|
SedanChair posted:It's physical contact without consent, which people should avoid. I don't want to hear about how common it is or how difficult it will be to change; fix it. You are wrong and dumb and dumb.
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 07:56
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Literally every single poll and study about this proves that this is falseC and yet idiots keep claiming it. This thread has already clearly demonstrated that people have different ideas of what consent is, so it's no surprise that all polls, using any definition as their basis, are gonna come out with such results.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 15:58
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Having different ideas about what a thing is" is a very nice way to describe "being wrong". Some people in this thread are actually positing that you must get affirmative consent from your SO in order to kiss their forehead while they sleep, so yeah, lots of people on both sides of the issue are completely wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:12
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:If you don't then it is entirely correct to say that you don't have consent in that case. You can make arguments about having general consent and you can argue that consent doesn't matter in that case, but yes, unless you ask every time, you don't have consent. Whether that is important to you is up to you. Disagree. When I said to my SO "Wanna be my girlfriend, exclusively?" and she said "Yeah", and then later "Wanna move in with me" and she said "Yeah", she has given perpetual affirmative consent to all the behaviors we have exhibited during the relationship up until that point, including hugs from behind while one of us is cooking, kissing the other on the forehead while they slept, kissing them on the cheek while they worked at their desk, or coming into the bathroom to pee unannounced while the other is showering. If I kiss my girlfriend on the forehead while she sleeps, and she wakes up and is annoyed, it's not because I raped her, it's because I woke her up and she has work in the morning. It is, in that situation, a crime akin to playing loud music to disturb her sleep. The problem with people insisting on affirmative consent for every single and even the most benign of normal, standard, agreed contact (dating someone is an agreement to a standard of physical intimacy) is it waters down the definition of sexual abuse to the point people will start to roll their eyes when they hear someone complaining (of possibly much more serious instances) of it. I maintain the act of being in a relationship with someone stipulates at least on some level a tacit, affirmative agreement to at least small shows of "more than platonic" affection. Sure, someone is going to be dating someone somewhere who had a traumatic childhood and can't deal with unannounced physical contact without being triggered or whatever, but I'm fairly sure that would have (and should have) come up before these two people started dating exclusively.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:44
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I didn't say you sexually abused your SO by kissing them in their sleep, I said you didn't have consent to do it. The two acts are not commensurable but the nature of consent, however, is. You keep saying 'forgiving', as if there is a crime that happened that needed to be forgiven. My argument is that I do have consent to do those things with my SO, consent given in advance, on the basis that she is dating and living with me. Agreed, this does not extend towards activities that do require on any level some mutual participation (sex), but as a benchmark of normal, human social interaction in a sexual relationship, kisses on the forehead while the other is asleep does not in any world require affirmative consent (as alleged, moronically, earlier in the thread) in in a social construct where those displays of affection are universally understood to be par the course. Where would that leave parents who kiss their kids while they sleep, otherwise?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
It really sounds like the definition of consent is being split almost to the point of no meaning, in the context in which it is usually used regarding sexual assault.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:18
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:And what if a person is being intimidated by their partner, and fear their reaction or retaliation if they don't go along with the sexual activity? Are they still at fault for not taking what they see as a very real risk? None of this equates to "no consent = rape", though. This seems to be SedanChair's angle.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No consent=no consent. To anything, understand? No consent to sex is rape. You are either insane or have no understanding of human social behaviors, I think. Go back and address my previous points, please. You missed those. I am honestly curious on your take.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's physical contact without consent, which people should avoid. I don't want to hear about how common it is or how difficult it will be to change; fix it. I really wanna hear this point of view expanded upon, based on the input over the last page or two.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:40
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I've been doing a fair bit of expanding in those pages including basic norms of consent widely accepted in clinical practice. You declared these norms insane. Did you have any specific questions? In particular, I don't see how that statement deals with human contact in a healthy sexual relationship. My argument was in reference to "kissing a SO on the forehead while they slept", of which your commentary I originally commented on. quote:My argument is that I do have consent to do those things with my SO, consent given in advance, on the basis that she is dating and living with me. Agreed, this does not extend towards activities that do require on any level some mutual participation (sex), but as a benchmark of normal, human social interaction in a sexual relationship, kisses on the forehead while the other is asleep does not in any world require affirmative consent (as alleged, moronically, earlier in the thread) in in a social construct where those displays of affection are universally understood to be par the course. Where would that leave parents who kiss their kids while they sleep, otherwise?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:49
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Until you explain why the basics of consent are "insane" you are in a bad position to dictate what is or is not a healthy sexual relationship. I'll repeat myself, I'm contending that for behaviors such as kissing an SO on the forehead while they sleep, spontaneously hugging them, kissing them on the cheek while they work at their desk, or any number of very normal, very human momentary actions, affirmative consent has been already achieved by the fact that that person has agreed to be your SO. That agreement tacitly implies acceptance of gestures of affection.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:58
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Then why is the same not true for sex? Because sex and a kiss on the forehead are different in content and intent. Why do I have to explain this?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Almost certainly not. But not being a crime doesn't also make it right. This is a problem because rape is always, forever a crime. Anything that is called rape that isn't actually legally rape is demeaning the term, and watering down the definition.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Because explaining things is good. Try it with your SO! Talk about your likes and dislikes. Your boundaries. Transcend being apes without language, stumbling around groping and loving. No, how about you explain your stance. I explained mine, now you do yours.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:08
|
|
|
Want to chime in to state that it is far better to let 100 rapists to go free than it is to send one innocent person to jail for a long time. The whole point of the justice system is to be positioned in a place to minimize wrongful convictions, not maximize just convictions.
Rakosi fucked around with this message at 19:26 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:While the sentiment is nice I'm not sure I would really agree with those numbers. The point is that the numbers are supposed to be inconsequential. This is why we err on the side of guilt rather than innocence, hence "not guilty" rather than "innocent". A guilty person going free is a terrible, terrible thing, but an innocent one being convicted is an abomination of the highest order. This really is the end argument of any discussion on lowering the bar of evidence on rape prosecutions.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:33
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:So here's a little hypothetical for yall, just a little nugget for all these so called Progressives, well, how about this: gently caress Hitler, always.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't at all agree, the world very definitely does not hinge on the unjust suffering of one person. That kind of thinking is not something you apply anywhere else in your life because if you did you would be unable to function. People are constantly made to suffer for far worse reasons than the prevention of even more suffering. It's a lot easier for you to say that than it is for you to quantify the damage you're willing to accept, and then justify that damage. 1 innocent person in jail for every 100 rape convictions? 10 innocent people? 15? You're arguing against the entire pretense the legal system is built upon at this point; Innocent until proven guilty.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:43
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The fact that we have a legal system is testament to the fact that we accept wrongful convictions as a permissible possibility in return for the benefits of correct convictions. That we binned the death penalty speaks entirely to the contrary, actually.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:No it doesn't. If you believed that wrongful convictions were absolutely unacceptable you couldn't prosecute any crime because that carries the inherent possibility of being wrong. Yes but those wrongful convictions have a chance of being overturned on new evidence, but they dont if you've been executed and are dead. The rule of law means you cannot abide by one margin of error on one crime, and a lesser margin of error for another. If it is deemed the margin of error on capital offences is completely unacceptable (which it is, because innocent people were executed), it has to be the same for all other offences.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:51
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The abolition of capital punishment is a deference to the desire to make miscarriages of justice rectifiable. We do the best we can by A) proving guilt, not innocence, and B) not shifting goalposts on standards of evidence depending on the crime. Yes, the justice system is inherently fallible, every justice system is, which is exactly the reason we got rid of capital punishment. It does not stop us from doing our best with the forensic tools we have available, and to that end we must always err on not convicting unless it is beyond reasonable doubt. Even then innocent people go away, and that is still terrible. Lowering the standard of proof required in such cases would just cause more innocent people to go away. My contention is that more innocent people going away is far, far worse than consequently more guilty people going away
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Because that would result in an unsustainable prison population. Lol literally the only reason why you see that as a problem is because of prison population. Lol get hosed, you are a bigger shitposter on this forum than I am by a long shot.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:You will forgive me responding to facetious posts with equally facetious answers. Puppetmaster 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:34
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Ah you caught me before the edit, I didn't want to come off as too harsh. I truly do not understand when people make the jump to "well I wanted it less than my partner, I wanted to make them happy WAS I RAPED??" I think the problem you're having is that rape has to be a strictly plain, legal definition and you're failing to define what you think it should be with "well everything is, and is not, possibly rape".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:I'm failing to care about mechanistic bro-axioms you think will shield you from a rape charge. As was already said, the law will never be able to catch up to the point where all sexual assault is prosecuted; the burden of proof is too high. The best approach is to educate men about consent. say mechanistic bro-axioms again 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The hell it does. Of course it does. Rape is a crime. Crimes need a defined boundary of offence. This can be amended, but it does have to be stated.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:Simply because something is not a crime does not make it morally correct. Megachurchs who bilk the elderly for every penny they have are committing theft, full stop, despite the fact that what they're doing can't actually be prosecuted as theft. Rape is an extremely serious accusation and that you seem to think its okay for people to be able to accuse others of rape on unproven but 'moral' grounds is deeply disturbing. And then you compare rape accusations to accusations of petty theft. I'm sorry that it's taken so long for an adult to tell you this, but no one gets to walk around in society flinging extremely seriously accusations around because, in their mind, its "ehhh, near enough".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:54
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 21:43 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:It's never going to be clear for particularly thickheaded men. There are a lot of variables to consent You're still equating consent with rape and I have already demonstrated many instances where a lack of affirmative consent is not only acceptable and usual, but not in any world rape.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:58
|
|