[QUOTE=ravenhurst;39930161]Feminism used to be valid back when society's attitudes towards women would prevent them from carrying out their goals but it is no longer about women being able to do what men do. Now it is about women having 75% rights to their kids. Now it is about harsher penalties for assault on women than on men. This bullshit feminism isn't real feminism. Real feminism is about women learning to defend their own damn honor. Sure men hold open doors for women but these are just cultural things. Real feminism is about equality but nowadays neofeminists in America just want more, more, more.[/QUOTE]
"i hate feminism because, as a privileged man, i see ways that patriarchy hurts me as well!"
[editline]16th March 2013[/editline]
"fuck women fighting for equality what they should be doing is fighting for equality instead GRRRRRRRRRR"
[QUOTE=ravenhurst;39930161]Feminism used to be valid back when society's attitudes towards women would prevent them from carrying out their goals but it is no longer about women being able to do what men do. Now it is about women having 75% rights to their kids. Now it is about harsher penalties for assault on women than on men. This bullshit feminism isn't real feminism. Real feminism is about women learning to defend their own damn honor. Sure men hold open doors for women but these are just cultural things. Real feminism is about equality but nowadays neofeminists in America just want more, more, more.[/QUOTE]
did you register just to post about mens rights
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39930179]did you register just to post about mens rights[/QUOTE]
Is there something wrong with both genders being viewed equally in the eyes of the law?
Wasn't that book that spawned feminism about a lady becoming self-empowered enough to leave her family to become a tennis pro?
[QUOTE=ravenhurst;39930206]Is there something wrong with both genders being viewed equally in the eyes of the law?[/QUOTE]
this is the point of feminism dawg.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39930214]this is the point of feminism dawg.[/QUOTE]
I don't see many feminists jumping at legal equality. I see the complete opposite.
[QUOTE=ravenhurst;39930229]I don't see many feminists jumping at legal equality. I see the complete opposite.[/QUOTE]
then you haven't been paying attention.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39930153]... first sentence was pretty repulsive. Breaking stereotypes is a good thing, and doing things stereotypical of the other gender shouldn't be considered bad.[/QUOTE]
the boss kniting is pretty awful, and just like making gruff mcbadass more masculine just because, making female characters more feminine just because is terrible practice. you don't need to identify someone by their gender and when flat out swapping the sprites for shit like donkey kong and LoZ is fine, setting arbitrary standards of femininity and all these requirements and justifications on why a female character doesn't count is stupidity.
exactly what stereotypes are you breaking by demanding all this of female characters and how is the stereotypical muscular male protag not the exact same? half of the shit in vidya writing is awful stereotypes and the way to avoid that is by not writing shit, not coming up with all this arbitrary bullshit. a well written female character is still a well written female character, even if it doesn't live up to your personal ideals.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39930061]Bad characters don't stick in our minds because they're just easily forgettable, I'm having a hard time listing a few.
[editline]15th March 2013[/editline]
Argueing both sides doesn't make your argument better unless you're doing a high school research paper.[/QUOTE]
You make a huge generalization yet you cant list shit.
I seriously dont understand you, how can you even act this way.
Feminism absolutely still serves a point. They're fighting for equality. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and to say that there is is ignorant. The exact same is true of Men's Right's activists. Both are promoting equality. Sometimes this can be taken to odd extremes, which is where the hate between both groups appears. In reality, women tend to want equal pay, equal opportunity, and often equal sexuality. Likewise, MRAs tend to want equal legal standing in custody and child support - one area that women have a distinct legal advantage. Aside from a few other issues besides the ones I mentioned, feminism and MRA tend to devolve into shit-flinging pissfights about misogyny and misandry and hatred of eachother. Which is absolutely nonsensical since they're fighting for the exact same shit.
Social commentaries, like Anita Sarkeesians', that display such attention to societal issues, are just fuel for extremist hatred. I've watched the video - she brings up plenty of valid points. The problem with trying to tackle societal problems, especially in a mixed industry and artistic medium, is that societal problems cannot be tackled as directly as she attempts to. Raising awareness in terms of societal injustice is an over-used excuse to drum up funds for pretty much nothing. There's plenty of organization that raise awareness for various health issues - and there is a reason for that, as the money is (usually :c) donated to research groups that continually search for cures. For something like injustice against virtual women in video games, awareness campaigns will do pretty much nothing.
My advice to those like Anita Sarkeesian is to stop focusing on sexism in such miniscule and unimportant areas as video games, and to instead focus on actual injustice against women. There's an absolutely ridiculous amount of unreported rape, and changing the social stigma against reporting rape would be an admirable (if not difficult) goal to attain. Hell, even trying to promote job equality in the video game industry would make an immediate lasting impact on the apparent sexism in video games. If you just attack the product you're doing nothing. You have to change the production, and that's where the focus should be. Portrayal of women in video games is not something that can be changed by making youtube videos about it. Portrayal of women in video games is changed by actually taking part in the production process. You cannot change social behavior by attacking a result of social behavior - which video games are, a product. You have to change social behavior by, well, changing social behavior. Activism is not criticism of a product for having poor aspects. Activism is changing that product so that the poor aspects are removed. People living during the Gilded Age sure as hell didn't just sit around and criticize the fact that they had solid black lungs from coal and worked 17 hours a day. They acted and changed it, albeit slowly. Complaining solves nothing.
not everyone needs to concentrate on the rape or pay inequality. some people fill a niche to criticize a small facet of society. i think sarkeesian rather enjoys media, which is why she found her niche analyzing gender stereotypes in media.
i mean yea there are bigger problems than the damsel in distress, but that doesn't mean no one should ever talk about it or bring it up.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39930295]Feminism absolutely still serves a point. They're fighting for equality. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, and to say that there is is ignorant. The exact same is true of Men's Right's activists. Both are promoting equality. Sometimes this can be taken to odd extremes, which is where the hate between both groups appears. In reality, women tend to want equal pay, equal opportunity, and often equal sexuality. Likewise, MRAs tend to want equal legal standing in custody and child support - one area that women have a distinct legal advantage. Aside from a few other issues besides the ones I mentioned, feminism and MRA tend to devolve into shit-flinging pissfights about misogyny and misandry and hatred of eachother. Which is absolutely nonsensical since they're fighting for the exact same shit.
Social commentaries, like Anita Sarkeesians', that display such attention to societal issues, are just fuel for extremist hatred. I've watched the video - she brings up plenty of valid points. The problem with trying to tackle societal problems, especially in a mixed industry and artistic medium, is that societal problems cannot be tackled as directly as she attempts to. Raising awareness in terms of societal injustice is an over-used excuse to drum up funds for pretty much nothing. There's plenty of organization that raise awareness for various health issues - and there is a reason for that, as the money is (usually :c) donated to research groups that continually search for cures. For something like injustice against virtual women in video games, awareness campaigns will do pretty much nothing.
My advice to those like Anita Sarkeesian is to stop focusing on sexism in such miniscule and unimportant areas as video games, and to instead focus on actual injustice against women. There's an absolutely ridiculous amount of unreported rape, and changing the social stigma against reporting rape would be an admirable (if not difficult) goal to attain. Hell, even trying to promote job equality in the video game industry would make an immediate lasting impact on the apparent sexism in video games. If you just attack the product you're doing nothing. You have to change the production, and that's where the focus should be. Portrayal of women in video games is not something that can be changed by making youtube videos about it. Portrayal of women in video games is changed by actually taking part in the production process. You cannot change social behavior by attacking a result of social behavior - which video games are, a product. You have to change social behavior by, well, changing social behavior. Activism is not criticism of a product for having poor aspects. Activism is changing that product so that the poor aspects are removed. People living during the Gilded Age sure as hell didn't just sit around and criticize the fact that they had solid black lungs from coal and worked 17 hours a day. They acted and changed it, albeit slowly. Complaining solves nothing.[/QUOTE]
I get where you're coming from but I cannot justify the MRA when they claim rape victims just regretted it afterwards, or that false rape accusations are a big problem. They also think that "financial abortion' should be a thing as if they shouldn't be responsible for a child if the mother decides to keep it.
[editline]15th March 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39930348]not everyone needs to concentrate on the rape or pay inequality. some people fill a niche to criticize a small facet of society. i think sarkeesian rather enjoys media, which is why she found her niche analyzing gender stereotypes in media.
i mean yea there are bigger problems than the damsel in distress, but that doesn't mean no one should ever talk about it or bring it up.[/QUOTE]
and this, you shouldn't criticize people for not "doing enough" let people fight inequality in their own way.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39930350]I get where you're coming from but I cannot justify the MRA when they claim rape victims just regretted it afterwards, or that false rape accusations are a big problem. They also think that "financial abortion' should be a thing as if they shouldn't be responsible for a child if the mother decides to keep it.[/QUOTE]
i'm not agreeing with mra groups or anything, but i hardly believe they're a hivemind
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39930350]I get where you're coming from but I cannot justify the MRA when they claim rape victims just regretted it afterwards, or that false rape accusations are a big problem. They also think that "financial abortion' should be a thing as if they shouldn't be responsible for a child if the mother decides to keep it.[/QUOTE]
i used to be an mra so i know that the people who claim false rape accusations etc. aren't the majority(although they are the people that made me want to distance myself from the term). generally mra's are people who have sort of bought into the pop culture stereotype of feminism being angry dyke women who just hate men, but still actually have the intellect to perceive that there are legitimate gender inequalities in society.
i think it would be nice if more mra's and more feminists came together to try and discuss gender equality without all the stupid "man hater/rape enabler" sort of shit because in the end i think 90% of mra's would probably agree with 90% of feminists on 90% of the issues.
it's really sad that a lot of men feel that they cannot be part of the feminist movement because our culture has stereotyped it as a radical fringe for women because these guys generally see the big picture(at least partially) even though they shun the terminology.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39930061]
Argueing both sides doesn't make your argument better unless you're doing a high school research paper.[/QUOTE]
According to my critical writing professor, you're supposed to acknowledge the other side and incorporate it into your argument. I suppose you're right in that it's not the same as arguing them equally, but it still should be there.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39930412]i used to be an mra so i know that the people who claim false rape accusations etc. aren't the majority(although they are the people that made me want to distance myself from the term). generally mra's are people who have sort of bought into the pop culture stereotype of feminism being angry dyke women who just hate men, but still actually have the intellect to perceive that there are legitimate gender inequalities in society.
i think it would be nice if more mra's and more feminists came together to try and discuss gender equality without all the stupid "man hater/rape enabler" sort of shit because in the end i think 90% of mra's would probably agree with 90% of feminists on 90% of the issues.
it's really sad that a lot of men feel that they cannot be part of the feminist movement because our culture has stereotyped it as a radical fringe for women because these guys generally see the big picture(at least partially) even though they shun the terminology.[/QUOTE]
There was a damn interesting post on reddit that reached my top few pages from /r/mensrights.
It actually called for cooperation between both groups. That's what I've based my stance on since then. Both sides have legitimate qualms with equality, and both sides have illegitimate ones.
I mean, for every stereotype there's supposedly a grain of truth. Some subset of MRAs think that a majority of women just regret having sex with somebody and call it rape. In reality, that's indescribably rare and that stereotype developed most likely from some people reading a few news cases of something similar happening and developing an entirely unfair judgment based on that. That's how stereotypes like that form, especially in insulated groups like /r/MensRights.
Gonna go a bit off-topic and rant about the concept of internet custodians and catered news information. It's frustrating as all hell. It's nice to see news that you care about and articles that you find interesting, but the fact that a huge majority of people now utilize these custodial services and have news sources catered by google to their political standing and whatnot is just breeding these types of insulated groups that lack the understanding of the opposite side. Tumblr's another excellent example, with their transfat and transethnic silliness. Such insulated groups never experience proper contradiction to their views, and thus never re-evaluate them. It's one reason I hugely prefer Facepunch over Reddit. There's always people of opposing viewpoints in the same forums, and its' an excellent facet to learn from eachother and have great discussions. Reddit and Tumblr insulate groups from such criticism and opposing viewpoints and that's a massive, massive detriment to understanding. That's one of the most negative aspects of the internet. People just don't get exposed to opposing viewpoints because of the insulation that happens on these content-catering sites. That's the reason for hivemind, or groupthink, and it needs to be ended. People need to see uncomfortable material and have their viewpoints challenged, otherwise you get into this miserable cycle where the only opposition they have is the immature crazy extremists from the other side intentionally inciting reactions in order to prove to their side how crazy and immature the other side is. It's disgusting.
Off of that, I'm gonna mention how fucking awful labeling is. The label of feminist and MRA are hugely, hugely inadequate for the amount of different viewpoints in each group. Labeling promotes hatred against groups because it's incredibly easy for someone to say "Oh those fucking MRA cunts" rather than "I disagree with your viewpoints as an individual." This is where communication on the internet is incredibly dehumanizing. The combination of lack of actual contact and ridiculous over-labeling of opposition causes an insanely vehement hatred of the "other side." Opposing viewpoints are never a justified reason for hatred - ever. Hell, I can't think of any genuine justification for hatred but that's just because I'm a self-labeled wannabe hippie psychonaut zen crazy and yeah I got really off-topic.
To get back on topic and tl;dr the above: Don't label yourself or the opposition - it makes it easier to disqualify their legitimate opinions simply because of the few extremist ones. Instead, promote understanding between both groups and flush out the extremists.
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;39930416]According to my critical writing professor, you're supposed to acknowledge the other side and incorporate it into your argument. I suppose you're right in that it's not the same as arguing them equally, but it still should be there.[/QUOTE]
In practically any argument where both sides have the same credibility, you have to consider them, but that's before reaching a final conclusion. Once you've done that and you're settled on your opinion then you shouldn't have to make compromises at all, though people tend to conflate these two steps in logic and it's how we end up with the [URL="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Balance_fallacy"]Argument to Moderation[/URL] fallacy.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39930523]There was a damn interesting post on reddit that reached my top few pages from /r/mensrights.
It actually called for cooperation between both groups. That's what I've based my stance on since then. Both sides have legitimate qualms with equality, and both sides have illegitimate ones.[/QUOTE]
/r/mensrights is an awful toxic place full of misogynists though, they even run /r/feminism. They are the worst MRA. Yeah, there are some good mens rights dudes but they are [b]absolutely not[/b] one of them. That is like stormfront going up to the NAACP and saying ,"hey lets fight racism together"
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39930559]/r/mensrights is an awful toxic place full of misogynists though, they even run /r/feminism. They are the worst MRA. Yeah, there are some good mens rights dudes but they are [b]absolutely not[/b] one of them. That is like stormfront going up to the NAACP and saying ,"hey lets fight racism together"[/QUOTE]
One of the top-voted all-time posts on /r/feminism is an x-post from /r/mensrights. If they're run by the same people, then they're doing a fantastic job because I manage to agree with every single top post in both /r/feminism and /r/mensrights.
However, when I read the most recent popular posts, I disagree with /r/mensrights far more than /r/feminism. This is the same issue of catered content - people post news articles that they want to hear. I've been looking at a few other gender equality subs, like /r/masculism, and the issues that all of these subs present in their top posts are all insanely similar. They're all calling for equality. The issue stems from the catered content that fosters extremism.
If anything could be called an "awful toxic place" it is /r/shitredditsays. The place is a downvote brigade that criticizes any legitimate discussion and upvotes critical threads simply to laugh at people. They are not feminists - they're mostly trolls disguised as feminists and they are an awful representation of what feminism should be.
/r/mensrights is biased, yes, as any catered site. /r/masculism is less so. /r/shitredditsays is heavily biased. /r/feminism is less so. The larger a subreddit, the more likely that extremist views will appear in the popular tab. It's a self-supporting system where extremist thoughts are rewarded and more supportive-of-opposition thoughts are hidden at the bottom of the thread.
EDIT: Even /r/feminism, which tends to have posts I agree with, has this as it's posting rules:
"Top level comments, in all threads, must come from feminists, and must reflect a feminist perspective - details here. In other words, all initial replies, in all threads, should come from feminists, and, more generally, should be a sincere feminist response, akin to something that you might hear in a feminism 101 -- give or take."
This is a PERFECT example of why self-supporting systems of discussion like reddit tend to promote extremist views. Any opposing viewpoint is shot down. I'm sure that /r/mensrights has an equivalent, but this type of self-censorship from opposing viewpoints, especially in one so anti-oppression, is hypocritical and negative towards the efforts of the movement as a whole.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39930595]One of the top-voted all-time posts on /r/feminism is an x-post from /r/mensrights. If they're run by the same people, then they're doing a fantastic job because I manage to agree with every single top post in both /r/feminism and /r/mensrights.[/QUOTE]
so taking advantage of a girl drunk so she has a 3-way is ok?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39930595]
If anything could be called an "awful toxic place" it is /r/shitredditsays. The place is a downvote brigade that criticizes any legitimate discussion and upvotes critical threads simply to laugh at people. They are not feminists - they're mostly trolls disguised as feminists and they are an awful representation of what feminism should be.
[/QUOTE]
... they are not a downvote brigade, there's a whole other subreddit for discussion and they are all very good people. I know a lot of them, laughing at someone who literally thinks you're an object doesn't make you a bad person
[QUOTE=1STrandomman;39930416]According to my critical writing professor, you're supposed to acknowledge the other side and incorporate it into your argument. I suppose you're right in that it's not the same as arguing them equally, but it still should be there.[/QUOTE]
it's contextual. sometimes it's useful to acknowledge differing viewpoints, but for the purpose of social criticism it can become really wishy-washy. it's better to stay on-topic, and on-point with critical analysis.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39930610]so getting a girl drunk so she has a 3-way is ok?
... they are not a downvote brigade, there's a whole other subreddit for discussion and they are all very good people. I know a lot of them, laughing at someone who literally thinks you're an object doesn't make you a bad person[/QUOTE]
That's not the top posts, those are the most recent popular ones, and that's one I totally disagreed with. The one I didn't disagree with was the one about women who fail to pay child support being incarcerated 1/8th as often. If you head to the top tab you'll see that most of them are very similar to ones in /r/feminism or other feminist subreddits.
The point with /r/shitredditsays is that laughing at people who "literally" think you're an object is absolutely a negative portrayal of feminism. If people want to be taken seriously, they can't call all men misogynistic shitlords (an actual quote that was pm'd to me after I defended MRA's basic tenets in a front-page thread). Laughing about other people's viewpoints is an immature way to deal with them. I can assure that a MASSIVE majority of men on reddit do not think of women as an object. The ones that do "literally" think women are physical objects and not people are either horny middle-schoolers or crazy extremists locked in their basements.
You're only demonstrating that insulated viewpoint theory I posted earlier. Remember that not everyone who posts in /r/mensrights is a misogynist who only sees women as objects of sexual desire. I post there on occasion and I'm involved in a very healthy relationship. Before that's dismissed as anecdotal - that's the point. There are tons of people who post on /r/mensrights who are not misogynistic in the least, just as there are tons of people on /r/shitredditsays who aren't only out to trollbait and harass. Stop labeling and you'll realize that every person that posts has varying viewpoints and varying perspectives, and that attacking them all as a group and saying that they're all misogynistic is incredibly immature and detrimental to discussion and the feminist (or MRA) cause.
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39930559]/r/mensrights is an awful toxic place full of misogynists though, they even run /r/feminism. They are the worst MRA. Yeah, there are some good mens rights dudes but they are [b]absolutely not[/b] one of them. That is like stormfront going up to the NAACP and saying ,"hey lets fight racism together"[/QUOTE]
MRAs exist because this kind of feminism, the kind that forces itself in front of you, is far too common: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0[/url]
They still wish for equality, but this kind of behavior being made by an approved group keeps them from ever wanting the label. They're also intelligent enough to understand that there are problems in society that firmly disadvantage men for no reason.
But Shadaez is of the opinion that every bad issue is a feminist issue and that only feminism can solve any kind of equality issue and that any instance in which women can abuse power they hold in society over men isn't an issue.
Probably the only real problem I have with 'feminism' or 'female empowerment' is that it's far too often used as a shield to shit all over someone else for no reason, as seen in the video above. And if someone speaks against them, they're obviously speaking out against feminism, not blatantly disgusting behavior done under it's name.
edit: The issue of "too drunk to consent" is shaky in itself because there are situations in which it falls in which no one should be blamed for. If two people both get drunk and have sex, who is at fault?
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39930669]That's not the top posts, those are the most recent popular ones, and that's one I totally disagreed with. The one I didn't disagree with was the one about women who fail to pay child support being incarcerated 1/8th as often. If you head to the top tab you'll see that most of them are very similar to ones in /r/feminism or other feminist subreddits.
The point with /r/shitredditsays is that laughing at people who "literally" think you're an object is absolutely a negative portrayal of feminism. If people want to be taken seriously, they can't call all men misogynistic shitlords (an actual quote that was pm'd to me after I defended MRA's basic tenets in a front-page thread). Laughing about other people's viewpoints is an immature way to deal with them. I can assure that a MASSIVE majority of men on reddit do not think of women as an object. The ones that do "literally" think women are physical objects and not people are either horny middle-schoolers or crazy extremists locked in their basements.
You're only demonstrating that insulated viewpoint theory I posted earlier. Remember that not everyone who posts in /r/mensrights is a misogynist who only sees women as objects of sexual desire. I post there on occasion and I'm involved in a very healthy relationship. Before that's dismissed as anecdotal - that's the point. There are tons of people who post on /r/mensrights who are not misogynistic in the least, just as there are tons of people on /r/shitredditsays who aren't only out to trollbait and harass. Stop labeling and you'll realize that every person that posts has varying viewpoints and varying perspectives, and that attacking them all as a group and saying that they're all misogynistic is incredibly immature and detrimental to discussion and the feminist (or MRA) cause.[/QUOTE]
im not good at reddit how is it not one of the top posts
[img]http://puu.sh/2iwpZ[/img]
i clicked top and its the second one
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39930674]MRAs exist because this kind of feminism, the kind that forces itself in front of you, is far too common: [url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iARHCxAMAO0[/url]
They still wish for equality, but this kind of behavior being made by an approved group keeps them from ever wanting the label. They're also intelligent enough to understand that there are problems in society that firmly disadvantage men for no reason.
But Shadaez is of the opinion that every bad issue is a feminist issue and that only feminism can solve any kind of equality issue and that any instance in which women can abuse power they hold in society over men isn't an issue.
The probably the only real problem I have with 'feminism' or 'female empowerment' is that it's far too often used as a shield to shit all over someone else for no reason, as seen in the video above. And if someone speaks against them, they're obviously speaking out against feminism, not blatantly disgusting behavior done under it's name.
edit: The issue of "too drunk to consent" is shaky in itself because there are situations in which it falls in which no one should be blamed for. If two people both get drunk and have sex, who is at fault?[/QUOTE]
This is precisely why I'm promoting dropping the labels of "feminist" or "MRA" for this discussion (or ever.) The loud minority is always the one that is most heard, especially when in insulated groups like /r/mensrights. This is the same thing that happened with /r/atheism - atheists (myself included) actually had to shed the label "atheist" because of the shit it gave them. I was harassed on facebook until I changed my religion label to "non-religious." Atheism has such a derogatory meaning to the religious community because of the extremists that promote eradication of religion, such as those found on /r/atheism. Since dropping that label I've never once been grilled. The same thing happens with MRAs and feminists - feminists hear the label MRA and they immediately criticize, assuming that the person in question is a member of the loud minority. The same happens in the opposite way. It's unhelpful.
Change the "top links from: today" to "top links from: all time"
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39930695]im not good at reddit how is it not one of the top posts
[img]http://puu.sh/2iwpZ[/img]
i clicked top and its the second one[/QUOTE]
today's top posts vs. all time top posts.
[QUOTE=.Isak.;39930712]
Change the "top links from: today" to "top links from: all time"[/QUOTE]
Fair enough, the majority of those are real issues, but that doesn't excuse them from what they're doing recently. They still want to shut rape victims down.
[QUOTE=soulharvester;39930674]
edit: The issue of "too drunk to consent" is shaky in itself because there are situations in which it falls in which no one should be blamed for. If two people both get drunk and have sex, who is at fault?[/QUOTE]
that isn't what people are talking about when they talk about a girl getting drunk then having sex(at least i'm p. sure). shit happens when you are drunk at a party, and that can mean consensual sex with another drunk person sometimes.
but on the other hand taking advantage of a girl when she is passed-out drunk, when she is too drunk to reasonably function or make decisions(and you are, and this isn't a hard thing to guage if you have experience drinking), or when you aren't drunk and are just getting a girl drunk so she might have sex, then that's a problem.
it should be pretty damn obvious when a girl is able to actually consent to sex. if it isn't then you probably have a serious problem.
[QUOTE=yawmwen;39930719]today's top posts vs. all time top posts.[/QUOTE]
in my defense he never said all time
[QUOTE=Shadaez;39930610]so taking advantage of a girl drunk so she has a 3-way is ok?[/QUOTE]
Did you even read the post?
They all got drunk, and she had already been having sexual contact before getting intoxicated, it was 2 girls and a guy, the one who 'felt she had been raped' of course having had a boyfriend.
In what way is it rape if they all get intoxicated?
[QUOTE=TheJoey;39930019]
a lot of female characters were bad in games made in the past. but video games are still an ongoing industry that is growing and maturing. lara croft is a pretty good example of this shown in action. writers are getting it. theyre writing more mature, strong, or otherwise well-written female characters in their story-driven games.
[/QUOTE]
Should probably toss this in there
[t]http://image.gamespotcdn.net/gamespot/images/box/2/9/2/561292_22613_front.jpg[/t]
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
