|
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 22 2017 02:41 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:09 Nevuk wrote:Brietbart editor in chief ALEX MARLOW (HOST): Rape used to have a narrow definition. Rape used to have a definition where it was -- it was brutality, it was forced sexual attack and penetration. Now it's become, really, any sex that the woman ends up regretting that she had. And that leaves us without a lot of clarity, because when words lose their meaning, then they can be manipulated. And so now the left has made it so that women who are, maybe are -- I don't want to paint a scenario because the freaks at Media Matters are listening and they want to take me out of context, so I'm not going to give specific scenarios -- but you guys can do this in your own mind, where rape used to mean something. We used to all knew what it meant. And then now we don't know what it means. And then we don't know what's credible and what's not. And now everyone is going to come forward.
The word "consent" appears zero times in that paragraph. Also, Breitbart, so... facepalm.
Consent is a weird issue. Society is going to have to change an awful lot if all good sex is going to be explicitly consensual. I mean surely most sex is had under the assumption of a kind of unspoken consent. Will there come a time when this is no longer good enough legally?
I can't really see an effective way around that issue either. I know its a caricature of the issue but people aren't going to want to sign a form every time they want to have sex.
There doesn't appear to be a decent standard for judging what is or isn't consent. This obviously isn't a problem in the vast majority of cases, but there's all kind of issues attached to it.
I'm nitpicking the progress that's being made on these issues because I feel like that progress is coming at a cost, and the cost is often willfully ignored.
|
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. And I'm not really seeing any "cost" to making sure your partner is also down to fuck at that given moment.
|
On November 22 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
Let me tell you something, women are just as likely to lie as men. You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is saying we should believe women because women are unlikely to lie.
No, but people are saying that we should believe women because of the nature of sexual assault; because of wider issues about gender inequality and the prevalence of sexual harassment in our society (points not without their merits), therefore it is important and relevant to point out that this shouldn't equate to an assumption of guilt in the 'court of public opinion'.
Why do I think people are saying this (when no-one is explicitly saying it)? Mostly because of how this stuff generally plays out in the media and on social media.
On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given.
I know how it is given, I'm just concerned by the ability of people to retroactively change their mind 
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 22 2017 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 02:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
Let me tell you something, women are just as likely to lie as men. You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is saying we should believe women because women are unlikely to lie. No, but people are saying that we should believe women because of the nature of sexual assault; because of wider issues about gender inequality and the prevalence of sexual harassment in our society (points not without their merits), therefore it is important and relevant to point out that this shouldn't equate to an assumption of guilt in the 'court of public opinion'. Why do I think people are saying this (when no-one is explicitly saying it)? Mostly because of how this stuff generally plays out in the media and on social media.
People are saying that we should treat reports of sexual assault as credible in the same way we do any other reports of crime. That if someone told you that they were mugged you wouldn't demand to know their history of philanthropy and suggest that if they didn't want to give away money to the unfortunate then they would have acted differently. That's literally it. The reason we have to say something so obvious as "treat reports of sexual assault as being credible" is because for the longest time we have marginalized the victims and excused the abusers.
They're not saying "treat the words of women as infallible in court", that's a misunderstanding you've invented. They're just saying "treat the words of women regarding sexual assault the same way you would treat any other allegation of criminal behavior".
|
On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given.
I think the part of the issue is that consent is sometimes given but then later revoked without cues. Or sometimes how yes isnt really yes. (IE someone nags someone until they say yes).
To be clear, im not talking about coercion here. At least not in an obvious sense.
I mean say you or your spouse really want to try a new sex position or act or whatever. The partner is kinda iffy on it. Is the act of persuading them by either sheer nagging or getting them information on it sexual assault? I guess is persuasion assault? Where do we draw the line.
|
On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. And I'm not really seeing any "cost" to making sure your partner is also down to fuck at that given moment.
The fact I've gone through my entire life without sexually assaulting or harassing anyone is seeming like a bigger accomplishment each day.
|
On November 22 2017 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 02:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
Let me tell you something, women are just as likely to lie as men. You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is saying we should believe women because women are unlikely to lie. No, but people are saying that we should believe women because of the nature of sexual assault; because of wider issues about gender inequality and the prevalence of sexual harassment in our society (points not without their merits), therefore it is important and relevant to point out that this shouldn't equate to an assumption of guilt in the 'court of public opinion'. Why do I think people are saying this (when no-one is explicitly saying it)? Mostly because of how this stuff generally plays out in the media and on social media. Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. I know how it is given, I'm just concerned by the ability of people to retroactively change their mind
I'm concerned about people claiming that "retroactively changing their mind" is a problem so they can continue sexual assaulting women and claim they had consent.
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 22 2017 03:00 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. I think the part of the issue is that consent is sometimes given but then later revoked without cues. Or sometimes how yes isnt really yes. (IE someone nags someone until they say yes). To be clear, im not talking about coercion here. At least not in an obvious sense. I mean say you or your spouse really want to try a new sex position or act or whatever. The partner is kinda iffy on it. Is the act of persuading them by either sheer nagging or getting them information on it sexual assault? I guess is persuasion assault? Where do we draw the line.
Here is the line.
+ Show Spoiler [the implication] +
If they consent because they just want to get it over with and go to bed, consent.
If they consent because they're afraid of what might happen if they continue to not consent, non consent.
|
On November 22 2017 03:00 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. I think the part of the issue is that consent is sometimes given but then later revoked without cues. Or sometimes how yes isnt really yes. (IE someone nags someone until they say yes). To be clear, im not talking about coercion here. At least not in an obvious sense. I mean say you or your spouse really want to try a new sex position or act or whatever. The partner is kinda iffy on it. Is the act of persuading them by either sheer nagging or getting them information on it sexual assault? I guess is persuasion assault? Where do we draw the line.
Communicate better and have a healthy sexual relationship.
|
On November 22 2017 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 02:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
Let me tell you something, women are just as likely to lie as men. You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is saying we should believe women because women are unlikely to lie. No, but people are saying that we should believe women because of the nature of sexual assault; because of wider issues about gender inequality and the prevalence of sexual harassment in our society (points not without their merits), therefore it is important and relevant to point out that this shouldn't equate to an assumption of guilt in the 'court of public opinion'. Why do I think people are saying this (when no-one is explicitly saying it)? Mostly because of how this stuff generally plays out in the media and on social media. Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. I know how it is given, I'm just concerned by the ability of people to retroactively change their mind
This is the fundamental misconception. When women say they did not give consent during a sexual encounter which the man remembers as consensual this is different than that woman changing her mind. This is tied into many overarching issues relating to power/entitlement/expectations but has nothing to do with a change of mind.
|
On November 22 2017 03:03 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:00 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. I think the part of the issue is that consent is sometimes given but then later revoked without cues. Or sometimes how yes isnt really yes. (IE someone nags someone until they say yes). To be clear, im not talking about coercion here. At least not in an obvious sense. I mean say you or your spouse really want to try a new sex position or act or whatever. The partner is kinda iffy on it. Is the act of persuading them by either sheer nagging or getting them information on it sexual assault? I guess is persuasion assault? Where do we draw the line. Here is the line. + Show Spoiler [the implication] +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE If they consent because they just want to get it over with and go to bed, consent. If they consent because they're afraid of what might happen if they continue to not consent, non consent.
I understand because that transforms into coercion. I think its easy to say this though but not so clear in practice.
Its obvious when someone is a serial predator but its a grey area if someone doesnt realize thet are intimidating someone.
|
On November 22 2017 03:02 ticklishmusic wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. And I'm not really seeing any "cost" to making sure your partner is also down to fuck at that given moment. The fact I've gone through my entire life without sexually assaulting or harassing anyone is seeming like a bigger accomplishment each day.
Maybe according to your definition. I remember walking around campus and seeing a poster that said
"IF SHE WAS DRUNK, IT WAS RAPE."
Feminism club went just a weeee bit too far on that one, but whatever.
|
On November 22 2017 03:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:00 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. I think the part of the issue is that consent is sometimes given but then later revoked without cues. Or sometimes how yes isnt really yes. (IE someone nags someone until they say yes). To be clear, im not talking about coercion here. At least not in an obvious sense. I mean say you or your spouse really want to try a new sex position or act or whatever. The partner is kinda iffy on it. Is the act of persuading them by either sheer nagging or getting them information on it sexual assault? I guess is persuasion assault? Where do we draw the line. Communicate better and have a healthy sexual relationship.
Easy to say. I already said we all need to be better people.
Communication ismt exactly a strongpoint with random hookups and alcohol involved.
|
On November 22 2017 02:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 02:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
Let me tell you something, women are just as likely to lie as men. You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is saying we should believe women because women are unlikely to lie. No, but people are saying that we should believe women because of the nature of sexual assault; because of wider issues about gender inequality and the prevalence of sexual harassment in our society (points not without their merits), therefore it is important and relevant to point out that this shouldn't equate to an assumption of guilt in the 'court of public opinion'. Why do I think people are saying this (when no-one is explicitly saying it)? Mostly because of how this stuff generally plays out in the media and on social media. People are saying that we should treat reports of sexual assault as credible in the same way we do any other reports of crime. That if someone told you that they were mugged you wouldn't demand to know their history of philanthropy and suggest that if they didn't want to give away money to the unfortunate then they would have acted differently. That's literally it. The reason we have to say something so obvious as "treat reports of sexual assault as being credible" is because for the longest time we have marginalized the victims and excused the abusers. They're not saying "treat the words of women as infallible in court", that's a misunderstanding you've invented. They're just saying "treat the words of women regarding sexual assault the same way you would treat any other allegation of criminal behavior".
I disagree strongly with this. I think the tendency in public opinion is not to treat sexual assault cases as credible, but as absolutely true unless proven otherwise. If you can't see the difference between these two things, or between public opinion and the court system, then it is you who misunderstands.
Maybe I'm wrong about this but the perception I get from social media and the leftist bubble I find myself in is that if a man is accused of rape then the media, and therefore the public, will always treat them as guilty immediately. To me it doesn't even seem a fine line between credible and true. Take Ched Evans in the UK (a footballer accused of rape who was found not guilty at a retrial). I don't know whether he did it, but the debate in public was basically between people who were 100% sure he was guilty (leftists) and people who were 100% he was innocent and she was a liar (MRA nutter types). Everyone else generally shut the fuck up about it because they didn't know what happened.
Even as I type this out I come to the realization that its probably from listening to the loudest, stupidest voices that I get bad ideas about what public opinion is generally like lol.
So yeah, I'm probably wrong, but I don't think its unjustified to bring this stuff up.
On November 22 2017 03:02 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 02:27 Jockmcplop wrote:
Let me tell you something, women are just as likely to lie as men. You're arguing against a straw man. Nobody is saying we should believe women because women are unlikely to lie. No, but people are saying that we should believe women because of the nature of sexual assault; because of wider issues about gender inequality and the prevalence of sexual harassment in our society (points not without their merits), therefore it is important and relevant to point out that this shouldn't equate to an assumption of guilt in the 'court of public opinion'. Why do I think people are saying this (when no-one is explicitly saying it)? Mostly because of how this stuff generally plays out in the media and on social media. On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. I know how it is given, I'm just concerned by the ability of people to retroactively change their mind I'm concerned about people claiming that "retroactively changing their mind" is a problem so they can continue sexual assaulting women and claim they had consent.
Fair enough. Its possible to be concerned about both you know.
|
On November 21 2017 14:57 mozoku wrote:Show nested quote +On November 21 2017 14:12 IgnE wrote:On November 21 2017 12:29 mozoku wrote:On November 21 2017 12:02 IgnE wrote:On November 21 2017 11:37 xDaunt wrote:On November 21 2017 11:01 IgnE wrote:On November 21 2017 05:13 xDaunt wrote:On November 21 2017 04:40 TheYango wrote:On November 21 2017 02:59 Nebuchad wrote:
I have no problem with the notion that some people play the lottery with sums that aren't insignificant to them and that they're wrong to do so. It isn't a notion that contradicts my initial objection. The people for whom the cost of the lottery is *actually* insignificant don't play the lottery. You have to be exceedingly wealthy for $500 a year to represent effectively no marginal utility. Even people for whom that represents 1/1000th of their yearly income could probably think of a lot of practically useful things that they would do with an extra $500 a year. What's more common is that people *perceive* the cost of the lottery to be insignificant when it isn't because they are poor/inefficient at evaluating their own personal finances and the relative value of small sums of money. A lot of these people would probably respond differently to the lottery if it was framed as "$500 a year" and not "$10 a week". Exactly. The root problem is the financial illiteracy of too many Americans. Let's just put the lotto aside for a moment. These are the same people that don't hesitate to drop $5 for a frappucino from Starbucks instead of brewing their own coffee at home. And don't even get me started on the vacations that they take or the money that they blow on other frivolous shit. The worst part is that these poor financial habits carry on from generation to generation. We're two or three generations into an expanding class of financial invalids who have no concept of how to properly manage money. Fuck music and arts classes in high school. We need to start teaching our kids what a credit score is and why it's important. Be careful what you wish for. The American economy runs on consumption of frivolous shit. Further, with more financial literacy comes more class-consciousness. Do you think people will be happy with low wages when they can't numb the scenes of their slow deaths with $5 sugar and caffeine bombs? I'd rather empower individuals than continue to bear the social and economic costs of their ongoing stupidity. My bet is that class-consciousness would be less of a problem if the lower classes were suddenly given the tools that they need to improve their lots in life. You benefit quite a bit by your relative position in the social hierarchy. This "bearing the social and economic costs of others' stupidity" (as a hard-working professional who benefits from less competition) stops short of thinking things through to the end. No it doesn't? You realize that if we stop wasting resources producing useless shit like new cars or cigarettes, we can reallocate that to producing useful shit and the overall pie gets bigger? The economy isn't a zero sum game. Sorry, you're going to have to define "useful shit" for me. New cars aren't useful? What do you mean by "the economy isn't a zero sum game?" Do you think we lack capital for investment? Is that why the pie isn't getting bigger at 5% or 6% or 10% instead of 3%? What do you think corporations want to do with all their offshore money? I was referring to the fact that Americans buy a new car, on average, every 4-5 years despite the average car having a useful life of 10+ years. Cars lose their value with time (regardless of use), and a better car does little to increase your income. Thus, repeatedly paying for new cars when you have a working car is a horrible financial decision for the average American who has little to no savings. Cigarettes are pretty self-explanatory. These are the sorts of burdens I'm assuming xDaunt is referring to, as people who retire with no savings require wealth/income redistribution to survive. Moving to my opinion, even if I think such redistribution may be morally permissible, I agree with xDaunt that I'd rather have these people taught financial literacy to lead better lives on their own than effectively bailing them out when they're essentially bankrupt. "Useful shit" is stuff that isn't a zero or negative net impact on society (e.g. as cigarettes are). If humans make intelligent financial decisions, less resources are wasted and consequently the pie of usable resources gets bigger. That's what a non-zero sum game is. We're not competing over a pie of fixed-size. I'll tell you what corporations want to do with their offshore funds: deploy it to produce more stuff that consumers want, or distribute it to shareholders (who then reinvest it to someone who can produce even more stuff that consumers want than the corporation could have). The problem is that neither decision makes sense when the government is going to take a 40% cut as the funds are repatriated. If you think there are zero value-creating ideas out there that additional productive capital couldn't help make a reality, you need to spend more time talking to people with some ideas that don't involve class warfare and Marxist revolutions.
Offshore funds aren't a very big deal. The funds are already in the US. Arguably there would be an efficiency benefit from removing the accounting burden, but I sincerely doubt you'd notice any large changes.
Edit: for clarity, I would agree with the efficiency argument, but I do not think it would be a big deal.
|
On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. And I'm not really seeing any "cost" to making sure your partner is also down to fuck at that given moment. The fact I've gone through my entire life without sexually assaulting or harassing anyone is seeming like a bigger accomplishment each day. Maybe according to your definition. I remember walking around campus and seeing a poster that said "IF SHE WAS DRUNK, IT WAS RAPE." Feminism club went just a weeee bit too far on that one, but whatever.
You can't give consent while impaired. If both parties are impaired and willingly became impaired, it is sort of a non-issue. But if one party is far more capable than the other, its impossible to truly obtain consent.
On November 22 2017 03:10 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:04 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:00 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. I think the part of the issue is that consent is sometimes given but then later revoked without cues. Or sometimes how yes isnt really yes. (IE someone nags someone until they say yes). To be clear, im not talking about coercion here. At least not in an obvious sense. I mean say you or your spouse really want to try a new sex position or act or whatever. The partner is kinda iffy on it. Is the act of persuading them by either sheer nagging or getting them information on it sexual assault? I guess is persuasion assault? Where do we draw the line. Communicate better and have a healthy sexual relationship. Easy to say. I already said we all need to be better people. Communication ismt exactly a strongpoint with random hookups and alcohol involved.
Be like Austin Powers, don't have sex with drunk people when you are sober. If you are going to get drunk with someone, make sure everyone knows what intent of the outing is. Don't hook up with people if you're pretty sure they are black out drunk.
|
On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:02 ticklishmusic wrote:On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. And I'm not really seeing any "cost" to making sure your partner is also down to fuck at that given moment. The fact I've gone through my entire life without sexually assaulting or harassing anyone is seeming like a bigger accomplishment each day. Maybe according to your definition. I remember walking around campus and seeing a poster that said "IF SHE WAS DRUNK, IT WAS RAPE." Feminism club went just a weeee bit too far on that one, but whatever.
What's wrong with that poster's message? I mean, if the intention is to point out that "she" implies that men can't be raped, sure that's wrong. Also, if both parties are drunk then I don't think that counts as rape either. But if a sober person has sex with a drunk person, it's rape. Drunk people can't consent.
|
|
|
United States41989 Posts
On November 22 2017 03:08 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:03 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 03:00 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 02:55 Plansix wrote:
It sort of amazes me that people can be so god damn confused by the concept of consent and how it is given. I think the part of the issue is that consent is sometimes given but then later revoked without cues. Or sometimes how yes isnt really yes. (IE someone nags someone until they say yes). To be clear, im not talking about coercion here. At least not in an obvious sense. I mean say you or your spouse really want to try a new sex position or act or whatever. The partner is kinda iffy on it. Is the act of persuading them by either sheer nagging or getting them information on it sexual assault? I guess is persuasion assault? Where do we draw the line. Here is the line. + Show Spoiler [the implication] +https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yUafzOXHPE If they consent because they just want to get it over with and go to bed, consent. If they consent because they're afraid of what might happen if they continue to not consent, non consent. I understand because that transforms into coercion. I think its easy to say this though but not so clear in practice. Its obvious when someone is a serial predator but its a grey area if someone doesnt realize thet are intimidating someone.
I'm okay with the idea of a guy accidentally raping a girl because he's a fucking moron and doesn't realize he's a rapist.
Take this amazing example from /r/legaladvice
https://www.reddit.com/r/legaladvice/comments/352fus/false_rape_nm/
He comes asking for advice about how to deal with the false rape accusation and explains how he lured her back to his place under false pretenses, trapped her, took away her phone, and told her that she couldn't leave until she had sex with him.
|
The reason i bring this up is the leeann tweeden al franken story.
She consented to a kiss after his badgering. Was he wrong to badger her? Probably. Should they have communicated tongue or no tongue ahead of time? Absolutely (or Franken should have been normal and assumed no tongue).
I would assume this stuff happens all the time and is relatively innocent compared to more egregious accusations. We should do better and try to get it out of society but we need to diffentiate what this is compared to other assault cases. For me, its hard to even classify this as assault. If you do, its gotta be low on the severity list.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
