Response to Flash Foxy & Outside Magazine Article

Antonio Caligiuri wrote: Okay but at any point were you actually scared for your safety? Or afraid that she might enter your house and overpower you and rape you?

I have guns in my house and I don't really worry about anything except being scared of heights. Females can buy guns as well girl I hike with alot always carries a gun with her when she hikes alone just encase.

If you haven't realized, VS is a mega-troll and purely commenting to get a rise out of you. Don't give him the courtesy of a response.

Viper, it's sad that you're willing to take your trolling beyond climbing to new social-issue heights.

This thread is really sad.

Personal responsibility no longer exist in this world it is always someone else's fault for when something happens.

Sorry but very little is ever completely not your fault. Everything that happens is connected in some way to what you did before.

Having some random person stop a car grab you and rape you is completely different than you choosing to go to a party, choosing to drink until you can't walk, and than getting raped by some other guy who can barely walk from being drunk.

If you can't see how those to cases of rape are different I don't have much else to say.

I don't support guys who think they are a girl going in female locker rooms / bathrooms but I am guessing you probably support those people too right? I honestly don't care if a female is in a guy's bathroom / locker room for alot of the reasons that have been pointed out, still don't think it is right

Do you promise that you don't have much else to say?

ClimbLikeAGirl wrote:If you haven't realized, VS is a mega-troll and purely commenting to get a rise out of you.

Yeah... unfortunately I don't think that's true

Andrew Gram wrote:Do you promise that you don't have much else to say?

If your IQ is to low to see a difference yea I guess I am wasting my time trying to explain anything to you.

No different than dropping a gun and it going off and killing someone vs breaking into a house to steal stuff and firing a gun to try to kill someone right? Those are the same thing.

Also love how anyone that doesn't agree with your point of view is a troll. I guess you can't find a logically argument against what I am saying so you say troll.

Still waiting for a counter-argument.

Dan Austin wrote: Yeah... unfortunately I don't think that's true

I can only hope based off of similar diatribes on other threads. If he is for real, he probably supports Drumpf.

ClimbLikeAGirl wrote: I can only hope based off of similar diatribes on other threads. If he is for real, he probably supports Drumpf.

I do not i think he is an idiot, I also think hillary is just as bad as him.

A certain south park episode comes to mind that is our election this year.

I think the key word in this whole issue is "unwanted" advances. What makes certain advances wanted and some not?

My question is whether women the world over actually want to be seen non-sexually - do you really want men to never look at you, hit on you, or ask you out? Because I think that's the extension of what you're asking. You can't expect flirtation to always be perfect - with the good there will always be the bad, the awkward with the suave, the creepy with the attractive. There will always be those who do it well and those who don't, and isn't that the entire point of the whole mating game in terms of human evolution and natural selection?

women brag all the time about that time they were hit on at the grocery store, or picked up at the airport, or whatever. I'm sure that for each of those great experiences they also have many uncomfortable/awkward/creepy ones, and I don't think you get any of the former without some of the latter.

Also, it seems many assumptions are being made so I need to clarify that this NOT an endorsement for Trump

Dan Austin wrote: But don't worry ladies, Daniel Evans doesn't feel like there's a problem with sexism in the climbing community! ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Could you please show me where I said that? I've read it multiple times and can't seem to to find it. Seems like you are just reading what you want to hear.

ViperScale wrote: If your IQ is to low to see a difference yea I guess I am wasting my time trying to explain anything to you. No different than dropping a gun and it going off and killing someone vs breaking into a house to steal stuff and firing a gun to try to kill someone right? Those are the same thing.

That is a stupid false equivalence. You can't accidentally rape someone. No matter how drunk you are, there is still intent and a decision made to rape someone. I've been really drunk around really drunk women, and have never raped anyone. I've been really drunk and chosen not to drive a car too. Getting drunk is not an excuse for committing crimes, period.

Andrew Gram wrote: That is a stupid false equivalence. You can't accidentally rape someone. No matter how drunk you are, there is still intent and a decision made to rape someone. I've been really drunk around really drunk women, and have never raped anyone. I've been really drunk and chosen not to drive a car too. Getting drunk is not an excuse for committing crimes, period.

So a guy can't get drunk and have sex with someone without realizing it?

A girl can lose her ability to consent because she got drunk but a guy can't lose his ability to consent because he got drunk????

You do realize this is what you are saying right????????

PS: Thanks for posting support for my argument here. (This does exclude cases when a girl is completely blacked (that would be 100% rape) because it is harder to rape a guy who is passed out vs a girl who is passed out for obvious reasons, at least when you are talking about a guy and girl relationship)

I hit post limit, but you can't have it both ways you are saying you have never been drunk and noone can get drunk to the point that they could rape someone. Yet at the same time you are saying you can get drunk and lose the ability to consent. However we are not talking about people being passed out, being passed out and being to drunk to consent are 2 completely different things.

I am saying both a guy and girl can both be drunk and have sex and neither one consented... does that mean they both rapped each other at the same time? I really want to see that case in court. This is the case where normally a guy is going to get charged with rape over a girl just because the way things are. This is also where I say they are probably both at fault for putting themself into the situation where they could both rape each other at the same time.

No, that is absolutely not what i am saying.

Yes, when you get drunk you can lose the ability to consent, and this applies to both men and women - men can also be the victims of rape. What you don't get is the ability to force yourself on someone.

I am quite sure that if you got drunk, passed out, and then were sexually assaulted by a man that you would consider that rape.

Andrew Gram wrote:No, that is absolutely not what i am saying. Yes, when you get drunk you can lose the ability to consent, and this applies to both men and women - men can also be the victims of rape.

Wasn't there a thread over on the Taco about a simul-raping accident?

ClimbLikeAGirl wrote: I can only hope based off of similar diatribes on other threads. If he is for real, he probably supports Drumpf.

Let me guess, you think anyone that doesn't support Hillary is sexist....I mean what other conclusion could you have? And racist if they didn't support Obama previously.

Eric Carlos wrote: Let me guess, you think anyone that doesn't support Hillary is sexist....I mean what other conclusion could you have? And racist if they didn't support Obama previously.

Never said a word about any of that. But I sure do love having men tell me what I mean though...

If you can't tell what a racist, sexist a-hole Trump is, then I can't help you.

Anyone find it at least a little funny that the "author" or website name or whatever it is, is called foxy?

fox·y
ˈfäksē/Submit
adjective
resembling or likened to a fox.
"a terrier with a foxy expression"
informal
(chiefly of a woman) sexually attractive.

ViperScale said: "Personal responsibility no longer exist in this world it is always someone else's fault for when something happens."

ViperScale has unwittingly stumbled on a deep, painful irony that's worth paying attention to. People in positions of power and influence, not just online forum posters, have routinely trotted out this personal responsibility argument to justify blaming women who are sexually assaulted, or blaming young black men who are extrajudically executed by the police (or in this case, justifying blaming both!). It takes either ignorance, an astonishing lack of empathy, a despicable politics of identity, or all of the above to use your priveleged position to tell the world you have no personal responsibility for the many forms of systemic injustice we still allow in our democratic society, while at the same time blaming the people who are subjected to it. Why is this such a seductive message, so blindingly enticing to so many?

ClimbLikeAGirl wrote: sexist a-hole Trump is, then I can't help you.

Bill Clinton has multiple rape allegations.
Bill Clinton is a known sexual harasser.
Bill Clinton is a known adulterer.
Bill Clinton flew to an island multiple times with a friend who keeps underage girls there.

Hillary Clinton stands by Bill

I can't help you.