How the fuck can those misogynist pigs publish something like this in modern society?

How the fuck can those misogynist pigs publish something like this in modern society?

GINGERS HAVE NO SOULS

>characters in a book shouldn't have opinions that differ from mine
>not realizing, theologically speaking, it indeed is very debateable. Might come as a shock to you, but many religions aren't exactly known for promoting gender equality.

I took bait, didn't I?

>libcucks constantly absolve women of moral agency and free will
>get upset when religions do the same

rekt

Can you elaborate that idea? How do liberals "absolve women of moral agency and free will?" I'm not challenging you, just want to hear your reasoning.

Abortion, for one.

Taking the bait but probably something along the lines of "if a man and woman are drunk and have sex, the man is a rapist. There is no fault on the woman's part despite also being drunk and having sex." In this case it is assumed the sex was consensual.

I don't consider abortion to be morally wrong and it doesn't have anything to do with free will. So that doesn't float with me.
When do liberals ever say this? If the man and woman are both drunk, they both have lost the right to legal consent, and so neither of them is a rapist. This is a fair argument about the right to make decisions, however. I find the British decision that drunk consent is still consent to be quite interesting. Part of me wholly agrees with that sentiment, but the other recognizes that it will lead to a lack of procedure for dealing with date-rape cases.

Female here
Now I'm scared

How do I know if I have a soul or not? ;_;

>when do liberals ever say this
You don't live in America do you

Because the patriarchy lets them

I live in New Jersey nigga

The book states that a Reedemer can check it ;)
I can find the part where the insides of a 13 year old girl were described.
But I'm too lazy since I don't have the first book of the series on kindle.

Because the first amendment of the constitution protects freedom of speech

Same reason Schopenhauer is still allowed to be published

Don't worry, the N-God believes you have a soul.

you're just shallow and pragmatic by instinct

Go to any college campus, read any sexual assault news from any college campus, and you will see exactly that.

...

BTFO libcucks for all eternity. Is this Stoner? Gotta read that book.

>If the man and woman are both drunk, they both have lost the right to legal consent, and so neither of them is a rapist.

The problem is that there's an intrinsic power difference in male/female interactions that people don't like to acknowledge. Fucked up, but true.

what's the book?

The Last Four Things by Paul Hoffman

Drunk girls often get horny and demand sex, yet when I oblige them I'm taking advantage of my "intrinsic power" ?? Doesn't make sense. Because by the current legal definition I've raped dozens of girls. They obviously "wanted it" as the saying goes, and made that pretty clear.

Well first, if you're sober and they're not, that's rapey. I don't believe in a strict legal definition of rape because I don't believe that carceral feminism actually serves the best interest of women. I hate that people go straight to trying to find where, exactly, to draw the line ("but what if we were BOTH drunk??") instead of seeing the obvious, i.e. if someone is too drunk to reasonably understand the decisions they're making - and yes, there isn't a qualitative metric you can judge this by, but again, we're talking about the obvious and given here for a moment - then that's pretty much rape!

No one is saying you can't have sex with drunk people or while drunk yourself because that's stupid, but if you're fucking someone who can't even stand up straight, you should really be reconsidering your life.

Is it actually good?

>if you're fucking someone who can't even stand up straight, you should really be reconsidering your life.

This only happened one time. My ex came home drunk, she'd gone to a party with coworkers and I stayed home and read books. A couple hours before she came home she texted me and said "I'm getting drunk so when I get home I'm going to rape you so don't go to bed heh heh heh" She was true to her word, she was wasted, and was already taking her clothes off before she even got to the bedroom. She could barely walk. Her roommate had to guide her to the right fucking door. I had absolutely no desire to have anything to do with her in that state and just wanted to sleep but she fell down on the bed and literally begged me. I started to fuck her but my heart wasn't in it, and she could tell, and started crying. She said she "loved me" and that "I didn't love her back." I told her I loved her too just to get her to stop crying, even though that wasn't true. Shortly afterwards we broke up.

It seems like I was the one who was abused there, yet since I'm a big strong guy I have nothing to complain about, never mind that I got pressured into sex I didn't want to have. All the other times the girls were sober enough to know what they were doing and I was drunk enough that it wasn't "rapey."

Correct. Women, lacking souls, are not entirely responsible for themselves so men should make decisions for them.

If your ex was falling down drunk then you have a moral prerogative to know better and not sex her in the first place. You're not an irredeemably bad person for having done that, but I think it was actually wrong and you should have, as the sober person in the room, told her no.

It's obviously different with intimate partners because sex with intimate partners is different. But that doesn't mean the rules of consent don't apply, you just have to be more mindful of boundaries as established in your relationship.

>No one is saying you can't have sex with drunk people or while drunk yourself because that's stupid

except that's exactly what certain universities and even US states are trying to do. there can be no consent while the girl is drunk. no consent means rape. therefore drunk sex can be rape if the girl regrets her decision the next day and is a morally reprehensible person.

>If your ex was falling down drunk then you have a moral prerogative to know better and not sex her in the first place.
Oh christ, shut the fuck up.

>Drunk sex is always wrong/rape/etc

dae moral realism but only when men's sexuality

this

>consent

If husbands need to ask wife’s permission for sex, then wife will not like sex. Asking permission for consent is profoundly unsexy to a woman and this is obvious to anyone who is not a virgin. Further, if consent to sex is moment to moment, then consent to marriage is moment to moment, men and women are unable to make the deal that they both want: A secure, stable, durable bond. A safe place to raise children in. They both want it and neither can get it.

tldr women do not have agency thus cannot give consent

>it's a /pol/ invades Veeky Forums thread

For instance "revenge porn laws". They argue that if a woman is stupid and puts naked photos of herself on the internet they should be able to make it illegal for any one else to posses them. But Anthony Weiner's similar fuck up? Oh that's just hilarious. Har har har.

It doesn't seem fair. I have sex with her and I'm a rapist. I don't have sex with her and she starts crying her eyes out, or worse, calls me a faggot. I just can't win.

I'm not the one who got wasted either. I'm just glad she made it home and didn't get actually raped, I had no idea she was going to drink that much or I would have gone with her.

>2016
>not watermarking and copyrighting all your porn
asking for it t.b.h