Are you Good2Go?

The latest measure in preventing rape. The owner of the app (usually the male) activates the app when an intimate mood has been established, then hands it over to the other party. Then, that person chooses one of three options, No, yes but we need to talk, and yes. If the answer is no, then an option for a link to be texted is presented. If the answer is yes, it then asks for the person's sobriety levels. You can't consent if you're pretty wasted. However, if the party answers any of the other three, then the person must log in with their account to verify that consent has been given.

Oh god, i would never use that thing, would be super akward. I bet even if the girl was in the mood she might change her mind after that.

this doesnt prevent shit lmao

Wow, that is some stupid fucking shit.

I don't even get the point of this, isn't it obvious when a girl doesn't want sex with you? If she doesn't want it, she will push you away and you won't need a phone app to understand it means no.

if a man is set on raping someone, hes gonna rape

This just seems incredibly naive, retarded and impractical. Do you think this app will be popular amongst males? Never. Not even the virgins! If some girl tried this on me I'd tell her to gtfo. Also, you need an account to give consent? and if you answer "pretty wasted" i.e. cant consent then it doesn't require you to login to record the objection? just LOL what is the point of that? and WHY are the answers private? like, you ask her if she wants to have sex and she's like, wait, let me input my answer into your app...11001011....101010111...........?? o nvm u cant see lol

Also, the option "Intoxicated but Good2Go" just really pisses me off... I dunno, maybe it's the hipster music intended to glaze eyes that does it but who says "I'm good to go", really? The actual question they ask you has a more serious problem, "Are you Good2Go?".. i mean, it has nothing clearly to do with consent. It's about their hipster branding more than preventing rape.

If you whip that thing out you're done rofl even Floofy is on top of that

i assume the point of the app is to prevent people from retroactively claiming they were raped the day after even if they consented the night before. pretty slippery slope of a thing to get into but its probably moot since i cant imagine anyone ever agreeing to use that app either.

I think the primary goal of this app is just to raise awareness about consent and not to actually prevent rape. The problem with the retroactive thing is that anyone could answer yes then sign up using your email address on the rapist's phone and it would be considered valid. I guess it would be quite easy to target someone if you know their email.

>time: 23:06
>users: chad; michelle
>consent: drunken but good2go
>additional info: michelle: probably gonna regret this
>security measure: "regret"; solution: revoke consent, alert authorities of intent to rape

taking retardation to a new level

also that shit about drunk people not being able to consent is ridiculous especially if it protects you from your choices, I guess drunk drivers are innocent now because they didnt know what they were doing, fuck that shit.

This is what ridiculous feminism produces

On September 30 2014 00:50 Baalim wrote: taking retardation to a new level also that shit about drunk people not being able to consent is ridiculous especially if it protects you from your choices, I guess drunk drivers are innocent now because they didnt know what they were doing, fuck that shit. This is what ridiculous feminism produces

Thank you

On September 30 2014 01:36 Trav94 wrote: Show nested quote + On September 30 2014 00:50 Baalim wrote: taking retardation to a new level also that shit about drunk people not being able to consent is ridiculous especially if it protects you from your choices, I guess drunk drivers are innocent now because they didnt know what they were doing, fuck that shit. This is what ridiculous feminism produces Thank you

If a girl handed me that when i was about to hit i'd slap her with my dick

that program is also a trolling virus; trying to spread its software to your sexual partners and steal their phone numbers.

quite the joke

its like they made an app just for jameis winston

"According to its small print, Good2Go logs personally identifiable information, including names and phone numbers, on all its users. When two people use the app to hook up, it records both users’ phone numbers, as well as the time and one partner’s sobriety. (Because Good2Go requires you to register with a name and phone number, that number is also tied to your name.) Per its privacy policy, Good2Go can share that information with law enforcement, “third-party service providers” and e-mail marketers — or anyone else, really, “for any reason, in Good2Go’s sole discretion.”

-according to some dumb website that was the first google hit

On September 30 2014 00:50 Baalim wrote: taking retardation to a new level also that shit about drunk people not being able to consent is ridiculous especially if it protects you from your choices, I guess drunk drivers are innocent now because they didnt know what they were doing, fuck that shit. This is what ridiculous feminism produces

you are not going to like this

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2...means-yes-law-defining-sexual-consent

lol

--- Nuked ---

For date rape and not effective for rape-rape

On September 30 2014 04:10 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On September 30 2014 00:50 Baalim wrote: taking retardation to a new level also that shit about drunk people not being able to consent is ridiculous especially if it protects you from your choices, I guess drunk drivers are innocent now because they didnt know what they were doing, fuck that shit. This is what ridiculous feminism produces you are not going to like this http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2...means-yes-law-defining-sexual-consent

Most retarded law i've ever seen. I've slept with a lot of girls in my life, and i NEVER asked verbally for their consent, and they never asked anything to me either. So apparently we all mutually raped each others.

Sex isn't suposed to go "Hey wanna have sex?" "Yea sure". It happens in the heat of the moment and its usually done with no talking.

Ive also occasionnaly had girls tell me no, and then we fuck 15 min later because i got them in the mood. According to that law, that was rape. lol

since this thread causes mental impairment i ll fix it with spets's video @ blog

On September 30 2014 15:52 Floofy wrote: Show nested quote + On September 30 2014 04:10 Santafairy wrote:   On September 30 2014 00:50 Baalim wrote: taking retardation to a new level also that shit about drunk people not being able to consent is ridiculous especially if it protects you from your choices, I guess drunk drivers are innocent now because they didnt know what they were doing, fuck that shit. This is what ridiculous feminism produces you are not going to like this http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2...means-yes-law-defining-sexual-consent Most retarded law i've ever seen. I've slept with a lot of girls in my life, and i NEVER asked verbally for their consent, and they never asked anything to me either. So apparently we all mutually raped each others. Sex isn't suposed to go "Hey wanna have sex?" "Yea sure". It happens in the heat of the moment and its usually done with no talking. Ive also occasionnaly had girls tell me no, and then we fuck 15 min later because i got them in the mood. According to that law, that was rape. lol

I have a feeling that the law was signed by religious people to reduce the amount of pre-marital sex going on. OR, by private prisons and the pd to increase incarceration rates. im going with the former based on the articles coming out about this new trend

but what's also bad is that a girl can revoke consent while you're in her, and if you thrust even one time after she says for you to get out, you will be charged with rape. If you're about to nut, and she can sense that, and say's "don't nut in me" and it's too late, you raped her. i don't even think sweden? has this law, since assange got off free since they say "if you're in, you can't revoke consent" or some shit like that.

On September 30 2014 17:07 Gnarly wrote: Show nested quote + On September 30 2014 15:52 Floofy wrote:   On September 30 2014 04:10 Santafairy wrote:   On September 30 2014 00:50 Baalim wrote: taking retardation to a new level also that shit about drunk people not being able to consent is ridiculous especially if it protects you from your choices, I guess drunk drivers are innocent now because they didnt know what they were doing, fuck that shit. This is what ridiculous feminism produces you are not going to like this http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2...means-yes-law-defining-sexual-consent Most retarded law i've ever seen. I've slept with a lot of girls in my life, and i NEVER asked verbally for their consent, and they never asked anything to me either. So apparently we all mutually raped each others. Sex isn't suposed to go "Hey wanna have sex?" "Yea sure". It happens in the heat of the moment and its usually done with no talking. Ive also occasionnaly had girls tell me no, and then we fuck 15 min later because i got them in the mood. According to that law, that was rape. lol I have a feeling that the law was signed by religious people to reduce the amount of pre-marital sex going on. OR, by private prisons and the pd to increase incarceration rates. im going with the former based on the articles coming out about this new trend but what's also bad is that a girl can revoke consent while you're in her, and if you thrust even one time after she says for you to get out, you will be charged with rape. If you're about to nut, and she can sense that, and say's "don't nut in me" and it's too late, you raped her. i don't even think sweden? has this law, since assange got off free since they say "if you're in, you can't revoke consent" or some shit like that.

If a girl tells you to get out and you accidentally thrust one more time and then get out, i doubt you will be charged for it, that would be retarded. I think that law is for when a girl is in pain and ask you to get out and some guy keep going for a while forcing the girl to continue. In that case i think the law is fine, i do agree it would be rape.

i will find the article for you hold on

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maouloud_Baby_v._State_of_Maryland

this should be it cause I remember "five seconds or so" being one of the biggest points of it

She said the intercourse was becoming painful and she asked him to stop and he stopped about 5 seconds later and did not ejaculate.

However, the court ruled that consent could be withdrawn at any time, even if the victim had initially consented.

You are indeed right... wow USA is pretty crazy. I really doubt this could happen where i live (canada, quebec).

Its like, us guys don't have sex with the anticaption of the girl saying "stop" and then trying to set a world record time for the dismount. A 5 second delay is arguably a bit slow if she was in pain, but 5 years for that? lol

If this law existed where i live i think my gf could have got me charged with rape a few times.

when I was a kid sometimes a girl would ask me not to bust inside (even while wearing a condom sometimes) but I would be an ass and do it anyways. At least once I fake pulled out late (cumming inside her when she said not to. It's not like she said to stop and I didn't) while hitting it doggy with no rubber (and girl was not on bc and I didn't even have money for after when we went to the pharmacy for a plan b pill. I was like sorry don't have 40 and she had to go on a two week vacation worrying about being pregnant. She wasn't though. I think I was 16 she was 15 at the time so legally I wasn't responsible and it was back in the day. But if an adult did this in todays society would a woman have any grounds for a criminal complaint?

not responsible for the kid? yeah, you'd be held responsible. wouldn't matter if she was 22, either.

however, i do think it's a crime to tell someone you wont nut inside them but yet you intended to do so all along.

On September 30 2014 21:24 traxamillion wrote: when I was a kid sometimes a girl would ask me not to bust inside (even while wearing a condom sometimes) but I would be an ass and do it anyways. At least once I fake pulled out late (cumming inside her when she said not to. It's not like she said to stop and I didn't) while hitting it doggy with no rubber (and girl was not on bc and I didn't even have money for after when we went to the pharmacy for a plan b pill. I was like sorry don't have 40 and she had to go on a two week vacation worrying about being pregnant. She wasn't though. I think I was 16 she was 15 at the time so legally I wasn't responsible and it was back in the day. But if an adult did this in todays society would a woman have any grounds for a criminal complaint?

You are retarded for doing that and extra retarded for not advising the girl ti take the morning after pill for fucks sake



Also rape is horrible but what is even worse is imprisoning an innocent person from a serious crime and that law makes it extremely easy to do it while not really protecting anybody

It felt so good though. I didn't completely unload in her i just started to come and maybe laid the first squirt in her before pulling out.

I did advise her to take the morning after pill; it's called "Plan B" around here. That is the name of the medication. When we went to the pharmacy though they wanted $40 bucks for the dose and I didn't have it so she or we had to just wait it out and hope she didn't get preggers. There wasn't time for me to grind out the money and get it for her cause she instantly went on vacation with her parents. Pretty sure this is why she cheated on me with my best friend when she got home haha.

And yea I know it is retarded, happened 10 + years ago when i was a kid. That's why i'm asking if it would be illegal for an adult to do what I did in 2014.

Can a minor really be held accountable for getting a girl pregnant and have to pay child support and shit? I thought minors were basically held responsible for nothing

On September 30 2014 21:57 Gnarly wrote: not responsible for the kid? yeah, you'd be held responsible. wouldn't matter if she was 22, either. however, i do think it's a crime to tell someone you wont nut inside them but yet you intended to do so all along.

Didn't intend to. just in the heat of the moment it was hard to bring myself to pull out.

http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/23/justice/kansas-sperm-donation/

On September 30 2014 17:07 Gnarly wrote: Show nested quote + On September 30 2014 15:52 Floofy wrote:   On September 30 2014 04:10 Santafairy wrote:   On September 30 2014 00:50 Baalim wrote: taking retardation to a new level also that shit about drunk people not being able to consent is ridiculous especially if it protects you from your choices, I guess drunk drivers are innocent now because they didnt know what they were doing, fuck that shit. This is what ridiculous feminism produces you are not going to like this http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2...means-yes-law-defining-sexual-consent Most retarded law i've ever seen. I've slept with a lot of girls in my life, and i NEVER asked verbally for their consent, and they never asked anything to me either. So apparently we all mutually raped each others. Sex isn't suposed to go "Hey wanna have sex?" "Yea sure". It happens in the heat of the moment and its usually done with no talking. Ive also occasionnaly had girls tell me no, and then we fuck 15 min later because i got them in the mood. According to that law, that was rape. lol I have a feeling that the law was signed by religious people to reduce the amount of pre-marital sex going on. OR, by private prisons and the pd to increase incarceration rates. im going with the former based on the articles coming out about this new trend but what's also bad is that a girl can revoke consent while you're in her, and if you thrust even one time after she says for you to get out, you will be charged with rape. If you're about to nut, and she can sense that, and say's "don't nut in me" and it's too late, you raped her. i don't even think sweden? has this law, since assange got off free since they say "if you're in, you can't revoke consent" or some shit like that.

how could Sweden possibly have that law Gnarly

What if some dude is banging a girl and she nuts first and starts to dry up and get over it or feel discomfort and tells the guy to stop but he is going to take another half hour at least. He is allowed to hold her down and plow away to get his? doubtful.

Or do you just mean that if a guy starts to come and a girl says not inside as its happening he wont necessarily get in trouble for not instantly pulling out?

I have been having sex a number of times (especially with a gf and regular sober daytime sex this will inevitably happen) where the girls IUD is hurting her and she will need to stop. Or she feels sore or some sort of pain and she needs to stop mid intercourse. As a man you need to respect this, stop and not get upset about it. Believe me she will be frustrated enough with herself and her own body.

On October 02 2014 20:26 traxamillion wrote: I have been having sex a number of times (especially with a gf and regular sober daytime sex this will inevitably happen) where the girls IUD is hurting her and she will need to stop. Or she feels sore or some sort of pain and she needs to stop mid intercourse. As a man you need to respect this, stop and not get upset about it. Believe me she will be frustrated enough with herself and her own body.

I think we all agree if the girl tell you to stop, you should stop, otherwise its rape if you just force her to keep going for a while.

But if it takes you 5 seconds to stop, i don't think its fair to send you in jail for 5 years...

why you are discussing stuff that anyone with common sense knows is beyond my mind

http://www.returnofkings.com/7421/spa...-feminist-dogma?ModPagespeed=noscript

This may seem fine at first until you realize that the law ONLY allows women to use it—not men. It also works on the principle that the aggressor is guilty until proven innocent (in direct contravention with Spain’s own constitutional laws).

Women are so oppressed. D: Who will ever save these poor, defenseless, abused, battered women?

You mean like shelters for abused women?

http://thoughtcatalog.com/anne-gus/20...-says-no-denying-a-woman-sex-is-rape/

reverse rape refers to the rare times when a man refuses to have sex with a woman.

Cataloged in #YesAllMenAreRapists #YesAllWomen #YesAllWomenGetRaped boston Disempowerment Emotional Rape Empowerment Feminism Frappuccinos Patriarchy Rape Culture Rape Rape Rapriarchy Reempowerment Visual Rape

that is definitely a troll post

the tragedy is that it's already been taken to as gospel.

These women are against Israel! How fucking dare these goyim disrespect the chosen people with their feminism?! A holocaust literally flashed right before my eyes; I witnessed each and every death! Even my shekels have warped back into the 1940s!

>b-b-but Hamas is a weak, little State!!!
>how dare Israel say it was "defending" itself from bottle rockets!!
>they are so much stronger, they need to learn self-control!

On October 04 2014 20:24 Baalim wrote: that is definitely a troll post

you mean Gnarly right?

as an app developer myself, i wanna personally laugh at the ppl that made this

On October 05 2014 07:24 Santafairy wrote: Show nested quote + On October 04 2014 20:24 Baalim wrote: that is definitely a troll post you mean Gnarly right?