all. Those are both actually me.

>>173606
>I don't disagree with the stress on affirmative dissent.
Nobody in any position of power at any educational institution would ever even think about bringing up the concept affirmative dissent. They would be fired, then lynched.

>>173614
Then that's where I, and the educational system disagree. And I hope we are talking with each other, because I really don't intend on defending what an organization is over what I'd like it to be. An ex-coworker once talked to me about feminism. The term he used isn't one I can remember, but it stood for a sort of aggregate, platonic idea of ideology. His point was the necessity to push it's ideals not from a sense of aggregate purpose, but personal standpoint. And most importantly, the dangers of not distancing yourself whenever you differ from that aggregate.

That would be another failure of left-wing academia, in my opinion. But that's just, like, my opinion, man. As a 4channer I don't get much say. So I really don't have any basis to defend it in the first place.

Seems like I do need to work on my concessions, though.

>>173606
You don't get it, if you're old enough to join the military and get your head blown off in some shithole, you are old enough that your feelings being hurt is no longer a good reason to arrest somebody.

>>And you haven't defined the difference between concrete concerns or emotional ones.
Here's one: You can get over emotional pain a whole hell of a lot easier then a broken bone if you aren't a pussy.

>the force of law...
>>is something you can appeal a higher court to take on
In theory yes, in practice it depends on how much money you have available.

>>173607
>>You put yourself at risk unethically and illogically, according to the terms I've defined for consent.
I don't give a fuck about the terms you've defined as they are based on idiotic touchy feely horseshit.

>>173613
Avreed, both should be taught. The problem is I only ever see consent being pushed while dissent seems to be largely ignored. Didn't mean to come off as accusatory, i just wanted to emphasize another view on the issue.

>>173616
>>173614
Essentialism. That was the term he used. Essential feminism is going to be very different from a woman's personal feminism. And if she's not able to assert her personal concerns over the essential concerns of feminism, she'd done both herself and her ideology a disservice. If anything, it's academic laziness from people we ought to be expecting rigor from.

>>173617
>In theory
Well that's a damn shame. But the scenarios of consent, education, and legality; are all predicated on the idea of either affirmative consent or affirmative dissent being needed.

>If you aren't a pussy...
Depression is a chronic, debilitating illness that immobilizes people for much longer than a broken bone. Same with anxiety. Same with a number of treatable disorders that deal with emotion and mental health. A bone can be set. Medication can be taken. Therapy can be done. Does a person who loses use of their legs just "get over" it and start walking again? Or do they need intensive physical therapy to relearn the motor function? Both of these issues are rooted firmly in the nervous system. The equivalent to losing a limb here is brain damage, in which physiological damage and damage to a person's state of mind are no longer discernible.

But
>"I don't give a fuck"
Means that you're willing to discard any logical argument I make based on their relation to the nervous system. And you provide me with false equivalences of harm done. A broken bone? Depression. Both immobilizing and painful. Both mostly treatable. Both can lead to death.

And I've made an ethical argument about -mutual, voluntary relationships- which are formed on a person's systems of ethics. That's distinct from emotion, which is a reaction and not a rationalization of behavior like ethics are.

so
>"I don't give a fuck"
Sounds like an emotional appeal from -you-

>>173606
We have a notion that once you are an adult, you are in charge of defending yourself emotionally, but that physical defense is primarily a matter for the state.

There is a responsibility for the state to prevent people from physically assaulting you, but there is no real responsibility for the state to prevent you from having drunken sex, because there isn't a department we want to charge with the moral busybody work of stopping those people who might indeed want to have drunken sex.

>>173621
>Depression
Depends on the kind of depression you're talking about. A lot of sadbrains can be fixed just by getting some exercise and increasing your vitamin D intake.

>>ethics
Are fundamentally subjective. I simply do not care if a woman gets her feelings hurt because she had sex with someone she didn't want to because her own emotional problems prevented her from saying no. That's something is simply irrelevant to me.

>>Sounds like an emotional appeal from -you-
That's your stupidity, not mine. My stupidity is assuming that conversations with people who think modern feminist thought is somehow worthwhile would ever be useful to me at all other then providing me with some certain amount of humor.

>>173622
Well I can't argue that. And I can't argue that it's largely an issue of pragmatism that it isn't policed, because it's a difficult thing to police reliably. Consent in an intimate scenario with two people present is going to mean hearsay in court unless they can reliably find proof of struggle. So it's good that you often see it passed around in feminist circles to fight back with respect for your own life. To get things like skin under your nails, blood, hair, DNA.

Though even that is dubious. Scratching a back can put that skin under those nails, and that might just be rough sex. It's up to forensics to look at everyone and try to piece together how it played out. And forensics isn't always right. But putting up fight is the most -explicit- dissent that can be given. So any signs of ignoring it are clear signs of rape. And if it's unreasonable to put up a fight over unconsensual sex, it can reasonably be considered rape anyways.

So I do have to give that to you. But unconsensual sex can still be rape. And all you're talking about are reasonable legal outlines to define it as so. But we do have another addition to a more ideal sexual education. And why stop a university from picking up the moral busywork of briefing its students that, among other ideas of affirmative consent or dissent?

>>173623
>I simply do not care if a woman gets her feelings hurt
>>173590
Here's where I accept that.
>a lot of sadbrains
Absolutely. And a lot of sadbrains can be avoided being caused by you. Arguably, a lot of potential sadbrains should be avoiding you in the first place. If relationships are voluntary, you'd avoid a lot of suffering just by stating that
>I simply do not care
Which is also a subjective statement. So I can accept that you're right and that this isn't an emotional appeal, but an ethical one. But in that case, isn't a woman who doesn't care about a little unprompted sex initiated from either party more ideal to your own code of ethics? You avoid the immoral garnering of sympathy or legal action from emotional pain in this way. And in that case, why are you seeking out women who don't feel that way?

And anyways, if your libido is an emotional need, then it's not a concrete concern by your own definition. And so your libido is on the same terms of validity as a woman's emotional pain.

>>173629
>>I simply do not care if a woman gets her feelings hurt
That's a simplification of what I said in the post you're replying to. A neurotic woman's emotional pain from agreeing to have sex with someone she didn't want to because of her own stupidity is ultimately self-inflicted. To use your own terms, nobody was holding a gun to her head.

>>Absolutely. And a lot of sadbrains can be avoided being caused by you. Arguably, a lot of potential sadbrains should be avoiding you in the first place. If relationships are voluntary, you'd avoid a lot of suffering just by stating that
Believe me, I genuinely wish I could detect the sort of woman who takes modern feminist variations of rape serious just by looking at them. Unfortunately, they're not all dangerhairs.

>>Which is also a subjective statement. So I can accept that you're right and that this isn't an emotional appeal, but an ethical one. But in that case, isn't a woman who doesn't care about a little unprompted sex initiated from either party more ideal to your own code of ethics? You avoid the immoral garnering of sympathy or legal action from emotional pain in this way. And in that case, why are you seeking out women who don't feel that way?
I'm actively seeking out women like this in the first place, so nice try.

>>And anyways, if your libido is an emotional need,
A libido is a physical need first and an emotional need second.

>>173637
>>I'm NOT actively seeking out women like this in the first place, so nice try.
Gah, I really need to get to bed already.

>>173637
>>173641
Well, I ought to sleep too, for what that's worth.
>self inflicted
It would be. But if she perceives that a gun is being held to her, and I'm able to notice this, that isn't a situation I want to continue. Ultimately, this is based on the premise that I -can- notice. Which may be arrogance. And yours is based on the premise that you won't be able to, which is either being realistic, or being ignorant. I don't think either of those premises can really be argued with. Because they're expressed on a personal basis between two different people. But the issue here is who, of the two, is then capable of stopping this from happening. And if neither was, well I agreed in a reply to someone else that drunkenness alone is a a poor precedent from victimhood if both parties are equally impaired. One of the only incriminating factors then is initiation, with the sober foreknowledge that both parties will be impaired. But that kind of predatory behavior isn't always present. And it doesn't always apply, such as when the sex is predetermined with whom and how: A couple celebrating with champagne and anal.

>believe me
And if you are, then I have no ethical concern for this in the first place. I wanted to stress mutual terms of consent ad the ideal premise for consensual behavior. I'm ultimately OK with a lot of modern feminist concepts of consent, because I don't mind the effort necessary to cast a wider net. I think it's preferable because I think that consent can still be reasonably obtained under these concepts. Though I do differ from feminist thought on a few terms. It's just gonna be daunting to sift through -all that shit- to find out which specifically. Especially while I'm replying to different anons.

>a libido is a physical need
Is arguable, and another debate entirely which, sleep

>>173649
Forgot context
> Because they're expressed on a personal basis between two different people.
by which I meant you and I
> But the issue here is who, of the two, is then capable of stopping this from happening.
in an imagined scenario where either you, or I are present.

If there were any need of proof for sleep deprivation.

This is just glossing over the root of the problem with rape, it's rarely just someone who is "Too horny" and can't control themselves.
Rape is a power trip. We need to address the issues with our society that promote a sense of entitlement to others bodies and general lack of empathy. But dont get me wrong, masturbating is also good.

>>173649
>>And yours is based on the premise that you won't be able to, which is either being realistic, or being ignorant

Fair enough, there's no real way either of us can prove the other wrong here from an objective standpoint.

>>I'm ultimately OK with a lot of modern feminist concepts of consent

I'll never be okay with said concepts, but I would be a lot less troubled by them if they weren't becoming the law regarding such matters in one of the states. I simply will never believe that someone should be put in jail or prison for some sort of "unclear consent" issue as opposed to clearly and obviously forcing someone to have sex when they don't want to for whatever reason.

>>173671
Rape is a crime of passion. If you remove the passion you remove the main motivation for raping someone.

People who rape just for the power trip wouldnt be stopped by ROO, this is targeting horny and desperate frat boys that cant get laid.

Fuck all this rape talk, what I want to know is how many furries go to this college for a twerking tiger to be an acceptable element of a PSA

>>173522
>For example, people who jack off to child pornography are in fact more likely to molest children.

Probably because the porn itself is outright banned due to requiring the exploitation of children in order to be produced.Two consenting adults can reenact a rape for film without breaking any laws. The illegal nature limits the audience down to only those who give 0 fucks. Even then however, you probably have a fair share of those who will never go seek out a child.

You might as well say people who like call of duty are much more likely to murder than those who don't.

>>172904
>Self-gratification can prevent sexual assault

Yet anime promotes child rape and video games promote killing sprees. Get your story straight ffs.

>>173482
>even with having the option of sex with a consenting girl I still sometimes want to just beatoff to porn, and the reverse is also true.

Are you autistic?

>>173591

>shirking your responsibility of judgement and self-control?

Seems like if a gal doesn't want to do something stupid or put herself in a situation where she might do something stupid, it's her responsibility to have the self-control to not drink.

If I got drunk, went for a drive, and wrecked my car, would "my friends pressured me into drinking!" fly as an excuse to avoid paying damages?

>>174253
You seem to be laboring under the delusion that someone else's laxity absolves your own irresponsibility. The tragedy is that you realise this in part; just because all your friends were also too drunk to drive doesn't excuse you shifting the blame on them. Yet your prejudices are preventing you from applying the same principle to when a girl is too drunk or afraid to clearly articulate consent. Unfortunately for you, a court of law won't make exception for your weakness.

>>174278
as soon as women start getting prosecuted for rape when engaging in drunk sex i will join your side, until then it's clearly ridiculous that anyone's being prosecuted at all.

>>174278

>You seem to be laboring under the delusion that someone else's laxity absolves your own irresponsibility

Are you retarded? The idea is that no, it doesn't excuse anything, because ultimately nobody forced alcohol down my throat, and ultimately it was me who said "I should go driving lol". You seem to agree, in which case we're in agreement: drunk girls are responsible for the actions and choices they make while drunk.

>Yet your prejudices are preventing you from applying the same principle to when a girl is too drunk or afraid to clearly articulate consent

I am applying the principle. Unless a girl has alcohol forcibly shoved down her throat (unlikely) or is roofied, she is responsible for all actions made.

If a person doesn't want to potentially do something stupid or things they wouldn't do while drunk, they should not drink. And women should decide whether they want to be treated like equals capable of making decisions and dealing with mistakes, or children incapable of being responsible for themselves.

>>173818
>>this is targeting horny and desperate frat boys that cant get laid.
But the frat boys typically pool their money together and hire a couple of prostitutes when they can't get any sorority sisters to fuck them.

>>174290
The guy you're responding to is probably referring to situations where the girl is too drunk to stand or has passed out, which is a bit different from just having the beer goggles on. That said I agree with your general point here, being drunk doesn't make consensual sex non-consensual just because some fat bulldyke thinks it should.

>>174362

>situations where the girl is too drunk to stand or has passed out

Then that would be a crime, yes. Otherwise, in cases like >>173591, it's simply inane coddling of retarded people who should know better.

I would never consent to getting a cucumber shoved up my ass while sober, but if I was drunk and consented to it (I would not), it would be entirely on me, regardless of how sore and unhappy it made me.

>>173271
"Rubbing one out" is the most common phrase I have heard women use to describe their masturbation. I also commonly hear women refer to receiving oral sex as "getting head" as opposed to being "eaten out." The terms are pretty unisex at this point.

>>173136
Ask Brock Turner and tell us how that goes.

>>173607
Ayyy someone took a freshman writing course

>>174244
Sexual intercourse with another is not the end-all-be-all of sexual satisfaction for any given person at any random moment of arousal. To put it plainly, sometimes you just wanna jack off by yourself even though you could fuck.

>>174363
I agree with you, and honestly a lot of the time the legal system does too, which is why it's very hard to get people convicted of these crimes when they do go to court with no other evidence then drunkeness.

>>173054
Fuck off, retard.