2
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Cornell accuser told cops: ‘With 100% confidence I was raped
Posted on 10/4/26 at 3:15 pm to NC_Tigah
Posted on 10/4/26 at 3:15 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
Rape is often more about mental trauma than about the physical act. Without mental trauma (regret does not qualify), or actions over objection, rape is an overcharge IMO. That said, the meting of law must be even handed. In this instance, no act occurred over objection, so the question becomes one of consent capacity. Certainly, in this case, Males #1 & #2 were more intoxicated than the girl.
Thanks for your answer. This situation makes me question how neatly I can apply the categorical imperative here. My instinct has been that the principle has to be universal: if incapacitation negates a woman’s capacity to consent, it has to negate a man’s capacity to consent under the same circumstances.
But lI’m getting hung up on autonomy in the other direction. If the supposedly incapacitated person insists that he wanted the sexual encounter, does not believe he was violated and does not want anyone prosecuted, at what point would insisting that he was nevertheless a victim stop respecting his autonomy and begin substituting our own judgment for his?
I’m back to not knowing anything about justice again.
Posted on 10/4/26 at 4:00 pm to 4cubbies
quote:The injustice here (assuming all parties legally innocent) is the social stigma sexual differential for men and women in the aftermath. Guys want to get into a girl's pants. If she refuses, she's a "prude." If she relents, she's a "slut."
I’m back to not knowing anything about justice again.
There is no commonality of standard. NONE! That is the part I personally hate. The dude's big mouths, broadcasting what should have been a private experience, spread word like wildfire across campus, far beyond the Frat House.
Where the campus reaction toward the guys was mixed, the girl was slut-shamed even by her Sorority "big sister" ... who laughed at her concerns. I'd guess that response is one we'd both find appalling.
Had the episode remained private, none of the aftermath trauma would have occurred. Had the stigma differential been nonexistent, none of the aftermath trauma would have occurred. Had men been held to the higher standard, none of the aftermath trauma would have occurred because they'd have kept their big mouths shut.
I'd guess that would be a root source of your concerns about justice
This post was edited on 10/4/26 at 4:02 pm
Posted on 10/4/26 at 4:26 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
My point isn’t that men are automatically valued while women aren’t. It’s that a woman can possess all of those qualities and still have her physical desirability disproportionately determine how she is perceived and valued, particularly by people who don’t know her personally. Maybe this applies to men, too, and I’m just more sensitive to the female experience.
Fair enough.
I can only speak to the male experience. More attractive people certainly do get more things in life, there's no denying that.
Stick an unattractive, blandly dressed woman on the side of a road with her car's hood up and she will get fewer stops than a very attractive woman dressed to draw the eye in the same situation.
No doubt there are many other such instances of such scenarios that benefit the more attractive woman.
Still, I'm reminded of the meme where a woman's determination of whether someone is sexually harassing her or is taking part in proper/well received flirting is how attractive the guy is. While I don't suspect there's studies on this (and even if there was I do believe the social sciences are ideologically captured so I wouldn't necessarily accept the results at face value) I'd venture a large bet that it manifests itself in reality much like the aformentioned stalled car on the side of the road scenario.
So, I suspect it benefits/hinders both men and women, just in different scenarios/settings.
Posted on 10/4/26 at 4:31 pm to NC_Tigah
I’m thinking more broadly. Can there really be a categorical imperative that produces a just answer in every situation? Humans are too messy. Even principles that seem universally applicable can come into conflict once you apply them to actual people and circumstances.
I plan on finishing my paper while I’m at this conference this week so my brain is kind of in philosophy mode. Three nights without children!
I plan on finishing my paper while I’m at this conference this week so my brain is kind of in philosophy mode. Three nights without children!
Posted on 10/4/26 at 4:35 pm to America250
quote:
agree, but the DA relied on on the campus police investigation. That's not much of an independent investigation.
If they're looking at her initial statement and determining that no rape or assault occurred, by her own account, then what is there to investigate?
This post was edited on 10/4/26 at 4:36 pm
Posted on 10/4/26 at 4:38 pm to 4cubbies
quote:Are you? Or are you forcing Kant?
I’m thinking more broadly.
quote:I'd bet, given your educational background and intellectuality, you could easily answer that on your own.
Can there really be a categorical imperative that produces a just answer in every situation?
This post was edited on 10/4/26 at 4:49 pm
Posted on 10/4/26 at 4:44 pm to 4cubbies
quote:I get it. But do not give philosophical opinions more than their due as .... Wait4It .... opinions.
my brain is kind of in philosophy mode
Posted on 10/4/26 at 4:47 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:One cannot force Kant. How dare you?
Or are you forcing Kant?
quote:No?
I'd bet, given your educational background, you could easily answer that on your own.
Posted on 10/4/26 at 4:56 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
How dare you?
I'd meet him at a Sonic anytime.
quote:YES!
I'd bet, given your educational background, you could easily answer that on your own.
....
No?
100%.
Absolutely no question IMO.
--------
If Kant abides your findings, support him. If not, BURN HIM!
I know that sounds ambitious.
But what do you think it was from Kant's perspective?
Posted on 10/4/26 at 5:57 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
I'd meet him at a Sonic anytime.
quote:Now you're speaking my language
BURN HIM!
quote:I don't know how it's possible for you to be so popular here when you flatter me like this.
I know that sounds ambitious.
But what do you think it was from Kant's perspective?
Posted on 10/4/26 at 6:12 pm to Azkiger
quote:Yes, but I'm not frustrated that attractive people get perks. I'm frustrated that attractive people are reduced to their value as objects of desire.
I can only speak to the male experience. More attractive people certainly do get more things in life, there's no denying that.
An attractive person can be caring, intelligent, funny, thoughtful, curious, accomplished, kind, whatever, and still find that those qualities become secondary to what they happen to look like. That's the part I find reductive. Being called “hot” can feel reductive, or even insulting, despite being generally understood as a compliment.
Posted on 10/4/26 at 8:28 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I'm frustrated that attractive people are reduced to their value as objects of desire.
Doesn't that apply to most people a lot of the time? You value your bank teller because theyre good at math and have high attention to detail. Etc.
Its difficult, exhausting, and potentially impossible, to recognize and address every person for all they have to offer. Sometimes the cute waitress is just a cute waitress to all of her clients that night. And all her clients are just mouths that want good service. And her biggest goal that night is to get tips. And all they want from her is good service.
Is there anything wrong with that?
Posted on 10/4/26 at 8:41 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
The injustice here (assuming all parties legally innocent) is the social stigma sexual differential for men and women in the aftermath.
But men and women are different, so one would expect different social norms to apply to both. No?
That's not to say that all social norms are equally valuable to a free, safe and prosperous society. But your comment seems to specifically critique that there's a differential period, not that there's a wrong differential being applied.
Posted on 10/4/26 at 9:07 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I'm frustrated that attractive people are reduced to their value as objects of desire.
Whoa, let’s not get carried away. It greatly depends on personality and intelligence.
If all you have is looks then yeah. But if you have all 3, then you feel appreciated for all the right reasons because men and women value all 3 things.
Posted on 10/4/26 at 9:09 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
I’m thinking more broadly.
And that’s exactly what we expect from broads.
Posted on 10/4/26 at 9:59 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
If the supposedly incapacitated person insists that he wanted the sexual encounter, does not believe he was violated and does not want anyone prosecuted, at what point would insisting that he was nevertheless a victim stop respecting his autonomy and begin substituting our own judgment for his?
I’m back to not knowing anything about justice again.
Just so everyone knows, this is exactly where these lunatics want to take this. "Begin substituting our own judgement for his". Yea I bet you would like that you psycho. Bad news. We are on to you now.
Posted on 10/4/26 at 10:20 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
It’s that a woman can possess all of those qualities and still have her physical desirability disproportionately determine how she is perceived and valued, particularly by people who don’t know her personally. Maybe this applies to men, too, and I’m just more sensitive to the female experience.
I think it absolutely applies to men.
Ron DeSantis is objectively preferable to Donald Trump as a Republican candidate for POTUS in pretty much every way, and he has a massive track record to prove it.
But he's short. Not unattractive, but maybe a little goofy looking and awkward in personal exchanges. His personal appearance absolutely limits his ability to be considered for that position.
Gavin Newsome, on the other hand, has—objectively—as bad a track record as governor of his state as DeSantis has a positive track record of his.
And there are lots of women (and men) out there whom I guarantee will vote for him just because he's a nice looking man.
The attractiveness bias is well documented in men as in women. Short men are perceived as being less competent (by people who don't know them). Unattractive people are hired less often (women and men), get paid less (by 5%-10%, depending on the study), and the biggest bias is evident for overweight/obese people (men and women).
Again, it ain't just women. And you will not eradicate it. It's part of human nature. Discrimination is inherent in human beings.
Posted on 10/4/26 at 10:21 pm to 4cubbies
quote:
Yes, but I'm not frustrated that attractive people get perks. I'm frustrated that attractive people are reduced to their value as objects of desire.
That's quite a first world problem you have there.
Posted on 10/5/26 at 7:06 am to America250
shite like this cause a boy in Mandeville to lose a West Point scholarship, even after girls retracted
Posted on 10/5/26 at 7:36 am to Fun Bunch
"Every man likes a slut, but not for long."
-Mark Thackary in "To Sir With Love"
-Mark Thackary in "To Sir With Love"
Page 17 of 20
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News