I think it has to do with the state being the enforcer in the area of question.
Driving a car is done in the public and requires careful attention because fatal accidents to the driver and bi-standards can be very easy. Contracts can be binding for a lifetime and can have life altering effect which the law is obligated to enforce.
Sex can lead to disease, children, rape, big emotional changes etc, but all those repercussions fall into the "personal" category.
The state maintains roads, driver's licenses and public safety rules and regs. The state (courts and police) enforce contracts. The state does not tell you when you can and can not have children or sex (once majority is reached, and beyond public nudity laws).
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.
No analogy can be perfect, but I stand by this one. Drunken sex (especially with a partner not in a long standing relationship) is dangerous, and some people find it fun, just like playing with a loaded gun. And just like playing with a loaded gun, you can do it many times without any negative repercussions.
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf, Are you saying that its always clear whether what took place was consensual sex or rape?
Are you saying there is never a case where date rape might be mistaken for consensual drunken sex (or vise versa)?
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?
Because what I and other saying is that it isn't always clear cut what happened, particularly when both people are drunk.
[ June 02, 2011, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Are you saying that its always clear whether what took place was consensual sex or rape?
Nope.
quote:Are you saying there is never a case where date rape might be mistaken for consensual drunken sex (or vise versa)?
Nope.
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?
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Drunken sex does not always involve risk. But I think my point is being shot or not does not rely on a person's perspective, and sometimes teh rape issue does.
That's semantics, though. I think we agree, more or less, from a personal perspective. I wouldn't have sex with anyone other than my partner of *mumble, mumble* years and tend to have a negative (and rather quick) reaction to too much alcohol, so for me personally, it's entirely academic. From an entirely academic perspective, it does seem like a bad idea to me.
I do not (and in some instances [/i]cannot[/i]) comprehend all the subjective experiences and feelings that lead to other people's choices, but it has been clearly demonstrated to me that two people can experience the same event very differently.
So, even using your analogy, it is totally possible for one person to be shot the other person be certain they didn't they shoot them. Only in the case of the shooting the evidence would be clear cut (bloody hole in one person, powder residue on the other's hand) and in the case of date rape they physical evidence would likely be exactly the same.
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). But I think, from an evidentiary standpoint as well as a subjective experience standpoint, there is some fuzzy middle ground between "Yay! Drunken sex!" and someone raping an unconscious person/person with significantly diminished capacity to resist.
I'm not attempting to convince you/argue with you, just to understand exactly what it is that you're asserting.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, but it could be just as likely that the rapist is too drunk to care/notice that his date is resisting. You are definitely using blame language there unreservedly for the female. Which more or less tells me all I cared to know. Thanks.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Jeff - Nalo Hopkinson (a totally fabu writer of sf/f who once was very encouraging to me when I really needed it - not that I think she'd remember me, but I follow her career avidly on account of it) just tweeted a very interesting link. ( http://anytimeyoga.wordpress.com/2011/06/02/i-wouldnt-do-anything-differently/ ) It's something of a paradigm shift -- taking ownership of freedoms and putting blame where it belongs in direct defiance of rape culture norms. While I don't believe it will convert the trogs (and really, have no expectation that they will even understand the concept), I found it inspiring.
I have little faith that the world will change significantly in my lifetime, to be honest. Then again, if someone had told me 10 years ago that we would have a black president with the middle name Hussein by 2008, I would have thought they were on drugs. So you never know.
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.)
No one said anything about non-consenting sex. So, with consent, there is no "aggressor". I would hope both parties would learn that having drunken sex with people you don't know very well can lead to hurt feelings, accusations (true or untrue), police involvement, STDs, pregnancy, social condemnation, PTSD, body image problems etc etc etc.
The lesson is not to do it.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok-my question in a slightly different way is, "Why is sexuality when it involves rape a *private* concern?" When a rape happens...doesn't it stop being a private concern?
In other words, the answer you're referring to doesn't really answer my question unless you think being raped is something one should have to just deal with...because sometimes sex leads to rape.
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.
Theres some pronouns that aren't so gender-neutral for one. 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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Lemme try asking the question in still a different way: if she says, "Please stop!" why does it *matter* what he hears regarding whether or not it's a rape? Once she says that, and it continues, isn't it a rape by definition?
Major intoxication might be a mitigating factor, but rape doesn't hinge on the intent of the aggressor, or even if he doesn't realize he *is* an aggressor. Isn't it (or oughtn't it be?) a question only of when one person is forced into sex by another?
If someone is drunk, and they drive and hit another motorist who was also drunk, the first guy didn't not have an accident because the second was also drunk.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:"Why is sexuality when it involves rape a *private* concern?"
I never said anything like this. If someone is raped, they should involve the police immediately.
You seem to be having a separate and different discussion in the middle of this one, and I do not know how to make it clear to you that I am talking about drunken consensual sex.
quote:Theres some pronouns that aren't so gender-neutral for one.
Both my and Olivet's (correct me if I'm wrong here Olivet) comments were aimed at my next post (the one with the gender neutral pronouns), not the one you quoted.
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.
I challenge you to show where I suggested this at all. I think you'll find that if you read carefully enough, you will find that it was your misreading and not my words that said anything of the sort.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf, I think the difficulty here is that we are talking about the fact that it isn't clear how to tell the difference between drunken consensual sex and rape. We are looking at the grey area. Sure, if you have consented and later regret it for whatever reason, that is a lesson to be learned. But if you were not capable of consent that is another thing. Getting that drunk in the company of another person is stupid but does not imply consent.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
ETA: My name is Jeff-she didn't mean Jeff C or anybody.
...alright. So none of your posts are connected to each other at all? I'm sorry if I'm misunderstanding you, but you're kind of all over the place here. Example:
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."
Possibly wrongfully accused and wrongfully thinking they were raped. How can it be both at once? If someone says, "Please stop!" How is it that she only perhaps *thinks* she was raped? And those are bits taken from the same post, mind.
Also is the concluding line that suggests a different *kind* of rape, the sober and deliberate targeting kind of rape.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
posted
The first part of that quote is my answering this question:
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?
The second part of that quote is my explaining my analogy of drunken sex mishaps and rape.
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?
Someone says one thing while near passout drunk and wakes up not remembering saying it, feeling raped as they do not remember consenting.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Say Frank and Mary met at a party. They are halfway to the wind, they find a couch and make out and drink. Mary looses the ability to do anything but groan and so forth. Frank gets up and leaves because he has to be at work early. Mary comes to, sore, with her panties on the floor.
Is that rape? The only difference between the two scenarios is location and Bob being a romantic.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally I'd say no to both. I'd say that both Bob and Frank owe their lady friends an explanation and an apology, and that it was a very unfortunate misunderstanding. But should Bob and Frank go to jail and be forever branded with the title of "sex offender/rapist"? I'd say no.
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.
Bob may have shown poor judgment, but so did Mary and Olivia. Frank is a bastard, but not a rapist.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if both women stated earlier in the evening that they did not wish to have sex. Does that change your assessment?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
What if there was not a conversation either way - no discussion of sex at all. Does that make a difference?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What makes Frank more of a "bastard" than Bob? That he doesn't cook? 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? What if the making out beforehand had been only kissing?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
You're saying that sex is the default? That it is "opt out" rather than "opt in"? The assumption is that all women are open for sex unless explicitly saying no?
I'm serious. In the scenarios above, where you said a "No sex tonight" makes it rape, what is it when there is no discussion?
Where, exactly, do you see the consent for sex? Because the women were drinking? Because they talked to the men? Rape is sex without consent. Where, exactly, is the consent?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:What makes Frank more of a "bastard" than Bob?
To leave a girl on a couch with no panties and no note or way of getting in touch is bastardly. Bob is planning on greeting Olivia in the morning and spending time with her, not abandoning her in an unfamiliar place.
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?
Then Bob is also a bastard, and possibly a rapist. It depends on if Olivia knows/approves of Bob's bar tending.
quote:What if the making out beforehand had been only kissing?
Doesn't change things much as Bob is mistaking Olivia's drunken moans/arm movements for enthusiasm and active participation.
quote:Which is what?
My previous response is 7 posts up at 9:04 am.
quote:You're saying that sex is the default? That it is "opt out" rather than "opt in"?
The default is definitely not sex, there is no default, it is different for each couple each time. If the women "opted out" then they have added another level of necessary precaution, "You said before you didn't want this, but it seems like you do now, is that true?"
quote:The assumption is that all women are open for sex unless explicitly saying no?
In this made up scenario, Bob/Frank misinterpret drunken moans/arm lifting for participation/enjoyment. It seems reasonable that a person would be able to make their wishes known, and stop any such things before they got too far. In this scenario, the women are not able to do so, and the men do not understand that and believe the women are willing/active participants.
Perhaps it is a good idea to always seek explicit consent, but it sure can be a mood breaker, and in my experience isn't always going to happen that way.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In this made up scenario, Bob/Frank misinterpret drunken moans/arm lifting for participation/enjoymen
The point of calling this "rape" instead of a "misunderstanding" is that, by making it a big deal, you create a strong incentive for people NOT to make this mistake. Because the consequences for the misunderstanding can be awful.
I'm not sure whether it's a good idea to call it the same word you use for deliberate, manipulative and/or forceful rape. I definitely see a difference between accidentally getting drunk and doing something bad, and deliberately taking advantage of someone.
The question is: which produces a better world - the one where we err on the side of caution for rape victims, in which some innocent men have their reputation tarnished, or when we err on the side of caution for men's reputation, where some innocent women are violated? I don't know the answer to that question. But it seems to be a question that CAN be answered, by interviewing people in a systematic way.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:In this made up scenario, Bob/Frank misinterpret drunken moans/arm lifting for participation/enjoyment.
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.
It's that assumption of implied consent. It's that assumption that a woman wants to have sex with him unless she definitely says no, and if she does say no, then has to say no over, over, and over again, otherwise she really means yes.
Someone that entitled and predatory is a rapist when he has a sex with a woman without her consent.
If that seems hard, then men who demand repeated "no's" to erase their assumption that women are open for xes shouldn't drink lest they accidentally rape someone. Because they are guilty when they do. Drinking and then driving is prosecutable - assuming women are open for sex unless they say no over and over again is as well, and it should be.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rape is sex without consent. If she doesn't give consent, assuming consent is not an excuse. It's still rape.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
If one person is drunk to the point of nearly being unconscious or says 'no' even once, then yeah, that's easy to call rape. 'Obviously completely drunk,' though, can sometimes be difficult to tell. It is not uncommon for people to act and appear more sober than they actually are.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
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.
Scenario A: A man stalks and kidnaps a woman he knows from work, takes her to a secluded place that he prepared especially for this with restraints and sound proofing and then physically forces sex on her.
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.
By your rules, both men are rapists. Should they both be treated the same way by the law? What should their punishment be, and should it be the same in both cases?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scenario C: A man and woman hook up at a bar and drink together and then make out, during which time the woman says to the man "I want you.", but sometime during sex becomes incapable through intoxication to communicate she wish to stop but is not unconscious and the man unknowingly continues to have sex with her mistakenly thinking she is a willing participant.
posted
Yes, both are rapists. *shrug* How much jail time? So much depends. Both registered sex offenders? Absolutely.
Sex is not "opt out". The default is "no", not "yes." If you assume the default is "yes" and have sex with someone without an explicit consent, then it is rape.
That this is hard to hear is an indictment of how women are not respected. You can't use her body without her consent. There's no scenario where it is okay, and it's a crime. Legal repercussions and placement on lists is appropriate.
Get consent beforehand. It's not that hard. If she doesn't want you when she's sober, then don't have sex with her.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone would say they're equivalent, since it sounds like there's at least one additional crime in the first scenario that doesn't necessarily exist in the other: kidnapping.
Anyway, what do *you* think about the second one in light of what's been said concerning women not being required to opt-out of sex? She summed things up quite nicely I think, though since I agree I'm biased of course.
The question is, in the second one, does drinking together in a bar and then making out count as opting in for sex? 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.
Is she required, specifically, to *withdraw* consent after having a couple of drinks and kissing, else it's considered granted?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
As in "involuntary manslaughter" or as in, "I'm so sorry we were both in this accident where no one was at fault"?
Because there is no such legal thing as an accidental killing. Involuntary manslaughter, yes, accidental killing, no.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think part of the whole point of "involuntary manslaughter" is that fault is being assigned. It's saying, "this person is dead, and you're at least partly to blame, but we recognize that you didn't intend for that to happen."
It seems to me that there's ample room for a distinction between intentional and unintentional rape in that scenario.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, I'm sorry, Kat; I misunderstood your question; I assumed you were using "or" as "i.e" there, not as an indicator of two alternatives. Of those two, I'd rather have it far closer to the involuntary manslaughter concept, albeit with a fairly wide range of possible penalties. The only thing I think that complicates matters there is the tendency in some places for people found guilty of rape to be classified as "sex offenders;" I'd want that possibility to be explicitly excluded here.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
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.
I'd take this scenario a bit further.
A man and woman go to a bar with the intention of likely having sex with someone. They run into each other at the bar and drink together. She likes the guy and thinks that she wants to have sex with him, so she invites him home with her. By the time they get to her place, rational thinking has become clouded and she has lost the ability to make clear judgments, though she is unaware of this at the moment. They begin having sex. At times she takes a more aggressive role. The next morning, the guy wakes up, regrets having come over, and leaves without waking her. A couple hours later, she wakes up, finds him gone, and tries to remember what happened. All she remembers is inviting him home with her, and she sees some evidence of their having slept together. Now that she is able to process what she remembers of the events, she concludes that there is no way she would have actually consented to having sex with him. She calls the police and reports that she was raped.
Is he a rapist, is she the rapist, are they both rapists, or are neither of them?
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by katharina: So, "involuntary rape"? "Accidental" implies no one is at fault. Which did you mean?
It's my (very limited) understanding that in some cases, 'affidentsl' can mean unintended but still at fault. Negligent or something, willful indifference is a term I think I've heard.
I'd be fine with separate degrees. I think it's overdue in fact, long since. Worries about the law requiring people to c&$!-block themselves in a bar notwithstanding.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a lot of grey area - leaving the definition of rape up to the mindset of either the victim or the perpetrator (which is sort of what we have been doing) is messy and leaves people at the mercy of who is more convincing about who thought what. Yet, lumping "accidental" rapists in with intentional rapists doesn't make sense either. Graduated levels of rape make sense.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If you...have sex with someone without an explicit consent, then it is rape.
[sarcasm]I guess I'm a rapist. Damn. My partner at the time didn't think so, I guess I'll have to see if I can find her number and let her know.[/sarcasm]
Or did you mean when drinking is involved?
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.
I don't think we established that at all...I even said the exact opposite a few posts ago.
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?
No, it does not. But here is the rub (no pun intended), then often times explicit verbal consent is not how it goes, things just heat up and both parties are participating and enjoying and things go from there. Sure it is a good idea to get explicit verbal consent, especially when drinking/drugs are involved, but as I pointed out in Scenario C, it doesn't change the reality of the possibility of a misunderstanding leaded to unwelcome sex.
As to the idea of "involuntary sexual acts" or however we are going to name it, that is a great idea. As well as not having a penalty be sex offenderhood. I think a better punishment would be AA and therapy with the victim if they wanted to.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not calling you in particular a rapist. I don't know, and I don't care about you inparticular.
However, there are a lot of women out there who have been date raped, and a whole lot of the men who think the women are big whiners who should have just enjoyed it or should have said "no" a few more times for it to actuall count.
Nobody wants to act like a bad guy, but you know what that means? It means don't assume a woman wants sex unless she actually consents. If you have sex with someone who hasn't given consent, then that's rape. There's no getting around it.
I also like the graduated steps of rape, as long as all of them are crimes. Not "mistakes".
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Darth Mauve, I think involuntary rape makes sense. He (or she) had sex with the victim voluntarily but didn't rape them voluntarily.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
'Unwelcome sex'. What *is* that, exactly, Stone_Wolf?
I mean, on the one hand a woman doesn't have to opt-out of sex. That's not her job. 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.
So now we have a situation where, before a woman gets tipsy with a man, she needs to say clearly, "I'm not going to want to sleep with you," or else barring a clearly-stated 'no' later, she's signed up for the possibility of 'unwelcome sex'.
So women don't need to opt-out generally...just when drinking?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
