|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Consent
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
What is consent?
There has been discussion recently that one cannot consent [to sex] without doing so explicitly and verbally, and that people who drink more than the drink drive limit cannot consent.
There are some counter arguments. The first counter argument this is broadening the definition of rape. But to me this seems no different to saying that same sex marriage is broadening the definition of marriage, or that words like computer and gay cannot change their meanings.
Then there is the argument that people choose to drink too much alcohol so they should be responsible for their own actions having done so. And maybe you have reason, but certainly it seems highly immoral to sex someone in a stupefied state. Also, what about date rape drugs or even adding extra alcohol to someone's drink without their consent?
[ 12. June 2013, 18:43: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
What is consent?
There has been discussion recently that one cannot consent [to sex] without doing so explicitly and verbally, and that people who drink more than the drink drive limit cannot consent.
There are some counter arguments. The first counter argument this is broadening the definition of rape. But to me this seems no different to saying that same sex marriage is broadening the definition of marriage, or that words like computer and gay cannot change their meanings.
Then there is the argument that people choose to drink too much alcohol so they should be responsible for their own actions having done so. And maybe you have reason, but certainly it seems highly immoral to sex someone in a stupefied state. Also, what about date rape drugs or even adding extra alcohol to someone's drink without their consent?
That argument in the middle doesn't make sense. If you are completely blotto, you cannot give consent, therefore it's the other person who is responsible for their own actions. Thus, having sex with someone who is out of it, is rape. Seems sensible to me.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
I think Scuffleball is offering the argument in the third paragraph that if you choose to drink yourself into a stupor then, as it's so often crudely put, you're asking for it.
There is more protection for the foolish in the proposal that consent must be explicit and verbal.
GG
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
One of the effects of alcohol - long before the blotto stage - is to impair your judgment and decision-making over quite a range of issues. So really you need to be teetotal, because one glass of Chardonnay and you've already sold the pass in terms of maintaining the level of responsibility the OP suggests.
But there is a degree of trust implicit in society. You expect to be able to walk down the street without being immediately set upon because you are carrying money. You expect to socialise in places and in a way that is condoned - even promoted - by society without being raped. And when you get it wrong - it's your fault for choosing this street or that company and not that of the mugger or rapist?
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
birdie
fowl
# 2173
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
Then there is the argument that people choose to drink too much alcohol so they should be responsible for their own actions having done so.
That argument in the middle doesn't make sense. If you are completely blotto, you cannot give consent, therefore it's the other person who is responsible for their own actions. Thus, having sex with someone who is out of it, is rape. Seems sensible to me.
Damn right. I think we urgently need to educate young men and women about consent - that consent is not the absence of 'no' but the presence of 'yes', and that 'no' should always, always be respected.
Not long after the Steubenville rape case, I came across this piece from a 9th grade teacher which to be honest, I found both moving and chilling. The teacher did a fantastic job in talking about consent, victim shaming and other issues and that was great. But then, that's one class of children in one place. That there is a generation of children growing up who might ask "How can it be rape? She wasn't awake to say no.", I find terrifying.
The Day I Taught How Not to Rape
--------------------
"Gentlemen, I wash my hands of this weirdness."
Captain Jack Sparrow
Posts: 1290 | From: the edge | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Liopleurodon
Mighty sea creature
# 4836
|
Posted
Part of the reason why this is so important to talk about now is that people were seriously making the argument that in the Steubenville case the victim was not raped because she was unconscious and therefore unable to say no. And while it would be good if everyone who was uncomfortable with proceedings was able to give a clear unambiguous "no" the trouble is that when fear kicks in people can respond in different ways - freezing, being rendered speechless and so on. So the message is gradually being adjusted from "no means no" to "only yes means yes" which seems sensible to me.
That "yes" can be verbal or nonverbal or some combination of the two. Mostly it's common sense. I've heard a lot of whining about "But how am I supposed to know if she's up for it if I don't ask permission for every single act?" and honestly, that's pretty stupid. If your partner tenses up, looks frightened or uncomfortable or otherwise indicates reluctance, you stop and ask. If you don't get some kind of clear consent in response, then don't start again. Frankly, if you are unable to tell whether the person you're with wants to do this, and unwilling to ask, you shouldn't be sleeping with anyone.
[aaaaaaaand crosspost ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ]
[ 12. June 2013, 10:38: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]
--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale
Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Galloping Granny:
I think Scuffleball is offering the argument in the third paragraph that if you choose to drink yourself into a stupor then, as it's so often crudely put, you're asking for it.
There is more protection for the foolish in the proposal that consent must be explicit and verbal.
GG
And it's a completely nonsensical argument. Fortunately, the law now does not accept it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
It is true that drunkenness is no excuse in law for committing any crime. Implicitly, the point is that drinking to a level where you cannot control your actions is itself a consensual act for which you must take responsibility.
However, this can only apply to your own actions, not what somebody does to you. Mug, murder or rape somebody while drunk and you must pay the price. Get mugged, murdered or raped while drunk and 'S/he chose to get drunk so was asking for it' is always a non-sequitur.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I can't understand one basic thing about the men's arguments in these sort of cases. Where on earth is the pleasure in "having sex" with an unconscious, non-responsive, person? Couldn't the same be achieved on one's own? With an inflatable dummy? If the victim is just lying there all floppy, just what is the point? And again, what is the pleasure in doing it to someone who has shown they aren't enjoying it?
If that sort of thing isn't rape, it certainly isn't making love.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
I can't understand one basic thing about the men's arguments in these sort of cases. Where on earth is the pleasure in "having sex" with an unconscious, non-responsive, person? Couldn't the same be achieved on one's own? With an inflatable dummy? If the victim is just lying there all floppy, just what is the point? And again, what is the pleasure in doing it to someone who has shown they aren't enjoying it?
If that sort of thing isn't rape, it certainly isn't making love.
Well, that's the perfect illustration of the truth that rape isn't about sex, it's about power. There may not be much "pleasure" in the sense that we like to think of sexual pleasure, but for a certain type of person there may be great pleasure in having forced themselves upon someone who would not have allowed their attentions if they had been able to resist.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Penny S
That's a whole can of worms, I mean the darker side of male desire. I guess there are men who are turned on by a non-responsive or unconscious woman, and many other varieties of this. I'm sure also, there is a dark side to female desire also. It involves power, powerlessness, fear, hatred, aggression, all of which can be eroticized.
I think Freud argued that sex was useful as it permitted our dark desires some safe expression, that is, in 'normal' sex. It's difficult to test this idea though, although I think there is something in it. For example, rape fantasies seem quite common, and are presumably quite safe in most people, as they don't act them out.
[ 12. June 2013, 12:02: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Penny S: I can't understand one basic thing about the men's arguments in these sort of cases. Where on earth is the pleasure in "having sex" with an unconscious, non-responsive, person? Couldn't the same be achieved on one's own? With an inflatable dummy? If the victim is just lying there all floppy, just what is the point? And again, what is the pleasure in doing it to someone who has shown they aren't enjoying it?
It definitely isn't my thing, but if you're asking "Where do these men get the pleasure from?", I would guess the answer is: "the kick of power".
Which automatically leads to this conclusion: quote:
Penny S: If that sort of thing isn't rape, it certainly isn't making love.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, I think this is straying into dodgy territory. You have to distinguish fantasy from acting out. I would guess that lots of people enjoy a certain degree of fantasy about being overpowered, or doing the overpowering. This seems fine to me, as it is not being acted out. It is quite separate from rape, or violence.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
(LOL, I think three people gave basically the same answer to Penny S' question, cross-posting with eachother ![[Biased]](wink.gif) )
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I wonder if they were cross-dressing as well.
The other point I forgot to make about fantasies about being overpowered and so on, is that they seem often involuntary. They just seem to rise up and float around. Well, if you want to try to control them, go ahead, but don't blame me if sex turns into a mental wrestling match, with possibly flaccid consequences.
[ 12. June 2013, 12:23: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by birdie:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
Then there is the argument that people choose to drink too much alcohol so they should be responsible for their own actions having done so.
That argument in the middle doesn't make sense. If you are completely blotto, you cannot give consent, therefore it's the other person who is responsible for their own actions. Thus, having sex with someone who is out of it, is rape. Seems sensible to me.
Damn right. I think we urgently need to educate young men and women about consent - that consent is not the absence of 'no' but the presence of 'yes', and that 'no' should always, always be respected.
Not long after the Steubenville rape case, I came across this piece from a 9th grade teacher which to be honest, I found both moving and chilling. The teacher did a fantastic job in talking about consent, victim shaming and other issues and that was great. But then, that's one class of children in one place. That there is a generation of children growing up who might ask "How can it be rape? She wasn't awake to say no.", I find terrifying.
The Day I Taught How Not to Rape
What if both parties, having been drinking Jager bombs together all night are blotto and both have impaired judgement? (That might not be the only function that is impaired though.)
Either way the giving and interpreting consent may be a bit foggy."I realise that he/she was drunk but thought he/she was coming onto to me. Then they came round and regretted their actions."
(Playing devil's advocate to see how this kind of legislation might work in practice. Just for the record, I think consent should be consciously given. In some kind of committed relationship).
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
What is consent?
There has been discussion recently that one cannot consent [to sex] without doing so explicitly and verbally, and that people who drink more than the drink drive limit cannot consent.
There are some counter arguments. The first counter argument this is broadening the definition of rape. But to me this seems no different to saying that same sex marriage is broadening the definition of marriage, or that words like computer and gay cannot change their meanings.
Then there is the argument that people choose to drink too much alcohol so they should be responsible for their own actions having done so. And maybe you have reason, but certainly it seems highly immoral to sex someone in a stupefied state. Also, what about date rape drugs or even adding extra alcohol to someone's drink without their consent?
That argument in the middle doesn't make sense. If you are completely blotto, you cannot give consent, therefore it's the other person who is responsible for their own actions. Thus, having sex with someone who is out of it, is rape. Seems sensible to me.
The argument was stated thus; "if you get drunk and hit someone/throw up you should be expected to pay the consequences" or "if you are really drunk and someone persuades you to do a robbery are you not nevertheless responsible?" Which sounds like a dubious canard to me but I'm not exactly sure how to reply other than "what about Steubenville?"
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
scuffleball
Shipmate
# 16480
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Fortunately, the law now does not accept it.
It doesn't? I know a number of people who want the legal definition of rape to be broadened also.
--------------------
SPK: I also plan to create ... a Calvinist Ordinariate
ken: I thought it was called Taize?
Posts: 272 | Registered: Jun 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
The argument was stated thus; "if you get drunk and hit someone/throw up you should be expected to pay the consequences" or "if you are really drunk and someone persuades you to do a robbery are you not nevertheless responsible?" Which sounds like a dubious canard to me but I'm not exactly sure how to reply other than "what about Steubenville?"
Hitting someone is a crime. Robbing someone is a crime. Raping someone is a crime. Being raped is not a crime.
You know, as often as I think I wouldn't have to explain this it's still a distinction that eludes an enormous number of people.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Fortunately, the law now does not accept it.
It doesn't? I know a number of people who want the legal definition of rape to be broadened also.
I think possibly we're shouting across the Atlantic here. The Crown Prosecution Service advice on rape in England and Wales includes this:
"People who have consumed alcohol may reach such a level of drunkenness that they no longer have the capacity to give consent. The courts recognise that this stage may be reached well before they become unconscious."
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rape.html
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
What about in situations where both parties get so drunk they wake up in bed without any memory of either having consented or not (a common trope in flms and TV shows though I assume it happens in real life as well). Is the man guilty of rape just because he is the penetrator rather than the penetratee in this mutually messy situation? Why can't the woman be argued to have just as much raped the man as the man raped the woman if neither of them have given explicit sober consent?
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
If a woman complained that she had been raped, and could not remember anything, and the guy ditto, I would think that the CPS would need some very powerful persuading to take that one to court.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Freud
was one sick, fuck.
Question of degree, I think.
I have a large punching bag, ~45kg, that I occasionally hit and kick. I have used it to vent aggression. Research indicates, however, that this reinforces aggressive behaviour rather than releases it.
While dark fantasies may not turn to action, I am not sure they should be considered therapy either.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
The argument was stated thus; "if you get drunk and hit someone/throw up you should be expected to pay the consequences" or "if you are really drunk and someone persuades you to do a robbery are you not nevertheless responsible?" Which sounds like a dubious canard to me but I'm not exactly sure how to reply other than "what about Steubenville?"
Here would be my answer: "The first two scenarios you described imply some sort of motor control and ability to take initiative. So, by acting they are making a choice. If someone is drunk to the point they can't physically respond or so drunk they can't even from the word 'Stop,' that hardly compares."
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
If a woman complained that she had been raped, and could not remember anything, and the guy ditto, I would think that the CPS would need some very powerful persuading to take that one to court.
Yeah, exactly.
The Steubenville case involved several witnesses and video evidence of a girl who basically couldn't move getting passed around by a bunch of boys. That would be a good base point to illustrate the concept of "unable to give consent."
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Freud
was one sick, fuck.
Question of degree, I think.
I have a large punching bag, ~45kg, that I occasionally hit and kick. I have used it to vent aggression. Research indicates, however, that this reinforces aggressive behaviour rather than releases it.
While dark fantasies may not turn to action, I am not sure they should be considered therapy either.
Well, I think the idea is that repressing fantasies causes trouble.
Freud? A genius in my book. Was he sick? I don't know.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
just a side note, here, but don't count on whiskey dick. I know a lot of people think that because a man can get it up he wasn't "that" drunk.
I know of two men who were raped when they were seriously impaired. one was unconscious. the other has no idea what shape he was in, remembers nothing, but the DNA test came back positive and now he's a daddy.
Both of these men have told me they consider themselves to have been raped. neither called authorities because they knew they would not be taken seriously.
I have also talked to both of the women in these cases who laughed it off. Because "he obviously was interested!"
the pecker is a weird animal. a hard-on does not equal consent, either.
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes, if you tie a man down, and against his will, stimulate his penis, it will get hard with some men. I suppose some abusers of boys might make the shitty argument that the boy was aroused, as he might have been in terms of an erection. Of course, this confuses boys as well, as they feel ashamed that somehow they were complicit.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The Steubenville case involved several witnesses and video evidence of a girl who basically couldn't move getting passed around by a bunch of boys. That would be a good base point to illustrate the concept of "unable to give consent."
People who are unconscious can't consent to anything - I would have thought that was obvious.
Quetzalcoatl quotes the UK Crown Prosecution Service upthread, though:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
"People who have consumed alcohol may reach such a level of drunkenness that they no longer have the capacity to give consent. The courts recognise that this stage may be reached well before they become unconscious."
http://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/prosecution/rape.html
This is talking about someone who has some degree of motor control, is awake and talking, but is completely blotto and would probably go along with just about any suggestion that was made to them. In the UK, at least, sex with that person is rape, but there's a far bigger grey area in this kind of case than in something like Steubenville. Drunkenness is a continuum, but you can't have a continuum between legal, consensual sex and rape. A legal threshold has to be drawn somewhere.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I don't think grey areas invalidate a particular law or set of laws. In fact, you are bound to get them, and one of the functions of the CPS is to deliberate upon them, and decide if a prosecution is likely to succeed, and if it's in the public interest also.
But I assume that actions that would once not have been considered rape, today are, and one example is plying a girl with drink, and then having sex with her. I would think that once you would have got away with it 100% of the time, but today, maybe not so easily.
I guess the lawyers love the grey areas also, as they get to make loads of money.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You know, as often as I think I wouldn't have to explain this it's still a distinction that eludes an enormous number of people.
A sad and disheartening truth.
-------------
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I think the idea is that repressing fantasies causes trouble.
Repressing, rather than addressing, yes. But one must be careful walking the line between acknowledging and licensing.
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Freud? A genius in my book. Was he sick? I don't know.
One does not preclude the other. While I do not think his contributions should be ignored, I do think he projected more than he realised.
lilBuddha letting go of this tangent
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I think Freud
was one sick, fuck.
Question of degree, I think.
I have a large punching bag, ~45kg, that I occasionally hit and kick. I have used it to vent aggression. Research indicates, however, that this reinforces aggressive behaviour rather than releases it.
While dark fantasies may not turn to action, I am not sure they should be considered therapy either.
I don't have a punching bag, but I do have a Freud finger puppet and a Freud action figure. When I don't have appointments, both Freuds play with my StarTrek Next Generation actions figures (Captain Picard, Worf, Riker, Picard as Borg, and I also have the Grand Negus from Deep Space Nine).
I asked all of the above what they thought about consent. The STNG characters all deferred to Counsellor Troi, who is not here. The Freuds told me that "alles dem penis geschaft possessors müst do mehr goot lovin und schpeaking bevor using dem pekker", the meaning of which is rather transparent: no talkie no fuckie.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
no prophet: The STNG characters all deferred to Counsellor Troi, who is not here.
She wouldn't be of much use anyway. She'd babble something like "I sense some agitation in your question, do you want to talk about it?" and then go water her plants or something.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
argona
Shipmate
# 14037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
I have a large punching bag, ~45kg, that I occasionally hit and kick. I have used it to vent aggression. Research indicates, however, that this reinforces aggressive behaviour rather than releases it.
Indeed. Also shouting, screaming, cursing, all the things people call "letting off steam". We are not pressure cookers.
Posts: 327 | From: Oriental dill patch? (4,7) | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
lilBuddha: I have a large punching bag, ~45kg, that I occasionally hit and kick. I have used it to vent aggression.
I have a trumpet. It can play really loud!
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
lilBuddha: I have a large punching bag, ~45kg, that I occasionally hit and kick. I have used it to vent aggression.
I have a trumpet. It can play really loud!
That's not so loud. My amp goes to 11.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Golden Key
Shipmate
# 1468
|
Posted
Various:
--Some American colleges used to have student sexual relationsip contracts. Both parties would sign up before starting the relationship. It was to clarify any future claims of sexual harassment, etc. Of course, that might not help in a specific instance. I don't know how well the contracts worked.
I searched but didn't find any relevant hits. IIRC, either Antioch College or Oberlin was the first. I think the program started in the late '70s. Perhaps it was dropped.
--I read once that Herr Freud originally believed many people had "premature sexual experience" in the form of abuse. But the more he got into it, the more uncomfortable he got. IIRC, there were letters suggesting there may have been abuse somewhere in his family. Supposedly, that was when he backed off and decided it was all psychological and symbolic, rather than actual happenings.
If only he could've stuck with his original realization...
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--Counselor Troi took abuse and rape seriously, whether physical or telepathic. She and other crew members experienced it.
--------------------
Blessed Gator, pray for us!
--"Oh bat bladders, do you have to bring common sense into this?" (Dragon, "Jane & the Dragon")
--"Oh, Peace Train, save this country!" (Yusuf/Cat Stevens, "Peace Train")
Posts: 18601 | From: Chilling out in an undisclosed, sincere pumpkin patch. | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, many of the post-Freudians did rehabilitate the idea of child abuse. And of course, the role of fantasy and symbolism remained pretty important. O/t.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
This is talking about someone who has some degree of motor control, is awake and talking, but is completely blotto and would probably go along with just about any suggestion that was made to them. In the UK, at least, sex with that person is rape, but there's a far bigger grey area in this kind of case than in something like Steubenville. Drunkenness is a continuum, but you can't have a continuum between legal, consensual sex and rape. A legal threshold has to be drawn somewhere.
Playing devil's advocate here -
If someone (of their own volition) were to get completely blotto and sign a life-changing contract, wouldn't that contract still count as legally binding? IOW, it would be treated as though the signatory had given complete consent.
Don't get me wrong - it would be morally reprehensible to take advantage of someone's drunkenness in that way, but as I understand the law the contract would stand nonetheless.
--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)
Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
According to this page,
quote:
If a person signs a contract while drunk or under the influence of drugs, can that contract be enforced? Courts are usually not very sympathetic to people who claim they were intoxicated when they signed a contract. Generally a court will only allow the contract to be avoided if the other party to the contract knew about the intoxication and took advantage of the intoxicated person, or if the person was somehow involuntarily intoxicated (e.g. someone spiked the punch).
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Playing devil's advocate here -
If someone (of their own volition) were to get completely blotto and sign a life-changing contract, wouldn't that contract still count as legally binding? IOW, it would be treated as though the signatory had given complete consent.
Don't get me wrong - it would be morally reprehensible to take advantage of someone's drunkenness in that way, but as I understand the law the contract would stand nonetheless.
Yes, it would. Someone I know was doing military service (at the time when it was compulsory in France) and got blind drunk with his comrades. They held out a bit of paper to him and told him to sign it, which in his intoxicated stupor, he did. Next day he discovered he'd signed up for the parachute regiment. ![[Eek!]](eek.gif) He was forced to go through with it, which included having to fight a war in [can't remember which African country]. FWIW, he now thinks joining the Paras was one of the best things that ever happened to him.
Not sure whether that's relevant for discussion of sexual consent, tho <muses>
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Midge
Shipmate
# 2398
|
Posted
We used to call it "Taking the King's Shilling" The story told on the HMS Victory tour was that recruiting Seargants used to slip them into a jar of ale, it was taken when it touched the lips!
[Put link into bitly to fix the code
-Gwai,
Purg Host]
[ 13. June 2013, 14:15: Message edited by: Gwai ]
--------------------
Some days you are the fly.
On other days you are the windscreen.
Posts: 1085 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Midge:
We used to call it [url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King's_shilling]"Taking the King's Shilling"[/url] The story told on the HMS Victory tour was that recruiting Seargants used to slip them into a jar of ale, it was taken when it touched the lips!
Hence the existence of tankards with glass bottoms, or so I gather.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Some American colleges used to have student sexual relationsip contracts. Both parties would sign up before starting the relationship. It was to clarify any future claims of sexual harassment, etc. Of course, that might not help in a specific instance. I don't know how well the contracts worked.
I never understood that. All the "contract" tells you is that the parties consented to sex at the time that they signed the contract. If you want to use that as evidence that rape didn't happen, aren't you claiming that marital rape doesn't exist?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Various:
I read once that Herr Freud originally believed many people had "premature sexual experience" in the form of abuse. But the more he got into it, the more uncomfortable he got. IIRC, there were letters suggesting there may have been abuse somewhere in his family. Supposedly, that was when he backed off and decided it was all psychological and symbolic, rather than actual happenings.
If only he could've stuck with his original realization...
Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson was the author who put this idea forward in a book The Assault on Truth. He overstated his case, as did Freud when he retracted the "seduction theory" in the face of intense criticism. I've read that and Freud and His Father (by Marianne Krull) which discusses this all rather well. The truth lies somewhere between. I think the better wish is that both theories had been maintained.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by scuffleball:
What is consent?
There has been discussion recently that one cannot consent [to sex] without doing so explicitly and verbally, and that people who drink more than the drink drive limit cannot consent.
There are two matters on the table here: 1 sexuality (touching) and 2 imbibing alcohol with its effects on cognitive function.
1. Sexuality is related to the propagation of our bloodline, not merely to pleasure and mating versus STDs and unwanted children.
Consent in sexuality is PROFOUND by the WILL. Nobody here thinks that physical passion is a trivial pursuit. It's an emcompassing and engrossing experience ... not easy to escape.
Sexual dalliances are another matter: either of excess or out of frustration and alienation.
2. Consenting to have one's organism relieved of acidosis by the infusion of alcohol, to relieve pain, relieve tension, relieve worry ... is a different order of experience.
Some people get away with fewer cognitive problems with alcohol than others, but everybody in our society and culture needs a chemical remedy and antidote to the terrible acids that overwhelm our bodies in this society:
--lack of enough oxygen, breathing.
--too much protein in the diet.
--toxicity accumulated in the gut.
Alcohol relieves these problems, but causes other problems of dizziness, disorientation and confusion.
We trade one problem for another. That's not the same as "sexual" consent.
They're different problems.
Emily
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Rafin
Apprentice
# 17713
|
Posted
My opinion might not be popular but i would say both are to blame in a way.
If a girl gets completely wasted and a guy takes advantage, then he committed a crime in my opinion. Kind of the same thing to me if 2 people get into a fight and one accidentally kills the other. Whether it was intended or not, a crime was committed.
I do feel however that a lot of people take 0 responsibility for their own actions anymore. It's like getting mad at fire if it burns someone. This is why people teach kids to avoid these situations in the first place. because we know they are setting themselves up for trouble. While i wouldn't say it's ever the girls fault, if you get that drunk around a bunch of other drunk people it's like smearing honey on yourself and laying down in the woods in front of a hungry bear. I don't know that i feel the definition needs to be broadened though. I'd just say it's best to avoid situations where you could be put on either side of it.
Posts: 21 | From: USA | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fool on the hill
Shipmate
# 9428
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rafin:
While i wouldn't say it's ever the girls fault, if you get that drunk around a bunch of other drunk people it's like smearing honey on yourself and laying down in the woods in front of a hungry bear.
But that seems to be exactly what you are saying. If you get that drunk around a bunch of other drunk people, then could the "honey" be a boy and the "hungry bear" be another aggressive boy who beats him up for no reason? Iow, you seem to be saying that to some degree a girl is asking for rape if she gets that drunk, but do you think the same for physical assault? They are often identical.
In addition, it's disturbing that you chose that particular analogy. It seems to suggest that boys are hungry bears and seems to deny that rape (non consensual sex) is an act of power and aggression and suggests that rape is motivated by sex. It's not.
However, I do understand the complexities at play here and understand you may have meant something completely different.
To speak of some of the other topics, I think that, as hard as it is to do, sexual crimes needs to be looked at the same way murder is looked at. By that I mean, we need to look at the motives and extenuating circumstances of the criminal.
For example, the scenario of the very drunk male and the very drunk female. Neither capable of giving or receiving consent. This may not be rape because of the state of mind of the male or the two people involved. Also, there is the scenario of the quite drunk female acting provocatively but is actually unable to give consent. Her actions cold be misconstrued.
I do know someone who recently woke up next to someone she had just met and was naked. She doesn't remember if she had sex or not. This was obviously somewhat disturbing to her, but she also realized her role in the situation and is letting it go and moving on. I don't know the state of mind of the boy. However, if he was sober enough to realize that she was not capable of consent, it was rape. If he was very drunk he may not have had that ability to choose right from wrong. If she was very drunk, as she obviously was, but acting and speaking in a very willing manner, it was not. If she had become pregnant.....consequences are consequences and he would have had to deal with that same as her.
It's about state of mind and choosing right from wrong and choosing not to knowingly violate someone. It's very simply wrong to knowingly hurt another person, especially in that manner.
The situation of an unconscious female "unable to say no, therefore, its not rape", is completely disgusting.
And if you get very drunk and you have no one around you to watch out for you.....yes, that is a very dangerous situation. For many reasons. I don't know many people who go out alone and get smashed. I'm very familiar with "girl code". Friends watch out for friends.
Posts: 792 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Rafin:
My opinion might not be popular but i would say both are to blame in a way.
If a girl gets completely wasted and a guy takes advantage, then he committed a crime in my opinion. Kind of the same thing to me if 2 people get into a fight and one accidentally kills the other. Whether it was intended or not, a crime was committed.
I do feel however that a lot of people take 0 responsibility for their own actions anymore. It's like getting mad at fire if it burns someone. This is why people teach kids to avoid these situations in the first place. because we know they are setting themselves up for trouble. While i wouldn't say it's ever the girls fault, if you get that drunk around a bunch of other drunk people it's like smearing honey on yourself and laying down in the woods in front of a hungry bear. I don't know that i feel the definition needs to be broadened though. I'd just say it's best to avoid situations where you could be put on either side of it.
It is not zero sum. Whist it may be stupid to become intoxicated at a party and may make one more vulnerable, the rapist is still 100% guilty of rape.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
anne
Shipmate
# 73
|
Posted
Before I leave the house, I check that I have locked all the doors and shut the windows. Leaving a window open so that someone can get in is stupid. But even if the front door stands open all day, my belongings should be safe. Coming into my house and stealing my telly is theft, whether or not I was smart enough to lock the door.
Although of course I would hope to avoid being too stupid, too much of the time, I should be able to be stupid, or to do stupid things, without becoming a victim of crime. I should be able to see a person doing a stupid thing without choosing to commit a crime against them.
anne
[ 14. June 2013, 07:05: Message edited by: anne ]
--------------------
‘I would have given the Church my head, my hand, my heart. She would not have them. She did not know what to do with them. She told me to go back and do crochet' Florence Nightingale
Posts: 338 | From: Devon | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
