|
Other than targeting cultural issues I think there could be more proactive efforts to train first responders and to just generally to improve the capacity and training for people who provide support to survivors. There should also be a stringent effort to root out any attempts for universities, businesses, churches, etc. to investigate and handle sexual assault efforts on their own. Sexual assault is a criminal matter and ought to be handled in a court of law. When universities or other organizations try to deal with this stuff themselves they tend to either destroy the due process rights of the accused or they sweep the problem under the rug and the survivor ends up a semester later taking classes with the person that assaulted them. Who What Now posted:Ok, whatever you say, grandpa. That reads to me more like Eliot Rogers than Grampa Simpson. Or maybe just a young Man Going His Own Way. "gently caress those sexhavers, I bet it isn't even very much fun with all this feminism crap I keep reading about."
|
#
¿
Mar 2, 2016 22:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:Statistically, it's extremely unlikely that a woman is lying when she makes a rape accusation. We need to take a serious look at how burden of proof is assessed in these court cases. People talk about how the 2nd Amendment can allow individuals to cost society at large, and likewise the right to plead the 5th can potentially be entirely antisocial, exists solely for the benefit of the individual, and if you look at the rest of the world, not a very common "right." There can be exceptions to every right, there can be one here. A privileged rapist doesn't have a right to be silent about his history in court or his likely future plans to continue victimizing a historically oppressed demographic. Are you suggesting that we should lower the burden of proof for all criminal cases or that there should specifically be a lower standard for proving sexual assault? Cause I don't really like the idea of setting a precedent that the government can now legislate itself to a lower burden of proof on certain categories of crime, and justifying it by saying that at the statistical level false rape reports are false doesn't really change the fact that the system was designed so that its much easier for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent person to be convicted. Also the so called "right to silence" is pretty well established in many different legal systems. Most democratic countries have either an explicit provision or a strong court precedent protecting your right not to be compelled to testify against yourself or to make incriminating statements.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 17:44
|
|
|
SedanChair posted: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." 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. I'm not denying the existence of rape culture or the need for change and perhaps I'm being suckered in by right wing scare stories but some of the discussions I hear about how consent is being defined in some school curriculums sound like they are entirely premised on men being the only initiator of sexual contact, and call for the removal of any spontaneity from love making or physical affection.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 20:11
|
|
|
DeusExMachinima posted:I'm not talking about making it guilty til proven innocent across the board. We make common sense regulations and exceptions for other rights in unusual high-risk situations, why not here? Has innocent til proven guilty for specific charges of rape (idk about less extreme types of sexual assault) done anything for actual rape victims, not some hypothetical one in a thousand defendant? Jesus Christ you're suggesting we drop both the right to silence and the presumption of innocence? SedanChair posted:That is fine. This answer doesn't really make it any clearer to me what you are advocating.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
That's like asking how the presumption of innocence helps mugging victims. It doesn't, except indirectly insofar as it protects them from being improperly convicted of some future crime they might be accused of. The justice system is set up to err on the side of not convicting an innocent person. That's a fairly basic tenant of the system and has been for a long time. You're suggesting we could just magically erase that premise for a single category of crimes, as though this is either 1) feasible without a constitutional amendment in most legal systems and 2) can be done without inevitably having ripple effects that would likely reduce the burden of evidence in other types of crimes. What you're suggesting is that we should single out a particular category of crimes and place every onus on the defendant to prove their innocence. I guess I'm shocked because this is a position I thought mostly only existed in right wing caricatures of the left, not something that people were actually advocating for. That is not the kind of sweeping power I do think think it is wise to give to the police and court system. More than anything though, I just don't get how you think its sustainable to essentially eliminate constitutional provisions for one particular crime without that influencing the overall criminal justice system. What you're saying feels like the equivalent of "we should have executions, but only for guilty people" or "we should have a bill of rights, but only for people not accused of crimes". The whole purpose of a trial is to establish whether someone is guilty, and you're suggesting we change that, and then acting as if this is a minor change without any real consequence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Ddraig posted:Consent doesn't have to be a legally bound written contract. OK, but if I understand it correctly if she says "I want you to gently caress me" and then she grabs me by my shirt, pulls me into a passionate embrace, pulls off my clothes and fucks me, technically she never gained my "affirmative consent" and I could later say that I was raped by her? Or, implicitly, is it just the man who needs to get consent here? I recognize that this sounds like right wing concern trolling but I am quite sympathetic to feminist critiques of rape culture, have personally known victims of sexual assault, and am very concerned not to come off as treating this problem flippantly. If there's some kind of well established FAQ or essay on this topic you can refer me to that'd be fine as well.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 21:53
|
|
|
twodot posted:Prior to the "I want you to gently caress me" moment, the people involved should have had an adult conversation about whether they want to have a sexual relationship, and nature and borders of what that would entail. Having that knowledge, you should be able to figure out whether passive compliance constitutes consent or not. 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. Ddraig posted:Only the most hardcore would demand all affirmative consent to be verbal. Thanks, this seems straight forward and hard to argue with. I was under the impression that "non verbal ques" had been eliminated from the conception of "affirmative consent" and that some kind of explicit verbal permission was required at each point of sexual escalation. If the "verbal permission is necessary at every stage" is really just a fringe position and if its sufficient to have a general understanding with your partner that you're both willing to have sex, and if you can rely on certain clear non verbal ques like the person kissing you back, helping removal clothing, etc. then that's all entirely reasonable.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 22:21
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'm not really sure it would be possible to have more rape convictions without eliminating the presumption of innocence. If numerous different anecdotal reports are to be believed then we could probably get more convictions in some areas by simply having the police actually take sexual assault charges seriously, so what you're saying probably isn't true. Jethro posted:Yes. Uhhhh, now I have one person claiming this is a fringe position and the other person saying its the essence of affirmative consent 
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 22:23
|
|
|
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?"
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 22:30
|
|
|
twodot posted:I mean not having children is pretty important to me, so I would ask this question. If you are indifferent to or want to raise a child with a stranger feel free to not have that conversation. In addition to the fact this question seems like one of the most unsexy things I could possibly utter just before making love to someone I also don't think it would reveal anything meaningful because I don't expect most women actually know how willing they'd be to get an abortion prior to actually facing such a situation. I think as a man you just have to accept that when you have sex with someone who is capable of having children then you're at least theoretically risking that possibility. Jethro posted:More importantly, if you just kind of let it happen (don't kiss her back when she kisses you, don't grab those wonderful funbags (which you would only do if she indicated it was OK), just stare at the ceiling while she rides you, etc.) then that is also not affirmative consent and you have been raped. The whole point of affirmative consent is that you don't have to clearly and unambiguously deny consent, you just have to fail to clearly and unambiguously grant it. Wait, how does she indicate that its ok for me to touch her breasts? You seem to be saying that if she kisses me and starts to remove my shirt, and my response is to put my hands on her breasts (or her rear end, her thigh, or anywhere else I guess) then I've crossed a line because instead of getting affirmative permission from her I just went ahead and touched her and waited to see if she resisted me. So if we're kissing the idea here is I have to look at her and say "maybe I touch your breasts?" Again, I appreciate your answering these questions in good faith. I realize this is a topic where a lot of people concern troll and I appreciate that you're taking time to answer me without casting aspersions on why I would even raise these questions. quote:We're both right-ish. In principle a lot of this sounds reasonable but in practice it feels so far removed from almost any sexual encounter I've ever had or heard about anyone else having. I'm willing to accept in principle that part of that is because we live in a "rape culture" but even granting that it feels like what you're calling for is almost akin to the bureaucratization of sex. Obviously its a joke to say that you're asking for someone to sign a contract before having sex, but like many jokes there actually seems to be a small glimmer of truth there.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 22:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Then fix your sexual encounters. Assuming there's something wrong with them to begin with your flippant and low content posting style doesn't provide much help. quote:Guess what, your jollies are irrelevant. I'm still confused by how you're seemingly advocating a system under which I've apparently been sexually assaulted by past partners despite the fact I was eager to have sex with them, all because they failed to pass your standard of gaining my affirmative consent. As I've stressed I'm just trying to get a better handle on what the current philosophy of affirmative consent really is and how applicable it actually is, and the fact that it seems to suggest that I was the victim of non-consensual touching in encounters in which I never felt victimized at all does make me question the overall relevance of your approach to consent. I'm not even saying it automatically makes you wrong but it doesn't inspire much confidence.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 22:55
|
|
|
twodot posted:Sure they can be wrong or change their mind, so there is always inherit risk, but I like to minimize that risk. Like I said choose your own risk level. I also don't generally discuss expectations directly before sex, it's generally "Hey we like each other, let's talk about what that means on Saturday" "Ok that was a pretty intense conversation, but we now understand what we each expect of the other person which is good, let's go eat/play a game/watch a movie/et cetera". There seems to be a lot of focus on what to do if you want to have sex immediately, which I think is just a sub-optimal scenario. This is totally reasonable most of the time and very good advice, and certainly in any long term relationship I've had with a woman the question of safe sex and unwanted pregnancy has eventually come up. But there are also situations where you might end up having sex with someone you don't know very well yet, maybe someone you've barely even spoken to. The reason I'm more focused on those scenarios, rather than the situation where someone is in a more long term couple or friends-with-benefits situation, is because typically its the extreme edge cases that will reveal the flaws or advantages to a given code of behavior, rather than the routine situations. It kinda seems like the ultimate message of affirmative consent is "don't hook up with strangers" and "don't have spontaneous sexual liaisons". Is that a fair characterization?
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 23:02
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 04:20 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:Asking "are you down to gently caress?" is not as hard as you're making it out to be. You're probably right but sometimes its helpful to be able to ask what are probably stupid questions and get answers to them.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 3, 2016 23:09
|
|