FacebookTwitter
Hatrack River Forum   
my profile login | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Supreme Court expected to tackle 'sleeping sex slave' question (Page 9)

  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14   
Author Topic: Supreme Court expected to tackle 'sleeping sex slave' question
shadowland
Member
Member # 12366

 - posted      Profile for shadowland   Email shadowland         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Well, sure, you should always make sure that the person you are having sex with is a consenting participant. I have never disputed that. I guess my point is that there are areas that complicate the issue from a moral, ethical, and legal standpoint.

If the other person says 'yes' but because their .07 BAC is clouding their long-term thinking a bit thereby making it unknown whether they would have consented at that moment had they been sober, that affects things. If they say 'yes' beforehand but then eventually become intoxicated to the point of not being able to rationally determine if they want to change their mind and then regret it the next day, that affects things. If both were drunk, willing participants, are either of them actually able to consent? Maybe, maybe not.

The point I'm making, which seems to be only somewhat related to Stone Wolf's (I think had he used a better example, much of this conversation wouldn't have been necessary -- that is, I don't think his example is adequate in reflecting the point he is trying to make, yet, for whatever reasons he is sticking to the example), is that there are many gray areas that complicate the degree to which we view things ethically and legally. I think it's important to understand these distinctions rather than lump them all under the word 'rape', not because 'rape' only refers to 'bad' things, but because I don't think the term should be so broad. But that's clearly just my opinion on the semantics of it, not my view of it in general.

Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
Your experience matches up well with rape statistics. Men are most likely to commit rape in their 20s. Still, your experience is likely to be very different than kat's because you are sexual active and she is not. I have found that there is definitely a cultural divide. People who are part of the sexually liberated culture often can't really believe that people who belong to morally conservative communities really and sincerely do plan to wait until marriage to have sex. Its a lifestyle choice they don't respect so they tend not to respect the wishes of those who choose it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh...as long as you believe you understand what I think better then I do, and not that there is some kind of break down in communication...all I have to say to you about it is...bite me.

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.

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.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I agree with Shadowland almost entirely, except this bit

quote:
...yet, for whatever reasons he is sticking to the example...
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Rakeesh...as long as you believe you understand what I think better then I do...
I don't believe I understand what you think better than you do. I do believe, however, that I've got a pretty firm lock on what you've actually said. I used the word 'believe' because you've said it so repeatedly: that what would otherwise be rape isn't because Bob is drunk, and that if she gets drunk with Bob, she bears some responsibility for what happens to her-morally and legally. I took your repeated statements on this matter to be a reflection of your beliefs, but perhaps I should've said 'said' instead of 'believes'. And let's just note, this is like the fourth time you've gotten angry on this topic-but that won't stop you from getting angry at others for being snippy, or calling names, etc.

Anyway, it's not a breakdown in communication. If you said what you believed, then you believe what I said you believe. I can say this with some confidence because you've reiterated it.

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.
Well, alright, fair enough. You're scared of the idea that you might rape someone and not know it. Though I reject your phrasing 'by accident'. In the scenario, what Bob did wasn't an 'accident'.

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.
Yes, well, this sounds noble and all, but it's not actually helpful. The way to help diminish the frequency of rape isn't to just announce how awful it is and how the perpetrators should die. The way to mitigate it is to stop doing things in the same way we've been doing them.

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

Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shadowland
Member
Member # 12366

 - posted      Profile for shadowland   Email shadowland         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

I think the Bob example is a bad one for the point that I think you're trying to make and that you were overreaching a bit with it to begin with. Instead of trying to revise or defend it, I would just scrap it entirely and admit that it wasn't the best scenario to use. That is to say, I think you mean one thing but it ends up coming across incorrectly because you are trying to fit it into the Bob framework.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Rakeesh

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.

Several other posters get what I'm trying to say, several other do not. It is one of the pitfalls of nontelipathic communication.

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.

You and I are closer to what we believe then you and Kat are.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shadowland
Member
Member # 12366

 - posted      Profile for shadowland   Email shadowland         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:

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

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.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
You are prolly right Shadow...and if I had a point, it would be that rape requires intent. Without intent, there can still be sexual misconduct, but it is in my book not legally or morally rape.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ambyr
Member
Member # 7616

 - posted      Profile for ambyr           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Rakeesh mentioned that this is unhelpful, but I wanted to expand on why: a lot of rape victims know their rapists, sometimes very well. They may not want their rapist dead, and having someone grandiosely promise to kill the perpetrator does nothing to help them process the feelings of still to some extent loving the person who harmed them.

As an example? I have a friend who was repeatedly molested by her father as a child. She is still in contact with her father. She still goes to family events. Her feelings towards him are complicated and mostly private, and I wouldn't dare attempt to summarize them, but I do know this: having a total stranger, who knows nothing of her situation, kill her father would do nothing to help her feel restitution or closure.

Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I hear you ambyr...and to be honest, my wanting to see every rapist dead isn't necessarily for the benefit of the victim.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
A crime requires the intent to do the deed (penetrate a woman without her consent)
I think this is where you guys are getting hung up. SW is saying that what's necessary for rape is the thought "I intend to penetrate this chick without her consent." You're saying it only requires the thought "I intend to penetrate her" plus the fact that she doesn't consent (even if you think she does).

I imagine the law in most places is closer to what Kat thinks. It probably requires an intent to have sex, plus the fact that a reasonable person in that situation would conclude that the woman didn't consent (even if the actual perpetrator thought, for irrational reasons, that he had secured consent). That seems about right to me as a definition.

Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shadowland
Member
Member # 12366

 - posted      Profile for shadowland   Email shadowland         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

He never said it wasn't a crime, he was just trying to use the word rape to qualify the type of crime.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Stone_Wolf, I think that it is pretty clear that someone can be raped by someone who did not understand that he was raping her. By a guy who doesn't think of himself as a rapist but who has a lot of bad ideas about sex.

Making sure that your partner is capable of speech, asking, and respecting that answer is not a terribly high bar for most men to reach if they really are nice guys.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
Right. If a guy actually does believe that "No means yes" (maybe he's seen too many sex scenes from Korean movies), it still counts as rape.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shadowland
Member
Member # 12366

 - posted      Profile for shadowland   Email shadowland         Edit/Delete Post 
He is defining the word 'rape' differently than most people here, which I believe is the root of much of this debate. Until everyone acknowledges this, the conversation is not going to progress.
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I hear you Boots, and that is exactly why in my book Bob would be facing charges.

Another point I would like to make is that communication is not infallible, and sometimes it will fail. When that communication is about sexual consent, then mistakes can be made.

Most of the time, if there is a mistake made, it can be corrected before anything happens. This was not the case with Bob.

I get your point that if Bob had been more careful he wouldn't have made that mistake. But can you understand my point that Bob's mistake was without malice, and that that makes a difference to some people?

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Stone_Wolf, do you agree that Olivia was raped?

Edit: Here is something that might be helpful. We were talking about intent being necessary as it is in first degree murder. In second degree murder, however intent is not so clear.

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.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
Stone_Wolf, I sense from a lot of the discussion you've been involved in here that you tend to view the world in absolutes and have difficult dealing with shades of grade.

You seem to believe that people do bad things (like rape and murder) because they are inherently, irredeemably, thoroughly bad people. And if that were the case, they I can understand why you would want all rapist and murders killed.

But the world doesn't work that way. People do bad things for all kinds of complex reasons and very rarely is it because they just thoroughly evil.

Excuse me if I'm wrong, I don't mean to be insulting. But it really seems as though you are having difficulty with the idea that someone who isn't simply an evil person could do something as bad as rape because it challenges your overall black and white world view. I guess what I'm saying is you really need to reconsider that whole world view.

[ June 07, 2011, 01:33 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Boots...how many days and pages have we been going over this?

No. 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.

I think Olivia was the victim of sexual misconduct and should receive a full explanation and apology and 100 hours of therapy from Bob.

I think Bob was stupid to not make better sure that in both of their intoxication that sex was welcome. I think that Bob should be held criminally liable for that mistake, but not to the extent of a felony rape charge.

I think I've stated this many times over and over and that quite a few people here disagree with one particular part of what I think but not much more.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I hate that phrase "misconduct". It's up there with "hijinks" and "mischief." It trivializes what happened to Olivia.

You, here, are trivializing what happened to Olivia. She was penetrated without her consent, and you don't want it to be rape because you don't want Bob to a bad guy.

If you could wrap your head about the concept of a normal, not evil, guy doing a bad thing, and that rape does not automatically make one worthy of the death penalty, could you see how Olivia was raped?

Going so over the top against rapists is actively hurting Olivia and women in general, which is whom you claim to be protecting. But you're not - you're protecting Bob, overwhelmingly.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

What if bin Laden was a good and loving father, a generous and tender love, a courteous and friendly neighbor?

Sometimes it doesn't matter if we are mostly good people.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
In my mind, there is no question that Olivia was raped. She was incapable of consenting to sex and did not do so. She is just as raped as if Bob had come across her passed out at a party, penetrated her and left.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
But penetrating a woman without her consent doesn't count as one of those character-defining actions?
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shadowland
Member
Member # 12366

 - posted      Profile for shadowland   Email shadowland         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

I would be more likely to agree with you here about the unfortunate misunderstanding if Bob mistook a normally positive response as affirmation of consent, but in your example, that really isn't the case. Or if there were previous communication before her inebriation that indicated consent, but that wasn't the case either.

Do you think Olivia should feel better knowing that there may not have been any intentional malice?

I do think there should be ways of distinguishing various types of rape, but in the case of Bob, I think his punishment should be much closer to what you would consider a violent rape, rather than being closer to a minor misdemeanor.

Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I think I am unqualified to speculate about Olivia's feelings on the matter and would invite appropriate criticism to speculate.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

Once again, I'm sorry if I've misjudged you. But it is an impression I've gotten repeatedly from things you've said in a range of discussions. I really do sense that you are very uncomfortable with the whole idea of morally gray areas. If you aren't, perhaps you should reconsider how you are stating your arguments because you are giving this message rather consistently.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
I honestly don't get how you think "violated sexually against her wishes" isn't rape.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Rabbit, in my mind I'm fighting a black and white distinction of "rape" when it comes to this case and trying to push it into a more "grey" area by taking intent into consideration.

Shadow, why do you think Bob is closer to a violent rapist then a minor misdemeanor?

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

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shadowland
Member
Member # 12366

 - posted      Profile for shadowland   Email shadowland         Edit/Delete Post 
I'm also uncomfortable, Stone Wolf, with how you phrased "could have been prevented both by her and Bob" as if the accountability is the same. I don't think you actually mean it like this, though. Do you agree that while yes, Olivia could lock herself in a room all day and never interact with anyone else, her level of involvement is in a completely different category than the steps that Bob could have taken to avoid the situation?
Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
Kat...yes, I understand that, and I accept that you view that way. I even understand it. I just don't agree with it 100%.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
MattP
Member
Member # 10495

 - posted      Profile for MattP   Email MattP         Edit/Delete Post 
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.

I don't have a problem saying Olivia was raped, but it would seem inappropriate, for instance, to suggest that Bob spend the rest of his life on a sex offender registry.

Posts: 3275 | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Kat, in most cases, yes, absolutely, in this one, not as much.
Because he was drunk, and drunk guys get a pass when they commit a crime. Apparently.
quote:
how the individuals involved should modify their behavior to avoid similar situations in the future
Get verbal consent. Not difficult. Whisper "Are you sure?" and proceed only if you get a "Yes." This is NOT a high bar.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
I'm sorry folks, but I've been doing nothing but posting here for the last three hours (in between diaper changes, getting bottles and such) and I have a proofing deadline I need to meet that is approaching way too quickly.

I shall return this very day to carry on this interesting and lively discourse.

Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Kettricken
Member
Member # 8436

 - posted      Profile for Kettricken   Email Kettricken         Edit/Delete Post 
I've agreed with some things people on both sides of this discussion and disagreed with both.

I totally agree that you can consent whilst drunk.

I also totally agree that having sex with someone unconscious is rape. I'll add to that the just about conscious but unable to do more than twitch her arm case.

I think where I've had problems with the "that was rape" side is the implication that whenever 2 people are drunk the woman can't consent (but the man can rape).

If both people are actively taking part, then I call that sex.

If one person is too past it to be involved (even if still conscious) then it is rape.

If two people have sex drunk (both actively participating) and one of them regrets it, that is not rape.

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.

Sex is something you do together. Rape is something done to you.

Posts: 169 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shadowland
Member
Member # 12366

 - posted      Profile for shadowland   Email shadowland         Edit/Delete Post 
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 specifically happened to Olivia was rape <edit - as I think about this more - there are a few exceptions, but I don't think I'm able to detail them all right now> and Bob should be punished according to that baseline.

[ June 07, 2011, 02:05 PM: Message edited by: shadowland ]

Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
I don't think you're dishonest. I think you don't want to acknowledge, even to yourself, the actual meaning of some of the ideas you've been proposing. That's not the same thing as dishonesty. And as for not being angry...well. Not only do you seem to explain that you're not actually angry more than most people do around here, it's not the first time even in this thread you've gotten over-the-top with proclamations and threats. You sound angry, periodically, on this topic. That's not a problem of my interpretation.

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.
OMG! Telling me what I like to think? You bastard!

See how tedious that is?

Anyway, no, that's not quite what I said. What I said was that it cannot be assumed that in cases lacking explicit verbal consent that the woman is not, in fact, consenting. Or rather, it should be assumed by the man. But that sometimes a woman (or a man) is consenting even if they haven't explicitly said so.

But the risk there is that some other times, they haven't. That the way to help reduce rape is to expect people to get explicit consent, and to have it be the rule that if they don't...well, then they're not actually sure, are they?

quote:
Without intent, there can still be sexual misconduct, but it is in my book not legally or morally rape.
Even by the link you brought into the conversation, legally it can be rape without intent. You don't get to have your own book as to what is legally rape or not. Morally is a different question.

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.
I think he has too. But he stuck to his Bob scenario for quite a long, long time. Some of this is confusion about what is meant-other things aren't. I'm not trying to force concessions,
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Okay.

As a side note, I have seen ample evidence that signals can be utterly missed even when there is no drinking and both people have the same standards.

K's Adventures in Dating

I dated a guy casually for a few months a little over a year ago, and then it became apparent that he liked me more than I was ever going to like him. Unfortunately, he said something at the very beginning that made me realize it, while we were on our way into the venue. I was miserable the whole night and talked as little as possible and avoided him as much as possible. On the way home, I thanked him for taking me out, and said, right before he dropped me off, that I didn't think it would work out between us. I didn't want to date anymore.

Yay for me being direct and honest! I even did it in person and said nice things about him.

He got the message, I thought, because he didn't call me again. I didn't call him.

Flash to OVER A YEAR LATER and I found myself one evening at a restaurant with a big group, sitting across from this guy, with a first date at my side. Oohhh, a little awkward, but it's been over a year and this is a small world and everybody's a grown up, so it should be okay. It was! My date and the ex-date and I had a pleasant converation.

Then. Ex-date asks if he could have some advice. We say yes, and he desribes a night where he and his girlfriend were having a wonderful time and at the end of an almost perfect evening, she drops the bomb that she doesn't want to see him again. He was very upset and really took a few months to get over it. Considering he looked so sad while telling the story, it might have been longer than that.

OH MY STARS HE WAS TALKING ABOUT ME. Unless that's hapened to him TWICE, which seems unlikely. I and my date said something along the lines of how people have their own stuff going on and you can't take things like that personally - timing is everything, she obviously had stuff, etc. And then I changed the subject.

First, I could kill him. I mean, thank you for not outing me, but that just had to be me. He included some details that make it very unlikely (what they did that evening) that it's happened to him twice. It seems pretty passive aggressive.

Second, girlfriend? WTH? We never discussed that, and it seems like the kind of thing people would discuss. I can see some people thinking that, but it could go either way, and that's why you have a conversation.

Third...he thought we had a wonderful time? I was miserable the entire night. I refused to dance several times and I talked to other people instead of him as much as I could. I actually felt guilty about being a bad date that night. How could he possibly think I was enjoying myself?

I don't know, but he did, and me saying I didn't want to repeat the experience came out of no where. No one was drunk, no one was high on activated hormones as far as I could tell - he was just deeply, deeply wrong. I don't know why.

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.

[ June 07, 2011, 02:13 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
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.
I completely agree.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post 
Girls can have pretty weird perceptions about this stuff too! Witness this Louis CK bit: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4hNaFkbZYU
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
shadowland
Member
Member # 12366

 - posted      Profile for shadowland   Email shadowland         Edit/Delete Post 
In thinking this over, I realize that a lot of my posts may seem all over the map regarding my thoughts on this subject. That isn't my intention, so let me clarify my views.

Definition
This conversation needs to begin with a definition for 'rape.' While the expressing of consent is a very important part of this, I'm uncomfortable with basing the definition on consent. The reason is because there can be consent even though it has not been expressely given - I would not consider sex that is wanted but not verbally consented to as rape. Likewise, verbal consent can be given even though the person doesn't actually want sex (perhaps given during a state of inebriation). In this case, even though the person may have uttered the word 'yes,' it should still technically be rape. Then there is the issue of certain technicalities regarding being unable to give consent. I do not think it would be accurate to say that entire groups of people (minors, mentally handicapped, etc.) are not able to have sex without raping each other. Basing the definition on consent glosses over all of these issues. Therefore, I think the simplest definition for rape is "sex that is unwanted."

Legality
One of the complications of the issue comes from the legality standpoint; it can sometimes be very difficult to ascertain correctly if sex was wanted rather than something that was regretted only later. Obviously sex that was wanted at the time but regretted the next day should not be counted as rape. Being able to determine these things (he said - she said) isn't very easy, which makes it difficult to address from a legal standpoint and contributes to the disconnect between the legality and the morality of the issue.

Punishment
I think the baseline for rape should be severe enough to discourage people from engaging in sex when the signals are ambiguous, though I can't guess as to what I think the punishment should start out at. The punishment would only go up from there. Factors like violence and malicious intent would only garner more severe punishment and likely a separate distinction, like 1st degree rape. The factors that would scale the punishment downward would be if it is ambiguous as to whether the victim wanted the sex or not. For example, wanting sex at some earlier point but then becoming sufficiently intoxicated that they are unable to rationally reevaluate that desire. On the flip side, people that lie about being raped should face a punishment severe enough to dissuade people from lying about it.

Conclusion
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.

Posts: 161 | Registered: Aug 2010  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Misha McBride
Member
Member # 6578

 - posted      Profile for Misha McBride           Edit/Delete Post 
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.

I'd like to frame this and put it on the wall in every bar, restaurant and hook up place in the world. I'd also like to add my voice to the crowd that kat's experiences with men are definitely not uncommon or unusual, and I've got a few stories I could tell as well. I probably won't though. 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.
Posts: 262 | Registered: May 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
The most striking thing about the (innocent) story is not only how wrong he was about how much I was enjoying myself, but how I had no idea he thought everything was great. I was taken by surprise that night when he thought we were a couple (we'd had a few dates, but little to no contact outside of that. No phone calls, no emails, just an outing every other week), and I was taken by surprise a few months ago when I found out he'd been quite upset by our cessation of dating.

Someone might say I should have corrected his misperception and made my own stances clear, but how was I supposed to know I needed to? Should I end every date with a "And this is how K sees it" speech? Halfway through a first date, should I say, "Just so you know, I might kiss you if you smell particularly nice, but I'm not having sex with you"? Should I follow a happy sigh after a warm hug with "That was a contented sigh, not a signal that I'm sexually aroused"?

Enormous piles of rapes can be avoided a simple expectation: sex is "opt in" only, not "opt out", and men should get verbal consent. It isn't difficult.

Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
I am a little amused because I come very close to doing just exactly that. I am a dating caricature.

ETA: And I always get verbal consent. Heck, I practically have my partner sign a waiver.

Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
katharina
Member
Member # 827

 - posted      Profile for katharina   Email katharina         Edit/Delete Post 
Dating gives me anxiety already. If I'm forced to keep up a patter of denial to avoid being raped, I'm quitting altogether.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ambyr
Member
Member # 7616

 - posted      Profile for ambyr           Edit/Delete Post 
My partner of five years STILL teases me about the fact that on our first physical encounter, when he inquired what I was comfortable with, I briskly announced, "X, Y, and Z are good, but you may not touch my genitals." He was a little taken aback. Apparently I was leaping ahead of where his mind was at.

That level of explicit communication works for me, but I don't think it should be required of everyone. As kat says, society would work much better if the expectation was opt-in. But I have to live in the world we're in now, and sometimes that means opting out rather emphatically.

Posts: 650 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post 
Actually, it is as much about finding out his boundaries than it is about establishing mine.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_           Edit/Delete Post 
quote:
Originally posted by katharina:
Because he was drunk, and drunk guys get a pass when they commit a crime. Apparently

This is a strawman and unfair. When we changed the scenario so Olivia wasn't intoxicated, it changed the result, when we changed Bob's intoxication level, it changed the result, when we removed drinking all together, it changed the result. Not only Bob's intoxication is relevant, nor is it the deciding factor.

I simply do not know how to communicate the idea any clearer then to say simply that alcohol does not "give guys a pass" in my opinion.

What changes the situation from "rape" to "sexual misconduct" is the perp's intent. Now, I can see what you all who are proponents of seeing things through the victim's point of view are saying. There was sex she didn't want or consent to so it was rape. But several of you are insisting that my view is that "Bob gets a pass 'cause he was drunk." and that isn't the case.

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.

This is a part of of the scenario where there seems to be a lot of disagreement. 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.

The "minus an opt out" is another area of contention. Yes, Kat's bottom line of always getting explicit verbal consent is simple and effective and not even a mood breaker if done correctly. It is even a very very good idea. It just isn't always what realistically happens. When intoxicants are involved it should be. Again, it just isn't always what realistically happens. And while I agree with her on the positive side, that is, it should happen, I don't agree on the negative side, that is, without it, it's rape. Neither does anyone else as far as I can tell.

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. (which might only not change things with stationary rape, but that is a special case)

Anyway, back to what I was saying...Olivia was willingly involved in sexual activities with Bob. This is a point I don't think people really have paid attention to, so I want to make sure it is clear.

Olivia and Bob are on the couch, Bob is rubbing Olivia's genitals through her clothing and Olivia is rubbing Bob's genitals through his clothing. Bob says, "I'll be right back." and goes to get a condom, and more drinks. Olivia lays back on the couch and closes her eyes for a second, slipping into a deeper state of inebriation. Bob returns, sets the drinks aside, and caresses Olivia on the side, to which she opens her eyes and groans (which he takes as pleasure, but in reality is all she can muster), he smiles down at her, and her arm moves up and brushes his (he takes this for a gesture of closeness, but in reality it's all she can muster). Bob, feeling he has a willing and cognizant sex partner continues, undressing them both and has sex with Olivia, who continues to groan and arm flop, which Bob wrongfully thinks is her participating and enjoying.

A lot of people seemed to think that I was saying "drinking and kissing are consent". I am not, hopefully this will help clear that up.

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?

The difference I was speculating, and you were telling me what I think, going in direct opposition to what I say I think.

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

The quote I referenced says "forced", which to me is a word which implies intent.

The link of Lewis CK has naughty language...warning!

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.

Shouldn't it be, "People are not responsible for other people'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.

Well said!


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.

I am honestly sorry that sharing my opinion has made you feel this way.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post 
Im in the military and we have some strict rules about conducting yourself with a woman. Sometimes it can actually get a little rediculous. Here's a few examples of the rules. Before I say them, don't assume my stance on any of it. I'm just stating them to give you guys an idea of how the law works for people in my career.

-So if a woman and a man are drinking together and they have sex, it is not considered consensual for the woman, simply because she is drunk. This means that if she wants to, she can file rape charges on the man, even if it was her idea to drink as well as have sex.

-Because of a lot of complaints and the fact that this has been abused in the past, men can now make the exact same claim after the fact. This opens up a whole new set of questions. For example, what happens if the woman says he raped her, but then the man says the woman raped him? Well, it gets thrown out because it's basically a she said/he said argument. In other words, if a woman ever says you raped her while you were both drunk, all you have to do is say she raped you. This has totally happened before, too.

-In a military workplace, if you tell a woman (or a man) that they are attractive, or that they have nice hair/clothes/anything, they can file sexual harassment against you. Of course, all you have to do is file one against them, and the case is dropped. Interesting system, isn't it?

-Women aren't allowed to fight in combat because the gov't is afraid they will distract the men, but with the new don't ask/don't tell repeal, gay men are allowed to fight, which has the same effect. When asked if this would change women's ability to fight, the answer was "no". Just something I thought was interesting and that people in my particular shop have been talking about lately.

Sexual harassment and rape have become so common and concerning in the US Military that they start training you for it in Basic Training, follow that up with more in Tech School (where you learn your actual job), and then again when you arrive at your duty station (and every year after that).

Still, they try to be fair and balanced with it (as seen in the examples above), but since no one else is there then it's basically a he said/she said argument, and if the guy or girl being acussed knows what they're doing then they can easily get out of it. It's sad, but true. But hey, at least it's a better system than what we had in the 80's...

Edit: I almost forgot! This has little to do with the rest, but it's just funny. Did you know you can't date officers if you're enlisted? It's a rule that goes back centuries because of the way the military used to be so separated (upper class and lower class). But, did you know you CAN marry an officer if you're enlisted? In short, dating is bad and you can get fired, but marrying them is totally fine. How does that make sense? Lol, and it happens all the time, too. Most people just ignore the rule because it's so weird in today's world. Still, you'd think they would change it, right?

Posts: 1324 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 14 pages: 1  2  3  ...  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14   

   Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2