|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
SedanChair posted: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. I think ur on the spectrum
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:51
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. The importance of obtaining clear, enthusiastic consent is dependent on the actual act in question, and it's much more important regarding sexual acts than non-sexual acts. Enthused consent doesn't need to be literally jumping up and down screaming, "gently caress yeah, take me to Poundtown, stud!", but it should be clearly given and unforced. A spouse weighing their options and deciding that, yes, they're willing to have sex isn't marital rape. But hounding your partner, constantly dry-humping them in bed, and badgering them for sex until they give up and give you what you want very much is. And no, that second scenario doesn't mean you have to feel violated or like a victim, or get a divorce, or press charges, but that also doesn't mean that it's right and should just be accepted as "the way things are".
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
There needs to be more nuanced definitions of the different kinds of rape, for example: 1st degree rape, 2nd degree rape, 3rd degree rape, manslutter
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:57
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Mmmk. 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. the trump tutelage posted:Is the man criminally culpable in this example? Almost certainly not. But not being a crime doesn't also make it right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
SedanChair posted: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. Who What Now posted:Almost certainly not. But not being a crime doesn't also make it right. Is it even useful or helpful for the woman to interpret what happened in this situation as rape? unlimited shrimp fucked around with this message at 19:04 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:01
|
|
|
Control Volume posted:There needs to be more nuanced definitions of the different kinds of rape, for example: 1st degree rape, 2nd degree rape, 3rd degree rape, manslutter rape, and rape rape
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ToAah0ME4bY
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
if my partner treated every act of physical contact with the same gravity and seriousness as sex i would immediately break up with them because they have no idea what makes sex sacred to me or others and that is intensely creepy on a fundamental level
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:07
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
SedanChair posted: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 19:09
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. 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. Ormi fucked around with this message at 19:18 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:13
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
lol people end up in marriages they don't really want to be in hahah
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:15
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:... This is why I literally never leave my house.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:16
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
*does a sicknasty kickflip into the thread with some bitchin sunglasses* but what if the penalty for rape was death
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
So here's a little hypothetical for yall, just a little nugget for all these so called Progressives, well, how about this: What if the girl didnt want the sex, but was intimidated, and was always enthusiastic due to her bubbly nature, and had a mental disorder that meant she could only say the word "yes", and she knew that she would die from a heart attack if she did not have the sex, and also she was hitler. How about that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:36
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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. Pretending you didn't commit "real" rape because you weren't prosecuted for it is something actual rapists tell themselves to justify sexually assaulting people. 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. That's why it's important to get clear, affirmative, enthusiastic consent and not think "Well, she hasn't called for help yet, obviously this is ok!" the trump tutelage posted:Is this a "personal truths" thing? Because this seems to only be wrong for the woman in this example. The man does not have access to her inner world. It would be helpful for the woman to not blame herself for it. Unfortunately people who say that if you don't actively resist then you wateroverfire posted:...ok. Possibly, yes. Rapists are not literal boogeyman who jump out of dark corners to pin you down and go in dry, and it's harmful to frame it like that. quote: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"? At the point where her consent isn't clear and enthusiastic. If you aren't 100% sure a person wants to be hosed then you probably shouldn't gently caress them, this isn't hard. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:37
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:...ok. Repeatedly ask are you sure until you kill the mood, only way to be safe. e: 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. Are you attempting to assert that increasing prosecution rates for sexual assault cases will either improve things for the person assaulted and/or reduce the rate of sexual assault? Coolwhoami fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Mar 4, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 03:54 |
|
|
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
|
|