California passes a "yes" means "yes" law ?

harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
California passes a "yes" means "yes" law ?

If signed by governor, legislation would make California the first state to define when "yes means yes"

August 29, 2014 12:41AM ETState lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill that would make California the first state to define when "yes means yes" while investigating sexual assaults on college campuses. The Senate unanimously passed SB967 as states and universities across the U.S. face pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not indicated his stance on the bill. Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said his bill would begin a shift in how California campuses prevent and investigate sexual assault. Rather than using the refrain "no means no," the definition of consent under the bill requires "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity." Earlier versions of the bill had similar language. Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. The legislation says it's also not consent if the person is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep. Lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as maybe a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person. Advocates for victims of sexual assault supported the change as one that will provide consistency across campuses and challenge the notion that victims must have resisted assault in order to have valid complaints. Some critics say the legislation is overreaching and sends universities into murky, unfamiliar legal waters. Gordon Finley, an adviser to the National Coalition for Men, wrote an editorial asking Brown not to sign the bill. He argued that "this campus rape crusade bill" presumes the guilt of the accused. The bill passed the state Assembly on Monday by a 52-16 vote. Some Republicans in that house questioned if statewide legislation is an appropriate venue to define consent. There was no opposition from Senate Republicans. The bill would apply to all California post-secondary schools, public and private, that receive state money for student financial aid. The California State University and University of California systems are backing the legislation after adopting similar consent standards this year. The bill also requires colleges and universities to adopt "victim-centered" sexual-assault response policies and implement comprehensive programs to prevent assault. In January, President Barack Obama vowed to make the issue a priority. He announced a task force chaired by Vice President Joe Biden that created a website providing tips for filing complaints, www.notalone.gov, and issued a report in May naming 55 colleges and universities across the country facing investigation for their responses to sexual abuse and violence. The University of California, Berkeley was included on the list. The White House Council on Women and Girls reported (PDF) the staggering fact that nearly 1 in 5 college women is sexually assaulted by the time she graduates, with just 12 percent of them reporting the assaults — a much lower rate than the estimated 40 percent of assaults that are reported by the general population, according to the Department of Justice. In addition, students from a number of colleges and universities — including the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Southern California, Dartmouth College, Columbia University, Harvard College, Occidental College, Swarthmore College — have filed complaints in the last year that their schools violated the Clery Act and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act by mishandling their sexual assault cases. Al Jazeera and The Associated Press america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/29/california-lawmakerspasscampussexassaultbill.html (Now maybe it is because it is so early in the morning, but this looks rather murky to me)  

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Well that pasted all wrong

 Well that pasted all wrong. 

Let me try that again :

( (Now maybe it is because it is so early in the morning, but this looks rather murky to me)  

If signed by governor, legislation would make California the first state to define when "yes means yes".

Al Jazeera and The Associated Press

 america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/8/29/california-lawmakerspasscampussexassaultbill.html 

State lawmakers on Thursday passed a bill that would make California the first state to define when "yes means yes" while investigating sexual assaults on college campuses.

The Senate unanimously passed SB967 as states and universities across the U.S. face pressure to change how they handle rape allegations. The bill now goes to Gov. Jerry Brown, who has not indicated his stance on the bill. Sen. Kevin de Leon, D-Los Angeles, said his bill would begin a shift in how California campuses prevent and investigate sexual assault.

 

Rather than using the refrain "no means no," the definition of consent under the bill requires "an affirmative, conscious and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity." Earlier versions of the bill had similar language. Silence or lack of resistance does not constitute consent. The legislation says it's also not consent if the person is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep. Lawmakers say consent can be nonverbal, and universities with similar policies have outlined examples as maybe a nod of the head or moving in closer to the person.

Advocates for victims of sexual assault supported the change as one that will provide consistency across campuses and challenge the notion that victims must have resisted assault in order to have valid complaints. Some critics say the legislation is overreaching and sends universities into murky, unfamiliar legal waters. Gordon Finley, an adviser to the National Coalition for Men, wrote an editorial asking Brown not to sign the bill. He argued that "this campus rape crusade bill" presumes the guilt of the accused. The bill passed the state Assembly on Monday by a 52-16 vote. Some Republicans in that house questioned if statewide legislation is an appropriate venue to define consent. 

 Monday by a 52-16 vote. Some Republicans in that house questioned if statewide legislation is an appropriate venue to define consent. There was no opposition from Senate Republicans. The bill would apply to all California post-secondary schools, public and private, that receive state money for student financial aid. The California State University and University of California systems are backing the legislation after adopting similar consent standards this year. The bill also requires colleges and universities to adopt "victim-centered" sexual-assault response policies and implement comprehensive programs to prevent assault. In January, President Barack Obama vowed to make the issue a priority. He announced a task force chaired by Vice President Joe Biden that created a website providing tips for filing complaints, www.notalone.gov, and issued a report in May naming 55 colleges and universities across the country facing investigation for their responses to sexual abuse and violence. 

Report in May naming 55 colleges and universities across the country facing investigation for their responses to sexual abuse and violence. The University of California, Berkeley was included on the list. The White House Council on Women and Girls reported (PDF) the staggering fact that nearly 1 in 5 college women is sexually assaulted by the time she graduates, with just 12 percent of them reporting the assaults — a much lower rate than the estimated 40 percent of assaults that are reported by the general population, according to the Department of Justice. In addition, students from a number of colleges and universities — including the University of California at Berkeley and the University of Southern California, Dartmouth College, Columbia University, Harvard College, Occidental College, Swarthmore College — have filed complaints in the last year that their schools violated the Clery Act and Title IX of the Civil Rights Act by mishandling their sexual assault cases.

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Rape is bullshit. If you

Rape is bullshit. If you can't get a girl to go to bed with you then learn how to fucking masturbate or learn to have some self control.

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Rape

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Rape is bullshit. If you can't get a girl to go to bed with you then learn how to fucking masturbate or learn to have some self control.

 

 

Ditto!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Rape

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Rape is bullshit. If you can't get a girl to go to bed with you then learn how to fucking masturbate or learn to have some self control.

 

 

 

Well I agree wholeheartedly of course.

But, without reading every dot and t of this law, it just seemed rather murky on what could constitute prosecution. 

Of course, if what I have read is true, rape in of itself is NOT about sex, it is about an act of violence. The same thing with rape in prison as such. Of course, I don't have anything on hand to prove that with stats and such but I believe that is what I have read. 

If a girl is not interested in me sexually then I am likewise not interested. In fact, that is a major turnoff. If a woman expresses that she is not interested than I am not interested. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Take this article here

 Take this article right here for example and some of the challenges (the rest of the article can be found at the link :

 

america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/4/17/nonconsensual-sexwhenrapeisreworded.html

 

This article refers to the terms “nonconsensual sex,” as well “nonconsensual sexual intercourse” and “nonconsensual sexual contact.” Brett Sokolow originated the latter two terms, which are now used at hundreds of schools and often shorthanded, in school reports and colloquially, as “nonconsensual sex.” In subsequent communication, Sokolow made it clear that he objects to the term “nonconsensual sex” without the modifiers, because “sex by definition is consensual,” he said, while “sexual intercourse” and “sexual contact” are not.  “In an ideal world, we should call [rape] what it is,” Sokolow explained. “To water down the language a little bit, to get more hearing panels to hold these guys accountable, I think it’s worth the trade-off.” Around 15 years ago, Brett Sokolow was touring universities and advising them on how to deal with sexual assault on their campuses. On these visits, he noticed something strange. The schools had policies about rape, and recognized that rape happened. But when it came down to it, they just didn’t want to believe their own students actually raped. “I trained hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of hearing boards, and [listened] to them get squeamish about it,” Sokolow said. “The hearing board would say, ‘We’re not willing to label this guy a rapist.’” Sokolow, the CEO of the consulting and law firm the National Center for Higher Education Risk Management, decided colleges needed another word. But on the issue of sexual violence, almost every word is loaded. “We tried out ‘sexual abuse’ for a few years,” Sokolow explained. “Then the priest scandals in the Catholic Church captured the meaning of that.” Nonconsensual sex is sexual assault. Several schools make that clear. In Princeton University’s policy, for example, next to the category “non-consensual sexual penetration,” it states in parentheses that the act is “commonly referred to as rape.” And next to “non-consensual sexual contact,” the act is “commonly referred to as sexual assault.”  But the reason that hearing boards winced at the word “rape” is the exact reason activists think the term is important: It’s violent and powerful, and does justice to the violation that victims experience. Anti-rape campaigners have pressed their communities to understand what rape is, and how much it happens. Many see “nonconsensual sex” as a harmful euphemism.  But that’s one of the reasons Sokolow, who defends schools in lawsuits, doesn’t think campus policies should use the word “rape.” “It’s very off the cuff to say ‘rape is rape,’” Sokolow said. “If women walk around campus saying they’ve been raped, they could be sued for defamation.” Rape is a serious crime. And colleges aren’t in the business of determining what is a crime. They can’t send a rapist to prison. They can only decide if a student violated school rules, and the worst they can do is kick the kid off campus. In making that decision, most colleges use a much lower burden of proof than a criminal court — “preponderance of evidence,” or “more likely than not,” as opposed to “beyond a reasonable doubt.” If they start treading into legal language, Sokolow warns, schools open themselves up to trouble. A student expelled for “nonconsensual sex” is far less likely to lawyer up and hit back. It’s rare for a college to seriously sanction a student who commits sexual assault. According to a 2010 investigation by the Center for Public Integrity, only 10 to 25 percent of students found “responsible” for sexual assault were permanently kicked off campus. Sokolow believed “nonconsensual sex” sounded less bad, which could actually encourage schools to punish rapists. But some experts think toning down the language has the opposite effect. “It just gives the school the ability to not expel students,” said Colby Bruno, who has assisted thousands of colleges and universities in addressing sexual assault as the senior legal counsel at the Victim Rights Law Center. “That’s really what it’s about.” In the first half of 2013, Yale University reported four cases in which the school found "sufficient evidence" that students had engaged in “nonconsensual sex,” and all of the perpetrators were allowed to continue pursuing degrees. (Only one was suspended.) When this information came out in Yale’s biannual report on sexual misconduct last summer, the backlash was swift and loud. The headlines read: “Yale Fails to Expel Students Guilty of Sexual Assault.” A Change.org petition collected 1,500 signatures. In response, Yale did something unprecedented in the world of college sexual assault policy: The school published detailed descriptions of different nonconsensual sex scenarios and their corresponding punishments. The school wanted to make it clear that it wasn’t letting rapists roam freely on campus.  Nonconsensual sex was not, in fact, sexual assault. According to Yale Deputy Provost Stephanie Spangler, the phrase allowed the school to punish behavior that may not meet the legal standard.  One of the scenarios describes a couple, Harper and Sidney. Harper knows Sidney isn’t ready to have sex, but starts moving toward it. “We shouldn’t do this,” Sidney says, continuing to touch Harper intimately. “This is a bad idea,” Sidney says, as Harper proceeds anyway. Sidney starts to cry, still embracing Harper. The new ‘gray rape’ Activists have long cringed over terms for “different types” of rape. In the late 2000s there was “gray rape,” the not-exactly rape-rape, in which mixed messages and alcohol muddied the very idea of consent. Before that, there was “date rape” — a phrase first used by activists, trying to shatter the myth that most rape was committed by strangers. But then that phrase began to grate on advocates too. “Do you call it date murder?” said Bruno. “No, you call it murder.”  

 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Well there goes that

 Well there goes that goddamned wall of text AGAIN ! 

Just click on the link to follow it. The Notepad is fucking with me this morning. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
It's about fucking time

It's about fucking time there was a blow back. For too long the justice system and politicians have been pandering entirely to women without giving a fuck about men. And this bullshit rape culture crap too.

You go out on a date, both have a few drinks, sleep with each other, and then the next day she decides she was drunk and unable to give consent and was raped. Fucking ridiculous. Like the guy was any less drunk, and therefore more capable of giving consent.

If you're going to go out and drink, you take the chance that you wake up next to a beast. That's the way shit works, whether you're a boy or a girl. You shouldn't be able to ruin someones life just because you had beer goggles on when you fucked them.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3359
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It's about

Vastet wrote:
It's about fucking time there was a blow back. For too long the justice system and politicians have been pandering entirely to women without giving a fuck about men. And this bullshit rape culture crap too. You go out on a date, both have a few drinks, sleep with each other, and then the next day she decides she was drunk and unable to give consent and was raped. Fucking ridiculous. Like the guy was any less drunk, and therefore more capable of giving consent. If you're going to go out and drink, you take the chance that you wake up next to a beast. That's the way shit works, whether you're a boy or a girl. You shouldn't be able to ruin someones life just because you had beer goggles on when you fucked them.

I would have to agree with that. 

In my younger years there have been a couple of times that I and someone I knew were both drunk out of our minds. Now the the fact that I had known both of them for years prior in both instances, and the fact that we were both single, played a big role in how we just regarded it as an incident best forgotten. 

But what would happen if you got blitzed out on booze and woke up with a woman that was married ? How hard would it be for her to simply say, " He got me drunk," in such a situation. 

Granted, if I am sober and in my right mind, there is no way that I would think of taking advantage of someone intoxicated (let's be honest, intoxicated people are quite unattractive if one is sober around them and I try to avoid really drunk people if I happen to be around them like the plague). In fact, I can not remember the comedy where the dude is going up to a woman while drunk and thinks he is being all charming in his imagination and the reality of it is his hair is all standing up, shirt tail out, etc. 

I mean, there are plenty of times that I have been wasted that I thought I was somehow being charming, if anything, that is a sure way to drive any potential chances of going home with anyone to astronomical levels. 

But, these days, I am in a monogamous relationship and neither one of us drinks the way that we used to. Problem solved there. 

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
digitalbeachbum wrote:Rape

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Rape is bullshit. If you can't get a girl to go to bed with you then learn how to fucking masturbate or learn to have some self control.

 

 

Or you can just hire a hooker. Most of them are cheaper than lawyers.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:Vastet

harleysportster wrote:

Vastet wrote:
It's about fucking time there was a blow back. For too long the justice system and politicians have been pandering entirely to women without giving a fuck about men. And this bullshit rape culture crap too. You go out on a date, both have a few drinks, sleep with each other, and then the next day she decides she was drunk and unable to give consent and was raped. Fucking ridiculous. Like the guy was any less drunk, and therefore more capable of giving consent. If you're going to go out and drink, you take the chance that you wake up next to a beast. That's the way shit works, whether you're a boy or a girl. You shouldn't be able to ruin someones life just because you had beer goggles on when you fucked them.

I would have to agree with that. 

In my younger years there have been a couple of times that I and someone I knew were both drunk out of our minds. Now the the fact that I had known both of them for years prior in both instances, and the fact that we were both single, played a big role in how we just regarded it as an incident best forgotten. 

But what would happen if you got blitzed out on booze and woke up with a woman that was married ? How hard would it be for her to simply say, " He got me drunk," in such a situation. 

Granted, if I am sober and in my right mind, there is no way that I would think of taking advantage of someone intoxicated (let's be honest, intoxicated people are quite unattractive if one is sober around them and I try to avoid really drunk people if I happen to be around them like the plague). In fact, I can not remember the comedy where the dude is going up to a woman while drunk and thinks he is being all charming in his imagination and the reality of it is his hair is all standing up, shirt tail out, etc. 

I mean, there are plenty of times that I have been wasted that I thought I was somehow being charming, if anything, that is a sure way to drive any potential chances of going home with anyone to astronomical levels. 

But, these days, I am in a monogamous relationship and neither one of us drinks the way that we used to. Problem solved there. 

I agree with this view.

When I was in the Corps I used to go out on the town with various people in the platoon. We would all get together and get two or three rooms at some dive hotel on LeJeune Blvd. We'd all get dunk and crash. There were a number of times where WM's got raped. Several Marines got kicked out because of it. Rape however happened every fucking weekend. WM's would get drunk and guys would fuck them, multiple guys would. My friends and I would stay away from those crowds but if we ever caught a WM who was so stoned drunk she couldn't even give her own name we'd protect her and call for the MP's. We got in a lot of fights with other Marines and other fuck heads. We even got in fights with officers from Cherry Point but we didn't give a shit. Rape was rape and it was wrong.


digitalbeachbum
atheistRational VIP!
digitalbeachbum's picture
Posts: 4901
Joined: 2007-10-15
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving

Beyond Saving wrote:

digitalbeachbum wrote:

Rape is bullshit. If you can't get a girl to go to bed with you then learn how to fucking masturbate or learn to have some self control.

Or you can just hire a hooker. Most of them are cheaper than lawyers.

I got trashed once with a Marine buddy down here in Orlando on a 96. We partied with Bill Murray and were on our way back home when these two hookers flagged us down. We pulled around to get them but two squids were trying for them too.

We got lost on the back streets and found two black hookers walking around. They had a hotel room already and we went back to fuck but we were both drunk and passed out. When we woke up our wallets were empty and we lost over $400 in cash.

Those two squids we later found out had been arrested by undercover cops and got busted big time by the command at the base in Orlando. So it was a trade off.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 15723
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:It's about

Vastet wrote:
It's about fucking time there was a blow back. For too long the justice system and politicians have been pandering entirely to women without giving a fuck about men. And this bullshit rape culture crap too. You go out on a date, both have a few drinks, sleep with each other, and then the next day she decides she was drunk and unable to give consent and was raped. Fucking ridiculous. Like the guy was any less drunk, and therefore more capable of giving consent. If you're going to go out and drink, you take the chance that you wake up next to a beast. That's the way shit works, whether you're a boy or a girl. You shouldn't be able to ruin someones life just because you had beer goggles on when you fucked them.

WOW, just like ignoring race, you say "this happens too" which is NOT the issue. It is blaming the victim when you start the argument like this. It makes an excuse to ignore a real problem.

It is very easy to accuse someone of something by mere word of mouth, but rape isn't the only crime you can be accused of without physical evidence. A pissed off student in a grade school who doesn't like his teacher can accuse them of molesting them even if it is not true. And?

It still does not change our social bias in America where girls and women are taught to "know what they wear and where they are at" instead of teaching boys/men to keep their hands to themselves.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote: It is

Brian37 wrote:

 It is blaming the victim when you start the argument like this.

 

  If some one walks through a high crime area while foolishly displaying large amounts of cash and they get mugged, I would say the victim is partly responsible for their misfortune.   In no way did they deserve to be a victim, but drawing attention to yourself in that manner is like throwing raw meat in front of a wolf.    Knowing your surroundings and minding appearances is indeed a legitimate plan of defense.  I personally have no problem in resorting to stealth mode to ensure my safety whatever the perceived threat may be.

 

 

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:It is very

Brian37 wrote:

It is very easy to accuse someone of something by mere word of mouth, but rape isn't the only crime you can be accused of without physical evidence. A pissed off student in a grade school who doesn't like his teacher can accuse them of molesting them even if it is not true. And?

And they should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. Precisely because of the nature of these types of crime, they lend themselves to false reporting and on the flip side, are extremely difficult to prove in court. That people do have their entire lives destroyed, are sometimes labeled a sex offender- even if not convicted- is a real problem. Do you deny that it is?

 

[quote-Brian37]

It still does not change our social bias in America where girls and women are taught to "know what they wear and where they are at" instead of teaching boys/men to keep their hands to themselves.

 

Where do you live?!?!? I don't see this horrible bias. But maybe that is because I hang around real men, who I am confident would pretty much unanimously have the same reaction as me if they ever witnessed a rape occurring. 

It is good advice for any person to know where they are at and take precautions. That is good advice for men too. I can't remember who it was, but I remember some rock star in the 90's made a practice of videotaping women signing consent forms before he would have sex with them. Pretty smart since being rich and famous puts you at high risk for such accusations. 

 

Personally, I am against rape, and a full supporter of the best tool available to women to prevent rape. Since you are against rape prevention tools, I must assume you are pro rape. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Guess who isn't going to get raped?

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:WOW, just like

Brian37 wrote:
WOW, just like ignoring race, you say "this happens too" which is NOT the issue.

Yes it is an issue you brainless shit stain. And it has nothing to do with race, so bringing rce up is incredibly stupid. Standard for you I suppose.

Brian37 wrote:
It is blaming the victim when you start the argument like this.

Bullshit. There is no victim when someone gets drunk and sleeps around.

Brian37 wrote:
It is very easy to accuse someone of something by mere word of mouth, but rape isn't the only crime you can be accused of without physical evidence. A pissed off student in a grade school who doesn't like his teacher can accuse them of molesting them even if it is not true. And?

So what? That has nothing to do with the topic. For the record, that's wrong too. And anyone making such false accusations should be prosecuted and sued.

Brian37 wrote:
It still does not change our social bias in America where girls and women are taught to "know what they wear and where they are at" instead of teaching boys/men to keep their hands to themselves.

Typical feminazi anti-logic. Boys ARE taught not to rape girls. Some do it anyway. Clearly telling people not to rape people is not a successful strategy. So instead of assuming that simply telling people what to do will actually work, girls should also take precautions so they are safer. It's not fair for girls, but life isn't fair in general. Accept it, move on.

None of which has anything to do with consentual sex when drunk, where there are no victims.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:  Was

Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Was there a safety on that? That's pretty amazing speed. And hot too.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Beyond Saving

Vastet wrote:
Beyond Saving wrote:

 

Was there a safety on that? That's pretty amazing speed. And hot too.

What if the girl is shaped like a 12 year old boy? Or has a stomach like a truck driver?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
  Those are legitimate

  Those are legitimate concerns but there are optional carry methods that can be employed to get around those problems.  Personally I carry my handgun in an artsey-fartsey "man purse".  With my horn rim glasses and particular style of clothing I look just like an Obama supporter....and nobody knows nuthin'.

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
One for every outfit or body type.

Jeffrick wrote:
 What if the girl is shaped like a 12 year old boy? Or has a stomach like a truck driver?

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Was there a

Vastet wrote:
Was there a safety on that? That's pretty amazing speed. And hot too.

I am not certain, but I believe that is an SCCY CPX, which can come with or without a manual safety. It would be a thumb safety on the lefthand side, which we never see in the video. I would guess it was probably the CPX 2 which doesn't have a safety. Although, with training, a safety isn't going to slow you down at all. And I don't believe for a moment that she was entirely inexperienced. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote: 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  Those are legitimate concerns but there are optional carry methods that can be employed to get around those problems.  Personally I carry my handgun in an artsey-fartsey "man purse".  With my horn rim glasses and particular style of clothing I look just like an Obama supporter....and nobody knows nuthin'.

lol, nice disguise. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:lol,

Beyond Saving wrote:

lol, nice disguise. 

 

     Yep, the true definition of "urban camouflage"

 

    ( BTW, your gun knowledge must be near encyclopedic as I am reasonably informed for a gun hobbyist but I had never even heard of SCCY before today. Good job. )

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Beyond

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

lol, nice disguise. 

 

     Yep, the true definition of "urban camouflage"

 

    ( BTW, your gun knowledge must be near encyclopedic as I am reasonably informed for a gun hobbyist but I had never even heard of SCCY before today. Good job. )

Probably because SCCY has attempted to make a niche selling to women and appear to be rather successful at it. Their guns are built for women and so have grips that tend to be uncomfortably small for the average male hand. They have been pretty popular with the women's shooting club around here because they look good and are inexpensive ($250 and under). The quality is decent, accuracy isn't going to win any high level competitions, but plenty good enough for the close quarters of a real life self defence situation. The internal components are pretty basic, making it easy to take down and put back together. My main pick with them is the trigger pull feels inconsistent, but that probably isn't noticable for most amateurs. Also, I've seen people on forums complaining about long term durability, but if parts start to wear out after a couple thousand rounds, you only paid a couple hundred, buy a new one.

I'm not giving up my Sig for one, but it wouldn't be a terrible option if I felt the need to have a second gun on me.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X