|
Helsing posted:So if I meet someone at a bar or a party, we hit it off, are getting a bit touchey feeling, and head somewhere more private, I'm supposed under this system to slow things down and ask the girl "if the condom breaks and you get pregnant will you be having an abortion?" I mean one might argue that that illustrates an inherent problem with casual sexual encounters and if you're not comfortable with the implications of that then you may not want to have them?
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
rudatron posted:Also lets get real with consent here: the average person knows what it looks like when they see it. You know it's remarkable how many times people assert that and then it turns out that they really don't.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 07:37
|
|
|
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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 08:23
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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. "Having different ideas about what a thing is" is a very nice way to describe "being wrong".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:24
|
|
|
wateroverfire 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. You may feel comfortable that you understand exactly what the other party in your interactions wants, but it isn't about you feeling comfortable, it's about them feeling comfortable. And, unlike as has been suggested in this thread with depressing frequency, your desire to have sex does not at all make it necessary to rely on non-verbal consent, because your desire to have sex isn't actually a necessary thing, and does not justify putting other people in an unpleasant situation.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:40
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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. 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 have consent when you ask and receive an explicit affirmation of consent. There are situations where doing something without consent is not a hanging offence, but the important thing is to recognise that how consent works is constant, and that you can reasonably expect forgiveness for kissing your SO without consent does not mean that you actually have consent. Consent, always, must be explicit and cannot be assumed or given generally. This is always true, and that someone who likes you will probably be a lot more forgiving of you being overly forward does not change that. wateroverfire posted:I followed up on your other post but I think what I wrote is more responsive to this. 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. You can understand that particularly between men and women and particularly on the subject of sex there is a great deal of inequality such that the woman involved is likely to be at a significant disadvantage when it comes to being assertive, and because you can understand that, you have a responsibility to act accordingly and invite consent. That it would be nice if you didn't have to is beside the point when there is a very good reason why you should and you're more than able to do so. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Isn't this just pointless worrying when the result is the same? Lack of consent is only an issue when one party feels violated. Not conflating "I didn't get into trouble for it" with "I had consent" is pretty important. Consent is not simply you being able to get away with doing something, and understanding the exact nature of consent is important when it comes to applying it in situations where it is extremely relevant.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:00
|
|
|
One hoot for yes, two for no.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:05
|
|
|
The result may be the same in that instance but it will not be the same in all instances, which is why it's important to distinguish between having consent and the other person not minding that you don't have it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:08
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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? Which, again, is entirely a defensible position to hold. As I said, I don't take issue with you arguing that it doesn't matter whether you have consent in that instance, I take issue with you arguing that you do have consent. It not really mattering is not the same as having it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:09
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted: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. We assume that social interaction requires consent at some point. Certainly if you want to really avoid putting people on the spot you could just not ask them things ever. That's certainly an option, don't go around hitting on everyone all the time, that would save people some grief I'm sure. But assuming you want to make advances on someone, inviting consent is better than expecting them to tell you no of their own volition. It is easier to say no when prompted than to be expected to make your own opportunity to do so. It is not perfect, but that it is not perfect is not an excuse to avoid it when it remains a significant improvement.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted: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? The bit where sex is involved makes it rape. The bit where you get passive aggresive about taking out the garbage is what makes it divorce.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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. If you think that's insane then, uh, are you sure you're not a sex offender?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:48
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted: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. Uh, that kind of is rape. Like, it might not be beating someone half to death and then skullfucking them the rest of the way rape, but, like, that's coercing someone into sex, it's rape. I don't require you to think it's identical to violent assault but I do expect you to think it's wrong.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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. Technically that would make most rapes not rapes then because they aren't prosecuted successfully. the trump tutelage posted:What if she verbally and explicit consents but, as in the example being discussed, didn't "actually" consent in her heart of hearts? Is that rape? Some say yes, and that's scary! It should be. You have the capacity to seriously gently caress up people's mental wellbeing when you interact with them. Terror is the appropiate response to that knowledge.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:...ok. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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. While the sentiment is nice I'm not sure I would really agree with those numbers. wateroverfire posted: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! That sounds rather more like electing to ignore the possibility of error on your part than accepting the ethical consequences of it. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:32 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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. 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. wateroverfire posted:"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? That still sounds like a way of saying "I don't like the idea that I may be making people very unhappy in the pursuit of sexual gratification so it's not really my fault."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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? No, I am arguing that the idea that we cannot possibly conscience the idea that one person might be wrongfully convicted of a crime and that if such a thing were to occur it would be the ultimate sin, and that any sacrifice is worth avoiding that, is a load of bollocks. 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. As for the numbers. More than 1, less than 15.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:That we binned the death penalty speaks entirely to the contrary, actually. 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. You believe that wrongful convictions are acceptable up to a point.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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 abolition of capital punishment is a deference to the desire to make miscarriages of justice rectifiable. It is patently not an assertion that miscarriage of justice is absolutely unacceptable. It is acceptable enough that we accept it happens, we will try to correct it if it becomes very obvious that it has happened, but we do not consider it absolutely abhorrent. Again, if wrongful conviction was an absolute evil, the commission of which completely invalidates any other aspects of the justice system, we would not have a justice system, because it is inherently fallible.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:What do you propose should be done to a legal system in order to achieve an increased prosecution rate? Pffpffffppffp I dunno. More funding to crown prosecutors to investigate crimes more thoroughly, more money to investigate historic cases in light of new evidence to more quickly rectify errors, and a more rehabilitative penal system to make wrongful conviction less destructive to the convicted (and the rightfully convicted, for that matter). More money, in general, as is the solution to a lot of things. Thermos H Christ posted:Less than 15? If 1 in 15 people convicted and imprisoned for rape are innocent, you're down with that? That is seriously hosed up. I would prefer less. But it is a difficult crime to prosecute, and I don't think the current approach of just not prosecuting it in the majority of cases is acceptable either. I guess I would be more happy with 5 in 100? To be honest I would be surprised if justice in general was more accurate than that, or even much more accurate than 1 in 15 for that matter. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:04 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Yea, OwlFancier, you've gone so far around the bend here that you're saying there's no problem with a 1-in-15 chance of a wrongful conviction. There is a lot wrong with it, but if it helped stop rape as a crime I would think it less wrong than the current state of affairs. Of course I don't suppose it would, but that's more a complaint with the inefficacy of the justice system in general than with the rate of wrongful conviction. As above, I would be surprised if more than 1 in 15 convictions was really just as it stands.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:07
|
|
|
Coolwhoami posted:Those things I think many would agree with, and are not really at all in keeping with the more philosophical point you responded to. I think you'd be hard pressed to find someone publicly disagree with increased testing rates for rape kits, for example I believe rape is grossly underreported, in many cases because it cannot be successfully prosecuted and because of perceived or actual police indifference to the crime, as well as the social stigma attached to being a victim of it, and a lack of support for victims immediately following the crime. Addressing those would probably be a good idea. Given the nature of the crime as well, better information collation may help to build a case against serial rapists by allowing multiple victims to give evidence to the same case which would be automatically tracked and collated together. OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 20:19 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:OwlFancier, why bother with burden of proof and due process for rape cases at all? How about if someone accuses you of rape you go straight to prison? After all, most of the time an accuser is telling the truth in these cases. We'd put a lot more guilty people behind bars for rape, that's for sure. A lot more innocent people, too, but why should that be a problem so long as we lock up more guilty people than innocent ones? I'm sure that if the government came along and robbed you of your freedom, years of your life, your career, your family, your reputation, etc., all over a crime you didn't commit, you'd just accept it as the cost of doing business. I mean we've got to get those guilty people, after all. Because that would result in an unsustainable prison population. If you had suggested giving more weight to multiple, seemingly independent accusations, I would agree with that.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:22
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:I didn't suggest that because we already have that. Multiple, seemingly independent witnesses who are attesting to a pattern of behavior from a defendant will obviously be seen as stronger proof than a single uncorroborated witness. Actually I was meaning giving more weight than we currently do. If multiple people come forward to accuse you of rape, and state prosecutors can't find any obvious link between them, you should probably end up wearing an ankle tag.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:27
|
|
|
In the unlikely event that you manage to annoy a cabal of illuminati feminists and they conspire to get the police to track you, well, that's a shame. Otherwise, given the nature of rape as a crime, corroboration between multiple witnesses seems the only way to effectively combat it. Rakosi posted: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. You will forgive me responding to facetious posts with equally facetious answers.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:31
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 02:26 |
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:If you have multiple independent witnesses attesting that someone is a rapist, you put those witnesses on the stand and convict them at trial. Hence why I would suggest that if multiple people accuse you of rape, that should make you under suspicion and it seems quite reasonable that you should have to wear a tag to aid in determining the veracity of any future accusations. I mean, I don't know about you, but I have so far managed to live my life without being accused of rape even by one person, I'm not sure i would like to meet the person who gets it more than once, but I would like the police to keep an eye on them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:50
|
|