|
Canada8990 Posts
On December 16 2016 12:57 Yoav wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 11:31 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 10:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 09:56 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple. You don't have to prove consent was given, you have to prove it wasn't given, its the presomption of innocence. And that of course mean that sexual assault case are a pain of the ass and almost never amounth to anything, since usually one is going to say there was consent and the other that there was not and since it is a criminal accusation you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty so there need to be other proof. It is pretty hard to solve that problem tbh, there are some people asking to make sexual assault case balance of probability like civil cases but it will probably not happen. Its only hard to solve because we live in a society that does not promote, encourage, nor has a practice of recorded consent. For example, in the old days where women were expected to be virgins until the man signed off on marriage it was easy to know it was rape because they weren't married. You needed documents and proof that you were allowed to have sex. Now a days we don't emphasize consent primarily because of the fetish of domination and control of women inherent in western culture. But that's a different discussion altogether. No, no just no this is retarded. There were plenty of rape then, and it wasn't even a crime in most societies women could not even go to court by themselves, they needed to be represented by their husband of father (spoiler those are both of the most frequent rapist), and that also mean if you were not married saying someone rape you made sure you are never going to get married. Plus all the victim shaming, the honour crime against the victim, the fact that it mean you can only have sexual relation with your husband, and like 99 other reason. I mean you could sue the father of a girl who was rape after there was a promise of marriage because of breach of contract by the women. Depends on the society. There's a fascinating bit in Genesis where a bunch of nomads stop by in a town. One of the daughters of their leader is raped by the son of the ruler of the town. The urban culture assumes that what happens now is she marries him, since they've had sex (the norm in ubanized society at the time). They go to the nomads and say, let's get married! The nomads say, ok, but we've got this deal with our god that our menfolk all get circumcised... you want in, you get circumcised. The city folk are like fine, whatever. Then, when they're still recovering from the pain of the circumcision and thus incapacitated, they are attacked. The brothers of the rape survivor were operating by the older, nomadic code: you rape our sister, we fuck you all up. And they slaughtered every man in the town and plundered it. + Show Spoiler +Then there's a debate over the ethics, which the Bible never really resolves. The patriarch Jacob is really mad that his sons did this act of violence, and they're like, you wanted to let him get away with raping our sister? And as a reader you're like, wow, there's no good answer. You can't punish a prince fairly for rape... your choices are to kill him by subterfuge or let him get away with it. Shitty situation all around.
Hum yes I went a bit overboard with my other comment, but I think we can agree that in almost all societies trough the history rape wasn't consider that big of a things, at lest in practice for example all the medieval text that spoke about the purity of women wasn't actually severe on raping case. I don't know the bible very well but for what I know of older book like the 10 000 nights, the Iliad or history in general, rape is always consider an offence to the man, being the father, the husband or the husband, not really the women. There could be some case where I am wrong of course
But what I was decreeing is that the idea of virginal guarantee in a women marriage contract written by someone else, something that is the incarnation of the dispossession of the women body from herself can be consider a way to combat rape, and that for some reason the fact we don't have them anymore, (well at least not legally they still exist of course) is suppose to be related to our desire to control the women body.
|
On December 16 2016 11:31 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 10:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 09:56 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple. You don't have to prove consent was given, you have to prove it wasn't given, its the presomption of innocence. And that of course mean that sexual assault case are a pain of the ass and almost never amounth to anything, since usually one is going to say there was consent and the other that there was not and since it is a criminal accusation you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty so there need to be other proof. It is pretty hard to solve that problem tbh, there are some people asking to make sexual assault case balance of probability like civil cases but it will probably not happen. Its only hard to solve because we live in a society that does not promote, encourage, nor has a practice of recorded consent. For example, in the old days where women were expected to be virgins until the man signed off on marriage it was easy to know it was rape because they weren't married. You needed documents and proof that you were allowed to have sex. Now a days we don't emphasize consent primarily because of the fetish of domination and control of women inherent in western culture. But that's a different discussion altogether. No, no just no this is retarded. There were plenty of rape then, and it wasn't even a crime in most societies women could not even go to court by themselves, they needed to be represented by their husband of father (spoiler those are both of the most frequent rapist), and that also mean if you were not married saying someone rape you made sure you are never going to get married. Plus all the victim shaming, the honour crime against the victim, the fact that it mean you can only have sexual relation with your husband, and like 99 other reason. I mean you could sue the father of a girl who was rape after there was a promise of marriage because of breach of contract by the women.
Back then women did not have the ability to consent, the men did. As such, consent being passed back and forth between men was considered super important and was worth killing over.
Now that women have the power of consent men do all they can to argue that it's not necessary anymore.
Welcome to western thinking.
|
On December 16 2016 15:40 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 12:57 Yoav wrote:On December 16 2016 11:31 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 10:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 09:56 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:
[quote]
Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples.
However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners.
So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement.
Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple. You don't have to prove consent was given, you have to prove it wasn't given, its the presomption of innocence. And that of course mean that sexual assault case are a pain of the ass and almost never amounth to anything, since usually one is going to say there was consent and the other that there was not and since it is a criminal accusation you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty so there need to be other proof. It is pretty hard to solve that problem tbh, there are some people asking to make sexual assault case balance of probability like civil cases but it will probably not happen. Its only hard to solve because we live in a society that does not promote, encourage, nor has a practice of recorded consent. For example, in the old days where women were expected to be virgins until the man signed off on marriage it was easy to know it was rape because they weren't married. You needed documents and proof that you were allowed to have sex. Now a days we don't emphasize consent primarily because of the fetish of domination and control of women inherent in western culture. But that's a different discussion altogether. No, no just no this is retarded. There were plenty of rape then, and it wasn't even a crime in most societies women could not even go to court by themselves, they needed to be represented by their husband of father (spoiler those are both of the most frequent rapist), and that also mean if you were not married saying someone rape you made sure you are never going to get married. Plus all the victim shaming, the honour crime against the victim, the fact that it mean you can only have sexual relation with your husband, and like 99 other reason. I mean you could sue the father of a girl who was rape after there was a promise of marriage because of breach of contract by the women. Depends on the society. There's a fascinating bit in Genesis where a bunch of nomads stop by in a town. One of the daughters of their leader is raped by the son of the ruler of the town. The urban culture assumes that what happens now is she marries him, since they've had sex (the norm in ubanized society at the time). They go to the nomads and say, let's get married! The nomads say, ok, but we've got this deal with our god that our menfolk all get circumcised... you want in, you get circumcised. The city folk are like fine, whatever. Then, when they're still recovering from the pain of the circumcision and thus incapacitated, they are attacked. The brothers of the rape survivor were operating by the older, nomadic code: you rape our sister, we fuck you all up. And they slaughtered every man in the town and plundered it. + Show Spoiler +Then there's a debate over the ethics, which the Bible never really resolves. The patriarch Jacob is really mad that his sons did this act of violence, and they're like, you wanted to let him get away with raping our sister? And as a reader you're like, wow, there's no good answer. You can't punish a prince fairly for rape... your choices are to kill him by subterfuge or let him get away with it. Shitty situation all around. Hum yes I went a bit overboard with my other comment, but I think we can agree that in almost all societies trough the history rape wasn't consider that big of a things, at lest in practice for example all the medieval text that spoke about the purity of women wasn't actually severe on raping case. I don't know the bible very well but for what I know of older book like the 10 000 nights, the Iliad or history in general, rape is always consider an offence to the man, being the father, the husband or the husband, not really the women. There could be some case where I am wrong of course But what I was decreeing is that the idea of virginal guarantee in a women marriage contract written by someone else, something that is the incarnation of the dispossession of the women body from herself can be consider a way to combat rape, and that for some reason the fact we don't have them anymore, (well at least not legally they still exist of course) is suppose to be related to our desire to control the women body.
The issue back then was that consent was not a power of the woman, but was instead a power of her owner. When men had control of a woman's consent lots of paperwork and power-plays were done to specifically maintain awareness of when consent was or wasn't given. Its so ingrained in western society that "getting the father's consent" is still practiced in regards to marriage.
Was the woman raped? Yes, continually, and for centuries. Because she was not given the power of consent. But the aspect of consent given to the male during that time period--that was considered precious and important. Its only been when consent was given to women that men stopped caring about getting consent.
|
On December 16 2016 11:20 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 10:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 09:56 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple. You don't have to prove consent was given, you have to prove it wasn't given, its the presomption of innocence. And that of course mean that sexual assault case are a pain of the ass and almost never amounth to anything, since usually one is going to say there was consent and the other that there was not and since it is a criminal accusation you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty so there need to be other proof. It is pretty hard to solve that problem tbh, there are some people asking to make sexual assault case balance of probability like civil cases but it will probably not happen. Its only hard to solve because we live in a society that does not promote, encourage, nor has a practice of recorded consent. For example, in the old days where women were expected to be virgins until the man signed off on marriage it was easy to know it was rape because they weren't married. You needed documents and proof that you were allowed to have sex. Now a days we don't emphasize consent primarily because of the fetish of domination and control of women inherent in western culture. But that's a different discussion altogether. Please by your definition let me know when you had sex with consent that is prove able.
An easy one is that we were not drunk when it happened.
|
Canada8990 Posts
On December 16 2016 16:22 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 15:40 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 12:57 Yoav wrote:On December 16 2016 11:31 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 10:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 09:56 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it.
My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple. You don't have to prove consent was given, you have to prove it wasn't given, its the presomption of innocence. And that of course mean that sexual assault case are a pain of the ass and almost never amounth to anything, since usually one is going to say there was consent and the other that there was not and since it is a criminal accusation you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty so there need to be other proof. It is pretty hard to solve that problem tbh, there are some people asking to make sexual assault case balance of probability like civil cases but it will probably not happen. Its only hard to solve because we live in a society that does not promote, encourage, nor has a practice of recorded consent. For example, in the old days where women were expected to be virgins until the man signed off on marriage it was easy to know it was rape because they weren't married. You needed documents and proof that you were allowed to have sex. Now a days we don't emphasize consent primarily because of the fetish of domination and control of women inherent in western culture. But that's a different discussion altogether. No, no just no this is retarded. There were plenty of rape then, and it wasn't even a crime in most societies women could not even go to court by themselves, they needed to be represented by their husband of father (spoiler those are both of the most frequent rapist), and that also mean if you were not married saying someone rape you made sure you are never going to get married. Plus all the victim shaming, the honour crime against the victim, the fact that it mean you can only have sexual relation with your husband, and like 99 other reason. I mean you could sue the father of a girl who was rape after there was a promise of marriage because of breach of contract by the women. Depends on the society. There's a fascinating bit in Genesis where a bunch of nomads stop by in a town. One of the daughters of their leader is raped by the son of the ruler of the town. The urban culture assumes that what happens now is she marries him, since they've had sex (the norm in ubanized society at the time). They go to the nomads and say, let's get married! The nomads say, ok, but we've got this deal with our god that our menfolk all get circumcised... you want in, you get circumcised. The city folk are like fine, whatever. Then, when they're still recovering from the pain of the circumcision and thus incapacitated, they are attacked. The brothers of the rape survivor were operating by the older, nomadic code: you rape our sister, we fuck you all up. And they slaughtered every man in the town and plundered it. + Show Spoiler +Then there's a debate over the ethics, which the Bible never really resolves. The patriarch Jacob is really mad that his sons did this act of violence, and they're like, you wanted to let him get away with raping our sister? And as a reader you're like, wow, there's no good answer. You can't punish a prince fairly for rape... your choices are to kill him by subterfuge or let him get away with it. Shitty situation all around. Hum yes I went a bit overboard with my other comment, but I think we can agree that in almost all societies trough the history rape wasn't consider that big of a things, at lest in practice for example all the medieval text that spoke about the purity of women wasn't actually severe on raping case. I don't know the bible very well but for what I know of older book like the 10 000 nights, the Iliad or history in general, rape is always consider an offence to the man, being the father, the husband or the husband, not really the women. There could be some case where I am wrong of course But what I was decreeing is that the idea of virginal guarantee in a women marriage contract written by someone else, something that is the incarnation of the dispossession of the women body from herself can be consider a way to combat rape, and that for some reason the fact we don't have them anymore, (well at least not legally they still exist of course) is suppose to be related to our desire to control the women body. The issue back then was that consent was not a power of the woman, but was instead a power of her owner. When men had control of a woman's consent lots of paperwork and power-plays were done to specifically maintain awareness of when consent was or wasn't given. Its so ingrained in western society that "getting the father's consent" is still practiced in regards to marriage. Was the woman raped? Yes, continually, and for centuries. Because she was not given the power of consent. But the aspect of consent given to the male during that time period--that was considered precious and important. Its only been when consent was given to women that men stopped caring about getting consent.
Well I would say it was never about consent and more about keeping power over women body and life in general, power that can also be achieve through sexual assault.
I think I understand your point about having record consent, and it sound good but there is many problem and it seems like a twisted logic by my point of view. You don't try to give people control about their sexuality by imposing rules on them. Having record consent would discriminate about having one night relation, or adultery relation, or homosexual relation in an environment where it is not well seen, or if you don't want to make your relation public for any reason. There is also the problem of being sexually assault with your partner or after the sexual relation has begun.
Drinking is a way for some people to be more confident in approaching other people, sexuality can be a very intimidating thing, and you don't lose all your rationality the first second you drink a beer.
Of course it doesn't mean that you have the right to refuse to have sexual relation after you have drink alcohol, or before you have a full sign contract between you two.
I personally think the solution lies mostly in education, we have to make sure that sexuality is seen as a consensual activity, and if it is assimilate by people they will act like it naturally. The same way it is natural for most people to pay for stuff, and that you don't forgot to pay at the bar because you are drunk unless you are beyond thinking. And rules of law to punish does kind of comportment is necessary, but it should be there to solve anomaly not a recurrent trend in societies.
I know it is kind of a brutal thing to say, since it doesn't give a quick or an "easy" solution to a problem that is going on right now but I think it is the good way to really solve this it in the long run.
|
On December 16 2016 09:33 Fecalfeast wrote:
5 people are trapped on a liferaft in the middle of the ocean (one of those big ones with a tent/covering) with no food but plenty of drinking water. One person is skinny with no muscle, almost emaciated looking and keeps to himself. One person is athletically muscular with hardly any fat and is very confrontational. One is very fat, smells terrible and is an expert sailor/navigator. One is a bodybuilder who competes in bodybuilding contests and is self absorbed. The last person is you, the reader of this question.
The sailor says your raft has drifted out of major shipping channels and will not strike land for at least two months. The only supplies are the clothes each person is wearing and the drinking water. You are in a temperate climate and your clothes are enough to keep hypothermia at bay but not to be comfortable at night.
What is the best course of action for you to survive?
Kill the sailor/navigator. Now my not-expert-but-appreciable sailing/navigation skills are useful and I am off the food list. Then have to gang up on the bodybuilder, because he can beat us all in a 1v1. Athletic dude, skinny and I will survive.
|
what the fuck dude, you go fishing.
@Thieving Magpie - can one give consent for bad things to happen to it? (ex: one wants to get raped and gives consent for it).
|
On December 16 2016 17:53 xM(Z wrote:
what the fuck dude, you go fishing.
@Thieving Magpie - can one give consent for bad things to happen to it? (ex: one wants to get raped and gives consent for it).
I think this takes us into linguistics arguments about specifically how terms are defined. but my initial thought is that by definition what your saying would simply be roleplaying
|
On December 16 2016 17:55 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 17:53 xM(Z wrote:
what the fuck dude, you go fishing.
@Thieving Magpie - can one give consent for bad things to happen to it? (ex: one wants to get raped and gives consent for it).
I think this takes us into linguistics arguments about specifically how terms are defined. but my initial thought is that by definition what your saying would simply be roleplaying i think this takes us into showing how Thieving Magpie is a fraud.
|
On December 16 2016 16:26 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 11:20 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 10:50 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 09:56 Nakajin wrote:On December 16 2016 09:30 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 08:07 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:25 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 07:16 JimmiC wrote:On December 16 2016 07:10 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 16 2016 06:49 JimmiC wrote:
If you right on this some one needs to arrest my wife she has raped me over 300 times! Depending on both your vows and your religiosity--a big part of marriage is sharing everything with each other. It can definitely be argued that there is an assumed level of consent between married couples. However, rape still happens even in these setups as majority of rapes actually happen between people who know each other or are friends/partners. So while you can joke about your wife raping you--most rapes actually happen between partners so its not actually that crazy of a statement. Its not at all a crazy statement based on your definition. She has because we have had sex tons of times while I've been very drunk. Basically with your definition all drunk sex is rape by one or both parties. We are going to need a lot more jails, police officers and so on to deal with it. My biggest frustration with your point of view is in some attempt at, well I'm not even sure what, you are devaluing all the actual situations (drunk and sober, married not married so on) where sex with consent actually happens and is horrible. I did not call it rape, I called it sex without consent. How you wish to see what that means is up to you. Or, think of it this way, lets say you were a shop owner and you saw a starving kid sit outside your store, you see him do that for months. One day he tries to take food from your store and you stop him. Do you send him to the police or do you realize the context of the situation is important? Do you talk him down, tell him what he did is wrong and let him go? Do you talk him down, let him know it was wrong and give him the food? Do you get the cops to show up and put him in jail? Lots of options available to you as the victim against the criminal doing something bad. The same is also true with your wife. And the same is also true for all the times you've fucked her while she was drunk. If you believe in a black and white world where people only do good things and only do bad things then I can see why you're having a hard time grasping what I'm saying. But I will repeat it. When you remove the ability for someone to make informed consent, then you are forcing them to do something without consent. The consequences of those actions are determined by the parties involved. If you don't trust the person you are sleeping with to not take advantage of what is happening, then you should protect yourself. if you trust them--then part of trusting them is being willing to cede power to them. I get why you would be condescending because you think you are very smart and therefore if some disagree's with you they must not "grasp what you are saying". But let me assure you it is the opposite I get your point I just think it is stupid and completely impractical. It is intellectual masturbation with little thought of real world consequences. If we work your thieving example backwards it means you do think it is rape, but basically that some rape is justifiable. I am glad you do not write our laws, can you imagine the average person trying to figure this out as juror? I think there is rape and not rape. Not some sliding scale. I don't take a rapist off the hook for raping a girl because he was drunk, any more than I take a girl(could be any gender) off the hook for getting drunk and then consenting for something they may not have done sober. Lets not forget basically the only reason to drink is to lower inhibitions, stop thinking so much and have a good time. If you wanted to taste something good you would have a milkshake or pop and if you need to hydrate booze is the worst. Even in your example of the poor starving kid, he wasn't some regular healthy person who made a informed decision to become poor and starving. You seem to be forgetting that people know what booze does to them, this is why they make you wait to be a adult to use it. Now if the discussion was about some one who was some how slipped a bunch of booze or tricked into it then your points are valid, but that is not what this is about. Edit: Also, if we are going to completely take way people responsibility of the choices they make once they have something to drink we should get rid of all those drunk driving laws since they couldn't possibly know what they doing when they get behind the wheel. We should also free every criminal no matter the charge if they were drunk, murder, no worries just sober up and we will let you out. Perhaps just a 12 step program. It's really super simple for juries as well. Was there proof sex happened? Was there proof that consent was given? If the answer is that they had sex, and there's no proof of consent, then they know it was sex without consent. It's that simple. You don't have to prove consent was given, you have to prove it wasn't given, its the presomption of innocence. And that of course mean that sexual assault case are a pain of the ass and almost never amounth to anything, since usually one is going to say there was consent and the other that there was not and since it is a criminal accusation you have to prove without a reasonable doubt that the person is guilty so there need to be other proof. It is pretty hard to solve that problem tbh, there are some people asking to make sexual assault case balance of probability like civil cases but it will probably not happen. Its only hard to solve because we live in a society that does not promote, encourage, nor has a practice of recorded consent. For example, in the old days where women were expected to be virgins until the man signed off on marriage it was easy to know it was rape because they weren't married. You needed documents and proof that you were allowed to have sex. Now a days we don't emphasize consent primarily because of the fetish of domination and control of women inherent in western culture. But that's a different discussion altogether. Please by your definition let me know when you had sex with consent that is prove able. An easy one is that we were not drunk when it happened.
Sorry, that does not work if the other party complains afterwards or during the act. As is often cited with complaints against sex contracts the terms are often undefined. You go into the situation thinking you will have sex, your partner goes into it thinking you will do mutual masturbation (or whatever). You would win any case where they complained afterwards but it would still be a case.
|
So let me get this straight... If you go out to a bar, ppl get a bit drunk, you go home with a girl that is also a bit drunk and have happy sex, everyone enjoying, the girl can sue for rape afterwards? If there is evidence of what happened, you can go to prison? Is that right? In US I guess. Is this different in other countries?
I mean... I'm all for heavy handed regulations against rape. That crap is horrible. But this seems a bit odd.
|
his argument is mainly/overwhelmingly ideological. people have been pocking at it with practicalities but he'll have none of it.
|
On December 16 2016 17:53 xM(Z wrote:
what the fuck dude, you go fishing.
@Thieving Magpie - can one give consent for bad things to happen to it? (ex: one wants to get raped and gives consent for it).
No, because the definition of rape is that there is no consent. If there is consent, it is not rape, it is roleplaying. And of course you can consent to roleplaying rape. As long as you are able to remove the consent at any point in time (The usual solution to this is having a safeword. This also enables you to beg and say no, while still giving consent, because it has been previously negotiated that the only thing that really means "no" is saying "treetrunk") there is no problem. Both parties know that the other party is consenting, even if what they are acting out does not look like that is the case.
One of the big problems with consent is that it is an "at the moment" status. This also makes the "get consent before you are drunk" solution problematic. Consent can be removed at any point in time, i can't make a contract saying "I consent to you fucking me every day for the next 5 years", because that would remove my ability to remove consent.
There are some situations where stuff gets muddy. Drunk sex is one of them. There are clearly situations where it is rape, and there are clearly those where it is not. There is clearly not a clear solution to this.
Or have another: Imagine you REALLY want to have sex while asleep, and wake up during it. But obviously you are not able to consent while asleep. You can give consent ahead of time, but that is not "consent at the time it is happening", which is what is really required for everything to be completely clear.
There are some edge cases where consent isn't really that clear. Usually it is best to avoid those, unless you are very certain about the people involved. But usually the best idea is to just use common sense and err on the side of caution. Make sure your partners are of sound mind and consent.
Note that i am not talking about how to prove anything, or how to be safe that you are not accused of anything. I am only talking about the base ethical question. Provability is a completely different question.
I know that Magpie can be annoying with regards to this thematic, but he really does have a point. As GTA puts it: "Respect is everything!" Be respectful of your partners wishes instead of looking for an excuse to have sex with them and try to get what you want without regards of what they want.
|
On December 16 2016 18:36 Cascade wrote:
So let me get this straight... If you go out to a bar, ppl get a bit drunk, you go home with a girl that is also a bit drunk and have happy sex, everyone enjoying, the girl can sue for rape afterwards? If there is evidence of what happened, you can go to prison? Is that right? In US I guess. Is this different in other countries?
I mean... I'm all for heavy handed regulations against rape. That crap is horrible. But this seems a bit odd.
No you don't go to prison for that anywhere. It's one guy thinking that you can't give consent when you've had some drinks. Everyone else thinks he's just being a dumbass.
|
On December 16 2016 19:05 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 18:36 Cascade wrote:
So let me get this straight... If you go out to a bar, ppl get a bit drunk, you go home with a girl that is also a bit drunk and have happy sex, everyone enjoying, the girl can sue for rape afterwards? If there is evidence of what happened, you can go to prison? Is that right? In US I guess. Is this different in other countries?
I mean... I'm all for heavy handed regulations against rape. That crap is horrible. But this seems a bit odd. No you don't go to prison for that anywhere. It's one guy thinking that you can't give consent when you've had some drinks. Everyone else thinks he's just being a dumbass.
ok, thanks.
Yeah, I don't think being drunk is an excuse for anything. If you're drunk and consent to sex with someone that you regret having sex with afterwards, too bad for you. Similarly, if you're drunk and don't want to have sex, and get raped, then that is as bad as raping someone sober that don't want to have sex.
Same for drunk driving. Running someone over while drunk is as bad as running someone over while sober. Probably worse actually, as you knowingly put yourself at the risk.
Making someone super drunk sign a contract for something silly can be up for debate, but I'd still say that your drunk signature is worth as much as your sober signature. Then I think there are (should be?) other protections against ridiculous contracts that people get tricked into signing, be it through alcohol, misinformation or whatever.
|
On December 16 2016 19:03 Simberto wrote:Show nested quote +On December 16 2016 17:53 xM(Z wrote:
what the fuck dude, you go fishing.
@Thieving Magpie - can one give consent for bad things to happen to it? (ex: one wants to get raped and gives consent for it).
No, because the definition of rape is that there is no consent. If there is consent, it is not rape, it is roleplaying. And of course you can consent to roleplaying rape. As long as you are able to remove the consent at any point in time (The usual solution to this is having a safeword. This also enables you to beg and say no, while still giving consent, because it has been previously negotiated that the only thing that really means "no" is saying "treetrunk") there is no problem. Both parties know that the other party is consenting, even if what they are acting out does not look like that is the case. One of the big problems with consent is that it is an "at the moment" status. This also makes the "get consent before you are drunk" solution problematic. Consent can be removed at any point in time, i can't make a contract saying "I consent to you fucking me every day for the next 5 years", because that would remove my ability to remove consent. There are some situations where stuff gets muddy. Drunk sex is one of them. There are clearly situations where it is rape, and there are clearly those where it is not. There is clearly not a clear solution to this. Or have another: Imagine you REALLY want to have sex while asleep, and wake up during it. But obviously you are not able to consent while asleep. You can give consent ahead of time, but that is not "consent at the time it is happening", which is what is really required for everything to be completely clear. There are some edge cases where consent isn't really that clear. Usually it is best to avoid those, unless you are very certain about the people involved. But usually the best idea is to just use common sense and err on the side of caution. Make sure your partners are of sound mind and consent. Note that i am not talking about how to prove anything, or how to be safe that you are not accused of anything. I am only talking about the base ethical question. Provability is a completely different question. I know that Magpie can be annoying with regards to this thematic, but he really does have a point. As GTA puts it: "Respect is everything!" Be respectful of your partners wishes instead of looking for an excuse to have sex with them and try to get what you want without regards of what they want. you went overboard; i wouldn't have touched that. it is such a gray area of theory that practice won't ever(unless you come up/invent gadgets that could measure ones intent) agree upon.
thing is, you and him agree with and uphold the consent given by people in assisted suicide cases + Show Spoiler +i'm assuming you do but he does agree for sure
agree with death by consent, don't agree with rape by consent shows logical inconsistencies, shows that varying degrees of consent exist and you agree with them existing (which is what counter arguments to your point do; they show you varying degrees of consent but you dismiss them as not pure, tainted)= fraud.
|
I am not saying that rape with consent is unacceptable, i am saying that it is impossible. If there is consent, it is not rape.
Meanwhile, in the assisted suicide case, the suiciding person gives consent, and is constantly consenting, to what is happening to him, until he is dead. He can remove that consent at any point, and he will not get killed. Thus, this is absolutely consistent with the idea that consent is the base of respectful interactions.
Of course there are grey areas. Everything has grey areas. I have no idea where you got the idea that i am dismissing those as impure or tainted or anything, those are not words that i usually would use. Varying degrees of consent exist. Society has a certain minimum level of consent that is necessary for something to be acceptable. A twelve-year olds consent to have sex is not enough, a 20-year olds is. The consent of someone that will have major repercussions against them if they refuse is not acceptable. The lack of refusal by someone who is unconscious is not enough consent to proceed. The forced consent of someone with a knife at their throat is not acceptable.
And then there are areas that are not as clear-cut. What if someone is just really drugged, but can still moan a bit in a way that could be interpreted as consent. What if it is a 17-year old instead of a 12-year old? What if they are not physically threatened, but might FEEL threatened for whatever reason?
There are a lot of unclear situations. What i don't understand is this need to just skirt by the edge of what is acceptable. This sounds inheretly egoistic to me. I want something, and i will try to just skirt by the edges of acceptability to get it.
Instead, try respecting your partners. Make sure that you are NOT in a grey area. You might have a bit less sex this way. But on the other hand, you will feel less like a predator and more like a good person, because you are actually respecting your partners wishes.
Obviously, this is not a base of a legal approach to this question. I am not even talking about that angle. I am talking about voluntarily trying to be the best you can be, not what you should be punished for not doing.
Determining how the legal angle should work is a lot harder, especially since you usually don't have a lot of evidence.
But that is not what i am talking about. I am talking about "What ideal should you strive towards". And that is in my opinion "Only do stuff if everyone involved is clearly consenting, and can remove consent at any point in time without any repercussions".
|
i do not accept that story as a counterargument.
- one gives consent for death; he has no idea what death is, no one knows what death is or how bad it is. you agree with him.
- one gives consent for rape; he has no idea what rape is(going with your logic here because one can know what rape is). you disagree with him(claiming illogicality here is the same thing as disagreeing; you render his autonomy mute).
(what you touch on there is authenticity conditions and competency conditions required for consent but they're outside the logic of this argument because you clearly muddy the waters as you see fit)
|
You are not reading what i am writing. I am not saying that consenting to rape is not acceptable.
What i am saying is the following: If you consent, it is no longer rape. No matter what is happening, it is not rape, because you are consenting
You can consent to something that looks like rape from the outside, and i am fine with that. But since you are consenting, it is not rape. So you can consent to have someone tie you down and forcefully penetrate you while you are screaming "no, no, no, please no". As long as this is something that you are consenting to, and have a way to stop it (like a safeword for example), this is absolutely fine. And it is not rape. Because it is consensual. If something is consensual, it is not rape.
Either i am completely misunderstanding your argument, or you are arguing against something that i am not saying.
|
i understood your point but i dismissed it/ignored it and considered it as being a serious disrespect to rape victims.
what you do there is change the definition of rape then claim what happens after that(after you change its meaning) is no longer rape. well no shit?, you changed its definition from a violent, brutal, scarring affair to some consensual mild slapping and hair pulling role-play.
how the hell could you even discuss things when you change definitions mid argument?.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
