General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

POO CRAYON
Jubilee
comments

Comments by "POO CRAYON" (@poocrayon4588) on "Is the Idea of Virginity Outdated? Virgins vs Non-Virgins | Middle Ground" video.

Only feminists - he was high and made a choice to have sex- his choice. Ive had sex while pretty high or drunk and that was an adult choice I made - unless I was falling all over myself how could my partner be expected to know I was intoxicated. And even if I was intoxicated why cant I make the adult choice as a man to have sex after choosing to get intoxicated? Im not a kid who needs babysitting. If people choose to have sex while intoxicated and the other person isnt taking advantage that should be seen as an adult choice - if they regret it later they should take it as a learning experience not blame the other person and see it as a crime.
14
That kind of extreme religious superiority complex of thinking religion is beyond question has no place in the west (or any modern society that doesnt want to become a oppressive dump). Shes living in a bubble and thinks any disagreement with her is an attack that shouldnt be allowed
12
Yeah but that dont change the idea that the idea of virginity isnt outdated - cos its not an idea, its a fact! Youve either had sex or you havent - if you havent your a virgin, if you have your not. There's no debate and its a silly question to ask in the first place if its an "outdated idea" or not.
12
Whos identity is being a virgin lol? Srsly people need to harden up if losing the virgin "identity" is a crisis for them
7
@ellaarmstrong216 But it wasnt rape - she had no way of knowing how high he was and he choose to get high and have sex - nor would it be rape if she was the high one and didnt show it very much.
6
Because there is no universal agreement on what consent is - so how could it be taught? Can people drink and have sex? Some say yes - feminists say no. Do we have to yell out enthusiastic "YES" everytime we change positions or acts? Most would say no - but the woke would say yes. Until there's an agreement on what consent is that is also practically enforceable in law and not an ideological pipe dream how can consent be taught?
4
@aritaylor9395 Thats no different - many men who have sex with drunk women are no more drunk than the women themselves and have no reason to believe the women will feel differently about it later - they just see it as an adult choice their making together. Its not as simple as a bunch of men going round looking for hammered women to take advantage of - many women feel that any time they have sex while under the influence the man should be punishable for law for that IF they later want him to be.
4
Nah its not a "contruct" lol - its a reality, youve either had sex or not, nothing "contructed" about that
4
Yeah cos we as men like it. (well pre Corona anyways) People need to harden up
4
Hawra Ahmed Islam isnt a race and "Islamaphobia" is a buzzword to try to paint anyone who questions Islamic beliefs as being bigoted to try to silence them.
3
@harry31619 Pointing out facts isnt "phobic" because it has nothing to do with fear of Islam or anything. Your just throwing around a buzzword to try to silence people you dont agree with. Because you have no real argument against them.
3
@pebbles92able Yeah thats wrong and a crime - but its not a simple as as men just looking to take advantage of or drug women. Many women simply see sex between two people who are under the influence as a potential crime and not something they could consent too, but simulatanously something they could consent too - whereas men just tend to see it as an adult choice between two adults and always consensual. After all if women want to be able to drink and have sex - how can that be legal if they want it to be - but that man be a criminal in the exact same situation based on how they feel about it? Thats illogical and unpractical.
3
@chefboyardee5273 You clearly havent had much experience with women with personality disorders if you dont believe it doesnt happen and wouldnt happen more if it was easier to be convicted of. But thats neither here nor there - what Im talking about is the idea of not being able to consent under the influence - many people make the choice to drink then the choice to have sex - they see that as an adult choice and dont want it criminalized. In fact thousands and thousands of people will be making that choice together tonight. Are they all guilty of sex crimes in your eyes? Cos in mine there adults making a choice. And even if you feel differently that doesnt change the fact that it would be impossible legally to enforce laws that would hold someone else responsible for someones willing choice to have sex while intoxicated - especially when the person they had sex with was likely also intoxicated. Its not all men trawling bars preying on falling down drunk teens you know? Most intoxicated sex is a choice between two intoxicated adults with no pressure exerted. And you see that as a crime? Are we adults or children who arent responsible for our own decisions and need babysitting? I know what men believe - not so sure about women any more.
3
@singingsarah8133 When men and women get drunk or high TOGETHER and have sex and one isnt more noticeably incapacitated either do you think either of them are in the wrong? But anyway - lets be real, if this was a woman who was high and a man who wasnt most of yall would be saying - "oh, he should have known and he should have been more careful" and asking all kinds of questions instead of just dismissing it
2
@thatchapthere No its not, not if he sought out sex. There are plenty of couples where one wont drink anything at all and the other will who will have sex but its not illegal.
2
@pebbles92able You say that as tho one person will always be (noticeably) under the influence and the other not. But of course thats not the case - most times people in bars end up having sex they're BOTH under the influence (as will thousands be every other night) - often this is true at parties as well, its even true after nights at home with an extra glass of wine or two lol. So in those cases who should be held responsible for a crime? Both? do they cancel each other out? Or should one person only be liable IF the other makes a complaint, effectively meaning that someones guilt or innocence was decided after the act - what if the other person then accused the other of knowing they were under the influence too? Its easy to say "you cant consent while under the influence" - but until you can answer any of those questions in a way that is logical and makes practical sense in terms of enforcing the laws you dont have an argument - you have a catchphrase. But even if those questions werent impossible to answer (and they are) - I still wouldnt agree that you couldnt consent under the influence - if I go out and decide to drink or drink at home or at a party (whatever) I can easily get under the influence without becoming falling down drunk and obviously incapacitated - many people can. In that case I do think I can consent to sex - I think Ive made an adult choice to drink and an adult choice to have sex - its disturbing to think that so many women dont seem to think thats the case and that someone else should be responsible and liable for their willing choices - even when that other person has not been pressuring them and has possibly made the exact same choices and is in the same intoxicated state as them. Im not talking about some skeevy guy plying young inexperience women with alcohol or drugs - there are many women who do this just the same as men. Do you really want to be infantalised in this way? Do you really want to go back to before the sexual revoluotion to a time when women werent seen as capable of as making adult choices such as choosing to drink then have sex? Because this is exactly what your willingly taking yourself back too - you just want to make men responsible for your own actions again (but this time hold them more accountable for them) - and before you say that isnt the case and this goes for men too - NO men think like this, if men drink then have sex and regret it - they chalk it up to a bad choice and move on, not a criminal act by someone else, but their adult responsibility. How can you as a grown adult rationally think otherwise?
2
@pebbles92able I am not bringing up scenarios that arent even there - you and others were saying in response to this one man who was high that "you cant consent under the influence" - that statement does in fact cover ever single scenario that I "brought up". Most of the time when people under the influence have sex they're both under the influence and both perfectly aware of each other being so, usually cos they've been drinking together, then they make the mutual choice to have sex - so unless you change your statement to "you can consent under the influence in a lot of situations but not in others" (not as catchy tho makes much more sense) - the situations I describe are absolutely covered by your statement and IF your statement of "you cant consent under the influence" was practiced legally would see them most people in the situations I described imprisoned which would be absurd. If you want to make a blanket statement like "you cant consent under the influence" you have to be able to logically defend ALL of its implications when its questioned for the infantalising gibberish it is - not just say "oh well I was just talking about this one guy" lol. Whether or not many men have a "bad reputation" changes nothing about this fact and your just trying to deflect from making a statement which you cant explain or defend articulately by saying "look over here! some men are bad!" - well that doesnt work on me. Either admit you can consent under the influence or change your statement to reflect a more nuanced view because right now it just seems your repeating "you cant consent under the influence" without a thought about what it actually would mean in practice. Surely you have thought about that no?
2
Because she believes and has been indoctrinated to think that her Muslim beliefs do make her better than everyone else
2
Should do “men are not providers at a societal level” But I think that might be tooo triggering for a lot of women
2
@ziraydejesus8108 So can two people who have been drinking have sex? Because plenty do - are they all commiting and victims of sex crimes? Or are they adults making a choice?
2
@ziraydejesus8108 You say that as tho one person will always be (noticeably) under the influence and the other not. But of course thats not the case - most times people in bars end up having sex they're BOTH under the influence (as will thousands be every other night) - often this is true at parties as well, its even true after nights at home with an extra glass of wine or two lol. So in those cases who should be held responsible for a crime? Both? do they cancel each other out? Or should one person only be liable IF the other makes a complaint, effectively meaning that someones guilt or innocence was decided after the act - what if the other person then accused the other of knowing they were under the influence too? Its easy to say "you cant consent while under the influence" - but until you can answer any of those questions in a way that is logical and makes practical sense in terms of enforcing the laws you dont have an argument - you have a catchphrase. But anyway in spite of that I still believe I can consent under the influence - I call that an adult choice and dont expect other people to be held accountable for my choices or be expected to babysit me in case I do something I regret, or if they fail to do so, expect them to be punished for it. Its disturbing so many women feel otherwise.
2
@ziraydejesus8108 Its impossible to know who is more drunk most of the time. (although nice try at implying the men should always be the ones held responsible) And drunk driving where innocent peoples lives are at risk is totally different than two adults choosing to drink then choosing to have sex. So you didnt answer any of the very real questions which would come up if your illogical idea of what consent being impossible while under the influence ever came up in a court case because you cant - you simply repeated my valid points with the false comparison of drunk driving in the place of two adults choosing to drink then have sex. Thus proving what I said - you cant logically spell out how this works in practice because you have no idea and havent thought it thru logically - you just repeat "you cant consent while under the influence" brainlessly - like a meaningless catchphrase. I wonder if you realise that by your brilliant logic of "you cant consent while under the influence" literally anyone who has ever had sex while drinking with someone else who has been drinking has committed a crime punishable by prison sentence? Which would probably put 1/2 of the adult population in prison smh. And thats probably just based on the last half year or so alone let alone over their whole lifetimes. Mothers fathers teachers grandparents - all having committed serious sexual offences without either them or there partners suspecting it? LMAO! Lucky your here to set them straight. People CAN assault others why under the influence - BUT two adults choosing to have sex while under the influence isnt assualt - at least not in the mind of adults who see themselves as responsible for their own actions - perhaps it is in grown women with the minds of little girls. But since to you it is - what exactly do you propose to do about it? All over the country and many others tonight adults will be drinking and willingly choosing to have sex with each other - since at least half of them are committing a felony in your brilliant mind surely this can not be allowed to continue? What do you propose exactly? Should we ban alcohol? Seems the only way to prevent this lol. You know, back in the 50's and 60's when the sexual revolution was taking place and women were insisting they could make the choice to have sex with anyone they wanted - in any situation they wanted - that they could go out drinking and choose to have sex just like men and shouldnt be judged for it, there were a bunch of "sexist" men who were saying they couldnt handle it, that women were just too immature and sooner or later they would become emotional and irrational and not be able to handle the responsibility. Well everyone called those men sexist back then - but I guess if your comments are really hat widespread an attitude they were right, you cant handle the adult responsibility of possibly regretting the choices YOU MAKE to have sex while under the influence. I did enjoy the way you retyped my whole comment then ended it like you were in a debate and had just made an original point with "and thats why you cant consent under the influence" - lol srsly are you 13? Do you have any experience in the real world of relationships and what goes on in the adult world? I dont expect and answer - its far more likely your lack of ability to logically answer will trigger you and youll report my comment. Pathetic
2
What do you mean by “forcing” exactly? Like physically forcing? Cos that’s a crime. Askings not a crime tho
2
Dude do you realise how impractical legally and infantilising morally it is to say people can’t give consent when high/intoxicated? Like I could go out get drunk AND high while seeming quite normal then go visit a hooker who was sober and have sex - then she would have assualted me? Lol, I mean cmon - simplistic feministic thinking around these things like “you can’t consent while under the influence” is absurd and impractical irl. It’s like it’s made up by academics and just unquestioningly believed by teenagers who haven’t even had sex lmao. You do realise most people who have sex under the influence of something are having sex with someone else who’s also under the influence? Are they both victims and perps of the crime of making an adult choice to get intoxicated and have sex? Absurd. Might as well ban all alcohol and drugs because that’s the only way this way of thinking could work
1
@Ms.Miahhh Some of it is - anywhere theres trad dress it is - anywhere theres a lot of religious building and lack of imagery it is - Im not saying that for right or wrong - but the culture is clearly based on the religion in a lot of ways.
1
Lol its not more essential - and schools dont teach you how to protect yourself. When was the last time you showed up to school for fight or weapons training? Also how can school teach consent when no one even agrees on the definition beyond everyone agreeing that physically forcing someone or blackmailing them into sex is a crime. There are so so many different ideas of what consent should be that do or dont factor in ideas about adult responsibility, conesnt while under the influence (possible or no, if no how would this work in practice), pooower dynamics etc. etc.
1
Probably because no one agrees on what consent actually is. Most people have slightly different ideas of consent and feminists have ever diverging and extreme ideas of consent they want all people to have - there is no uniform agreement. Eg - can anyone consent after drinking? Many people have sex after drinking and believe they've consented but feminists believe they've both committed crimes if they're both intoxicated. Also if you dont ask before swapping positions or changing acts and get a "enthasiastic" YES some woke folk would say its a crime - but for most people this is totally normal. Can you have a sexual relationship with someone you work with? Or is it a "power dynamics" issue lol? Etc. etc. Until there is a uniform and practically enforceable idea of what consent is how can it possibly be taught?
1
@reahsahpagel3354 Not really, not in the law - if someone wants to break up with their partner because they wont have sex or wont have enough sex they're free to do so. They're also free to tell their partner they have an issue with the lack of sex - then they're partner is free to either decide not having sex is important to them and let them leave - or as she did, can reconsider and have sex if its not a dealbreaker.
1
@meanuwuhnia598 But the way it is taught is literally how its meant to be taught - as "perfect" societal laws sent by God and repeated by Muhhamed. She is following Islam so if you dont like what shes saying you should blame it.
1
@vp9549 Any religion should be questioned and critiscized - belief is either there or not - but even a believer should be able to explain there ideology logically and the reasons for it - instead of just trying to shut down questioning of it by yelling "Islamaphobia" or whatever else. And I say that as a Roman Catholic
1
@dethisdeth It doesn't matter to me, I'm not trying to marry a virgin or anything. But it is what it is, if being or not being a virgin upsets people so much they have to deny the obviously real nature of the word, then they should change their attitude to the word virgin and stop being so triggered that they want to change a word which describes a reality.
1
@aisherwasher6959 Marriage laws are evil anyway. Just find a priest or pastor (depending on your denomination) to do it and dont get "legally" married
1
@Myfavorite77 By feminists
1
@lolly9149 I agree that should matter - but it wouldnt matter if it was a man to women - they would say he should have somehow have known
1
@EIizabethGrace Technically many of these people are saying you simply can consent while under the influence - which would make virtually every one in bars tonight, or at parties or even old married couples at home who both drank and then has sex both victims and perps of a sex crime depending on if the other complained - which would be absurd and impossible legally if actually followed. When you ask them how this would work they dont answer tho - they just repeat "you can consent while intoxicated" - they dont have a logical explanation they have a catchphrase thats impractical. If you choose to drink (not get you drink spiked) then choose to have sex that is an adult choice and not some mans crime, especially as he's likely made the same exact choice.
1
@ewdavid-1 And why not? Most times people in bars end up having sex they're BOTH under the influence (as will thousands be every other night) - often this is true at parties as well, its even true after nights at home with an extra glass of wine or two lol. So in those cases who should be held responsible for a crime? Both? do they cancel each other out? Or should one person only be liable IF the other makes a complaint, effectively meaning that someones guilt or innocence was decided after the act - what if the other person then accused the other of knowing they were under the influence too? Its easy to say "you cant consent while under the influence" - but until you can answer any of those questions in a way that is logical and makes practical sense in terms of enforcing the laws you dont have an argument - you have a catchphrase. But anyway you still can consent under the influence - getting under the influence then having sex is a adult choice often made by both partners in sex, stop trying to infantalise people. I wonder if youve actually thought this thru or are just repeating a feminist slogan you heard, cos thats what it seems like
1
@EIizabethGrace How is saying that your responsible for both the adult choice of choosing to drink and the adult choice of having sex a step away from blaming victims for dress? Its not - its defining drinking then having sex as an adult choice and a personal responsibility under the law. Attempting to compare it to blaming victims for the way their dressed is just trying to make a false equivalancy to make up for the lack of actual moral or logical argument for saying it in the first place by playing on emotion.
1
@EIizabethGrace Except many people having sex in bars are both drunk as and both chose to get that way then have sex. Are they both commiting crimes and victims of crimes? Its not all or even mostly weird men plying women with alcohol. If you want this to stop the only actual answer would be to blame alcohol. But the simple fact is to men that choosing to get drunk and have sex seems like an adult choice that its absurd to think someone else should be responsible for and they think they can consent under the influence. If women truly dont believe that is the case and think men should be responsible for the choices women choose to make while under the influence (even tho said men may be just as under the influence) then they just need to stop drinking and going out all together because you cant as an adult expect another adult to babysit your own actions in that way in case you regret them later. Its illogical and absurd not to mention immoral to punish other people for your own choices. Have you thought this thru at all?
1
@ewdavid-1 Im not reading an article - if the article really did explain consent under the influence would work in practical terms and in the law in a way that is coherent and logical and can actually be applied fairly in society then you should be able to summarize it for me. If you cant then either the Article didnt make sense OR you didnt understand the article and cant articulate how it would actually work.
1
@ewdavid-1 Its you who are lazy otherwise you would be able to understand a study which you claim explains consent at least to the point of being able to summarize how it would work. If you cant then as I say - it either makes no sense or you havent understood it. Its lazy to pretend that simply saying "I cant explain but read this academic study, that proves Im right" - proves a damn thing. All it proves is when your stuck not being able to articulate what you mean youll say read this academic study as a way out as tho simply saying theres a study written by someone with a degree which backs you up should be enough explanation lol. Im not convinced by you saying "someone wrote a study about it" - Im convinced by logical and practical reason. This shouldnt be so complicated that an entire study needs to be read to understand it - and given that you cant explain what the study means you clearly still dont understand it. Most people having sex arent going to be reading a study beforehand - many of them will be downright morons and some even dumber than that. But they STILL need to be able to understand if they can or cant consent under the influence and when - if your unable to define that and if this study hasnt made it simple enough for you to be able to put into words quickly and easily then the study is worthless as far as being something practical which will actually be able to define legally workeable consent laws. And you referencing it as "proof" is only proof of your own lack of understanding or reason surrounding the matter. Thats the reality.
1
@faeezparkar9731 Theres actually nothing said by Jesus about dressing Modestly. The first Roman women to become Christian werent particularly modest by Islamic or Jewish standards - there is no set rule, just changing cultural practices. Actually evidence shows that for a long time Jewish dress wasnt any different than other ancient dress and both men and women had uncovered heads and the same short sleeveless tunics many ancient people wore.
1
@fiifatheworldin1688 They dont have to believe Muhammad was a real prophet anymore than you have to believe in Jesus or Buddha. Dont claim otherwise and try to silence them by crying "Islamaphobia" thats embarrassing
1
@frank._.lotion Better a smelly hippy than a guy who waged war, kept slaves and married little girls
1
@DA1one100 Please point out the lies
1
@fiifatheworldin1688 What I said was in no way racist as Islam isnt a race - if it is you'd better tell that to the hundred million Indonesians Muslims. Calling anything that goes against Islam racist is however a way to try to slander the person who says it and shut them down. No religion or religious figure should be beyond question - the character of a prophet can surely stand up to logical questioning no?
1
@dammee No your triggered someone disagreed with her.
1
@P L What on earth are you rambling about? Do you even know?
1
@P L The average age of marriage in dark ages Europe was 18 for men and between 16 and 17 for women - occasionaly they could be younger but it was thought of as revolting to marry a woman before puberty. Mary's age is never stated in the Bible (despite what Islamic scholars claim) and theres no evidence at all for it. But again if the usual Jewish custom was followed she was at least past puberty since marrying earlier was looked down on. What was normal to make women and girls do in the middle of the Arabian desert at Muhammeds time all that time ago was still unacceptable in most places of the same time. The greatest slander and disrespect is you and Muhammed saying that Jesus is a Muslim - that is truly disrespectful and slanderous. And its clearly not the truth - Muhammed made it up six centuries after Christs time and justified it by saying an Angel told him lol. For centuries before Muhammed Jesus wasnt Muslim and was thought of as the Son of God who died on the Cross - but Muhammed didnt want that to be the story I guess because he wanted to make Islam look superior - so he made up some absurd story about Jesus having a evil look alike who died on the Cross instead of him lol. Thus Mohammed actually called anyone who was a Christian to be engaging in slander since he "knew" the real story of Jesus (despite the fact he lived so so long after). It was and is an obviously transparent ploy on his part to both downgrade the story of Christ and take away the point of Christs life as well as to make Islam look like the "updated" "true" version. If their was slander to Jesus it was done by Muhammed all that time ago and is far from the truth - 600 years far in fact. That my friend is the truth to anyone who thinks logically
1
@P L Um no - marrying 6 year old girls was far from normal in most cultures up until the 19th century. Maybe thats what Islamic scholars tell you but they're proveably wrong. Stop trying to justify the disgusting practice in which Muhammed partook of middle aged men marrying 6 year old girls - because it wasnt normal in that time in other places or at any other time either. Marriage was younger in many places - not nearly as young as 6 tho lol. You realise census recording such things were actually being taken back then right? This isnt in dispute its a fact. For example in Ancient Rome the average age of marriage for men was early to mid 20's and for women it was the late teens. Legally they could be married at 14 for boys and 12 for girls (tho technically they were supposed to wait until puberty if it hadnt occured by age 12). In medieval England the average age of Marriage was also late teens (tho often older for men) but legally could be anywhere after 13 years. So no - at all point within the last few thousand years in European cultures marrying 6 year olds was seen as gross and wrong. Your a straight up liar or at leasat believe lies which justify anything Muhammed did. And saying some stone age tribe somewhere in Africa did it too doesnt make it any better.
1
@humzaalam4823 It may not make sense to those with simple and childlike understanding who are only capable of understanding God as a big sky daddy. However it easily makes a lot of sense to an adult with a brain - God as an entity and concept is 3 parts - The Father. that which created and creates everything - The Son. God made flesh to redeem mankind. - God the holy spirit - that which lives within all humans, their spirituality and sense of good based in said spirituality. What muslims think of as God would be God the father. They fundementally see God in a different way than Christians - which is fine but because of their very simplistic interpretation of God they struggle to understand Christianity and its theology. Thats their failure of mind not the failure of Christian theology. What dont you understand? I realise its a little more intellectual than " God is going to reward you with earthly things in Heaven and Muhammed is a perfect man so dont draw him" but it does make sense.
1
@P L There is no historical or Biblical evidence at all for the age of Mary and Joseph and the time of their marriage. Only Islamic "scholars" claim to know the age of Mary and Joseph at marriage - and they completly make it up based on no real evidence at all - and the reason they do it is to attempy to justify Muhammed marrying young girls by saying others have dont it too.
1
@humzaalam4823 Lol what? Your understanding of God should be something a child should know? Of course a child would not come up with the concept of the trinity - why on earth would that make it incorrect? A child wouldnt come up with the theory of relativity either - is that also wrong lol? Who says everything should be perfectly understood by children to be true? What a dumbed down way of thinking and living that would be to go about life and spirituality for a grown man. Most children if growing up without any influence of either Christianity or Islam wouldnt conform to either of those religions understandings of Gods - thats why we had paganism for half of recorded history and whatever weird stone age religions there were before that and its why Islam didnt even exist until the 6th century BC smh. Islam isnt somehow born of a childs natural understanding - what a ridiculous argument to make and totally baseless. Please think before your write. Even if Islam was right (which I dont believe but you do) it was clearly born of an adult man (Mohammeds) understanding of God which he came to as an adult man and spread to others. So even if your arguing as someone who is Muslim what you said is still a nonsensical argument. Your argument = "only what small children can conceive of as God can be true" lol. Absurd reasoning.
1
@humzaalam4823 Also God does not have "partners" in Christianity lol, that sounds like something an Islamic scholar might say to try to explain/dismiss the idea of the trinity but it is based in a fundemental misunderstanding of what the trinity actually is. Tho if they and you think that only things that can be understood by children can be true then that might explain why they find it such a difficult concept. And further - Christianity literally developed as a religion because of questioning and debate, the fact you would even claim to know otherwise only highlight your ignorance of its history. Even tho Im not Muslim I would never claim to know Islam didnt encourage questioning without knowing its history. Please do more research that doesnt involve what your Islamic "scholars' tell you and you will learn that Christianities development has been based and born in questioning and debate. Especially true development of what went from the first churches and quickly developed into the Roman Catholic Church/with later Orthodox split.
1
@humzaalam4823 Lol - the fact that you think everything spiritual has to befit "gods majesty" is exactly why you cant understand the concept in the first place. Is the type of simplistic thinking that people who think God will always give victory and good life and 99 virgins in heaven have. Its also the type of thinking that cant accept that Jesus could have died but instead made a get away using a body double (LMAO!) God can be present in even the smallest and most innocent and the weakest - even the dying and those who lose - a concept which seems to go over your head. Its simple God the father is not Jesus - its not complicated ffs - he didnt become a baby smh. God the father is the creator - Jesus is is Son (God made human) and the holy spirit is the spirituality born of God that lives within us - this is the christian concept of God as a whole. There is nothing illogical about it. What is illogical is thinking Muhammed who lived 6 centuries after the time of Christ in another part of the world would actually have a clue about the truth of him, especially better than sources which were much closer in time and place to him and grew from the time of his origin. That is illogical and absurd.
1
@jada39748 Actually all the women would be arguing that shed commited a sex crime as he was "intoxicated" and couldnt give "informed consent" lol
1
@riyamarya So some chick you dont know put her hand on your arm or some female friend kissed you in greeting. Who cares? get over it
1
@riyamarya They should be ashamed. Get over it
1
@riyamarya Nah, someone touches you lightly in greeting. Get over it
1
@riyamarya lol - dont be so sensitive
1
@lizziepeach2380 I can speak generally about my experience and others as much as any man can and certainly more than any woman. I'm sure you have made general statements based on your own sex's wants as well.
1
@blast2686 What are you talking about? I'm not the one touching me or people in general. I'm saying normal men don't care about being touched in greeting or conversation by women. And they dont and it happens all the time. Get over it.
1
@halifaxverbeck7098 And that's what hundreds of 1000's of people do. Have sex while they're BOTH very intoxicated or at a very similar level of intoxication which is hard to differentiate between. We all know what people who are clearly intoxicated but not falling down drunk and unable to walk look like - this is the state most people in bars are both in while they're having sex. This is also a state which many women (under the influence of feminism belief) believe it is impossible to consent in and think someone should be charged with a crime - despite the fact both have shown up and both got drunk them both made the adult choice to have sex. This is what is ridiculous morally for logical adults and impractical legally. If some women truly cant handle that they really need to not engage in casual sex while under the influence and stop going to bars in case they make a choice they regret (and no that isn't victim blaming). Because the only other way you could stop any of that from happening and not punish people for their mutually made choices would be to ban alcohol. The reality is that if men are very drunk and have sex - they dont feel as tho they've been assaulted or forced. If women do that is something they need to come to terms with and admit that difference within themselves rather than try to punish men for taking part in the exact same activity as them (and one they both willingly take part in at the time) or expecting men to protect them from their own choices. Their choices then are (assuming they haven't been physically forced or roofied) - stay away from bar culture in case they make a choice they regret - or accept that they may feel bad if they have drunken sex but it doesn't mean a crime has been committed against them. Once again you are saying if one person can walk in a straight line and the other cant it's assault, but this isn't usually what happens is it? Most of the time people are both fairly smashed but still pretty capable of walking straight. Not to mention how difficult it is to use the hypothetical ability to walk in a straight line (conjectured about long after the fact) as proof of the ability to consent or not. Obviously actually physically forcing someone is still assault - plying people with alcohol is wrong but extremely hard to prove as it's pretty hard to say if someone was purposely getting someone intoxicated or simply buying drinks for the both of them. Yes having sex while your fairly with it and someone else is smashed drunk (if its a woman because most men are fine with it) is wrong - but the reality is people aren't filming each other walking in straight lines before so also - very very hard to prove. All in all better advice would be dont go to bars and start drinking if you think you may end up willingly sleeping with someone and regretting it. And I said willingly - meaning not having been physically forced or drugged.
1
@halifaxverbeck7098 Im not saying that men cant be assaulted - Im saying (amongst other things) - that adults who both choose to drink then choose to have sex are not being assaulted and many are at similar levels of intoxication and even when thy're not exactly the same that is impossible to determine in most cases. And it's questionable whether that even makes a difference if that's the choice they make as an adult. But as there is a lot to talk about with this issue in order to understand and make sense of it IF you actually want to discuss it logically and in practical terms rather than just writing one or two sentence slogans that belong on twitter - it's neccassary to go into more detail (as it is with most things) which will require some attention span. But as you dont want to read anything beyond simple statements like "men can be assaulted too" or "you cant consent while intoxicated" I wont bother to do that.
1
@plantlin.g "coherence"? What? And what is manipulation exactly? Thats hard to define. Sweet talking could be seen as manipulation - is some guy that hits on a woman in a bar and chats her up and charms her into bed "manipulating" her?
1
@Khayran And this right here is why Islam cant progress beyond the dark ages it was created in. When your religion is literally full of societal rules there is no room for societal growth or increased understanding beyond the time they were made in.
1
Your actually wrong - there is considerably more practicing Christians than Muslims. Its just that you dont see them as practicing because they dont attempt to live in the exact same way as the time there religion was created in - any one who believes in Jesus and the Trinity is a practicing Christian. Full stop. Christianity has never, not even in its inception been intended as a set of unchangeable societal laws and rules which cover all aspects of life. This is why they are able to progress so much and grow and the reason there societies have been so succesful. That you cant see them as practicing is a fundemental misunderstanding by you of Christianity and is born out of you seeing it thru an Islamic lens. Christianity isnt Islam - the New Testament (which is where Christianity gets its name) has virtually nothing in common with Islam at all. Realise this and you will see that they are in fact practicing Christians when seen thru a Christian lens. Peace out
1
@Khayran And this is the simple smug minded foolishness that has no place in the west. There being only one version of the Quran hardly makes it perfect when Muhammed himself took biblical stories and changed them hundreds of years after the fact (Christ not dying but having a body double who died lol, Abraham being in Mecca)
1
@rheasummer5806 Id say they are actually quite pushy in wanting the questioning of anything Islamic defined as Islamaphobia and racist and made illegal. At least those in congress are
1
@shafamaulida8532 Dude Ive got a guy here saying that the reason the Quran is perfect is because it corrects the "distorted" Bible. And to be fair to him - that is what Islam teaches. THAT is disrespectful AF. As long as Muslims are saying that Muhammed who lived 6 centuries after Christ knew his actual story better than was recorded in the Bible - which comes from very early sources who were actual close to Christ and from his own time - a claim which is laughable - they have no leg to stand on when talking about being disrespectful. Muhammed, who lived 6 centuries after Christs time, literally says Christ wasnt crucified but made his getaway while his body double was crucified - and he put that in his holy book and now its repeated by Muslims. That is the epitome of disrespect. How can you explain to other people that your religion actually knows the real events of others Holy Books (the Torah and Bible) because a guy 6 centuries later (or more for the Torah) said an angel told him them and then talk about being disrespectful?
1
@shafamaulida8532 Im sorry if your offended but you must see how offensive making a statement like the Muslim here above does, were he tries to claim the Quran is the perfect holy book that corrects the Bible and the Torah is? If you dont want to be called out on that kind of thing and have it questioned then keep it to yourself. Also if you do say something like that which will obviously be taken as rude by someone who is either Jewish or Christian you shouldnt be surprised when they're "mean" back
1
Hard to educate on what isn’t universally agreed on, especially when there’s many law schools that are conflicting/impractical around it. For instance - drunken or sex while drinking goes on everywhere and happens in bars every night and between couples and is generally between two people who are under the influence - yet some would say you can’t consent under the influence. Logically that would make a good half at least of all adults both perps and victims of multiple sex crimes. See how impractical that is? Also the idea of “enthusiastic consent” - like how enthusiastic? Do we need to be yelling out oh god yes every two secs lol? It’s not really definable in practical terms that can be applied in a uniform way legally so it’s hard to teach in a way that makes sense - because the concept itself doesn’t completely make sense
1