quote:

---

In a dissenting opinion, Justice Harry LaForme said Parliament, through “no means no” provisions in the Criminal Code and other legislation, has expressed “its clear view” that advance consent to sexual activity under those circumstances is impossible and any consent by J.A.’s spouse “was negated when she was choked into unconsciousness.”

But Justice Janet Simmons, writing for the appeal court majority, said permitting a person to consent in advance to sexual activity expected to occur while unconscious or asleep is entirely consistent with the principles of human dignity and autonomy.

“Where a person consents in advance to sexual activity expected to occur while unconscious and does not change their mind, I fail to see how the Crown can prove lack of consent,” Simmons said, with Justice Russell Juriansz agreeing.

J.A.’s spouse, whose identity is protected by a court order, said she and her partner were into sado-masochistic activity that included bondage and had attempted “erotic asphyxiation” in the past as a means of heightening sexual excitement.

---

quote:

---

In late March, however, his conviction was overturned by the Ontario Court of Appeal in a 2-1 ruling, which may set up one of the more bizarre hearings the Supreme Court of Canada has hosted in recent years.

Assuming that the Ontario Crown appeals – and most observers believe that this will happen – the nine-judge bench will depart from its usual dry fare to decide whether an unconscious person can consent in advance to supplying sexual gratification for others.

---

quote:

---

convince me whether a person can consent in advance to acts done while one is unconscious or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blayne Bradley:
This reminds me of the entire premise of DollHouse.

---

quote:

---

The Court of Appeal ruling sent a shudder through the ranks of feminist legal scholars, who see it as a serious erosion of a requirement that consent to sexual activity be revocable at any time.

They fear that it will open the door to accused rapists claiming to have mistakenly believed a complainant agreed to sex before falling asleep or being rendered unconscious by alcohol or drugs.

University of Ottawa law professor Elizabeth Sheehy, an expert in sexual assault, said the ruling creates a sexual playground where inert bodies can be used for sexual purposes on the basis that consent was granted at some earlier date. “You are basically saying: ‘I'm your sex slave. You can have sex with me when I'm not there,' ” Prof. Sheehy said.

---

quote:

---

The Court of Appeal majority also compared consenting to future sexual activity as being roughly equivalent to a patient who consents to surgery, knowing that it will be conducted while she under anesthetic.

“That is a totally inappropriate analogy,” Prof. Sheehy said. “Consent to surgery, which is to occur when they are unconscious, is a one-time consent to a very specific procedure. No one gives a free-floating consent to be operated on any time, anywhere, with respect to any kind of surgery.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sarcasticmuppet:
So, she never should have married the guy if there was a chance he would rape her in her sleep?

---

quote:

---

convince me whether a person can consent in advance to acts done while one is unconscious or not.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scholarette:
Though, if she did consent and was ok with it, why would she take this case to court?

---

quote:

---

As for J.A.’s spouse, she changed her story after she took the witness stand. She originally went to police and gave a videotaped statement complaining he had assaulted her without her consent while she was unconscious.

In court later, she said she had consented to the acts and that she went to police because she was angry with J.A. because she believed he was going to leave her and seek custody of their 2-year-old son.

---

quote:

---

The country's top court took a peek into the bedrooms of the nation Friday, upholding a conviction of a man who sodomized his longtime partner after she had agreed to let him choke her into unconsciousness.

In a six-to-three decision, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled the man, known only as J.A., was guilty of sexual assault against the Ottawa woman, known as K.D.

The majority concluded that the Criminal Code protects the right of an individual "to consent to particular acts and to revoke her consent at any time," and does not allow for an individual to provide consent to sexual activity if they are not conscious.

---

quote:

---

She suggested that Parliament could re-examine the existing laws, but that it was not up to the court in this case to interpret this definition of consent, which has produced "just results in the vast majority of cases."

"It has proved of great value in combating the stereotypes that historically have surrounded consent to sexual relations and undermined the law's ability to address the crime of sexual assault," she said.

"In some situations, the concept of consent Parliament has adopted may seem unrealistic. However, it is inappropriate for this court to carve out exceptions when they undermine Parliament's choice. In the absence of a constitutional challenge, the appropriate body to alter the law on consent in relation to sexual assault is Parliament, should it deem this necessary."

---

quote:

---

More likely, the appellate judges who ruled in favor of exonoration are self-serving psychopaths having a past or fantasizing about a future in which they themselves have or could commit similar act...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by scholarette:
The problem is what constitutes consent. In the medical sense, presumably, you have actual signed paperwork stating what you consent to and what you don't. There should be no ambiguity. With sex though, very few people write up specific agreements outlining what is acceptable and what isn't. So, what happens when male thinks female consented to sex because she consented to a date and made the mistake of getting drunk and passing out? He could honestly believe she had given consent and that was acceptable. Hence why the idea that consent is never given when unconscious is so important.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Put another way, I think men in America will continue to be OK.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Put another way, I think men in America will continue to be OK.

---

Probably you're right. But there's nothing ridiculous about being attentive to men's rights.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jebus202:
You don't understand why it seems reasonable for men to expect the right to have drunken consensual sex without possibly being accused of rape later?

---

quote:

---

I guess I just don't understand the attitude that seems to prevail in your post that men should have a right to expect consequence-free drunken, or even mutually drunken sex

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
Men should have the right to have drunken consensual sex.

---

quote:

---

Men should have the right to have drunken consensual sex.

---

quote:

---

Me neither, since it's not my attitude.

---

quote:

---

There was all this stuff in there about "making sure we remain attentive to the fact that," and such delicate language, which I use to differentiate my suggestions of possibility and variability of degree of certainty in my own statements and opinions, and which you typically disregard as if it's all a cover for what I *really* want to say.

---

quote:

---

And if you need to rewrite what I've said in order to criticize me, then you may have missed something. You do this often, and, as in this case, you sometimes forget the difference between a reduction of another person's argument as a rhetorical strategy, and the reduction of another person's argument as a replacement for what they've actually said.

---

quote:

---

So, I might respond more generously to: "you seem to be saying x, and if so, I would not agree," rather than, "what you seem to be saying, which is x, is stupid." The former doesn't give you as much room to be critical of what I haven't said, though, so that sucks.

---

quote:

---

I think given probably many instances in which a man has been accused of misconduct in a case where his behavior was not at all ill-intentioned, we should be very careful to recognize that men can be put in a difficult position, even when they have no ill-intentions, and have broken no laws.

---

quote:

---

You're speaking as though all that's necessary for a rape conviction is a woman to change her mind after the fact and level the accusation.

---

quote:

---

I have to question the ethics of a guy who wants to have sex with a woman who he knows would have refused him had she been sober.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jebus202:
You don't understand why it seems reasonable for men to expect the right to have drunken consensual sex without possibly being accused of rape later?

---

Men should have the right to have drunken consensual sex. The rest, I didn't say, and don't agree with. When you come up with a response to something I actually said, we can get somewhere.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

---

Men should have the right to have drunken consensual sex.

---

Why? Why should anyone have this right?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Which do you think is a larger problem?

1. Men being falsely accused of committing rape when they are drunk.

2. Men who are drunk forcing themselves on a women.

---

quote:

---

I have to question the ethics of a guy who wants to have sex with a woman who he knows would have refused him had she been sober.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

I have to question the ethics of a guy who wants to have sex with a woman who he knows would have refused him had she been sober.

---

quote:

---

The right to have drunken consensual sex and the right to expect no possibility of consequences are not the same thing. This is not black and white. Where you went too far was in putting those words into my mouth. I never said "consequence free," and never would. Sex is never consequence free. The freedom from any consequence is not a reasonable expectation. However, the right on a basic level to have sex while intoxicated is reasonable.

---

quote:

---

A conviction, maybe not. But I'm sure that's a great consolation to the Duke Lacrosse team. Rape shield laws protected the accuser, not the accused. But I wasn't speaking strictly about legalities either. All that is necessary to impeach a person's character, forever, is to level that accusation on them, yes. It has happened many times to innocent people. I just wanted to point out that we need to remain aware of that fact. That's not ridiculous.

---

quote:

---

I take issue with the assertion that we are really that careful, or as careful as we should be. rape shield laws strike me as one aspect of the issue that rather highlights a disparity between the way accuser and accused are treated. And let's not be silly, we both know very well that "a woman would never tell that lie," is a belief that is deeply held in American society. Intellectually, we can talk about "innocent until proven guilty," but typically we don't actually feel that way. I'm as guilty of that as anyone- I've often assumed accused rapists were entirely guilty.

---

quote:

---

I have to question the ethics of a guy who wants to have sex with a woman who he knows would have refused him had she been sober.

That is quite possibly the most insulting thing you have ever said to me, and to women in general... and to men for that matter.

---

quote:

---

This seems a ridiculous question to me, so I need clarification. Are you saying people should not be allowed to have sex while drunk?

---

quote:

---

I think the second is the larger problem. I don't think the first is a problem that should be dismissed either, though.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

quote:

---

I think the second is the larger problem. I don't think the first is a problem that should be dismissed either, though.

---

Here I definitely agree. I just dispute the...well, it's hard to say, but the tone of the posts reads, to me, as though this is a very serious, pressing problem that's almost on par or even on par with the second. If that's true, I disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
I don't like the idea of an act becoming acceptable because you're drunk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It is a bit of a ridiculous question, asked in order to highlight something that's being taken as given when I'm not sure it is a given: namely that someone can consent when intoxicated. My answer is, "I'm really not sure-it's murky." I'm asking the question, "Can someone legally consent to things in general, and sex in particular, while drunk?"

That's an important question. Just because plenty of people make a habit of, y'know, having drunken consensual sex doesn't mean the question should be asked.

---

quote:

---

Here I definitely agree. I just dispute the...well, it's hard to say, but the tone of the posts reads, to me, as though this is a very serious, pressing problem that's almost on par or even on par with the second. If that's true, I disagree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
Again, acceptable *because* you are drunk, and acceptable *while* you are drunk are not the same things.

---

quote:

---

I think when one knows that another would object to doing something when they are sober, whether that something is sex, shaving their head or buying a life insurance policy, its unethical to persuade that person to do it when their drunk. I don't think whether or not the person doing the persuading is also drunk makes much difference. Like MPH, I don't like the idea of any act becoming acceptable because you're drunk.

---

quote:

---

Part of the reason that many people drink is to lower their inhibitions so that they do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. I don't think I've ever done a karaoke night without someone explicitly saying that they needed to get drunk enough to get up and sing.

---

quote:

---

Would we ever even think of talking about rape if someone got dumped and, because of their emotional distress, ended up having sex with someone that they really regretted*?

---

quote:

---

Your own view on the sacredness of sex isn't shared by everyone, or most people, as far as I'm concerned.

---

quote:

---

acceptable *because* you are drunk, and acceptable *while* you are drunk are not the same things

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Apple: Using inebriation as a coercion tool is unethical.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

Part of the reason that many people drink is to lower their inhibitions so that they do things that they wouldn't otherwise do. I don't think I've ever done a karaoke night without someone explicitly saying that they needed to get drunk enough to get up and sing.

---

Yes, but there is a big difference between things you kind of want to do, but feel too self conscious to do unless you're drunk, and things you absolutely do not want to do but might be persuaded to do when sufficiently drunk.

---

quote:

---

Here you go m_p_h...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I didn't equate shaving your head with having sex.

When people are drunk, they can often be persuaded to do things they wouldn't normally do. "Wouldn't normally do" covers a whole lot more than I intended when I said "Would object to if they were sober".

Suppose you know a girl who has religious objections to dancing. She really believes dancing is a sin. You could probably convince her to dance if she's really drunk, would you think it was OK to try?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

Here you go m_p_h...

---

I don't see what this post has to do with what I said.

My point is that if something is bad behavior when sober, it's still bad behavior when drunk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

acceptable *because* you are drunk, and acceptable *while* you are drunk are not the same things

---

I don't how they could be different, as long as that action isn't acceptable when you're not drunk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jebus202:
Will somebody acknowledge that Samp is kinky? It's his third post now and he's not getting any attention.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jebus202:
Will somebody acknowledge that Samp is kinky? It's his third post now and he's not getting any attention.

---

*pat pat*

---

 

---

Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
My answer is, "I'm really not sure-it's murky." I'm asking the question, "Can someone legally consent to things in general, and sex in particular, while drunk?"

---

I think people should absolutely not get in the habit of having to figure out who it's okay to sex up at various levels of drunkenness, while already experiencing that drunkenness. This is something you and they have to have talked out beforehand and established as an acceptable condition of the relationship/casual hookup/whatever. Asking someone "It's okay if we do stuff after we've gotten drunk, right? " is a great way to not have to worry about if you're taking advantage of someone.

Of course, this also involves the personal willpower to, absent these conditions, turn down advances and tell someone "you're too drunk, let me get you a cab" so it really requires a strong sense of what's okay and what's not okay, well before you get into the ubiquitous drinking scene and have hormones flowing in the mix. Too bad most parents are a little too cagey or resistant to the idea of teaching and reinforcing protocol for these kinds of situations.
 

---

Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
 

quote:

---

Asking someone "It's okay if we do stuff after we've gotten drunk, right? " is a great way to not have to worry about if you're taking advantage of someone.

---

quote:

---

Yea, I probably would think it's OK. Hopefully she would see dancing isn't so bad, that her religion is arbitrarily choosing things to place restrictions on as a means of keeping the flock in line and obeisant.

---

quote:

---

I don't think it makes any difference at all whether they intended to do it do it while sober or not. If it's bad behavior while sober, it's still bad behavior while drunk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jebus202:
It's always a great way to turn someone off you by being too forward who had every intention of having sex otherwise.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Samprimary:

quote:

---

Originally posted by jebus202:
It's always a great way to turn someone off you by being too forward who had every intention of having sex otherwise.

---

If the situation makes it Too Forward to ask this kind of question at any point before you both get drunk, then you shouldn't be having sex with this person after getting drunk that day. I would assume "set your boundaries with a partner while you're both sober" would be an unquestionably sensible and straightforward idea.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:

quote:

---

I don't think it makes any difference at all whether they intended to do it do it while sober or not. If it's bad behavior while sober, it's still bad behavior while drunk.

---

Is having consensual sex bad behavior?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by jebus202:
I disagree. I think what's sensible is when with a person where your boundaries aren't familiar, a good idea is to not get too drunk, and move slowly, allowing the person plenty of time to make their own decisions and not pressure them into anything.

---

quote:

---

The idea that if on a date with someone you haven't had sex with yet, and you're not sure how they feel about it, you should start things off by asking: "can I have sex with you later?" is silly

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Perhaps, jebus's point was that drinking is often occurring while (or even before) two people are both externally and internally making the decision to sleep with each other. "While still sober" implies the beginning of the encounter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Perhaps, jebus's point was that drinking is often occurring while (or even before) two people are both externally and internally making the decision to sleep with each other.

---

quote:

---

"While still sober" implies the beginning of the encounter.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
Is Samp the only person left in this conversation who drinks?

---

I could invite parks to the conversation; he too is a sexual deviant with sinful weakness to the devil-water.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
I drink occasionally. Usually, when I am likely (or hopeful) to have sex. We know how I get when I drink.

Rabbit, I agree but predicting what your partner is going to regret is often a lot tougher than it looks. To throw another wrench into things, I have far more often regretted passing up opportunities for sex than I have regretted grabbing them.

ETA: Clearly, I need to drink more.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by jebus202:
I think it's been suggested more than once that if one person convinces a drunk person to have sex (even if the first person is also drunk), the first person is acting unethically. To me that's saying that the second person in the scenario isn't responsible for having sex themselves.

---

quote:

---

I agree but predicting what your partner is going to regret is often a lot tougher than it looks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
But a lot of this discussion sound like people think that its worth risking hurting someone to get some sexual gratification.

---

quote:

---

But a lot of this discussion sound like people think that its worth risking hurting someone to get some sexual gratification.

---

quote:

---

Is Samp the only person left in this conversation who drinks?

---

quote:

---

The risk of someone getting hurt exists in pretty much any casual sex encounter, and in a lot of non-casual ones as well. I'm not convinced there's a legitimate "ought reasonably to have known" clause in the morality of someone feeling hurt the next morning.

---

quote:

---

Signing a contract is a lot like driving a car; it's something you can't do effectively if your judgment is impaired.

Logistically, at least, sex isn't something that requires unimpaired judgment.

---

quote:

---

Logistically, at least, sex isn't something that requires unimpaired judgment. If you can put Tab A into Slot B, you can have sex. And, in fact, drunken sex can be quite a lot of fun.

---

quote:

---

For me the potential problem is simply this: can someone consent to sex while intoxicated? How intoxicated must they be before they can't? We already have laws about things like driving, and unless I'm mistaken you can't be bound to, say, a contract you sign while drunk because you can't be said to be in your right mind. The question for me is, "Why is sex different?"

---

quote:

---

Sex - even casual sex - is (or can be) an opportunity for intimacy, deepening relationships.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:

quote:

---

But a lot of this discussion sound like people think that its worth risking hurting someone to get some sexual gratification.

---

Honestly, I don't really care about the risk of hurting someone with consensual casual sex, even inebriated consensual casual sex. It's not that big a deal, or if it is to you, you should be avoiding that sort of scene. In that case, I think the responsibility falls near fully on the person hurt.

Little hurts or regrets are part of life. I think we do a lot of damage by pushing the idea that they aren't or that people should be intensely concerned about preventing them.

---

quote:

---

Little hurts or regrets are part of life. I think we do a lot of damage by pushing the idea that they aren't or that people should be intensely concerned about preventing them.

---

quote:

---

If that were true, date rape wouldn't be an issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

Sex - even casual sex - is (or can be) an opportunity for intimacy, deepening relationships.

---

I simply can't imagine its possible to have an intimate relationship building experience with someone who is stupid drunk. Mildly inebriate, sure, but plastered or even passed out -- no way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

quote:

---

Little hurts or regrets are part of life. I think we do a lot of damage by pushing the idea that they aren't or that people should be intensely concerned about preventing them.

---

quote:

---

If that were true, date rape wouldn't be an issue.

---

Bull f**king s**t! Date rape is not a "little hurt or regret". Date rape is being violated against your will by someone you thought you might have feelings for and who you trusted.

---

quote:

---

Bull f**king s**t! Date rape is not a "little hurt or regret".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

Sex - even casual sex - is (or can be) an opportunity for intimacy, deepening relationships.

---

I simply can't imagine its possible to have an intimate relationship building experience with someone who is stupid drunk. Mildly inebriate, sure, but plastered or even passed out -- no way.

---

Passed out, of course not. But "inebriated" is a pretty flexible term and fluid condition. (Pardon the pun.)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MrSquicky:
Is consensual "date rape" really a big issue?

To me, the main problem with sex where all the people involved are willing and active participants and then afterward one of them regrets it is thinking that it should be called anything like "date rape".

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Right. It just isn't always clear to either of the people involved just where that line is. Not to the inebriated person and especially not to the other person.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
You are missing the side of the spectrum where people have inebriated consensual sex and both are delighted. In my experience, the far more likely outcome.

---

quote:

---

I think that was my point. If you get stupid drunk and have sex with a person and the next morning that person accuses you of rape (which is where we started this discussion) chances are that person feels more that a "little hurt or regret". Even if they are misremembering what happened and they actually did consent, they feel like they were raped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Ah. Okay. It does, though, speak to the question of why people don't always err on the side of caution, I think. And why erring on the side of caution is not always the best choice.

---

Erring on the side of caution is maybe easier for a woman, in the sense that an incapacitated man is more challenging to have sex with, I'll give you that. ;D (The flip side is being aware of your limits when it comes to drinking, I guess. For me that is fairly simple, as I have a reasonably mild alcohol intolerance, and vomiting on people is never sexy. Neither is a runny nose or asthma-like symptoms all that conducive to happy fun time. I stick to my limits because failure to do so renders me uncomfortable and mildly disgusting. I make no judgments on other choices, though. Mine have been fairly easy, given physical/circumstantial limits and my natural tendency to favor thinking over feeling when making decisions. (That's a personality trait, not a value judgment.) It's sad that women often have to consider their safety when drinking, even with friends, more than men do, but it is what it is, I guess.)
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 

quote:

---

Just the "regretable" part, since those are the two point Stone_Wolf mentions.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
It's not so much that I missed it, it's more that I vehemently disagree.

It's the difference between being shot and playing with a loaded gun.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Orincoro:
Again, acceptable *because* you are drunk, and acceptable *while* you are drunk are not the same things.

---

Actually, could you elaborate on this, I'm not sure I follow this particular step.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
For me the potential problem is simply this: can someone consent to sex while intoxicated? How intoxicated must they be before they can't? We already have laws about things like driving, and unless I'm mistaken you can't be bound to, say, a contract you sign while drunk because you can't be said to be in your right mind. The question for me is, "Why is sex different?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I don't think anyone is talking about laws regulating sex. The issues is about laws that distinguish between consensual sex and rape and the difficulty is that there isn't always a bright line distinction.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
In Trudeau's case, the issue was whether the state could intrude into an act between two consenting adults, the answer being no.

In the case of the JD, the very issue under debate is whether there *is* consent and the state was explicitly asked by one of the adults to enter the situation, so Trudeau's saying isn't so useful here.

---

I think it is, if the question we're asking is why there's a difference between ability to sign a contract while inebriated versus consent to sex while inebriated. There is a clear and strong public interest in the former, while the public interest is far less clear in the latter.
 

---

Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
 
I don't see why there is a clear strong public interest in people signing contracts to do things like buy life insurance. I certainly don't see why people being cheated financially when they are drunk is of greater public interest than people being raped when they are drunk.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
Honestly, Rabbit. What kind of capitalist are you!
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I don't see why there is a clear strong public interest in people signing contracts to do things like buy life insurance.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
I certainly don't see why people being cheated financially when they are drunk is of greater public interest than people being raped when they are drunk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Honestly, Rabbit. What kind of capitalist are you!

---

The robber baron kind? Let's get the little guys drunk and have them sign absurd contracts, we don't need no regulations!
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
I think it is, if the question we're asking is why there's a difference between ability to sign a contract while inebriated versus consent to sex while inebriated.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mucus:
The saying was never meant to say that the state couldn't rule on disputes that started in the bedroom...

---

quote:

---

Let me revisit, since I didn't really answer this the first time. "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation" is my main rule of thumb when it comes to laws about sex. In contrast, some form of regulatory regime is a firm requirement in order to have enforceable contracts and safe roads.

---

quote:

---

That is, in general, we don't need to make a comprehensive set of laws governing sex, because that isn't any of the state's business. We do need comprehensive sets of laws to govern contracts and driving. Now, obviously there are cases where we need laws about sex, but we don't need an overall regulatory structure that covers all of the details.

---

quote:

---

It follows from this that in general, laws about sex should be relatively few in number and narrow in scope. Age of consent, rape, etc. Possibly sex education and/or availability of pregnancy control depending on your views.

---

I absolutely agree, and I see now that I should've chosen my words more carefully. My original question should've been, "Why is consenting to sex different?"
 

---

Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
 
I think that last sentence actually confuses the issue! Different legally, ethically...?

I agree that the state needs a clear definition of consent, because rape law will always hinge on it. I do think that it's okay for the definition of consent to be different in different spheres; I see no particular reason that contractual consent and sexual consent should have the same definition where applicable.
 

---

Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by twinky:
... You and Rabbit have both extended my statements far beyond what they actually say.

---

quote:

---

"Why is consenting to sex different?"

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olivet:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
It's not so much that I missed it, it's more that I vehemently disagree.

It's the difference between being shot and playing with a loaded gun.

---

Bad analogy, since it is clearly possible for one person to be raped and the other not to believe they have raped anyone. With a gun, there'd be blood and stuff.

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that its always clear whether what took place was consensual sex or rape?

---

quote:

---

Are you saying there is never a case where date rape might be mistaken for consensual drunken sex (or vise versa)?

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that it is impossible for one person to think they are engaging in drunken consensual sex and the other person to think they are being raped?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:



But the major point I'm making is that rape/date rape is done to someone, like being shot. Where as consensual drunken sex is a situation which the person is putting themselves at risk.

---

quote:

---

Now, I *think* you're asserting that, if the one person experienced a rape, then a rape occurred, which I can agree with (though legally speaking, it's not so clear).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

quote:

---

Now, I *think* you're asserting that, if the one person experienced a rape, then a rape occurred, which I can agree with (though legally speaking, it's not so clear).

---

I think for there to be a rape then the "raper" would have to know their partner was unwilling (or unconscious). In the case of two drunk off their ass people where one thinks it's all in good fun and the other is incapable of letting their partner know they want them to stop because of alcohol but is not unconscious, or to put it another way, drunken misunderstanding sex without malice, that it is not rape, a very unfortunate and harmful sexual encounter which no doubt both participants will regret and hopefully learn from.

---

quote:

---

You are definitely using blame language there unreservedly for the female.

---

quote:

---

Again...why is drunkenness not to be an excuse from driving and hitting someone, but apparently *is* an excuse when it's non-consenting sex when both parties are drunk? (In which case they hopefully both 'learn something', though what the aggressor would learn I'm not sure.)

---

quote:

---

Nope, although I find this very far fetched. I'd imagine that this is very very rare. She says, "Please stop!" He hears "Oh yea baby!". Or is it, she thinks "Oh, God, I'm being raped." and doesn't say anything, anything at all?

What I'm saying is that in those situations you mentioned where the people involved are so loaded that they don't know for sure are dangerous bad situations which people voluntarily put themselves in (both the person possibly wrongfully accused and the person wrongfully thinking they were raped) unlike rape/date rape where someone specifically and intentionally victimized someone else.

---

quote:

---

"Why is sexuality when it involves rape a *private* concern?"

---

quote:

---

Theres some pronouns that aren't so gender-neutral for one.

---

quote:

---

There is also the suggestion that people (in this case the woman) need to just accept that one of the consequences of getting drunk with a guy will sometimes be getting raped, but that's a private matter that hopefully both will regret and learn from.

---

quote:

---

...Nope, although I find this very far fetched. I'd imagine that this is very very rare. She says, "Please stop!" He hears "Oh yea baby!". Or is it, she thinks "Oh, God, I'm being raped." and doesn't say anything, anything at all?

What I'm saying is that in those situations you mentioned where the people involved are so loaded that they don't know for sure are dangerous bad situations which people voluntarily put themselves in (both the person possibly wrongfully accused and the person wrongfully thinking they were raped) unlike rape/date rape where someone specifically and intentionally victimized someone else."

---

quote:

---

Are you saying that it is impossible for one person to think they are engaging in drunken consensual sex and the other person to think they are being raped?

---

quote:

---

It's the difference between being shot and playing with a loaded gun.

---

quote:

---

Possibly wrongfully accused and wrongfully thinking they were raped. How can it be both at once?

---

quote:

---

What makes Frank more of a "bastard" than Bob?

---

quote:

---

What if Bob was mixing the drinks and using a pretty heavy hand with the vodka and encouraging Olivia to drink more than she is used to?

---

quote:

---

What if the making out beforehand had been only kissing?

---

quote:

---

Which is what?

---

quote:

---

You're saying that sex is the default? That it is "opt out" rather than "opt in"?

---

quote:

---

The assumption is that all women are open for sex unless explicitly saying no?

---

quote:

---

In this made up scenario, Bob/Frank misinterpret drunken moans/arm lifting for participation/enjoymen

---

quote:

---

In this made up scenario, Bob/Frank misinterpret drunken moans/arm lifting for participation/enjoyment.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
If a man assumes that despite no conversations about sex and discussion either way that a woman wants to have sex with him, despite being obviously completely drunk, then he is definitely a rapist.

---

quote:

---

If a man assumes that despite no conversations about sex and discussion either way that a woman wants to have sex with him, despite being obviously completely drunk, then he is definitely a rapist.

---

quote:

---

If she doesn't give consent, assuming consent is not an excuse. It's still rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by TomDavidson:

quote:

---

If she doesn't give consent, assuming consent is not an excuse. It's still rape.

---

Perhaps we should have a separate category for accidental rape, in the same way that we have one for accidental killing?

---

quote:

---

Scenario B: A man and woman hook up at a bar and drink together and then make out, during which time the woman becomes incapable through intoxication to communicate she wish to stop but is not unconscious and the man has sex with her mistakenly thinking she is a willing participant.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
So, "involuntary rape"? "Accidental" implies no one is at fault. Which did you mean?

---

quote:

---

If you...have sex with someone without an explicit consent, then it is rape.

---

quote:

---

We've established that the intent of the man doesn't necessarily matter: the only factor that determines whether or not there was a rape was if the woman consented or not.

---

quote:

---

Intent of the "offender" is perhaps not always reliant to the feelings of the "offended", but should always be taken into account in their own criminal case. That's why insanity is an acceptable defense, if you didn't know what you were doing, you are not held criminally responsible.

---

quote:

---

The question is, in the second one, does drinking together in a bar and then making out count as opting in for sex?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
If you have sex with someone who hasn't given consent, then that's rape. There's no getting around it.

---

quote:

---

If you have sex with someone who hasn't given consent, then that's rape.

---

quote:

---

On the other hand if she doesn't, well sometimes 'unwelcome sex' will happen and it's nobody's fault-like it rained against the forecast or something. Except, well, it's actually the man *and* the woman's fault for getting so drunk in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Put another way, why is the person who didn't get clear consent *not* considered responsible for what happens while drunk...but the person who didn't *give* clear consent *is* responsible for what happens while drunk?

---

quote:

---

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will.

---

quote:

---

That said, consent doesn't always have to be verbal.

---

quote:

---

katharina...so you have never ever ever had any sex without first giving explicit verbal consent, right?

---

quote:

---

I'm not impressed with the argument that anything short of "No" every fifteen minutes = implied consent because "that's how it is done."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Shadowland, there are, if I recall correctly, various state laws on that very thing.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
It is not possible to have sex with someone who is unable to give consent and not commit rape, albeit perhaps a lesser kind on that graduated scale, but still rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Why does he deserve to be punished in the same manor as those who are violent predators because of the consequences of both of their poor judgement?

---

quote:

---

I think I understand the reasons you have for your extreme (IMO) views, but I don't think the application of your morals are fair or just or even reasonable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I think "involuntary sexual assault" is a good name.

What do you think the progression of punishment should be?

---

quote:

---

I think rape (the intentional violent kind) to be such a reprehensible act that all rapists should be killed outright (in a perfect world) or at least locked away forever without the chance of getting out (in reality).

---

quote:

---

We disagree that this scenario should be classified as rape and about your definition of the word.

---

quote:

---

What did she do? She drank herself into a stupor with a complete stranger while participating in intimate relations with said stranger. All her own choices.

---

quote:

---

I tell you what, my daughter is 5 months old, and if she is ever raped, I will happily spend the rest of my life in jail for slowly cutting the son of a bitch who did it into tiny pieces with a blunt, rusty knife.

---

quote:

---

But it's not rape, to you, if a man 'reasonably' *thinks* he has consent, receives no explicit rejection, and goes ahead and has sex.

---

quote:

---

We've repeatedly come up against this and you say that no, sex isn't something a woman must opt out of...unless she's drinking with a man or kissing him.

---

quote:

---

When you distort my words to an extreme to make them sound stupid, then you're admitting that the real thing is something you can't argue against.

---

quote:

---

What if she was just drinking with a cute guy she met at a party and then kissed him but didn't think sex was even on the table and so didn't say "no" and then he had sex with her after she was so drunk she couldn't even form sentences? Would you then?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Okay, Bob and Olivia met a bar, are halfway to the wind, and keep drinking together, stubble home and make out and drink and heavy pet, and drink and at some point Olivia looses the ability to do anything but groan and lift her arm weakly. Bob thinks (wrongly) her groaning and arm lifting is encouragement and has sex with her, the whole time thinking (wrongly) that Olivia is enjoying herself and welcoming of sex.

In the morning Bob has made Olivia breakfast in bed, brought flowers and can't stop smiling at his luck of finding such a great gal. Olivia has taken three showers and can't stop crying.

Is it rape?

---

quote:

---

Without express verbal consent, each and every time, in or out of a relationship, any sex is rape.

---

quote:

---

My wife did not give me express verbal consent when we made our babies. And in your book that blessed moment of our joining to create life out of our love is rape.

---

quote:

---

I don't think your view are tyrannical or monolithic. I think they are black and white, and that makes you want to give a pass to anyone who doesn't to deserve being shot

---

quote:

---

Making out and heavy petting at someone's house is not the same as a kiss.

---

quote:

---

No, I'm not. I'm suggesting that in the whole range of pillow play from a nip on the cheek to full sex, there is a huge amount of nonverbal communication which under normal circumstances is enough without explicit verbal consent.

---

quote:

---

...but you best believe that my daughter would be getting a bunch more speeches about putting herself in harm's way.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_wolf_: katharina...so you have never ever ever had any sex without first giving explicit verbal consent, right? In or out of a relationship...ever...because if you ever didn't say "You have permission to have sex with me now." or equivalent, by your standards you turned your lover into a rapist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

quote:

---

katharina...so you have never ever ever had any sex without first giving explicit verbal consent, right?

---

Right. This is absolutely, 100% correct.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

quote:

---

Making out and heavy petting at someone's house is not the same as a kiss.

---

So, it is the same thing as sex? Making out with someone is consent for sex?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Rakeesh, I wasn't saying you all think that, just Kate, and here is why:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_wolf_: katharina...so you have never ever ever had any sex without first giving explicit verbal consent, right? In or out of a relationship...ever...because if you ever didn't say "You have permission to have sex with me now." or equivalent, by your standards you turned your lover into a rapist.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

quote:

---

katharina...so you have never ever ever had any sex without first giving explicit verbal consent, right?

---

Right. This is absolutely, 100% correct.

---

So the example with my wife is based on my understanding of katharina's beliefs, and not a criticism of what "We're talking about", whoever "we" is.

---

*sigh* Don't be an idiot. You making assumptions about my private life that are both unwarranted and hilariously wrong. Stop making the argument personal - you don't know enough to do it well, and, well, I haven't volunteered personal information, so that isn't on the table.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Look at what Rakeesh said - you are saying that unless a woman opts out, then Bob is justified in assuming a "yes" if she makes out with him, even if by the time sex happens, she's so drunk she can't form completely sentence.

Do you see how that's a problem? If getting actual consent from Olivia is too embarrassing for Bob, then I suspect he is too immature to have sex at all.

Even if it is "not the way things go", Bob needs to get actual consent. ESPECIALLY if Olivia has been drinking. "She didn't stop me (fine, she wasn't even verbal)" is not enough.

The problem isn't the drinking. It's the assumption of consent when it hasn't been given, and if sex happens under those circumstances, you blame the woman. That's not original - that's an old, old sexist attitude, and it isn't okay.
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
That is it. I'm done with you Kate.

There was no assumption, it was a question. One you answered.

I've stated my beliefs, the reason behind them, where we agree and where we disagree. I've done my best to understand where everyone here is coming from and to explain the same for myself.

I've tried to answer each and every point brought up to me, but you do not do the same, you skip what I have to say and just ask a leading question which if it were honest would have already been answered. And then you say "Don't be an idiot."

We are done talking about this at this time.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
SW, you asked me a very personal question and I answered it without giving details. It looks like you made some bad assumptions based on the oblique answer. I don't know you and I'm put off by your forgiveness of Bob in this scenario, which means I am not going to share personal details about myself or my beliefs beyond those of personal soveriegnty.

Don't make it personal. You're getting it wrong, and you don't have my permission to drag my own life into it.
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Oh, and to be fair, since you never introduced yourself to me and I only know your name because other posters used it, my name is Mike, in case you wanted to use it as I used yours.

Look...I'm getting angry at you here for not addressing the things I have to say. I'll still be around later, but for now I'm not in the right place anymore to continue in this discussion.

I'll talk to you later.
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
By the way, Mike. I'm Kate. Or Boots. I understand your confusion.
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Nice to meet you formally...sorry for the confusion.
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
I still want to know you thanked Jeff...I'm the one who pointed out your link was broken
 

---

Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
 
That wasn't me.
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Sorry! That was Olivet.
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Okay, ready to give it another try.

There is no previous act which in my book counts as prior consent (other then maybe saying "When we get back to my place, let's have sex." and even that could be revoked instantly).

That being said, I think it legitimate in most cases that couples have sex without overt, verbal consent. In cases where judgment is impaired, such as alcohol and drugs are involved, it is a very very good idea to get explicit verbal consent.

Now, here's what I think should happen to Bob: he should be charged with the misdemeanor crime "Sexual Misconduct" which carries with it a suspended sentence of ten years and a non-suspended sentence of 100 hours of community service and having to pay for 100 hours of therapy for the victim, Olivia.

The suspended ten years stay suspended over his head for the next ten years and if during that time he has zero sex related charges to which he is found guilty, are removed. If he is found guilty of any sexual related charges during those ten years, those suspended ten years are added to his other sentence, as well as any further sexually related charges become felonies if they were not before.
 

---

Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
 
Thanks again, Rakeesh/Jeff, for expressing your opinions clearly and well. I appreciate that, and wanted to express it specifically, back when other reasonable voices were less involved in this thread. So now I'm thanking the Kates, too. ;D

Katharina, Boots - There should be t-shirts that say, "My vagina is invitation only. Violators will be prosecuted."

One way or another, Kates and Jeff, we can change the world. Instead of indoctrinating women on what not to wear, do or drink and where not to walk... "OMG you are never safe because every man wants to rape you! Your cleavage/red dress/workout pants/beverage are like Dr. Jekyll's potion of rapey-ness, tempting a good man to fall into sin at the mild inconvenience involved in going home and taking matters into hand!" Which totally should be more like, "OMG, fellas, don't put your parts anywhere they're not expressly invited!" It's a matter of respecting bodily agency, which <I>can</I> be taught. It's not hard. No one's asking them to solve quadratic equations. "Just keep your parts to yourself until you're asked to share" is not a difficult concept, just a marginally inconvenient one for people accustomed to the privilege of not having to think about it much. I appreciate, Jeff, that you have given this some thought, even though it would be easy not to.
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
in biblical times if a woman was raped near a city and was heard to scream, they killed the guy, but if she wasn't heard to scream, they killed her for seducing him, and if it wasn't near a city, they killed her because they couldn't know for sure if she screamed or not.

---

quote:

---

Deuteronomy 22:23-27

New International Version (NIV)

23 If a man happens to meet in a town a virgin pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, 24 you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death—the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you.

25 But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. 26 Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. This case is like that of someone who attacks and murders a neighbor, 27 for the man found the young woman out in the country, and though the betrothed woman screamed, there was no one to rescue her.

---

quote:

---

That being said, I think it legitimate in most cases that couples have sex without overt, verbal consent. In cases where judgment is impaired, such as alcohol and drugs are involved, it is a very very good idea to get explicit verbal consent.

---

quote:

---

Instead of indoctrinating women on what not to wear, do or drink and where not to walk...

---

quote:

---

why isn't it a requirement by your lights to get clear consent - it isn't always going to be verbal - in all cases?

---

quote:

---

Now it appears you've changed your thoughts, or else we (or at least I) were misunderstanding your thoughts before

---

quote:

---

because now when Bob just assumes her consent on the basis of kissing and drinking, he gets in trouble.

---

quote:

---

you are saying that unless a woman opts out, then Bob is justified in assuming a "yes" if she makes out with him, even if by the time sex happens, she's so drunk she can't form completely sentence

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Olivet:
Thanks again, Rakeesh/Jeff, for expressing your opinions clearly and well. I appreciate that, and wanted to express it specifically, back when other reasonable voices were less involved in this thread. So now I'm thanking the Kates, too. ;D

Katharina, Boots - There should be t-shirts that say, "My vagina is invitation only. Violators will be prosecuted."

One way or another, Kates and Jeff, we can change the world. Instead of indoctrinating women on what not to wear, do or drink and where not to walk... "OMG you are never safe because every man wants to rape you! Your cleavage/red dress/workout pants/beverage are like Dr. Jekyll's potion of rapey-ness, tempting a good man to fall into sin at the mild inconvenience involved in going home and taking matters into hand!" Which totally should be more like, "OMG, fellas, don't put your parts anywhere they're not expressly invited!" It's a matter of respecting bodily agency, which <I>can</I> be taught. It's not hard. No one's asking them to solve quadratic equations. "Just keep your parts to yourself until you're asked to share" is not a difficult concept, just a marginally inconvenient one for people accustomed to the privilege of not having to think about it much. I appreciate, Jeff, that you have given this some thought, even though it would be easy not to.

---

quote:

---

"If I actually obtain consent, she might say no"

---

quote:

---

quote:

---

The point here is that feminists tend to use a definition of "rape" that is vastly more general then what the word commonly refers (it tends to boil down to "any sex you regret in the morning") to in order to inflate the statistics.

---

I'm sorry, but this is absolute nonsense. In fact this is precisely the kind of nonsense that gets used to systematically belittle and trivialize rape victims, and which leads to the under-reporting I mentioned.

The typical popular model of sexuality goes something like this. The woman has, i.e. possesses, sex; the man wants to get it from her. She, on the other hand, wants to hold onto it for the best mate she can find (in order to get married, etc.). Therefore his job is to put on the moves, and her job is to put on the brakes. However, if she resists, then she's a bitch, because he deserves it after all, therefore she better not resist. If she does resist she might just be playing hard to get, because after all she really wants it, so as long as she's not resisting too hard you can keep pushing anyway, either ignoring her protests or whining until she gives in. If she regrets it in the morning, well, she shouldn't have been such a slut anyway. Because this is after all the sexual norm, she probably won't even think of it as rape, and might never think to mention it to anyone.

Feminism makes the radical suggestion that this model is totally, balls-out insane and that maybe our notion of a healthy sexual interaction should necessarily include enthusiastic consent on both sides. If you want a more complete summary of the feminist position, "Yes Means Yes" is a good introductory source. I don't think I can do as good a job of explaining as the authors can, so I'm going to leave this off here.

---

quote:

---

"If I actually obtain consent, she might say no" is equally disrespectful, only writ large.

---

quote:

---

My understanding of Bob wasn't that he was avoiding gaining consent, but that he misread signals and genuinely felt he had consent.

---

quote:

---

If Bob didn't have an expectation that she'd be able to grant or withdraw consent and then has sex with her anyway...what has he done? Say it with me!

---

quote:

---

When has it been said that Bob lacked that expectation? It seems like he did expect that she was able to grant and withdraw consent- he was just wrong.

---

quote:

---

It seems like everybody's on the same page that people should be excessively clear on whether they have received or are giving consent and that when it's not excessively clear, the law should err on the side of protecting women and potentially punish a teeny tiny minority of men that might have great intent like Bob. If somebody is disputing this, please let me know.

---

quote:

---

I think where there might be disagreement is in the judgment of Bob's character. Personally, I feel empathy for this character. He has a woman who has enthusiastically entered in to sexual activity with him (petting was mentioned in the set up) and he thinks he has the green light to go further. In a society where men are expected to initiate, I have a hard time hating Bob. I think his error lied in having too low of a threshold for ensuring consent rather than having any sort of poor intent. This in no way condones the rape that happened.

---

quote:

---

A group of Malaysian women launched an "Obedient Wife Club" on Saturday, urging members to be "whores in bed" and obey their husbands to curb social ills like divorce and domestic violence.

[...]

"You must satisfy your husband. A good wife should be a whore in bed," said [the] 46-year-old doctor, whose husband has three other wives.

---

quote:

---

Some of this we've touched on: when we use the word 'rape', for some people that only means, or at least primarily means, the completely unequivocal non-consenting kind. That is, drugged deliberately to unconsciousness or over shouted protests kind. When we say, "This was rape," then, it's rejected because it's not that, and that is rape.

---

quote:

---

I can't speak for Stone_Wolf, but I certainly don't dispute that a rape occurred in this hypothetical. The woman did not consent. The end. It seems like everybody's on the same page that people should be excessively clear on whether they have received or are giving consent and that when it's not excessively clear, the law should err on the side of protecting women and potentially punish a teeny tiny minority of men that might have great intent like Bob. If somebody is disputing this, please let me know.

---

quote:

---

I do agree that in the scenario as posed, his error was one of assumptions, not intent-with the qualifier that just because men are taught that women need to opt out of sex makes it more understandable that men have it...it doesn't change that it's a bad attitude to have, and insofar as Bob acted on it, he was behaving badly. Even if he didn't realize it.

---

quote:

---

I don't think it was "rape", I think it was sexual misconduct on Bob's part and there should be repercussions for Bob's foolishness but he should definitely NOT be labeled a rapist, be prosecuted as one, be labeled a sex offender, etc, etc.

---

quote:

---

I agree with much here, but I see a big difference, that is, that Bob's behaving badly. I think Bob was behaving riskily. It might have been that Olivia fully intended to sex Bob up, and he didn't misread the circumstance at all, and she didn't mind at all and in the end they become a couple. Bob risks offending Olivia by not seeking explicit consent, he risks a rape charge, he risks sexual misconduct, but you gotta think that most of the time, Olivia is going to be able to make her wishes known, and some of the time, women seek risk taking aggressive men. I know that sounds bad, and I'm not saying it's right, but I think it's less then honest to say otherwise. Some women prefer a sexually initiating male. Some do not.

---

quote:

---

Some women (I wanted to say, many, or even most, but hesitated to do so) like bad boys. They know they are no good, they like the danger. Even Amanecer said she would find a man cowardly or weak if they didn't try and initiate kissing (which is not sex by a long shot). I guess I'll just have to say it poorly, but if elicit verbal consent is to become the norm, then women need to push for it and stop making men into the hunter. Again, I am not happy with how this is coming out, so please don't crucify me, I'm struggling for the words.

---

quote:

---

Bob's behavior is risky not bad because some of the time he will be rewarded for it, and some of the time he will be punished.

---

quote:

---

The reason it's leading you into some difficulty here is that you're still sending some mixed messages. Calling it 'foolishness', for example.

---

quote:

---

Because even though Bob just assumed (and yes, that's what he did, being intoxicated remember isn't considered a good enough excuse for things-it's certainly not for anything else, even other aspects of sexuality, a point I've raised repeatedly which you still haven't addressed) she was opting in, he was 'foolish'.

---

quote:

---

And the reason he's not a rapist is because he didn't beat her or give her a roofie. In order for her not to have been raped - and this is going to sound like an insult, but it's actually a restatement of your position - she has to come out of it with signs of a roofie or something in her system, or some pretty serious bruising. That's when it's rape. Otherwise it's foolishness, or unwelcome sex, or 'sexual misconduct'.

---

quote:

---

The moral onus isn't on Bob to ask if she opts in, but on her to opt out.

---

quote:

---

I guess I'll just have to say it poorly, but if elicit verbal consent is to become the norm, then women need to push for it and stop making men into the hunter.

---

quote:

---

And the reason he's not a rapist is because he didn't beat her or give her a roofie. In order for her not to have been raped - and this is going to sound like an insult, but it's actually a restatement of your position - she has to come out of it with signs of a roofie or something in her system, or some pretty serious bruising. That's when it's rape. Otherwise it's foolishness, or unwelcome sex, or 'sexual misconduct'.

---

quote:

---

That's just an outmoded way of thinking, because it relies on the woman being required to opt out of sex instead of the man being required to make sure she's opted in.

---

quote:

---

The assumption that she must opt-out lies in the fact that, in this outlook, she hasn't been raped unless she's caught a beating as well.

---

quote:

---

Well, the truth is it's pretty murky, what is being said-I mean, at one time mandated AA was a reasonable requirement for what Bob had done. At other times he's a gentleman who made an understandable mistake...now he's a guy who needs a suspended prison sentence and a form of parole.

---

quote:

---

So bad behavior is always punished and good behavior is always rewarded?

---

quote:

---

Currently, the cultural norm is that the onus to stop unwanted activity is on women. But that's only because cultural norms put the onus to start activity on men.

---

quote:

---

The reason I don't think it is rape isn't because of a lack of evidence as you are speculating, but because it lacked intent on Bob's part through a misunderstanding fueled by both of their voluntary drinking.

---

quote:

---

I don't think it is outmoded. I think that realistically this is the norm. I'm not saying anything about if it should be or not, just that is.

---

quote:

---

It comes down to this: was Bob's assumption of Olivia's continued consent (moving from petting to sex) reasonable given that Bob wrongfully but reasonably assumed that she could opt out at any time and didn't.

---

quote:

---

(from an older post) I wanted to address this...I wasn't waffling, we had never truly moved on to what should be the proper punishment for Bob, too busy talking about if it was or wasn't rape, and then me and Kat went a few rounds, so the only time I answered that in a complete thought was the last time, the rest was just speculation, not oscillation. Just to be clear.

---

quote:

---

Only if you believe in Karma, which I don't. But it's not a question of "always", how about "mostly" or "a lot"? I think that most of the time it is not seen as "bad", and that is my point, that explicit consent and males not "being the accelerator" are not the norm, but both are risky.

---

quote:

---

Exactly!

Look, I'm not necessarily against changing things over to a more careful and safer system, but I think it is unfair to say that it isn't a change and it isn't a big one.

---

quote:

---

*snort* Unfair to who?

---

quote:

---

I'm really not sure why you keep bringing up the voluntary drinking.

---

quote:

---

The booze mitigates intent, perhaps, but even in your definition of rape, you're relegating women to secondary status: Bob's intent is decisive, not what happened to her.

---

quote:

---

...you've opposed expanding the idea of rape to include sex with the incorrect assumption, when it happens, that the woman has opted in by default. That things such as drinking and kissing count as opting in absent other things, and that Bob shouldn't be blamed for making that assumption because that's just how men are raises.

---

quote:

---

I've asked repeatedly, why is intoxication a sufficient excuse here but not for other matters? It's not for other sexual matters, such as pregnancy or disease. We don't say, "Bon was drunk, he didn't know any better." It's not for a guy who starts a barfight because he's an angry drunk.

But when it comes to assuming she's willing, even though she's incapable of consenting, *then* drunk counts as an excuse. This is at least the third time I've mentioned this, SW, to little or no reply: why is this different? In all of those other situations, Bob's intent doesn't change what actually happened, it just changes his intent.

---

quote:

---

I don't give any passes for being intoxicated. It's just the set up for this thought exercise. I personally called for both parties to share responsibility for putting themselves into a dangerous situation of drinking so much. So, it isn't that I didn't address your point, more that it isn't applicable.

---

quote:

---

Well, I believe you're not intending to 'oscillate', but that really doesn't change that you are. Sometimes Bob's intentions count, sometimes they don't. Her intentions should count for some things but not others. Intent changes what happened in this matter, but not other issues of sexuality. Women aren't required to opt-out, unless Bob is drunk and thinks he's a gentleman.

---

quote:

---

Who on earth said it wouldn't be a big change? Our, or at least my, dispute with you is your continual resistance to the idea that the change is needed at all.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Why is "unwelcome sex" not rape?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Unwelcome sex...a more neutral phrase for sex which could range from a mistake of communication and no ill will to violent forced rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
What do you think rape is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

quote:

---

A criminal offense defined in most states as forcible sexual relations with a person against that person's will.

---

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/rape

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
It is not a hugely unfair burden to expect men to help change it rather than take advantage of it.

---

quote:

---

No. If you kill someone in a drunk driving accident because you couldn't make out where the yellow dividing line was, you're still guilty of manslaughter. No matter your intention, the victim is still dead.

---

quote:

---

No. If you kill someone in a drunk driving accident because you couldn't make out where the yellow dividing line was, you're still guilty of manslaughter.

---

quote:

---

but explicit consent is not always going to be the case, and that's ok-sometimes a person can just tell. But if you *don't* have it, you'd better be right in the assumption that she's opting-in rather than thinking it your male duty to go as far as you can.

---

quote:

---

To me, for one. You keep grandstanding about how outdated my views are, implying, if not outright saying, that this is the old way. Well it isn't, in reality. So keep your snorts to yourself.

---

quote:

---

Because if there was no drinking, there would be no problem, both parties drank to the point that they created a problem.

---

quote:

---

In our legal system the intent of the accused is taken into consideration. I've said this before. When decided if Bob committed the felony crime of rape in this scenario, his intent is relevant.

---

quote:

---

Seriously, going back to someone's place and drinking and making out and drinking and heavy petting and drinking...isn't consent...but when Bob then took of Olivia's clothing and then took off his own and she didn't say anything, that sure seemed like consent to him. When she moaned and her arm brushed his back, it sure seemed like consent to him. It wasn't, it was a mistake of perception. But it was a reasonable mistake.

---

quote:

---

I do not know how many times I have to flatly state that there is no action (such as drinking or kissing) which equals prior consent until you stop putting words in my mouth about how these things do equal consent. I never said anything about how men were raised! There is plenty of stuff we actually disagree about, you don't need to make stuff up.

---

quote:

---

This was not the case with Bob, Olivia lost the ability to let her wishes be known, because of her poor judgment on how much to drink.

---

quote:

---

I don't have a problem with seeking men's aide in getting this to become a more universally accepted idea. I do have a problem with the attitude that men need to step up and make it happen and anyone who keeps the status quo has an "outmoded way of thinking" or is a good ol' boy taking advantage of the situation.

---

quote:

---

They are not charged with murder, thus their intent is taken into account, they are charged with a lessor charge with lessened penalty.

---

quote:

---

And even where the legal code doesn't take intent into count, I think that morally it makes a huge difference.

---

quote:

---

It's not. And if Bob had done that, clearly it would have been better. But in the moral intent category, it doesn't seem like a bad moral choice to not check your date's coherency if it doesn't occur to you as a possibility that your date is past the point of coherency.

---

quote:

---

It's a reasonable mistake because Bob was drunk and not in control of his faculties.

---

quote:

---

when Bob then took of Olivia's clothing and then took off his own and she didn't say anything, that sure seemed like consent to him. When she moaned and her arm brushed his back, it sure seemed like consent to him.

---

quote:

---

Thank you Amanecer

---

 

---

Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
 

quote:

---

The problem is, thinking your intentions are good is not always a guarantee that they are. Few if any are, after all, ill-intended in their own eyes. If we judged intent by the standards of the individuals who hold them, no one would ever be considered malicious or selfish or bigoted or anything else.

---

quote:

---

No, he's explicitly said it's a reasonable mistake because:

---

quote:

---

I don't see how self-perception can be divorced from intent. If you intended no harm, you intended no harm. Now if you're saying that intent is hardly the only thing that matters, I totally agree.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
In this scenario, intent is apparently the only thing that matters. Bob didn't intend to do harm, therefore he shouldn't be treated as though he harmed her.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
B. That Bob only warrants a lessor offense.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Bob should have to deal with repercussions

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
...Now, here's what I think should happen to Bob: he should be charged with the misdemeanor crime "Sexual Misconduct"...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
...and I think that Bob even well meaning, should suffer legal consequences...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
For this Bob has done something wrong

---

quote:

---

...a grown man who has sex with a 14 year old because he loves her. His intentions are good. He doens't think he's a bad guy. She even consents, insofar as a 14yr old can consent to that. Society has no problem saying, "Uhhh...no. We don't care what you thought, your intentions were actually bad, you just didn't realize it."

---

quote:

---

I stopped after three pages back.

---

quote:

---

If his intent was selfish gratification and he treated her poorly/forcibly, he would be charged with a more severe crime. Because his intent was "good" in his own mind, he is only charged with statutory rape.

I simply do not know how you can refute the point that intent is taken into consideration when authorities decide which crime to charge people with. It is a fact.

---

quote:

---

I simply do not know how you can refute the point that intent is taken into consideration when authorities decide which crime to charge people with. It is a fact.

---

quote:

---

He was drunk, so we can't expect him to have known better. I can say that's what you're saying because if he wasn't drunk, you'd be treating him very differently.

---

quote:

---

...I have very little hope you'll ever address the point I've brought up repeatedly that it's really not very hard to expect men to behave differently, referencing expectations about birth control and condoms.

---

quote:

---

That's the kind of judgment we make about other people's intentions, not about our own, or at least not very often at all.

---

quote:

---

I've said repeatedly I don't refuse the point that intent is taken into account. I'm rejecting the notion that it is of decisive importance.

---

quote:

---

In this scenario, you're saying Bob couldn't have known any better because he was drunk, and that he didn't know any better should be taken into account.

---

quote:

---

In this scenario, you're saying Bob couldn't have known any better because he was drunk, and that he didn't know any better should be taken into account.

---

quote:

---

You're saying Bob's intentions were good-because he was drunk, and we can't expect him to know any better because to misinterpret things while drunk is just part of the scheme of things.

---

No. I am not saying that. And if you keep insisting that that's my message I'm gunna get angry and call you names and throw poop at your house and deflate your tires!

[ June 06, 2011, 03:08 PM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
 

---

Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I'm gunna get angry and call you names and throw poop at your house and deflate your tires!

---

quote:

---

This is the point I can't seem to get you to understand. It is not because he is drunk that it is taken into account. It is because communication can and will break down, and his was an honest, if preventable mistake, and his was not the only one which lead to this scenario being possible.

---

quote:

---

I have addressed this multiple times. He gets no pass, the consequences are his just as they would be for STDs or pregnancy, this is the last time I'll address this.

---

quote:

---

How is it possible for, say, a serial rapist, who drugs, kidnaps, and tortures his victims to feel his own intentions are pure?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rivka:
Threats again? Not cool, and a violation of the user agreement.

---

Really? I wasn't serious and it should be 100% obvious...but since it apparently wasn't, I added a .
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Boots: yes, as I have said before, that would be very different.
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Then you are excusing Bob because he was drunk.

If Bob has a propensity to rape women (have sex without their consent), then he shouldn't drink. He should plan ahead to make sure he doesn't commit a crime.
 

---

Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
 
How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 
Lets change this up, maybe get on the same page.

Sam and Sue are on a date, they are having a good time. They go back to Sam's house and make out. Sam whispers in Sue's ear, "Can I make love to you?" She says yes, and rips off his cloths.

Halfway through coitus Sue has a stroke, and disparately wants Sam to stop, but is incapable of communicating it. Sam continues to have sex with her for fifteen minutes completely unaware that anything is wrong, but when he discovers it immediately calls 911.

Is it rape?
 

---

Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
 
Answer the question, SW.

How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?

AND

If it's rape when he's sober, then saying it isn't rape because drunk makes being drunk an excuse for comitting a crime. Why do you say that?
 

---

Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
 

quote:

---

How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?

---

quote:

---

Sam and Sue are on a date, they are having a good time. They go back to Sam's house and make out. Sam whispers in Sue's ear, "Can I make love to you?" She says yes, and rips off his cloths.

Halfway through coitus Sue has a stroke, and disparately wants Sam to stop, but is incapable of communicating it. Sam continues to have sex with her for fifteen minutes completely unaware that anything is wrong, but when he discovers it immediately calls 911.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Lets change this up, maybe get on the same page.

Sam and Sue are on a date, they are having a good time. They go back to Sam's house and make out. Sam whispers in Sue's ear, "Can I make love to you?" She says yes, and rips off his cloths.

Halfway through coitus Sue has a stroke, and disparately wants Sam to stop, but is incapable of communicating it. Sam continues to have sex with her for fifteen minutes completely unaware that anything is wrong, but when he discovers it immediately calls 911.

Is it rape?

---

quote:

---

I wonder, if a stone sober woman took a sloppy drunk guy back to her place and sexed him up, would it be considered rape?

If you reversed the genders in the above statement, would it be rape?

---

quote:

---

I don't see the disparity in wanting Sam to stop.

---

quote:

---

I wonder, if a stone sober woman took a sloppy drunk guy back to her place and sexed him up, would it be considered rape?

---

quote:

---

...one crafted specifically to make your point and not so much to reflect likely real-world scenarios.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Answer the question, SW.

How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?

---

quote:

---

You guys can't get passed the point that Bob's drunkenness was a factor, but won't hold Olivia's drunkenness as anything but more reason that Bob needs to be held even more accountable.

---

quote:

---

The Sam Scenario isn't me proving a point, it's a thought exercise for discussion. Exactly what point am I trying to prove?

---

quote:

---

Here is a scenario which consent has been given, but in which consent is wished to be removed, but unable to do so. Similar to Bob, but not the same.

---

quote:

---

Please define nonverbal, non-explicit consent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I wonder, if a stone sober woman took a sloppy drunk guy back to her place and sexed him up, would it be considered rape?

If you reversed the genders in the above statement, would it be rape?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Boots: yes, as I have said before, that would be very different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Answer the question, SW.

---

quote:

---

How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?

---

quote:

---

If it's rape when he's sober, then saying it isn't rape because drunk makes being drunk an excuse for committing a crime. Why do you say that?

---

quote:

---

How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?

---

quote:

---

I think it is just obvious to all present that we disagree about the use of the word "rape" although, not too much other stuff.

---

quote:

---

Why do you not agree with the use of the word "rape"?

---

quote:

---

If I were raped by someone I trusted who took advantage of my inability to say no, the hurt done to me happens regardless of whether or not he considers himself a bad guy.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
mph, how do you feel about "statutory rape"?

---

Heh. That sounds like a loaded question.

Despite the technical meaning of the words, I don't think I've ever heard that phrase used exept to describe having sex with somebody that is too young.
 

---

Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
 

quote:

---

What is the point of this? It seems like you're trying to find any excuse to avoid Bob having comitted rape. How does that relate?

---

quote:

---

For the comparison to murder, death can happen a lot of ways that don't involve pulling a trigger on a gun you know is loaded that is pointed at someone's head. That's why there are more shades.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

If I were raped by someone I trusted who took advantage of my inability to say no, the hurt done to me happens regardless of whether or not he considers himself a bad guy.

---

Do you imagine that there would be any difference in the harm done if he did it purposely and maliciously?

---

quote:

---

Therefore, if a victim has been raped, the person who did it has committed rape and is a rapist. You can't say its the wrong word to use just because it makes you uncomfortable, its the legal term for any sort of unconsenting intercourse.

---

quote:

---

its the legal term for any sort of unconsenting intercourse.

---

quote:

---

Rape
Definition - Transitive Verb
[Latin rapere to seize and take away by force]
: to commit rape on

Definition - Noun
: unlawful sexual activity and usu. sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usu. of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness, or deception
see also statutory rape
The common-law crime of rape involved a man having carnal knowledge of a woman not his wife through force and against her will, and required at least slight penetration of the penis into the vagina. While some states maintain essentially this definition of rape, most have broadened its scope esp. in terms of the sex of the persons and the nature of the acts involved. Marital status is usu. irrelevant. Moreover, the crime is codified under various names, including first degree sexual assault sexual battery unlawful sexual intercourse, and first degree sexual abuse.

---

quote:

---

The victim has undeniably BEEN raped, regardless of the intentions of the other party

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:

quote:

---

The victim has undeniably BEEN raped, regardless of the intentions of the other party

---

There's the rub -- depending on the circumstances, it's neither obvious nor undeniable.

---

quote:

---

A drunk driver's intentions don't make someone any less dead.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

quote:

---

A drunk driver's intentions don't make someone any less dead.

---

It does, if the drunk is trying to kill someone vs accidentally killing people, both legally and morally. In both cases, someone ends up dead, but only in one is someone murdered.

---

quote:

---

please tell me how the woman in this example does not fit the definition of rape? She she did not consent to intercourse, did not WANT intercourse but it happened anyway. How is that not rape? What is the proper term for it?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
There is no previous act which in my book counts as prior consent (other then maybe saying "When we get back to my place, let's have sex." and even that could be revoked instantly).

That being said, I think it legitimate in most cases that couples have sex without overt, verbal consent. In cases where judgment is impaired, such as alcohol and drugs are involved, it is a very very good idea to get explicit verbal consent.

Now, here's what I think should happen to Bob: he should be charged with the misdemeanor crime "Sexual Misconduct" which carries with it a suspended sentence of ten years and a non-suspended sentence of 100 hours of community service and having to pay for 100 hours of therapy for the victim, Olivia.

The suspended ten years stay suspended over his head for the next ten years and if during that time he has zero sex related charges to which he is found guilty, are removed. If he is found guilty of any sexual related charges during those ten years, those suspended ten years are added to his other sentence, as well as any further sexually related charges become felonies if they were not before.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Wanting to water down the word seems like minimizing or lessening the hurt done to the woman who did not consent to sex and was forced to have it anyway.

---

quote:

---

I HATE that apparently many men expect sex unless the woman opts out.

---

quote:

---

I hate even more that some men hear someone opting out and think the woman is being "coy" or take it as a challenge.

---

quote:

---

How much would it change things if the girl who didn't consent and didn't speak up when things were happening were conscious and in full control of her faculties?

---

quote:

---

Ugh, semantics arguments.

---

quote:

---

How is that not rape? What is the proper term for it?

---

You're seeing semantic arguments because you're asking semantic questions.

It all comes down to "what does the word rape mean"? You talk about "the" definition of rape, but it has different definitions in different people's lexicons.

As I've said before, I'm not entirely comfortable using the word rape (unmodified by by terms such as 'statutory' or 'legal') to describe any and all unwanted intercourse, just like I'd be uncomfortable using murder or killing to describe any and all traumatic death caused by the actions of another person. To me, all three words involve a certain degree of volition.

I haven't objected to anybody using the term that way, because I know it's very common. And I don't have a better term, except for including qualifiers such as the ones I mentioned above.
 

---

Posted by shadowland (Member # 12366) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Misha McBride:
If a person has intercourse with another person who has not consented, they have been raped.

---

quote:

---

Given this, I don't really have an issue with the more agressive party subtly signaling what they want to happen and interpreting a non-negative response as consent.

---

quote:

---

And at least one guy in this thread thinks he would have been doing me a favor.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Thank heavens I wasn't drinking. Looks like if I were, some people here would be blaming me if I got raped. In fact, they wouldn't even call it rape. Because that's a BAD thing. And at least one guy in this thread thinks he would have been doing me a favor.

---

quote:

---

Thank heavens I wasn't drinking. Looks like if I were, some people here would be blaming me if I got raped.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
I do.

---

quote:

---

Kat, I think (hope) that you have had exceedingly bad luck with getting so many cavemen, and that most women do not have to deal with as many a-holes as you have had to deal with.

Correct me if I'm wrong here ladies.

---

quote:

---

I'm saying it isn't that the men I've encountered have been especially bad. They weren't. They were normal. I'm saying that the normal sucks, and that needs to change.

---

quote:

---

Do you get what situation is created by not getting verbal consent? Expecting the woman to stop you if it goes too far = "Let me know when I'm raping you."

---

quote:

---

If the guy is perceptive and patient and appropriate, then it can be a natural and harmonic experience where you feel you belong and you are safe, and comfortable.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shadowland:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Misha McBride:
If a person has intercourse with another person who has not consented, they have been raped.

---

Consider the following statements:

1. Does not consent
2. Unable to give consent
3. Has not expressly given consent

These are all very similar statements, yet they are subtly different. I would consider the first statement to always involve rape. The second would as well, except with certain exceptions, like minors that are technically unable to give consent in certain situations.. The third statement would only be rape if sex is unwanted, which isn't always the case.

---

quote:

---

I know I for one do not believe that alcohol relieves all responsibility sexually. Bob's case is extreme, specifically stretched so we may evaluate our morals when at the fringe of possibility. Throughout this whole discussion I and others have always maintained that no means no, 100%, and that nonverbal nonexplicit consent (while the norm) can be a dangerous assumption, with very negative consequences.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Boots...you are talking to the wrong guy. I don't drink (never really did) and I don't date (never really did) and I don't sex up anyone but my wife (never really did) and certainly don't sex up people where there is even a chance of it being considered rape with or without explicit verbal consent (never really did).

I've never hooked up (or wanted to) with someone I didn't know, or just met, or had only gone on a couple dates with. I like to actually know (and like, or better) the people I have sex with.

So, please don't make this about me.

I'm really sorry to hear that that is what you both think of as common. I hope that it isn't true.

---

quote:

---

For us guys who would rather chop off their willy with a rusty tuna can lid then rape someone, the idea that you could rape someone because of a misunderstanding (that is, without intent) is very scary and therefore rejected.

---

quote:

---

I'm really sorry to hear that that is what you both think of as common. I hope that it isn't true.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Rabbit, are your "you" genderless everyone or aimed at men?

---

quote:

---

the idea that you could rape someone because of a misunderstanding (that is, without intent) is very scary and therefore rejected.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Rabbit:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Rabbit, are your "you" genderless everyone or aimed at men?

---

I meant, you, whoever you are regardless of gender. We are all morally responsible to make sure our sex partners are genuinely consenting.

Although, frankly, there are numerous biological reasons why men and women simply aren't equal in this equation and its sort of silly to pretend they are. A woman is simply far less likely to be able to have sex with a man who isn't consenting. Its not impossible, just a lot less likely.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Destineer:
I wonder if the percentage of bad actors varies with age. Kat, what age range of dudes have you had this problem with? Did you notice it less or more at an earlier age?

I suppose I'd expect that as the age range gets older, more of the chivalrous guys will have gotten married or coupled up, and the percentage of sleaze will commensurately increase.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:

quote:

---

the idea that you could rape someone because of a misunderstanding (that is, without intent) is very scary and therefore rejected.

---

I know why this bothers me. The idea is scary, and therefore the assertion is rejected. As opposed to, the idea is scary, and therefore "normal" modes of operations are modified to avoid it.

---

quote:

---

Did I miss any major points on the Bob scenario?

---

quote:

---

I guess what many of us are saying is that "you" are, when ever you are engaging in sex by free choice, its your responsibility to make sure the other party is truly consenting.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Destineer:
I wonder if the percentage of bad actors varies with age. Kat, what age range of dudes have you had this problem with? Did you notice it less or more at an earlier age?

I suppose I'd expect that as the age range gets older, more of the chivalrous guys will have gotten married or coupled up, and the percentage of sleaze will commensurately increase.

---

I have not found this to be the case. At my age, though, I am often dating men who are divorced and who have learned a bit about women and are somewhat less driven by their hormones than they were 20 or 30 years earlier.

---

quote:

---

...yet, for whatever reasons he is sticking to the example...

---

quote:

---

Rakeesh...as long as you believe you understand what I think better then I do...

---

quote:

---

As to what I said I was afraid of...it isn't false accusation. It's the possibility that you can perpetrate a rape by accident, that you could rape someone and not know it.

---

quote:

---

It is disheartening to hear how common rape is. I'm sorry that that is true and would happily kill every single rapist in the world if I knew who they were with certainty.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Bob was one scenario out of six or seven I made. But everyone wants to talk about Bob, so there ya go. I'd rather talk about Brian.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:

In other words, change things like social expectations and the way we react to sex in the gray areas.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
It is disheartening to hear how common rape is. I'm sorry that that is true and would happily kill every single rapist in the world if I knew who they were with certainty.

---

quote:

---

A crime requires the intent to do the deed (penetrate a woman without her consent)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Now THAT'S where we disagree. A crime requires the intent to do the deed (penetrate a woman without her consent), not the intent to the deed while waving the "I'm a Bad Guy and I Love It" flag.

If you steal someone's car, whether you do so while flying the Jolly Roger is irrelevant.

---

quote:

---

Second-degree murder is ordinarily defined as 1) an intentional killing that is not premeditated or planned, nor committed in a reasonable "heat of passion" or 2) a killing caused by dangerous conduct and the offender's obvious lack of concern for human life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I think Olivia felt raped and was no question violated sexually against her wishes through a very unfortunate misunderstanding which could have been prevented both by her and Bob in many ways.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Rabbit, I don't think that people are just bad or good. I think we all are bad AND good. But that some of the decisions we make define who we are in the way the world sees us.

---

quote:

---

Kat, in most cases, yes, absolutely, in this one, not as much.

---

quote:

---

how the individuals involved should modify their behavior to avoid similar situations in the future

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Shadow, why do you think Bob is closer to a violent rapist then a minor misdemeanor?

---

quote:

---

I'm not mad, I'm perfectly calm when I tell you to bite me. I'm okay with the idea that you would rather think me dishonest then question your understanding of my words.

---

quote:

---

You like to think you are on the same side as Kat probably, but she is calling for strict explicit verbal consent, something which you have said repeatedly isn't going to happen.

---

quote:

---

Without intent, there can still be sexual misconduct, but it is in my book not legally or morally rape.

---

quote:

---

I think Stone Wolf has made a lot of adjustments to the way he views things during this discussion, and probably analyzed things more thoroughly than he had before. This is a good thing. But instead of acknowledging any of this, you keep trying to emphasize the point that he is part of the problem or trying to force some type of concession out of him. I'm not sure that this is the most productive way to go about it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shadowland:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Shadow, why do you think Bob is closer to a violent rapist then a minor misdemeanor?

---

I personally define rape loosely as "sex when it is unwanted." I think this should always be punished fairly severely and never as a misdemeanor. Under that definition, what happened to Olivia was rape. I'm OK with certain types of rape being punished more severely, but the only thing that I think should warrant a less severe punishment is when there are ambiguities regarding whether it was wanted or not, ambiguities not on the part of the perpetrator but on the victim.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Moral of the Story: Women are not responsible for men's perceptions. They can be massively wrong, and it isn't an excuse. Get verbal consent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Because he was drunk, and drunk guys get a pass when they commit a crime. Apparently

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Kettricken:
Some of the statments have seemed to imply that women need to be protected from themselves and it is the mans job to do that. NO the man shouldn't force himself on someone who can't say no, but if she is actively involved then it is her responsibility as well.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
You like to think you are on the same side as Kat probably...

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
OMG! Telling me what I like to think? You bastard!

See how tedious that is?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Even by the link you brought into the conversation, legally it can be rape without intent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by katharina:
Moral of the Story: Women are not responsible for men's perceptions. They can be massively wrong, and it isn't an excuse. Get verbal consent.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by shadowland:
I think there are a lot of distinctions to be made between types of rape, consent, and intentions. Some of these play a more important role than others, but I think it's very useful to acknowledge these distinctions so that they can be addressed more appropriately and efficiently. Trying to lump everything under the umbrella term of 'rape' is, imo, an obstacle to making any progress on the issue.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Misha McBride:
I'm honestly not comfortable with the idea of sharing a painful experience here in front of people who might decide I brought it on myself because I'd been drinking, or trivialize it because the guy didn't think he was doing anything wrong.

---

quote:

---

This in and of itself is not consent, but minus an opt out as things progress, it seems reasonable to me that it is consent under normal circumstances.

---

quote:

---

A major problem with your view of the definition of rape Kat is that it doesn't take into consideration if the person wants sex.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Olivia was participating in sexual activities, willingly, before her situation changed (intoxication level, ability to participate), not actual intercourse, but sexual activities involving genitals. This in and of itself is not consent, but minus an opt out as things progress, it seems reasonable to me that it is consent under normal circumstances.

---

quote:

---

always getting explicit verbal consent is simple and effective and not even a mood breaker if done correctly. It just isn't always what realistically happens.

---

quote:

---

This actually makes me want to hurl. Because it says that even if a woman doesn't consent, it isn't rape if she SECRETLY wants it.

---

quote:

---

You are still giving Bob a pass. I see you've massively amended the Bob and Olivia scenario from what you originally proposed to make it less obvious, but you're still excusing Bob.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
What system did they have in the 80s?

---

quote:

---

Even under the amended scenario, you are saying that heavy petting = consent for sex, even between strangers.

---

quote:

---

This in and of itself is not consent, but minus an opt out as things progress, it seems reasonable to me that it is consent under normal circumstances.

---

quote:

---

I also haven't changed the original scenario one bit, just went into detail. Petting was part of the original scenario, a fact that seems to get glossed over, so I pointed it out graphically so it would stick.

---

quote:

---

So it isn't consent, but it changes the situation from opt in to opt out? No.

I understand you perfectly. It's making me sick to my stomach.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
No, it doesn't, I said it seems reasonable under normal circumstances.

Drinking as they did isn't normal circumstances! Which is why I say Bob is charged with a crime.

---

quote:

---

Under your rules, if a woman wants sex and lets her man know in nonexplicit nonverbal ways that it's okay, then it's still rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Kat: I already knew I wouldn't change your mind, but I had hoped you could at least understand where I am coming from, even if you disagree.

I concede failure.

---

quote:

---

One in every six American women will be sexually assaulted in her lifetime. I bet you don’t think you know any rapists, but consider the sheer number of rapes that must occur. These rapes are not all committed by Phillip Garrido, Brian David Mitchell, or other members of the Brotherhood of Scary Hair and Homemade Religion. While you may assume that none of the men you know are rapists, I can assure you that at least one is. Consider: if every rapist commits an average of ten rapes (a horrifying number, isn’t it?) then the concentration of rapists in the population is still a little over one in sixty. That means four in my graduating class in high school. One among my coworkers. One in the subway car at rush hour. Eleven who work out at my gym.

---

quote:

---

This isn't some esoteric debate; it is a real problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
Goodness, Jeff. You don't see how it is important to resolve how not to risk raping people? This isn't some esoteric debate; it is a real problem. And likely a big part of the reason that the military has to have such strict rules. And that, even so, the rate of sexual assault in the military is horrifying.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Could you please address this point Kat:

quote:

---

Under your rules, if a woman wants sex and lets her man know in nonexplicit nonverbal ways that it's okay, then it's still rape.

---

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Could you please address this point Kat:

quote:

---

Under your rules, if a woman wants sex and lets her man know in nonexplicit nonverbal ways that it's okay, then it's still rape.

---

---

quote:

---

Then tell me why you think rape is only rape if the man intends it to be rape.

---

quote:

---

Depending on how subtle the signal, it may
not even be interpreted as an invitation to sex.

---

quote:

---

I was forced to have both a sex and religion conversation on a FIRST DATE.

---

quote:

---

I think much of the hand wringing over what terms should be used misses the more important question of how the individuals involved should modify their behavior to avoid similar situations in the future and what role society has in encouraging these behavior modifications and dissuading others from making similar mistakes.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
"All women say no at first."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Boots...got ya...I see where the problem is. All those things you just described in my book are 100% rape.

Where I see the Bob scenario (and my stance about intent) as different is Bob thought he had legitimate consent.

---

quote:

---

Anyway, in the hope that you'll answer a direct statement (or maybe someone else can say the same thing, and *then* you'll answer): that misunderstanding is what made it rape. He thought she consented. She didn't. It led directly to him having sex with her without her consent-rape.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

quote:

---

Anyway, in the hope that you'll answer a direct statement (or maybe someone else can say the same thing, and *then* you'll answer): that misunderstanding is what made it rape. He thought she consented. She didn't. It led directly to him having sex with her without her consent-rape.

---

So you think he should be charged with the felony crime rape? Or simply that Olivia was raped, and Bob is not a rapist, but should be changed with a lessor offense?

---

quote:

---

Not some doublespeak nonsense like 'sexual misconduct' or 'unwelcome sex' or some other 'Bob ain't so bad because he didn't beat her bloody' euphemism. Not so it sounds like he groped her or something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Parkour:
You think we can fit that in even in parts of the us that are still struggling to evolve beyond abstinence only sex education or is that wishful thinking?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
It is difficult to teach how to properly do something while simultaneously teaching that you shouldn't be doing it in the first place.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
SW, all those guys in the examples I gave were as shocked as Ben that sex was unwelcome.

I suggested sexual assaut. In some places this can mean things that fall short of penetration. How about aggravated sexual assault?

---

quote:

---

I know it would be a cultural shift that made a lot of people uncomfortable, but the current culture is pretty uncomfortable and down right weird at times. The idea that you have to ask a person on a date but you have to rely on non-verbal signal to know if its OK to touch them is just weird.

---

quote:

---

"I didn't rape her. She was just lying there. She didn't stop me."
"That wasn't rape. She was just pretending."
"Rape? Dressed like that, you know she wanted it. "
"The pills were just to loosen her up a little."
"All women say no at first."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I think the false premise for Bob is "I'm sober enough to delineate between groans of pleasure and drunken protests."

---

quote:

---

It's easy to lie to yourself when someone isn't crying and thrashing and begging you to stop.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
I'm saying that he is liable for his actions and would never have made the mistake he did if he were sober. The prerequisite for the the mistake that was made is that they both are stupid drunk, but that isn't why he gets a lessor charge. He gets a lessor charge because his intention was to get consent, and it was only a mistake that he thought he had consent. The reason he is charged is because that isn't good enough, no by a long shot.

---

quote:

---

So when you put the obligation on the woman to physically resist, you're adding to the danger of the encounter and making it an "opt out" situation again.

---

quote:

---

So you are saying that Bob should be held less responsible for his actions because he was drunk.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

quote:

---

So you are saying that Bob should be held less responsible for his actions because he was drunk.

---

Nope. When having sex with a drunken partner, a sober person should be held to a higher level of accountability.

When both parties are drunk it is a different situation.

---

quote:

---

Holding a sober person to a higher level of accountability is exactly the same as holding a drunk person less responsible.

---

quote:

---

To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:

quote:

---

So you are saying that Bob should be held less responsible for his actions because he was drunk.

---

Nope. When having sex with a drunken partner, a sober person should be held to a higher level of accountability.

When both parties are drunk it is a different situation.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by kmbboots:
But if Bob's drunkenness does mean that we hold him less responsible all a potential Bob needs to do is get drunk if he isn't sure of getting consent. "Gee, Judge, I didn't know that she didn't want me to have sex with her because I was plastered." That is a dangerous road.

---