|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On November 24 2016 02:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
And no one was arguing against consent. I had assumed you were responding to my statement: Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a culture where the consent was then made up front to remove these gray areas! And saying that you would not want that world to come to pass. Is that true or false?
Is that the world where I can't have a beer and then have sex? In that case, no, I don't want that world to come to pass.
But I'll try it next time. I'll have a beer, have sex with my fiancé (who doesn't drink) and then claim she raped me. She must have, because after one beer I was in no condition to possibly consent to having sex.
|
On November 24 2016 01:57 Kickstart wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:54 Kickstart wrote:
Those are completely arbitrary as well. What if one person is filthy rich and always pays for everything? What if one person doesn't live alone while the other does? What if one is just being courteous and paying for things? Who pays for what is as arbitrary as who wakes up regretting it. Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a culture where the consent was then made up front to remove these gray areas! Some societies have marriage and sex through contracts only. I personally don't think it would be that great to be honest. edit: a bit flippant and hasty and doesn't make sense (marriage is itself a contract) What I meant to say was that reducing the act of courtship and sex to a business contract wouldn't be that great. Is the idea of going to a brothel particularly romantic to you?
Why would it be a business contract?
Go out with someone, spark happens, things seem to be going well, you guys decide to have drinks after its obvious you want each other while sober, then fuck like rabbits that night. Super romantic and emphasizes consent before intoxication, allowing booze and fucking to be present.
Meet someone at bar, request to get her drinks, both of you party and have a good time, exchange contacts, meet again later when less drugged by alcohol.
Meet someone at party, have a good time, take them home, call them next day and continue conversation while sober, hook up later.
LOTS of ways to have consent be emphasized before fucking.
|
On November 24 2016 02:02 Velr wrote:
That has nothing to do with real human behaviour, but i'm starting to think you actually have no idea what humans behave like.
Sure it does! Every sexual interaction should just be conducted like a transaction at a brothel would be. How exciting and moral right? Wouldn't a world where every sexual exchange was like buying a hooker be great?!?!?!? /s
|
On November 24 2016 02:03 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 02:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
And no one was arguing against consent. I had assumed you were responding to my statement: Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a culture where the consent was then made up front to remove these gray areas! And saying that you would not want that world to come to pass. Is that true or false? Is that the world where I can't have a beer and then have sex? In that case, no, I don't want that world to come to pass. But I'll try it next time. I'll have a beer, have sex with my fiancé (who doesn't drink) and then claim she raped me. She must have, because after one beer I was in no condition to possibly consent to having sex.
It is within your right to claim you were raped by your partner being that most rapes happens through a person's partner and not some stranger.
|
On November 24 2016 02:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:57 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 01:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:54 Kickstart wrote:
Those are completely arbitrary as well. What if one person is filthy rich and always pays for everything? What if one person doesn't live alone while the other does? What if one is just being courteous and paying for things? Who pays for what is as arbitrary as who wakes up regretting it. Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a culture where the consent was then made up front to remove these gray areas! Some societies have marriage and sex through contracts only. I personally don't think it would be that great to be honest. edit: a bit flippant and hasty and doesn't make sense (marriage is itself a contract) What I meant to say was that reducing the act of courtship and sex to a business contract wouldn't be that great. Is the idea of going to a brothel particularly romantic to you? Why would it be a business contract? Go out with someone, spark happens, things seem to be going well, you guys decide to have drinks after its obvious you want each other while sober, then fuck like rabbits that night. Super romantic and emphasizes consent before intoxication, allowing booze and fucking to be present. Meet someone at bar, request to get her drinks, both of you party and have a good time, exchange contacts, meet again later when less drugged by alcohol. Meet someone at party, have a good time, take them home, call them next day and continue conversation while sober, hook up later. LOTS of ways to have consent be emphasized before fucking.
Nothing wrong with that scenario. Also nothing wrong with two people being at a party, drinking, and having sex because they both want to at the time.
|
On November 24 2016 02:02 Velr wrote:
That has nothing to do with real human behaviour, but i'm starting to think you actually have no idea what humans behave like.
So you believe that humans naturally would rather be of unsound mind before making decisions?
|
On November 24 2016 02:05 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 02:03 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 02:00 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:59 Velr wrote:
And no one was arguing against consent. I had assumed you were responding to my statement: Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a culture where the consent was then made up front to remove these gray areas! And saying that you would not want that world to come to pass. Is that true or false? Is that the world where I can't have a beer and then have sex? In that case, no, I don't want that world to come to pass. But I'll try it next time. I'll have a beer, have sex with my fiancé (who doesn't drink) and then claim she raped me. She must have, because after one beer I was in no condition to possibly consent to having sex. It is within your right to claim you were raped by your partner being that most rapes happens through a person's partner and not some stranger.
Oh dear. My fiancé has been raping me for years, and I didn't even realize it until today. Thank you for opening my eyes!!!
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 24 2016 01:54 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:52 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:46 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:42 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:32 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:20 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:03 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 00:55 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:48 Kickstart wrote:
[quote]
I'm arguing that if two drunk people end up sleeping together that one isn't a rape victim and the other a rapist necessarily, not that someone who roofies someone and then drags them to a room isn't a rapist How drunk are we talking about? Because it's really about consent right? How much alcohol do you need to do something you wouldn't do sober? Does it have to be passed out drunk before you decide to do a non-sexual stupid thing you wouldn't do otherwise? Is it less than that? The reason it feels like a gray area is that alcohol is a drug we allow people to take en masse and along with it will come this weird line of how much alcohol is needed to remove consent. You are labeling one a rapist and one a rape victim based purely on which one wakes up and regrets it. That is silly. If they are both drunk and end up having sex, no one was raped. Or as someone pointed out above, they would both be rape victims in some scenarios. Your definition of rape is so broad you end up with scenarios as absurd as two people having sex and both of them being rape victims and rapists at the same time. I'm am arguing that culture that looks for consent from someone after they are drugged by alcohol is worse than a culture that emphasizes that consent be given before being drugged by alcohol. Yes, because going to a party and approaching everyone there with "Look, I plan on fucking tonight. If it happens to be with you is that going to be okay with you tomorrow morning?" is going to go over real well for people. What you are proposing won't happen. Welcome to rape culture where discussing about consent while of sound mind is taboo. Can you please outline your idea for how to properly communicate your consent, or lack thereof, to a room full of people that you don't know, likely can't even hear you unless you are yelljng into their ears if at a club or some such, and then how to update said consent status as time passes, people come and go, and your mood changes for better or for worse? Step 1: If you really enjoyed time with that person when intoxicated, get their contact and talk to them again when sober. Step 2: If they are uninterested in you when sober then they're probably not worth your time. Step 3: ..... Step 4: Profit! Look, this is completely unrealistic... what about the people who explicitly are going out looking for someone to hook up with? Just because that is their goal doesn't mean consent dosent matter so you'd have to literally ban drinking + sex to deal with this... If their goal is to hook up then what is the harm of making it explicit at the forefront? Some people go to hook up randomly, some people go to find people, some people go to just have a good time and dance--isn't it more important to make that clear early on which one you are? Or is deception a necessary part of the process?
It's entirely impossible to let everyone know of your intentions prior, people come and go and your inclinations are free to change.
Very few people would have a complete general consent anyway, so unless your idea of making that clear upfront involves somehow informing everyone of their consent status one by one it seems prettu useless. And if it is, then pretty infeasible.
|
And nothing wrong with one or both regretting it the next day. Because it wasn't any form of rape and calling it rape makes you look like a giant tool.
|
On November 24 2016 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 02:02 Velr wrote:
That has nothing to do with real human behaviour, but i'm starting to think you actually have no idea what humans behave like. So you believe that humans naturally would rather be of unsound mind before making decisions?
Quick question: is alcohol (and other drugs) the only thing that can cause someone´s consent to not be valid? Or when do we judge someone´s willing consent to be a trick? What if the person was under a lot of stress? Or alternatively, ecstatic with joy?
|
On November 24 2016 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 02:02 Velr wrote:
That has nothing to do with real human behaviour, but i'm starting to think you actually have no idea what humans behave like. So you believe that humans naturally would rather be of unsound mind before making decisions?
Many seem to be and there is tons of proof for that. I wouldnt buy a house while drunk, talking to a complete stranger or maybe having sex? Why not.
Chances are you regret it later - or not.
|
On November 24 2016 02:02 Liquid`Jinro wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:45 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote:On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 00:24 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
I disagree. I've done lots of things where I think afterwards "hey, that was really stupid". But it was totally in my power to not get drunk in the first place. If I didn't want to lose full control over my actions, I could choose to say no to that beer my buddy is offering me. Sometimes, you have to accept responsibility for your own actions, also as a girl, rather than crying rape. If you get drunk and think, "hey, that guy is cute (he isn't), lets fuck" and regret it the next morning, that isn't rape, that's stupidity and alcohol.
That's not to say you can't get raped while drunk. You quite clearly can. Drink even more than in the above scenario and you reach that point where you can't speak (or stand) anymore. And that cannot possibly count as consent in any way, shape or form. Majority of girls don't cry rape. Even the ones actually victimized of rape. It's super under reported. Part of the reason you feel it's normal is because it's so under reported. Part of the reason a lot is at stake for you is because if it started getting accurately reported you and your friends would become redefined as rapists. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him. She was drugged by her own lust  When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok. Nobody is arguing against that! TM is literally saying that if two people are drunk and have sex it is de facto rape because you cant consent while drunk. Still hasn't gotten back to anyone on whether that makes for 1 or 2 rapists tho. Literally everyone has agreed that what you outlined is rape. Edit damn thread is too fast :p Consent is super easy to track back if both people were drunk at the time. Who paid for the hotel room? Who's apartment was unlocked? Who's bedroom was used? Who paid for the taxi? Who paid for the uber? At some point one person pays for the event to take place or takes the other person to their abode. Those are tangible actions of intent requesting for sex. So even though you were both of unsound mind, there is a physical trail of who was the one instigating for sex to occur and hence stopped becoming victims. If she paid for the Uber home, and you stayed in her apartment, used her toys, fucked her roommates, and for some reason you regretted everything when you woke up--then you were taken advantage of. If those were split. One person paid for the ride to the other person's place, or both split the bill on the hotel, or one paid for the hotel and one paid for the ride, etc... Then you have a trail of evidence showing who was instigating the night's actions that required more than a yes/no. You had to spend your money on it, you had to unlock your door for it, you had to use your property, etc... It shows a physical and monetary communication between both parties that has to be (A) agreed to, and (B) executed in sync with each other's intent. "You pay for this, I pay for that, we use location A instead of location B, etc..." Because you cant consent while drunk but make financially rational decisions, that you can do. Im willing it would be easier to convince drunk me to pay for a taxi than to have sex. It doesn't show rationality, it shows communication was made between parties and shows that neither was not one dragged into the situation by the other. Person A is drunk. Wakes up in room with Person B. Person A did not place themselves there, does not know where "there" is, and regrets the decision made. Person A was taken advantage of by Person B until Person B can show proof that they discussed the details of the event at hand. vs Person A is drunk. Wakes up in their abode to Person B. Person A regrets decision made but there is now proof that it was Person A's idea to make Person B (also drunk and hence of unsound mind) sleep with them because it was Person A's room that got unlocked. The thread can be expanded as needed depending on the investigation; but physical records is more convincing than he said/she said. So drunken sex is basically a rape/rapist coinflip. I wake up in a strange place, Im a victim, I wake up at home, Im a rapist. Show proof... what fucking proof would you show of a physicsl conversation? Until the day we start getting implants or wearables that record everything we do that seems impossible. Here's another example. Lets say we wake up in a hotel. Neither party paid for a taxi because this is korea and love motels exist everywhere. The rapist is therefore whomever paid for the hotel? What if the other person talked them into paying? It's seriously impossible to call someone a rapist based on something so flimsy.
If the person you slept with woke up, called the police, and accused you of rape. Trying to tell them "you were drunk at the time" does not mean you didn't rape them. Going into he said/she said does not exonerate you from it. The two of you would have to pull out hard evidence that corroborates your narrative of the events that happened. If she says "he took me to his hotel against my will" and you were the one who paid for the hotel--that is a ding against you. If she says she was forced to pay for the hotel against her will then they can talk to the who owns the hotel to see if that person agrees with that narrative.
If costs were split (cabs, hotels, etc...) then it shows you talked about it. Cameras also shows narrative, assuming they were of good quality. So on and so forth. Its fairly simple to require physical evidence in a rape case.
|
I mean, drunk sex can be more fun. I've heard it said that sex on drugs is quite fun as well though I have no personal experience there. So yes, people do, in some instances, want to have sex while drinking or on drugs. For someone who wrote a paragraph on BDSM culture your views on how sex happens are surprisingly vanilla.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 24 2016 02:04 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 01:57 Kickstart wrote:On November 24 2016 01:56 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:54 Kickstart wrote:
Those are completely arbitrary as well. What if one person is filthy rich and always pays for everything? What if one person doesn't live alone while the other does? What if one is just being courteous and paying for things? Who pays for what is as arbitrary as who wakes up regretting it. Wouldn't it be great if we lived in a culture where the consent was then made up front to remove these gray areas! Some societies have marriage and sex through contracts only. I personally don't think it would be that great to be honest. edit: a bit flippant and hasty and doesn't make sense (marriage is itself a contract) What I meant to say was that reducing the act of courtship and sex to a business contract wouldn't be that great. Is the idea of going to a brothel particularly romantic to you? Why would it be a business contract? Go out with someone, spark happens, things seem to be going well, you guys decide to have drinks after its obvious you want each other while sober, then fuck like rabbits that night. Super romantic and emphasizes consent before intoxication, allowing booze and fucking to be present. Meet someone at bar, request to get her drinks, both of you party and have a good time, exchange contacts, meet again later when less drugged by alcohol. Meet someone at party, have a good time, take them home, call them next day and continue conversation while sober, hook up later. LOTS of ways to have consent be emphasized before fucking.
Go out to drink, have good time, meet someone else whos also out drinking and having a good time. You are both drunk so your judgements are impaired and you end up having sex.
For the sake of your paper trail argument lets say you end up having sex right then and god damn there on the counter top.
Who raped who?
The flaw in your arguments seems to be this assumption that drunk people make excellent decisions while simultaneously saying they can't consent.
I definitely do not think they make great decisions, but it isn't automatically rape.
|
On November 24 2016 02:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 02:02 Velr wrote:
That has nothing to do with real human behaviour, but i'm starting to think you actually have no idea what humans behave like. So you believe that humans naturally would rather be of unsound mind before making decisions?
That is the epitome of the human struggle, making sound decisions under different emotional conditions. It's called being an adult and dealing with it.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
On November 24 2016 02:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On November 24 2016 02:02 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:52 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:45 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:42 Thieving Magpie wrote:On November 24 2016 01:18 Liquid`Jinro wrote:On November 24 2016 01:13 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 24 2016 01:04 biology]major wrote:On November 24 2016 01:00 Acrofales wrote:On November 24 2016 00:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Majority of girls don't cry rape. Even the ones actually victimized of rape. It's super under reported. Part of the reason you feel it's normal is because it's so under reported. Part of the reason a lot is at stake for you is because if it started getting accurately reported you and your friends would become redefined as rapists. Sorry, but no. The following scenario is NOT rape, no matter what you call it: Girl has had a few beers, and makes eye contact with a guy. He walks over and throws out some cheesy pickup line. She laughs. They chat a bit, then make out. The girl is clearly enjoying it. They go home together and have sex. The girl wakes up the next morning and sees the man next to her. She regrets having sex with him. She was drugged by her own lust When it wears off and regrets what she did, she was raped. According to TM anyways. You guys don't get it. If you fuck a girl that's unconscious or near unconscious it's a rape. That's it. Whether she got there because she drunk eight bottles of vodka or because she is in a coma after falling off her bike is irrelevant. So, if someone is too drunk to say no, don't do it. It doesn't mean you can't have sex with a drunk girl or being drunk yourself. It's not that hard, I don't see what you people struggle with. And of course the line is extremely hard to find, and of course it's very hard to prove anything, and of course some crazy people will report a rape when nothing like that happened. It also happened a lot that a girl passes out and is fucked by some asshole. And that ain't ok. Nobody is arguing against that! TM is literally saying that if two people are drunk and have sex it is de facto rape because you cant consent while drunk. Still hasn't gotten back to anyone on whether that makes for 1 or 2 rapists tho. Literally everyone has agreed that what you outlined is rape. Edit damn thread is too fast :p Consent is super easy to track back if both people were drunk at the time. Who paid for the hotel room? Who's apartment was unlocked? Who's bedroom was used? Who paid for the taxi? Who paid for the uber? At some point one person pays for the event to take place or takes the other person to their abode. Those are tangible actions of intent requesting for sex. So even though you were both of unsound mind, there is a physical trail of who was the one instigating for sex to occur and hence stopped becoming victims. If she paid for the Uber home, and you stayed in her apartment, used her toys, fucked her roommates, and for some reason you regretted everything when you woke up--then you were taken advantage of. If those were split. One person paid for the ride to the other person's place, or both split the bill on the hotel, or one paid for the hotel and one paid for the ride, etc... Then you have a trail of evidence showing who was instigating the night's actions that required more than a yes/no. You had to spend your money on it, you had to unlock your door for it, you had to use your property, etc... It shows a physical and monetary communication between both parties that has to be (A) agreed to, and (B) executed in sync with each other's intent. "You pay for this, I pay for that, we use location A instead of location B, etc..." Because you cant consent while drunk but make financially rational decisions, that you can do. Im willing it would be easier to convince drunk me to pay for a taxi than to have sex. It doesn't show rationality, it shows communication was made between parties and shows that neither was not one dragged into the situation by the other. Person A is drunk. Wakes up in room with Person B. Person A did not place themselves there, does not know where "there" is, and regrets the decision made. Person A was taken advantage of by Person B until Person B can show proof that they discussed the details of the event at hand. vs Person A is drunk. Wakes up in their abode to Person B. Person A regrets decision made but there is now proof that it was Person A's idea to make Person B (also drunk and hence of unsound mind) sleep with them because it was Person A's room that got unlocked. The thread can be expanded as needed depending on the investigation; but physical records is more convincing than he said/she said. So drunken sex is basically a rape/rapist coinflip. I wake up in a strange place, Im a victim, I wake up at home, Im a rapist. Show proof... what fucking proof would you show of a physicsl conversation? Until the day we start getting implants or wearables that record everything we do that seems impossible. Here's another example. Lets say we wake up in a hotel. Neither party paid for a taxi because this is korea and love motels exist everywhere. The rapist is therefore whomever paid for the hotel? What if the other person talked them into paying? It's seriously impossible to call someone a rapist based on something so flimsy. If the person you slept with woke up, called the police, and accused you of rape. Trying to tell them "you were drunk at the time" does not mean you didn't rape them. Going into he said/she said does not exonerate you from it. The two of you would have to pull out hard evidence that corroborates your narrative of the events that happened. If she says "he took me to his hotel against my will" and you were the one who paid for the hotel--that is a ding against you. If she says she was forced to pay for the hotel against her will then they can talk to the who owns the hotel to see if that person agrees with that narrative. If costs were split (cabs, hotels, etc...) then it shows you talked about it. Cameras also shows narrative, assuming they were of good quality. So on and so forth. Its fairly simple to require physical evidence in a rape case.
We are not arguing about proving a rape case wtf. We are arguing about whether a situation where two people are drunk and have drunkenly consensual sex, is rape or not.
Neither person tried to get the other drunk. Neither person manipulated the other. One or both people regret it.
Let's say the sex was had at some festival on a blanket in the open (but with no witnesses). Is it rape?
This is entirely a philosophical/ethical question not about whether you could convict someone potentially.
|
Sweden33719 Posts
I almost feel like if we were to take this line of reasoning to its extreme then being horny would invalidate consent because it impairs judgement too...
Edit: I just realized this is the US politics thread. Maybe we should create a separate topic or something...
|
From now on, I will only go drinking with my lawyer and whip out some paperwork and ask any girl I want to hook up with to sign it, while also getting 2 of her friends to testify as witnesses.
|
I think some court case verdicts would make this discussion a lot more level headed. I'd be interested to hear the results on what the law thinks in some of these circumstantial situations.
|
KwarK asked me to post this for him:
To respond to FrozenArbiter's hypothetical, two comparably drunk people wouldn't, in my book, be rape. But it would be a mistake that both should regret doing. If, in the morning, a girl says "fuck, I really regret this" then your response shouldn't be "doesn't matter, had sex". You should feel bad about that and try to avoid that in future because you should have a basic human responsibility to try and act ethically and try to avoid harming your sexual partners. Coming at this from a BDSM background gives me a different perspective than most but this is basically how I see it.
In BDSM both partners have a responsibility for ensuring the safety of both partners through consent. What that means is if you pre-negotiate a scene and one partner says "I'm not comfortable with X" then that means that even if mid scene they're really into it and say "totally do X to me" you still shouldn't do it. Because the responsibility to the partner isn't just "do the bare minimum acceptable to protect yourself from a rape accusation later". The responsibility is to act ethically and if you think you might be harming your partner then you're not absolved of that responsibility by what they say in the moment.
Both parties need to be satisfied by the validity of the consent given because you have an obligation to your partner as well as to yourself. If one party doesn't consent then obviously nothing happens, but if one party states that they do consent, that doesn't mean the other party is freed of all obligation. Mistakes can and do happen but if you are a good BSDM practitioner you should make it your active responsibility to try to minimize them to make sure that nobody has any regrets afterwards.
As you get deeper into the BDSM world consent gets more murky but because of that it also gets more important to be really responsible about it. But I don't see why it can't apply to drinking. If a girl is wasted and she says "fuck me now" then sure, you could record that and use it as a get out of jail free card for having sex with her, even if you knew that she wouldn't want to fuck you sober. But you shouldn't want to do that. You should hold yourself to a higher standard than that, just because she offers her consent does not mean you must accept her consent, you have a responsibility to try not to harm your partners and that includes exercising your judgement in accepting consent.
If a genuine fuckup happens, and I'm grouping two equally drunk people who both give drunken consent within that category, then I'm not going to go ahead and claim that it's rape. But I'm also not going to claim that it's a "good" outcome or that nothing bad happened. One party was engaged in sex that they would rather not have had, and that's a shitty outcome which neither of them should feel good about. There's the legal definition of rape, which has to be strict and clear cut and above question, and then there's failing to meet a basic level of ethical behaviour. Just because something doesn't meet the legal definition of rape doesn't mean it's okay, or that the other party wasn't a victim.
Also Kickstart/Velr insisting that obtaining the kind of consent that would satisfy my ethical standard is awkward and therefore they should just skip all of that and use their best judgement is really kind of ridiculous. If you're too socially awkward to obtain consent then you're not mature enough to be having sex yet. Grow the fuck up. And anyway, chicks fucking love consent. If you're on a college campus and you're the guy who is clearly not a rapist then you're not gonna struggle to get laid. A sober "no" becomes a sober "yes" if you're the guy who refused the drunk "yes" and said "call me in the morning".
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
