|
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 03:28 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote: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. I've seen numerous people say if both the man and woman are drunk, it is the man raping the woman. I saw no nuance offered, so I assume that is what was meant.
If that's the case- that both parties are drunk- then I feel like it's neither person's fault, per se. That being said, I lack any legal precedent or knowledge of relevant situations, so my inkling here isn't particularly well-informed.
|
On November 22 2017 03:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Gorsameth wrote: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  Here is a good life tip. If your going to have sex with someone you fear might 'retroactively change their mind' then don't have sex. Its really easy. Sure you might miss a lay here and there and a few women will wake up hungover with a different 'mistake' next to them in bed but you will live your life happily and free of concern. To me, that's as much of a problem as saying 'if you're scared about intergalactic travel then don't get on the Enterprise'. Its not going to happen either way haha. I'm concerned about the perception I get from social media about some people's attitudes to public cases more than anything. Don't fuck people you don't think are honest. Also don't loan money to people who are known for not repaying debts. Isn't that victim blaming?
Not when you are raising it as a hypothetical in an argument as to why we shouldn't take victims claims in good faith.
|
On November 22 2017 03:25 Artisreal wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote: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. So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition. To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right? Straight up, I would be in some deep shit if I had sex with my wife if she came home super drunk and was trying to go to bed. I dont' understand why anyone would think that was ok. because people imagine very different circumstances. Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote: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. So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition. To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right? I don't know what level of drunkenness we're talking about (we can assume non-blackout, sure), but of course it's possible for a man to rape his spouse! Marriage doesn't mean "You can have sex with me even if I don't consent". it aint that long ago that rape was treated very differently (in Germany) when perpetrator and victim were married.
Then I am glad that Germany's treatment of this situation has finally evolved
|
United States41988 Posts
On November 22 2017 03:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Gorsameth wrote: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 Here is a good life tip. If your going to have sex with someone you fear might 'retroactively change their mind' then don't have sex. Its really easy. Sure you might miss a lay here and there and a few women will wake up hungover with a different 'mistake' next to them in bed but you will live your life happily and free of concern. To me, that's as much of a problem as saying 'if you're scared about intergalactic travel then don't get on the Enterprise'. Its not going to happen either way haha. I'm concerned about the perception I get from social media about some people's attitudes to public cases more than anything. Don't fuck people you don't think are honest. Also don't loan money to people who are known for not repaying debts. Isn't that victim blaming?
Yes. Saying "don't have sex with people who will falsely accuse you of rape" is blaming the victims of those false accusations.
I think a better way to put it would be "don't have sex when the consent is pretty ambiguous", even if you can explain to yourself how it's all okay. If you accidentally rape someone then you have yourself to blame.
|
On November 22 2017 03:30 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote: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. So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition. To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right? I don't know what level of drunkenness we're talking about (we can assume non-blackout, sure), but of course it's possible for a man to rape his spouse! Marriage doesn't mean "You can have sex with me even if I don't consent". Thats obvious that spouses can be raped. My point is a blanket statement on alcohol is dumb. Case in point my girlfriend doesnt drink. I drink to the point of drunkenness occasionally. Id never say as a blanket statement because im drunk i cant consent so she from time to time rapes me on the weekends. Im a sane guy whos made it a point to avoid pitfalls with alcohol and women (ie if theres a hint her judgement could be affected its been a no go) i just think blanket statements are bad and each case needs to be examined individually Also please remember this goes for all genders and couples. It could have been some right wing rag but i thought i remember seeing something about lesbian couples and power dynamic/alcohol that should be addressed as well. Its a societal problem
I think the problem stems from your perception of rape. Yes the term draws up images of violence and force but at its core it is simply sex without consent.
As you said, it occasionally happens that your drunk and have sex with your sober wife. By the definition of 'sex without consent' (which your to drunk to give) yes, she occasionally rapes you. But I assume you two know eachother well enough to know when its ok and when its not ok and there is no problem
Its a bigger deal when people don't know each other and don't know each others limits. Hence the advice to not have sex with someone who is drunk to avoid the possibility of crossing a line you didn't know.
There are a lot of these little things between friends/partners that we find acceptable even tho they are technically a crime.
Drawing stuff on your sleeping friends face can be a funny gag, it probably also qualifies as some level of an assault battery charge.
|
That'd be a battery, assault requires that the victim "see it coming" 
Edit: To make matters more confusing, "sexual assault" is a thing separate from plain old assault.
|
On November 22 2017 03:31 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Gorsameth wrote: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 Here is a good life tip. If your going to have sex with someone you fear might 'retroactively change their mind' then don't have sex. Its really easy. Sure you might miss a lay here and there and a few women will wake up hungover with a different 'mistake' next to them in bed but you will live your life happily and free of concern. To me, that's as much of a problem as saying 'if you're scared about intergalactic travel then don't get on the Enterprise'. Its not going to happen either way haha. I'm concerned about the perception I get from social media about some people's attitudes to public cases more than anything. Don't fuck people you don't think are honest. Also don't loan money to people who are known for not repaying debts. Isn't that victim blaming? Not when you are raising it as a hypothetical in an argument as to why we shouldn't take victims claims in good faith.
Interesting use of language. Taking victims claims in good faith is pretty vague. If its a hypothetical in an argument as to why we shouldn't condemn someone as a rapist without any evidence then I can accept that.
You are doing very well at caricaturing my argument without answering any of my points.
So far, you have told me in the last few pages that I shouldn't have an opinion on this, that its baffling that I don't understand consent (not true), and that I don't take victims claims in good faith.
Instead, try arguing against what I am actually saying.
There's two sides to this story. I have been focusing entirely on the accused perspective on it, you have been focusing on the victim (accuser?). There has to be a sensible meeting point somewhere where we can take ALL claims of sexual assault completely seriously and never ever assume wrongdoing or guilt of any kind on the victim (who in the majority of cases will have gone through something permanently traumatic), while trying to avoid some of the very damaging consequences that public opinion can have on a falsely accused person's life. This can also be permanently damaging. These people should not be forgotten or dismissed because we are on a quest to avoid victim blaming.
There has surely got to be a set of positions we can agree on which limits the damage that can be done to an innocent person while conserving fairness.
|
On November 22 2017 03:30 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote: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. So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition. To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right? I don't know what level of drunkenness we're talking about (we can assume non-blackout, sure), but of course it's possible for a man to rape his spouse! Marriage doesn't mean "You can have sex with me even if I don't consent". Thats obvious that spouses can be raped. My point is a blanket statement on alcohol is dumb. Case in point my girlfriend doesnt drink. I drink to the point of drunkenness occasionally. Id never say as a blanket statement because im drunk i cant consent so she from time to time rapes me on the weekends. Im a sane guy whos made it a point to avoid pitfalls with alcohol and women (ie if theres a hint her judgement could be affected its been a no go) i just think blanket statements are bad and each case needs to be examined individually Also please remember this goes for all genders and couples. It could have been some right wing rag but i thought i remember seeing something about lesbian couples and power dynamic/alcohol that should be addressed as well. Its a societal problem
I agree with you that context matters, but I think from both a legal and social standpoint, it's better to start with the generalization of "Technically and semantically, any drunken person is raped by their spouse if the spouse is soberly having sex with them" then "Technically and semantically, any drunken person is not being raped by their spouse if the spouse is soberly having sex with them". For example, in your case, you still have the freedom to choose whether or not to report anything, or have a serious conversation with your significant other outlining certain boundaries, etc. The important part, there, is that you- as the person who is technically the victim- have options. The first generalization would still protect the rape victim, which is necessary for many other couples in different situations (even if you're cool with it for your own relationship). The second generalization, on the other hand, would allow for an assailant to try to get away with rape by saying "Oh we're married so it's okay she didn't consent".
Also, you mentioned that the relationship is you and your girlfriend, not you and your spouse. I think it becomes even harder to defend non-married relationships containing drunken sex because they're so loosely defined and there's no legal distinction. It would be incredibly difficult, for example, to support the idea that a guy should be able to get away with "Yeah she was drunk, but she and I were dating so the sex wasn't rape". That's a definite no. I stuck to the marriage examples because I think that's a more fair (and interesting) dialogue.
|
On November 22 2017 03:30 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote: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. So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition. To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right? I don't know what level of drunkenness we're talking about (we can assume non-blackout, sure), but of course it's possible for a man to rape his spouse! Marriage doesn't mean "You can have sex with me even if I don't consent". Thats obvious that spouses can be raped. My point is a blanket statement on alcohol is dumb. Case in point my girlfriend doesnt drink. I drink to the point of drunkenness occasionally. Id never say as a blanket statement because im drunk i cant consent so she from time to time rapes me on the weekends. Im a sane guy whos made it a point to avoid pitfalls with alcohol and women (ie if theres a hint her judgement could be affected its been a no go) i just think blanket statements are bad and each case needs to be examined individually Also please remember this goes for all genders and couples. It could have been some right wing rag but i thought i remember seeing something about lesbian couples and power dynamic/alcohol that should be addressed as well. Its a societal problem
It's a REAL, i.e. factual, problem that drunk people show an impaired ability to perceive clues or might even disregard the universally accepted safe word "no".
You being a decent person has nothing to do with reality where marital rape and violence is a thing.
Point is, and I think we agree on that (p6 basically says very similar things), that you have to look at these things on a rather individual basis (p6 saying: talk about it). Whether one or both of the involved is intoxicated also plays a big role.
It's not black and white, that's a part why it ain't that easy.
Thus I would agree with you that the blanket statement drunk = rape without context is wrong.
In a colledge context with (I'm assuming here) lots of parties and drunkenness in presence of strangers, it can hit very close to home and make a lot of sense that this can be applied broadly and only other circumstances invalidate it.
|
On November 22 2017 03:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:30 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:24 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote: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. So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition. To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right? I don't know what level of drunkenness we're talking about (we can assume non-blackout, sure), but of course it's possible for a man to rape his spouse! Marriage doesn't mean "You can have sex with me even if I don't consent". Thats obvious that spouses can be raped. My point is a blanket statement on alcohol is dumb. Case in point my girlfriend doesnt drink. I drink to the point of drunkenness occasionally. Id never say as a blanket statement because im drunk i cant consent so she from time to time rapes me on the weekends. Im a sane guy whos made it a point to avoid pitfalls with alcohol and women (ie if theres a hint her judgement could be affected its been a no go) i just think blanket statements are bad and each case needs to be examined individually Also please remember this goes for all genders and couples. It could have been some right wing rag but i thought i remember seeing something about lesbian couples and power dynamic/alcohol that should be addressed as well. Its a societal problem I agree with you that context matters, but I think from both a legal and social standpoint, it's better to start with the generalization of "Technically and semantically, any drunken person is raped by their spouse if the spouse is soberly having sex with them" then "Technically and semantically, any drunken person is not being raped by their spouse if the spouse is soberly having sex with them". For example, in your case, you still have the freedom to choose whether or not to report anything, or have a serious conversation with your significant other outlining certain boundaries, etc. The important part, there, is that you- as the person who is technically the victim- have options. The first generalization would still protect the rape victim, which is necessary for many other couples in different situations (even if you're cool with it for your own relationship). The second generalization, on the other hand, would allow for an assailant to try to get away with rape by saying "Oh we're married so it's okay she didn't consent". Also, you mentioned that the relationship is you and your girlfriend, not you and your spouse. I think it becomes even harder to defend non-married relationships containing drunken sex because they're so loosely defined and there's no legal distinction. It would be incredibly difficult, for example, to support the idea that a guy should be able to get away with "Yeah she was drunk, but she and I were dating so the sex wasn't rape". That's a definite no. I stuck to the marriage examples because I think that's a more fair (and interesting) dialogue.
I understand where you are coming from. Theres nuance and we dont want predators to circumvent the law.
I guess my whole point in all of this is that.
1) consent can be muddy
2) if we generalize too much people will tune out the message (ie: drunk = always rape vs drunk & sober spouse)
3)per leeann tweedens story, al frankens actions are incredibly mild on the scale (and she potentially consented to the kiss, circle back to 1)). They were in poor taste but dont deserve to be lumped in with the other stories floating around about other guys.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On November 22 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote: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. So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition. To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right? Straight up, I would be in some deep shit if I had sex with my wife if she came home super drunk and was trying to go to bed. I dont' understand why anyone would think that was ok.
What if she comes home and is like BLRAHARAHHRAGAA HAHA IM SO DRUNK AND HORNY FUCKING FUCK ME NOW? and then she gets naked and enters the lady side of some sex position and goes like WTF ARE YOU SO SLOW I SAID FUCK ME NOW?
Basically in this situation she's drunk as fuck and consenting as fuck. I personally think that is perfectly fair game , even if you are sober yourself. (Although if I'm completely sober I wouldn't find the behavior particularly attractive - still would prolly comply, though.) The thing is, that's often the case. Girls, just like guys, can get incredibly horny while incredibly drunk.
I think if you deliberately stay sober so you can target near-blackout/full blackout girls when pubs are closing or whatever, then that's rape, but drunken sex is the grayest of possible areas and statements like 'if she was drunk, it was rape' ends up being about as wrong of a statement as "if you're married, it's not rape." would be. Drunk is not a binary position, and a lot of people, from both genders, like to have sex when they're somewhat intoxicated. You can't even go by BAC levels because those vary greatly from person to person, and even individuals can have completely different degrees of control on different days even if they drank the same amount. What if both are near blackout drunk? Is the guy still expected to have behaved responsibly, but the girl not?
I completely agree that stuff like 'im gonna get her drunk so she'll sleep with me' or any variant thereof is scummy behavior. But I don't think you're a rapist (or even a jackass, tbh) because you drank 12 beers and had sex with some girl who drank 8 beers where both of you wanted to but where neither of you remembered it and where the girl regretted it afterwards. There is an important balance to be had on this issue, too.
|
On November 22 2017 03:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote: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. So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition. To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right? Straight up, I would be in some deep shit if I had sex with my wife if she came home super drunk and was trying to go to bed. I dont' understand why anyone would think that was ok. What if she comes home and is like BLRAHARAHHRAGAA HAHA IM SO DRUNK AND HORNY FUCKING FUCK ME NOW? and then she gets naked and enters the lady side of some sex position and goes like WTF ARE YOU SO SLOW I SAID FUCK ME NOW? Basically in this situation she's drunk as fuck and consenting as fuck. I personally think that is perfectly fair game , even if you are sober yourself. (Although if I'm completely sober I wouldn't find the behavior particularly attractive - still would prolly comply, though.) The thing is, that's often the case. Girls, just like guys, can get incredibly horny while incredibly drunk. I think if you deliberately stay sober so you can target near-blackout/full blackout girls when pubs are closing or whatever, then that's rape, but drunken sex is the grayest of possible areas and statements like 'if she was drunk, it was rape' ends up being about as wrong of a statement as "if you're married, it's not rape." would be. Drunk is not a binary position, and a lot of people, from both genders, like to have sex when they're somewhat intoxicated. You can't even go by BAC levels because those vary greatly from person to person, and even individuals can have completely different degrees of control on different days even if they drank the same amount. What if both are near blackout drunk? Is the guy still expected to have behaved responsibly, but the girl not? I completely agree that stuff like 'im gonna get her drunk so she'll sleep with me' or any variant thereof is scummy behavior. But I don't think you're a rapist (or even a jackass, tbh) because you drank 12 beers and had sex with some girl who drank 8 beers where both of you wanted to but where neither of you remembered it and where the girl regretted it afterwards. There is an important balance to be had on this issue, too.
The current legal discussion around sexual consent frames it in the exact same way as we frame medical consent.
In other words, you can't consent to anything when you're drunk because you are cognitively impaired. this is how we treat it in the medical/legal world (you can't consent to a medical procedure or sign a legal contract while you're drunk).
The exact same scenario can happen where someone is drunk and demanding that they sign a legal document or undergo a medical procedure, or they may just be emotionally or otherwise situationally compromised and it's a physician's ethical duty to refuse to do a treatment or procedure.
Y'all can debate if it's a good idea to treat sexual consent like that or not.
|
On November 22 2017 03:43 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:31 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Gorsameth wrote: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 Here is a good life tip. If your going to have sex with someone you fear might 'retroactively change their mind' then don't have sex. Its really easy. Sure you might miss a lay here and there and a few women will wake up hungover with a different 'mistake' next to them in bed but you will live your life happily and free of concern. To me, that's as much of a problem as saying 'if you're scared about intergalactic travel then don't get on the Enterprise'. Its not going to happen either way haha. I'm concerned about the perception I get from social media about some people's attitudes to public cases more than anything. Don't fuck people you don't think are honest. Also don't loan money to people who are known for not repaying debts. Isn't that victim blaming? Not when you are raising it as a hypothetical in an argument as to why we shouldn't take victims claims in good faith. Interesting use of language. Taking victims claims in good faith is pretty vague. If its a hypothetical in an argument as to why we shouldn't condemn someone as a rapist without any evidence then I can accept that. You are doing very well at caricaturing my argument without answering any of my points. So far, you have told me in the last few pages that I shouldn't have an opinion on this, that its baffling that I don't understand consent (not true), and that I don't take victims claims in good faith. Instead, try arguing against what I am actually saying. There's two sides to this story. I have been focusing entirely on the accused perspective on it, you have been focusing on the victim (accuser?). There has to be a sensible meeting point somewhere where we can take ALL claims of sexual assault completely seriously and never ever assume wrongdoing or guilt of any kind on the victim (who in the majority of cases will have gone through something permanently traumatic), while trying to avoid some of the very damaging consequences that public opinion can have on a falsely accused person's life. This can also be permanently damaging. These people should not be forgotten or dismissed because we are on a quest to avoid victim blaming. There has surely got to be a set of positions we can agree on which limits the damage that can be done to an innocent person while conserving fairness.
The problem I have with this argument is that is assumes there is always something to be gained by making up sexual assault claims. That there is always a specter of deception around any claim that must exist until it is completely dispelled. All evidence contradicts this. The women who have come forward to claim sexual harassment and assault in the past have been subject harassment, efforts to discredit them and damage to their careers. Every woman who has come forward has talked about the fear associated with doing do and that it puts them at risk. It seems like there are ample systems in place to address and discourage false claims. So I’m not really seeing a lot of reasons that I need to be especially concerned with the people accused of sexual harassment ability to defend themselves. Especially when people like Woody Allen, O’Reilly and others were able to get away with it for decades.
Edit: @Drone - of course. The problem I had with the discussion was that people were equating marriage = assumed consent. I have a problem with that generality, even in hypothetical discussions.
|
On November 22 2017 03:56 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:31 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Gorsameth wrote: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 Here is a good life tip. If your going to have sex with someone you fear might 'retroactively change their mind' then don't have sex. Its really easy. Sure you might miss a lay here and there and a few women will wake up hungover with a different 'mistake' next to them in bed but you will live your life happily and free of concern. To me, that's as much of a problem as saying 'if you're scared about intergalactic travel then don't get on the Enterprise'. Its not going to happen either way haha. I'm concerned about the perception I get from social media about some people's attitudes to public cases more than anything. Don't fuck people you don't think are honest. Also don't loan money to people who are known for not repaying debts. Isn't that victim blaming? Not when you are raising it as a hypothetical in an argument as to why we shouldn't take victims claims in good faith. Interesting use of language. Taking victims claims in good faith is pretty vague. If its a hypothetical in an argument as to why we shouldn't condemn someone as a rapist without any evidence then I can accept that. You are doing very well at caricaturing my argument without answering any of my points. So far, you have told me in the last few pages that I shouldn't have an opinion on this, that its baffling that I don't understand consent (not true), and that I don't take victims claims in good faith. Instead, try arguing against what I am actually saying. There's two sides to this story. I have been focusing entirely on the accused perspective on it, you have been focusing on the victim (accuser?). There has to be a sensible meeting point somewhere where we can take ALL claims of sexual assault completely seriously and never ever assume wrongdoing or guilt of any kind on the victim (who in the majority of cases will have gone through something permanently traumatic), while trying to avoid some of the very damaging consequences that public opinion can have on a falsely accused person's life. This can also be permanently damaging. These people should not be forgotten or dismissed because we are on a quest to avoid victim blaming. There has surely got to be a set of positions we can agree on which limits the damage that can be done to an innocent person while conserving fairness. The problem I have with this argument is that is assumes there is always something to be gained by making up sexual assault claims. That there is always a specter of deception around any claim that must exist until it is completely dispelled. All evidence contradicts this. The women who have come forward to claim sexual harassment and assault in the past have been subject harassment, efforts to discredit them and damage to their careers. Every woman who has come forward has talked about the fear associated with doing do and that it puts them at risk. It seems like there are ample systems in place to address and discourage false claims. So I’m not really seeing a lot of reasons that I need to be especially concerned with the people accused of sexual harassment ability to defend themselves. Especially when people like Woody Allen, O’Reilly and others were able to get away with it for decades.
When I was 18 I went to a house party that got out of hand. The girl who threw the party was 18 and popular. Her house got absolutely trashed. To get out of trouble she said she had been raped by three of the people at the party. They were arrested for gang rape during class at school in front of everybody.
It was a total fabrication. The girl's family had to drop charges against people for criminal damages in return for the police not charging her for making the whole story up.
It happens. You're arguing that it is justified to completely ignore this side of the story because of the harm that's done by the mere suggestion that this can happen.
You can't make facts go away because it fits in with how you want the world to be I'm afraid.
|
On November 22 2017 03:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote: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. So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition. To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right? Straight up, I would be in some deep shit if I had sex with my wife if she came home super drunk and was trying to go to bed. I dont' understand why anyone would think that was ok. What if she comes home and is like BLRAHARAHHRAGAA HAHA IM SO DRUNK AND HORNY FUCKING FUCK ME NOW? and then she gets naked and enters the lady side of some sex position and goes like WTF ARE YOU SO SLOW I SAID FUCK ME NOW? Basically in this situation she's drunk as fuck and consenting as fuck. I personally think that is perfectly fair game , even if you are sober yourself. (Although if I'm completely sober I wouldn't find the behavior particularly attractive - still would prolly comply, though.) The thing is, that's often the case. Girls, just like guys, can get incredibly horny while incredibly drunk. I think if you deliberately stay sober so you can target near-blackout/full blackout girls when pubs are closing or whatever, then that's rape, but drunken sex is the grayest of possible areas and statements like 'if she was drunk, it was rape' ends up being about as wrong of a statement as "if you're married, it's not rape." would be. Drunk is not a binary position, and a lot of people, from both genders, like to have sex when they're somewhat intoxicated. You can't even go by BAC levels because those vary greatly from person to person, and even individuals can have completely different degrees of control on different days even if they drank the same amount. What if both are near blackout drunk? Is the guy still expected to have behaved responsibly, but the girl not? I completely agree that stuff like 'im gonna get her drunk so she'll sleep with me' or any variant thereof is scummy behavior. But I don't think you're a rapist (or even a jackass, tbh) because you drank 12 beers and had sex with some girl who drank 8 beers where both of you wanted to but where neither of you remembered it and where the girl regretted it afterwards. There is an important balance to be had on this issue, too.
This completely.
With these court of public opinion things going on its why nuance matters. If we always assume the accuser is 100% correct and factual it takes away any opportunity for the accused to state their case. You can be skeptical of an accuser and still not think they have malice intentions and care about their feelings.
Without nuance it makes things a bigger mess for everyone.
We can tell these guys not to put themselves in a bad situation (avoid drunk women, affirmative consent, power dymamics) but if the same thing is said to women, or whatever gender the accuser is, its victim blaming.
We should be honest on both fronts. Because you wear revealing clothes, get too drunk, etc does not in any way mean its your fault or you deserve to be assaulted or raped. However, there can be ways to help protect yourself. The honus is on both parties in these grey area cases.
|
On November 22 2017 04:01 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:56 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:31 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2017 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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 Here is a good life tip. If your going to have sex with someone you fear might 'retroactively change their mind' then don't have sex. Its really easy. Sure you might miss a lay here and there and a few women will wake up hungover with a different 'mistake' next to them in bed but you will live your life happily and free of concern. To me, that's as much of a problem as saying 'if you're scared about intergalactic travel then don't get on the Enterprise'. Its not going to happen either way haha. I'm concerned about the perception I get from social media about some people's attitudes to public cases more than anything. Don't fuck people you don't think are honest. Also don't loan money to people who are known for not repaying debts. Isn't that victim blaming? Not when you are raising it as a hypothetical in an argument as to why we shouldn't take victims claims in good faith. Interesting use of language. Taking victims claims in good faith is pretty vague. If its a hypothetical in an argument as to why we shouldn't condemn someone as a rapist without any evidence then I can accept that. You are doing very well at caricaturing my argument without answering any of my points. So far, you have told me in the last few pages that I shouldn't have an opinion on this, that its baffling that I don't understand consent (not true), and that I don't take victims claims in good faith. Instead, try arguing against what I am actually saying. There's two sides to this story. I have been focusing entirely on the accused perspective on it, you have been focusing on the victim (accuser?). There has to be a sensible meeting point somewhere where we can take ALL claims of sexual assault completely seriously and never ever assume wrongdoing or guilt of any kind on the victim (who in the majority of cases will have gone through something permanently traumatic), while trying to avoid some of the very damaging consequences that public opinion can have on a falsely accused person's life. This can also be permanently damaging. These people should not be forgotten or dismissed because we are on a quest to avoid victim blaming. There has surely got to be a set of positions we can agree on which limits the damage that can be done to an innocent person while conserving fairness. The problem I have with this argument is that is assumes there is always something to be gained by making up sexual assault claims. That there is always a specter of deception around any claim that must exist until it is completely dispelled. All evidence contradicts this. The women who have come forward to claim sexual harassment and assault in the past have been subject harassment, efforts to discredit them and damage to their careers. Every woman who has come forward has talked about the fear associated with doing do and that it puts them at risk. It seems like there are ample systems in place to address and discourage false claims. So I’m not really seeing a lot of reasons that I need to be especially concerned with the people accused of sexual harassment ability to defend themselves. Especially when people like Woody Allen, O’Reilly and others were able to get away with it for decades. When I was 18 I went to a house party that got out of hand. The girl who threw the party was 18 and popular. Her house got absolutely trashed. To get out of trouble she said she had been raped by three of the people at the party. They were arrested for gang rape during class at school in front of everybody. It was a total fabrication. The girl's family had to drop charges against people for criminal damages in return for the police not charging her for making the whole story up. It happens. You're arguing that it is justified to completely ignore this side of the story because of the harm that's done by the mere suggestion that this can happen. You can't make facts go away because it fits in with how you want the world to be I'm afraid.
Given that only around a third of sexual assaults are even reported in the first place, I'm not sure how an anecdote in which the false accuser got her due ought to inform a discussion pertaining to how we treat allegations of sexual assault.
Source
|
On November 22 2017 03:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:09 Mohdoo wrote: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. So if a sober person has sex with their drunk spouse its rape? Couples are constantly in a state of rape if thats the definition. To be clear we arent talking blackout level here right? Straight up, I would be in some deep shit if I had sex with my wife if she came home super drunk and was trying to go to bed. I dont' understand why anyone would think that was ok. What if she comes home and is like BLRAHARAHHRAGAA HAHA IM SO DRUNK AND HORNY FUCKING FUCK ME NOW? and then she gets naked and enters the lady side of some sex position and goes like WTF ARE YOU SO SLOW I SAID FUCK ME NOW? Basically in this situation she's drunk as fuck and consenting as fuck. I personally think that is perfectly fair game , even if you are sober yourself. (Although if I'm completely sober I wouldn't find the behavior particularly attractive - still would prolly comply, though.) The thing is, that's often the case. Girls, just like guys, can get incredibly horny while incredibly drunk.
What the hell? That is soooooo not consent.
|
On November 22 2017 04:01 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 03:56 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:43 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:31 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:27 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:26 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:22 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2017 02:55 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 02:50 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
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 Here is a good life tip. If your going to have sex with someone you fear might 'retroactively change their mind' then don't have sex. Its really easy. Sure you might miss a lay here and there and a few women will wake up hungover with a different 'mistake' next to them in bed but you will live your life happily and free of concern. To me, that's as much of a problem as saying 'if you're scared about intergalactic travel then don't get on the Enterprise'. Its not going to happen either way haha. I'm concerned about the perception I get from social media about some people's attitudes to public cases more than anything. Don't fuck people you don't think are honest. Also don't loan money to people who are known for not repaying debts. Isn't that victim blaming? Not when you are raising it as a hypothetical in an argument as to why we shouldn't take victims claims in good faith. Interesting use of language. Taking victims claims in good faith is pretty vague. If its a hypothetical in an argument as to why we shouldn't condemn someone as a rapist without any evidence then I can accept that. You are doing very well at caricaturing my argument without answering any of my points. So far, you have told me in the last few pages that I shouldn't have an opinion on this, that its baffling that I don't understand consent (not true), and that I don't take victims claims in good faith. Instead, try arguing against what I am actually saying. There's two sides to this story. I have been focusing entirely on the accused perspective on it, you have been focusing on the victim (accuser?). There has to be a sensible meeting point somewhere where we can take ALL claims of sexual assault completely seriously and never ever assume wrongdoing or guilt of any kind on the victim (who in the majority of cases will have gone through something permanently traumatic), while trying to avoid some of the very damaging consequences that public opinion can have on a falsely accused person's life. This can also be permanently damaging. These people should not be forgotten or dismissed because we are on a quest to avoid victim blaming. There has surely got to be a set of positions we can agree on which limits the damage that can be done to an innocent person while conserving fairness. The problem I have with this argument is that is assumes there is always something to be gained by making up sexual assault claims. That there is always a specter of deception around any claim that must exist until it is completely dispelled. All evidence contradicts this. The women who have come forward to claim sexual harassment and assault in the past have been subject harassment, efforts to discredit them and damage to their careers. Every woman who has come forward has talked about the fear associated with doing do and that it puts them at risk. It seems like there are ample systems in place to address and discourage false claims. So I’m not really seeing a lot of reasons that I need to be especially concerned with the people accused of sexual harassment ability to defend themselves. Especially when people like Woody Allen, O’Reilly and others were able to get away with it for decades. When I was 18 I went to a house party that got out of hand. The girl who threw the party was 18 and popular. Her house got absolutely trashed. To get out of trouble she said she had been raped by three of the people at the party. They were arrested for gang rape during class at school in front of everybody. It was a total fabrication. The girl's family had to drop charges against people for criminal damages in return for the police not charging her for making the whole story up. It happens. You're arguing that it is justified to completely ignore this side of the story because of the harm that's done by the mere suggestion that this can happen. You can't make facts go away because it fits in with how you want the world to be I'm afraid.
So what you are saying is they were accused and then she was proven to have made it up?
So, weigh that one story against the entire industry of Hollywood and Fox News that abused women for decades. And the fact that my wife has to check with other female musicians every time they play at a new bar/place to see if there are any dirt bags working there. More often than not, she is told not be back stage alone if “This guy is working.” The guy isn’t fired. She just needs to avoid him.
|
On November 22 2017 04:04 farvacola wrote:
Given that only around a third of sexual assaults are even reported in the first place, I'm not sure how an anecdote in which the false accuser got her due ought to inform a discussion pertaining to how we treat allegations of sexual assault.
Because you are focusing on the accuser.
The falsely accused got very little vindication. Do you have any idea how devastating that is in a small town. One of them left college because it was so humiliating.
|
On November 22 2017 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:04 farvacola wrote:
Given that only around a third of sexual assaults are even reported in the first place, I'm not sure how an anecdote in which the false accuser got her due ought to inform a discussion pertaining to how we treat allegations of sexual assault. Because you are focusing on the accuser. The falsely accused got very little vindication. Do you have any idea how devastating that is in a small town. One of them left college because it was so humiliating.
Again, emphasizing the grievance inherent to a single situation while we still have a relatively extreme problem with regards to encouraging reports of sexual assault in the first place seems mostly irrelevant. In the grand scheme of things, we still need to further encourage the reporting of sexual assault, danger of false accusations notwithstanding.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
