|
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 04:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:22 Trainrunnef wrote:On November 22 2017 04:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: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:
[quote]
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. How is this not consent? If you're literally asking for someone to fuck you then you're clearly consenting to having sex with the person? What if you know for a fact that not having sex is gonna lead to an argument because your wife is gonna be really offended, and being drunk, she won't have any filter and everything she says is gonna come out insane? If she cant legally consent to any contract in that state, how can she consent to sex? Mentally impaired is mentally impaired regardless of whether it includes a boner or a car. If you are married to someone, then you can presume that you've consented to sober sex in the past. I am not talking about 'try this new sexual thing I've been wanting to do', I am talking completely ordinary sex that you have had 400 times over the past 3 years. This is completely different from buying a car, it's more like buying groceries. And I'd be pissed off if I went to the grocery store and wanted to buy myself a loaf of bread and the cashier told me 'sorry, you are drunk so I cannot be sure you won't regret this transaction in the morning'. I get that there's a big difference between this and having sex with a new person. Really big difference. But you don't rape your wife if she comes home and is drunk and wants to have sex and you have sex with her. I don't understand how that can be an opinion.
Consenting to sober sex last night does not mean automatic consent to drunken (or any) sex tonight.
Yes, you need to consent every time.
|
On November 22 2017 04:27 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:15 Jockmcplop wrote:On November 22 2017 04:10 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 04:06 Jockmcplop wrote: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. How many people leave school because they are raped and never receive any justice? This discussion will never work. Your absolute refusal to even attempt to consider the other side of your argument makes it pointless. I agree with almost everything you are saying about the female perspective on this issue. There is a male perspective also and completely ignoring it is beyond ignorant. No the problem you have is that I know there is no defense against people that are willing to bold face lie. There is no system in place that can deal with people who are fully willing lie to officials and make of evidence. And I don’t think the concerns of false accusations mean we need to hold off believing people saying they are sexual assaulted. And I’m of the opinion that men raising that concern are putting their own fears of being falsely accused above all the potential victims that have never come forward.
There is one defense. If their lie is so unlikely and unbelievable it requires large amounts of evidence to stick as a charge. So all we have to do is reduce the occurrence of sexual assault and harassment to the point where it's such a rarity that any accusation of it can be evaluated in a way that properly protects whoever the actual victim is. So it seems like weeding out harassers and assaulters by believing woman is a good way to get to the point where we can protect people from false accusations.
|
I think this problem of sexual harassment isn't a male power over female victims problem at all. That's just the most common sexual interest (heterosexual). You see this with teachers - how many female high school teachers (~60% are female) are caught sleeping with their students nowadays? It's quite disturbingly common. Having more women a field doesn't seem to mean there is less abuse at all.
The problem is one of power. People hold power over others and through that coerce them into being submissive to their demands in one way or another. We need to teach people to stop respecting power outside of the field where it is gained through hard work. Respect a journalist or a celebrity or whatever for their hard work in their respective field - don't respect them when they start demanding things outside that field. And this is not just about the victims, the people who aren't victimized also need to be able to listen, acknowledge, and act when someone is inappropriately using their power.
The problem of consent in Liquid'Drone's example is an interesting one. You can claim it is not consent because the person requesting sex is intoxicated, and there's some validity to that. But if its your wife, and you have a relationship where you understand one another, it could be that you know it is perfectly OK to have sex. When its a stranger or someone you do not know very well coming onto you like that I feel the only appropriate course of action is to deny them - but when it is a friend you know well... it becomes more difficult to answer. This is why the example of "she is drunk = it is rape" is simply inaccurate. It absolutely depends on context, and the meme does not provide sufficient context.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On November 22 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 04:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Likewise, if a girl actively consents (just to be really clear, I am by no means including 'didn't say no audibly enough because she was drunk, but I'm including the 'come on LETS FUCK'), which drunk girls totally do, then no way does it qualify as rape, even if the girl totally regrets it afterwards and would not normally have had sex with that particular guy. This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p What in the literal fuck eri. Stop raping people and then saying that it's their fault for getting horny drunk. You have a responsibility for your own involvement in sex beyond making sure you have an excuse and can get away with it in the morning. If you've obtained wasted consent but you're uncertain whether or not you would have been unable to get sober consent then the correct course of action is not "yeah, but nobody can prove whether or not I'd have had sober consent so technically it's her fault that we had this sex she didn't want to have". Seriously. Rethink your moral framework. That's fucked up. Literally 0 of this applies to sex that I myself have had. You trying to think this is behavior I'm projecting because I've been in 'that guy's position' is completely misplaced. I've had drunk girls be hysterically angry at me for not having had sex with them though. Like honestly, fuck off, you making this assumption towards me is way, way out of line. It still results from an incredibly fucked up moral framework. I'm fine with "if you make a sober decision to get drunk knowing that you'll probably drive while drunk then you made a sober decision to take that risk". Likewise if you make a sober decision to get drunk then sure, there's accountability there. Where you lose me is where you think it becomes morally okay for another person to take advantage of this because can use the above logic as an excuse to pin the blame for it on the victim. If what you're doing is harming another individual, and let's be very clear here, if the girl wakes up with fragments of memories from the blackout and feels like she's been raped then there has been harm, and then saying "technically you caused all this when you decided to get drunk", you're a sociopath. If your standard for moral behavior is technically having an excuse about how it's really their fault that they got raped, you're a sociopath. Apparently you don't do that, good for you. But you're fine with it. You defended it. If the girl is drunkenly inviting you to have sex with her then yes, she has a responsibility for her choice to get drunk. But that does not absolve you of your responsibility to say "no".
You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
|
Norway28558 Posts
On November 22 2017 04:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:22 Trainrunnef wrote:On November 22 2017 04:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: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:
[quote]
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. How is this not consent? If you're literally asking for someone to fuck you then you're clearly consenting to having sex with the person? What if you know for a fact that not having sex is gonna lead to an argument because your wife is gonna be really offended, and being drunk, she won't have any filter and everything she says is gonna come out insane? If she cant legally consent to any contract in that state, how can she consent to sex? Mentally impaired is mentally impaired regardless of whether it includes a boner or a car. If you are married to someone, then you can presume that you've consented to sober sex in the past. I am not talking about 'try this new sexual thing I've been wanting to do', I am talking completely ordinary sex that you have had 400 times over the past 3 years. This is completely different from buying a car, it's more like buying groceries. And I'd be pissed off if I went to the grocery store and wanted to buy myself a loaf of bread and the cashier told me 'sorry, you are drunk so I cannot be sure you won't regret this transaction in the morning'. I get that there's a big difference between this and having sex with a new person. Really big difference. But you don't rape your wife if she comes home and is drunk and wants to have sex and you have sex with her. I don't understand how that can be an opinion. Consenting to sober sex last night does not mean automatic consent to drunken (or any) sex tonight. Yes, you need to consent every time.
But if you consented to sober sex last night and then you super enthusiastically consent to drunken sex tonight, I'm supposed to assume that today you're not for real? I'm not saying you're allowed to rape your wife if she comes home drunk, I'm saying that if you're used to her wanting to have sex and then she comes home drunk and wants to have sex, then why on earth should this consent not apply?
What if I'm drunk and my wife is also drunk and we both want to have sex, we should not have sex because you need to consent to have sex and neither of us can consent while drunk?
edit: for those insisting on black-on-whiting this; 'drunk' also requires a qualifier. How drunk is too drunk to consent? The same as too drunk to drive? Or is there some other objective measurement?
|
On November 22 2017 04:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: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. How is this not consent? If you're literally asking for someone to fuck you then you're clearly consenting to having sex with the person? What if you know for a fact that not having sex is gonna lead to an argument because your wife is gonna be really offended, and being drunk, she won't have any filter and everything she says is gonna come out insane? The state of mind (sobriety) is what takes precedence when deciding consent. As soon as the premise is "She's drunk", the rest is moot. What if she's horny? Doesn't matter. What if she says yes? Doesn't matter. What if she- it can't be consent, period, full stop. Not raping someone is more important than not arguing. That should be obvious. It sounds like the guy needs to have a serious conversation with her about this... when she's sober.
No, state of mind is a factor but not the only factor.
People have drunk sex all the time with neither party claiming rape afterward.
|
On November 22 2017 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But if you consented to sober sex last night and then you super enthusiastically consent to drunken sex tonight, I'm supposed to assume that today you're not for real? I'm not saying you're allowed to rape your wife if she comes home drunk, I'm saying that if you're used to her wanting to have sex and then she comes home drunk and wants to have sex, then why on earth should this consent not apply?
The problem is that the legal system can't account for cases like this because it devolves into a he-said, she-said. So the legal system has to err on the side of being too strict and assuming that in the cases where the woman is fine with it, she won't report it. Technically in the case you described, your wife did not consent from a legal perspective, but that also doesn't mean shit if she's fine with it and doesn't report it.
A legal system that tries to be "right" all the time gets nowhere. So it has to define functionally useful definitions of consent and then assume that victims and enforcement will work out the details in individual cases (this is the part where, as Plansix said, the system can't work around the possibility of the victim lying). In this case, drawing the line for consent at a point where any amount of cognitive impairment is involved is perfectly fine.
|
On November 22 2017 04:27 Jockmcplop wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:18 zlefin wrote:On November 22 2017 04:13 Jockmcplop wrote:
If you guys think I'm arguing against encouraging the reporting of sexual assault then I obviously haven't explained myself well.
I'm arguing that there are two sides to the story, and that its worth ALSO considering the other side and considering the idea that even individual cases of people being falsely accused can be completely devastating.
everyone already does that though, so you're making an unnecessary argument; and people, upon seeing what you say, think that rather than making an unnecessary argument, you're making an argument in some other vein. mostly though it seems like you have a huge bias from one instance which is coloring how you look at and talk about the situation. and you haven't picked up the right words to talk about the issue without sounding like the people who are a problem. also, arguing wiht plansix is often fraugth with difficulty; and trying to having a thoughtful policy discussion on an internet message board generally doesn't work out well either. (and of course most people don't even have the sense to do thoughtful policy anyways, especially those who choose to discuss the issues) Not everyone. I mean P6 just said that he isn't concerned with the male perspective because the female perspective is more important. I agree that its more important, but I don't think that means you have to forget about the negative consequences of the ideas you subscribe to. Something can be overwhelmingly positive, like encouraging women to report sexual abuse of any kind and taking their accounts in good faith, and still have negative consequences that need to be addressed. If you decline to do that, like P6 just said we should, then those problems will grow until they are much more serious.
I don't see him completely discounting them; so much as arguing something orthogonal to what you're arguing.
and again, everyone (or at least everyone reasonable) is willing to address them. so you're not bringing up a relevant argument; mostly I think you just don't get the point being raised. and are takling at cross-purposes and/or with tpeople you shoudln't be.
|
United States41987 Posts
On November 22 2017 04:34 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:28 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 04:22 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:18 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 04:12 Liquid`Drone wrote:
Likewise, if a girl actively consents (just to be really clear, I am by no means including 'didn't say no audibly enough because she was drunk, but I'm including the 'come on LETS FUCK'), which drunk girls totally do, then no way does it qualify as rape, even if the girl totally regrets it afterwards and would not normally have had sex with that particular guy. This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p What in the literal fuck eri. Stop raping people and then saying that it's their fault for getting horny drunk. You have a responsibility for your own involvement in sex beyond making sure you have an excuse and can get away with it in the morning. If you've obtained wasted consent but you're uncertain whether or not you would have been unable to get sober consent then the correct course of action is not "yeah, but nobody can prove whether or not I'd have had sober consent so technically it's her fault that we had this sex she didn't want to have". Seriously. Rethink your moral framework. That's fucked up. Literally 0 of this applies to sex that I myself have had. You trying to think this is behavior I'm projecting because I've been in 'that guy's position' is completely misplaced. I've had drunk girls be hysterically angry at me for not having had sex with them though. Like honestly, fuck off, you making this assumption towards me is way, way out of line. It still results from an incredibly fucked up moral framework. I'm fine with "if you make a sober decision to get drunk knowing that you'll probably drive while drunk then you made a sober decision to take that risk". Likewise if you make a sober decision to get drunk then sure, there's accountability there. Where you lose me is where you think it becomes morally okay for another person to take advantage of this because can use the above logic as an excuse to pin the blame for it on the victim. If what you're doing is harming another individual, and let's be very clear here, if the girl wakes up with fragments of memories from the blackout and feels like she's been raped then there has been harm, and then saying "technically you caused all this when you decided to get drunk", you're a sociopath. If your standard for moral behavior is technically having an excuse about how it's really their fault that they got raped, you're a sociopath. Apparently you don't do that, good for you. But you're fine with it. You defended it. If the girl is drunkenly inviting you to have sex with her then yes, she has a responsibility for her choice to get drunk. But that does not absolve you of your responsibility to say "no". You pull out one sentence of three posts I make and disregard every qualifier I made in that post and the other posts to justify calling me a rapist. I most certainly specified that being sober and looking for drunk girls is really scummy behavior. I am not morally absolving guys who do this. I am totally morally absolving guys who themselves are drunk, just 'slightly less drunk than the girl was', because I don't see how they deserve more blame for getting drunk than the girl did, when both of them wanted to have sex at the time. I also specified, at least twice, that I talk about active consent, not 'is obviously blackout drunk' - but being someone who has been really really drunk on many occasions (this is not a source of pride, but important for the discussion) I know that the line between 'I fully remember everything and feel amazingly in control of the situation' and 'I don't remember anything I did at all' is really easy to pass and often impossible for other people to understand whether you've crossed or not.
Okay, I'll try and explain this in simple terms.
Let's say you're a recovering meth addict. We're out together and you're pretty fucking drunk and I offer you meth, which you happily accept stating that you fucking love meth.
Sure, you consented. And sure, although you were drunk at the time you ought to have been aware that relapsing was a risk before you got drunk. Plenty of ways that we can pin this on the meth addict and say that they're not a victim and that really it's their fault.
That doesn't in any way change the fact that you only relapsed because I made a deliberate choice to cause it. That doesn't in any way reduce the moral accountability I have for the subsequent fallout. I might have an excuse that I can tell people for how it's totally not my fault, but it wouldn't have happened without me.
One person having a share of responsibility does not absolve all others. The victim having partial responsibility does not make them no longer a victim. Which is exactly what you argued it did when you said "This also isn't victim blaming - I don't acknowledge the victimhood. ;p"
If the girl wakes up feeling like she got raped and deals with all the same trauma that other rape victims do then you denying her victim status is just a way of getting what you did to be okay with Jesus. It doesn't change shit about the impact your choice had on her. You've still made her a victim, all you're doing is pinning it on her to make yourself feel better.
Furthermore, it's totally victim blaming. You're shifting the burden of your own participation onto the other party, insisting that you couldn't possibly have known better than to participate if they drunkenly asked you to. The smiley was a particularly tasteless touch too.
Honestly, if you really believe with the argument you made about drunk girls not being victims you should feel pretty bad about the person you choose to be.
|
On November 22 2017 04:45 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But if you consented to sober sex last night and then you super enthusiastically consent to drunken sex tonight, I'm supposed to assume that today you're not for real? I'm not saying you're allowed to rape your wife if she comes home drunk, I'm saying that if you're used to her wanting to have sex and then she comes home drunk and wants to have sex, then why on earth should this consent not apply? The problem is that the legal system can't account for cases like this because it devolves into a he-said, she-said. So the legal system has to err on the side of being too strict and assuming that in the cases where the woman is fine with it, she won't report it. Technically in the case you described, your wife did not consent from a legal perspective, but that also doesn't mean shit if she's fine with it and doesn't report it.
I don't get why that's hard for people to hold in their head. It's the same as speeding or many driving rules, most minor speeding infractions go unpunished because no one cares, but when what your doing is seen a risk you get punished. It's arbitrary, but it's hard to write laws the codify 100% of edge cases so we settle for something broad enough that can be applied when needed.
|
On November 22 2017 04:48 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:45 TheYango wrote:On November 22 2017 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But if you consented to sober sex last night and then you super enthusiastically consent to drunken sex tonight, I'm supposed to assume that today you're not for real? I'm not saying you're allowed to rape your wife if she comes home drunk, I'm saying that if you're used to her wanting to have sex and then she comes home drunk and wants to have sex, then why on earth should this consent not apply? The problem is that the legal system can't account for cases like this because it devolves into a he-said, she-said. So the legal system has to err on the side of being too strict and assuming that in the cases where the woman is fine with it, she won't report it. Technically in the case you described, your wife did not consent from a legal perspective, but that also doesn't mean shit if she's fine with it and doesn't report it. I don't get why that's hard for people to hold in their head. It's the same as speeding or many driving rules, most minor speeding infractions go unpunished because no one cares, but when what your doing is seen a risk you get punished. It's arbitrary, but it's hard to write laws the codify 100% of edge cases so we settle for something broad enough that can be applied when needed.
Yeah, but that's no reason for society to actively promote and uniformly stand behind the most extreme interpretation of the law in a simple meme (drunk = rape) outside the courtroom where things are more nuanced. Which then quickly devolves into people essentially calling Liquid`Drone (and others) a rapist for acknowledging there are cases where that simplistic meme does not apply. That's basically Russian propaganda.
|
On November 22 2017 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:32 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 04:28 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:22 Trainrunnef wrote:On November 22 2017 04:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:51 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 03:24 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 03:19 Sadist wrote:On November 22 2017 03:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
[quote]
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. How is this not consent? If you're literally asking for someone to fuck you then you're clearly consenting to having sex with the person? What if you know for a fact that not having sex is gonna lead to an argument because your wife is gonna be really offended, and being drunk, she won't have any filter and everything she says is gonna come out insane? If she cant legally consent to any contract in that state, how can she consent to sex? Mentally impaired is mentally impaired regardless of whether it includes a boner or a car. If you are married to someone, then you can presume that you've consented to sober sex in the past. I am not talking about 'try this new sexual thing I've been wanting to do', I am talking completely ordinary sex that you have had 400 times over the past 3 years. This is completely different from buying a car, it's more like buying groceries. And I'd be pissed off if I went to the grocery store and wanted to buy myself a loaf of bread and the cashier told me 'sorry, you are drunk so I cannot be sure you won't regret this transaction in the morning'. I get that there's a big difference between this and having sex with a new person. Really big difference. But you don't rape your wife if she comes home and is drunk and wants to have sex and you have sex with her. I don't understand how that can be an opinion. Consenting to sober sex last night does not mean automatic consent to drunken (or any) sex tonight. Yes, you need to consent every time. But if you consented to sober sex last night and then you super enthusiastically consent to drunken sex tonight, I'm supposed to assume that today you're not for real? I'm not saying you're allowed to rape your wife if she comes home drunk, I'm saying that if you're used to her wanting to have sex and then she comes home drunk and wants to have sex, then why on earth should this consent not apply?
She might also want it today, but she's drunk so she's not consenting. And so in that case, it's technically rape. People obviously still do it and there are plenty of times this happens and it doesn't get reported or made into a big deal, but that doesn't make it legally or socially right. I also don't understand why a guy can't just wait a few hours or the next day to have sex; is there some sort of male virus going around that they need to have sex with drunk women or else they die?
What if I'm drunk and my wife is also drunk and we both want to have sex, we should not have sex because you need to consent to have sex and neither of us can consent while drunk?
I think that's a more appropriate gray area to talk about. Personally, I don't think either person is raping the other if both of you are drunk and neither of you can consent. But, as I had said a few posts before when addressing this question presented by someone else, I'm also ignorant of relevant legal precedents and situations where this may have already been tackled.
edit: for those insisting on black-on-whiting this; 'drunk' also requires a qualifier. How drunk is too drunk to consent? The same as too drunk to drive? Or is there some other objective measurement?
I don't know, but you started with the premise of "she's drunk as fuck", so that wasn't really an issue with your hypothetical drunken horny situation. Maybe we should just err on the side of caution and not fuck people unless they're sober? I don't understand what the danger of *playing it safe and not fucking someone who is in an inebriated state* would be in any of these situations. Why is this so difficult for some people?
|
On November 22 2017 04:43 JonnyBNoHo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:31 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 04:16 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On November 22 2017 03:51 Liquid`Drone wrote: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:
[quote]
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. How is this not consent? If you're literally asking for someone to fuck you then you're clearly consenting to having sex with the person? What if you know for a fact that not having sex is gonna lead to an argument because your wife is gonna be really offended, and being drunk, she won't have any filter and everything she says is gonna come out insane? The state of mind (sobriety) is what takes precedence when deciding consent. As soon as the premise is "She's drunk", the rest is moot. What if she's horny? Doesn't matter. What if she says yes? Doesn't matter. What if she- it can't be consent, period, full stop. Not raping someone is more important than not arguing. That should be obvious. It sounds like the guy needs to have a serious conversation with her about this... when she's sober. No, state of mind is a factor but not the only factor. People have drunk sex all the time with neither party claiming rape afterward.
Sure, but not reporting something doesn't make it right or consensual.
|
On November 22 2017 04:45 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But if you consented to sober sex last night and then you super enthusiastically consent to drunken sex tonight, I'm supposed to assume that today you're not for real? I'm not saying you're allowed to rape your wife if she comes home drunk, I'm saying that if you're used to her wanting to have sex and then she comes home drunk and wants to have sex, then why on earth should this consent not apply? The problem is that the legal system can't account for cases like this because it devolves into a he-said, she-said. So the legal system has to err on the side of being too strict and assuming that in the cases where the woman is fine with it, she won't report it. Technically in the case you described, your wife did not consent from a legal perspective, but that also doesn't mean shit if she's fine with it and doesn't report it. A legal system that tries to be "right" all the time gets nowhere. So it has to define functionally useful definitions of consent and then assume that victims and enforcement will work out the details in individual cases. In this case, drawing the line for consent at a point where any amount of cognitive impairment is involved is perfectly fine.
This is important because the legal system has the presumptiom of innocence. If its he says she says its harder to prove. This is typically a good thing to avoid convicting innocent people.
The problem with what I am seeing regarding sexual assault and more severly rape cases is that victims arent happy with the justice system(and fairly so for a number of reasons) so they take accusations public. This however is potentially worse as the accused doesnt even have the chance to defend themselves and the well has been poisoned.
This isnt good for anyone. We now are trying things in the court of public opinion which leads to more confusion and miscommunication.
Plansix says consent is obvious. I disagree case in point the past few pages of the thread. Trialing things in public opinion in my opinion makes things worse.
I just think all of the sensationalism and rush to judgement needs to stop.
Providing information is helpful ,affirmative consent is a great start. Public shaming and playing gotcha im the media, especially when the severity of crimes is in no way balanced (franken vs weinstein vs spacey vs moore vs etc ) is just going to muddy things up again.
|
On November 22 2017 04:52 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:48 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 04:45 TheYango wrote:On November 22 2017 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But if you consented to sober sex last night and then you super enthusiastically consent to drunken sex tonight, I'm supposed to assume that today you're not for real? I'm not saying you're allowed to rape your wife if she comes home drunk, I'm saying that if you're used to her wanting to have sex and then she comes home drunk and wants to have sex, then why on earth should this consent not apply? The problem is that the legal system can't account for cases like this because it devolves into a he-said, she-said. So the legal system has to err on the side of being too strict and assuming that in the cases where the woman is fine with it, she won't report it. Technically in the case you described, your wife did not consent from a legal perspective, but that also doesn't mean shit if she's fine with it and doesn't report it. I don't get why that's hard for people to hold in their head. It's the same as speeding or many driving rules, most minor speeding infractions go unpunished because no one cares, but when what your doing is seen a risk you get punished. It's arbitrary, but it's hard to write laws the codify 100% of edge cases so we settle for something broad enough that can be applied when needed. Yeah, but that's no reason for society to actively promote and uniformly stand behind the most extreme interpretation of the law in a simple meme (drunk = rape) outside the courtroom where things are more nuanced. Which then quickly devolves into people essentially calling Liquid`Drone (and others) a rapist for acknowledging there are cases where that simplistic meme does not apply. That's basically Russian propaganda.
Because "be careful when someone is drunk because they might be drunk enough to not give consent and regret the act upon waking up and then your in trouble if they decide to push charges" doesn't really fit on a poster.
|
Have you ever been a long term relationship where you know each others sexual boundaries DarkPlasmaBall? It's not "socially wrong" to have sex with your wife if she's begging for it and you know she's not going to regret having your dick thrust up her sopping wet pussy. Regardless of whether or not she's going to remember it because of intoxication (and said intoxication is making you less eager to consent because its kinda gross to have a drunk bitch like that riding your dick).
On November 22 2017 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:52 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 04:48 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 04:45 TheYango wrote:On November 22 2017 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But if you consented to sober sex last night and then you super enthusiastically consent to drunken sex tonight, I'm supposed to assume that today you're not for real? I'm not saying you're allowed to rape your wife if she comes home drunk, I'm saying that if you're used to her wanting to have sex and then she comes home drunk and wants to have sex, then why on earth should this consent not apply? The problem is that the legal system can't account for cases like this because it devolves into a he-said, she-said. So the legal system has to err on the side of being too strict and assuming that in the cases where the woman is fine with it, she won't report it. Technically in the case you described, your wife did not consent from a legal perspective, but that also doesn't mean shit if she's fine with it and doesn't report it. I don't get why that's hard for people to hold in their head. It's the same as speeding or many driving rules, most minor speeding infractions go unpunished because no one cares, but when what your doing is seen a risk you get punished. It's arbitrary, but it's hard to write laws the codify 100% of edge cases so we settle for something broad enough that can be applied when needed. Yeah, but that's no reason for society to actively promote and uniformly stand behind the most extreme interpretation of the law in a simple meme (drunk = rape) outside the courtroom where things are more nuanced. Which then quickly devolves into people essentially calling Liquid`Drone (and others) a rapist for acknowledging there are cases where that simplistic meme does not apply. That's basically Russian propaganda. Because "be careful when someone is drunk because they might be drunk enough to not give consent and regret the act upon waking up and then your in trouble if they decide to push charges" doesn't really fit on a poster.
Yep, and thus pointing this out in a forum where you have more text shouldn't cause the kind of backlash that it appears to do. But that's exactly what we witnessed just now because people buy into the meme and take it absolutely literally.
|
On November 22 2017 05:02 Sadist wrote:
This isnt good for anyone. We now are trying things in the court of public opinion which leads to more confusion and miscommunication.
This is a huge problem but also does not have direct relevance to legal definitions of consent. Changing the legal definition of consent would not alter the problems of rape/sexual assault cases being over-publicized.
Over-publicizing these cases also creates problems for the victims when they aren't the ones choosing to go to the media. It's kind of a problem all around.
|
United States41987 Posts
On November 22 2017 05:04 a_flayer wrote:Have you ever been a long term relationship where you know each others sexual boundaries DarkPlasmaBall? It's not "socially wrong" to have sex with your wife if she's begging for it and you know she's not going to regret having your dick thrust up her sopping wet pussy. Regardless of whether or not she's going to remember it because of intoxication (and said intoxication is making you less eager to consent because its kinda gross to have a drunk bitch like that riding your dick). Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2017 04:52 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 04:48 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 04:45 TheYango wrote:On November 22 2017 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But if you consented to sober sex last night and then you super enthusiastically consent to drunken sex tonight, I'm supposed to assume that today you're not for real? I'm not saying you're allowed to rape your wife if she comes home drunk, I'm saying that if you're used to her wanting to have sex and then she comes home drunk and wants to have sex, then why on earth should this consent not apply? The problem is that the legal system can't account for cases like this because it devolves into a he-said, she-said. So the legal system has to err on the side of being too strict and assuming that in the cases where the woman is fine with it, she won't report it. Technically in the case you described, your wife did not consent from a legal perspective, but that also doesn't mean shit if she's fine with it and doesn't report it. I don't get why that's hard for people to hold in their head. It's the same as speeding or many driving rules, most minor speeding infractions go unpunished because no one cares, but when what your doing is seen a risk you get punished. It's arbitrary, but it's hard to write laws the codify 100% of edge cases so we settle for something broad enough that can be applied when needed. Yeah, but that's no reason for society to actively promote and uniformly stand behind the most extreme interpretation of the law in a simple meme (drunk = rape) outside the courtroom where things are more nuanced. Which then quickly devolves into people essentially calling Liquid`Drone (and others) a rapist for acknowledging there are cases where that simplistic meme does not apply. That's basically Russian propaganda. Because "be careful when someone is drunk because they might be drunk enough to not give consent and regret the act upon waking up and then your in trouble if they decide to push charges" doesn't really fit on a poster. Yep, and thus pointing this out in a forum where you have more text shouldn't cause the kind of backlash that it appears to do. But that's exactly what we witnessed just now.
When you "know" that it's fine you're taking a risk. I'm fine with people knowing that it's contextually fine and not getting in trouble for it because in that instance it was fine. But if you "know" that it's fine and you get it wrong and it turns out that it wasn't fine then you should be held accountable for that shitty judgement call. And the argument that if you hold the people with shitty judgement accountable for their shitty decisions then you must also hold the people with good judgement accountable just doesn't follow.
If the people who thought it was fine and were wrong are rapists that doesn't mean we need to drag loving husbands away from their crying families.
|
On November 22 2017 05:02 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 04:45 TheYango wrote:On November 22 2017 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But if you consented to sober sex last night and then you super enthusiastically consent to drunken sex tonight, I'm supposed to assume that today you're not for real? I'm not saying you're allowed to rape your wife if she comes home drunk, I'm saying that if you're used to her wanting to have sex and then she comes home drunk and wants to have sex, then why on earth should this consent not apply? The problem is that the legal system can't account for cases like this because it devolves into a he-said, she-said. So the legal system has to err on the side of being too strict and assuming that in the cases where the woman is fine with it, she won't report it. Technically in the case you described, your wife did not consent from a legal perspective, but that also doesn't mean shit if she's fine with it and doesn't report it. A legal system that tries to be "right" all the time gets nowhere. So it has to define functionally useful definitions of consent and then assume that victims and enforcement will work out the details in individual cases. In this case, drawing the line for consent at a point where any amount of cognitive impairment is involved is perfectly fine. This is important because the legal system has the presumptiom of innocence. If its he says she says its harder to prove. This is typically a good thing to avoid convicting innocent people. The problem with what I am seeing regarding sexual assault and more severly rape cases is that victims arent happy with the justice system(and fairly so for a number of reasons) so they take accusations public. This however is potentially worse as the accused doesnt even have the chance to defend themselves and the well has been poisoned. This isnt good for anyone. We now are trying things in the court of public opinion which leads to more confusion and miscommunication. Plansix says consent is obvious. I disagree case in point the past few pages of the thread. Trialing things in public opinion in my opinion makes things worse.
To be fair though, a lot of these examples were things like:
-But what if you're, like, really really horny?
-But what if she's only a little drunk?
-What if she would be into it?
-Does marriage give automatic consent?
These should not be confusions that people are having, especially when the erring on the side of caution is simply "maybe if you don't know, you shouldn't have sex with her at that exact moment". We definitely need better sex education and rape education (and keep-it-in-your-pants-if-you're-not-sure education) programs.
|
On November 22 2017 05:04 a_flayer wrote:Have you ever been a long term relationship where you know each others sexual boundaries DarkPlasmaBall? It's not "socially wrong" to have sex with your wife if she's begging for it and you know she's not going to regret having your dick thrust up her sopping wet pussy. Regardless of whether or not she's going to remember it because of intoxication (and said intoxication is making you less eager to consent because its kinda gross to have a drunk bitch like that riding your dick). Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 05:03 Gorsameth wrote:On November 22 2017 04:52 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 04:48 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 04:45 TheYango wrote:On November 22 2017 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote:
But if you consented to sober sex last night and then you super enthusiastically consent to drunken sex tonight, I'm supposed to assume that today you're not for real? I'm not saying you're allowed to rape your wife if she comes home drunk, I'm saying that if you're used to her wanting to have sex and then she comes home drunk and wants to have sex, then why on earth should this consent not apply? The problem is that the legal system can't account for cases like this because it devolves into a he-said, she-said. So the legal system has to err on the side of being too strict and assuming that in the cases where the woman is fine with it, she won't report it. Technically in the case you described, your wife did not consent from a legal perspective, but that also doesn't mean shit if she's fine with it and doesn't report it. I don't get why that's hard for people to hold in their head. It's the same as speeding or many driving rules, most minor speeding infractions go unpunished because no one cares, but when what your doing is seen a risk you get punished. It's arbitrary, but it's hard to write laws the codify 100% of edge cases so we settle for something broad enough that can be applied when needed. Yeah, but that's no reason for society to actively promote and uniformly stand behind the most extreme interpretation of the law in a simple meme (drunk = rape) outside the courtroom where things are more nuanced. Which then quickly devolves into people essentially calling Liquid`Drone (and others) a rapist for acknowledging there are cases where that simplistic meme does not apply. That's basically Russian propaganda. Because "be careful when someone is drunk because they might be drunk enough to not give consent and regret the act upon waking up and then your in trouble if they decide to push charges" doesn't really fit on a poster. Yep, and thus pointing this out in a forum where you have more text shouldn't cause the kind of backlash that it appears to do. But that's exactly what we witnessed just now because people buy into the meme and take it absolutely literally.
The situation with spouses/partners was repeatedly addressed. If you know its fine then its fine. Doesn't stop it technically/legally being the thing but that's ok because the other person is ok with it.
The moment that other person is not ok with it your in trouble and its good to be aware of that.
To add another anecdote that I remember for some reason. A couple was into strangle sex, and the man would often have sex with the women while she was unconscious. Both were completely ok with it. Until the one time where he decided to use the backdoor. She wakes up with a sore ass, finds out what happens and pressed charges and the guy gets convicted of rape.
Everything is fine until the one time it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
