Likes: 
Faceplams: Gaining consent is the easiest thing in the world if the person you are asking actually wants to fuck you. If you are too immature to open your mouth and ask, you have no business trying to fuck anyone.
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
Gaining consent is the easiest thing in the world if the person you are asking actually wants to fuck you. If you are too immature to open your mouth and ask, you have no business trying to fuck anyone.
Flaccid Member
But but but if a girl chooses to be around me that must mean she wants to have sex, right?Originally Posted by Sarah K
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
Yeah, basically. The mere existence of women is just implied consent to so many folks.
Active Member
Jesus fucking christ. I can't believe I even need to write this.
1) She did not "leave her boyfriend behind". She asked him to come with, and was given the ultimatum "you can meet one of your favorite bands alone or you can not meet them at all". What 17 year old would be like "nah fuck it whatever, I'll stay with this guy instead"?
2) Again, 17 year old girl gets invited by mega-famous artist to see his tour bus - something that all of her friends in high school (remember, this is a fucking HIGH SCHOOL STUDENT we're talking about) will love to hear about the next day. If Marilyn Manson or Trent Reznor or whoever asked you on his bus, would you say no as a 17 year old boy? No? Well then why the fuck should she say no? Oh, right...we're blaming the victim here by insinuating that "going on the bus, she should have known what was going to happen". Fuck off with that shit.
3) I'm 100% implying that he might have still gone had she been able to meekly put out some sort of "no", but the fact that she was basically frozen and silent and unsure of what to do tells me that she was no consenting, so why didn't it tell Maynard the same thing?
4) "He had sex with a different woman every night". So do lots of guys on Tinder. But those women CONSENT to it. By your own phrasing, maybe he forced himself on some reluctant high school kid every night. That's supposed to make me feel BETTER about this?
Wow. Your username is startlingly apt.
@_@
This. Not everyone wants to go backstage to hook up. If a guy is given a pass, is he expected to put out, too?
I was nobody. Nothing.
i know i've said this before, but the "sorry, we're one pass short" bullshit: Type O Negative tried to do this with my girlfriend and her best friend at a Dallas show in 96.
Peter came and talked to us before the show started. It was really badass to meet him. Then, they sent us DRINKS. (we were sixteen.)
When the show was over, a heavy set woman (no shit) came and told us that Peter wanted us to come and hang out with him backstage because we were more "into it" than the rest of the crowd. But wouldn't you know it, they didn't have enough passes for us to go TOGETHER. In fact, oddly enough, GEE WILIKERS, they were one pass short! (Nevermind the fact that this venue was a fucking BAR that held MAYBE 1200 people sold out, which it wasn't, and I've never needed physical passes to go backstage at friends' shows at the same venue like, say, 97's or Edie Brickell. this seriously made me feel like the passes were an utter manipulation,) they had a great idea! Ladies first. the girls would go back for awhile and then i could go.
I knew what the fuck was going on and so did my girl's bff (who liked the idea,) but my GF was oblivious and told me i was stupid for thinking that there was anything sexual going on.
Thank GOD i was able to talk them out of going backstage. They were fucking SIXTEEN years old.
Last edited by elevenism; 06-27-2018 at 01:01 AM.
i'm too thin
Are you guys going to just keep arguing with points I didn't make based on how you think I feel? Like I get it that you guys spend a lot of time repeating this shit to dumbasses. I understand the feeling of making a point 10,000,000 times because you keep encountering the same argument over and over and over to the point that you can just copy and paste your standard response. But don't fall into the trap of assuming a person's whole identity just because they're saying something that can be seen as vaguely in line with what aforementioned dumbasses say. Generally I choose my words pretty carefully so if I was defending Maynard or thought her consent was implied or thought that "it was almost 20 years ago and not even rape so who cares", I would just say it.
Otherwise can we have a discussion where we don't immediately assume the absolute worst of the other based on assuming we know how the other person feels despite it being a direct contradiction of what they're saying?
I didn't say "she should have known what was going to happen." I didn't say "she should have said no." I didn't say "I don't see the point in getting enthusiastic consent." I didn't say "it wasn't rape." I gave reasons for why it's entirely possible he didn't realize what he was doing.
Maybe the issue here is that you guys don't realize that some of us can think "he didn't realize it was rape" and "it was rape" are both true. Saying the first doesn't mean somebody thinks "it wasn't rape."
It probably should have.3) I'm 100% implying that he might have still gone had she been able to meekly put out some sort of "no", but the fact that she was basically frozen and silent and unsure of what to do tells me that she was no consenting, so why didn't it tell Maynard the same thing?
Well the sentence you quoted was setting up the point being made in the sentence after it. ("He probably had sex with plenty of chicks who wanted to be doing it but also didn't really get too actively involved in the process.")4) "He had sex with a different woman every night". So do lots of guys on Tinder. But those women CONSENT to it. By your own phrasing, maybe he forced himself on some reluctant high school kid every night. That's supposed to make me feel BETTER about this?
So I'm not really going to defend a point I wasn't making and don't agree with. The entirety of my point was that there are different levels of severity to something like a personal crime and they should be responded to differently. Calling your wife a 'bitch' in a heated argument in 30 years and beating the shit out of her for 30 years are both 'abuse' but I can't imagine anybody would respond to them the same way. Is it seriously that backwards to say that the severity of a crime should inform the response?
Active Member
Ummm...
I don't see any of those things indicating consent.
1) As already stated: her boyfriend was not "left". He wasn't invited. She had to make a choice between meeting an idol or hanging out with the guy she'd spend the rest of the night with anyway. What that indicates is a desire to meet Maynard, not a desire to fuck Maynard. This should never be construed as consent.
2) That's an artist's home. So if your female friend comes over to your house / apartment, you're saying you would interpret that as consent to have sex with you?
3) The back lounge on a bus is just a place where people can watch a movie. Maybe other people were in the front lounge watching that TV. Maybe that one didn't have a working DVD player (trust me, lots of buses have broken crap on them). Maybe that DVR was the one that had his movies recorded on it. But that's moot, because
4) Unless she provided clear consent, there should be tornado sirens blaring in your head that putting your penis inside another person is not a welcome move.
So I get what you're saying. You hope your hero was too stupid to realize he was raping someone. But not one single thing you listed in his defense would do that because he still didn't have consent, and literally nothing that you listed should have possibly been taken as such by any rational and intelligent man. And this is Maynard we're talking about. He's goddamn intelligent.
Also, I agree with one thing you said: different crimes should be treated differently by severity. But in the analogy of "calling your wife a bitch once in 30 years" vs "beating her for 30 years", the one where "oops, I shoved my unprotected dick in you when you didn't want me to" falls on the lower scale along with calling someone a bad name once in three decades? Jesus man, what type of sexual assault is on the higher end of the spectrum then?
Flaccid Member
Imagine thinking that an adult male (who apparently has an IQ of 180 or whatever the Tool fan knuckledraggers believe) is too stupid to know if he’s raping someone. “I raped her by accident, judge!” is a bulletproof defense
(Unused symbol)
This is some gross shit.
jfc. No wonder women stay quiet for fucking decades.
i'm too thin
Once again, I didn't say they did. I said that it's not a completely insane, alien idea to imagine that somebody could interpret them that way.
Okay, great. I'm not Maynard. Those points need to be directed at him, not me. Once again, I wasn't explaining that I thought she gave consent. I was listing reasons why, on 99.99% of days, those actions happened to be indicative of consent. If you want to think MJK is a moron for interpreting that as consent, go ahead. But I think it's unfair to jump to the conclusion that he was actively, knowingly raping somebody based on the information available.1) As already stated: her boyfriend was not "left". He wasn't invited. She had to make a choice between meeting an idol or hanging out with the guy she'd spend the rest of the night with anyway. What that indicates is a desire to meet Maynard, not a desire to fuck Maynard. This should never be construed as consent.
2) That's an artist's home. So if your female friend comes over to your house / apartment, you're saying you would interpret that as consent to have sex with you?
3) The back lounge on a bus is just a place where people can watch a movie. Maybe other people were in the front lounge watching that TV. Maybe that one didn't have a working DVD player (trust me, lots of buses have broken crap on them). Maybe that DVR was the one that had his movies recorded on it. But that's moot, because
Okay, so we agree.4) Unless she provided clear consent, there should be tornado sirens blaring in your head that putting your penis inside another person is not a welcome move.
So we're allowed to factor in the guy's intelligence? Would this situation be less severe if the guy in question was a complete moron? If his intelligence plays a factor in how a resonse is formulated, then why can't social/cultural norms or personal experience?So I get what you're saying. You hope your hero was too stupid to realize he was raping someone. But not one single thing you listed in his defense would do that because he still didn't have consent, and literally nothing that you listed should have possibly been taken as such by any rational and intelligent man. And this is Maynard we're talking about. He's goddamn intelligent.
It sounds like you guys are saying "Okay, maybe he didn't realize it was rape because he could mayyyybe, possibly interpret that stuff as consent - if he was a moron." which is seriously only a hair's width away from my point of "Okay, maybe he didn't realize it was rape because he could mayyyybe, possibly interpret that stuff as consent - if he lived a life where, taking into account the very different social/cultural norms at the time, that same scenario probably did signify consent a thousand times before."
I can't tell if you're purposely misrepresenting what I said or what. Let's try that again but this time it's my actual point: "having sex with somebody you didn't realize didn't want it" should warrant a less severe response than "forcibly, violently raping somebody."But in the analogy of "calling your wife a bitch once in 30 years" vs "beating her for 30 years", the one where "oops, I shoved my unprotected dick in you when you didn't want me to" falls on the lower scale along with calling someone a bad name once in three decades? Jesus man, what type of sexual assault is on the higher end of the spectrum then?
I think I'm smarter than Maynard. I like the way he sings. That's where our relationship begins and ends. I think he's pretentious and don't take heed with anything he says as a *person. I don't care what his lyrics mean, I interpret lyrics in a way personal to me. The artist's intent doesn't factor into it.
Women don't report rape because I posting on a message board explaining that I believe some chick's story about being raped?
Christ, it's no wonder why so many impressionable younger people are taking up with the alt-right crowd lately. It's absolutely astounding what unabashed pricks you guys are being to somebody (who, in most other contexts, could be described as a relatively radical leftist) who agrees with you on literally almost every single detail and angle of this.
But boy, that one minor subdetail of a difference of opinion definitely means I'm a toxic, rape supporting, knuckle-dragging Maynard junkie who exemplifies the reason women stay quiet about rape. I'm sure glad we could all remain civil and mature for five minutes.
Last edited by Harry Seaward; 06-26-2018 at 11:58 PM. Reason: changed 'artist' to 'person'
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
Imagine being so entitled that you think you get to dictate people's responses to their personal trauma, and think that there are certain forms of rape that aren't as big of a deal as others.
Wheeeeew.
Dis-member
I don’t know if it’s 100% fact, somewhere in between, or if it didn’t happen at all. I do wanna hear what MJK has to say about it though before burning the guy at the stake though. It’s a new Twitter account and no one knows what happened yet (outside of two persons of course).
is he a bit odd? Yes. Does he come off as an asshole often? Yep. That doesn’t automatically make him a rapist because a Twitter account says so.
If it’s true then the guys career is over and deservedly so and then fuck him. If it’s not a lot of people on social media, and here, will have some apologizing to do.
Its ok to go have a gray area opinion on this at the moment. People just simply don’t know what happened.
(Unused symbol)
You've said it twice now. “Having sex with someone you didn’t realize didn’t want it”
For someone who who claims to be not supporting rape you sure as hell are repeating excuses why he probably accidentally (allegedly) raped.
Last edited by cdm; 06-26-2018 at 08:02 PM.
i'm too thin
Where the fuck did I say this woman should have acted differently in any way literally ever? Did I say "She should forgive Maynard?" Did I say "She should get over it?" Where is this shit coming from, are my messages being intercepted by a bot who changes them all to say the exact opposite of what I typed? I guess I'll chalk this specific example up to ambiguous phrasing on my end. I think the public's response should factor in the severity of the crime. I said absolutely nothing whatsoever about how I think this woman should have acted at the time or any time after.
But I guess if you want to be purposely obstinate and pretend that "different crimes have different severity" is the same thing as "certain forms of rape aren't as big of a deal as others" then I guess this is a dead end.
I might as well bow out of this conversation anyway since I'm not entirely sure how many more ways I can repeat this same thing only to be continually called a moron by people who can't seem to parse basic English sentences.
Here, I'll sum up the next several rounds of how the conversation would have went had it kept going:
Me: "I think [Y]."
You guys: "You seriously think [X]? Wow fucking moron"
Me: "Wait, what? I did not say [X] and I do not believe [X]. I'm trying to say [Y]."
You guys: "Fuck off, people who believe [X] are scum"
Fun.
Alt-Left Leaning Cunt
The first part of that comment was re: people saying what the victim "should" or "should not" do going forward. Not everything is about you.
The classifying different rapes was aimed at you, though.
Captain Rustleboots
I’ve never experienced sexual abuse of any kind so I am in no fucking place to ever tell someone who has experienced it how to act. I can’t even fathom how abuse like that could affect someone, and mother fuck anyone who thinks they should be putting forth any suggestions on how someone should come forth.
What the fuck guys.
Active Member
I think "he didn't realize it was rape" and it still being rape is a valid point. I feel like acknowledging that this shit is normalized if not even supported by society is an important part of these conversations if we want to enact change. Having sex with a woman who is non-responsive, but conscious, is historically super normalized... like it is SO normalized, and not contextualized as rape. We have to change the conversation to it is rape, and they have to account for that.
These conversations we have around "silence isn't consent" were NOT COMMON CONVERSATIONS 16 YEARS AGO. The survivor is even acknowledging that. None of that makes it excusable or acceptable, and it makes it essential that we hold Maynard accountable. And obviously it was still clearly wrong. Of course it was. But like, think of those studies where they ask men if they would rape someone but as long as they don't use the word "rape" men will often say they would.
We should place all of the blame on him. He should publicly account for his actions and attempt to make this right. Like, the dude had to physically undress her and position her into the missionary position because she wasn't moving. It was active rape. He may very well have thought it was "different" and that is exactly why him being held accountable is essential. It's why how he responds now will be so telling.
Last edited by playwithfire; 06-26-2018 at 10:36 PM.
Active Member
Do they?
I'm also surprised more shit hasn't come out about him, I think there's maybe some whispered stuff about them and there was this https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b0d4d3f723ca21
Last edited by playwithfire; 06-26-2018 at 10:41 PM.
Banned
Yeah I remember that story....They also got sued one time back in the day for sexual harassment at some MTV spring break thing as well.....The clock is ticking Anthony.....
Throbbing Member
"I thought she consented" is a defense in the minority of states where rape is a specific intent crime. However, in the majority of states, it appears to be a general intent crime, so if he was reckless in assuming she consented he would still be on the hook in those states. It's been a long time since I read criminal law though so could be mistaken. I am just glad I am not single now. Back when I was single, it sure would have seemed weird to me to verbally discuss consent. We just...got into it and proceeded with the doing the deed. The kissing and foreplay etc. was enough to imply consent...do people not do that anymore? If so, that's sort of sad for intimacy (then again I'm old and tinder culture was before my time).
Active Member
God damn...
As for this ...
"How much blame can we place on a guy in that position for interpreting a 17 year old girl leaving her boyfriend behind to come meet you, coming onto your tour bus, and getting in your bed as consent? I'm not saying it was consent or that she's to blame for not saying no, but from his point of view there's very little more consent one can give outside of just saying 'let's have sex.' So it seems like a dramatic overreaction to equate this in any way to forcible, active rape - which you're doing by implying that had she said 'no' it still would have kept going to the point where she'd need to physically fight back."
Having recently been a 36 year old adult male myself you just don't go trying to fuck 17 year old's. You just don't do it.
Active Member
Well like, how well you know someone informs how you approach that, right? I'm obviously not going "what do you like/what don't you like" before sex with people I've been sleeping with for years, but I'll absolutely ask a new partner that.
I think it's an emotional maturity thing. If someone asking "can I go down on you" is a boner killer like... I don't even know.
Throbbing Member
Guess it's hard for me to relate as I didn't have those discussions (even with a new partner) back in the late 80s/early 90s. I got married at 20, so I've been married longer than I have not been married, and didn't have a long single life before (and there was no tinder then). As I said, glad I am not single nowadays (sounds so difficult and risky)!
Active Member
I definitely think sometimes how like... we all are learning these collective lessons as a society and getting tools for interaction that previous generations might not have had. (For example, it's broadly understood that going "Hey, we need to talk later." to someone and giving them no other context is probably going to generate anxiety and likely not a good move, and did we collectively get that 30 years ago?)
I think it's "riskier" and more difficult in some ways and in others, it isn't. There's more accountability, but there's also more vocabulary and information available to process experiences that we used to not have the words or common understanding to address. Like, shitty upsetting confusing experiences that people wouldn't be able to parse as having been not their fault. Because people just didn't talk about it. Fwiw, I think once someone learns some basic stuff, it's pretty easy, but there's definitely a lot of education that needs to occur.
@_@
Eh, Tinder date rape is still a thing, unfortunately. Same ol’ game, different packaging. I would even venture to say that there’s even more pressure with Tinder to perform outright and bypass any semblance of dating or discourse— or receive unsolicited dick pix aplenty.
Stubby Member
The age gap, I think, is what makes the story the most damning for MJK. I could at least sorta appreciate the perspective of his actions existing in a murky gray area given the time period and some other factors if he had been some drugged out twenty four year old rockstar, but a thirty six year old man with a 17 year old in that situation, there is no excuse, a grown-ass reasonably smart dude is gonna know what he's doing is at the very least borderline rapey, and I'm not really up to stand up for someone who's willing to to do something they feel is borderline rapey.
Having said that, this being a story on news publications feels sideways to me too. There's just no evidence that this isn't some 4chan jackass, let alone an actual rape survivor. I'm not saying the story isn't true or saying the alleged survivor is wrong for sharing the story this way, just that as of now there is no evidence that the accuser is a real person, and I think that's a problem if there are major publications running the story. Ideally, a credible journalist would reach out to her and do some investigative work to assess the legitimacy of the story or at least confirm the identity of the accuser, then run an article with the findings (and the accuser's identity still anonymous). If they can do that, it becomes a big legitimate story, instead of a bunch of damaging clickbait about something that may or may not be true. Like how those Louis CK rumors were so easy to ignore for years because nobody credible would put their name on it, on top of a bunch of details being wrong.
Regardless of whether this happened or not, I think it's established beyond reasonable doubt that Maynard was at least a pretty big creep back in the day. I don't care how common it was, having your employees go and seek out young ladies to fuck you is skeevy as hell. Not to say that it makes you a bad person forever to partake in it, but it's something I'd hope a decent person would regret after getting out of that mindset.
Active Member
Okay, since I've been called out on this by multiple people: maybe I'm wrong about Tinder. I've never used it. I was under the impression that it was literally an app where both parties are basically going "yeah...I'd have sex with them" and only agree to meet up if that's what they're looking for. Perhaps I understood that wrong. My bad, y'all.
Throbbing Member
1. "We have to train men to think rape is unthinkable as cannibalism."
No. We have to train mankind to think rape is unthinkable. I'm sick of this shit.
Maybe, I know someone who's raped by a woman. Maybe that someone didn't get as much attention as he deserved.
I really despise this hatred, and usual hostility against men when it comes to this topic.
2. "It's not true. OK, so I'm just another guy on the internet, but I've had the privilege of getting backstage on more than a few separate occasions for both Tool & APC. I am somewhat well known taper, been to 103 Tool shows, and 50+ APC shows, 20+ Pusicfer shows. I've got the passes to prove it, I was even given one of the Maynard harem passes because they were out of the standard ones. "I also have had 2 female friends (age 20 & 23 at the time) pass muster and get to sleep with Maynard and have gotten all the details. One ended up being a repeat contact because she lived in LA and could participate with him there when off tour.
"1. First off, there is and was no blonde heavy set woman who acted as his handler for this. Women do receive special passes, but they were handed out from his all male security staff.
"2. The security staff checks IDs. If you are not of age, you do not get to go backstage. 17, though 'legal' in some states, does not make the cut. Full stop.
"3. Passes for Maynard are different than the normal backstage pass for the show. A couple examples I can think of (and one I own that I received personally when they were out of normal ones) has a collage of women in KISS makeup sucking dick or other sexual acts. An APC one had a picture of Maynard in Roman garb that said 'Have you serviced your gladiator today?' or something similar. There are no illusions about what you are there for.
"4. All backstage people are brought backstage to 1 or 2 rooms. Sometimes the Maynard groupies are brought to a separate room. It's never 1 woman alone. The smallest group I saw was 5 or 6 women, but could be up to 20. Maynard makes an appearance in the room, might make some chitchat, and then leaves. His security staff will then approach whichever 1 or 2 women that Maynard has selected for the night and tell them that Maynard would like them to come back to the bus or the hotel for the night.
"5. Both experiences recounted to me, from two women who do not know each other, Maynard was caring, slow and gentle. There was no pressure. He is interested in anal as you would assume, but did not with the one because she never had. Again, no pressure. This act ended up happening later when she was one of his regulars in LA.
"6. After the act, both women had nothing but good things to say about him and about the security staff (Making sure they were OK to leave the area and had some transportation as they left).
"So you take those 2 accounts, and also what I saw happen in general with the process other times backstage, make the accusers account incredibly hard to believe. For the guy down below in the thread who's girlfriend was weirded out for not letting her BF backstage with her, I hope you understand by now that Maynard does not and will not meet normal Tool fans. Never.
"Has he appeared at any of the Tool clinics? No. Has he ever appeared at any of the APC VIP events? No. I only met him once backstage and he was not thrilled with my concert total. Actually told me that I shouldn't see them that many times. The meeting only happened because I was in with a group of family for another person on the crew.
"I haven't been backstage since he's been married, so I don't know if his groupie whoring has continued. I don't think he should be demonized for this behavior. Yeah it sucks that he doesn't want to meet the casual fan to have them gush over his music, but it doesn't make me want to listen to them less."
3. What if Maynard didn't do it? What if she's telling a lie?
Then you guys are the offender. Everybody should be given the benefit of the doubt. This is a personal matter happened 17 years ago.
It would be hard for her to prove this happened. I know that.
It would be even harder for Maynard to disprove it.
I don't mean to offend anyone by writing this post. But if you are offended, I offer my apology.
But after reading some of the comments I felt I need to share my thought here too.
God is an American
Holy shit everything is awful
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote