Why do women like to be "victims"
Options
Comments
-
its kinda like a ? parading through the most dangerous crip hood in l.a. dressed up like the kool-aid man with "? ? " airbrushed on his fitted. its a shame when he gets murked but damn.....he put himself in that position.
-
Ok, let’s go semantics, maybe that can clarify what I’m trying to say. The word “fault” can mean “responsibility” right? So basically what I’m saying is that a woman may be partially responsible for getting ? . How is this possible? As you have indicated, said woman can make poor decisions to put herself in a position to be ? . If said woman had not made these poor decisions then the potential for ? occurring could be non-existent. So you’re telling me that the fact that said woman might have “put herself” (whether intentionally or unintentionally) in a position to be ? is entirely dismissible concerning the factors that lead up to said ? ? She is never going to have some kind of accountability? She never has to acknowledge the significance of her poor actions? I really honestly don’t understand that.The Lonious Monk wrote: »No, it's not even partially her fault.
Let’s use a simple worst case scenario. A rather attractive and promiscuous woman flirts with a man who has just returned from a 25 year bid in prison for multiple rapes. This woman methodically teases this man with the intention to get him to try to have sex with her, but at the last moment she intends to genuinely say no and resist him so that she can blackmail him if he ignores her protests and has sex with her anyway. Her scheme goes according to plan and follows through. Is said woman at any fault regarding the ? ?The Lonious Monk wrote: »What's wrong with you people?
Heh I was thinking the same thing about you and shuffingtonThe Lonious Monk wrote: »It is never a female's fault that a dude takes it upon herself to force her to have sex.
I think that I can agree that it might never be her fault that the dude chooses to ? her. Dude is an adult and makes his own decisions, which he is entirely responsible for.
But to say that a woman is never responsible for the occurrence of the ? is another issue. And I don’t agree with that sentiment for reasons I have already stated.The Lonious Monk wrote: »Can making wiser decisions prevent a chick from being in that position? Yes, being foolish is something that females need to be held accountable for.
Yes.The Lonious Monk wrote: »That said, a female being foolish doesn't make it ok for a guy to ? her not even partially.
See, this is my problem. You equate what I am saying with supporting or condoning ? . That is entirely (and hopefully obviously) fallacious. I will only say this: Nothing makes it ok for a guy to ? a woman.The Lonious Monk wrote: »What you and others don't seem to understand is by taking some of the blame of the attacker and putting it on the victim, you're essentially condoning what the attacker does to some degree. You're saying that since the victim behaved foolishly in some way, it was ok that the attacker ? her. That's stupid. It doesn't matter how the victim behaves. If a person knowingly forces another person into unwilling sex, it's ? , and all the fault for that is on the one doing the forcing.
Again, this is incredibly fallacious. Either that or you are misunderstanding me or twisting up my words for whatever reasons. I guess I should reemphasize that I am taking some of the “blame” of the attack (not the attacker) and putting it on the victim. I wouldn’t even say that I’m taking this and putting it on that. It just is what it is. It’s only logical that the ? occurred because of a number of factors, one of them being the poor decisions of the victim.The Lonious Monk wrote: »I can understand what people are trying to say, but what you're actually saying is wrong.
I would argue that you don’t understand what, at least, I, am trying to say. Therefore, you couldn’t possibly know if what I am saying is right or wrong.The Lonious Monk wrote: »If you make responsible and wise decisions, you can avoid a lot of the misfortune that may come your way. So yes, women do need to take responsibility for making poor choices.
Yes. That’s merely what most of us are saying, so I’m not seeing much of the conflict that you are seeing.The Lonious Monk wrote: »However, the poor choice was putting herself in a bad situation. They way you guys are talking implies that her poor choice was being ? .
That’s not true. That implication is false, at least in my case. I can’t speak for others.The Lonious Monk wrote: »That's not true.
I agree. But I never made that suggestion in the first place.The Lonious Monk wrote: »Her fault is in putting herself in a bad position.
Yes…a bad position to possibly be ? . Right?The Lonious Monk wrote: »She bears no fault in the actual ? .
She may not have wanted to be ? . She may have been completely against the act. But she also may have partially contributed to it (whether intentionally or unintentionally) because of her poor decisions. So yes, she may also be at fault. Saying the contrary seems so short sighted and illogical to me. It’s either that or we’re sympathizing with the victim so much that we won’t allow ourselves to criticize them. But criticism can be a good thing, and I think that it’s essential in this case. -
the victim mentality is instilled in SOME women because historically women have been the victims oppression and injustice....
and not lets act like men don't play the victim card too, i don't know how many times i've heard a man complain about paying child support ... -
If his progress was slower, he would've still made it to the sex, it just would've taken more time. For him to not make it to the sex at all, his progress would have to be stopped.The Lonious Monk wrote: »...Yes, and if it's progressing slower, dude may have never made it to sex...
Seems she was giving him this signal:
Instead of this one:
-
? is ? , and no means no. I can't co-sign this thread honestly, jails are full of men who didn't know what "no" means.
If I'm on top of a chick and she tells me "stop" or "no", I'm rolling over and playing it cool. A smart man will just wait another day to smash or get her ? later on in the night. -
its kinda like a ? parading through the most dangerous crip hood in l.a. dressed up like the kool-aid man with "? ? " airbrushed on his fitted. its a shame when he gets murked but damn.....he put himself in that position.
I made a very similiar argument to them except i used newark....? still didnt get it -
Ok, let’s go semantics, maybe that can clarify what I’m trying to say. The word “fault” can mean “responsibility” right? So basically what I’m saying is that a woman may be partially responsible for getting ? . How is this possible? As you have indicated, said woman can make poor decisions to put herself in a position to be ? . If said woman had not made these poor decisions then the potential for ? occurring could be non-existent. So you’re telling me that the fact that said woman might have “put herself” (whether intentionally or unintentionally) in a position to be ? is entirely dismissible concerning the factors that lead up to said ? ? She is never going to have some kind of accountability? She never has to acknowledge the significance of her poor actions? I really honestly don’t understand that.
Let’s use a simple worst case scenario. A rather attractive and promiscuous woman flirts with a man who has just returned from a 25 year bid in prison for multiple rapes. This woman methodically teases this man with the intention to get him to try to have sex with her, but at the last moment she intends to genuinely say no and resist him so that she can blackmail him if he ignores her protests and has sex with her anyway. Her scheme goes according to plan and follows through. Is said woman at any fault regarding the ? ?
Heh I was thinking the same thing about you and shuffington
I think that I can agree that it might never be her fault that the dude chooses to ? her. Dude is an adult and makes his own decisions, which he is entirely responsible for.
But to say that a woman is never responsible for the occurrence of the ? is another issue. And I don’t agree with that sentiment for reasons I have already stated.
Yes.
See, this is my problem. You equate what I am saying with supporting or condoning ? . That is entirely (and hopefully obviously) fallacious. I will only say this: Nothing makes it ok for a guy to ? a woman.
Again, this is incredibly fallacious. Either that or you are misunderstanding me or twisting up my words for whatever reasons. I guess I should reemphasize that I am taking some of the “blame” of the attack (not the attacker) and putting it on the victim. I wouldn’t even say that I’m taking this and putting it on that. It just is what it is. It’s only logical that the ? occurred because of a number of factors, one of them being the poor decisions of the victim.
I would argue that you don’t understand what, at least, I, am trying to say. Therefore, you couldn’t possibly know if what I am saying is right or wrong.
Yes. That’s merely what most of us are saying, so I’m not seeing much of the conflict that you are seeing.
That’s not true. That implication is false, at least in my case. I can’t speak for others.
I agree. But I never made that suggestion in the first place.
Yes…a bad position to possibly be ? . Right?
She may not have wanted to be ? . She may have been completely against the act. But she also may have partially contributed to it (whether intentionally or unintentionally) because of her poor decisions. So yes, she may also be at fault. Saying the contrary seems so short sighted and illogical to me. It’s either that or we’re sympathizing with the victim so much that we won’t allow ourselves to criticize them. But criticism can be a good thing, and I think that it’s essential in this case.
................................ -
Nope,we own up to our actions,but women always place the blame on everybody else.Fact!
I have to figure you're arguing to just be arguing or just playing because even you can't believe this.... -
Women need to be safe and not walk into stupid situations man. Lot of crazy dudes out there and women should know better.
-
its kinda like a ? parading through the most dangerous crip hood in l.a. dressed up like the kool-aid man with "? ? " airbrushed on his fitted. its a shame when he gets murked but damn.....he put himself in that position.
I've actually used the same argument when discussing this with women. The difference is, when I do I'm not trying to convince them they they are partially at fault if they get ? . I'm just telling them that there are things they just shouldn't do if they want to be safe.Ok, let’s go semantics, maybe that can clarify what I’m trying to say. The word “fault” can mean “responsibility” right? So basically what I’m saying is that a woman may be partially responsible for getting ? . How is this possible? As you have indicated, said woman can make poor decisions to put herself in a position to be ? . If said woman had not made these poor decisions then the potential for ? occurring could be non-existent. So you’re telling me that the fact that said woman might have “put herself” (whether intentionally or unintentionally) in a position to be ? is entirely dismissible concerning the factors that lead up to said ? ? She is never going to have some kind of accountability? She never has to acknowledge the significance of her poor actions? I really honestly don’t understand that.
Let’s use a simple worst case scenario. A rather attractive and promiscuous woman flirts with a man who has just returned from a 25 year bid in prison for multiple rapes. This woman methodically teases this man with the intention to get him to try to have sex with her, but at the last moment she intends to genuinely say no and resist him so that she can blackmail him if he ignores her protests and has sex with her anyway. Her scheme goes according to plan and follows through. Is said woman at any fault regarding the ? ?
Heh I was thinking the same thing about you and shuffington
I think that I can agree that it might never be her fault that the dude chooses to ? her. Dude is an adult and makes his own decisions, which he is entirely responsible for.
But to say that a woman is never responsible for the occurrence of the ? is another issue. And I don’t agree with that sentiment for reasons I have already stated.
Yes.
See, this is my problem. You equate what I am saying with supporting or condoning ? . That is entirely (and hopefully obviously) fallacious. I will only say this: Nothing makes it ok for a guy to ? a woman.
Again, this is incredibly fallacious. Either that or you are misunderstanding me or twisting up my words for whatever reasons. I guess I should reemphasize that I am taking some of the “blame” of the attack (not the attacker) and putting it on the victim. I wouldn’t even say that I’m taking this and putting it on that. It just is what it is. It’s only logical that the ? occurred because of a number of factors, one of them being the poor decisions of the victim.
I would argue that you don’t understand what, at least, I, am trying to say. Therefore, you couldn’t possibly know if what I am saying is right or wrong.
Yes. That’s merely what most of us are saying, so I’m not seeing much of the conflict that you are seeing.
That’s not true. That implication is false, at least in my case. I can’t speak for others.
I agree. But I never made that suggestion in the first place.
Yes…a bad position to possibly be ? . Right?
She may not have wanted to be ? . She may have been completely against the act. But she also may have partially contributed to it (whether intentionally or unintentionally) because of her poor decisions. So yes, she may also be at fault. Saying the contrary seems so short sighted and illogical to me. It’s either that or we’re sympathizing with the victim so much that we won’t allow ourselves to criticize them. But criticism can be a good thing, and I think that it’s essential in this case.
I'm not going to argue this point by point. I'll just say this. A chick is never responsible for the act of being ? . Period. That responsibility lies all on the person who chooses to force someone to have sex. A woman making bad decisions can be responsible for putting herself in a position where being attacked is a very possible and likely outcome. To me, that is two totally different things. Maybe you don't agree or see it the same way. We can agree to disagree.fiat_money wrote: »If his progress was slower, he would've still made it to the sex, it just would've taken more time. For him to not make it to the sex at all, his progress would have to be stopped.
Seems she was giving him this signal:
Instead of this one:
Man you sound like a future ? . If you're trying to go in and a chick tells you to slow your ass down, that means back it a few steps. Sex isn't guaranteed until your ? is in that ? . Silly cats that think they are entitled to sex just because they make it to the bed are the ones that get locked up and don't understand what they did wrong. Like you said, if you're moving slower it's going to take you longer to get to sex which in turn gives her more time to decide if she wants to take that step hence her reasoning for telling you to slow your ass down. To use your stoplight analogy red comes after yellow right? The same ? can happen in the bedroom. The chick can tell you to slow down and decide that it's not what she wants and then tell you to stop. But if your happy ass forces her into it without giving her the chance to make that final decision, you're only opening yourself up to potential problems in the future. -
Listen.. theres obviously preventative measures that women can take to avoid being assaulted, attacked, robbed ect. But these are preventative measures that we all can take to remain safe and sound in a world full of unpredictable behavior. Thats common knowledge.
But the more you understand the mind of a ? .. the more you will know that there aren't enough steps that any woman can take because alot of ? are repeat ? , who befriend their victims(acquaintance ? ) . They know what they are doing and they also know the grey areas in which it will make it difficult to prosecute them (i.e get them ? ).
The sensationalized stranger ? scenario only happens at a very small percentage in this country.
Again... we need less victim blaming and more insight into why these guys deliberately plan to ? . -
The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'm not going to argue this point by point.
I know it might seem tiresome to do it, but maybe you should. I mean, that's how argumentation works. And it's a very effective and clear way of getting to an eventual solution...The Lonious Monk wrote: »I'll just say this. A chick is never responsible for the act of being ? . Period. That responsibility lies all on the person who chooses to force someone to have sex. A woman making bad decisions can be responsible for putting herself in a position where being attacked is a very possible and likely outcome. To me, that is two totally different things.
Okay? This is exactly the same thing you said earlier. Imo you're not saying anything new or making any counter claims, so all I see you pretty much doing is 1. restating what you originally said and 2. basically ignoring my response to your original statement.
Ok wait, I think that I am starting to better understand the problem here, even though I think that my last response should’ve already cleared everything up (which makes me think that you didn’t fully read or understand what I posted). For starters, I think that you are misinterpreting what I am saying.
Let me reemphasize my opinion that a woman can be partially responsible for the occurrence of a ? . Ok, this statement is very different from the statement you have posited and have apparently attributed to me. In [/I]no way am I saying that the female victim is responsible for all or most of the ? or responsible for the ? . If I have understood you correctly from the start, you are saying 1. that ? is not justifiable, 2. that the female victim is not responsible for the ? ’s choice to ? her, and 3. that being responsible for the ? ’s actions is entirely different from being responsible for putting yourself in a position to be ? . I agree with all three points and have already made this clear. I believe that we have no disagreement here.
Now, what I am saying is different. Now that I’m reading your post again, I can say that basically what I am saying is what you have said here:
Isn’t that pretty much exactly what I had already said? And so since she is responsible for this, she can take responsibility or blame, or be at fault, or hold some accountability for the position or occurrence of the ? , right? To go semantics again, on Wiktionary “occurrence” is defined as the “actual instance where a situation arises”. Therefore, if you plug in “? ” into the equation, we can say that the female victim is (partially) responsible for the actual instance where a ? arises, right? And that’s all that I am saying. This all just seems so simple and logical to me. So does it to you?The Lonious Monk wrote: »A woman making bad decisions can be responsible for putting herself in a position where being attacked is a very possible and likely outcome.
There are a variety of factors involved in the making of the occurrence of a ? . The ? , him or herself, does not encompass 100% of these factors. There are other factors including those associated with the victim that can be accounted for. I don’t think that we should ignore these certain factors just because they are not associated with a big bad ? and are instead associated with a tragic victim.The Lonious Monk wrote: »Maybe you don't agree or see it the same way. We can agree to disagree.
I think that I understand what you are saying and I agree with what you are saying. But I don’t think that you understand what I am saying. And I think that we can easily fix that simple problem (if it exists) and come to an agreeable answer. We don’t necessarily have to agree to disagree just yet. It’s too early and unclear to come to a last resort resolution like that. -
Shuffington wrote: »Listen.. theres obviously preventative measures that women can take to avoid being assaulted, attacked, robbed ect. But these are preventative measures that we all can take to remain safe and sound in a world full of unpredictable behavior. Thats common knowledge.
But the more you understand the mind of a ? .. the more you will know that there aren't enough steps that any woman can take because alot of ? are repeat ? , who befriend their victims(acquaintance ? ) . They know what they are doing and they also know the grey areas in which it will make it difficult to prosecute them (i.e get them ? ).
The sensationalized stranger ? scenario only happens at a very small percentage in this country.
good drop, nice insight.Shuffington wrote: »Again... we need less victim blaming and more insight into why these guys deliberately plan to ? .
I don't know if you're referring to me, but I don't think that I am "victim blaming". I see what I am doing as just facing the hard facts. Of course, we must criticize rapists. But criticism of some victims can also be very constructive and progressive in preventing the crime of ? . -
I'm not sure if this is true. "Want" is not appropriate. Women are victors in their different circumstances.
-
Well, I personally have never ? anyone nor have I ever been ? ; but I'd think it's the type of urgent situation where the victim would make it clear that they are not a willing participant. It's not as though she was unable to voice her objections, so she would've been capable of letting the male know that she did not desire to further engage him; she just seems to have chosen not to alert him to this aversion.The Lonious Monk wrote: »...Man you sound like a future ? . If you're trying to go in and a chick tells you to slow your ass down, that means back it a few steps. Sex isn't guaranteed until your ? is in that ? . Silly cats that think they are entitled to sex just because they make it to the bed are the ones that get locked up and don't understand what they did wrong. Like you said, if you're moving slower it's going to take you longer to get to sex which in turn gives her more time to decide if she wants to take that step hence her reasoning for telling you to slow your ass down. To use your stoplight analogy red comes after yellow right? The same ? can happen in the bedroom. The chick can tell you to slow down and decide that it's not what she wants and then tell you to stop. But if your happy ass forces her into it without giving her the chance to make that final decision, you're only opening yourself up to potential problems in the future.
The red signal only comes after the yellow signal in a stoplight if that's what the light is programmed to do; otherwise the light can remain yellow or flashing yellow indefinitely, and one can proceed through it without stopping. It seems she never gave the stop signal, so he never stopped.
If I was able to give feedback to try to dissuade a very strong unattractive woman who was attempting to ? me, I would not say "No unattractive woman, slow down.", instead I'd probably say "No unattractive woman, stop, bad unattractive woman, do not continue these actions.".
Slow down≠Stop -
bossdon201 wrote: »I need to know the ic's take on this. So im at an orientation in school for this program im in and one of the workshops was run by a domestic violence group. Now from the rip u could tell that these ? all had an agenda and was on some pro woman ? . Anyway they show a video of a skit where one of the characters was ? . long story short she invited a stranger to party that only consisted of her, the stranger she invited, her roommate and her roommate's boyfriend. She was tired from drinking too much and she invited the stranger to her room to ly down. they was kissing and eventually dude got on top of her and wanted 2 smash but she was doing that dumb unsure ? ? and was acting like she was unsure. The dude stopped but they started kissing again nd this time he just went for it even tho she was saying "no slow down" So me being a real ? and proud participant of the HOH movement, im like she needs to take half the blame for being dumb as hell and allowing a stranger to her bedroom. All the women in the room damn near wanted to ? me talking about how could u say that and no one's deserved to be ? . I'm like ? please, aint tryna hear that ? be responsible for your actions. So wht yall think bout this situation?
the dude wrong for ? her but that chick sound like she playing games cause how you saying slow down to a dude you dont know and he dont know you but you invited him into your bed after drinks started kissing and ? man come on son"slow down" foh. she on some b.s. i aint saying i wouldve done that but i damn sure aint feeling sorry for her.she should feel lucky that dude could have been a ? and murderer.props for speaking up on the ? .
consequences for your actions..its called life -
@Plutarch
Sorry, if I didn't make it clear with my last post. I was basically just trying to say that we didn't disagree in principle, mostly just in wording. I was pointing out a difference in the semantics of what we're saying. It doesn't matter anyway. I think based on your last post, we pretty much agree on the issue despite some misunderstanding of the points being made.
@fiat_money
I'm not sure what you're even arguing anymore. Your first real post said you interpreted TC's scenario as the chick saying slow down because she wanted slow sex. Clearly, that was not what he was saying. The scenario was the chick telling the guy to slow down their progression as far as what they were doing. Regardless of what you want to say, her saying slow down doesn't automatically mean dude is going to hit it. She reserves the right to put a stop to it. Maybe she says no, maybe she let the action happen, that's up to her. But if you're proceeding like you know you're going to get it to the point that even when she tries to stop it, you keep on going, you're ? her. I don't understand where the contention is. If a chick says "No" or "Stop" at anytime during the process, and the dude keeps on going, it's ? . Period. Even if the ? is in the ? and you're stroking out. If she tells you to stop and get the ? out, and you don't, it's ? and your ass will go to jail if you do that. -
First of all...I couldnt be in a situation like ths because I'm not going to a ? chick's room! Even if she WANTS to have sex with you when she is ? ...she can still cry "? " afterwards when she is sober.
For MEN and WOMEN......you are setting yourself up if you put yourself in this situation. The female is setting herself up by inviting a strange dude to her room while she is ? ...and the dude is setting himself up for going to a strange ? girl's room.
Point blank...if both parties stay out of situations like this then we wouldnt even have to discuss this!
Of course it is wrong to ? a female...that is without question!
But it is also DUMB AS SH*T (wrong..not smart, not a good decision) for a female to invite a stranger back to her room "to lay down"!!!! HE"S A STRANGER!!! THAT MEANS YOU DONT KNOW IF HE IS A ? OR A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER OR NOT!!! So you DEFINATELY dont know what his intentions are with you...alone....while you're ? ! I know plenty of guys who go after ? chicks just because they are more likely to have sex at that moment (in their eyes lol).
Of course this doesnt mean she "deserves to be ? " but it sure is making it easy to get ? ...if someone wants to ? you!
Women need to make better deicsion with men and men need to leave females alone if they arent gonna treat them correctly....period!
Peace! -
Old ? from the Rex archieves
http://www.tiredblackman.com/forums/showthread.php?tid=288
Last night I was watching Hannity and "The Grey," If you look closely, Alan Colmes skull structure resembles that of a grey alien. I've come to the conclusion that Alan Colmes is indeed a grey disguised as a human.)
Anyway, they had on Ann (liberals are a manifestation of evil) Coulter. She's written a piece http://www.anncoulter.org/cgi-local/welcome.cgi about responsibility. How if you put yourself in certain situations, bad things could possibly happen. Bill O'Reilly on his radio and TV shows have made this same point. I happen to agree wholeheartedly with the "conservative white folks," on this point. Even though O'Reilly isn't "conservative."
This all points to a larger and disturbing issue that premeates through our emasculated and effeminized society. WOMEN AREN'T HELD ACCOUTABLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS!!!!
Chicks try to pull this ? with Tom everyday when they talk about the "bad relationships," they were in. Then Tom has to kindly remind them that they choose these ? -off guys. Women also love to say it takes "two to tango," nevermind the fact women are the final arbiters in whether or not if sex takes place or if a child is born.
Tom once talk about how if he were to drive his Lexus to Slauson and Crenshaw (the heart of South Central LA) leave the windows opened with keys in the ignition, flash a bunch of money, that he would stay a VERY good chance of being robbed and jacked for his car. He said that people would question why 1) What was he doing in that area? 2) Why did he leave his windows down with the keys in the ignition? 3) Why was flashing money in a an improvished gang ridden neighborhood? All of these are legitmate questions. Sure it would be ? up that Tom was robbed, but Tom also facilitated the robbery.
If a chick goes out with a guy, kisses him, jerks him off, put her ? in his face, gives him some head, then refuses sex and in the end, ends up ? , the questions of why you were alone with the guy, why did you seduce him to the point of uncontrollable excitement no longer have no validity. Your blaming the victim. No woman deserves to be violated in such a violent and brutal manner, but one of the bests ways to avoid being ? is to 1) Understand that any man who says "hi," to you. Takes you out. Spends time with you, wants to get you naked and dumb his goo all over your face. Does he want a relationship, maybe, but upon intially meeting you he only knows two things for sure. He finds you attractive and he wants to have sex with you. 2) When a man is out on a date with you, sooner or later he's going to make a move to have sex with you. If you don't want to have sex with him, the best way to avoid having something bad happen is to not be alone with him. Decline all invitations to come into his place, or go to make out point, to some secluded deserted beach. This would require that females accept some personal responsibility and engage the 10% brain capacity that ? gave them, then again we never accused chicks of being responsible or smart.
And why does society put with this lack of responsiblity on the part of females? Is it because they're "meager and weak," and need protecting? If that's the case, I thought women were "equal," to men. Part of being equal with men, requires women accept the responsibility that comes alone with being equal.
It's time for this nonsense to stop. When chick facillitates a bad situation, all need to do what Tom does and call them on it. Then maybe, hopefully women seeing the derision that irresponsible chicks go through will become more responsible, and that would benefit society. -
bossdon201 wrote: »I need to know the ic's take on this. So im at an orientation in school for this program im in and one of the workshops was run by a domestic violence group. Now from the rip u could tell that these ? all had an agenda and was on some pro woman ? . Anyway they show a video of a skit where one of the characters was ? . long story short she invited a stranger to party that only consisted of her, the stranger she invited, her roommate and her roommate's boyfriend. She was tired from drinking too much and she invited the stranger to her room to ly down. they was kissing and eventually dude got on top of her and wanted 2 smash but she was doing that dumb unsure ? ? and was acting like she was unsure. The dude stopped but they started kissing again nd this time he just went for it even tho she was saying "no slow down" So me being a real ? and proud participant of the HOH movement, im like she needs to take half the blame for being dumb as hell and allowing a stranger to her bedroom. All the women in the room damn near wanted to ? me talking about how could u say that and no one's deserved to be ? . I'm like ? please, aint tryna hear that ? be responsible for your actions. So wht yall think bout this situation?
This is where she ? up. If a girl tell me to slow down I'm not assuming it means stop. Maybe i should start -
My point hasn't changed. It's quite simple really; the words "no, slow down" imply that something is happening what someone considers to be "too fast", not that they don't want something to happen at all. You say she may have decided to say "stop" later, but what she "may" do later is irrelevant if that's not what she expressed at the time being evaluated.The Lonious Monk wrote: »...@fiat_money
I'm not sure what you're even arguing anymore. Your first real post said you interpreted TC's scenario as the chick saying slow down because she wanted slow sex. Clearly, that was not what he was saying. The scenario was the chick telling the guy to slow down their progression as far as what they were doing. Regardless of what you want to say, her saying slow down doesn't automatically mean dude is going to hit it. She reserves the right to put a stop to it. Maybe she says no, maybe she let the action happen, that's up to her. But if you're proceeding like you know you're going to get it to the point that even when she tries to stop it, you keep on going, you're ? her. I don't understand where the contention is. If a chick says "No" or "Stop" at anytime during the process, and the dude keeps on going, it's ? . Period. Even if the ? is in the ? and you're stroking out. If she tells you to stop and get the ? out, and you don't, it's ? and your ass will go to jail if you do that. -
AntoineMuhammad wrote: »First of all...I couldnt be in a situation like ths because I'm not going to a ? chick's room! Even if she WANTS to have sex with you when she is ? ...she can still cry "? " afterwards when she is sober.
For MEN and WOMEN......you are setting yourself up if you put yourself in this situation. The female is setting herself up by inviting a strange dude to her room while she is ? ...and the dude is setting himself up for going to a strange ? girl's room.
Point blank...if both parties stay out of situations like this then we wouldnt even have to discuss this!
Of course it is wrong to ? a female...that is without question!
But it is also DUMB AS SH*T (wrong..not smart, not a good decision) for a female to invite a stranger back to her room "to lay down"!!!! HE"S A STRANGER!!! THAT MEANS YOU DONT KNOW IF HE IS A ? OR A REGISTERED SEX OFFENDER OR NOT!!! So you DEFINATELY dont know what his intentions are with you...alone....while you're ? ! I know plenty of guys who go after ? chicks just because they are more likely to have sex at that moment (in their eyes lol).
Of course this doesnt mean she "deserves to be ? " but it sure is making it easy to get ? ...if someone wants to ? you!
Women need to make better deicsion with men and men need to leave females alone if they arent gonna treat them correctly....period!
Peace!
good drop.The Lonious Monk wrote: »@Plutarch
Sorry, if I didn't make it clear with my last post. I was basically just trying to say that we didn't disagree in principle, mostly just in wording. I was pointing out a difference in the semantics of what we're saying. It doesn't matter anyway. I think based on your last post, we pretty much agree on the issue despite some misunderstanding of the points being made.
Well, I probably had some clarity issue myself. But yeah, I'm pretty sure we agree on the issue. -
? is a terrible thing and you just victimize the girl all over again by telling her it's her fault. I'm sure she knows she was stupid by inviting a stranger to her room, no one can argue that she was stupid for that, but at the end of the day no means no! Men need to have more self control and women need to quit being so stupid!
