|
Cymbal Monkey posted:Obviously what we're doing now all over the world isn't working at all, rape victims find their accusations falling on deaf ears and rapists find themselves only marginally inconvenienced the vast majority of the time. I think pretty much everyone at this point agrees we can't go on like this, but when I sit down and try to come up with a solution that doesn't drag the rights of the accused through the mud, I come up totally empty handed, and no one I actually know seems to have any ideas either. So what are your thoughts? Pass law defining all sex as rape. Prosecute all parties. Take the accuser more seriously, but accused has the right to a freebie if allegations turn out to be false. Mandatory go-pros to be used during all sexual encounters. The consent checklist from that Chapelle skit. Kill all men? IDK. Rape is hard crime to prosecute and hard to even investigate.
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 13:14
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
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.  I am going to strike out on a controversial track and say that a lot of the time, having explicit verbal consent is not relevant and being an empathetic human being who can pick up on non-verbal cues is preferable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:36
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Dumb or not I think there are plenty of people who do not view consent as their responsibility. Simply not saying no is sufficient to them. Which is not consent. e: moved response to subsequent post. wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 16:49 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Perhaps, but I would suggest that far too often, people's ability to accurately judge the wishes of others is far less than they think it is, which is the reason for explicit verbal consent. I followed up on your other post but I think what I wrote is more responsive to this. There's a certain amount of duty to be your own advocate, don't you think? If you don't want to be involved but do nothing to communicate that you want out as opposed to you want to get it over with so you can watch TV, go to bed, fulfill your partner's expectation so they'll like you, or w/e, you have a certain responsibility for sending the wrong signal. Maybe we should teach people to be assertive and have more self esteem.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:48
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:This is literally a half-step away, at most, for blaming rape victims for not fighting back and screaming at the top of their lungs. That is super hosed up. It's saying "If you don't want to be involved in a thing, indicate somehow you don't want to be involved. Part of your responsibility as a being with agency is exercising that agency." Not "your rapist is not at fault because you didn't protest hard enough", which would be a pretty hosed up thing to say. OwlFancier posted:It would probably be helpful if everyone felt able to be assertive in every situation, yes, but that does not absolve you of responsibility. Some people are not assertive, saying that they ought to be and that absolves you of your responsibility to account for the fact that they might not be, is rather objectionable I think. Isn't putting someone in a situation where they have to say yes or no forcing them to be assertive in denying you? All the same social pressures that might lead someone to be so unassertive that they won't try to put someone off, even gently, could still lead them to say yes when they meant no. At a very basic level there is no way to deal with that other than socializing people - men and women - to be assertive in that situation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:16
|
|
|
I would say that if my SO asks me to take out the garbage and I do it without pushing back even a little, even if in my own mind I'm not enthusiastic about doing it (which I'm usually not), I have consented to take out the garbage and it would be pretty hosed up of me to claim she forced me later.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
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? Perhaps we could look at the context and conclude that if their partner is being intimidating or threatening violence or and conclude there is an intervening issue there? Who What Now posted:This is the exact reason given by some rape victims for why they didn't report that they were violated. They didn't fight it, so they must have consented. This is why understanding what consent is or isn't is important. But it's also literally a thing that happens in every marriage at some point, to spouses of both sexes, without anyone feeling worked up about it or feeling like a victim. So there must be some kind of intervening thing that makes it rape, right?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:39
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The bit where sex is involved makes it rape.  JFairfax posted:what if you accidentally cum on a chicks face instead of her tits when she said 'don't cum on my face' but the force of your ejaculation made that accidentally happen and it goes on her face and her weave and she mad. She consented to everything up to the point you came on her face. Rapist.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:47
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:The bit where sex is involved makes it rape. Seriously, though, it trivializes the concept of rape to classify letting it happen because "fine, it's only 2 minutes and you're happy and I can go to bed" as rape.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:51
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:You do know that intimidation and coercion do not begin and end with literal verbal threats to punch you in the face if you don't get ready to gently caress, right? It can be as simple as a 6'5", heavily muscled guy towering over a 5'3" woman he meets at a party. He might never directly threaten her or even act aggressively, but it's still possible that in the woman's mind that she's very worried that this seemingly great guy could still effortlessly overpower her if he wanted to, and so she feels pressured to go along with hooking up with him. So... he's respectful, not being threatening, doing nothing except presumably hitting on her at a party and being big? In what way would she be a victim if she leaves with him and they have sex? edit: Like... could she only have consensual sex with twiggy manlets she could be certain of overpowering? wateroverfire fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So do you believe that it's only rape if there are explicit threats or actual violence? I think whether it's rape can't solely depend on the mindstate of the alleged victim. In your own example: Guy was respectful. Guy did not act to coerce or intimidate her in any way. Guy propositioned her, and she accepted. They went somewhere and had sex. Even if in the silence of her thoughts she felt intimidated, in what sense did he commit rape? Or put it another way, if we accept that her feeling pressured despite not being pressured was enough to make it rape, is it just impossible for the two of them to have consensual sex?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:33
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:So do you believe that it's only rape if there are explicit threats or actual violence? At some point we have to take "accepting a proposition without any coersion involved, going to a place with them voluntarily, and loving them" as consenting to sex. The alternative is _______
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:37
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:I mostly agree with the "why even bother" sentiment, but capitulating to sex for the sake of gratifying one's partner as part of the overall give and take in a relationship is hardly the same thing as marital rape. It doesn't seem all that different from giving your SO a massage when you'd rather be doing something else, but they asked and you care about them and it's a relatively simple thing that you can do to make them feel loved and appreciated. This person gets it. Or has been married.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:38
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:No, it's not rape if they both give enthusiastic affirmative consent. Just because a person isn't looking for a weapon to fight you off with does not mean they want to bone you, it's not hard. Mmmk. We agreed that she said yes to him at the party, went back to his/her place or motel or alley or whatever, and hosed him. What part of that is not affirmative consent? What behavior of hers was not indicating she wanted to have sex, that he could have picked up on? Was it not saying "YES YES YEEEESSS!!" again after already saying yes and presumably getting down to business? edit: What if you're enthusiasticly consenting but a lovely lay or flat affect? Should your partner always fret that they're raping you despite being in your room at your invitation to get wet?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:The scenario as laid out was that she went along with him and didn't say no. The whole "non-verbal actions" thing people keep talking about. But if you do get a yes that was only because the other person felt like they were in danger if they said no, that's rape, yeah. That's where the "clear and enthusiastic" part of it comes in. ...ok. Just to be clear. The man does nothing to intimidate, coerce, etc his potential partner. He is perfectly gentle. In his mind he is not trying to do anything but invite this person to hook up, is prepared to accept no as no, etc. She says yes, or doesn't say no, goes with him, does the thing, etc. But in her heart of hearts she didn't reeeeally want to, because reasons. He's a rapist? At what point was he supposed to say to himself "She doesn't seem quiiite as enthusiastic as she should, better shut the whole thing down"?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:06
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That is rather up to you to decide when it happens to you. How comfortable are you with the knowledge of what you might be doing? I'm pretty confident people can make their own decisions and don't need me to second guess them. =) It's empowering for me and them too!
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 08:09 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That sounds rather more like electing to ignore the possibility of error on your part than accepting the ethical consequences of it. "I could be wrong but as a human I have some empathy and some experience and I'm pretty sure I can muddle through" is a thing people without crippling social anxiety believe, I guess? Also "I am responsible for some things but not all the things, and certainly not all the people."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:36
|
|