Print

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

[Virex]

Or as someone who's name eludes me put it:
No means no. Maybe means no. Yes can also mean no.

What, uh. What's left? Everything means no but... what?

What about cases where it's 'yes' the day of, but 'no' the day (or couple months) after? Is there blame to be laid, there?

Basically, what's your solution to the stuff you're bringing up, since communication can apparently fail?

"yes can mean no" presumably means that there are some cases where even a "yes" can be insufficient for consent. See: Situations involving intimidation (or an abuse of authority, as a specific example) or drugs/alcohol.

This. She may say yes and act no and it's still no. Or even it may be that she acts yes and you act no (as in cases of intimidation).


And it's the duty of those involved to make it so that wen communication fails, the fail is as harmless if possible. It's better to accidentally not have an intimate evening then to accidentally assault your girlfriend.

This isn't like robbing a store, where it's implicit that the act is unacceptable.

Yes, it is implicit. "No means no" does not mean "Lack of 'no' means yes". If you can't actually get consent from the other person, there is a problem, whether they outright say "no" or not... pretty similarly to how you don't just assume you can walk out of a store without paying just because nobody told you to stop.

"Lack of no means yes" is just as ridiculous a leap as "lack of no means no." Lack of no means... nothing. We're talking about miscommunications here; obviously the potential rapist thought what they were doing was ok in the first place, so without any incoming information that they're doing something wrong, it's pretty unreasonable to expect them to stop.

Maybe we should be advocating "don't do anything without explicit consent" which I would be pretty fine with.

That would be a better way to put it indeed, though you always run into the problem of 'consent', when someone doesn't like what's going on but feels she can't say no.

[kaijyuu]

"Don't do anything without explicit consent" and "Lack of a yes means no" mean the exact same thing. They're both ways of saying that a lack of explicit consent means a lack of consent, period.

Eh, we're talking past each other here a bit. "Lack of evidence (affirmative or negative) = negative" is a fallacy. That's what I meant. However, asking people to assume "lack of evidence = negative" in this case (for their own and other's safety) is indeed identical to asking people to get explicit consent before doing anything, which is what you're saying.


Long story short, we agree.

Also: Doing something atrocious because you mistakenly think it's okay is still pretty atrocious. Not as atrocious, but still bad.

Doesn't make the act less atrocious, but it certainly makes the person less atrocious.

[G-Flex]

"Don't do anything without explicit consent" and "Lack of a yes means no" mean the exact same thing. They're both ways of saying that a lack of explicit consent means a lack of consent, period.

Eh, we're talking past each other here a bit. "Lack of evidence (affirmative or negative) = negative" is a fallacy. That's what I meant. However, asking people to assume "lack of evidence = negative" in this case (for their own and other's safety) is indeed identical to asking people to get explicit consent before doing anything, which is what you're saying.

"Lack of evidence = negative" is the assumption to make in pretty much all cases. That's how empirical reasoning and burden of proof work. Don't believe something (in this case, that someone is okay with having sex with you at a given moment) until evidence to that effect actually comes along.

[ECrownofFire]

I'd say "lack of evidence = neutral", but whatever. The point is, you need a positive in this case, not a neutral or negative.

[Glowcat]

"Lack of evidence = negative" is the assumption to make in pretty much all cases. That's how empirical reasoning and burden of proof work. Don't believe something (in this case, that someone is okay with having sex with you at a given moment) until evidence to that effect actually comes along.

People confuse "Lack of evidence = evidence of negative" with "Lack of evidence = proof of negative". I've found that people have difficulty in distinguishing the two, and they (unknowingly) strawman Inductive arguments into Deductive ones.

[Andir]

Interjection:

I think the male oriented posters paint a terrible stereotype on all men and make people think only men can be rapists.

That is all.

[Leafsnail]

I can see how someone who didn't read any of the preceding exchange could come to that conclusion.

...Besides, what the heck is a "male oriented poster"?

EDIT: Nevermind, I understand now.

[G-Flex]

Interjection:

I think the male oriented posters paint a terrible stereotype on all men and make people think only men can be rapists.

That is all.

I don't see how anybody's painting that st... you know what, I'm just going to go with what Leafsnail said so I don't have to basically repeat it.

[Vector]

The posters in the ad campaign aimed at men, is what he's trying to say.  Not posters as in forum-goers.

[ChairmanPoo]

I think he means wall posters oriented to males (at first I was confused and thought he meant people who post here who either were male or else were sexually oriented towards males)

Edit: ninjaed.


I think we have a communication problem in this thread

[Leafsnail]

Oh right.  I wouldn't go so far but that does make sense.

[Truean]

Rick Santorum - Gay People should stop being gay



Dear Senator Santorum,

Please find enclosed with this letter a pen. If you could be so kind, please stab yourself with it before jumping in front of a truck. People calling being gay a "behavioral issue," and thus a choice is the reason I was terrified to go to school as a child.

Sincerely hoping you really do die in agony that all bigots deserve,
Truean

[G-Flex]

As awful as someone's policies are, can we please not wish death upon people in this thread?

Thanks.

[Luke_Prowler]

Rick Santorum - Gay People should stop being gay



Dear Senator Santorum,

Please find enclosed with this letter a pen. If you could be so kind, please stab yourself with it before jumping in front of a truck. People calling being gay a "behavioral issue," and thus a choice is the reason I was terrified to go to school as a child.

Sincerely hoping you really do die in agony that all bigots deserve,
Truean

Dude, that's terrible. A pen wouldn't do nearly enough damage. Send a letter opener instead.

[Truean]

Yeah, I just have a problem with someone calling me immoral, saying what I am should be illegal, and that society should shun me all just because I'm gay, when they do things like this:

http://news.yahoo.com/santorum-surge-brings-ethics-questions-152702229.html

Let's seee:Mr. Claims to be a paragon of moral virtue....
You gave someone who donated to your pet "charity" *cough cough cough* $8 Million in federal taxpayer money.
Your personal mortgage is a sweatheart deal you never qualified for once you wade through the BS.
You never actually disprove any of the entirely valid claims against you, but rather just attack the accusers.
Plus lots more.

I'm immensely flawed, but I admit it.... One little problem people don't think about when banning people from society over little things: those people sometimes lose perspective of morality because "hey I'm already banned from society right? What else can they do to me?"