|
The existing laws concerning rape could be adequate, it's rape culture that needs to change. Slowly, I think it is; whereas rape was once seen as an unavoidable part of courtship, now at least we're trashing the legacies of celebrities widely known to be serial rapists. Baby steps! When even a majority of men understand the nature of consent, that will be a landmark.
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
mastershakeman posted:Are you for real I guess they might be thinking that prohibition wouldn't be effective
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 18:34
|
|
|
Consent is the entire issue. Until men understand it rape will not decrease because they cannot tell when they are committing rape. Rape for them is "guy in the bushes with a mask."
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Helsing posted:This is easy enough to agree with abstractly but it often seems to lead to a vision of affirmative consent in which every single sexual escalation requires the man to stop and ask the woman if he can continue, and kissing your partners head while they sleep technically meets the requirements for sexual assault. That is fine.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Then fix your sexual encounters. Helsing posted:This would seem to kill a lot of the fun an spontaneity of hooking up with someone for the first time. I have trouble imagining the average high school or college aged person actually following through on this kind of prescription. Talmonis posted:I can't think of a worse moodkiller. Guess what, your jollies are irrelevant.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 22:49
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:So if I were to kiss my sleeping boyfriend on the head for example you'd consider that rape? 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. menino posted:No it's ridiculous and completely unfeasible You know what else used to be ridiculous and completely unfeasible? The idea that a woman could refuse consent to sex with her husband. woke wedding drone fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
rudatron posted:Also lets get real with consent here: the average person knows what it looks like when they see it. And it appears to be different for different people, which is all the more reason you should actually communicate with your partner. For example, a lot of men don't understand that consenting to one act doesn't mean consenting to another. quote:You don't need to play paperwork with courtship. Is this lifted from Cosby's deposition?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 07:43
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted: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. It's the exact same loving thing. "If you didn't like it, why didn't you leave? Why didn't you say no?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
Everybody knows what consent is when they see it, though.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:34
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:None of this equates to "no consent = rape", though. This seems to be SedanChair's angle. No consent=no consent. To anything, understand? No consent to sex is rape. These are the basics of consent that have to be taught to sex offenders. You shouldn't put your hands on people without asking and getting an affirmative response. Not saying "no" is not saying "yes." And saying yes to holding hands, or a hug, or a kiss, or a blowjob, doesn't mean you've consented to anything else. And saying yes to sex one time doesn't mean you have cast your consent into the future and given it for another time. You say "but I'm not a sex offender." But if you don't know these things, that's down to luck.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:40
|
|
|
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. If that is the level of consent you have received why would you bother? Just go rub one out in the sink, Jesus Christ.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 17:56
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted: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? No, because if he is being respectful that means he will have asked for consent for anything physical.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:30
|
|
|
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. It cannot be completely off the spectrum of sexual assault in all cases because it is on the spectrum of coercion. The only way to avoid engaging in coercion is by securing not grudging consent, but enthusiastic consent.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:39
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:I really wanna hear this point of view expanded upon, based on the input over the last page or two. 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?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:44
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oQbei5JGiT8
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:Is the man criminally culpable in this example? You guys are so jumpy. What you ought to be worried about is whether people actually want to have sex with you, not whether you'll be charged with a crime. Rakosi posted: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. 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:52
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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. Then why is the same not true for sex?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:Because sex and a kiss on the forehead are different in content and intent. Why do I have to explain this? 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:But the accusation alone is life destroying in financial if not social terms. If someone can decide at any point, including after the fact, that a rape has taken place, even if the alleged perpetrator has no reason to believe they are acting criminally (and in the example above, actually have affirmative consent as far as they know), then every sexual encounter is a game of Russian Roulette. Holy crap! I guess the more clear and enthusiastic the consent you secure, the better then! You should probably even be really deliberate about it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
Rakosi posted:No, how about you explain your stance. I explained mine, now you do yours. Did you miss this, in spite of quoting it? SedanChair posted:No consent=no consent. To anything, understand? No consent to sex is rape.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
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! Some say anything, give it due weight.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Ormi posted:I think it's specifically a problem because, to bring things back to the purpose of this thread, adversarial retributive justice is really loving bad at actually helping survivors. The burden of proof is too high to justify punitive action in the vast majority of cases. We need to be looking beyond the law instead of stressing over precise definitions of culpability that will never bring justice to people anyway, as we all admit. I agree completely.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Come on man, I've been tired, annoyed or otherwise "not in the mood" before when my wife was horny. I've gone through with it to make her happy. Her being happy makes me happy. She didn't rape me. I made the decisions on my own, without intimidation or coercion. And I'll do it again, as it's a minor inconveniece rather than a violation (as again, I made the decision) to me. Why the obsession with rape? That's obviously not at issue in that case. You wanted to do, it, great. Nobody cares why you wanted to do it.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
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??" No. Is a sex worker consenting to have sex with random strangers because she's afraid of domestic violence from her pimp rape? Yes. Is everything in between those two scenarios rape? No. Is everything between them not rape? No.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:37
|
|
|
Wow sorry Control Volume, you caught me being frustrated. You caught me, sometimes I read too many case histories of sexual assault, trafficking and domestic abuse and I say something over the top. Now post a pepe at me and go have consensual sex.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Rakosi posted: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". 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.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Well, you can call anything rape if you want to. But for it to be prosecuted as a crime it sure as hell does need a clear legal definition that will apply in every case. It's never going to be clear for particularly thickheaded men. There are a lot of variables to consent, which even many judges do not understand. This is how you end up with rape charges getting thrown out over bullshit like what a woman was wearing and her sexual history.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Thermos H Christ posted:Right, but the topic of this thread is how to address the problem via the legal system. So pointing out that someone's proposed definition is too broad or nebulous to be applied in the legal context is on topic. Judges, prosecutors and the public at large, who form juries, must become educated about the nature of consent. Consent is the issue, and education is the solution. e: b
|
|
#
¿
Mar 4, 2016 22:20
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm here, but I'm mostly just eating popcorn and watching the shitshow as goons, of all people, relitigate this age-old series of arguments. I already proposed my solution: multipage precoital consent documents subject to postcoital secondary confirmation, requiring witnesses and signoff by an independent fiduciary monitoring panel. You look very wise trotting out this old joke. You don't look guilty of reductio ad absurdum, and hence minimizing rape, at all.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 00:12
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 03:00 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I'm, um, really not taking a stance on any of this- I was actually trying to give you or others the opportunity to crack one of a couple immediately available jokes about my wanting witnesses. Thanks, I did so.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 5, 2016 00:28
|
|