'Blurred Lines' banned from UK universities due to claims of encouraging "Rape culture" - Polidicks

Yeah I think it's just the term "rape culture" I was at odds with. In my mind, calling it a culture implies that there's some sort of domain of people in the country where condoning rape is normal behaviour which absolutely does not seem to be the case in my experience, and I'd really be surprised if there was any substantial communities like that.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;42316974]Sure, but surely the more worrying thing would be the trivialization of people being actually raped than lexicons being mixed up.[/QUOTE] Go look up any news article about rape. Read the comments. Count how many people either 1) hold the victim accountable to some degree (ie. shouldn't have gotten drunk etc.) or 2) express doubt about the legitimacy of the crime, when there's no reason to (ie. are we SURE this was rape or did she just regret a one-night stand?) That's rape culture.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42317581]Go look up any news article about rape. Read the comments. Count how many people either 1) hold the victim accountable to some degree (ie. shouldn't have gotten drunk etc.) or 2) express doubt about the legitimacy of the crime, when there's no reason to (ie. are we SURE this was rape or did she just regret a one-night stand?) That's rape culture.[/QUOTE] Ahh okay. I get it, now. Well clarified.

[QUOTE=Robbobin;42317559]Yeah I think it's just the term "rape culture" I was at odds with. In my mind, calling it a culture implies that there's some sort of domain of people in the country where condoning rape is normal behaviour which absolutely does not seem to be the case in my experience, and I'd really be surprised if there was any substantial communities like that.[/QUOTE] it just means that the culture at large often trivializes and marginalizes rape through various small and large acts, many of which are not thought about all that much (the implications of stuff like "i'm gonna rape you" being ubiquitous with 12-year-old trash talk, etc.)

[QUOTE=Robbobin;42316430]I'm really confused by the whole "rape culture" concept; I've never met a single person who with these weird notions about rape. I'm sure there must be people out there like that, but it doesn't seem to really warrant being designated as it's own culture...[/QUOTE] extremely few people actually directly endorse rape, but many people often think that it's the victims fault, or that having sex with a blackout drunk person is totally okay and not rape.

if you don't want to do dumb things that you'll regret maybe you shouldn't get drunk? i have no respect for anyone who thinks the world should cater to them in their intoxicated state, if you crash a car while drunk you live with the consequences. then again i hate alcohol in general and couldn't care less what happens to the people who abuse it so whatevs #terribleperson

[QUOTE=sp00ks;42323301]extremely few people actually directly endorse rape, but many people often think that it's the victims fault, or that having sex with a blackout drunk person is totally okay and not rape.[/QUOTE] Where do you draw the line though? Some people make coherent decisions when blackout drunk - that they would repeat sober given the choice. Some people are incapable of making rational decisions after a couple of drinks. And who's to blame when two blackout drunk people have sex? The man? What if it's the woman who initiates? What if both do? Blurred line is an accurate description - it's not trivialising consent at all.

[QUOTE=Flapadar;42323338]Where do you draw the line though? Some people make coherent decisions when blackout drunk - that they would repeat sober given the choice. Some people are incapable of making rational decisions after a couple of drinks.[/QUOTE] the point is that whether they would say yes or no when drunk is irrelevant - you still most likely don't know them well enough to know whether they were actually, genuinely saying yes or if it was just the drink talking, so you're making an unfair assumption that they're fine with it for the sake of some sex. not only is that rape, but even if they turn out to be fine with it when sober, that still means that you were willing to potentially rape someone and put their wellbeing at risk just for sex. that's an incredibly sleazy and manipulative thing to do, if not downright malicious.

[QUOTE=Cone;42323773]the point is that whether they would say yes or no when drunk is irrelevant - you still most likely don't know them well enough to know whether they were actually, genuinely saying yes or if it was just the drink talking, so you're making an unfair assumption that they're fine with it for the sake of some sex. not only is that rape, but even if they turn out to be fine with it when sober, that still means that you were willing to potentially rape someone and put their wellbeing at risk just for sex. that's an incredibly sleazy and manipulative thing to do, if not downright malicious.[/QUOTE] And who was the rapist if both people were steamrollered and were both into it at the time? [editline]27th September 2013[/editline] You aren't really going to say both people, are you?

[QUOTE=PSI Guy;42323326]if you don't want to do dumb things that you'll regret maybe you shouldn't get drunk? i have no respect for anyone who thinks the world should cater to them in their intoxicated state, if you crash a car while drunk you live with the consequences. then again i hate alcohol in general and couldn't care less what happens to the people who abuse it so whatevs #terribleperson[/QUOTE] are you 12 what kind of thinking is this

[QUOTE=PSI Guy;42323326] then again i hate alcohol in general and couldn't care less what happens to the people who abuse it so whatevs #terribleperson[/QUOTE] if you get drunk at a bar and i come up stab you in the throat, is it your fault for drinking? there's a difference between being a victim and a perpetrator.

[QUOTE=Flapadar;42324339]And who was the rapist if both people were steamrollered and were both into it at the time?[/QUOTE] neither one, i guess? really seems like it would depend heavily on a case by case basis

[QUOTE=sloppy_joes;42329095]if you get drunk at a bar and i come up stab you in the throat, is it your fault for drinking? there's a difference between being a victim and a perpetrator.[/QUOTE] why would i get drunk at a bar in the first place though? there's a difference between being convinced to do something because i'm intoxicated and being stabbed, if i wasn't drunk i wouldn't be convinced to sleep with anyone but i can get stabbed when i'm sober

[QUOTE=Hellduck;42309645]i fully support the banning[/QUOTE] Censorship in any way shape or form is wrong, no matter what the content. If you are to hand them the power to block something just because its offensive, whats to stop them from blocking anything? Edit: Also, im a jackass, this scenario is fine.

I, too, love to skate around on the slippery slopes.

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;42329976]Censorship in any way shape or form is wrong, no matter what the content. If you are to hand them the power to block something just because its offensive, whats to stop them from blocking anything?[/QUOTE] What if it's a naughty picture of you?

[QUOTE=Jetblack357;42329976]Censorship in any way shape or form is wrong, no matter what the content. If you are to hand them the power to block something just because its offensive, whats to stop them from blocking anything?[/QUOTE] its a symbolic refusal to play. this will do a lot more good than harm.

Anyways, I think the silly thing about this is they're basically just saying "We're not playing this song, a bunch of people voted on it" When you say "banned" it sounds like censorship but this is literally a bunch of people voting that they don't want to hear the song played at bars. Fair enough, y'know? I dunno, I think the words used in the title of the topic really change how people look at this.

Reading the actual source instead of the title would also be useful people :v:

[QUOTE=Gwoodman;42330117]What if it's a naughty picture of you?[/QUOTE] Eh, I couldn't care less if you caught a picture of me jacking off or something. Thankfully to my knowledge, none have been taken.. [I]yet[/I]

[QUOTE=PSI Guy;42329810]why would i get drunk at a bar in the first place though? there's a difference between being convinced to do something because i'm intoxicated and being stabbed, if i wasn't drunk i wouldn't be convinced to sleep with anyone but i can get stabbed when i'm sober[/QUOTE] you completely missed the point. if you drink and drive your car then you are to blame, if someone lies to you or coerces you into sleeping with them, then it's their fault.

if you were sober you wouldn't have been coerced into doing it though if you make a bad decision because you're drunk and regret it, maybe you should cut back on how much alcohol you have. you can have a few drinks without having to get wasted enough that anyone can take advantage of you.

[QUOTE=Flapadar;42323338]Where do you draw the line though? Some people make coherent decisions when blackout drunk - that they would repeat sober given the choice. Some people are incapable of making rational decisions after a couple of drinks. And who's to blame when two blackout drunk people have sex? The man? What if it's the woman who initiates? What if both do? Blurred line is an accurate description - it's not trivialising consent at all.[/QUOTE] one person bereft of decision making capabilities and without volition + a person who is not bereft of volition + sex = rape Two people bereft of volition + sex = no rape one person with limited volition + one person with full volition + sex = usually sexual pressure as opposed to direct rape. Basically the important part is how much volition you have left. As long you only have reduced volition there isn't much of an issue as long as you brought yourself into a reduced volition state. If you were brought into it by trick (drink this, it isn't very strong) then a rape case could very well be in effect. On top of that if you are so drunk you have no volition left, you are virutally always talking about rape. As you cannot decide at that moment. Getting drunk in a situation like that can be potentially a dumb thing to do, but in no way creates a situation in which it is right to blame anything on the victim, let alone make it easier for the perpetrator to get away. The same way like walking well dressed trough a bad neighbourhood should create any reason for you to get mugged. Sure it's a dumb thing to do, but it in no way should put blame on the victim. [QUOTE=PSI Guy;42331279]if you were sober you wouldn't have been coerced into doing it though if you make a bad decision because you're drunk and regret it, maybe you should cut back on how much alcohol you have. you can have a few drinks without having to get wasted enough that anyone can take advantage of you.[/QUOTE] And that's why coercion is rarely seen as rape by criminal codices but as sexual pressure (which is still ciminal by the way,but usually different to rapes.). As rape requires one of either two things to happen. a) use of force b) a lack of volition on your part. With coercion direct force isn't used and you still have volition, but you are being pressured into the action. Typical examples of this would be a boss that tells you to sleep with him|her or be thrown out.

Had to look it up to figure out which song it was. Oh, that one. Yeah, I never liked that one.

[QUOTE=SgtCr4zyGunz;42317581]Go look up any news article about rape. Read the comments. Count how many people either 1) hold the victim accountable to some degree (ie. shouldn't have gotten drunk etc.) or 2) [B]express doubt about the legitimacy of the crime, when there's no reason to[/B] (ie. are we SURE this was rape or did she just regret a one-night stand?) That's rape culture.[/QUOTE] Uh... How do you define "No reason to"? It's always good to express doubt. It's up to the law to figure out whether that doubt is valid or not. How are you going to scold someone for expressing concern over 'innocent until proven guilty'.

[QUOTE=FunnyBunny;42333467]Uh... How do you define "No reason to"? It's always good to express doubt. It's up to the law to figure out whether that doubt is valid or not. How are you going to scold someone for expressing concern over 'innocent until proven guilty'.[/QUOTE] it's taken to ridiculous lengths though. what's supposed to happen is that the police figure that you're not necessarily lying, but also weigh in on the possibility that the person you think committed the crime might be innocent, so they question the both of you and see what they can find in support of either one. it's supposed to be completely impartial, which is why they don't fuck up the life of the accused by proclaiming him guilty without evidence. that's the crucial difference between assuming in support of the accused and assuming innocence before guilt. instead what you get is that people assume you're lying and build off of that assumption, rather than simply accepting the possibility but not acting on it until given evidence. this can deny rape victims critical things they need from the police and government to help with their experience, because if you're lying (which you are) then obviously you don't need it. it's absolutely absurd and harmful.

[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeMeDihwyrg[/media] ban sublime

yes totally an accurate comparison because that is receiving loads of radio play and is also being played in bars all over the country and there's an active campaign against it good show.

[QUOTE=geogzm;42333768][media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CeMeDihwyrg[/media] ban sublime[/QUOTE] i know you mean it sarcastically but i wouldn't be against a sublime ban in anyway

[QUOTE=thisispain;42336725]i know you mean it sarcastically but i wouldn't be against a sublime ban in anyway[/QUOTE] how could somebody dislike sublime? i've never even though that was possible. [editline]28th September 2013[/editline] its official, thisispain is a robot