Print

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

[penguinofhonor]

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.

Didn't you say something about disliking oversimplification earlier?

[Squeegy]

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.

Yes... you'd have to have witnesses. Also, evidence. And you'd need a jury... and a judge. And they have to be separate. It's already been invented, actually. It's called a "court."

"Guilty unless proven innocent" also results in people getting hurt, possibly at a much higher rate, and is wide open for abuse. There's a reason it's the de facto justice system of totalitarian regimes.

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.

Ms. Shakesville is not just 'one person,' she is Melissa McEwan, a feminist blogger at least as noteworthy as Anita Sarkeesian, if not more (ditto on how much people despise her). Her definition/description was chosen for the post because it is a high-profile one that reflects the opinions of many and influences many more. Also, the article does not just point out the flaws in her argument (I doubt you read it that quickly), it also defends its own point of view. I particularly like this section:

Let’s be clear on one thing to start, though: our culture is permissive of violence.  Violence includes rape.  As such, our culture is, to a degree, permissive of rape.  However, when we look at the facts we find that our culture is less permissive of rape than virtually any other form of violence, and indeed accords to it not only the harshest punishments but the dubious position of “worst” among crimes.  With this in mind, the idea that we live in a “rape culture” is simply ludicrous when compared to the idea that we live in what bell hooks termed an “overriding culture of violence,” of which rape is but one part, and not even the largest one.

(By the way, bell hooks is a prominent feminist poet.)

Rape is universally reviled by pretty much anyone who would not commit rape. Rape is just above child molestation on the list of things that will get you shanked in prison. Even murderers hate rapists. As that quote mentions, 'we find that our culture is less permissive of rape than virtually any other form of violence, and indeed accords to it not only the harshest punishments but the dubious position of “worst” among crimes.' But that's the problem with any crime: Those who would commit it are not those who would care about what others thought of it, with the possible exception of theft. By the way, it is possible to both rape and murder someone. On that note, one could make the argument that murder is the worse crime of the two because at least when you are raped you might continue living. So why aren't we more focused on our murder culture? It's clearly more dire than rape culture.

I'm not even going to give victim blaming the time of day. Even feminists blame victims. "Why didn't he fight back?" is asked of the male abuse victim. "Men can't be raped, you wanted it," is told to the male rape victim. It has nothing to do with rape culture and everything to do with logical fallacy and a lack of critical thinking.

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.

Didn't you say something about disliking oversimplification earlier?

I spake thus:

I hate it when people try to oversimplify consent

And your point is?

[Neonivek]

Rape is universally reviled by pretty much anyone who would not commit rape. Rape is just above child molestation on the list of things that will get you shanked in prison. Even murderers hate rapists.

Unfortunately as I found out... this isn't true.

[Squeegy]

Got shanked in prison, did you?

[Neonivek]

Got shanked in prison, did you?

They did extensive studies and while they show that certain crimes do get you attacked in prison more often... it tends to be MORE of a case of "acceptable targets" and people who want to get their aggression out.

[Squeegy]

Got shanked in prison, did you?

They did extensive studies and while they show that certain crimes do get you attacked in prison more often... it tends to be MORE of a case of "acceptable targets" and people who want to get their aggression out.

Certainly, that seems likely, but that only means it's not entirely accurate, not false.

[Neonivek]

Got shanked in prison, did you?

They did extensive studies and while they show that certain crimes do get you attacked in prison more often... it tends to be MORE of a case of "acceptable targets" and people who want to get their aggression out.

Certainly, that seems likely, but that only means it's not entirely accurate, not false.

Yeah I'll give that to you.

[penguinofhonor]

I'm not sure if prison culture is particularly anti-rape, considering the amount of rape that happens in prisons.

And your point is?

The post I quoted is quite an oversimplification, and not really relevant. Unless you're trying to argue that people should stop drinking alcohol to solve the problems it causes with consent, which is technically true but about as practical as advocating for abstinence to fight STDs.

[Vector]

Those who would commit it are not those who would care about what others thought of it

Hi, I'm a woman who has been raped and this isn't true.

[Neonivek]

Those who would commit it are not those who would care about what others thought of it

Hi, I'm a woman who has been raped and this isn't true.

I think there is some information missing here... but then I realized that in order to find out that info, I'd have to ask more details... and I don't want to...

So I'll just give it to you... Even though I know your right anyway, I just like to nitpick statements.

[Bauglir]

Those who would commit it are not those who would care about what others thought of it, with the possible exception of theft.

No, those who would commit it but care what others thought of it are those that will do their utmost to redefine their own actions out of the category.

"She didn't say no, so it wasn't rape." "He got hard, so it wasn't rape." "We were both drunk, so it wasn't rape."

These all have something in common - they don't actually address what rape is, at all. But they kinda sorta sound like they do. They don't match up with the popular image. It's all about saying, "It wasn't my fault", or "I wasn't trying to rape", which, yeah, is certainly better than the alternative, but "I wasn't trying to run him over" doesn't change the fact that somebody got hospitalized.

EDIT: Note that all of those examples in the middle paragraph describe situations that could very plausibly not have been rape. That's important. But they also don't serve as evidence that it wasn't. They're irrelevant excuses.

[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...

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?

The person is willingly disrupting their ability to avoid bad decisions.  They shouldn't blame others when they make bad decisions.  No one is "taking advantage" of them if they give consent under the influence of substances they willingly took.

This is akin to blaming a bicyclist for getting hit by a drunk driver.  The drunk driver was inhibited, so are they not responsible for their actions?  In the same way, accepting advances from a willingly drunk person is in no way rape.  And yet it's often labelled as such, making a mockery of what should be a repulsive word.

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.

It's not that complicated... If one party didn't consent, or was drugged unknowingly or against their will, it's rape.  Drugging with alcohol is drugging.

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.

Accusations of "Victim-blaming", how predictable!  Would you care to back that up in any way whatsoever?  Or is every drunken moron a blameless victim in your eyes?

I love the concept that two people can willingly share some drinks (with full knowledge of the contents), eagerly engage in consensual sex, but actually one is "taking advantage" of the other and it's RAPE.  What exactly counts as "taking advantage"?  Are men morally obligated to stop their weak-willed partners from ever drinking, lest they be RAPISTS?  News flash:  In actual relationships based on equality, one partner is not responsible for every action of the other!  It can be a bad idea to sleep with a drunk person, but it is not morally required to shun them like lepers to avoid RAPE.

It boggles my mind how some people can be so concerned with sexual rights and feminism, and yet misuse that word to the point of uselessness.

The "Victim blaming" card doesn't surprise me at all, though.  Cheap shots are cheap.

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.

People make bad decisions and should learn from them.  Good parenting involves educating kids to avoid the worst ones...  Sometimes that even involves making lesser ones first.  My parents offered me wine in high school, removing the mystery and allure.

Bad decisions aren't the fault of other people, though.

I still don't know what you mean by "take advantage" there, but wake up:  A lot of people go to parties to get drunk, then fuck.  If someone goes to a party to get drunk, but not fuck, but then fucks anyway because they can't control their inebriation level, then:
1) They shouldn't be drinking
2) It's their own damn fault
3) It's also kinda their parents' fault
4) It's not the fault of the other person who had no way of reading the person's mind.

And before you say "Well maybe he knew her from outside the party and she'd never fucked him sober", lots of people drink specifically to get over their social and sexual anxieties.

Basically, Rolan, yes, if they actually consented to it, and weren't pressured into it, then it's not rape.

Yes thank you.

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.

You're right, we can't read minds.  So we shouldn't assume either party is telling the truth.

[anzki4]

So basically every instance of sex is a rape unless, beforehand both parties:
1. Have series of blood tests to make sure there is no hormonal imbalances and neither is under the influence of any substance which might affect their decision making.
2. Have a full mental health checkup.
2. Fill written 20-page consent form/questionare that makes sure neither of them has any external pressure to have sex. (eg. "I want to lose my virginity, because I want to be accepted by my peers")

Ok.

[Neonivek]

I think this conversation is interesting in that, to over simplify, there are basically two sides here but everyone is unwittingly on the same side anyway just working from a different angle.

Anyhow I don't think anyone, or few people here, are trying to define rape so stringently that unless someone is completely free of all outside influences.

Just that the difference between "Compromised" drunk and "Uncompromised" drunk is as hazy as the beer goggles they look through.

[Reelya]

@anzki4: #3 is not that far off from a few campus sex rules that cropped up around the early 90's. This one is the most infamous one:

http://www.thefire.org/antiochs-infamous-sexual-assault-policy/

But it's not the worst. Gettysburgs rules require explicit verbal consent every time you hug, pat or kiss the same person.
www.thefire.org/index.php/article/7035.html

It's based on the fact that previous consent to sexual contact doesn't mean that sex at another time is "a given" so consent is required each time, combined with the fact that hugging ot kissing someone without their consent is not a good thing either. But it combines it all back together into a blind Frankenstein set of rules which don't make any distinction between forcible rape or e.g. hugging or kissing someone who doesn't want to be hugged or kissed, or hugging or kissing your long-term girlfriend or boyfriend when you see each other after class.

so, at Gettysburg, you have to ask your girlfriend "may I kiss you?" and wait for a clear verbal "yes" each and every time you see each other. If she runs up and hugs you, then you kiss her, you're BOTH guilty of sexual misconduct under these rules for the two acts.

Since these rules catch everyone (you can't even hug your friends without a verbal agreement each time), they're applied "with discretion" which basically means "a blanket excuse to victimize anyone I don't like" by tinpot bureaucrats. We all see how well police "discretion" works with blacks vs whites (i.e. not good for blacks).