Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Phmcw]

They are not to blame for that crime, SURE if they dressed as a nun chances are they wouldn't get targeted, but that is like saying that if the person earned less money he wouldn't get robbed.

Actually this isn't proven and counterintuitive. While some rapists rape to enfore patriarchal order (it's obvious in some parts of India) western rapists are often sadist that take pleasure in the harm and humiliation they cause. No reason for them to target women in reavealing clothes.

[Dutchling]

you can make a lot of legally binding choices while drunk.

That's just shitty lawmaking.

[Bauglir]

Yeah, I think we appear to have such severe differences over how to handle morality that it's likely impossible to come to an agreement. The notion of the kind of black-and-white world you're describing seems to me overly naive and simplistic, just as what I'm saying seems to sound overly puritanical and impractical to you. Ultimately, though, I'm saying that you need to accept the possibility that you can do wrong things without intending to, and you remain responsible for those things. That's why pollution is a good analogy, because clearly exterminating humanity isn't the right way to go, and clearly there's a level that won't cause meaningful problems, but it's still clearly something that humanity collectively needs to monitor and consider.

For instance, my definition of not-rape is intended to be unattainable in practice, because in practice nobody has perfect information. In practice, you have to consider the information you do have and make the best decision you can. Part of doing so responsibly is accepting that you can still fuck up. And that if you do, you fucked up.

For what it's worth, I'm not so attached to the word "rape" to describe the concept of causing somebody emotional harm through violating their right to give or withhold consent for sexual activity, but I hate semantics wars and they're usually a good sign that the conversation is no longer going to be productive.

[scrdest]

No, my point was, were rape not emotionally traumatizing, it wouldn't be a problem.

Of course, rape-by-fraud is a thing but it's a rather murky thing. I mean hell, movies can get away with playing it for comedy!

The glass jaw thing - victim here is culpable, because the results here are direct. He consented to the punch (unless you mean he was taunting the assailant), that it resulted in a fracture is just an unfortunate by-product of the process of punching.

On the other hand, the infamous Dress Defense is insane, because it claims implied consent to a completely tangential thing. Where it could potentially be defensible would be for something else entirely - for people ogling you, for instance. Or hell, that needn't apply to specifically sexual issues - I doubt anyone would defend the right of someone who dresses like a figurative clown not to be ridiculed or at least drawing puzzled looks for it.

For what it's worth, I'm not so attached to the word "rape" to describe the concept of causing somebody emotional harm through violating their right to give or withhold consent for sexual activity, but I hate semantics wars and they're usually a good sign that the conversation is no longer going to be productive.

I think that's actually the crux of the issue, not ethical stances. I could easily agree that causing someone anguish due to being an accomplice to their poor decision-making is not the best thing to do, but if you're trying to hook it up to a term as loaded as rape, and potentially fucking things up for others as a side-effect, you can be damn sure I'm gonna whale on whatever you say as hard as I can - to iron out the kinks, because any flaw remaining is potentially REALLY. FUCKING. DANGEROUS.

[Bauglir]

Eh. In this case, I believe the word is certainly justified. Maybe not at all points on the continuum, sure, but for the example of "alcohol cannot possibly cause a person's consent to be invalid - at worst it can only prevent them from expressing a lack thereof because of its impact on speech", I think that refusal to use the word is weaseling out of assigning responsibility for an actual sexual assault. There are real people who suffer from that kind of behavior, and the assumption that anybody who gets drunk is implicitly consenting to sex is as or more damaging than the potential dilution of the word.

EDIT: Same reason that rape isn't something that only happens in dark alleys, and isn't something that is only done by strangers, and isn't something that spouses can't do.

[Dutchling]

So is it just me or is the argument here basically:

not all drunken sex is rape!

you're wrong! some drunken sex can be rape!

you're wrong! not all...

ad infinitum?

[scrdest]

So is it just me or is the argument here basically:

not all drunken sex is rape!

you're wrong! some drunken sex can be rape!

you're wrong! not all...

ad infinitum?

Change 'some' for 'all' in the second one and you're set.

[Bauglir]

So is it just me or is the argument here basically:

not all drunken sex is rape!

you're wrong! some drunken sex can be rape!

you're wrong! not all...

ad infinitum?

Change 'some' for 'all' in the second one and you're set.

No, he had it right the first time.

EDIT: Misread the first argument, actually. Hang on while I prepare an overly lengthy rebuttal, as is my custom.

EDIT: My understanding of the first argument is, "The drunkenness of the sex cannot affect whether or not it's rape". This is why "some drunken sex can be rape" is a relevant reply. Am I wrong on this count?

That wasn't nearly as lengthy as I anticipated.

EDIT: I figured out how to make it lengthier! I should clarify that, at this point, I'm attempting to adjust to your terminology and am using rape to mean "the category of sexual acts that are entirely forbidden because of the lack of consent", which is different from how I've described it in the past. This is my attempt to ignore the wider-reaching debate about the nature of morality that I don't think anybody here actually wants to have.

[Rolan7]

As a bicyclist, I believe drunk people should always be held responsible for their actions.  I drink, sometimes I drink a lot, often I do or say things I regret...  But I don't try to blame the alcohol which I chose to drink.

Spiked drinks are entirely different...  Once you've had one spiked drink, your judgement has been impaired without your consent.  Even continuing to drink at that point isn't the victim's fault.

But people who willingly drink shouldn't then accuse others for what they drunkenly consented to.  It's yet another way the word "rape" is getting devalued...

[Sheb]

I totally agree with Rolan7.

[Rolepgeek]

As a bicyclist, I believe drunk people should always be held responsible for their actions.  I drink, sometimes I drink a lot, often I do or say things I regret...  But I don't try to blame the alcohol which I chose to drink.

Spiked drinks are entirely different...  Once you've had one spiked drink, your judgement has been impaired without your consent.  Even continuing to drink at that point isn't the victim's fault.

But people who willingly drink shouldn't then accuse others for what they drunkenly consented to.  It's yet another way the word "rape" is getting devalued...

It's not about them drunkenly consenting to it. It's about the fact that it's easier to pressure, manipulate, or otherwise take advantage of people when they have impaired judgement. To say 'well they chose to do something that impairs judgement, therefore they deserve/effectively chose anything that happened once their judgement was impaired' is a pile of bullshit. Somehow, it's okay to take advantage of someone with impaired judgement as long as said impaired judgment was a result of their own choices? How does that make sense?

Now, when both parties are drunk, it's a harder issue, and it's already difficult. But basically, it's rape if one party took advantage of the other being in that state. Getting someone drunk in order to have sex with them, for example(regardless of whether they chose to drink or not). The way you're talking, it seems a lot like victim-blaming. I understand that this is a very difficult issue to get around, because the line between actual consent and then regret(and being a dick about it rather than taking responsibility by claiming rape), and being taken advantage of at a party or something and being violated, is thin. Which is, in and of itself, pretty fucking terrifying. The fact that this is an issue we have to argue about is terrifying. It should be basic human decency not to take advantage of someone when they're drunk.

Basically, Rolan, yes, if they actually consented to it, and weren't pressured into it, then it's not rape. But there's also a lot of cases where that's not what happens. And since we can't read people's minds and the like, it becomes very difficult to tell who's lying if one says 's/he agreed' and the other says 's/he made me'. And if we just assume that the person saying they agreed is right? Well, you get the rape-culture we have now, and shit is fucked up.

[GreatJustice]

Basically, Rolan, yes, if they actually consented to it, and weren't pressured into it, then it's not rape. But there's also a lot of cases where that's not what happens. And since we can't read people's minds and the like, it becomes very difficult to tell who's lying if one says 's/he agreed' and the other says 's/he made me'. And if we just assume that the person saying they agreed is right? Well, you get the rape-culture we have now, and shit is fucked up.

The problem there is that we generally operate under the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty", generally for very good reasons, and we can't just make exceptions for certain tricky crimes just because "rape". If that's "rape culture", then its still better than whatever the alternative is.

[Squeegy]

Whether or not you consented to being impaired does not change the fact that you are impaired, and thus unable to consent to anything further. To be clear, I don't think that all drunken sex is rape. I just don't think the issue is so black-and-white. I hate it when people try to oversimplify consent -- if it were simply as easy as saying "consent is sexy" or "a clear and continuing 'yes'" then it wouldn't be a problem. The fact that solutions have to be devised and lines have to be drawn in the first place proves that it's not so obvious, and it can only be detrimental to treat it as such.

Here's the plain facts as I see them: It's a well-documented effect of alcohol that it makes you easier to sway and more likely to do things you would never do sober. Sure, you decided to enter that state. But you still wouldn't do those things sober, even though you would enter that impaired state. And not all drunken sex can be rape because some sex you have while drunk is sex you would have sober. On the other hand, the other person has no way of knowing what you would do drunk that you wouldn't do sober, and they may also be drunk, in which case they might not have done it sober either. This is the level of murkiness within which law simply cannot be made. It will not be enforced fairly, period. The only real solution by which innocent people do not go to jail is to ban alcohol. And we all know how well that worked out the last time we tried it.

The only thing we can do about it is to make a cultural standard whereby we do not take advantage of people who are drunk unless we know that they would also consent to it if they were sober, i.e., they are your boyfriend or girlfriend, or you've done it in the past while sober, etc. We cannot make a moral high ground whereby we pass down judgment onto other people. And the good news is that this cultural standard already exists for the most part. But this will only save people from being victimized by the well-meaning; no one who spikes someone else's drink does so with good intentions. On the plus side, this is much less murky and we can and do prosecute people for doing it. What about just getting someone drunk normally? If you yourself don't drink then it looks pretty suspicious and is practically the same thing. I'm no lawyer but I'm sure there's precedent for prosecution there also.

In short: Drink responsibly, and report those who deliberately take advantage of others to the authorities. Vote in federal and local elections.

Also rape culture does not exist.

Basically, Rolan, yes, if they actually consented to it, and weren't pressured into it, then it's not rape. But there's also a lot of cases where that's not what happens. And since we can't read people's minds and the like, it becomes very difficult to tell who's lying if one says 's/he agreed' and the other says 's/he made me'. And if we just assume that the person saying they agreed is right? Well, you get the rape-culture we have now, and shit is fucked up.

The problem there is that we generally operate under the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty", generally for very good reasons, and we can't just make exceptions for certain tricky crimes just because "rape". If that's "rape culture", then its still better than whatever the alternative is.

In my experience, many Americans do not know of or do not believe in "innocent until proven guilty." It's pretty depressing.

[Squeegy]

It's interesting because alcohol is, fundamentally, a poison made recreational. It is unequivocally bad for you. That's why your body filters it out of your system. That's why taking it too often can damage your liver (which is responsible for the filtering) and too much of it at one time can straight-up kill you. It impairs your judgment because it is damaging your brain. If you get addicted to it it can ruin your life. By all accounts there is no reason anyone should drink alcohol, and yet our society allows it (indeed, it has to -- there's no way to stop people from doing it). But suicide is illegal, despite being a much quicker, more painless, more responsible, and more consensual way to off yourself than smoking or drinking.

[Rolepgeek]

Basically, Rolan, yes, if they actually consented to it, and weren't pressured into it, then it's not rape. But there's also a lot of cases where that's not what happens. And since we can't read people's minds and the like, it becomes very difficult to tell who's lying if one says 's/he agreed' and the other says 's/he made me'. And if we just assume that the person saying they agreed is right? Well, you get the rape-culture we have now, and shit is fucked up.

The problem there is that we generally operate under the assumption of "innocent until proven guilty", generally for very good reasons, and we can't just make exceptions for certain tricky crimes just because "rape". If that's "rape culture", then its still better than whatever the alternative is.

How do you prove something like that either way, though? You'd have to have witnesses and all that shit and it gets to the point of ridiculousness. Innocent until proven guilty is nice, but it results in people getting hurt when you don't do something about it.

Squeegy, that article is, well...interesting, though it seems to be pointing out one person's definition/description of it, and saying 'SEE THIS IS WHY THEY ARE WRONG AND IT IS OBVIOUSLY NOT A THING'. Why do you think consent isn't that simple? Because a clear and continuing yes sounds like consent to me. Implied consent is a terrible concept when it relates to sex. So if you're talking about that, that's not really a thing. If rape was really as universally reviled as Catapultam seems to think it is(and I wish it was), then this wouldn't be a problem, now would it? I could make a big response about Catapultam's argument, and how he's wrong in several ways(the comparison of rape culture to murder culture isn't the same thing, first off. You can survive being raped; by definition, you cannot survive getting murdered. And our culture tells women who have been raped that 'you shouldn't have been wearing those clothes'(Gang signs=/=dresses, btw) and the like, which is victim-blaming), but that would take far too much time for what I have available.