|
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 11:40 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 11:33 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 11:14 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2017 09:28 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 09:02 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure you didn't just confuse this with your 'everybody is racist, it's not an insult' argument because the words are similar or something? By this definition most people I know of both genders are rapists and many people, of both genders, habitually go out for some mutual rape. You didn't provide enough facts to your example. We don't know the relationship of the man and the woman. if they are a couple, it changes the facts. If they get trashed together and agree that they are going to have sex later, it changes the facts. But without additional facts, Kwark's point stands. As I said before, everyone is so concerned with the amount of booze, rather than the important issue: relationship between the parties involved. One guy went to the club with his buddies. One girl went to the club with her girl friends. They both started pre-gaming at a friends place at 7 pm, then they went to the club around 10. Then they spent a couple hours dancing with strangers, at some point they started looking at each other, started flirting, talked a little bit. At 2 AM, they've both been drinking for 7 hours, people are starting to leave the club, they drunken-stumbly meet up near the entrance and just start making the fuck out. It's really hot and passionate. Guy says I live 5 minutes away wanna come? Girl says 'fuck yes'. They keep making out and grabbing each other while going back to his place. Both of them totally want the other and they end up having sex. The guy mentioned not having a condom, and the girl just went 'I don't fucking care'. Girl wakes up the day after and thinks damn, that was kinda stupid. If there was a rick and morty universe where they decided to define this as 'both of them raping each other', I'd think the show jumped the shark. Each of them decided to fuck a stranger who had been drinking for 7 hours. They're both shit. And you're really just an incredibly judgmental prude trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones. I do shit with consent and tell people who don't do shit with consent that they're the immoral ones. And I don't apologize for it. You claimed that two people who consent to do something are rapists because they don't pass your definition of consent (as there was alcohol involved) even if they themselves both think they did in fact gave and received consent. You pass your own judgment what consent between two people means without respecting their views on the matter. You're an idiot. Drunk people can't consent. The fictional, totally made up example given neither party gave consent. Don't be an asshole. I can be drunk and consent to sex, and I won't let your words take that away from me.
Well don't burden other people with your shitty definition of consent.
|
I'm going to stop talking about this because I can literally talk about it into infinity with every different social setting possible. Let's hope we can solve society mathematically so we don't have these bullshit discussions in 2000 years.
|
It would be easy to avoid of Starcraft nerds stopped trying to make a build order to assure consent without ever speaking to the woman.
|
On November 22 2017 11:45 Plansix wrote:
It would be easy to avoid of Starcraft nerds stopped trying to make a build order to assure consent without ever speaking to the woman.
Nah man. Build orders fix everything. I'm sure I can get me some of that "rank" if I just fine tune it a little bit..
What are we talking about again..?
|
|
|
On November 22 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 11:33 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 11:14 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2017 09:28 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 09:02 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 08:03 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Neither was in a position to consent to anything. Both should have taken a look at the state of the other one and not continued. They both failed to do that and both drunkenly raped the other. Are you sure you didn't just confuse this with your 'everybody is racist, it's not an insult' argument because the words are similar or something? By this definition most people I know of both genders are rapists and many people, of both genders, habitually go out for some mutual rape. You didn't provide enough facts to your example. We don't know the relationship of the man and the woman. if they are a couple, it changes the facts. If they get trashed together and agree that they are going to have sex later, it changes the facts. But without additional facts, Kwark's point stands. As I said before, everyone is so concerned with the amount of booze, rather than the important issue: relationship between the parties involved. One guy went to the club with his buddies. One girl went to the club with her girl friends. They both started pre-gaming at a friends place at 7 pm, then they went to the club around 10. Then they spent a couple hours dancing with strangers, at some point they started looking at each other, started flirting, talked a little bit. At 2 AM, they've both been drinking for 7 hours, people are starting to leave the club, they drunken-stumbly meet up near the entrance and just start making the fuck out. It's really hot and passionate. Guy says I live 5 minutes away wanna come? Girl says 'fuck yes'. They keep making out and grabbing each other while going back to his place. Both of them totally want the other and they end up having sex. The guy mentioned not having a condom, and the girl just went 'I don't fucking care'. Girl wakes up the day after and thinks damn, that was kinda stupid. If there was a rick and morty universe where they decided to define this as 'both of them raping each other', I'd think the show jumped the shark. Each of them decided to fuck a stranger who had been drinking for 7 hours. They're both shit. And you're really just an incredibly judgmental prude trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones. I do shit with consent and tell people who don't do shit with consent that they're the immoral ones. And I don't apologize for it. You claimed that two people who consent to do something are rapists because they don't pass your definition of consent (as there was alcohol involved) even if they themselves both think they did in fact gave and received consent. You pass your own judgment what consent between two people means without respecting their views on the matter. You're an idiot. Drunk people can't consent. The fictional, totally made up example given neither party gave consent. Don't be an asshole.
This is strictly not true. Drunk people can consent to all sorts of things. Perhaps not sex. I am still working through this in my mind trying to come up with something consistent.
But yea drunk people are considered both legally and socially capable of consent in all sorts of contexts. Most obvious would be crimes as mentioned before. If someone is drunk, not blackout drunk, but really drunk, and some asshole on the streets asks them to beat someone up, the drunk person will most certainly be tried for assault or worst case manslaughter.
|
On November 22 2017 10:52 GreenHorizons wrote:
The truth is that consuming alcohol should probably be the crime.
But really, it's been a weird journey. At one point in our history being drunk was a legitimate excuse for being in a car accident. If we allow the sale of alcohol then both sides have to be "shit/rapists". But that also means the makers, distributors, and retailers of alcohol are also shit/rape enablers.
People make an incredible amount of shitty decisions while drunk the one where the drunk is the victim (for many) is if it's a woman and she had a sexual encounter.
If a guy gets drunk and some horny woman takes advantage of him, it doesn't usually end with his wife going with him to the police station to press rape charges against the horny woman, or society shaming the woman for leaving her cheating husband who was actually raped because he was drunk and couldn't consent.
I can understand why some people think this consent stuff should be simple for others to understand, but I think it's a bit more complicated than we like to pretend.
I agree with alcohol being illegal lol. Thats the only way to make something consistent out of this.
|
we all know how that ended though. People like their alcohol
|
On November 22 2017 11:58 KlaCkoN wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 11:37 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 11:33 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 11:14 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2017 09:28 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 09:02 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:
[quote]
Are you sure you didn't just confuse this with your 'everybody is racist, it's not an insult' argument because the words are similar or something? By this definition most people I know of both genders are rapists and many people, of both genders, habitually go out for some mutual rape. You didn't provide enough facts to your example. We don't know the relationship of the man and the woman. if they are a couple, it changes the facts. If they get trashed together and agree that they are going to have sex later, it changes the facts. But without additional facts, Kwark's point stands. As I said before, everyone is so concerned with the amount of booze, rather than the important issue: relationship between the parties involved. One guy went to the club with his buddies. One girl went to the club with her girl friends. They both started pre-gaming at a friends place at 7 pm, then they went to the club around 10. Then they spent a couple hours dancing with strangers, at some point they started looking at each other, started flirting, talked a little bit. At 2 AM, they've both been drinking for 7 hours, people are starting to leave the club, they drunken-stumbly meet up near the entrance and just start making the fuck out. It's really hot and passionate. Guy says I live 5 minutes away wanna come? Girl says 'fuck yes'. They keep making out and grabbing each other while going back to his place. Both of them totally want the other and they end up having sex. The guy mentioned not having a condom, and the girl just went 'I don't fucking care'. Girl wakes up the day after and thinks damn, that was kinda stupid. If there was a rick and morty universe where they decided to define this as 'both of them raping each other', I'd think the show jumped the shark. Each of them decided to fuck a stranger who had been drinking for 7 hours. They're both shit. And you're really just an incredibly judgmental prude trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones. I do shit with consent and tell people who don't do shit with consent that they're the immoral ones. And I don't apologize for it. You claimed that two people who consent to do something are rapists because they don't pass your definition of consent (as there was alcohol involved) even if they themselves both think they did in fact gave and received consent. You pass your own judgment what consent between two people means without respecting their views on the matter. You're an idiot. Drunk people can't consent. The fictional, totally made up example given neither party gave consent. Don't be an asshole. This is strictly not true. Drunk people can consent to all sorts of things. Perhaps not sex. I am still working through this in my mind trying to come up with something consistent. But yea drunk people are considered both legally and socially capable of consent in all sorts of contexts. Most obvious would be crimes as mentioned before. If someone is drunk, not blackout drunk, but really drunk, and some asshole on the streets asks them to beat someone up, the drunk person will most certainly be tried for assault or worst case manslaughter.
The consistency you are after is not too elusive if you step back a bit. Asking someone you know to be impaired for consent is wrong (morally and possibly legally) and people are responsible for their actions while drunk. There is no inconsistency here; if you try to get consent from someone who is drunk you are doing something wrong even if you are drunk yourself, though later it may turn out to have been OK. If you are drunk and have sex (the actual act here, not the part where consent is exchanged) you haven't done anything wrong so there's nothing for you to be responsible for even if you didn't want to have sex. Even when you think of it as an exchange of consent you can consider both parties having put themselves at risk (both asking someone who they know to be impaired for consent), but the responsibility they are taking on is if the other person wanted to have sex, not themselves.
Basically step back a bit and think about it from the point of getting consent not the actual sexual act.
|
I think it depends on your definition of drunk. Illegal to drive is not incapable of consent to sex in my book, and neither in Dutch law from what I can tell. If someone is mentally impaired to the point where they can't impose their own will then obviously asking for consent is invalid. A stranger exhibiting a certain level of slurred speech or poor motor skills from being drunk, for example, would be a no go for me personally. A spouse or someone you know well enough can be pretty drunk before I'd say definitely not though. Like, if you have already established a safe word (which they can confirm that they can remember) and boundaries with someone and they're just asking for a casual bit of humping.
The absolute hard line of "any form of drunk == rape, no exceptions" that KwarK and Plansix seem to take is just ridiculous in my eyes.
|
On November 22 2017 10:19 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:09 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:59 KlaCkoN wrote:On November 22 2017 09:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:42 riotjune wrote:
Can always count on humans to complicate everything. Just put it in her ass. Still a crime in Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Idaho, Louisiana, Michigan, North Carolina, South Carolina and Utah, even if she wants it. On November 22 2017 09:43 Logo wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? I'm pretty sure bartenders face huge amounts of liability for all sorts of scenarios around how they serve people. Basically your scenario is invalid because bartenders aren't supposed to serve intoxicated people. So your bartender is already legally in trouble regardless of if the charge is challenged. I see your point, but I don't think that invalidates the scenario. Anyone who's been to a (US) bar knows most of the people are drunk. But the casino one would work too, since I can get drunk without their help. So if I get hammered and gamble my life savings away, those bets should be voidable because I was drunk and couldn't consent right? On November 22 2017 09:45 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:35 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 22 2017 09:25 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:21 GreenHorizons wrote:
I'm a softy so I always want people to be helped rather than just shamed and caged so I view most of these cases through a lens of addiction and think it should be treated as such.
I take all this seriously and think this is still just the tip of the iceberg, but I'm wondering if this whole I can't legally consent when I'm drunk thing works for bar tabs? Contextually yes. Let's say the bartender got out the most expensive oldest whisky he had and offered you some. You agreed and drank some. That could be voidable. Why just the expensive stuff? Couldn't I ask for it (cheap or expensive), but still not be consenting because I'm drunk? The expensive stuff because you probably wouldn't buy it sober. Getting contracts voided for alcohol is actually super difficult because the courts don't want people abusing it. So the contract has to be demonstrably different to something you'd have agreed to sober. And the other party was either aware, or should have been aware, that they were taking advantage of your state. That's notably different than how we (should) treat consent regarding sex correct? Yeah this. It's not obvious to me why money should be treated differently than sex. Because there is an economic motive to void drunken financial transactions. Surely you're not suggesting there can't be an economic motive for voiding drunken sexual transactions? But for those wondering, this is part of what confuses a lot of people. Coercive/manipulative consent is a foundational aspect of capitalism. It's hard for people to understand why sexual activity is outside of that. In cases where there is clearly no financial incentive the difference may be more clear, but when there are large economic/political implications the difference is less pronounced.
Because the human being, defined by its body surface, is sacred. I confess that I, too, am somewhat flabbergasted at the stridency with which people condemn touching between humans, without batting an eye at the coercion and dickishness that goes on all the time from a distance.
|
On November 22 2017 11:14 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2017 09:28 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 09:02 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 08:03 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:On November 22 2017 07:42 Plansix wrote:
I knew we were going to get to the request for the If/When flow chart to “How to avoid accidently committing sexual assault when booze is involved.”
Really folks, its pretty easy to see this stuff coming and avoid it when having encounters with non-hypothetical women.
I think the common case that is a bit more troublesome is this: 1. Man goes out to get trashed 2. Woman goes out to get trashed 3. These two totally trashed folks happen upon each other some time late at night and end up banging one out 4. Girl wakes up the next day, looks to her side and is like "omfg I was raped" 5. Dude wakes up and is like "lol hello, nice to meet you", him not remembering anything either He had no intention of having sex with this woman prior to his 7th beer. Same with her. But after those final shots, they were slobbering all over each other and totally each digging it prior to banging it out. But she's super broken up about it the next day. She feels ashamed and whatnot. Did the dude do anything wrong? Neither was in a position to consent to anything. Both should have taken a look at the state of the other one and not continued. They both failed to do that and both drunkenly raped the other. Are you sure you didn't just confuse this with your 'everybody is racist, it's not an insult' argument because the words are similar or something? By this definition most people I know of both genders are rapists and many people, of both genders, habitually go out for some mutual rape. You didn't provide enough facts to your example. We don't know the relationship of the man and the woman. if they are a couple, it changes the facts. If they get trashed together and agree that they are going to have sex later, it changes the facts. But without additional facts, Kwark's point stands. As I said before, everyone is so concerned with the amount of booze, rather than the important issue: relationship between the parties involved. One guy went to the club with his buddies. One girl went to the club with her girl friends. They both started pre-gaming at a friends place at 7 pm, then they went to the club around 10. Then they spent a couple hours dancing with strangers, at some point they started looking at each other, started flirting, talked a little bit. At 2 AM, they've both been drinking for 7 hours, people are starting to leave the club, they drunken-stumbly meet up near the entrance and just start making the fuck out. It's really hot and passionate. Guy says I live 5 minutes away wanna come? Girl says 'fuck yes'. They keep making out and grabbing each other while going back to his place. Both of them totally want the other and they end up having sex. The guy mentioned not having a condom, and the girl just went 'I don't fucking care'. Girl wakes up the day after and thinks damn, that was kinda stupid. If there was a rick and morty universe where they decided to define this as 'both of them raping each other', I'd think the show jumped the shark. Each of them decided to fuck a stranger who had been drinking for 7 hours. They're both shit. And you're really just an incredibly judgmental prude trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones. I do shit with consent and tell people who don't do shit with consent that they're the immoral ones. And I don't apologize for it.
Well I think you're a shit and immoral person for saying that people are shit for having sex with each other after only knowing each other for 7 hours (of course I agree that it's probably a bad idea and has all sorts of risks), and you should apologise for implying that Drone raped someone who was literally asking for sex.
|
How does the saying go? Perverted sexual assaulters of a feather fly together?
|
On November 22 2017 13:38 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:How does the saying go? Perverted sexual assaulters of a feather fly together?
But only if they're Republican sex offenders, then it's ok. Good Old Conservative family values.
|
On November 22 2017 11:56 Excludos wrote:
The President of the United Stated, possibly the most powerful country in the world, is endorsing a child molester because otherwise he might not be able to push through the tax cut for himself and his friends...
An alleged child molester. Very important distinction.
|
I see all this arguing has caused some to abandon common sense. Drunk people can most definitely consent. there's a line that's different for each person when their mental faculties are so gone that consent is not possible, that much is obvious. but for the vast majority of people who don't engage in sex when they are near black out, kwark's definition of consent here between two drunk people is straight up idiotic.
|
On November 22 2017 13:50 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 11:56 Excludos wrote:
The President of the United Stated, possibly the most powerful country in the world, is endorsing a child molester because otherwise he might not be able to push through the tax cut for himself and his friends... An alleged child molester. Very important distinction.
There's plenty of people you can vote for who haven't been repeatedly accused by many people of doing the same creepy thing to many different underage girls. I understand the distinction if you're talking 1 incident, but once you're talking many, it becomes harder and harder to imagine that they're all false.
|
On November 22 2017 13:50 Buckyman wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 11:56 Excludos wrote:
The President of the United Stated, possibly the most powerful country in the world, is endorsing a child molester because otherwise he might not be able to push through the tax cut for himself and his friends... An alleged child molester. Very important distinction.
Yeah, alleged. But who the hell gets banned from a mall or gets remembered by an entire community as an all round creep that you have to look out for? This stuff doesn't happen to normal working people.
This isn't a case of he said-she said. There's enough allegations from the Gadsden community, from retail workers to the police to teachers, that support the idea that this middle aged guy was uncomfortably pursuing very young girls. This isn't a mere isolated case, like a lot of harassment allegations that go nowhere. Just like what's happening to men all over the entertainment industry, single allegations are a little easier to disprove but mass allegations from numerous different independent sources can't be hand waved away so easily.
|
2774 Posts
If you guys can't have a civilized discussion about sexual consent & alcohol you're going to drop the discussion entirely.
On November 22 2017 11:33 a_flayer wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2017 11:14 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 10:41 JonnyBNoHo wrote:On November 22 2017 09:28 a_flayer wrote:On November 22 2017 09:27 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 09:19 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 09:02 Plansix wrote:On November 22 2017 08:58 Liquid`Drone wrote:On November 22 2017 08:03 KwarK wrote:On November 22 2017 07:57 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I think the common case that is a bit more troublesome is this:
1. Man goes out to get trashed
2. Woman goes out to get trashed
3. These two totally trashed folks happen upon each other some time late at night and end up banging one out
4. Girl wakes up the next day, looks to her side and is like "omfg I was raped"
5. Dude wakes up and is like "lol hello, nice to meet you", him not remembering anything either
He had no intention of having sex with this woman prior to his 7th beer. Same with her. But after those final shots, they were slobbering all over each other and totally each digging it prior to banging it out. But she's super broken up about it the next day. She feels ashamed and whatnot. Did the dude do anything wrong? Neither was in a position to consent to anything. Both should have taken a look at the state of the other one and not continued. They both failed to do that and both drunkenly raped the other. Are you sure you didn't just confuse this with your 'everybody is racist, it's not an insult' argument because the words are similar or something? By this definition most people I know of both genders are rapists and many people, of both genders, habitually go out for some mutual rape. You didn't provide enough facts to your example. We don't know the relationship of the man and the woman. if they are a couple, it changes the facts. If they get trashed together and agree that they are going to have sex later, it changes the facts. But without additional facts, Kwark's point stands. As I said before, everyone is so concerned with the amount of booze, rather than the important issue: relationship between the parties involved. One guy went to the club with his buddies. One girl went to the club with her girl friends. They both started pre-gaming at a friends place at 7 pm, then they went to the club around 10. Then they spent a couple hours dancing with strangers, at some point they started looking at each other, started flirting, talked a little bit. At 2 AM, they've both been drinking for 7 hours, people are starting to leave the club, they drunken-stumbly meet up near the entrance and just start making the fuck out. It's really hot and passionate. Guy says I live 5 minutes away wanna come? Girl says 'fuck yes'. They keep making out and grabbing each other while going back to his place. Both of them totally want the other and they end up having sex. The guy mentioned not having a condom, and the girl just went 'I don't fucking care'. Girl wakes up the day after and thinks damn, that was kinda stupid. If there was a rick and morty universe where they decided to define this as 'both of them raping each other', I'd think the show jumped the shark. Each of them decided to fuck a stranger who had been drinking for 7 hours. They're both shit. And you're really just an incredibly judgmental prude trying to impose your own values on others by calling it a mutual rape. Nah, Kwark isn't a prude. He does weird shit then tells others that they're the immoral ones. I do shit with consent and tell people who don't do shit with consent that they're the immoral ones. And I don't apologize for it. You claimed that two people who consent to do something are rapists because they don't pass your definition of consent (as there was alcohol involved) even if they themselves both think they did in fact gave and received consent. You pass your own judgment what consent between two people means without respecting their views on the matter. You're an idiot.
Easy, easy. Don't get too heated in the future, please.
|
On November 22 2017 11:40 Plansix wrote:
Alabama has some real shit pastors.
That’s the church you just pack up and leave from.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
