Page 68 of 95 FirstFirst ...
18
58
66
67
68
69
70
78
... LastLast
  1. #1341
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarkan View Post
    Consent is not necessarily verbal, it can be non verbal. Any scenario that involves either verbal or non verbal consent will probably be consent as long as it is not withdrawn and is able to be withdrawn. The issue comes when you take active interest in causing a situation where the girl is unable to give any consent (or to state or show not giving or no longer giving consent) or is unable to realize what she is doing (which is not the same as drunk, Endus commented above somewhere on it, i think the example was spiking the girls drink causing her to be significantly more drunk than she realizes and is prepared for) or make use of a situation where you know others have taken such an active interest. Or something like that. Not gonna check the phrasing for lawyer proofness.

    Or put another way, if the girl reaches for the zipper, zips it down, pulls out the tool and starts sucking on it (the tool not the zipper..) then regardless of her not having said yes to anything she is not being raped either. In theory of course the guy might be in the process of being raped but that was not the point i was going for. I was going for illustrating non verbal consent.

    I think i phrased in an earlier post, regarding my opinion, as we do not want a society where people try to force beer on a girl until they can get their way with her.



    Did not say it did :P Or put another way life is full of regrets. Question is if we should not do our utmost not to become other peoples regrets or something
    ah. Then you do agree that drunk sex isn't rape regardless of which party is drunk, or if both of them are, so long as the element of consent is there.

  2. #1342
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    The definition also allows any object that isn't a body part to qualify.
    New Zealand
    Case prompts minister to ask why women can't be charged with rape


    GBRape in contrast


    Tenesses penal code Statutory rape 2011

    (a) Mitigated statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant, or of the defendant by the victim when the victim is at least fifteen (15) but less than eighteen (18) years of age and the defendant is at least four (4) but not more than five (5) years older than the victim.
    And you ask what is wrong with that?
    Last edited by Davillage; 2013-08-08 at 06:38 PM.

  3. #1343
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Velaniz View Post
    ah. Then you do agree that drunk sex isn't rape regardless of which party is drunk, or if both of them are, so long as the element of consent is there.
    More or less, with the disclaimers as stated (and situations similar, knowing a girl is on sleeping pills as described in someones earlier post means you know you should not take advantage of that.) Though almost all issues are resolved if people just keep one rule in mind: "if you feel you are taking advantage then you probably are"

  4. #1344
    Quote Originally Posted by Xarkan View Post
    More or less, with the disclaimers as stated (and situations similar, knowing a girl is on sleeping pills as described in someones earlier post means you know you should not take advantage of that.) Though almost all issues are resolved if people just keep one rule in mind: "if you feel you are taking advantage then you probably are"
    Then we don't disagree.

  5. #1345
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    23,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Davillage View Post
    If you're going to move the goalposts and then compare statutory rape to sexual assault I'm not going to bother.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Velaniz View Post
    You consider alcohol to be something that undermines one's capacity for rational thought?
    Thought? No. Consent? Yes.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    The difference is, the law's on my side
    In your source, on mine it's on mine.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  6. #1346
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    If you're going to move the goalposts and then compare statutory rape to sexual assault I'm not going to bother.
    If the penetrator is not the "rapists" its not statutory rape by that definition. I hope that i misunderstand that obviously.

  7. #1347
    The Unstoppable Force Rukentuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Mini Soda
    Posts
    23,659
    Quote Originally Posted by Davillage View Post
    If the penetrator is not the rapists its not statutory rape by that definition. I hope that i misunderstand that obviously.
    You're proving my point yet again that you don't know that statutory rape is different. By all means keep reinforcing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by GreatOak View Post
    Hey, as a transabled, transethnic, non-binary, genderqueer, neo-communist, indoor-capable republican otherkin I am offended by your callous display of ignorance.
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I wouldn't expect someone who thinks science provides proof to know that.

  8. #1348
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Where the vikings roam, so not the US
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    You're proving my point yet again that you don't know that statutory rape is different. By all means keep reinforcing it.
    im still w8ing on mine for plain normal rape thank you:
    a female orders, at gunpoint, a man to give her head, since no penetration occurs this is not rape according to the definition.
    a man orders, at gunpoint, a female to give him head, since penetration occurs it is rape.
    but the definition is not sexist?

  9. #1349
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    You're proving my point yet again that you don't know that statutory rape is different. By all means keep reinforcing it.
    Why do they use different definitions?


    Tenesses penal code Statutory rape 2011

    Mitigated statutory rape is the unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant, or of the defendant by the victim
    in comparsion to
    http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317
    Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.
    that leads to this
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    im still w8ing on mine for plain normal rape thank you:
    a female orders, at gunpoint, a man to give her head, since no penetration occurs this is not rape according to the definition.
    a man orders, at gunpoint, a female to give him head, since penetration occurs it is rape.
    but the definition is not sexist?
    Law has to cover even such hypothetical improbable cases.
    Last edited by Davillage; 2013-08-08 at 07:07 PM.

  10. #1350
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Rukentuts View Post
    In your source, on mine it's on mine.
    If you mean http://pubs.niaaa.nih.gov/publicatio...25-1/43-51.htm, it doesn't support your argument at all. It makes no statement whatsoever about alcohol consumption negating a woman's ability to consent, nor is it a document detailing the law; it's primarily dealing with the psychology of sexual assault and how alcohol is involved in that, primarily on the part of the aggressor.

    It has nothing to do with the issue of consent that we're discussing.

  11. #1351
    Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape.
    I think the point of contention is that 'penetration by the offender(s)' doesn't specifically mean that only men can rape. It means that the offender has to initiate the penetration, whether it is a man forcing his penis into a woman or a woman forcing herself on a man's penis. And yes, being forced to go down on a woman is rape under this definition (her genitalia is penetrating your mouth).

    I think there's a lesser sexual assault charge for things that don't involve penetration.

    The difference is, the law's on my side, and your argument leads to ridiculous conclusions, like how every drunken one-night-stand involves two people raping each other against their wills, simultaneously.
    The problem with the term 'rape' in our culture is that it's automatically associated with violence and intent to violate someone. The actual definition of the word is much less abrasive than that. Rape happens even when there is no violence or intent to violate someone. Your very statement here brings to mind an extremely ridiculous scenario in which two individuals are engaged in a violent act with the intent to violate each other.

    It's inconceivable that would ever be a situation two people find themselves in.

    The word 'rape' in a situation involving alcohol is actually centered around one's ability to make a rational and well reasoned decision to engage in a particular behavior (consent) and not whether that behavior involved violence or intent to violate. In any normal sober situation, an individual has the ability to change their mind about decisions they've made up to the point where they've followed through with the decided upon behavior.

    IE, if I wake up in the morning next to my significant other and we decide to have sex, at any point before and right up until that act is completed, either of us can rationally and reasonably decide they no longer want to have sex. When you involve alcohol, that decision process becomes impaired, more so the more alcohol you drink. It basically boils down the ability to change your mind (or make different decisions) once you've become intoxicated, thus hindering your ability to objectively consent to sex.

    That's why it's considered rape. While it's inconceivable that two individuals might violently and intentionally violate each other, it's not inconceivable that two individuals might be unable to reasonably or rationally make a decision about whether or not to engage in sexual activity while under the influence.

    Situations where one party is drunk but the other one isn't exacerbate this idea because one person clearly had the ability to make a rational/reasonable decision on behalf of the person who couldn't, and thus could be held accountable for having sex with an individual who was unable to consent (rape).

    Unless you're making the argument that only men can rape, in which case you're just resorting to outright misandry. Or that women are such fragile flowers that they can't possibly help but be victimized at every turn, which is outright misogyny. But one of those two is really the only way your argument stands up.
    Whether or not an individual can take advantage of another individual is not necessarily attributed to physical or mental traits.
    Quote Originally Posted by Jevlin
    Why? Because fuck you, that's why.

    Every time you have a question that begins with "Why?" that is about what other people prefer to do with their own goddamn time, come back here, and reread the first row of this post. That will ALWAYS be the answer to your question. Have a nice day.

  12. #1352
    Pandaren Monk
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Where the vikings roam, so not the US
    Posts
    1,878
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I think the point of contention is that 'penetration by the offender(s)' doesn't specifically mean that only men can rape. It means that the offender has to initiate the penetration, whether it is a man forcing his penis into a woman or a woman forcing herself on a man's penis. And yes, being forced to go down on a woman is rape under this definition (her genitalia is penetrating your mouth).

    I think there's a lesser sexual assault charge for things that don't involve penetration.
    except the law is literal, penetration by the offender means literally that, and if your defense is that her clit goes into the guys mouth thats a stupid contention, and even buying it then fine have the same situation with vaginal sex.
    penetration by the offender, means that it cant be called rape even at gunpoint, and the lesser assault charge, is demeaning since (duh) its still rape and carries a Much Much lesser sentence.
    what parts of that is not sexist?

  13. #1353
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    I think the point of contention is that 'penetration by the offender(s)' doesn't specifically mean that only men can rape. It means that the offender has to initiate the penetration, whether it is a man forcing his penis into a woman or a woman forcing herself on a man's penis. And yes, being forced to go down on a woman is rape under this definition (her genitalia is penetrating your mouth).
    You are right.
    http://sapac.umich.edu/article/189
    Sexual Penetration (sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, anal intercourse, any other intrusion of a body part or an object into genital or anal openings
    Last edited by Davillage; 2013-08-08 at 08:25 PM.

  14. #1354
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Eroginous View Post
    Whether or not an individual can take advantage of another individual is not necessarily attributed to physical or mental traits.
    Of course it isn't. My point, there, was with regards to the idea that being intoxicated invalidates consent. The argument was that, if a woman's been drinking, she cannot consent. I pointed out that this is necessarily true of both genders, meaning the only possible conclusion is that, for two people who have a drunken one-night stand, each raped the other against their will, simultaneously. Which is, of course, impossible; you can't have sex with someone against their will when they're having sex with you against your will; you're both consenting, by dint of wanting to have sex with each other.

    So, the argument that a woman cannot consent and therefore sex with a woman who's been drinking is rape, that must be based on one of two pillars; that men are rapists by default (misandry), or that women are so fragile that they are inherently damaged by sex and would never consent (misogyny).

    If you discard that original argument, that any level of intoxication invalidates the ability to consent for women, then you don't need to go into either of those statements. I wasn't professing either, I was bringing them up as obviously biased and ridiculous premises, and showing how they were necessary for my opponent's argument.

    None of that means you can't take advantage of another person. It means if they're drunk, and they decide they want to have sex with you, you aren't taking advantage of them.

  15. #1355
    I really don't like all the double standards in society. A couple of weeks ago, when I was in a restaurant, I saw a couple arguing. The woman was smacking, hitting the guy, insulting him, making quite a scene. The worst part was, some other women in the restaurant even cheered.
    If it was a guy doing that, he'd be in cuffs before the second blow hit.
    Really, society is messed up. Mens rights and Feminists are both foolish, IMO. All they do is label themselves and start perpetuating the problem than trying to fix it. Neither of them seem to understand that they've both got it rough in different ways, and until that happens, I very much doubt that either group will get the change that they want.

  16. #1356
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    have i been magically transported into, 2022? or given the "at least" part 2027 ? oh w8 you are just misinformed.
    January 06, 2012 the date of the memo´s release.
    "the carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will", the old definition.
    by this very small and obscure thing called the "FBI", never heard of them i think....
    http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/pre...nition-of-rape

    so please link me more 100% of rapists are men thank you, or why don't you link the CDC one, they also uses this definition by the way (and a lot more crazy stuff
    The U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics (1997) stated that 91% of United States people whose rape accusations resulted in convictions against the accused were female and 9% were male. It also stated that 99% of the people convicted of and imprisoned in response to rape accusations were male, with only 1% of those convicted being female.

    This is actual data of accusations and convictions.

    You can link me the legal definition of "rape" all you want. Those are the actual conviction statistics. Perhaps it was you that either read wrong or were misinformed, m8?
    Last edited by The Batman; 2013-08-08 at 09:52 PM.

  17. #1357
    Legendary! Sorrior's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Anchorage Alaska
    Posts
    6,726
    Quote Originally Posted by Mcstunner View Post
    idk, i kinda think men should suck it up and take what they get for a few million years, like women had to. then we can get to the equal stuff.
    Which will lead to bitterness and a backlash and lest face it i don't think anyone wants that...Cause ya know it will just swing totally opposite and possibly result in a worse state of affairs then women have ever had and feelings like welll...Like THIS is real(which it of course is not though some people are feeling like we're heading this way).



    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Xarkan View Post
    More or less, with the disclaimers as stated (and situations similar, knowing a girl is on sleeping pills as described in someones earlier post means you know you should not take advantage of that.) Though almost all issues are resolved if people just keep one rule in mind: "if you feel you are taking advantage then you probably are"
    I once slept with a GF after she'd had something to drink...Only later did i realize how shit faced she was...I literally felt like shit(i have a policy of trying to avoid one night stands in general because i tend to feel like shit afterwards).. She did not blame me and all of that. So question if someone does NOT seem shitfaced at the time and had said things that implied interest earlier is it still rape?

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by SBlackman View Post
    I really don't like all the double standards in society. A couple of weeks ago, when I was in a restaurant, I saw a couple arguing. The woman was smacking, hitting the guy, insulting him, making quite a scene. The worst part was, some other women in the restaurant even cheered.
    If it was a guy doing that, he'd be in cuffs before the second blow hit.
    Really, society is messed up. Mens rights and Feminists are both foolish, IMO. All they do is label themselves and start perpetuating the problem than trying to fix it. Neither of them seem to understand that they've both got it rough in different ways, and until that happens, I very much doubt that either group will get the change that they want.
    He should have just hit her right back or something...Of course then abuse would be called and all of that. Really is a fucked up system.

  18. #1358
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    21,431
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorrior View Post
    I once slept with a GF after she'd had something to drink...Only later did i realize how shit faced she was...I literally felt like shit(i have a policy of trying to avoid one night stands in general because i tend to feel like shit afterwards).. She did not blame me and all of that. So question if someone does NOT seem shitfaced at the time and had said things that implied interest earlier is it still rape?
    It would only be "rape" if she were so far gone she couldn't consent (which is really far gone, like semi-conscious). If she's your GF, it becomes even more of a non-issue, since there's a certain amount of implied consent in a relationship setting (that doesn't make it impossible to rape your GF, but it means one of you trying to wake the other up with sexytime isn't rape).

  19. #1359
    Herald of the Titans
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Aarhus, Denmark, Europe
    Posts
    2,532
    Quote Originally Posted by Sorrior View Post
    I once slept with a GF after she'd had something to drink...Only later did i realize how shit faced she was...I literally felt like shit(i have a policy of trying to avoid one night stands in general because i tend to feel like shit afterwards).. She did not blame me and all of that. So question if someone does NOT seem shitfaced at the time and had said things that implied interest earlier is it still rape?
    Hmm? What part of what you quoted implies that it would be?

    I think where i was originally going with what i failed to express was that it is possible to pour alcohol on a person until said person does what you say or passes out so you can have your way. That would be rape. If the person does not willingly drink it would also be horrible on other levels even without the rape.

    It is possible to take advantage of others doing such a thing to a girl/boy/woman/guy/alien sentient species and then that too would be rape

    It is also possible to be shit faced drunk and want sex. Actually want it. Heck it is possible for some people to feel they have to drink courage to even try to ask that specific guy/girl/woman/man/alien sentient plant form for that matter. Having sex with a person that wants sex (and is of an age/maturity to consent to it) tends to not be rape, if that is the case it is .. not rape. Except in some bizarro world.

  20. #1360
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It would only be "rape" if she were so far gone she couldn't consent (which is really far gone, like semi-conscious). If she's your GF, it becomes even more of a non-issue, since there's a certain amount of implied consent in a relationship setting (that doesn't make it impossible to rape your GF, but it means one of you trying to wake the other up with sexytime isn't rape).
    As a corollary, I find it pretty sad that anyone in a perfectly normal scenario has to wonder if they committed rape. Or any other felony for that mater. Picturing it is scary: a normal adult finds himself -or herself- pondering how much of a rapist he or she is. Shows how much damage certain people have done to our society and how much information still needs to be divulged. Otherwise we'll keep perpetuating insecurity and shameful feelings in young people that only help to further increase the possibilities of someone growing to be monsters.

    Now, I'm aware of current motto 'if you feel you're taking advantage you probably are', but in the same line we need to promote something along the lines of 'if you think you're doing the right thing, you probably are'. Positive reinforcement tends to render better behaviors.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •