What is your stance on sexual consent policies? Are they a double standard? Should they be changed and if so...

>Implying girls don't do this as well
And besides, if both are shitfaced I don't see the problem. The man/woman is actively taking advice from someone in no condition to give advice.

VR will render the eternal female obsolete soon.

Not true, but you're allowed to have hope.

>Not true
elaborate

Some amount of men will always have access to pussy and have children.

What VR or sexbots will do, is simply make sure that the men that would never procreate or have access to pussy anyway will be preoccupied.

what if VR is so superior even Chad prefers it

My stance that this is not Veeky Forums, and ought to be reported.

>what if VR is so superior even Chad prefers it

Not likely.

you keep saying this for some reason, are you a time traveller?
technology will get better, including VR.
its not inconcievable that VR will venetually get photorealistic.
its gonna be hella cyberpunk

>& Humanities

>its not inconcievable that VR will venetually get photorealistic.

So what? People still want to fuck real pussy and have children.

there are only so many human females who could compete with the 10/10s VR could provide on demand

Chad only wants to fuck 20 years olds not interested in marriage

some people still like riding horses i guess

This.

It's a really fine line to walk because consent is clearly important but being drunk and regretting a one night stand isn't the same as being raped.

What's worrying is the attitude of guilty until proven innocent for men accused of rape. Even if it's untrue it's absolutely destroying that guy's reputation and possibly his life.

But on the other hand there is definitely those guys out there whom specifically target girls who are wasted, isolate them, and flatout fucking rape them.

There's a lot of issues at play. I guess personal responsibility and accountability on both parts is really the answer.

I think you're way too optimistic about VR's ability to do anything of value.

I mean, right now it's a pathetic gimmick that has graphics from 2004, and yet you're imagining a scenario where it's so powerful entertainment that people won't even have social interactions with other humans.

Even if that will eventually happen, it's decades upon decades away and you'll probably be dead by then.

>I mean, right now it's a pathetic gimmick that has graphics from 2004,
But its not?
>decades away
Literally take a look at something like Uncharted 4 compared to Uncharted.
That's not even a decade apart and yet the difference in visual fidelity is massive.

please fuck off back to plebit this board is for people that actualy are intelligent.

>That's not even a decade apart and yet the difference in visual fidelity is massive.

Yeah, and still people have sex and have children.

So if the "visual fidelity" of current generation game consoles isn't enough to make people stop having romantic and sexual relations with each other, you shouldn't be so optimistic that it ever is possible.

Like I said, it might be possible *for you*, but that's probably because you were never going to get women and procreate anyway.

>So if the "visual fidelity" of current generation game consoles isn't enough to make people stop having romantic and sexual relations with each other, you shouldn't be so optimistic that it ever is possible.
>if something isnt happening right now it'll never happen
I'm sorry, is this supposed to be an argument?
>Like I said, it might be possible *for you*, but that's probably because you were never going to get women and procreate anyway
High level of discourse folks.

>High level of discourse folks.

Well it is the only level of discourse for this topic.

According to biological anthropologists humans have twice as much female DNA as male, which means that half as many men have procreated in history as women.

This suggests that only 33% of men, but 67% of women have procreated in history.

So, what are the remaining 67% of men doing? Well, they were probably arguing the same way you are doing, whining that you aren't getting *any* and looking gleefully for a future where women aren't necessary by your own lights.

if a drunk person can't consent, then why can a drunk person be legally responsible for a DUI?

please point out where this whining has occured in this thread
also please cite your posts

just because they didn't reproduce didn't mean they died virgins though

in fact it's speculated that humans have such large dicks compared to the great apes is because it functioned as a pump in communal gang bangs

>Well it is the only level of discourse for this topic.
No, it aint.

>VR will make "the eternal female" obsolete

Because a second party member is included, unlike drunk driving.

If you want to make a similarity to drunken driving and sexuality. It would be more accurate to showing everyone your dick and jerking off in public because its funny.

not whining, simply making an observation

>simply making an observation

Yeah, an /r9k/-tier observation couched in resentment.

>Yeah, an /r9k/-tier observation couched in resentment.
oh an armchair psychologist

>in fact it's speculated that humans have such large dicks compared to the great apes is because it functioned as a pump in communal gang bangs

Yeah, and the men who were in those "communal gang bangs" were men whom women considered worthy and were at the top of the dominance-hierarchy.

no

more like the dude with the longest thickest juiciest dick was the most efficient at pumping all of the cum out of the cock sock and he was the one that pass his genes on

aren't big dicks the easiest indication of prime fuckfuck material

Why do you keep conflating casual sex with reproduction? It's so easy for you to win this argument but you're still having a hard time.

Because for most of human history, there was nothing called casual sex without reproduction unless the woman was literally sterile.

You made this post? Why exactly are you attempting to moralize here? You're just as misogynistic.

>Because for most of human history, there was nothing called casual sex without reproduction unless the woman was literally sterile.
Oh, right. What was I fucking expecting.

>sex outside of marriage

Consent sets the bar too low, user

Not an argument, fagtron.

Explaining reality =/= Being misogynistic.

What are you, some kind of SJW?

You willingly chose to get drunk to a degree where you spread your legs at random. You did consent while drunk, being drunk does not magically remove responsibillity. Charging a man with rape for not accurately evaluating your state of intoxication while also probably being drunk himself is a double standard indeed.

>unlike drunk driving

So the kid you just smashed all over the road because you can not look straight is not a second involved party?

>Because for most of human history, there was nothing called casual sex without reproduction unless the woman was literally sterile.

Here's a (you) because I can't recall when I saw a more intellectually dishonest post, since this only makes sense if you start counting history at when we started with agriculture, and even that it's by a very small marginal, and even then that's assuming that you wouldn't assume there existed any kind of birth control before Egypt.

>Are they a double standard?
gee, I wonder - could there be a double standard between the sexes?

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

But Jesus drank wine every day

If a drunk driver hits a drunk man stumbling in the street at night who is at fault

I'd actually legislate it as consent just because it would disincentivize intoxication. I'd also impose an enormous tax on the production, sale and purchase of alcohol and tobacco. Heavy drinking is the cancer that is killing youth culture. Youth culture is horrible in general, irresponsibility and self-indulgence are considered 'normal', while discipline is discouraged.
t. a formerly heavy drinking and partying youth

>since this only makes sense if you start counting history at when we started with agriculture

Why are you assuming I am doing that? Humans have had sex for at least a quarter of a million years.

What does this have to do with history?

kekked desu. were you merely pretending to be retarded?

No being retarded at all. Sex without any contraceptive usually leads to children.

You would think this was common knowledge, but apparently Veeky Forums is *that* retarded, which doesn't surprise me since this board is generally virginal and retarded.

I think all pro-consent talk makes pretty intuitive sense UNTIL you talk about intoxication. Proponents or activists turn into literal nazis saying when people can and can't have sex. Fuck off, two drunk people can have all the sex they want.

There isn't going to be a clean solution. Yes "drunk" people can consent but it is also possible to be so drunk that you cannot. There isn't a clear cut dividing line, which upsets autists who hate ambiguity. If you can walk around and understand what people are saying to you and form sentences yourself, you're sober enough to consent IMO. Otherwise no.

>I've already had my /pol/ phase. Sorry, I'm not going anywhere near that shithole.

The only phase you've ever gone through is menarche, take this CURRENT POLITICAL DICUSSION to /pol/.

T. National Socialist.

>Sex without any contraceptive usually leads to children.
regular sex maybe