So . . is regretting it the next day rape, or not rape?
Regret doesn't matter. It was still rape even if they decided to start dating their rapist. Which happens.
I think the point is if you have sex with someone, and a friend finds out the next day and starts ragging you about it and you regret it, then it's not rape.
Basically if you consent to something, and then decide against it for reasons other than simply not wanting to have sex with that person, maybe they're a dick in social circles, maybe they're black and your parents are white and racist, maybe they pick their nose. That does not constitute rape.
Just want to make sure I am understanding your posts correctly. Basically, any time a man has sex with a woman he is taking the risk that no matter what she says or does he could be raping her. I would assume that any normal man would want at all costs to avoid even the possibility of committing rape, so the idea that someone could get comfortable with the idea of having sex with someone even if you think there is even a 0.1% chance the person is not willingly consenting is incredibly repugnant to me.
My question becomes how does a man ever truly determine if the woman wants to ahve sex? Your italics is something that only the woman will know and if you are saying that verbal consent and even physical enthusiasm may not be sufficient to establish consent I am at a loss of what else can be done.
The point that you should be able to tell if your partner is in to what you are doing, and even asking for affirmative consent, is something I agree with totally. Where I get completely lost is when you assert that even if these two conditions are met there still may be rape occurring. I am at a loss on how any person can ever establsih under your conditions that they are not raping their partner.
Any time you have sex, especially with a new partner, or while under the influence of a drug, you should be asking yourself, "Am I sure I'm okay with this? Am I sure my partner is okay with this?"
Ideally, any possible doubt you have would be so insignificantly small as to be negligible. In that case, you should give that doubt a negligible amount of concern.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
Guys and girls should definitely be taught from a young age never to be sexually aggressive, other than if it's specifically asked for of course. The question of maturity should never come into this because it's impossible to judge that (within certain limits it is of course). I think guys and gals should be taught that no matter what a person goes out wearing, it does not mean in any way that they were "asking for it", or consenting via their image. Also, people should really be less exposing in what they wear these days. I've seen guys go out wearing dresses with no underwear and girls do the same, and this fucking jeggins craze is just ridiculous. You're wearing tights with no underwear and no skit for fucks sake, you just look like you have shiny silver skin, and I can see fucking everything.
The emphasis really should be on what people are taught about sex though at the moment. People are really fucking shit at giving advice or teaching on sexual matters.
What are you talking about? People can wear whatever the fuck they want. They don't owe it to you to look a certain way. If you feel uncomfortable with looking at another person's body, don't look at it. And no matter if they're wearing a silver spandex suit or a burqa or jeans and a t-shirt it is the rapist's responsibility to not rape. Not some random person's responsibility to dress in a way that you find appropriate.
So . . is regretting it the next day rape, or not rape?
Regret doesn't matter. It was still rape even if they decided to start dating their rapist. Which happens.
I think the point is if you have sex with someone, and a friend finds out the next day and starts ragging you about it and you regret it, then it's not rape.
Basically if you consent to something, and then decide against it for reasons other than simply not wanting to have sex with that person, maybe they're a dick in social circles, maybe they're black and your parents are white and racist, maybe they pick their nose. That does not constitute rape.
maybe your friends will call you a whore behind your back, etc. Maybe you just slept with your friends ex when you were drunk.
and ALL OF A SUDDEN, the dude raped her. Congratulations. That guys life could be totally fucked now. and Incenjucar 100% supports that girl
Also, people should really be less exposing in what they wear these days. I've seen guys go out wearing dresses with no underwear and girls do the same, and this fucking jeggins craze is just ridiculous. You're wearing tights with no underwear and no skit for fucks sake, you just look like you have shiny silver skin, and I can see fucking everything.
where the hell do you live that this is a common occurrence ?
Guys and girls should definitely be taught from a young age never to be sexually aggressive, other than if it's specifically asked for of course. The question of maturity should never come into this because it's impossible to judge that (within certain limits it is of course). I think guys and gals should be taught that no matter what a person goes out wearing, it does not mean in any way that they were "asking for it", or consenting via their image. Also, people should really be less exposing in what they wear these days. I've seen guys go out wearing dresses with no underwear and girls do the same, and this fucking jeggins craze is just ridiculous. You're wearing tights with no underwear and no skit for fucks sake, you just look like you have shiny silver skin, and I can see fucking everything.
The emphasis really should be on what people are taught about sex though at the moment. People are really fucking shit at giving advice or teaching on sexual matters.
What are you talking about? People can wear whatever the fuck they want. They don't owe it to you to look a certain way. If you feel uncomfortable with looking at another person's body, don't look at it. And no matter if they're wearing a silver spandex suit or a burqa or jeans and a t-shirt it is the rapist's responsibility to not rape. Not some random person's responsibility to dress in a way that you find appropriate.
If I went out butt naked and walked into somewhere I would be arrested for indecent exposure. The clothing people are starting to go out in is getting dangerously close. In the UK at least.
Just want to make sure I am understanding your posts correctly. Basically, any time a man has sex with a woman he is taking the risk that no matter what she says or does he could be raping her. I would assume that any normal man would want at all costs to avoid even the possibility of committing rape, so the idea that someone could get comfortable with the idea of having sex with someone even if you think there is even a 0.1% chance the person is not willingly consenting is incredibly repugnant to me.
My question becomes how does a man ever truly determine if the woman wants to ahve sex? Your italics is something that only the woman will know and if you are saying that verbal consent and even physical enthusiasm may not be sufficient to establish consent I am at a loss of what else can be done.
The point that you should be able to tell if your partner is in to what you are doing, and even asking for affirmative consent, is something I agree with totally. Where I get completely lost is when you assert that even if these two conditions are met there still may be rape occurring. I am at a loss on how any person can ever establsih under your conditions that they are not raping their partner.
that's the area of contention, yes. it's a valid question.
Logically, it is impossible to know for certain that you are not raping a woman when you have sex with her. You can never have absolute knowledge of another human being's mind in any way.
But you can have an excellent idea; enthusiastic consent is the essential model for this. The important thing, here, is to establish a few points.
1) Models for evaluating consent are distorted by our cultural standards, and there are healthier models, like enthusiastic consent. Issues in terms of these models are largely the cause of rape.
2) One should always, always, always consider the possibility that there is no consent, because all models are imperfect. It is possible to rape your wife, or your girlfriend, or any other woman who would usually be assumed to consent.
3) You can know, within reasonable doubt, whether consent has been given or not, and it is within this framework that we must operate both personally and legally.
4) The whole point of "you can never know" exercises is to challenge assumptions and bring it to the forefront of people's minds, to make them consider the issue and be aware of the possibility of non-consent.
The goal of the discussion is to destabilize the certainty that one's model of consent and the communication thereof is correct, because for many, many, many people, it is not.
If you were drunk at the time, you did not consent.
By this are you implying that when you are drunk you have absolutely NO mental faculties? I think it would be fairer to say that 'if you were drunk at the time, you did not consent completely'
<3Science on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
but if he wouldn't have minded that coming from a supermodel, wouldn't the defense have a leg to stand on?
"Well... he's only crying rape because he finds the defendant unattractive".
If he "wouldn't have minded it" from a different woman, then it would have been consensual.
but he didn't consent to it from that specific woman (the unattractive one), thus making it rape, right?
In your scenario, yes.
That said, I don't know enough about male strippers to know how commonplace your scenario is, if it happens at all.
try to find videos on it. I know they're out there on the net 'cause I've seen 'em, but I ain't posting it at all 'cause I'll prolly get booted from the site.
Just google "male strip club" and you'll probably find some. As I said, I worked as a stripper for two weeks when I was 19 (the age I had to be to do it in Windsor, Ontario 'cause that's the legal drinking age). I saw it happen, it happened to me, you just shrug it off and keep it moving, collecting your tips and joke about it in the locker/dressing room.
Tale of the dancing bear is not reality.
Are you saying he wasn't really sexually assaulted? Because you're sounding like you're dismissing his experience.
I'm saying that a video you find from google, that happens to be tale of the dancing bear, is not an accurate portrayl of male strip clubs and the debauchery that happens within. Or are you claiming that female patrons like being ejaculated in and upon every time as shown by the videos.
I'm saying that apparently it happens, as brought to our attention by logic7, and as shown in the videos he suggests we look up.
Does your boyfriend consistently ejaculate in your mouth and on your face? Aparently it happens, and I have videos on google showing it happen to other people...
CMON!
We're talking about non-consentual oral sex, of which he has given his story about what happened to him and his colleagues, and apparently you can find footage of this shit.
You seem to be saying that because that isn't enough to suggest it's a widespread problem, it doesn't merit any consideration. Which sounds like you're dismissing his experience.
Why are you being obtuse? Do you believe everything you find via google? If you look up Tale of the Dancing Bear, that is not indiciative of what he described, that is actual porn.
Why do you so vehemently insist on dismissing his experience?
Why are you pushing this strawman? The fact of Tale of the Dancing Bear isn't related to his experience EXCEPT when trying to find evidence that his experience occurred backed up by other documented instances. If one does research on male strip club stuff, they should disregard that as a source because it's obviously porn. I'm sure there are other things out there that support what goes on in there (And there was an HBO special that didn't show actual penetration of orifice but everything leading up to that) but porn is not supportive of that.
The fact you can google porn doesn't mean that what happens in the porn is indicative of reality outside of porn, SO CONSIDER THAT WHEN COMING ACROSS EVIDENCE. This is why gangbang and bukkake is so odd; I theorize that the majority of experiences shown in those movies are actually occouring in those movies. Gangbang and bukkake happens more in porn than outside of porn.
A WOMAN IS JUST AS CAPABLE OF RAPING A MAN AS A MAN IS OF RAPING A WOMAN
on the one hand, yeah of course
on the other hand, when we talk about "rape culture" we are talking about a systematic atmosphere of male-directed sexual violence and aggression towards women
so although forms of rape other than male-on-female are definitely perpetuated and sustained by the rape culture, you gotta be pretty obtuse not to realize that the main thing that has to happen is men have to stop raping women so much
Oh definitely. It's just that the moment it becomes gender specific you have people dismissing the somewhat rare occurrences when a man is raped by a woman, and you end up with people who think the very notion of that happening is ridiculous.
Just want to make sure I am understanding your posts correctly. Basically, any time a man has sex with a woman he is taking the risk that no matter what she says or does he could be raping her. I would assume that any normal man would want at all costs to avoid even the possibility of committing rape, so the idea that someone could get comfortable with the idea of having sex with someone even if you think there is even a 0.1% chance the person is not willingly consenting is incredibly repugnant to me.
My question becomes how does a man ever truly determine if the woman wants to ahve sex? Your italics is something that only the woman will know and if you are saying that verbal consent and even physical enthusiasm may not be sufficient to establish consent I am at a loss of what else can be done.
The point that you should be able to tell if your partner is in to what you are doing, and even asking for affirmative consent, is something I agree with totally. Where I get completely lost is when you assert that even if these two conditions are met there still may be rape occurring. I am at a loss on how any person can ever establsih under your conditions that they are not raping their partner.
Any time you have sex, especially with a new partner, or while under the influence of a drug, you should be asking yourself, "Am I sure I'm okay with this? Am I sure my partner is okay with this?"
Ideally, any possible doubt you have would be so insignificantly small as to be negligible. In that case, you should give that doubt a negligible amount of concern.
I agree wholeheartedly (and for the record do not have sex while on drugs or severly impaired by alcohol - makes me a nerd I guess) but I don't think it is negligible concern when if my instincts are wrong I could be committing rape and facing a long jail sentence. That is not how the justice system works today but if it were changed to reflect some of the views of posters in this thread you would be literally putting your entire future at stake every time you had sex
but if he wouldn't have minded that coming from a supermodel, wouldn't the defense have a leg to stand on?
"Well... he's only crying rape because he finds the defendant unattractive".
If he "wouldn't have minded it" from a different woman, then it would have been consensual.
but he didn't consent to it from that specific woman (the unattractive one), thus making it rape, right?
In your scenario, yes.
That said, I don't know enough about male strippers to know how commonplace your scenario is, if it happens at all.
try to find videos on it. I know they're out there on the net 'cause I've seen 'em, but I ain't posting it at all 'cause I'll prolly get booted from the site.
Just google "male strip club" and you'll probably find some. As I said, I worked as a stripper for two weeks when I was 19 (the age I had to be to do it in Windsor, Ontario 'cause that's the legal drinking age). I saw it happen, it happened to me, you just shrug it off and keep it moving, collecting your tips and joke about it in the locker/dressing room.
Tale of the dancing bear is not reality.
Are you saying he wasn't really sexually assaulted? Because you're sounding like you're dismissing his experience.
I'm saying that a video you find from google, that happens to be tale of the dancing bear, is not an accurate portrayl of male strip clubs and the debauchery that happens within. Or are you claiming that female patrons like being ejaculated in and upon every time as shown by the videos.
I'm saying that apparently it happens, as brought to our attention by logic7, and as shown in the videos he suggests we look up.
Does your boyfriend consistently ejaculate in your mouth and on your face? Aparently it happens, and I have videos on google showing it happen to other people...
CMON!
We're talking about non-consentual oral sex, of which he has given his story about what happened to him and his colleagues, and apparently you can find footage of this shit.
You seem to be saying that because that isn't enough to suggest it's a widespread problem, it doesn't merit any consideration. Which sounds like you're dismissing his experience.
Thing is, most male strippers that cater to women don't exactly view it as a problem. Some see it as a "perk" of the job, some just see it as part of the territory.
... and no one shoots a load when it happens. It's more like a lick, a suck, or maybe she just strokes it a time or two, but there's definitely unconsentual contact.
Same for female strippers. There's clubs that allow contact between strippers and patrons and girls would regularly have their ass and tits groped (again, this was Detroit in the 90's). I remember an uproar not only from the club owners, but from the dancers themselves when the state tried to enact "no touch" laws. To this day, there's always an issue with getting those laws on the books.
There's a distinct difference between saying "by wearing that dress, she was asking for it" and saying "by verbally asking me for it, she was asking for it", and between those two lies a slippery slope.
In cases of purposeful rape there is ABSOLUTELY no one at fault other than the rapist. In cases of, for lack of a better term, "accidental rape", it becomes a bit trickier. If the "rapist" has no idea that he is carrying out a crime, whereas the other individual DOES know that a crime is occuring, but is witholding that information, then how do you place full fault on the "accidental rapist"?
because a woman being raped is not an academy award winning actress. she is suffering, she is scared, she is in pain; any false consent will be visibly false consent if you care about the person you're having sex with.
the problem is that a rape culture is one where people have difficulty seeing that there is no consent, or don't believe that the situation exists. the "accidental rapist" has harmed the victim, and is a danger to other potential victims - why shouldn't there be repercussions?
I could list a bunch of scenarios where one could easily miss a lack of consent (after previous consent being given), but it would be a waste of time. The point is, we have already accepted that a woman could could give complete verbal consent, and even so it could actually be rape.
I never said that there should be no repercussions to the "accidental rapist", what I said is that I have trouble with the idea that the woman has no obligation to say "no" or "please stop" in a situation where there is no apparent danger to her for doing so in order to be considered completely innocent herself. (Obviously if the man is known to be violent, this is a different situation.)
Frankly, I find the entire insinuation to be a bit sexist. It treats women as helpless damsels who cannot actually speak up for themselves and consent on their own. Rather, it actually takes away a woman's power of consent, saying that she can only ACTUALLY consent if a man confirms her consent.
the man's confirmation of a woman's consent has zero to do with whether her consent is real or not.
the only thing that matters is if the individual in question wants to have sex.
what do you propose to do to the woman who was raped but gave false consent? how, exactly, shall the blame for the situation be given to her? what penalties will it carry? will it lighten the sentence for the rapist? i think you just agreed that the rapist should be penalized, so no.
so what is the point of blaming the victim, then? what will it accomplish except further reinforcing any shame or self-loathing that the rape generated?
Just want to make sure I am understanding your posts correctly. Basically, any time a man has sex with a woman he is taking the risk that no matter what she says or does he could be raping her. I would assume that any normal man would want at all costs to avoid even the possibility of committing rape, so the idea that someone could get comfortable with the idea of having sex with someone even if you think there is even a 0.1% chance the person is not willingly consenting is incredibly repugnant to me (which is the logical conclusion of your parameteres - unless you are clairvoyant you will never truly know if your partner wants to have sex, ergo everytime you have sex you are tacitly accepting there is a probability, no matter how small, that you may be raping your partner).
My question becomes how does a man ever truly determine if the woman wants to ahve sex? Your italics is something that only the woman will know and if you are saying that verbal consent and even physical enthusiasm may not be sufficient to establish consent I am at a loss of what else can be done.
The point that you should be able to tell if your partner is in to what you are doing, and even asking for affirmative consent, is something I agree with totally. Where I get completely lost is when you assert that even if these two conditions are met there still may be rape occurring. I am at a loss on how any person can ever establsih under your conditions that they are not raping their partner.
I think EM's point was a sort of "in pure theory you can never really know for 100% certain that consent is authentic" which is true but also irrelevant, as you can't be truly mathematically certain of many things.
Realistically, from both an ethical and legal standpoint, the concept of "reasonableness" is key. Would a reasonable person, in your circumstances and being of sound mind and judgment, believe that they had consensual, informed consent from their partner?
There is always some bizarre chance that you could be given convincing consent that is actually false, that consent could be clearly and reasonably communicated and not intended, and that seems to be the point so many people are panicking about. It is possible, much in the same way it is possible for me to win the lottery while having an orgy with supermodels, it can happen and given a long enough and large enough spread of individuals it will happen but it is so statistically rare that it isn't really worth consideration.
There's a distinct difference between saying "by wearing that dress, she was asking for it" and saying "by verbally asking me for it, she was asking for it", and between those two lies a slippery slope.
In cases of purposeful rape there is ABSOLUTELY no one at fault other than the rapist. In cases of, for lack of a better term, "accidental rape", it becomes a bit trickier. If the "rapist" has no idea that he is carrying out a crime, whereas the other individual DOES know that a crime is occuring, but is witholding that information, then how do you place full fault on the "accidental rapist"?
because a woman being raped is not an academy award winning actress. she is suffering, she is scared, she is in pain; any false consent will be visibly false consent if you care about the person you're having sex with.
the problem is that a rape culture is one where people have difficulty seeing that there is no consent, or don't believe that the situation exists. the "accidental rapist" has harmed the victim, and is a danger to other potential victims - why shouldn't there be repercussions?
I could list a bunch of scenarios where one could easily miss a lack of consent (after previous consent being given), but it would be a waste of time. The point is, we have already accepted that a woman could could give complete verbal consent, and even so it could actually be rape.
I never said that there should be no repercussions to the "accidental rapist", what I said is that I have trouble with the idea that the woman has no obligation to say "no" or "please stop" in a situation where there is no apparent danger to her for doing so in order to be considered completely innocent herself. (Obviously if the man is known to be violent, this is a different situation.)
Frankly, I find the entire insinuation to be a bit sexist. It treats women as helpless damsels who cannot actually speak up for themselves and consent on their own. Rather, it actually takes away a woman's power of consent, saying that she can only ACTUALLY consent if a man confirms her consent.
the man's confirmation of a woman's consent has zero to do with whether her consent is real or not.
the only thing that matters is if the individual in question wants to have sex.
what do you propose to do to the woman who was raped but gave false consent? how, exactly, shall the blame for the situation be given to her? what penalties will it carry? will it lighten the sentence for the rapist? i think you just agreed that the rapist should be penalized, so no.
so what is the point of blaming the victim, then? what will it accomplish except further reinforcing any shame or self-loathing that the rape generated?
Just want to make sure I am understanding your posts correctly. Basically, any time a man has sex with a woman he is taking the risk that no matter what she says or does he could be raping her. I would assume that any normal man would want at all costs to avoid even the possibility of committing rape, so the idea that someone could get comfortable with the idea of having sex with someone even if you think there is even a 0.1% chance the person is not willingly consenting is incredibly repugnant to me (which is the logical conclusion of your parameteres - unless you are clairvoyant you will never truly know if your partner wants to have sex, ergo everytime you have sex you are tacitly accepting there is a probability, no matter how small, that you may be raping your partner).
My question becomes how does a man ever truly determine if the woman wants to ahve sex? Your italics is something that only the woman will know and if you are saying that verbal consent and even physical enthusiasm may not be sufficient to establish consent I am at a loss of what else can be done.
The point that you should be able to tell if your partner is in to what you are doing, and even asking for affirmative consent, is something I agree with totally. Where I get completely lost is when you assert that even if these two conditions are met there still may be rape occurring. I am at a loss on how any person can ever establsih under your conditions that they are not raping their partner.
Basically the caveat is so that if someone with a video saw the consent process and the victim was shaking and terrified and said "okay" while being intimidated is still rape.
I also think some people are confusing the legal definition of rape with a social/ethical definition of rape. Lets face it, it is nearly impossible to get the legal system to even look at rape cases that include consent to some kinds of sexual activity but not penetration or rape in the course of a romantic relationship. I agree that the "accidental rapist" presented on the last page shouldn't go to jail for 40 years. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape.
However, he should be socially ostracized and everyone around him should feel free to warn potential partners for quite some time that includes some counseling on how to read people better.
Kistra on
Animal Crossing: City Folk Lissa in Filmore 3179-9580-0076
By this are you implying that when you are drunk you have absolutely NO mental faculties? I think it would be fairer to say that 'if you were drunk at the time, you did not consent completely'
Again, sign a contract under the influence, and it will not be upheld in court.
If drinking and then sleeping with someone, then regretting it the next day is rape, then I have been raped multiple times.
Hi5!!!! for rape!
It's like you're not understanding the consequences on peoples lives here. It is not okay to call a regretted drunk hookup rape.
Regret means fuckall.
But I got raped. I was really drunk, and she was definitely not what I wanted to go home with last night.
I got raped. And I should call the cops.
Indeed. Many a time have I drunkenly slept with a woman I would not have sober. I have been used and abused for my sweet young flesh and should contact that the MPD.
psychotix on
0
Options
mrt144King of the NumbernamesRegistered Userregular
Just want to make sure I am understanding your posts correctly. Basically, any time a man has sex with a woman he is taking the risk that no matter what she says or does he could be raping her. I would assume that any normal man would want at all costs to avoid even the possibility of committing rape, so the idea that someone could get comfortable with the idea of having sex with someone even if you think there is even a 0.1% chance the person is not willingly consenting is incredibly repugnant to me.
My question becomes how does a man ever truly determine if the woman wants to ahve sex? Your italics is something that only the woman will know and if you are saying that verbal consent and even physical enthusiasm may not be sufficient to establish consent I am at a loss of what else can be done.
The point that you should be able to tell if your partner is in to what you are doing, and even asking for affirmative consent, is something I agree with totally. Where I get completely lost is when you assert that even if these two conditions are met there still may be rape occurring. I am at a loss on how any person can ever establsih under your conditions that they are not raping their partner.
that's the area of contention, yes. it's a valid question.
Logically, it is impossible to know for certain that you are not raping a woman when you have sex with her. You can never have absolute knowledge of another human being's mind in any way.
But you can have an excellent idea; enthusiastic consent is the essential model for this. The important thing, here, is to establish a few points.
1) Models for evaluating consent are distorted by our cultural standards, and there are healthier models, like enthusiastic consent. Issues in terms of these models are largely the cause of rape.
2) One should always, always, always consider the possibility that there is no consent, because all models are imperfect. It is possible to rape your wife, or your girlfriend, or any other woman who would usually be assumed to consent.
3) You can know, within reasonable doubt, whether consent has been given or not, and it is within this framework that we must operate both personally and legally.
4) The whole point of "you can never know" exercises is to challenge assumptions and bring it to the forefront of people's minds, to make them consider the issue and be aware of the possibility of non-consent.
The goal of the discussion is to destabilize the certainty that one's model of consent and the communication thereof is correct, because for many, many, many people, it is not.
Thanks for clearing that up, I agree with all those points and #3 satisfies my response to Feral. I would just point out that many people are taking the estabilishment of consent way beyond your standard in #3. Honestly, I think rape cases should actually have a higher standard than "reasonable" doubt but it should be less than "no doubt whatsoever", because, as you have stated, that is impossible to establish absent a mindlink of some sort.
Posts
so it's always rape? rape!
If drinking and then sleeping with someone, then regretting it the next day is rape, then I have been raped multiple times.
Hi5!!!! for rape!
It's like you're not understanding the consequences on peoples lives here. It is not okay to call a regretted drunk hookup rape.
Regret means fuckall.
I think the point is if you have sex with someone, and a friend finds out the next day and starts ragging you about it and you regret it, then it's not rape.
Basically if you consent to something, and then decide against it for reasons other than simply not wanting to have sex with that person, maybe they're a dick in social circles, maybe they're black and your parents are white and racist, maybe they pick their nose. That does not constitute rape.
Any time you have sex, especially with a new partner, or while under the influence of a drug, you should be asking yourself, "Am I sure I'm okay with this? Am I sure my partner is okay with this?"
Ideally, any possible doubt you have would be so insignificantly small as to be negligible. In that case, you should give that doubt a negligible amount of concern.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I agree with you that if someone is unreasonably drunk sleeps with someone that isn't, then it's rape.
I'm talking about people on the same level of inebriation or sobriety.
What are you talking about? People can wear whatever the fuck they want. They don't owe it to you to look a certain way. If you feel uncomfortable with looking at another person's body, don't look at it. And no matter if they're wearing a silver spandex suit or a burqa or jeans and a t-shirt it is the rapist's responsibility to not rape. Not some random person's responsibility to dress in a way that you find appropriate.
maybe your friends will call you a whore behind your back, etc. Maybe you just slept with your friends ex when you were drunk.
and ALL OF A SUDDEN, the dude raped her. Congratulations. That guys life could be totally fucked now. and Incenjucar 100% supports that girl
where the hell do you live that this is a common occurrence
also
I've seen everything
Most people have no problem doing this, I dont know why you keep acting like it's the biggest goddamn burden in the world
If you are both drunk, neither of you have consented.
If you are both sober then you are able to give consent.
How drunk is drunk?
If I went out butt naked and walked into somewhere I would be arrested for indecent exposure. The clothing people are starting to go out in is getting dangerously close. In the UK at least.
that's the area of contention, yes. it's a valid question.
Logically, it is impossible to know for certain that you are not raping a woman when you have sex with her. You can never have absolute knowledge of another human being's mind in any way.
But you can have an excellent idea; enthusiastic consent is the essential model for this. The important thing, here, is to establish a few points.
1) Models for evaluating consent are distorted by our cultural standards, and there are healthier models, like enthusiastic consent. Issues in terms of these models are largely the cause of rape.
2) One should always, always, always consider the possibility that there is no consent, because all models are imperfect. It is possible to rape your wife, or your girlfriend, or any other woman who would usually be assumed to consent.
3) You can know, within reasonable doubt, whether consent has been given or not, and it is within this framework that we must operate both personally and legally.
4) The whole point of "you can never know" exercises is to challenge assumptions and bring it to the forefront of people's minds, to make them consider the issue and be aware of the possibility of non-consent.
The goal of the discussion is to destabilize the certainty that one's model of consent and the communication thereof is correct, because for many, many, many people, it is not.
By this are you implying that when you are drunk you have absolutely NO mental faculties? I think it would be fairer to say that 'if you were drunk at the time, you did not consent completely'
Why are you pushing this strawman? The fact of Tale of the Dancing Bear isn't related to his experience EXCEPT when trying to find evidence that his experience occurred backed up by other documented instances. If one does research on male strip club stuff, they should disregard that as a source because it's obviously porn. I'm sure there are other things out there that support what goes on in there (And there was an HBO special that didn't show actual penetration of orifice but everything leading up to that) but porn is not supportive of that.
The fact you can google porn doesn't mean that what happens in the porn is indicative of reality outside of porn, SO CONSIDER THAT WHEN COMING ACROSS EVIDENCE. This is why gangbang and bukkake is so odd; I theorize that the majority of experiences shown in those movies are actually occouring in those movies. Gangbang and bukkake happens more in porn than outside of porn.
But I got raped. I was really drunk, and she was definitely not what I wanted to go home with last night.
I got raped. And I should call the cops.
Oh definitely. It's just that the moment it becomes gender specific you have people dismissing the somewhat rare occurrences when a man is raped by a woman, and you end up with people who think the very notion of that happening is ridiculous.
People keep acting like 1. regret = rape... If that's the case I've been raped multiple times when I thought better of it the next day.
Not remember it = rape. In that case most of the time I went to the bar I ended up raped.
Combing the two, = super rape.
I'm sorry but it's just silly.
I agree wholeheartedly (and for the record do not have sex while on drugs or severly impaired by alcohol - makes me a nerd I guess) but I don't think it is negligible concern when if my instincts are wrong I could be committing rape and facing a long jail sentence. That is not how the justice system works today but if it were changed to reflect some of the views of posters in this thread you would be literally putting your entire future at stake every time you had sex
I have no personal experience with alcohol use. I err on "If I know that they have consumed alcohol."
Cost me what would have been an amazing lay already, but if I'm going to sex someone up I'm going to make sure they truly want to be sexed up.
Thing is, most male strippers that cater to women don't exactly view it as a problem. Some see it as a "perk" of the job, some just see it as part of the territory.
... and no one shoots a load when it happens. It's more like a lick, a suck, or maybe she just strokes it a time or two, but there's definitely unconsentual contact.
Same for female strippers. There's clubs that allow contact between strippers and patrons and girls would regularly have their ass and tits groped (again, this was Detroit in the 90's). I remember an uproar not only from the club owners, but from the dancers themselves when the state tried to enact "no touch" laws. To this day, there's always an issue with getting those laws on the books.
But Door Number A presents us with the delicate situation of two people raping each other at the same time. Which can not happen.
I think EM's point was a sort of "in pure theory you can never really know for 100% certain that consent is authentic" which is true but also irrelevant, as you can't be truly mathematically certain of many things.
Realistically, from both an ethical and legal standpoint, the concept of "reasonableness" is key. Would a reasonable person, in your circumstances and being of sound mind and judgment, believe that they had consensual, informed consent from their partner?
There is always some bizarre chance that you could be given convincing consent that is actually false, that consent could be clearly and reasonably communicated and not intended, and that seems to be the point so many people are panicking about. It is possible, much in the same way it is possible for me to win the lottery while having an orgy with supermodels, it can happen and given a long enough and large enough spread of individuals it will happen but it is so statistically rare that it isn't really worth consideration.
Basically the caveat is so that if someone with a video saw the consent process and the victim was shaking and terrified and said "okay" while being intimidated is still rape.
I also think some people are confusing the legal definition of rape with a social/ethical definition of rape. Lets face it, it is nearly impossible to get the legal system to even look at rape cases that include consent to some kinds of sexual activity but not penetration or rape in the course of a romantic relationship. I agree that the "accidental rapist" presented on the last page shouldn't go to jail for 40 years. That doesn't mean it wasn't rape.
However, he should be socially ostracized and everyone around him should feel free to warn potential partners for quite some time that includes some counseling on how to read people better.
Again, sign a contract under the influence, and it will not be upheld in court.
It can, has, does.
Two people can commit the same crime against one another at the same time. Happens all the damned time.
Wrong again!
This actually explains a lot. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about besides legal definitions.
Now I get it.
Indeed. Many a time have I drunkenly slept with a woman I would not have sober. I have been used and abused for my sweet young flesh and should contact that the MPD.
This is exactly why I think most misconceptions about rape aren't because of culture but because of lack of imagination.
Forcing two people to have sex with one another at gunpoint causes both parties to rape one another.
Thanks for clearing that up, I agree with all those points and #3 satisfies my response to Feral. I would just point out that many people are taking the estabilishment of consent way beyond your standard in #3. Honestly, I think rape cases should actually have a higher standard than "reasonable" doubt but it should be less than "no doubt whatsoever", because, as you have stated, that is impossible to establish absent a mindlink of some sort.
because that's how rape happens; people refusing to believe that they could be raping someone.
Citation.
Or is the man with the gun the rapist? For he's the one coercing both of them into a sex act neither one wants.
No you don't, but you'll use this as an excuse to ignore my points henceforth even if they're agreed with by people who are raging drunkards.
Do you want like the address to a bar with a back room?
This isn't the situation presented.
Two drunk people wanting to have sex with each other isn't rape regardless of consent.
I'm sure theyll both be begging the DA to press charges.
and the guy with the gun is the rapist. you cant force two people to force each other to have sex with each other. Insane.