Print

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

[Sheb]

The problem is, sexual relations are such a murky area, I don't think it is possible to design a rule set that isn't either ridiculously overbearing or not protecting enough.

[scriver]

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.

No, and this isn't what anyone has been saying.

[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.

No, and this isn't what anyone has been saying.

Well that was poorly worded, my bad. What I meant to say is that every instance of sex is potentially rape if you don't follow steps above. What follows is that if you want to avoid raping someone you literally need to follow above steps every time you have sex.

[scriver]

No, and that's not what anyone has been saying.

[anzki4]

That said, I'd agree that there is a point where there's functionally no degree of rape at all, and that's when everybody involved takes the time to thoughtfully consider the act with no sense of urgency and no external chemical influences on their brain, where an external chemical influence is defined as any chemical that acts as or alters neurotransmitter behavior, which was not synthesized within the person in question's body and which is not an essential nutrient (since I know you're going to ask). There may need to be some clarification on essential nutrients, since there may be some ways of overdosing blah blah blah but I think we can all agree that this is a shitty nitpicking direction to take the conversation and I'm not going to continue it.

And since the steps in the list are the only way for sure to know whether there is external influence on their brain...

Of course it might not be rape without the steps if you are "lucky" and they in face don't have external influences to their brain, but without the steps it's always potentially rape.

[Phmcw]

I'd like to remembre everyone that if you bidge drink it's solely for the purpose of doing stupid things.

[anzki4]

I'd like to remembre everyone that if you bidge drink it's solely for the purpose of doing stupid things.

Have you been bidge drinking lately.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

I'm sorry, couldn't resist.

[Phmcw]

Arg I mean binge drinking.

[Bauglir]

That said, I'd agree that there is a point where there's functionally no degree of rape at all, and that's when everybody involved takes the time to thoughtfully consider the act with no sense of urgency and no external chemical influences on their brain, where an external chemical influence is defined as any chemical that acts as or alters neurotransmitter behavior, which was not synthesized within the person in question's body and which is not an essential nutrient (since I know you're going to ask). There may need to be some clarification on essential nutrients, since there may be some ways of overdosing blah blah blah but I think we can all agree that this is a shitty nitpicking direction to take the conversation and I'm not going to continue it.

And since the steps in the list are the only way for sure to know whether there is external influence on their brain...

Of course it might not be rape without the steps if you are "lucky" and they in face don't have external influences to their brain, but without the steps it's always potentially rape.

Yes, and that's why it's silly to argue that you can't possibly have committed rape because it met your standards for being an acceptable choice at the time. In real life, you have to work with imperfect information, so accepting the possibility that you can make a mistake is important. You have to take risks, and understand that you can be held accountable if things go wrong.

So, yeah, you have to understand "There's a chance I may be committing rape here" in order to have a reasonable sex life. That's not to say you shouldn't have a reasonable sex life - it's to say that if you do fuck up, you shouldn't try to deny somebody's pain by insisting it never happened.

EDIT: And you should also take reasonable steps to consider whether your decisions are likely to be fucking up in the first place, obviously, but I don't think that's at issue here.

[Phmcw]

So, yeah, you have to understand "There's a chance I may be committing rape here" in order to have a reasonable sex life. That's not to say you shouldn't have a reasonable sex life - it's to say that if you do fuck up, you shouldn't try to deny somebody's pain by insisting it never happened.

I'm sorry but that's dilluting the meaning of rape to an unnaceptable point.

If you want to talk morality, for me rape morally is to knowingly and willingly have sex with someone against his or her consent. As proving intent is one of the most difficult thing, I don't think it should be worded that way in the law, but it's merely for convenience.

[Bauglir]

EDIT: This post was originally overly inflammatory. I'll replace it with something more productive. Sorry.

NEW VERSION:

Intent has nothing to do with whether or not injury was done. We could make a distinction between intentional and accidental rape, if you like. Or we could come up with a suitably strong word for unintentional rape - whatever you'd like for a manslaughter equivalent. But to end the discussion with "Rape is to knowingly and willingly have sex with someone against his or her consent" is to ignore victims entirely - which is obnoxious as hell. The problem with rape isn't the sex you have, it's the harm you cause, so the definition of the crime needs to center on that.

For that matter, you need to revise your definition to "without consent", if I'm reading you right and you're saying that "They didn't say no" is a valid excuse. That could just be a misunderstanding on my part, though.

[Leafsnail]

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.

This is an an absurd analogy.  Having sex with a drunk person involves your consent in a way that being hit with a car as a cyclist does not.  The situation that would actually be analogous would be someone getting drunk and then raping someone else, and I agree that they should still be held responsible in that case.

I think ultimately you're conflating two very morally different things.  Being drunk does not absolve you of your responsibility to respect other people's rights and obey the law - this is true, and it's the reason why being drunk is not a defense against charges of assault, rape or indeed drunk driving.  If you can't respect other people's rights while drunk then you shouldn't get drunk at all.

However, the fact that you are drunk is also not a free pass for other people to violate your rights.  The fact that I got drunk and passed out doesn't mean that someone else can steal my wallet or beat me up, even if I can offer no resistance against them.  Similarly, if someone is clearly past the point where they can give informed consent that doesn't give you the right to assume their answer would be "yes".

[Graknorke]

A large amount of what I see here is a room full of people beating up strawmen.

Just... think through what you're replying to and see if it matches up with what anyone has actually said.

[Phmcw]

EDIT: This post was originally overly inflammatory. I'll replace it with something more productive. Sorry.

NEW VERSION:

Intent has nothing to do with whether or not injury was done. We could make a distinction between intentional and accidental rape, if you like. Or we could come up with a suitably strong word for unintentional rape - whatever you'd like for a manslaughter equivalent. But to end the discussion with "Rape is to knowingly and willingly have sex with someone against his or her consent" is to ignore victims entirely - which is obnoxious as hell. The problem with rape isn't the sex you have, it's the harm you cause, so the definition of the crime needs to center on that.

For that matter, you need to revise your definition to "without consent", if I'm reading you right and you're saying that "They didn't say no" is a valid excuse. That could just be a misunderstanding on my part, though.

Meh, if someone didn't consent (verbally or physically ie if someone is undressing me while kissing me I assume until told otherwise that they are consenting to sex with me) you have no reason to think they would. A simple example, you find a girl passed out at a party, you cannot assume that she'd want to have sex with you, so sex in that case is clear cut rape. So no is to be assumed unless told otherwise.

But let's make a thought experiment. Let's say that someone kidnap your familly and order you to have sex with him/her. That's rape, and he's the rapist.
Now let's say that he or she order you to go to the nearest party and have sex with someone. Clearly you have still been raped. But who is guilty. Will you held the guy/gal you sleep accountable for your rape even though he/she knew nothing about the situation?

Now if someone drink a bit too much but while being still coherent enthousiastically sleep with someone they wouldn't normally, there is no way you can call it rape.

The fact that I got drunk and passed out doesn't mean that someone else can steal my wallet or beat me up, even if I can offer no resistance against them.  Similarly, if someone is clearly past the point where they can give informed consent that doesn't give you the right to assume their answer would be "yes".

I don't think anyone argue against that, exept if two completely drunk peoples sleep with each other (consenting enthousiastically) while with no one is around to separate them. Then it's both their fault.

[Rolan7]

The fact that I got drunk and passed out doesn't mean that someone else can steal my wallet or beat me up, even if I can offer no resistance against them.  Similarly, if someone is clearly past the point where they can give informed consent that doesn't give you the right to assume their answer would be "yes".

I don't think anyone argue against that, exept if two completely drunk peoples sleep with each other (consenting enthousiastically) while with no one is around to separate them. Then it's both their fault.

Yeah, I was talking about situations where the drunk people still consent (and were drunk of their own volition).
It's true that my bicyclist analogy was a bit of a stretch, though...

I think the problem is that some people think drunk people can't actually consent.  The exact amount of self-imposed drugging that would make consent impossible is unclear to me.  But I reject that notion because it does, in a way, suggest that we aren't responsible for what we do if we drug ourselves first. 

That's why I brought up drunk drivers.  A lot of drunk drivers don't *choose* to drive drunk, they think they're slightly tipsy.  Yet if they drive themselves to a party, and misjudge the amount they drink, they're still fully responsible for what they do.  If that means driving drunk, they're guilty of drunk driving and potentially manslaughter.  Yet if that means having sex with someone they wouldn't normally, they have a legal case for "rape" against the consenting partner.  That's unjust.

And again, if the drinks were spiked, then the unknowing victims are blameless.  *That's* rape, even if they appear to give consent, because their decision making process has been *stolen*.