The less intelligent of the species generally don't handle it too well when their hypocrisy is pointed out to them. Especially if done on a public forum like Facebook.

It's sickening when feminazis like that give bad names to all the feminists out there who believe in actual equality...

Too bad when you pick a side you aren't fighting for equality. name one positive thing feminism accomplishes that being an egalitarian doesn't.

It narrows down how many things you have to fight in your life. Being egalitarian is the ideal, but being actively engaged in fighting every inequality at once is a bit overwhelming. So most people focus on inequalities that directly affect them. Just like most men's right activists are, well, men.

Not all feminists are active ones though, and there are a lot of male feminists too.

If they believe in equality why are they called feminists then?

#83 - The name "feminism" was originally derived from the suffrage movement in the early 1900's. At that time, women were primary advocating for the right to vote, therefore the movement was almost always focused around women. Feminism has now evolved into an all-inclusive movement.

There aren't many feminist movements that talk about equality, tbh.

I'm sure you're a well-read scholar of feminist movements and didn't just make that assumption off the top of your head, Pie.

I think a lot of the bad reputation feminists get is from the name of the movement. If it was called equallism and called for equal rights for all sexes it would sound less like them vs. us and more like us against oppression. Many men hear feminism and the push for women's rights and they become offput. Not to mention those crazy super feminazis from tumblr who make posts that generalize all white men as evil. If more feminists were vocal about their wish for equality among the sexes and there was less spreading of the extremist's hatred of men then the movement would fare much better.

#105, It's not about men being comfortable. Sometimes people have to feel uncomfortable when their privilege is pointed out before they open their eyes.

You missed the entire point of my post. I was saying that even with a good cause, such as feminism has, making it a one side vs. the other side battle makes animostity between the two sides. If instead you make it an everybody working together to defeat oppression battle the fight becomes easier. Its a simple matter of word choice that would shine a better light on the real issue at hand. Besides it is people like you who generalize all "cis straight white males" as all privileged willing oppressors, who do more harm for your cause. Believe it or not but everyone has struggles, and just because one person's struggles are not the same as yours does not make them the enemy. The system we are fighting is not a new system. It was created long before anyone alive to day was born. We have all been taught this way of thinking since birth especially the older generation. Most are not actively trying to oppress women but they are ignorant of the inequalities on both sides of the line. It should be our goal to educate them on those inequalities and point out the outdated double standards both sexes are held too. We should strive to create a world where everyone is equal and no one is afraid to be who they truly are. If we all do our parts of bringing enlightenment to the world one issue at a time eventually this will come to be. But it will never happen if we can't get past this mentality that its one side against tbe other. This is not a war of violence but a war of knowledge and the worst enemy of knowledge is hatred.

Um, yes. She is. If you drive drink, man or woman, is it ok because you were drunk? How is consenting to sex drunk any different from consenting to driving drunk? Now, sex with an unconscious person, man or woman, without prior express permission, is rape. I'm not saying all sex when drunk is consensual, nor is all sex when drunk non-consensual. Like murder, there are levels and intents.

I guess I should say not entirely* wrong.

If both a man and a woman have he same BAC and have sex, then regret it in the morning. Was it rape? If you answer that the man raped the woman or vice versa, you are misogynist or misandrist.

I think #3 meant there's a limit to when someone can consent whilst drunk. ie. if you're too drunk to stand up/know where you are etc you cannot consent. & yes, that goes for taking advantage of either gender. If someone is not in control of their brain and body it's unsafe to assume someone can consent. Call me a raging feminist if you must but plying people with booze until they're too drunk to consent and then the having sex with them is rape. OTOH if you're both tipsy and are in control go for it. Tipsy sex is awesome.

#14 - While I agree that when one is sober and the other is drunk it's definitely rape, if both are drunk it would be a bit more complicated. Technically both could claim rape and be correct. However, by the same claim of "they didn't know what they were doing" that would be used in the case of one sober and one intoxicated could be used for the person who is being accused of being a rapist. I'm not actually sure how that would work in court though as if you kill someone while drunk it's still manslaughter at the very least. I could see how the case may go in either direction (even if I don't agree with it). I personally wouldn't accuse someone of rape if all parties were intoxicated, but then I wouldn't get intoxicated because I can't stand drunk people so I guess my opinion is skewed for that. However, regretting it in the morning doesn't mean it was rape. If you completely consented in the moment without any level of force or being guilted, it isn't rape regardless of your gender.

Meaning while sober of course since you can't consent while intoxicated.

Cornell Law School states it reasonably well. There is no single hard line that doesn't have exceptions. REMINDER: Consent is comprised of words or actions that show a knowing, active and voluntary agreement to engage in mutually agreed upon activity. Consent is never implied and cannot be assumed – the absence of “no” does not mean “yes.” Consent cannot be given if there is coercion (to pressure intimidate or force), violence or the threat of violence. Consent can be withdrawn at any time. So when engaging in mutual or romantic intimacies, be sure your partner is not too intoxicated to know what’s going on and that you are confident they want to be intimate. According to NYS law, a person cannot legally give consent if: a) the person is under the age of 17, b) the person is developmentally disabled, or c) the person is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless, including as a result of alcohol or drugs.

Just because you kill someone doesn't mean you'll get manslaughter. A guy was driving a truck and a drunk lady walked onto the road. He swerved to avoid her but his trailer ended up hitting her. He didn't get charged with anything because there was nothing he could do. Secondly, with rape, if I man was drunk and had sex with a girl it could be considered rape but if a girl was drunk and had sex with a man, that would never hold up in court.

#33 - Hitting a drunk person or really any person who wanders into the road while giving you no time to react, especially a truck driver when it's extremely hard to stop the truck in time, is not at all the same as a person driving while drunk and hitting someone. Assuming the person was not using a crosswalk it would be the fault of the jaywalker. Of course the truck driver wouldn't be charged for a drunk person suddenly running in front of their truck. However, if the driver was drunk it would be manslaughter due to driving while intoxicated and causing an unintentional death of a person. Also, if a sober girl had sex with you while you were drunk it would be rape and, if proven, would have consequences. Just like a girl has to prove it was rape. The problem lies in the difficulty in proving that a rape occurred for either gender. Unfortunately, quite often it's very difficult to prove a man was raped. Far more so than with a woman. Hopefully better methods will come along to help male victims as they too often are not taken seriously enough.

According to some of this logic, my husband raped me some time ago now. I was certainly drunk to the point that I don't remember what happened. According to him, I rather enjoyed it. Just because I was drunk, does not mean that my consent was withheld. I know that if I wanted to stop at any time, he would have done it. It was only the next day when we were talking about it that he found out I couldn't remember most of what happened. I certainly know he did NOT rape me. I guess we just know each other better than that.

This is the point I'm trying to make. There is no blanket line that can be applied in all circumstances that won't technically criminalize couples that trust and communicate with each other.

46, If you know and you are fine with it, then it isn't rape. If someone else had been in the same situation, but would NOT be okay with their significant other having sex with them while they are intoxicated, then it is rape. Consent is VERY important. I would never have sex with someone while they are drunk, even if they consent, because if they were sober they might not consent. Even if it is your significant other, you should always get consent from them before performing any sexual acts on/with them. Always. Just because they are your s/o does NOT mean they are entitled to having sex with you and it does mean they will always consent.

Okay, I think the Cornell law guy explained all this pretty clearly. If you give an audible yes and you are in control of yourself, it's consent. If OP was tipsy when he came home and said yes to his girlfriend, it's consent. OP's girlfriend is not correct, because there are different levels of impeded function due to alcohol and not all levels constitute an inability to consent. If you are so drunk you cannot speak, you cannot consent. If you are so drunk you cannot move, you cannot consent. If you are pretty tipsy and you say yes and you are moving fine, you can consent. That's about as good as the law gets. Man or woman, doesn't matter.

#11, driving drunk is illegal and highly frowned upon.

#46, that's great. Your husband didn't rape you, in your view. But in my view, if anyone was to have sex with me while I was so drunk I woke up and couldn't remember - even if it was my boyfriend, husband, best friend - I would consider that a severe violation. For me, I like to be at least semi-conscious during sex. If you don't, that's your prerogative. But to assume that is true for everyone is ludicrous. If you are too drunk to know what is happening - if your BAC is high enough that the next morning you will wake up and not remember you had sex - you cannot. legally. consent. That doesn't always mean having sex in that condition is rape, it just means that it's very possible it is. Sex with anyone, either gender, any gender, when they don't know what's going on, is rape. Plain and simple.

That's an understatement lol.

You are a cool person ^^

You can't have your cake and eat it too

What is the point of having any cake if I can't eat it? Can I eat someone else's cake instead??

10, It depends how drunk; if they are unable to consent in anyway, then that's rape. Domestic rape is a serious thing. I was a victim of it (in my case it wasn't due to alcohol; but, I know first hand that rape can still occur in domestic cases may it be alcohol related or not). All I'm trying to say is that just because they are in a relationship doesn't mean the rules of rape don't apply.

I think it's a bit more complicated than that, if you're drunk but clearly capable of saying 'yes' and enjoying sex it's a lot different to having had so much that you can barely lift your head without wanting to puke, in that case not even a spouse has the right to your body (unless it's a weird fetish and you've arranged this to happen). OP could have talked about this with his girlfriend, I think it's important to be open and honest about issues to do with consent and where the boundaries lie. But instead he chose to make her feel small, that's on him.

@47 Bullshit. He wasn't trying to make her feel small, he was trying to make a point. She said that sex with a drunk person is 100% rape, and since she had sex with him while he was drunk she should consider herself a rapist. He was pointing out her hypocrisy.