EPTAsk and answer stupid questions here! - Page 547
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Uldridge
Belgium5161 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5161 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 16 2016 23:17 JimmiC wrote: Such generalization, and such sexist thought you have. First most men,even the evil sexist western man, would prefer consent. In fact the women wanting us is a huge turn on. Secondly women are not week innocent flowers in need of your constant protection. Most are as sexual as men, some more in fact. Its not generalization. Back then women were the property of the parents, to be offered to a husband. Then she would be legally stripped all ownership and that would be given to the new husband. Women would only get property if they had no children and their husband died. Until then, they had no legal authority to consent to anything--it really didn't matter what they wanted. In this world, consent was agreed upon among the property owners, similar to slavery. The father had the legal rights to consent since the mother was a woman and hence stripped of all ownership. The husband and father would come to an agreement, papers would be made, promises put on record, then the marriage would be scheduled. You see, when men have all the powers to consent, suddenly keeping track of consent was super important and would actually be entwined into law. Fast forward to the future. Women become their own persons and now have the power to consent. Men like you now try to find as many ways to argue that you can drug a woman and fuck her because she obviously wanted it. I am not trying to protect them, heck, all I'm pointing out is that men and women who are not of sound mind cannot consent. If you believe someone who is not of sound mind can consent--that's on you. I am not asking you to stop drinking. I am not asking you to stop going out to bars and fucking women who aren't your wife. I am not asking you to stop fucking your wife. I am simply pointing out that if you are not of sound mind, then you can't really give consent. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 17 2016 00:19 JimmiC wrote: I think you are more saying that I could go to the bar and fuck women that are not my wife because I couldn't consent to it and therefor am not at fault. My big issue with your stance is it does not work in the real world. I mean you won't even state a level of drunkenness that you lose the ability to consent and how you possibly have sex while drunk where it wouldn't be rape. Your basically like a guy who says abstain from sex and we won't have any STI or unwanted pregnancies. But everyone with any sense knows that doens't work in the real world. I did not say you shouldn't be having sex. And I didn't say you shouldn't be drinking. Both are still fine, and both can be done assuming a specific continuum or narrative can be presented to it. If you're question was "how do I stop a girl who is not of sound mind from doing something crazy the next day" the answer is that you shouldn't have been with someone who wasn't of sound mind. If you do, you run the risk of having someone who is not of sound mind do something crazy. Now, if you are in a cultural situation where you feel you have a level of trust between you and the parties involved, then that risk decreases, but the risk does not go away. At no point is there a "how can I have no consequences fucking people who are not of sound mind." I've had friends drive drunk and be fine. I've had friends fuck while they were under 18 and be fine. I've had friends who were actually raped, had a hard time struggling through the trauma, but have been able to find a way to get by. Its not an on/off switch of whether or not you can, can't, shouldn't. Its just cognizance of the realities of the situation. If you are not of sound mind, you cannot consent. You can try to deal with it before losing your soundness of mind, or you can try to deal with it after you've sobered up. But when you're not of sound mind you can't really consent--and that comes with baggage for both parties involved. I don't have an alcohol level I care about because I'm not a scientist. I can point to the amount of alcohol we trust in professionals to do their jobs or for people to drive--but even then that's just correlative. We want more soundness of mind from a surgeon than a barista, and we want more soundness of mind from a construction worker than an architect. But how about soundness of mind for potential victims of rape? That I don't have any studies to point to or reference--and so I will not be making up numbers for it. If you trust to not get screwed by the person--then have at it. If you don't trust, then push back. If you're interested but are unsure, then you can meet again at a more sober time. There is more to life than where your genitals hang out for 5-50 minutes. Now if you're question is "how can I legally fuck someone who is not of sound mind so that I get no legal consequences" then I simply disagree with the premise of your goals and interests. We should give as much power to both parties as possible and that means leaning on the side that both sides must be okay with what happened to them. If the goal is to find a work around to undermine a person's ability to consent--then I disagree with what you are trying to find. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 17 2016 01:05 JimmiC wrote: You can't not have responsibility for consenting while drunk (thereby rape). And then turn around and say that the rapist should take responsibility for their actions while drunk. Life doesn't work that way and the law doesn't work that way. That is why we make people wait to a age where we feel they are responsible enough to make the decision to drink and accept the consequences of there actions once drunk. Being drunk is not being 12, it is a choice. And at no point have I stated that you can have sex with anyone that is drunk without consequence. But if one or both parties are drunk and both parties consent at the time, that is consensual sex end of discussion everything else you have said is strawman and emotional baiting. Sure most people will agree with you based on "rape is bad". But it doesn't make any of it more then intellectual well written bullshit. The last thing "western society" which your so bent on chastising needs, is less responsibility to people and there choices. That is the biggest problem is people thinking luck, and other forces have created there situation. If you are scared of decisions you might make drunk, don't drink. If you don't know how being drunk effects you look it up. If you choose to drink, especially to excess, accept the consequences of your choices while drunk. The bottle made me do it, which is basically your argument when you get down to it has been the favorite of wife beaters, rapists, and so on for a long time. Congrats on trying to argue it the other way, it is someone what creative but has horrible consequences. I would assume a rapist does not care what he should or should not do. I do believe that people acting dumb, stupid, and even dangerously when under the influence is a real thing; and hence why we cannot assume that they are of sound mind when under said influence. This does not mean we remove responsibility from them--we give them tonnes of responsibility. It is illegal for drunks to drive, bring drunk is a fireable offense, and you can even have certifications and documentations revoked should you be under the influence while practicing normal duties of your job. We definitely punish people for being drunk and trying to act like they are normal. The same is true with consent. If we don't even trust a drunk to drive, how can we trust them to consent? Especially if its a stranger you just met. And the comments about duress and about being 12 years old and even the recent comments about fetishes and bondage are not strawmen--they simply emphasize the point even more clearly with less gray areas. We as a people already understand that just because we hear people say yes, that that affirmation does not necessarily mean consent. And if we agree that being of unsound mind is one of the ways to lose the capability to give consent, then I don't know where our disagreement actually is apart from you're not being comfortable with your current practices being put into question. So let me put on my feminist hat for a moment. One of the issues feminists have with the patriarchy is that often it is assumed that if something is common practice then that must mean it is the normal way things should be. This was true back when women were just property, this was true back when women did not have the vote, and this is true now when women are expected to not have to give clear consent. Its a continual evolution towards a more equal society--but one that is slow paced and has no clear cut boundaries. I would love to get to the day when my saying "being of unsound mind means you can't give consent" makes people as scared for young men as they are for young women when it comes to the fears of rape. I would love for issues about the lack of clarity in how we manage consent to be an issue on both sides of the gender binary. I would love for issues of consent to be something we can bring up and imagine LGBT couples as often as we imagine straight couples. I would love for issues of consent to be something brought up to clarify how long-time couples manage consent in their day-to-day lives and that we can finally reduce the majority of rapes being with partners. I wish issues of consent be brought up as much when female teachers take advantage of young boys that society tells to chase after girls and so feel like they *have* to have sex with predators. I wish for a lot of things. But right now I am simply trying to show that consent is not really something you can give if you are not of sound mind. You might think it sounds like a good idea at the time, and you might have zero regrets after the fact, and you might even have a continual lack of regret from repetition of that action--but you were still of unsound mind when you attempted to make that decision. The fact that there was no consequences from that decision does not mean you regressively had sound mind after all. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 17 2016 03:33 JimmiC wrote: I'll refrain from getting into your last paragraph to much because it is simply silly. Men and women are different biologically. Because of these physical strength differences as well as the way our bodies work men on women rape will always be a bigger issue then vice versa, that is not because of some "sexism" that is because of reality. Rape is sex without consent. You believe that once "drunk" (I put it like that because you won't define it) you cannot give consent. So here are some simple questions that I would love you to answer without a long winding road. In my examples below man is 6'2 200 pounds, women is 5-2 125 pounds. Man is sober women is drunk both say they want to have sex and do. In the morning she decides she didn't want to have sex. Did the man rape her? Should he go to jail? Man is Drunk, women is sober both say they want to have and do. In the morning he decides he didn't want to have sex. Did she rape him? Should she go to jail? Man is drunk, women is drunk they both want to have sex and do. In the morning the both decide they didn't want to have sex. Did they rape each other? Should they both do to jail? Short answer is yes, they need to be punished. A quick google search for rape punishment shows that men raping women who are blacked can get as little as only a few days of jail time, not much difference from public drunkenness which can sometimes come with an overnight jail time to "sober up." Put it on their record, give them the community service that a minor offense warrants (similar to spray painting a public building) and both sides move on. If we find that specific individuals become repeat offenders in trying to get people imprisoned, we will have it on record. | ||
|
Karis Vas Ryaar
United States4396 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 17 2016 04:03 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote: depends on the state. think rape is defined on a state by state level and it varies Hence my emphasis on describing the act as having sex without consent. The people I'm arguing with primarily want to know when they're allowed to fuck a drunk girl without the threat of rape accusations. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 17 2016 04:23 JimmiC wrote: So you are saying that it is correct for people who are blacked out to get as little as a few days? Do you not see how in real life this would open up the ultimate rape defense to be "I was drunk"? Also if the dude was raped in your world then he shouldn't be responsible for any child created so now we can have dirt bags going Child support? I was drunk when I had sex with her, therefor she raped me and I'm not responsible. I'm also guessing your experience with alcohol is super low because it is a long ways from drunk to blackout and a long way from black out to zombie. Hence the reason I was trying to pin you down on your version of "drunk" Its not my laws, its the real world's laws. Just two examples from this year alone. One Day Charged for Rape 60 Days and 1500 years for Rape Three Months for Raping Passed Out Woman People are punished that much for actual rape. I can definitely see a middle ground between 1 day and 1500 years for something for non-consensual sex. I could even see less than a day and/or community service for non-consensual sex vs violent sex vs sexual assault. It really just depends how much power you want to give citizens. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 17 2016 05:42 JimmiC wrote: But whats so frustrating with you is you keep bouncing back between what happens in the world and what you think should happen. You never make a clear point. Basically the only thing clear to me is you are man hating feminist which would make you very interesting from a psychological perspective, but would cause my wife and many other feminists to be furious with you. I don't understand why my comments on consent is something you understand as being directed at only men. I even had a whole paragraph which you specifically said you wanted to ignore because you don't believe its possible to worry about issues of consent and men. So I don't really understand what's man hating about that. Heck, most of what I've been telling you is different ways to protect yourself of the gray areas of consent. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 17 2016 07:07 JimmiC wrote: From you: The people I'm arguing with primarily want to know when they're allowed to fuck a drunk girl without the threat of rape accusations." No one said this, or was any where near it. So for you to automatically assume it.... No one was looking for ways to protect themselves from the gray areas of consent, This is just another assumption you have made to fit the narrative you believe true of all men in western culture (expect you the one special snowflake that sees the light) and I've been clear what I have been looking for and why. You keep moving the target and avoiding the parts that don't fit your narrative. My argument has not changed since the beginning. If you are not of sound mind, you cannot consent. You are the one who keeps bringing up raping people, specifically the idea of men raping women. You do this over and over again as if its the only narrative available when that's not even true. Male/Male relationships Female/Female relationships Bisexual/NonBisexual relationships Bisexual/Bisexual relationships Trans/Trans relationships Trans/Non-Trans relationships etc... There's a reason I have been abstract in my terms because I believe non-consexual sex affects all sexes with equal results. Gay males who are effeminate, transmen who are violated, etc... Consent is not simply a male/female problem. Hence why I have to keep repeating the same thing to you: if you are not of sound mind, you cannot consent. You want this to mean only rape; but its literally exactly what it is. The issue is that you have a lack of gradience when it comes to the varying degrees of non-consensual interactions. Public Indecency, Unwelcome Advances, Sexual Assault, Sexual Coercion, Prostitution, etc... There are a lot of ways that skirting consent leads to things that are bad. But it doesn't really mean anything if it isn't reported. In the first example I gave you many pages ago of the boy who steals bread from a shop owner; just because the boy steals something does not mean the shop owner has to get him imprisoned. The context of the situation changes how the issues are managed. But context of the situation does not negate the actions that occurred. The boy still stole, and sex while not of sound mind is still sex without consent. But you happen to believe that that automatically means sexual assault, which is something specific, when there are tonnes of other things it could be. Sexual assault itself is also rather vague. Lots of BDSM enthusiasts would definitely fit the description of physical assault--but since they also place a greater emphasis on consent than non-BDSM folks that is usually managed much more cleanly. Stop taking this topic so personally. Its just the listing of facts. | ||
| ||
