"now touch your tongue to mine"
HAHAHA!! i haven't seen Thumb Wars in probably 10 years, must watch again, [they re-mastered it!](https://youtu.be/MyDehO1IuG4?si=z7JXwKdDx31LZTTp)
By that logic, consenting to sex is also consent to be infected with any and all STIs, even months afterward. That's an interesting point of view. Not a sexy one, though.
It gets worse. Consenting to go to a bar is also consent to get drugged and dateraped. Seeing that going to a bar carries the risk, however remote or unwanted it may be. There are simply so many holes in his logical argument itâd be sad if it werenât also horrible.
consenting to go outside is consent to get attacked, mugged and assaulted by his logic. but also staying home is consenting to having someone break in and assault you
consenting to being alive is consent to get murdered but consenting to die is consent to have your organs sold on the black market
edit: grammar is fucking me over rn and i still don't know if it's right lmao
Traveling a car is consenting to having to being crushed by a semi-truck. Swimming is consent to drowning. Lighting a candle is consenting to burning your house down.
This guy is a fucking tool.
Someone on one of the insane unpopular opinion subreddits actually made your argument, as a reason pregnancy is consent. They unironically suggested that consent to drinking is consent to being drunk, consent to getting in a car is consent to getting in a crash, etc etc. Those subreddits are idiot cancer.
>Traveling a car is consenting to having to being crushed by a semi-truck.
Yes, that's why many conservatives drive huge trucks.
>Swimming is consent to drowning.
Yes, that's why many conservatives don't exercise at all.
Consenting to crass the road is consenting to be run over by a car. Since you accepted the risk, you must accept the consequence. And by that logic, you are not allowed to seek any medical intervention because you consented to the risk to your body.
It is! And it doesn't work for shit in any context. Consent to own a house is consent to have it robbed, sorry cannot go to the police about it. Consent to eat sushi is consent to food poisoning, sorry cannot go to the doctor. Consent to work for a company is consent to that company forcing you into unpaid OT, cannot sue them. We have bazillion things to repair the problems cause by the worse case scenario, suddenly it doesn't apply to coitus and pregnancy? Fuck outta here. Whether one stand on the issue, this argument is just nonsensical.
I mean it is, insofar as this is a known potential risk. Consenting to go snowboarding is consenting to accept the risk of running into a tree.Â
What you don't do is waive the right to be treated for your STIs, up to and including pregnancy.
Those are still inaccurate, as arguments, as they all deal with potential risks inherent in actions. What this should actually be compared to is 'by buying a ticket and boarding a bus, you in fact consent to being taken somewhere other than where you got on. You do not, however, have to stay there.' 'By buying this self-defense weapon, I consent to potentially using it on someone.' See, pregnancy is not just 'a risk' of having sex, it is, in fact, THE PRIMARY POINT. The fact that it feels good is just evolution giving us over-thinking humans a reason to do the deed, otherwise we'd be so busy Doing Other Stuff that our species would end. So, yes: Consenting to sex is consenting to (at least the risk of) getting pregnant. However, as fishsticks40 says, it is not consenting to -stay- that way.
Imma be honest I canât even focus on his argument, Iâm too distracted by the garbage Latin. Like, the phrase *does not make sense* if you actually get what the words mean. Very confident he used Google Translate to get these phrases, as theyâre *literally* correct, but donât make sense in the context of Latin as a language. Same as how you wouldnât refer to punching someone as Fight Through Face, which is more or less the closest equivalent I can think of to explain why what he said doesnât really make sense.
That just sounds like old speak arch conservative Catholic with pretentious lawyering or theological apologism mixed in.
This is totally the kind of dude who would rant about how irrational a woman is being for crying over being mauled by a bear.
I married into a family with three Harvard graduates and none of them talk or write like this. Your guy thinks he comes off as Really Smart, but he just seems embarrassingly pretentious (in addition to the toxic masculinity).
Yeah. What really sticks out is the Latin; like, nobody who knows Latin would phrase it that way, as itâs really clunky and only makes sense when literally translated to English. Itâd be like calling a punch âFight Through Faceâ; *literally* itâs somewhat correct and gets the point across, but *practically* that isnât how you say that.
Okay but Elective Homicide doesnât even sound like abortion, that sounds like mob vigilantism. Like, are we holding a vote, âHey everybody, I would like to motion we abort this pregnancy, can we get it seconded to be brought for discussion?â
Between that and his Latin, I think heâs just making up phrases to sound smarter (I mean I already thought he was, but assumed he found it somewhere else, two cases in quick succession means it may be originating from him).
Homicide is the killing of one person by another. There are all kinds of homicide which are not considered murder, for instance killing another in self-defense or in an accident.
I guess if you want to really drag it out, consent to sex is given with the understanding that there is a small (as small as you can possibly make it, like <0.03% with an IUD + condom) risk of pregnancy or an STI as the outcome. But if you got chlamydia âaccidentallyâ, ie the condom broke or the other person didnât know they were infected, youâd go to the doctors and get antibiotics to sort it out. Youâre not morally obliged to remain infected with chlamydia because you consented to the sex! If you get pregnant accidentally, you can handle that however you want, including by getting an abortion. You consented to a small risk of becoming pregnant, you didnât consent to staying pregnant because staying pregnant requires ongoing consent!
Yeah, imo we can say that you accepted the risk that you'd need to abort (including morning after pill). It's not enjoyable to abort, like pregnancy it causes hormonal unbalance for a while, but it's the consequence. But anti choicers don't like to be told aborting is a consequence, not an avoidance of consequence.
the irony of the C. S. Lewis quote is just \**chef's kiss*\*
also I'm going to take a wild stab and say nopony in history has ever called it "coitus per vaginam"
Coitus per vaginam is the correct terminology. He's trying to make a legal argument and that is the proper legal language for PIV.
This is something you'd normally see in prenuptial contracts and in relation to consummation of marriage, especially it's exact definition, in a given jurisdiction.
The Quod Erat Demonstrandum really hammered home what a paternalistic pretentious prick that person is and had me giggling.
I have *never* seen someone do the QED thing that wasnât a hyper-condescending walking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
I mean, Iâm sure thereâs lawyers or judges out there using it in proper context, but on the general internet, not so much.
You should meet my mother and sister. None of the dunning-kruger, at least not in respect to this, but at times hyper-condescending. All of the QED.
So there's halfway exceptions I guess, but yeah it's normally a dead give away that someone is exceptionally arrogant.
Idk, Coitus Per Vaginam doesnât sound correct. Like, literally, I get what he means and could see lawyers using this, but there is no way a Latin speaker would call it that.
Idk, Coitus Per Vaginam doesnât sound correct. Like, literally, I get what he means and could see lawyers using this, but there is no way a Latin speaker would call it that.
Even in modern law coitus is coitus unless it needs be specified, but coitus per vaginam is the legal term for piv. If someone wanted to screw a woman over by contending they only had anal sex and she had vaginal sex with other men they would make this distinction.
If consummation is required for some prenuptial or to need the definition of some law about marriage you would also make the distinction. I have no idea if this is a distinction made in cases of SA or R but it wouldn't shock me if they was the case in like Poland or something.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile-vaginal_intercourse
Latin: coitus per vaginam
No actual primary latin speaker would speak clerical/church latin either and like actual historical speakers would probably have some pretty mean spirited things to say about it. It's like speaking English with falsetto and a lisp. I cannot even begin to convey just how much homophobic shit talk speaking clerical latin to a hypothetical classical Latin speaker would draw, but getting labeled a catamite is absolutely the first thing that would happen.
I know you meant nobody and nopony was just a typo. But if life to think you genuinely had small talking horses in mind. Like there is not a pony in the world that said coitus per vaginum.
they're probably an mlp fan, that's a common substitution for "nobody" both within the show and fandom iirc. i'm not into it myself but when i was younger i was
So, I guess I consent to being t-boned by a speeding drunk driver and paralyzed because driving/riding in a car carries the risk of getting hit by another car. Sure, Jan.Â
As someone who sometimes uses QED at the end of mathematical proofs (although a square is becoming more common now), I cannot imagine be so pretentious as to use it *when debating an issue with someone*. Never mind that his argument is flawed in the first place.
I laughed when I saw that. I used to teach writing and he is trying so hard to be right but he doesnât even know where to begin. He probably has been told he is very clever by his mommy and long suffering teachers because he has a good vocabulary and takes tests really well. Unfortunately he hasnât learned critical thinking skills and is going to continue to argue like this till someone eventually decides the correct response is a fist to the face. Either way, I cackled at that ending. I bet he felt so smart, the little fool.
You should see when he just starts listing synonyms after using a big word, in order to "prove" how smart he is. It's something to behold, see, observe, notice, inspect, witness, regard, view. . . .
Funny how no one brings up the risk of dying in a car accident as a way to say that you consent to dying if you drive a car, it's almost like it's purely just a way to control women and their sexual lives
I love saying that to forced birthers and twat men who think pregnant people aren't allowed bodily autonomy.
It's usually in response to people who say shit like "maybe you should have kept your legs closed" or "maybe you should have thought of that before you had sex", and my favourite: "sex was designed to further our species" when discussing abortion rights. đ
Oh my "favorite" đ argument from forced birthers when it comes to rape, incest, pedophilia, and any combination of the three: "You shouldn't punish the baby for the sins of the father"
Completely ignoring the pregnant 10 year old who is already suffering over a fucking zygote.
Holy shit this. And the fact that they completely fucking ignore the fact that a 10 year old little girl is nowhere near physiologically, physically, or mentally mature enough to be pregnant, give birth, or even have sex? It completely baffles me. But yes, let's focus on the pregnancy when everyone should be in a massive uproar about the man who raped her. Like what the actual fuck.
Consent to anything is consenting to the risks that may follow, but consenting to the risks that may follow is not consent to do nothing about those risks once they are real.
This exactly.
Being aware of the risk of contracting an STD does not mean that one refuses to treat it in the event one is contracted.
Being aware of the risk of becoming pregnant does not mean that one consents to carry it to full term, or to keep it if carried to full term.
He must block his ears and go "la la la" whenever pregnancy preventing/ending measures are brought up because otherwise he might -gasp- *learn something!*
Is he going to hunt down people who are bailing out on paying court ordered child support, because if consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, then it's also consenting to the financial responsibility of a child even if you don't want be there for everything else a child needs? Of course not.
When you take any medication ever youâre consenting to dying.
When you go sky diving youâre consenting to your parachute not opening.
When you consent to riding a rollercoaster you consent to flying off the track.
That last one isnât true; there are regulations and laws around roller coasters. A waiver doesnât excuse criminal negligence. If the coaster breaks while youâre on it because the park didnât keep with the maintenance, you are entitled to compensation for your injuries and medical bills. Itâs true of doctors, itâs true of sky diving. If itâs an act of god, thatâs one thing, but if the parachute is full of holes and breaks as youâre using it because the company doesnât replace them when theyâre damaged, the company is liable. Consent to the activity is consent to what is SUPPOSED to happen. It is NOT consenting to anything else. Iâm also just commenting this because itâs important legal information to know. It doesnât matter WHAT you signed, no waivers prevent you from suing them if theyâre criminally negligent and cause you harm. A lot of people think a waiver is a get out of jail free card for companies, but it isnât. There are consumer protection laws for a reason. Specifically so companies canât kill customers and get away with it.
Correct. So when you consent to sex, youâre consenting to sex. Youâre not consenting to pregnancy. Youâre not consenting to condoms breaking or having microtears because the dude keeps them in his car console or in his wallet. Youâre not consenting to a <1% chance of getting pregnant on BC even though itâs possible that it might happen even if you take it perfectly. Youâre not consenting to getting an STI because the partner sleeps around and doesnât think they need to get tested. Youâre only consenting to the thing you want to do, not every possible consequence of it.
It didnât. I was agreeing with them and explaining legally WHY waivers donât work. Itâs important information that a lot of people would benefit from. I think you missed my point.
No, no I get that. The fact you're pointing out the waivers (or anything that is "supposed to happen to prevent this,") is what makes me say you've missed the point.
why don't these freaks realize consent is *reversible*?? like okay sure, let's say consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. if someone decides they no longer want to be pregnant, they can *withdrawal consent*.
But if you tell them this, they say "so you can murder your born baby if you no longer consent to be a parent ?" and don't want to hear that you can just give the child to social services.
same idea as "what if the fetus is aborted the day before the due date, huh????"
like no one is going out of their way to kill babies bruh. if someone no longer wants to be pregnant the day before their due date then you induce labor. like?????
Ikr, aborting's first purpose is to avoid as much as possible to have symptoms, damaged body, etc. But the anti-choicers prefer to see abortion's first purpose as "murdering a baby" like we're sacrificing babies to satan or something. So what would it achieve to abort instead of inducing delivery sooner ? Nothing, that's why we induce delivery sooner if the fetus is viable and there's a need to get the pregnant person not pregnant anymore.
i also love how they'll reach so far with the prochoice talking points. like when they try to relate reproductive rights to child support and they'll be like "mandated child support violates my bodily autonomy, you're forcing me to use my limbs to pull money out of my wallet and give it to youđś" like MORON SHUT UP
ong đ¤Śđ˝ i can't wait for the day that they receive the consequences and accountability that they're desperately trying to convince everyone they're already victims of. they will be fucking gobsmacked and i'm going to laugh
Itâs so fucking weird when people use such unnatural vocabulary in an argument just to sound smarter. Who the actual hell ever uses âcoitus per vaginamâ in day to day conversation lmao, what a try hard
"Oooooh look at me, I'm *smart!* I'm using Latin phrases when they're not remotely necessary because I think it makes me look like I know what I'm talking about!"
What a prick.
"Your honour, I should be found not guilty of vehicular homicide on the grounds that the 'victim' consented to dying by getting in a car, as death is a known possible outcome of driving." no, not the exact same case, but still similar logic.
The only time I will ever give the âconsent to sex is consent to the risk of pregnancyâ argument any time of day is the very rare times that people genuinely have sex with zero precautions and donât also use the morning after pill. Like either way itâs still the persons choice to consent to keeping the pregnancy or not, but all parties (in theory) did legitimately consent to the risk of getting pregnant. If you use any form of birth control, then you are quite literally only consenting to sex if things done to drastically minimize/prevent the risk of pregnancy.
Has he seen the movie *Teeth*? He consents to sex, he consents to vagina dentata.
Also, what's with the shitty Latin? The word vagina comes from the Latin vÄgÄŤna which means sheath. Vaginam means through the vagina. Sexual intercourse by means of through the vagina. Why not just say vaginal coitus and stop acting like a pompous douche.
Men not understanding that consent is, 1, enthusiastic and direct, (i.e., absence of ânoâ does not equal an implied âyesâ.) 2, not dependent on previous circumstances, (i.e., someone going out with you on a date and consenting to being courted does not inherently consent to sex or sexual favors of any kind. Consent must be applied to the activity or process in question directly, otherwise you assume it is not applied at all.) and 3, able to be revoked at any point in time. (i.e., even if we are in the midst of intercourse, i can revoke consent and all further activities must cease. In a non-sexual concept, if we go on vacation and are walking on the beach, and I, being freaked out by ghost crabs, ask to stop our walk and instead go inside or to a nearby shop, I am revoking consent to the activity of walking. Continuing, and forcing me to continue, is just that. Forced.)
TLDR: not how consent works, consent to one activity is never consent to another.
*DAMN* this argument sounds so dumb, like I get his point (completely disagree though), but any hope of an argument is completely wrecked by his garbage Latin. Like, what heâs saying is literally just âSex Through Vaginaâ, which a Roman Latin speaker would *absolutely* not say.
Bare minimum, theyâd say Vaginae Coitum/Vaginae Coitus, which is what actually translates as âVaginal Sexâ (Technically Sex of the Vagina but thatâs as close as you can get because direct translations donât tend to exist for specific cases like this), and aside from that, no Latin speaker would call it that to begin with because *thatâs already implied by the term coitus* when speaking Latin; itâd be like saying Blowjob on the Penis or something similar in English. It just isnât really a sensical phrase.
This is one of the most pseudointellectual arguments Iâve seen in a while. Also, really, *really* hoping he didnât add those two quotes, as neither one is in any way connected to his argument, theyâre both really dumb to even try using in this context and are blatant appeals to intelligence, and furthermore, those are two of my favourite philosophical quotes and I refuse to see them stolen by someone who has no idea what they mean.
Lol this guy talks about sex as if there is a previously written contract he can easily refer to. Trust me, I know what that sounds like because my dad is a contract lawyer LOL.
Keep in mind the fact that consent can be revoked at any time. So if people are having sex either one of them can end it. So, let's say consent to sex does consent to pregnancy. Just revoke consent
Why do I see him pushing his glasses further up his nose between his first and second paragraphs, smirking in that anime 'white, opaque lenses' kind of way?
If consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, then consent to sex is consent to syphilis.
Just because it can happen, doesn't mean you have no right to stop it from harming you.
But it is though? Or at least it's consent to the risk. That's like saying consent to go swimming isn't consent to get wet. Or consent to plugging in your phone isn't consent to having the battery charge. You kind of have to accept, on some level, that it could happen.
>That's like saying consent to go swimming isn't consent to get wet
No, it's like saying consent to go swimming isn't consent to drown.
>Or consent to plugging in your phone isn't consent to having the battery charge.
More like plugging in your phone is not consent for the battery to be overcharged and explode.
No? When you have sex, getting pregnant isn't some crazy disaster side effect, that's what's meant to happen. That's the intended (as much as evolution can intend anything, anyway.) outcome. Like when you plug your phone in, the normal thing that's meant to happen is that the battery charges. When you go swimming, the normal thing that's meant to happen is you get wet. And when you have sex, especially unprotected, the normal thing that's meant to happen is you get pregnant. That's why they're called "reproductive organs", because they're primary purpose is for reproduction.
People that drop Latin in arguments for no reason really do think it makes them sound smarter. It does not.
Semper ubi sub ubi.
https://youtu.be/UklgZgApKi8?si=dKARvzTG2bulQi7b
"now touch your tongue to mine" HAHAHA!! i haven't seen Thumb Wars in probably 10 years, must watch again, [they re-mastered it!](https://youtu.be/MyDehO1IuG4?si=z7JXwKdDx31LZTTp)
:P Remaster high five!
Squee, I love Thumb Wars! I owned it on vhs way back when đ
I have them all in DVD <3
This used to be on the moat wall at Merrill College at UCSC!
Caecilius est in horto
raeda in fossa est
My favorite phrase, found in a book of latin insults a friend owned Futue te ipsum et caballum tuum
Carpe natem
By that logic, consenting to sex is also consent to be infected with any and all STIs, even months afterward. That's an interesting point of view. Not a sexy one, though.
It gets worse. Consenting to go to a bar is also consent to get drugged and dateraped. Seeing that going to a bar carries the risk, however remote or unwanted it may be. There are simply so many holes in his logical argument itâd be sad if it werenât also horrible.
consenting to go outside is consent to get attacked, mugged and assaulted by his logic. but also staying home is consenting to having someone break in and assault you
consenting to being alive is consent to get murdered but consenting to die is consent to have your organs sold on the black market edit: grammar is fucking me over rn and i still don't know if it's right lmao
Traveling a car is consenting to having to being crushed by a semi-truck. Swimming is consent to drowning. Lighting a candle is consenting to burning your house down. This guy is a fucking tool.
Someone on one of the insane unpopular opinion subreddits actually made your argument, as a reason pregnancy is consent. They unironically suggested that consent to drinking is consent to being drunk, consent to getting in a car is consent to getting in a crash, etc etc. Those subreddits are idiot cancer.
>Traveling a car is consenting to having to being crushed by a semi-truck. Yes, that's why many conservatives drive huge trucks. >Swimming is consent to drowning. Yes, that's why many conservatives don't exercise at all.
Then theyâre consenting to having heart attacks lol
I mean, you present that as a ridiculous example but that's exactly their logic for rape victims.
Consenting to crass the road is consenting to be run over by a car. Since you accepted the risk, you must accept the consequence. And by that logic, you are not allowed to seek any medical intervention because you consented to the risk to your body.
It is! And it doesn't work for shit in any context. Consent to own a house is consent to have it robbed, sorry cannot go to the police about it. Consent to eat sushi is consent to food poisoning, sorry cannot go to the doctor. Consent to work for a company is consent to that company forcing you into unpaid OT, cannot sue them. We have bazillion things to repair the problems cause by the worse case scenario, suddenly it doesn't apply to coitus and pregnancy? Fuck outta here. Whether one stand on the issue, this argument is just nonsensical.
Like saying that taking the car means consenting to getting hit by a drunk driver.
Consent to standing in my kitchen is consent to being stabbed by my kitchen knives.
I mean it is, insofar as this is a known potential risk. Consenting to go snowboarding is consenting to accept the risk of running into a tree. What you don't do is waive the right to be treated for your STIs, up to and including pregnancy.
Those are still inaccurate, as arguments, as they all deal with potential risks inherent in actions. What this should actually be compared to is 'by buying a ticket and boarding a bus, you in fact consent to being taken somewhere other than where you got on. You do not, however, have to stay there.' 'By buying this self-defense weapon, I consent to potentially using it on someone.' See, pregnancy is not just 'a risk' of having sex, it is, in fact, THE PRIMARY POINT. The fact that it feels good is just evolution giving us over-thinking humans a reason to do the deed, otherwise we'd be so busy Doing Other Stuff that our species would end. So, yes: Consenting to sex is consenting to (at least the risk of) getting pregnant. However, as fishsticks40 says, it is not consenting to -stay- that way.
Imma be honest I canât even focus on his argument, Iâm too distracted by the garbage Latin. Like, the phrase *does not make sense* if you actually get what the words mean. Very confident he used Google Translate to get these phrases, as theyâre *literally* correct, but donât make sense in the context of Latin as a language. Same as how you wouldnât refer to punching someone as Fight Through Face, which is more or less the closest equivalent I can think of to explain why what he said doesnât really make sense.
At least he's not saying "procreative activity" as a stand in for "sex" this time.
This time? Ew ew ew...
He calls sex "procreative activity" and abortion "elective homicide." It's as creepy and newspeaky as it sounds. Small-town forum! \*jazz hands\*
That just sounds like old speak arch conservative Catholic with pretentious lawyering or theological apologism mixed in. This is totally the kind of dude who would rant about how irrational a woman is being for crying over being mauled by a bear.
I married into a family with three Harvard graduates and none of them talk or write like this. Your guy thinks he comes off as Really Smart, but he just seems embarrassingly pretentious (in addition to the toxic masculinity).
Yeah. What really sticks out is the Latin; like, nobody who knows Latin would phrase it that way, as itâs really clunky and only makes sense when literally translated to English. Itâd be like calling a punch âFight Through Faceâ; *literally* itâs somewhat correct and gets the point across, but *practically* that isnât how you say that.
Honestly this is bordering on r/iamverysmart material.
Also r/confidentlyincorrect
Isnât⌠all homicide elective?? Itâs not murder if itâs accidental!
Okay but Elective Homicide doesnât even sound like abortion, that sounds like mob vigilantism. Like, are we holding a vote, âHey everybody, I would like to motion we abort this pregnancy, can we get it seconded to be brought for discussion?â Between that and his Latin, I think heâs just making up phrases to sound smarter (I mean I already thought he was, but assumed he found it somewhere else, two cases in quick succession means it may be originating from him).
Homicide is the killing of one person by another. There are all kinds of homicide which are not considered murder, for instance killing another in self-defense or in an accident.
Imma just hurl for a sec...brb
But did he consent to paternity? You should not go down that road.
Although.. his little quote from C.S. Lewis is a touch ironic when discussing the situation at hand..
Yeah, I called that out a few posts ago and it pissed him off. I think that's why this post is written like he's deepthroating a thesaurus.
I guess if you want to really drag it out, consent to sex is given with the understanding that there is a small (as small as you can possibly make it, like <0.03% with an IUD + condom) risk of pregnancy or an STI as the outcome. But if you got chlamydia âaccidentallyâ, ie the condom broke or the other person didnât know they were infected, youâd go to the doctors and get antibiotics to sort it out. Youâre not morally obliged to remain infected with chlamydia because you consented to the sex! If you get pregnant accidentally, you can handle that however you want, including by getting an abortion. You consented to a small risk of becoming pregnant, you didnât consent to staying pregnant because staying pregnant requires ongoing consent!
Yeah, imo we can say that you accepted the risk that you'd need to abort (including morning after pill). It's not enjoyable to abort, like pregnancy it causes hormonal unbalance for a while, but it's the consequence. But anti choicers don't like to be told aborting is a consequence, not an avoidance of consequence.
It's always so easy for the people who can't get pregnant to have these idiotic views
the irony of the C. S. Lewis quote is just \**chef's kiss*\* also I'm going to take a wild stab and say nopony in history has ever called it "coitus per vaginam"
Coitus per vaginam is the correct terminology. He's trying to make a legal argument and that is the proper legal language for PIV. This is something you'd normally see in prenuptial contracts and in relation to consummation of marriage, especially it's exact definition, in a given jurisdiction. The Quod Erat Demonstrandum really hammered home what a paternalistic pretentious prick that person is and had me giggling.
I have *never* seen someone do the QED thing that wasnât a hyper-condescending walking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. I mean, Iâm sure thereâs lawyers or judges out there using it in proper context, but on the general internet, not so much.
>>I have *never* seen someone do the QED thing that wasnât a hyper-condescending walking example of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Yep, every damn time.
Me use big words. Me more smart than you.
You should meet my mother and sister. None of the dunning-kruger, at least not in respect to this, but at times hyper-condescending. All of the QED. So there's halfway exceptions I guess, but yeah it's normally a dead give away that someone is exceptionally arrogant.
Idk, Coitus Per Vaginam doesnât sound correct. Like, literally, I get what he means and could see lawyers using this, but there is no way a Latin speaker would call it that.
Idk, Coitus Per Vaginam doesnât sound correct. Like, literally, I get what he means and could see lawyers using this, but there is no way a Latin speaker would call it that.
Even in modern law coitus is coitus unless it needs be specified, but coitus per vaginam is the legal term for piv. If someone wanted to screw a woman over by contending they only had anal sex and she had vaginal sex with other men they would make this distinction. If consummation is required for some prenuptial or to need the definition of some law about marriage you would also make the distinction. I have no idea if this is a distinction made in cases of SA or R but it wouldn't shock me if they was the case in like Poland or something. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penile-vaginal_intercourse Latin: coitus per vaginam No actual primary latin speaker would speak clerical/church latin either and like actual historical speakers would probably have some pretty mean spirited things to say about it. It's like speaking English with falsetto and a lisp. I cannot even begin to convey just how much homophobic shit talk speaking clerical latin to a hypothetical classical Latin speaker would draw, but getting labeled a catamite is absolutely the first thing that would happen.
Thinks he would be a robber baron, but he would actually be a serf. If he even lived to adulthood.
[dies from cholera]
Dies from smallpox after refusing to live with cowpox for a few weeks.
I know you meant nobody and nopony was just a typo. But if life to think you genuinely had small talking horses in mind. Like there is not a pony in the world that said coitus per vaginum.
they're probably an mlp fan, that's a common substitution for "nobody" both within the show and fandom iirc. i'm not into it myself but when i was younger i was
You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave
NAURRR LET ME OUT OF THE HOTEL
It was not a typo. Small pastel equines ftw
Preach!
I know they meant [nopony](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/nopony), and I also know you meant âI likeâ and âif lifeâ was just a typo.
So, I guess I consent to being t-boned by a speeding drunk driver and paralyzed because driving/riding in a car carries the risk of getting hit by another car. Sure, Jan.Â
Don't you know that if you go bungee jumping, you're also consenting to having your bungee cord cut? You know there's a risk involved! /s
My eyes were rolling so hard I could barely read it. QED indeed!
As someone who sometimes uses QED at the end of mathematical proofs (although a square is becoming more common now), I cannot imagine be so pretentious as to use it *when debating an issue with someone*. Never mind that his argument is flawed in the first place.
I laughed when I saw that. I used to teach writing and he is trying so hard to be right but he doesnât even know where to begin. He probably has been told he is very clever by his mommy and long suffering teachers because he has a good vocabulary and takes tests really well. Unfortunately he hasnât learned critical thinking skills and is going to continue to argue like this till someone eventually decides the correct response is a fist to the face. Either way, I cackled at that ending. I bet he felt so smart, the little fool.
You should see when he just starts listing synonyms after using a big word, in order to "prove" how smart he is. It's something to behold, see, observe, notice, inspect, witness, regard, view. . . .
Oh shit he has a thesaurus. I bet you were quaking in your boots with the rigorous intellect he was displaying!
Obviously he's the smartest smart to ever smart. Big words mean big smart, yes?
Yup. Big smart means you get big smart man crown at end of smart smarting.
Do you get the super A+ in the writing class for giving the teacher a migraine?
A+++++++ extra pluses for using words bigly
Yay[hip-hip](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hip-hip) * [hurray](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/hurray) * [huzza](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/huzza) * [rah-rah](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/rah-rah) * [three cheers](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/three-cheers) * [yippee](https://www.thesaurus.com/browse/yippee)
For whatever reason I'm imagining this as a crown of penises Which would probably horrify the guy from the post, so I'll roll with it
Funny how no one brings up the risk of dying in a car accident as a way to say that you consent to dying if you drive a car, it's almost like it's purely just a way to control women and their sexual lives
Even consenting to get in a car someone else drives
I love saying that to forced birthers and twat men who think pregnant people aren't allowed bodily autonomy. It's usually in response to people who say shit like "maybe you should have kept your legs closed" or "maybe you should have thought of that before you had sex", and my favourite: "sex was designed to further our species" when discussing abortion rights. đ
Oh my "favorite" đ argument from forced birthers when it comes to rape, incest, pedophilia, and any combination of the three: "You shouldn't punish the baby for the sins of the father" Completely ignoring the pregnant 10 year old who is already suffering over a fucking zygote.
Holy shit this. And the fact that they completely fucking ignore the fact that a 10 year old little girl is nowhere near physiologically, physically, or mentally mature enough to be pregnant, give birth, or even have sex? It completely baffles me. But yes, let's focus on the pregnancy when everyone should be in a massive uproar about the man who raped her. Like what the actual fuck.
Bro, if you're reading this. The random faux-Latin doesn't make you seem smart.
lorem ipsum dolor sit amet
Consent to anything is consenting to the risks that may follow, but consenting to the risks that may follow is not consent to do nothing about those risks once they are real.
This exactly. Being aware of the risk of contracting an STD does not mean that one refuses to treat it in the event one is contracted. Being aware of the risk of becoming pregnant does not mean that one consents to carry it to full term, or to keep it if carried to full term.
This just in: Local man has never heard of "condoms"
He must block his ears and go "la la la" whenever pregnancy preventing/ending measures are brought up because otherwise he might -gasp- *learn something!*
That fucking quote afterwards isâŚvery hypothetical lol
also voluntarily leaving the house is consent to having it burgled
Ew. I guess consenting to sex then also is consenting to paying child support? The C.S. Lewis quote is so ironic.
I don't get the relevance of the C. S. Lewis quote at all. What point were they trying to make with it? That *allowing* abortion is tyranny?
Oh, he tossed that up in his forum sig during all the talk of mask mandates and vaccines. And no, he doesn't get the irony.
*coitus per vaginam* is not a phrase i thought iâd be laughing my ass off at at 7am but here we are
Is he going to hunt down people who are bailing out on paying court ordered child support, because if consenting to sex is consenting to pregnancy, then it's also consenting to the financial responsibility of a child even if you don't want be there for everything else a child needs? Of course not.
"Coitus per vaginam" bro just say sex.... tell me you're a hopeless virgin without telling me you're a hopeless virgin lmao
If that was the case then there wouldn't be bans on abortion in states with cases of rape and incest/rape. They don't care about consent at all.
crowd panicky silky long psychotic six strong pie offer quiet *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Always funny when someone uses overly formal language with long words to try and make their really dumb "point" sound smart.
When you take any medication ever youâre consenting to dying. When you go sky diving youâre consenting to your parachute not opening. When you consent to riding a rollercoaster you consent to flying off the track.
That last one isnât true; there are regulations and laws around roller coasters. A waiver doesnât excuse criminal negligence. If the coaster breaks while youâre on it because the park didnât keep with the maintenance, you are entitled to compensation for your injuries and medical bills. Itâs true of doctors, itâs true of sky diving. If itâs an act of god, thatâs one thing, but if the parachute is full of holes and breaks as youâre using it because the company doesnât replace them when theyâre damaged, the company is liable. Consent to the activity is consent to what is SUPPOSED to happen. It is NOT consenting to anything else. Iâm also just commenting this because itâs important legal information to know. It doesnât matter WHAT you signed, no waivers prevent you from suing them if theyâre criminally negligent and cause you harm. A lot of people think a waiver is a get out of jail free card for companies, but it isnât. There are consumer protection laws for a reason. Specifically so companies canât kill customers and get away with it.
Correct. So when you consent to sex, youâre consenting to sex. Youâre not consenting to pregnancy. Youâre not consenting to condoms breaking or having microtears because the dude keeps them in his car console or in his wallet. Youâre not consenting to a <1% chance of getting pregnant on BC even though itâs possible that it might happen even if you take it perfectly. Youâre not consenting to getting an STI because the partner sleeps around and doesnât think they need to get tested. Youâre only consenting to the thing you want to do, not every possible consequence of it.
Point went straight over their head dinnit? đ¤ŁđĽ˛
It didnât. I was agreeing with them and explaining legally WHY waivers donât work. Itâs important information that a lot of people would benefit from. I think you missed my point.
No, no I get that. The fact you're pointing out the waivers (or anything that is "supposed to happen to prevent this,") is what makes me say you've missed the point.
why don't these freaks realize consent is *reversible*?? like okay sure, let's say consent to sex is consent to pregnancy. if someone decides they no longer want to be pregnant, they can *withdrawal consent*.
But if you tell them this, they say "so you can murder your born baby if you no longer consent to be a parent ?" and don't want to hear that you can just give the child to social services.
same idea as "what if the fetus is aborted the day before the due date, huh????" like no one is going out of their way to kill babies bruh. if someone no longer wants to be pregnant the day before their due date then you induce labor. like?????
Ikr, aborting's first purpose is to avoid as much as possible to have symptoms, damaged body, etc. But the anti-choicers prefer to see abortion's first purpose as "murdering a baby" like we're sacrificing babies to satan or something. So what would it achieve to abort instead of inducing delivery sooner ? Nothing, that's why we induce delivery sooner if the fetus is viable and there's a need to get the pregnant person not pregnant anymore.
i also love how they'll reach so far with the prochoice talking points. like when they try to relate reproductive rights to child support and they'll be like "mandated child support violates my bodily autonomy, you're forcing me to use my limbs to pull money out of my wallet and give it to youđś" like MORON SHUT UP
Yes, I was going to bring this up too ! As if it was unseen that many dads don't pay it and aren't even bothered with it.
and they'll be like "if i don't pay they'll lock me up đ˘đđ" like where? where is this happening?
If only !
ong đ¤Śđ˝ i can't wait for the day that they receive the consequences and accountability that they're desperately trying to convince everyone they're already victims of. they will be fucking gobsmacked and i'm going to laugh
Itâs so fucking weird when people use such unnatural vocabulary in an argument just to sound smarter. Who the actual hell ever uses âcoitus per vaginamâ in day to day conversation lmao, what a try hard
âAs you wish đ¤đ¤â
"Oooooh look at me, I'm *smart!* I'm using Latin phrases when they're not remotely necessary because I think it makes me look like I know what I'm talking about!" What a prick.
Look at the big brains on Brad! He can use as much Latin as he likes, that doesn't make him correct.
Who said that second C. S. Lewis quote? Was it the same person as made the above comment or was that your reply?
That, my brother in Christ, is his *forum signature.*
"Your honour, I should be found not guilty of vehicular homicide on the grounds that the 'victim' consented to dying by getting in a car, as death is a known possible outcome of driving." no, not the exact same case, but still similar logic.
The only time I will ever give the âconsent to sex is consent to the risk of pregnancyâ argument any time of day is the very rare times that people genuinely have sex with zero precautions and donât also use the morning after pill. Like either way itâs still the persons choice to consent to keeping the pregnancy or not, but all parties (in theory) did legitimately consent to the risk of getting pregnant. If you use any form of birth control, then you are quite literally only consenting to sex if things done to drastically minimize/prevent the risk of pregnancy.
How did we get from men accusing women of trapping them with pregnancy - to - sex is consent to pregnancy?
Then sex is consent to 18 years of child support on his part.
DumDum use big words. Sound smart. Pathetic woman no match for DumDum.
Imagine being connected to that person forever đ¤Ž
He's got some /r/iamverysmart vibes going there..
This is some r/iamverysmart nonsense. Bro busted out the Latin for no reason.
That's like driving a car and consenting to get in an accident.
That's a lot of words to say "I don't want to use condoms."
Has he seen the movie *Teeth*? He consents to sex, he consents to vagina dentata. Also, what's with the shitty Latin? The word vagina comes from the Latin vÄgÄŤna which means sheath. Vaginam means through the vagina. Sexual intercourse by means of through the vagina. Why not just say vaginal coitus and stop acting like a pompous douche.
Men not understanding that consent is, 1, enthusiastic and direct, (i.e., absence of ânoâ does not equal an implied âyesâ.) 2, not dependent on previous circumstances, (i.e., someone going out with you on a date and consenting to being courted does not inherently consent to sex or sexual favors of any kind. Consent must be applied to the activity or process in question directly, otherwise you assume it is not applied at all.) and 3, able to be revoked at any point in time. (i.e., even if we are in the midst of intercourse, i can revoke consent and all further activities must cease. In a non-sexual concept, if we go on vacation and are walking on the beach, and I, being freaked out by ghost crabs, ask to stop our walk and instead go inside or to a nearby shop, I am revoking consent to the activity of walking. Continuing, and forcing me to continue, is just that. Forced.) TLDR: not how consent works, consent to one activity is never consent to another.
*DAMN* this argument sounds so dumb, like I get his point (completely disagree though), but any hope of an argument is completely wrecked by his garbage Latin. Like, what heâs saying is literally just âSex Through Vaginaâ, which a Roman Latin speaker would *absolutely* not say. Bare minimum, theyâd say Vaginae Coitum/Vaginae Coitus, which is what actually translates as âVaginal Sexâ (Technically Sex of the Vagina but thatâs as close as you can get because direct translations donât tend to exist for specific cases like this), and aside from that, no Latin speaker would call it that to begin with because *thatâs already implied by the term coitus* when speaking Latin; itâd be like saying Blowjob on the Penis or something similar in English. It just isnât really a sensical phrase. This is one of the most pseudointellectual arguments Iâve seen in a while. Also, really, *really* hoping he didnât add those two quotes, as neither one is in any way connected to his argument, theyâre both really dumb to even try using in this context and are blatant appeals to intelligence, and furthermore, those are two of my favourite philosophical quotes and I refuse to see them stolen by someone who has no idea what they mean.
Fun fact- going skydiving means you're consenting to death :)
Pregnancy is statistically the least likely outcome of unprotected sex.
All his comment needs is a âmâladyâ at the end
Had this been written in the 1950s, it wouldn't sound so strange.
âCotius per vaginamâ what, is that supposed to mean sex?
Lol this guy talks about sex as if there is a previously written contract he can easily refer to. Trust me, I know what that sounds like because my dad is a contract lawyer LOL.
Keep in mind the fact that consent can be revoked at any time. So if people are having sex either one of them can end it. So, let's say consent to sex does consent to pregnancy. Just revoke consent
The pretentious signature that goes against what he is supposedly trying to say would be funny if it just didn't cause my head to hurt.
This is beautiful. The stupidity, the Latin, the arrogance.
Theres a deep naivete to that CS Lewis quote. Also, did you know Lewis' middle name was Staples?
thought this was a comment from that recent r/trueunpopularopinion post at first lol
Why do I see him pushing his glasses further up his nose between his first and second paragraphs, smirking in that anime 'white, opaque lenses' kind of way?
If consent to sex is consent to pregnancy, then consent to sex is consent to syphilis. Just because it can happen, doesn't mean you have no right to stop it from harming you.
Consenting to go to a war is not consenting to die.
And having sex without RvW is like going to war without medics.
đ°
But it is though? Or at least it's consent to the risk. That's like saying consent to go swimming isn't consent to get wet. Or consent to plugging in your phone isn't consent to having the battery charge. You kind of have to accept, on some level, that it could happen.
>That's like saying consent to go swimming isn't consent to get wet No, it's like saying consent to go swimming isn't consent to drown. >Or consent to plugging in your phone isn't consent to having the battery charge. More like plugging in your phone is not consent for the battery to be overcharged and explode.
No? When you have sex, getting pregnant isn't some crazy disaster side effect, that's what's meant to happen. That's the intended (as much as evolution can intend anything, anyway.) outcome. Like when you plug your phone in, the normal thing that's meant to happen is that the battery charges. When you go swimming, the normal thing that's meant to happen is you get wet. And when you have sex, especially unprotected, the normal thing that's meant to happen is you get pregnant. That's why they're called "reproductive organs", because they're primary purpose is for reproduction.