|
On December 17 2016 08:47 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:39 Ghostcom wrote:On December 17 2016 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:27 Ghostcom wrote:On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Do you think a patient (with no prior medical knowledge) can ever give a truly informed consent to a medical treatment? EDIT: And do you think that is a potential issue? That's a super complicated question to answer. Nurses and Doctors I talk to have this type of issue all the time. Patients who are of sound mind can request or refuse damn near any medical treatment. Patients who are not of sound mind, medical professionals need to talk to their spouse/family. If those are not available, the doctor gets discretion. But how do they define that line on a case by case basis? How do you know that the person saying "no no don't do that" to a treatment they NEED is of unsound enough mind that they can either circumvent them or ask a loved one to circumvent them. Expanding that out to the civilian world from a medical basis gets even murkier. You misunderstood the question. I'm well aware of the rules and practice in the field being a MD myself who have forcible admitted and forcible treated psychotic patients (all within the legal framework of the Danish law obviously). The question is of philosophic nature. Do you think a patient of sound mind can ever give truly informed consent? Like I said, that's a very very difficult question to answer with repercussions that affects a wider range of things than the scope of the either the rape or medicine angle. Which is exactly why I want you to answer it, because you are presenting the "rape angle" far too simplistic in my opinion. EDIT: I'm fine with leaving the topic here as encouraged by our resident Belgian (sorry for not seeing it earlier). But suffice to say there is a ton of literature on the topic by people far smarter than any of us and consent is an incredibly murky concept which is incredibly difficult to get a handle on.
I do wish to continue the discussion of soundness of mind from a medical perspective. When it comes to social gatherings and "normal day-to-day" things, consent is fairly straight forward. When things get medical and specific that's when all subjects get murky.
I recall my family being asked to make a decision for a loved one on the operating table. They wanted us to decide on next steps since she was not of sound mind to make the decision. It was a heartbreaking 45 minutes of discussion amongst all of us as to what to do, what to expect, and the dialogue of "what would she want?"
Which is why consent is super super important to me as something precious that people have; the ability to have a say in what happens to them.
But on the discussion of soundness of mind--I feel super ill informed. As an MD what are your own thoughts about it?
|
On December 17 2016 08:55 Uldridge wrote:
Hey, I'm fine by keeping it going, it just seemed like it was going to be JimmiC and Thieving Magpie bashing heads for ever which seemed a tad too tedious for this thread (sorry, love you both though), but more insight by more people is always welcomed by me.
I am not fond of the rape angle myself; which is why I did my best not to use the word rape as much as possible. It just murks up the dialogue and makes people want to die on a super specific hill.
|
Hey, I have a stupid question.
What hill might that be? 
|
On December 17 2016 08:58 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:47 Ghostcom wrote:On December 17 2016 08:45 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:39 Ghostcom wrote:On December 17 2016 08:36 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:27 Ghostcom wrote:On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Do you think a patient (with no prior medical knowledge) can ever give a truly informed consent to a medical treatment? EDIT: And do you think that is a potential issue? That's a super complicated question to answer. Nurses and Doctors I talk to have this type of issue all the time. Patients who are of sound mind can request or refuse damn near any medical treatment. Patients who are not of sound mind, medical professionals need to talk to their spouse/family. If those are not available, the doctor gets discretion. But how do they define that line on a case by case basis? How do you know that the person saying "no no don't do that" to a treatment they NEED is of unsound enough mind that they can either circumvent them or ask a loved one to circumvent them. Expanding that out to the civilian world from a medical basis gets even murkier. You misunderstood the question. I'm well aware of the rules and practice in the field being a MD myself who have forcible admitted and forcible treated psychotic patients (all within the legal framework of the Danish law obviously). The question is of philosophic nature. Do you think a patient of sound mind can ever give truly informed consent? Like I said, that's a very very difficult question to answer with repercussions that affects a wider range of things than the scope of the either the rape or medicine angle. Which is exactly why I want you to answer it, because you are presenting the "rape angle" far too simplistic in my opinion. EDIT: I'm fine with leaving the topic here as encouraged by our resident Belgian (sorry for not seeing it earlier). But suffice to say there is a ton of literature on the topic by people far smarter than any of us and consent is an incredibly murky concept which is incredibly difficult to get a handle on. I do wish to continue the discussion of soundness of mind from a medical perspective. When it comes to social gatherings and "normal day-to-day" things, consent is fairly straight forward. When things get medical and specific that's when all subjects get murky. I recall my family being asked to make a decision for a loved one on the operating table. They wanted us to decide on next steps since she was not of sound mind to make the decision. It was a heartbreaking 45 minutes of discussion amongst all of us as to what to do, what to expect, and the dialogue of "what would she want?" Which is why consent is super super important to me as something precious that people have; the ability to have a say in what happens to them. But on the discussion of soundness of mind--I feel super ill informed. As an MD what are your own thoughts about it?
Depends on what you mean by soundness of mind.
I think informing people to the best of our ability and respecting their autonomy is paramount. However, I think the concept of truly informed consent is an illusion. Almost all research done in the field that I'm aware of seems to end up concluding that informed consent isn't really truly informed. I'm not convinced that it is a problem though. For example: I rely on my banker to handle my finances with the full knowledge that I only have a very superficial understanding of what he is doing. And while my economy is obviously a less serious thing than my body I feel the concept of seeking advice and relying on specialists is at least somewhat transferable to the medical consent (NOT consent to research).
EDIT: I imagine the hill to be the: Rape is sex without consent, yet calling two drunks having sex for rape would obviously dilute the definition of rape wrong but we have no other word for it and do we really think it is an issue?
EDIT2: I'm going to bed.
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 09:05 Uldridge wrote:Hey, I have a stupid question. What hill might that be?
No way would I ever suggest that whenever rape is mentioned in a nerd website that one or more individuals invariably come up and ask about what happens when women accuse men of rape. No sir, I would never mention that the idea that rape only happens between and a man and a woman is blind to the reality that issues of consent affects all sexes, orientations, and sexual combinations with equal merit. Nor would I ever suggest that men wanting to find as many ways to be certain they don't accused of raping a drunk girl is super super creepy.
So I'll just say that I don't have anything to say about said hill 
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 09:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:27 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Yes you picked two examples of the legal system failing to further your narrative I am aware. But you act as though that is the common punishment for those crimes across the western world and it is not. And you continue to flip between how it is vs should be in half answers. You are as deft as a politician at saying lots of flowery words and avoiding the meat of a question. I literally showed you a link to an example of two people getting vastly different punishments to show the range of how we punish in our legal system. 1 Day for one, 1500 years for the other. Which shows that the punishment is variant based not on the act of rape, but on what the court deems the proper punishment for the perpetrator. Being that we do not have a standardized punishment for rape, why wouldn't we have a non-standardized punishments for nonconsensual sex? Its not a narrative I am pushing--it is literal reality with links to specific cases. Its that you won't define what "drunk". Is it two drinks? Over .08? Blackout? Passed out? Drunk is very general and of not sound mind is even more general. Without defining it you really are not saying anything. And yes do repeatedly go back to your narrative. It is just not a narrative to you, because you believe it's reality.
I have already specifically stated my positions on this. Here are some quotes to fire up your memory/laziness to reread he discussion.
1.) Drunk
"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."
"You even agree that you can't let kids drink booze since it takes a sound mind to make the decision to imbibe. As a controlled substance, we know booze gets rid of our ability to make sound decisions. It's why we don't let doctors operate drunk for example: because we don't trust the decisions, opinions, and performance of drunk people.
There's no need for you to overcomplicate it."
2.) Soundness of Mind
"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."
"Its kind of like how a 12 year having sex with a 30 year old is always rape no matter how much the 12 year old wants it. If we believe that the person does not have the ability to give consent at the time, then they are being forced to have sex without consent.
Its kind of like how if a boss tells their direct reports to have sex with them or they will lose their job. The employee does not have the ability to properly give consent because the power dynamics makes it so that the employee has no actual agency or power in that dynamic.
Its kind of like being held at gunpoint and being told to say "please fuck me" over and over into a recorder. Does not matter how many hours of recordings you force the person to give consent, when they are unable to actually give consent nothing they say will actually be consent."
"Consent can be compromised by more than just alcohol.
Age, Coercion, Power Dynamics, Intoxication, etc...
It does not matter what removes the ability to consent--lack of consent is lack of consent.
And while you might not mind having sex without consent--the 12 year old doesn't mind having sex without consent either."
"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."
|
On December 17 2016 09:14 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:27 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Yes you picked two examples of the legal system failing to further your narrative I am aware. But you act as though that is the common punishment for those crimes across the western world and it is not. And you continue to flip between how it is vs should be in half answers. You are as deft as a politician at saying lots of flowery words and avoiding the meat of a question. I literally showed you a link to an example of two people getting vastly different punishments to show the range of how we punish in our legal system. 1 Day for one, 1500 years for the other. Which shows that the punishment is variant based not on the act of rape, but on what the court deems the proper punishment for the perpetrator. Being that we do not have a standardized punishment for rape, why wouldn't we have a non-standardized punishments for nonconsensual sex? Its not a narrative I am pushing--it is literal reality with links to specific cases. Its that you won't define what "drunk". Is it two drinks? Over .08? Blackout? Passed out? Drunk is very general and of not sound mind is even more general. Without defining it you really are not saying anything. And yes do repeatedly go back to your narrative. It is just not a narrative to you, because you believe it's reality.
You keep talking like this as though there's a formal definition. There isn't. The capacity for drunkenness changes on a case by case basis. The impact of drunkenness on the case also changes on a case by case basis. Whether it's considered rape varies per case given a bunch of the factors I mentioned previously. Stop acting as if criminal law isn't a real thing.
|
On December 17 2016 09:26 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 09:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 09:05 Uldridge wrote:Hey, I have a stupid question. What hill might that be? No way would I ever suggest that whenever rape is mentioned in a nerd website that one or more individuals invariably come up and ask about what happens when women accuse men of rape. No sir, I would never mention that the idea that rape only happens between and a man and a woman is blind to the reality that issues of consent affects all sexes, orientations, and sexual combinations with equal merit. Nor would I ever suggest that men wanting to find as many ways to be certain they don't accused of raping a drunk girl is super super creepy.
So I'll just say that I don't have anything to say about said hill There is that assumption/narrative I'm talking about btw. You say that you are open to all types of consent but your last statement and the many you make shows how your really feel about what men think. Which really makes me think about what you think about deep down.
Literally your first post in this discussion:
On December 16 2016 06:29 JimmiC wrote:
It is such a stupid thing if people are legally allowed to use alcohol and then do then they are responsible for the choices they make when drunk if they choose to get this way. I've been every stage of drunk and done some dumb shit, and some awesome shit. All of it was my responsibility, the women I was with didn't rape me. The stupid shit I said not the booze.
The only place it becomes murky in my mind is if the person doesn't remember giving consent then they feel raped and since you can't prove if that person said it or not it becomes a he said /she said or he said / he said or whatever. Because you don't want to give a rapist licence to rape drunk people and then just say "they consented but don't remember"
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 09:51 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 09:40 Blisse wrote:On December 17 2016 09:14 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 08:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:27 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Yes you picked two examples of the legal system failing to further your narrative I am aware. But you act as though that is the common punishment for those crimes across the western world and it is not. And you continue to flip between how it is vs should be in half answers. You are as deft as a politician at saying lots of flowery words and avoiding the meat of a question. I literally showed you a link to an example of two people getting vastly different punishments to show the range of how we punish in our legal system. 1 Day for one, 1500 years for the other. Which shows that the punishment is variant based not on the act of rape, but on what the court deems the proper punishment for the perpetrator. Being that we do not have a standardized punishment for rape, why wouldn't we have a non-standardized punishments for nonconsensual sex? Its not a narrative I am pushing--it is literal reality with links to specific cases. Its that you won't define what "drunk". Is it two drinks? Over .08? Blackout? Passed out? Drunk is very general and of not sound mind is even more general. Without defining it you really are not saying anything. And yes do repeatedly go back to your narrative. It is just not a narrative to you, because you believe it's reality. You keep talking like this as though there's a formal definition. There isn't. The capacity for drunkenness changes on a case by case basis. The impact of drunkenness on the case also changes on a case by case basis. Whether it's considered rape varies per case given a bunch of the factors I mentioned previously. Stop acting as if criminal law isn't a real thing. No I'm trying to TM definition of drunk. At which point he thinks people can longer form consent. And I'm trying to show that most sexual encounters after alcohol are consenting. Not that all are non consenting. Or rape as TM says he doesn't want to use that term but the uses it over and over.
Already answered this question man 
|
On December 17 2016 08:27 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Do you think a patient (with no prior medical knowledge) can ever give a truly informed consent to a medical treatment? EDIT: And do you think that is a potential issue?
You can't ever really be truly informed so you can't ever give truly informed consent. Practically you can be informed when you understand everything related.
But it's not a real issue because that's the point of relying on your physician to give you sound advice, or relying on your mechanic for the same. You implicitly trust those people to properly do their jobs, which is why beyond a certain level everything is regulated.
It's a potential issue because people do take advantage of this trust, sometimes in damning ways, such as pharma companies pushing treatments for profits.
Also a potential issue because you can believe you are informed but are not actually informed because you learned the wrong things.
Can you ever know anything anyways given how much you're wrong on a daily basis?
|
|
|
|
|
On December 17 2016 10:01 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 09:35 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 09:14 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 08:31 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:27 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Yes you picked two examples of the legal system failing to further your narrative I am aware. But you act as though that is the common punishment for those crimes across the western world and it is not. And you continue to flip between how it is vs should be in half answers. You are as deft as a politician at saying lots of flowery words and avoiding the meat of a question. I literally showed you a link to an example of two people getting vastly different punishments to show the range of how we punish in our legal system. 1 Day for one, 1500 years for the other. Which shows that the punishment is variant based not on the act of rape, but on what the court deems the proper punishment for the perpetrator. Being that we do not have a standardized punishment for rape, why wouldn't we have a non-standardized punishments for nonconsensual sex? Its not a narrative I am pushing--it is literal reality with links to specific cases. Its that you won't define what "drunk". Is it two drinks? Over .08? Blackout? Passed out? Drunk is very general and of not sound mind is even more general. Without defining it you really are not saying anything. And yes do repeatedly go back to your narrative. It is just not a narrative to you, because you believe it's reality. I have already specifically stated my positions on this. Here are some quotes to fire up your memory/laziness to reread he discussion. 1.) Drunk "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." "You even agree that you can't let kids drink booze since it takes a sound mind to make the decision to imbibe. As a controlled substance, we know booze gets rid of our ability to make sound decisions. It's why we don't let doctors operate drunk for example: because we don't trust the decisions, opinions, and performance of drunk people. There's no need for you to overcomplicate it." 2.) Soundness of Mind "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." "Its kind of like how a 12 year having sex with a 30 year old is always rape no matter how much the 12 year old wants it. If we believe that the person does not have the ability to give consent at the time, then they are being forced to have sex without consent. Its kind of like how if a boss tells their direct reports to have sex with them or they will lose their job. The employee does not have the ability to properly give consent because the power dynamics makes it so that the employee has no actual agency or power in that dynamic. Its kind of like being held at gunpoint and being told to say "please fuck me" over and over into a recorder. Does not matter how many hours of recordings you force the person to give consent, when they are unable to actually give consent nothing they say will actually be consent." "Consent can be compromised by more than just alcohol. Age, Coercion, Power Dynamics, Intoxication, etc... It does not matter what removes the ability to consent--lack of consent is lack of consent. And while you might not mind having sex without consent--the 12 year old doesn't mind having sex without consent either." "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." Yes you don't use the term rape... or wait you do use it when you want to invoke certain emotions and don't when you do not. I would never say you are dumb in fact I believe you are very smart. They are totally straw man because two drunk people having sex is absolutly nothing like a 30 year old and 12 year having sex, again you are looking to draw out a certain emotion. My wife does and I'm sure many other women would find your version of feminism very sexist. I'm not going to right down why again because I'm not looking to impress with a repetitive wall of text. All your examples are punishable for being drunk because we as a society agree that being drunk makes it unsafe to do that. We as a society do not think that having drunk sex is unsafe so we have no made it illegal, you can't have it both ways using the status quo as a example in something you want to change. Yes there are cases of drunk people accusing others of rape, this does not mean all drunk sex is rape (non-consensual if this is one of those time when you would prefer this kinder term). There are also cases of rape, date rape and so on where consent is argued and both parties are sober. My main issue with your whole argument that you can not consent when drunk is you are creating and impossible situation for alcohol and sex to happen together and it being fine. There by opening up defense for rapists as well increasing the cases of false rape accusations which further cloud already murky he said she said situations.
I am simply laying out the facts.
Are you of sound mind when drunk?
Can you make sound decisions when you are not of sound mind?
Can you consent when you're unable to make sound decisions?
Does your brain suddenly become sound if sex is involved?
That's it, that's the entire argument. Why is consent the topic I keep bringing up? Because there are many ways to be unable to consent--all of which hinges on the concept of being of sound mind. Age discrepancy, coercion, power dynamics, being under the influence, etc...
There are gray areas to all of this. We assume 12 is too young, and we assume 18 is old enough, but what about 13? What about 17? We think that power dynamics forces people into bad situations--but what if you're in a single income household?
There's a reason I always go back to consent and the nature of consent and not your constant attempt to make this be a discussion on when does it count as rape.
|
On December 17 2016 10:06 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 09:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 09:26 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 09:14 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 09:05 Uldridge wrote:Hey, I have a stupid question. What hill might that be? No way would I ever suggest that whenever rape is mentioned in a nerd website that one or more individuals invariably come up and ask about what happens when women accuse men of rape. No sir, I would never mention that the idea that rape only happens between and a man and a woman is blind to the reality that issues of consent affects all sexes, orientations, and sexual combinations with equal merit. Nor would I ever suggest that men wanting to find as many ways to be certain they don't accused of raping a drunk girl is super super creepy.
So I'll just say that I don't have anything to say about said hill There is that assumption/narrative I'm talking about btw. You say that you are open to all types of consent but your last statement and the many you make shows how your really feel about what men think. Which really makes me think about what you think about deep down. Literally your first post in this discussion: On December 16 2016 06:29 JimmiC wrote:
It is such a stupid thing if people are legally allowed to use alcohol and then do then they are responsible for the choices they make when drunk if they choose to get this way. I've been every stage of drunk and done some dumb shit, and some awesome shit. All of it was my responsibility, the women I was with didn't rape me. The stupid shit I said not the booze.
The only place it becomes murky in my mind is if the person doesn't remember giving consent then they feel raped and since you can't prove if that person said it or not it becomes a he said /she said or he said / he said or whatever. Because you don't want to give a rapist licence to rape drunk people and then just say "they consented but don't remember" Yes this is my post. I do think it's stupid that you think it's fine for people to drink but that once they do they are no longer responsible for there decisions. I used myself as an example of how I am responsible for my actions at various levels of intoxication. And then I pointed out how murky it can get when both or one is drunk because they both may not remember the situation the same. Or one person could be actively lying with the excuse of booze. Your point? What is it that you read into about my caveman tendencies and how as a male using this message board not being you I must want to know how drunk I can get a girl without being called a rapist?
Let's look at what you actually say.
"The only place it becomes murky in my mind is if the person doesn't remember giving consent then they feel raped"
That is where you find things murky. Someone who was drugged waking up and not remembering if they consented. Not "I fucked someone who was drugged" not "I did what I could to be certain of their consent" but literally "doesn't remember giving consent" is where you draw the line.
Would you give this same argument if the girl was on rohypnol? What about ecstasy? Or really any drug that lower inhibitions. Is somehow the fact that your drug of choice is alcohol somehow makes its super different than the drug of choice other people use?
|
On December 17 2016 10:00 Blisse wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2016 08:27 Ghostcom wrote:On December 17 2016 08:21 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 08:13 JimmiC wrote:On December 17 2016 07:41 Thieving Magpie wrote:On December 17 2016 07:35 JimmiC wrote:
I do not keep insisting on men raping women. You read what fits your narrative not what is written. I have done both and same sex to show how ridiculous your perspective is when gender rolls are reversed. And saying all drunken sex is not consensual is absurd. People often drink to have better sex with less inhibition. But with your definition it would be rape because that party might have changed there mind on consent (which one can do) but was unable too because of their state of mind. It's bullshit. You are also right that I don't want to go to a world of different shades of rape, because I don't want people to use the bottle as a excuse for their actions. You are continually the one who keeps bringing up fucking your wife or 6'2" men fucking 5'+ women who you keep describing as fucking while drunk. My examples have been drivers, doctors, and engineers who we don't trust to make decisions when drunk; because we understand that when you are not of sound mind your decisions and actions are suspect. You keep trying to argue that we suddenly become sound of mind when instead of driving we are fucking--and I am arguing that that is a stupid argument. At which point I described 3 scenarios men drunk, women drunk and both drunk. And u dodged answer and now are somehow saying the scenario was biased? Yes I have sex with my wife. And I have done so in all three above scenarios none of which was non consensual. And no I don't argue we are of perfectly sound mind, but I do think it takes less brain power to consent to sex then operate a motor vehicle at high speeds. Decisions being suspect and and unable to make one are oceans apart. It is why some one brought up the horny or tired argument earlier. Again you want me to be some caveman who wants to fuck drunk bitches because that fits your narrative it is just not reality. I literally answered you with both what the punishment should be, how long the punishment should be, and with case examples of the how the US punish rapists as comparator. Public record of someone raping a passed out girl is about 3 months in the US. Father repeatedly raping his 12 year old daughter was one day. Two convictions of rape was a total one day conviction. I then gave you the example of drunks being put in prison overnight as a counterpoint to show how we treat drunks in the act of just being drunk. You not liking my super specific answer is not my problem. You wanting this to only translate as rape is not my problem. I have said and described the same thing over and over over many pages; sex while not of sound mind is sex without consent. Do you think a patient (with no prior medical knowledge) can ever give a truly informed consent to a medical treatment? EDIT: And do you think that is a potential issue? You can't ever really be truly informed so you can't ever give truly informed consent. Practically you can be informed when you understand everything related. But it's not a real issue because that's the point of relying on your physician to give you sound advice, or relying on your mechanic for the same. You implicitly trust those people to properly do their jobs, which is why beyond a certain level everything is regulated. It's a potential issue because people do take advantage of this trust, sometimes in damning ways, such as pharma companies pushing treatments for profits. Also a potential issue because you can believe you are informed but are not actually informed because you learned the wrong things. Can you ever know anything anyways given how much you're wrong on a daily basis?
But then its a question of Informed Consent, Consent, and Inability to Consent--right? Its impossible to be 100% certain of all facts, but we can probably get to a good level of cognizance where we are comfortable allowing people to make decisions--right?
|
Hmm, at some point I guess magpie and jimmie should move to PMs, but seems like a few others are a bit engaged as well.
I've only skimmed your posts at best, do you two feel like you are going in circles? Are you still going somewhere with this discussion?
Maybe you can at least start post (poor) drawings in paint to illustrate your points? So that it'll be more fun for the rest of us! :D Also probably helps to get your point across.
|
On December 17 2016 10:38 Cascade wrote:
Hmm, at some point I guess magpie and jimmie should move to PMs, but seems like a few others are a bit engaged as well.
I've only skimmed your posts at best, do you two feel like you are going in circles? Are you still going somewhere with this discussion?
To be able to go in circles they have to leave their starting points. Also this discussion seems a bit removed from the ethos of the thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
