According to mrsamsa and company, the big disagreement between trp and tbp is not actually that one is pro-rape, it's that neither group agrees on what should be considered rape.

Mrsamsa first insists that if one party is drunk and the other is not, then it must be rape because lack of consent:

What if one person is sober and the other is below the legal BAC limit and consents? If one person is sober and the other is significantly impaired by alcohol, then it is undeniably rape.

However when confronted with the idea that both parties could be drunk (i.e. neither could legally consent) the definition of rape hinges on whether there's a victim. His very shaky and completely subjective determination? Whomever feels bad.

Rape requires a victim, so if one (or more) of the parties involved felt violated and they were at a level of drunkenness that makes it impossible to consent, then yes they were both raped.

This is the most absurd extrapolation on these principles, because it's neither functional, nor does it observe the intention of rape-law, which is to protect one's bodily autonomy. As it seems, two consenting adults who are drunk can "both" simultaneously rape eachother, despite having wanted it. Both victims.

Ah, but one has to be unhappy.

Does that not set the precedent that in order to avoid future rape accusations, all a man has to do it announce the next morning he wasn't happy?

Of course, in mrsamsa's world, this ends up getting himself a rape charge as well. Because if you're raped while you're drunk by a drunk person, by mrsamsa's definition, they were both raped.

I think that by mrsamsa's definitions, rape charges will be unfairly levied against men because men are expected to be the one pursuing sex, drunk or not. Because of this, a seemingly "fair" law that requires both parties to be sober will unevenly affect men more, as it puts the sole responsibility unto men to determine both parties state of mind, something that isn't entirely possible or feasible in all scenarios.

According to this crazy group of ideas, a drunk woman can rape a sober man, and by mrsamsa's rules, he's the rapist!

Ultimately, there has been zero agreement here that these things should even be considered rape. Whereas the men of red pill are apparently taking the position that women should be held as responsible as men have been held, blue pillers are setting up a legal minefield in which most interactions are a risk for men, and almost zero risk for women in any potential scenario.

Therefore, the levy of the accusation that red pillers are pro-rape, or endorse rape, should be completely banned from this subreddit because this accusation is nothing more than an attack, a conclusion that only a handful of people could arrive at, because nobody here agrees on this definition.

It is clear that nobody participating here thinks that they should have sex against somebody's will. Blue pillers are clearly trying to redefine "against their will" as anything that was persuasive or anything near alcohol no matter who the aggressor was.

Sorry it wasn't a much of a question, but I honestly don't see a debate here, just people yelling at eachother. I guess my question is: can we outlaw this stupid rapist insult once and for all?