Butthurt white guys, an Asian virgin and an angry lesbian walk into a bar...

Araysar_sl said:

Do you find it hard to control your emotions as an adult? How often do you imsgine destroying people as an adult? Have you ever had a chimpout episode?

Click to expand...

I don't find it 'difficult', but I certainly do notice when I have illogical, instinctual, emotional responses. I'm a very self aware individual.

I've actually never had a rage-out situation, despite plenty of provocation over the course of my life. I attribute this to my above mentioned self awareness, and my high degree of emotional self control. I haven't been in any sort of physical altercation (where I wasn't defending someone else) since I was a very young child.

Mist_sl said:

That's exactly what it is. Whether it's cavemen or puritans its still a less culturally evolved period.

Click to expand...

You mentioned puritans. What we are talking about here probably goes as far back as the original sexual division of animals. It is not cultural.

Edit: okay, maybe not THAT far back heh

Tanoomba_sl said:

And yet, if someone took advantage of your drunken state to get you to sign a contract, it could be voided. Because the "consent" you literally signed onto paper doesn't count if it was the product of someone intentionally taking advantage of your inability to make rational decisions. And before you start repeating yourself, that consent doesn't count NOT because you were drunk, but because another party KNEW you were compromised and exploited that for his personal gain. According to THE LAW, "consent" doesn't count if it was intentionally coerced out of someone who couldn't make rational decisions.

Click to expand...

This is the closest thing to a reasoned response. The problem, though, is that it relies on drawing an arbitrary line between intoxicated/not intoxicated. To further complicate things, some people can be shit-faced without seeming it. So it's not only about how intoxicated the alleged victim was but also how a reasonable person might perceive of whether the alleged victim was intoxicated.

A guy has sex with a girl he just met--she assents to the encounter and he deems her to be tipsy but not drunk. Turns out she was actually blacked-out drunk. What then?

I'm with Araysar on this - why hold her to a standard you don't hold yourself to? That's some hypocritical shit.

And I'd say as a rule, women hate their man's ex('s) way, way more than men hate their woman's. In movies you always see a guy freak out because his GF and his ex are hanging out, exchanging secrets about him or plotting revenge on him for some stupid man thing he did, or whatever - total bullshit. In real life they'd be like a pair of hissing, spitting cats.

You guys are talking right out of your asses about this animalistic territorial shit. Many different species fuck around quite a bit. Example 1: Bonobo chimps.

Sebudai_sl said:

You guys are talking right out of your asses about this animalistic territorial shit. Many different species fuck around quite a bit. Example 1: Bonobo chimps.

Click to expand...

Not saying I agree with them specifically, but they're not talking about Bonobo chimps, they're talking about cavemen and hunter/gatherer stage humans.

Mist_sl said:

Yeah, lots of primate species have promiscuous females.

Click to expand...

Do any other animal species have advanced cultures with laws and social norms? Do any of you have insight into what's going on in the mind of a bonobo when he is confronted with a sexual rival?

That's half the point. Are our territorial tendencies with regards to mating and relationships due to our innate animalistic/primal nature, or are they due to our cultural and social norms (i.e. constructed)? You seemed to be arguing for the former at first, but now you're arguing the latter? Please clarify.

mkopec_sl said:

It might be hypocritical, but its true. Again, you want to fuck the porn star whore, but you would not want to necessarily marry one.

Click to expand...

Wait, are we talking about porn stars, whores, or just sluts here? Because there's a huge difference between a woman who's been filmed having sex for pay, a woman who's worked as a whore, and a woman who's just slept with a lot of dudes.

Although on that last category, there are a lot of women who sleep with a lot of dudes not because they enjoy the sex, but because they want to feel validated, or get the male attention they never got from daddy, or whatever psycho-babble BS. In that case, I think it's totally valid to not consider her wife material, because who wants to bring that baggage into a marriage (and soon to be divorce and child support)?

I think the main thing is to avoid hypocrisy. You don't spend your 20's fucking every 7+ you can convince to jump on your dick then expect a sweet virgin to pop up out of nowhere, ready to be yours and yours alone. That's bullshit. IMO similar sexual histories are probably gonna play a large part in stabilizing a marriage.

Hey Cad, if I try and weasel out of a contract claiming that I was intoxicated at the time how sympathetic am I to find the judge to be? What's that Cad, you've explained this before? And the answer is "not very sympathetic at all?" You are saying that just being intoxicated isn't enough to void a contract?

Oh yes, now I remember. Sorry to have bothered you.

To further the analogy, let's say an individual was under the influence of a drug/addiction. Say an addiction to MMOs. And that addiction prevented that individual from realizing that MMOs, fundamentally as a genre, provide a poor game experience. The individual agrees to participate in forum discussion about MMOs, perpetuating the self-degrading culture that allows game developers to essentially rape gamers. The individual is under the influence of MMO so he/she thinks it's consensual but it's actually not. What I'm saying is that we need to end the rape culture and rickshaw the MMO forum.