posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9293 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
I realize this is a side issue, but where are you getting this from?
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
Leaving the issues with the translation aside, the first case is describing mutually-consenting adultery, and only the second rape.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It was something I remembered from bible study...which must have been when I was a teenager, so awhile go, and clearly remembered wrong.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
OK, here's my question: why isn't it a requirement by your lights to get clear consent - it isn't always going to be verbal - in all cases? It's not hard. If it kills the mood...well, again (and this is a point I've mentioned repeatedly and it hasn't been responded to), serious bidness mood-killers have been implemented before to the point where.
Women are allowed, and likewise men, by responsible social conventions to make their thoughts on things like safe sex methods and birth control clear up front, even before things get hot and heavy. They can do this without shame and if the other party looks askance at killing the mood in such a fashion, socially speaking there's a good chance we'll frown on them for not being responsible. Would you agree with that?
It wasn't always this way. Once, these things were never, ever talked about. We didn't put the social responsibility on anyone's shoulders. Things are different now. There's no reason it cannot be the same for consent...except that we've decided, "Oh, this is embarrassing...and because I might get shot down." (And Stone_Wolf, we're both men-let's not kid ourselves that this is an uncommon attitude. Expedience is, well, often considered a virtue when it comes to persuading a woman into the sack.)
Well, it's time to change again because the truth is, whether you like to admit it or not, until your latest post in the thread where you actually proposed legal penalties for Bob*, your ideas were heavily infused with a dose of 'the woman must opt out of sex; barring that, Bob has license to take things as far as he likes, legally speaking'. It puts the onus on the woman-it suggests that when she does certain things, such as drinking in a bar with a man, unless she specifically says, "No sex!" her consent can be taken as read by a reasonable man.
That's what lay at the heart of the disagreement with your opinions on this topic, I think-though I can only speak for myself. Now it appears you've changed your thoughts, or else we (or at least I) were misunderstanding your thoughts before, because now when Bob just assumes her consent on the basis of kissing and drinking, he gets in trouble.
Not violent kidnapping and violent rape level of trouble, but I don't think you'll find any disagreement (nor has there ever been) that this is reasonable. As with most crimes against people, there are degrees. Bob has a responsibility (legally) to find out if she's consented, not just assume it.
---------------
Olivet,
Thank ya kindly. Though really I'm just parrotin' (that is, i hardly arrived at these conclusions on my own) what I've heard, such as from the link. *shrug* Just makes sense to me. "OK, it may be awkward, but that's life in the NFL."
quote: Instead of indoctrinating women on what not to wear, do or drink and where not to walk...
The thing for me is I'm of two minds on this. I think there should be two conversations goin' on: the one is, "This is what you (hypothetical daughter/niece/etc.) ought to do from a safety standpoint:" and some variation on 'the world and the people in it can be unsafe and really nasty sometimes, so watch out'. But then another conversation quickly following with shades of, "That said, sweetie, I'm tellin' you about this not because 'if it happens it's your fault', but rather 'here are ways to decrease the chance of problems'." Trying to find, if at all possible, a way of divorcing the notion of 'woman's fault unless she gets actually battered', but also, hey-let's try and decrease the chances too while we're at it.
I'm not sure if that makes sense on a Friday night waitin' for mah peeps, but there it is. As for givin' it some thought, well, product of having a sister.
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?
What I'm saying is that a explicit verbal consent isn't always needed, that most of the time the consent will be subtle body language. I'm not saying that consent isn't needed, just that most of the time you won't hear "I give you permission to place your penis into my vagina now." or even "We can do it now."
On the other hand I never tried to sleep with a girl upon meeting her. Through a strange mix of morality, lack of confidence and being taught extensively to be romantic, I usually slowed things down instead of speeding them up. So maybe my experience has skewed my perception.
quote:Now it appears you've changed your thoughts, or else we (or at least I) were misunderstanding your thoughts before
My views haven't changed, so I am glad that it appears I am better able to communicate them.
quote:because now when Bob just assumes her consent on the basis of kissing and drinking, he gets in trouble.
I wasn't saying before that he assumed her consent, but misunderstood (in his drunkenness) her grunting for moans of pleasure.
As to your idea of two conversations, I agree wholeheartedly. I am reminded of Sun Tzu, "...whoever wishes for peace, let him prepare for war."
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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
I've found this thread interesting to read, it's made me muse a bit. I'm especially interested in this concept of "opting in" versus "opting out". I'm a single female and I, as well as many/most women, prefer for the guy to be the more forward person in initiating new romantic situations. If I were in a situation where I know the guy is interested, I want him to kiss me, and he doesn't make a move to kiss me, I think I'd be unlikely to go out with him again. I tend to see guys who wouldn't make a move as passive or cowardly. In other words, I'm intentionally putting myself in an "opt out" versus an "opt in" situation. Obviously kissing isn't sex, but it's the same mentality that is being blamed (and accurately so) in the extremely rare and murky Bob scenario where the guy legitimately feels he has received consent but he has not.
I don't really have a point except that I'm not sure what to make of it at the moment. If we as a society expect for men to be the initiators, how fair is it to blame them when reasonable misunderstandings occur? Is it anti-feminist to expect a guy to make the first overt move?
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When I went out on our first date with the woman who became my wife, it went well, and at the end of date, there was an awkward moment where we both looked at each other and didn't say a word.
Later, talking about that first date, we both said the same thing. In that moment we were both waiting for the other person to kiss us.
I didn't wait for her to make the first move in our next date, I kissed her the second I saw her. Worked out pretty good.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I once was dating a guy who started re-dating his ex-fiance and didn't tell me about it. We weren't exclusive, but that's still important information. Casually dating several and going back to an almost-wife are very different things.
When I found out and asked him why he didn't tell me, he said, "If I had, you would have stopped going out with me."
"If I actually obtain consent, she might say no" is equally disrespectful, only writ large. And since we are talking about using someone's body instead of someone's time and possibly emotions, it's actually a crime.
A real crime, not a slap on the wrist, "we get it; you're a man" kind of crime.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
Stone Wolf, was your future wife conscious at the time? Did you have a reasonable expectation that she was capable of communicating "no" if she had wanted to? Did you use reasonable care in determining her wishes?
posted
There was a post in another forum a while back that I liked. (Warning: some language)
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.
This doesn't seem like a position anybody's defending. If you find this descriptive of the Bob situation, I think that's where the minimal disagreement that exists lies. My understanding of Bob wasn't that he was avoiding gaining consent, but that he misread signals and genuinely felt he had consent. Clearly, if someone is avoiding gaining consent abuse is occurring. But I find the other situation more morally ambiguous and interesting to explore as a thought experiment.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's the *point*, Stone_Wolf! 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!
That he was drunk *might* be mitigation, not exoneration. It's certainly not exoneration for just about anything else serious, even regarding sex! What if Bon didn't use a condom because he forgot to be prepared, and in the drunken moment didn't want to wait-he catches a disease or she gets pregnant. Society doesn't say to Bob, "Well your intentions were good, but you were drunk-no child support for you, Bob!"
Consent, apparently, is different. For some reason that still remains mysterious.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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!
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.
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.
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
Yes, and the reason he was wrong was twofold: he was drunk, and expected her to opt out of sex. Being drunk obviousy isn't an excuse, which only leaves...her being required to opt out. That's the way she doesn't have sex in this scenario, by opting out. The moral onus isn't on Bob to ask if she opts in, but on her to opt out. If she doesn't, well Bob didn't have any bad intentions, after all.
That's the fundamental attitude adjustment that ought to happen among men, and adjust what is expected of men, I believe.
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.
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. (Which seems closer to what's right, in my book obviously.)
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.
I think the judgment of Bob's character might not be as widely varying as you think. 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.
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is only tangentially related, but some of the wording in the article made me think of the same attitude that Olivet argued against in her post.
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.
Nail on head, 100% what I think. I can agree that even having invented Bob and therefore knowing his intentions completely, you sure couldn't know them in a court of law, and would have to side with being more cautious for protecting women when setting up laws.
Which was why when I made up "sexual misconduct" misdemeanor. I made it a very light sentence, to give people the benefit of the doubt, but just in case we are wrong and you are a manipulative raping bastard, here is a stick over your head.
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.
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 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.
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.
I'm really struggling with how to communicate this thought and have written it many times only to delete it and try again...
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.
More to come...must think on exactly what I'm trying to say here.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
If women want explicit verbal consent with zero "opt out" attitude from men, then they need to not reward risky behavior, changing it into bad behavior.
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.
You're entitled to your opinion, of course, but your argument basically amounts to, "We shouldn't say he raped her because it wasn't rape." And in defense of that argument you say 'this is rape'. That's not actually an argument, that's repeating your own personal definition. The reason it's leading you into some difficulty here is that you're still sending some mixed messages. Calling it 'foolishness', for example.
Your stances for who to be careful towards, even in wording, in this particular scenario (that is, 'unwelcome sex' that doesn't involve brutal physical violence or involuntary drugging in cold blood) are pretty different for men than they are for women.
Why do I say that? 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'. We can't call him a rapist for, well, forcing 'unwelcome sex' on her (or 'sexual misconduct'), because he was just being foolish. Maybe he's an actual rapist, but not on these grounds alone.
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'.
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. 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: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.
Bob was behaving badly and behaving riskily. He was behaving badly because he assumed (even though he was drunk) that she had to opt-out of sex. He was behaving riskily because the truth is, as far as facing a cry of rape, it's her decision at that point, in that scenario. She didn't want to have sex with Bob, but that's what happened. Instead of insisting that if she didn't want sex with Bob, she shouldn't have kissed him and had drinks with him...what's the reasoning that we can't say to Bob, "If you don't want to risk being accused of rape, be careful trying to sleep with really drunk women!"
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.
Dude. Women are pushing for it. These things take time. I realize what you're saying here is still under some thought, and that it's a tough question to think about, but again you're putting the onus on women - now as an entire group - to opt-out. You're also speaking as though women are the only determinants for what 'their' culture perceieves as reasonable. The flaws there are several, but high on the list would have to be the assumption that women are monolithic and that men have nothing to do with how women are taught to behave.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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.
The reason it is foolish in my book is that while I believe that explicit verbal consent (see how often this phrase pops up in my replies) is a very very good idea when using substances which effect your perceptions. Most of the time, consent is more subtle, like a game of cat and mouse and can be an enjoyable experience in and of itself.
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'.
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: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'.
The felony crime of rape takes into account the intentions of the accused in our current legal system. Bob was mistaken when he believed that Olivia was enjoying herself and would have said so otherwise (but was unaware she had become unable), and was foolish for not getting explicit consent considering that they were intoxicated. I have never claimed that Olivia didn't feel raped. I posted the definition of rape from legaldictionary.com, and I think that Bob even well meaning, should suffer legal consequences because the system should be set up to defend women.
Must go atm, more to come.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
(emphasis mine)
I don't think you're saying it poorly Stone Wolf and I agree that's the logical conclusion if people want to move away from an "opt out" system. 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. Moving away from that, means that both of those cultural expectations go away.
Expectations for a guy to offer to pay for the first date, to call and make a second date, and to initiate a first kiss feed the cultural norms we're talking about. They would have to be eliminated to remove the root of the "opt-out" mentality- which is guys are the aggressive party and women can accept or reject as they please. I do not see a truly widespread movement trying to do that. I'm not even sure that's biologically realistic- aren't most male mammals more aggressive than their female counterparts?
I wonder if pushing for the elimination of guys as the aggressive party (or the women "opt-out" mentality) is realistic. If it's not realistic, it's not going to prevent rapes.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
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'.
I see where we differ. You say he is a rapist because he didn't get consent. I see your point, but I don't think the "opt in" "opt out" concept goes so far as to make someone a rapist. The Bob scenario a very very strange case, as it is nearly impossible to drink yourself to the point of being incapable of communication but not passing out. 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. I don't expect to change any minds about how you all see this scenario, but I do want to try and my position clear.
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.
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: 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.
No beatings required. For instance, if Olivia had passed out and Bob sex her anyway, then I'd say it's 100% rape. 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: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.
(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:So bad behavior is always punished and good behavior is always rewarded?
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: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.
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
I'm really not sure why you keep bringing up the voluntary drinking. The drinking in that scenario was voluntary. The sex was not. That's why it's rape. Pretty straightforward. A drunk driver doesn't intend, in his drunkenness, to plow his truck into a telephone pole at 35mph but his car is nonetheless wrecked. His intent is different, but the outcome is not.
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: 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.
I'll take you at your word that you don't feel opting-out is the way it should be, but it really sounds like you do for one simple reason: at nearly every step 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.
Well, it's not the way it is by default. I'm not the only man who doesn't think women opt-in by default once they've had a drink. Other men feel that way too, and as for the rest? If we start *expecting* otherwise, we'll get it. These assumptions aren't intrinsic. A hundred years ago, women couldn't Be trusted with a franchise. It was just the way things were. But that was a long time ago.
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.
It wasn't reasonable. In your scenario, the *only* reason you claim it's reasonable is because Bob was drunk. 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:(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.
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: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.
This has been explained too, 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. You're the one who tied the label to whether or not it's rewarded. This behavior is rewarded because we *teach* it. It's past time to change, and the notion that it's on women to change it is *again* an opt-out assumption: "Our gender is going to assume you want to be prey and want us to go as far as we can as a rule. If you dont like it, all you hafta do is stop liking it."
Never mind that the genders are linked, and that there are deep social reasons behind this thinking that have little to do with women just deciding that's the way the world should be.
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.
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
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:I'm really not sure why you keep bringing up the voluntary drinking.
Because if there was no drinking, there would be no problem, both parties drank to the point that they created a problem.
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.
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.
(typing on a laptop can be problematic, this just posted although I wasn't done...due to my thumb hitting the touch pad...will finish in another post.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
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: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.
And I answered it.
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.
Show me a single one of these things to be true through quotes, I dare you. You are wrong wrong wrong.
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.
You said it. We have only starting talking about what should or shouldn't be. We must be miscommunicating all over the place as I have no idea where you are coming from with this at all.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Stone_Wolf, seriously, when talking about men and women and sexual power, you don't want to be whining about how unfair things are to you.
I understand women often want a man who shows initiative. That is fine. I am one of them, even. It doesn't mean that Bob cant do a little due diligence by making sure she is coherent enough to form words. "Do you want this?" and waiting for an actual "yes" is not going to slow things down irreparably unless it should.
And yes, women as well as men have been brought up to think that rape can be "sexy" - Scarlett and Rhett, Luke and Laura. But that is crap and needs to be changed. It is not a hugely unfair burden to expect men to help change it rather than take advantage of it.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
I still wish people would define consent...because let's face it, when trying to communicate with people, sometimes channels get crossed and miscommunications happen. And in most cases it's not a huge problem, as people can then correct the miscommunication. 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. Bob didn't recognize the difference because of his poor judgment on how much to drink, and not seeking explicit consent. For this Bob has done something wrong. You all seem to feel it fair to call his wrong doing rape, but not the violent, knowing kind. I feel his actions were a not rape, as in my book rape is an act with intent, but that his (and her) actions were very risky and foolish, and that they both need to learn from this, and Bob should be dealt with in the legal system as I described before, because it is too important a lesson (and too risky in case he really is a raping bastard) to allow no legal repercussions.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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. If Bob is so drunk that he can't tell if he had consent, can't see the "yellow dividing line" if you will, he's still guilty of rape. The victim has been raped regardless of Bob's intent.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
Women need to be active participants in breaking the "opt in/out" and maybe even the driving force.
If they are not, and say, half the men adopt this idea of not being the sexual initiator, but instead relying on open communication, and women are still seeking a more aggressive man, and shoot them down cold, how long will those men keep using noneffective tactics?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
But you're not guilty of 2nd degree nor 1st degree murder.
And even where the legal code doesn't take intent into count, I think that morally it makes a huge difference.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
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.
They are not charged with murder, thus their intent is taken into account, they are charged with a lessor charge with lessened penalty.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
I see an "opt-out" system as being described in this thread as first the guy makes a move, let's go with a kiss. The woman can then let the move continue (signalling acceptance) or can stop it (opt-out). That is the current norm. I don't think the norm is such that the guy can do whatever he wants until he's forcefully stopped and nobody is saying that. Instead the norm relies on subtle cues so that a "person can just tell" if the advances are welcomed or not. This was the case of Bob and he was wrong. I do not see how your suggestion would change this.
I think there is a strawman argument going on of projecting a "male duty to go as far as you can" on to SW when absolutely no one has defended such a position.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thank you Amanecer...without your input I would surly have thrown my hands up in frustration and walked away from this thread.
Boots...who is saying anything about mood? I don't think anyone is saying that. In the Bob scenario, Bob doesn't consider seeking consent and decide against it because it would "ruin the mood", but he mistakenly thinks he has consent and that Olivia is an active and willing participant.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
I've used the phrase outmoded once, I think. And now your position is that just because something is commonly accepted means it cannot be outmoded. Is this anything like the risky behavior bit?
quote:Because if there was no drinking, there would be no problem, both parties drank to the point that they created a problem.
They created different problems. Bob drank to the point where he couldn't interpret her actions, and to the point where he didn't think it necessary to be sure instead of just assuming. She on the other hand drank to the point where she couldn't persuade a drunken, sexually aggressive (though not outright violent) man she didn't want sex. Those are different problems. One is a moral problem and a practical problem-the other is just a practical problem.
Again, though-unless you assume it's her obligation to stop Bob. When asked this directly, you reply that it's not but in all of your scenarios? The obligation rests on her. Because he's drunk.
His intentions are good...why? Because he thinks they're good? That doesn't follow. Just because someone thinks their intentions are good doesn't make it so. Or at least we as a society don't think so. Intent matters, but it's not the only thing-except in this scenario. Then the man's intent is decisive.
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.
Now we come back to 'rape' being, in your eyes, only violent or forcibly drugged. 'Unwelcome sex' isn't rape, because if she doesn't stop Bob, how is he to know she doesn't want sex?
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.
Why was it a reasonable mistake? You say you've answered this, but you simply haven't. It's a reasonable mistake because Bob was drunk and not in control of his faculties. But that's not an excuse anywhere else! If Bob had gotten her pregnant he wouldn't get to just say, "Well I was drunk-no child support for me!" If Bob had given her a disease because he was so drunk he forgot to put a condom on, he wouldn't get to say, "C'mon, I'm a nice guy, I was just drunk, I didn't mean to!"
We have an expectation of people in this society that they will be responsible for their actions while drunk, generally speaking. Why is getting accurate consent not one of those expectations? Apparently it's because she kissed him and had a few drinks, and then went home with him.
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.
I'm not making stuff up. I'm simply pointing out how your description of the scenario shades in an outlook. What's happening here is that you're not comfortable with what that outlook actually is-in this case, assumption of consent being acceptable if he's drunk. If Bob were stone-cold sober and behaved that way, you'd say it's rape I think-you've almost said exactly that. But because he was drunk, he gets a pass on that. Well not a whole pass. He gets a suspended sentence and we'll 'watch out' for him, but it was only 'unwelcome sex'.
Heck, even in the blurb you mentioned? Nothing about Bob's intent. It's rape if it happens against her will.
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.
Again with this kind of thing. If I point out how much this indicates you're relying on her to make her wishes known not to have sex - that she is required to opt-out - you'll respond with some frustration saying that you never said that. At least that's what'll happen if the rest of this discussion is any indicator.
It's just bad thinking. She shouldn't be required to make her wishes known and if she doesn't, her date has sex with her. He should be required to find out. Sometimes that's going to be verbal (it really should be, but as a practical matter it won't in all cases). Sometimes it'll be a big blend of signals. But if Bob is relying on those signals and not a clear indicator...he's taking a risk. Risky behavior.
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.
How do you go about getting it to become a more accepted idea? How is it going to happen if men don't step up and make it happen? The attitude adjustment needs inhabit men's minds, primarily-they are the ones making the assumption. And if you look through the years at assumptions about rape, you'll see that women are making it happen, but these things take time.
Waiting for it to be the norm before saying men should behave that way, though: that's a recipe for nothing ever changing.
quote:They are not charged with murder, thus their intent is taken into account, they are charged with a lessor charge with lessened penalty.
Yes, but that lesser crime still involves a body. The system doesn't say, "Well you didn't intend to kill this guy, so we're not going to address it." No. It says, "Your intentions were one thing, but the guy's still dead, so we need to deal with that." -----------
quote:And even where the legal code doesn't take intent into count, I think that morally it makes a huge difference.
I do too. The difference being what kind of rape happened, not that the rape didn't actually happen but something completely different. At times SW seems to say that it was rape, just a different less egregious kind. At others, he rejects calling it rape. That's the tangle I'm trying to address.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
