"Women want sex, just not with YOU."

[Individuality-ness]

Very true. I'm not scared to say it anymore.

its a first step, eh? being able to tell the truth. its a long road to building a good life for yourself but it can be done.

I remember my mother telling me never to talk about it -- hide it because it brought shame to her, to my family. But I digress.

[Choronzon]

I do not buy the feminist argument that women have spent their entire lives under the yoke of men.

Then you're wrong.

Up until like eighty years ago in America your sentence for a crime was doubled if you committed it against a woman and cursing in the presence of a lady was a criminal offense in many states up until the eighties.

Because women are dainty creatures and can't handle as much as big strong men. No sexism there!

But I mean you're right. Its not like we ever denied women the right to vote or anything like that. Nope, truly women have never been oppressed.

[Choronzon]

Or ignored them outright.

Bingo.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Hm. This is an issue that my thoughts have changed on several times. Genders were more or less equal for the most part simply with different social expectations.

So. Not equal.

I read a book by some professor with degrees out the wazoo who argued that this was because men originally had a surplus of production (we're naturally stronger than females) and a deficit of reproduction (we cannot carry children or feed them naturally) while females had a surplus of reproduction (they can have children and feed them through natural means) and a deficit of production (they do not have an affinity towards raw strength and are incapable of work for like six or seven months when they're bearing children while men can do what they need to do to make kids and get back to work).

So?

So over the milennia men have gotten really really good at things that are labor intensive while women have become useless at those things and have become very good at raising children and doing work that is helpful and can be performed while pregnant (like basket weaving and what-not, then sewing and what-have-you).

I do not buy the feminist argument that women have spent their entire existence under the yoke of men. Up until like eighty years ago in America your sentence for a crime was doubled if you committed it against a woman and cursing in the presence of a lady was a criminal offense in many states up until the eighties.

Because of misogyny.

There were different expectations, yes, and gender roles were a bit one-sided until recently, but with social restrictions also came expectations that women would be provided a certain special protection from the harsh realities of life.

Which is misogyny.

As misguided as that is, it was an attempt at some form of equality.

And misogynistic.

The negative effects of the patriarchy men is not 'misandry.'

[Ljvonia]

Hey, its only Germany's opinion after all.

The opinion of a Lithuanian living in Germany. I'm sensing I'm going to have to go through the trouble of searching Lithuania's law on sexual offences.

Edit: I cannot fucking read Lithuanian.

I can... but the legaleze is troubling. I'd have to ask my father there, I was 7 years old when we left Klaipėda.

Here#s the Criminal Code in english by the way: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaiesk ... _id=366707

Let's see, rape, that would be Article 149, and 150 for sexual abuse, let's see:

Article 149. Rape

1. A person who has sexual intercourse with a person against his will by using physical violence or threatening the immediate use thereof or by otherwise depriving of a possibility of resistance or by taking advantage of the helpless state of the victim
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to seven years.

2. A person who rapes another person with a group of accomplices
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years.

3. A person who rapes a minor
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three up to ten years.

4. A person who raped a young child
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three up to fifteen years.

5. A person shall be held liable for an act provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article only subject to a complaint filed by the victim or a statement by his authorised representative or at the prosecutor’s request.

6. A legal entity shall also be held liable for an act provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article.

That red part there... truly shows how modernization has reached home...the very same thing as in the Federal Republic, wonderful. Not a single word about consent and it's nature though.

Article 150. Sexual Assault

1. A person who, against a person’s will, satisfies his sexual desires through anal, oral or interfemoral intercourse by using physical violence or by threatening the immediate use thereof or by otherwise depriving the victim of a possibility of resistance or by taking advantage of the helpless state of the victim
shall be punished by arrest or by imprisonment for a term of up to seven years.

2. A person who carries out the actions provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article together with a group of accomplices
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to eight years.

3. A person who carries out the actions provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article in respect of a minor
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two up to ten years.

4. A person who carries out the actions provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article in respect of a young child
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of three up to thirteen years.

5. A person shall be held liable for an act provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article only subject to a complaint filed by the victim or a statement by his authorised representative or at the prosecutor’s request.

6. A legal entity shall also be held liable for an act provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article.

Again! Straight forward and to the point what I consider my opinion on rape. Beautiful. So, that was the legal thing over, right?

[Anachronous Rex]

I do not buy the feminist argument that women have spent their entire lives under the yoke of men.

Then you're wrong.

Up until like eighty years ago in America your sentence for a crime was doubled if you committed it against a woman and cursing in the presence of a lady was a criminal offense in many states up until the eighties.

Because women are dainty creatures and can't handle as much as big strong men. No sexism there!

But I mean you're right. Its not like we ever denied women the right to vote or anything like that. Nope, truly women have never been oppressed.

I mean really. If it had only been that women were routinely denied access to their own medical data, it would have been enough.

That would have been sufficient injustice to warrant a backlash, but of course it doesn't stop anywhere near there.

[Samuraikoku]

Or ignored them outright.

Bingo.

Yes, I know where his question is aimed. He wants to find a legal definition of consent. Which would be aimed at "oh, but this doesn't fit the legal definition of consent, therefore it's not rape!". Which is, I'm afraid, an attempt to be a rape apologist.

Doesn't matter that the law says "well obviously if someone is coerced, threatened, forced, at the unprotected mercy of someone, or incapable of resistance, there isn't consent", it's not rape.

[Delmonte]

Hm. This is an issue that my thoughts have changed on several times. Genders were more or less equal for the most part simply with different social expectations.

So. Not equal.

I read a book by some professor with degrees out the wazoo who argued that this was because men originally had a surplus of production (we're naturally stronger than females) and a deficit of reproduction (we cannot carry children or feed them naturally) while females had a surplus of reproduction (they can have children and feed them through natural means) and a deficit of production (they do not have an affinity towards raw strength and are incapable of work for like six or seven months when they're bearing children while men can do what they need to do to make kids and get back to work).

So?

So over the milennia men have gotten really really good at things that are labor intensive while women have become useless at those things and have become very good at raising children and doing work that is helpful and can be performed while pregnant (like basket weaving and what-not, then sewing and what-have-you).

I do not buy the feminist argument that women have spent their entire existence under the yoke of men. Up until like eighty years ago in America your sentence for a crime was doubled if you committed it against a woman and cursing in the presence of a lady was a criminal offense in many states up until the eighties.

Because of misogyny.

There were different expectations, yes, and gender roles were a bit one-sided until recently, but with social restrictions also came expectations that women would be provided a certain special protection from the harsh realities of life.

Which is misogyny.

As misguided as that is, it was an attempt at some form of equality.

And misogynistic.

The negative effects of the patriarchy men is not 'misandry.'

Then misogyny is not always bad, by your definition. In all seriousness, I feel that I have an obligation to at least try to hold a door open for a lady if I can do so with no great inconvenience or awkwardness. And if a woman who is my senior and with whom I maintain a professional relationship enters a room where I am I feel obligated to stand in many cases. So my being polite is misogyny.

[Samuraikoku]

The opinion of a Lithuanian living in Germany. I'm sensing I'm going to have to go through the trouble of searching Lithuania's law on sexual offences.

Edit: I cannot fucking read Lithuanian.

I can... but the legaleze is troubling. I'd have to ask my father there, I was 7 years old when we left Klaipėda.

Here#s the Criminal Code in english by the way: http://www3.lrs.lt/pls/inter3/dokpaiesk ... _id=366707

Let's see, rape, that would be Article 149, and 150 for sexual abuse, let's see:

Article 149. Rape

1. A person who has sexual intercourse with a person against his will by using physical violence or threatening the immediate use thereof or by otherwise depriving of a possibility of resistance or by taking advantage of the helpless state of the victim
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to seven years.

2. A person who rapes another person with a group of accomplices
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to ten years.

3. A person who rapes a minor
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three up to ten years.

4. A person who raped a young child
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of three up to fifteen years.

5. A person shall be held liable for an act provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article only subject to a complaint filed by the victim or a statement by his authorised representative or at the prosecutor’s request.

6. A legal entity shall also be held liable for an act provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article.

That red part there... truly shows how modernization has reached home...the very same thing as in the Federal Republic, wonderful. Not a single word about consent and it's nature though.

Article 150. Sexual Assault

1. A person who, against a person’s will, satisfies his sexual desires through anal, oral or interfemoral intercourse by using physical violence or by threatening the immediate use thereof or by otherwise depriving the victim of a possibility of resistance or by taking advantage of the helpless state of the victim
shall be punished by arrest or by imprisonment for a term of up to seven years.

2. A person who carries out the actions provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article together with a group of accomplices
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of up to eight years.

3. A person who carries out the actions provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article in respect of a minor
shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of two up to ten years.

4. A person who carries out the actions provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article in respect of a young child
shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of three up to thirteen years.

5. A person shall be held liable for an act provided for in paragraph 1 of this Article only subject to a complaint filed by the victim or a statement by his authorised representative or at the prosecutor’s request.

6. A legal entity shall also be held liable for an act provided for in paragraphs 3 and 4 of this Article.

Again! Straight forward and to the point what I consider my opinion on rape. Beautiful. So, that was the legal thing over, right?

So you're not able to see "consent" in "against their will"?

[Ljvonia]

Holy Christ. Consent is literally defined. Right the fuck there. The whole thing is defining consent.

Why are you reading the law anyway man? Its just an opinion.

I assume he missed the "coercion", "threat", "force", "exploiting situation", "unprotected mercy", and "incapable of resistance". Or ignored them outright.

Ah, definition by omission! English truly is a hard language. Basically this says he who overcomes resistance and proceeds to sex is a rapist, yes? So...we're back to my old "Don't fuck anyone who objects to it"?

[Individuality-ness]

Bingo.

Yes, I know where his question is aimed. He wants to find a legal definition of consent. Which would be aimed at "oh, but this doesn't fit the legal definition of consent, therefore it's not rape!". Which is, I'm afraid, an attempt to be a rape apologist.

Doesn't matter that the law says "well obviously if someone is coerced, threatened, forced, at the unprotected mercy of someone, or incapable of resistance, there isn't consent", it's not rape.

It's like as if he doesn't know that it's easier to define consent by what it is not.

[Ljvonia]

So you're not able to see "consent" in "against their will"?

Why no! Consent has to be expressed, has it not? Ones will has to be expressed to be considered known, does it not? Are we not once more at "don't fuck anyone who does object to it"?

It's like as if he doesn't know that it's easier to define consent by what it is not.

So enlighten me: how is it easier to define something by what it is not than by what it is? From my standpoint this makes no sense at all, but go ahead.

[Choronzon]

Yes, I know where his question is aimed. He wants to find a legal definition of consent. Which would be aimed at "oh, but this doesn't fit the legal definition of consent, therefore it's not rape!". Which is, I'm afraid, an attempt to be a rape apologist.

Doesn't matter that the law says "well obviously if someone is coerced, threatened, forced, at the unprotected mercy of someone, or incapable of resistance, there isn't consent", it's not rape.

It's like as if he doesn't know that it's easier to define consent by what it is not.

We're starting to run out of space on the list of things he doesn't know.

[Aghny]

Different case here.

What's a different case? We were talking about your victim blaming when it came to I-ness, and you said that you "weren't sensitive" as a method of failing to comprehend the point that children can't be counted on to protect themselves or tell the truth about parental abuse. I pointed out that this has nothing to do with sensitivity, just basic knowledge of human nature, and that's where we are now.

She was old enough to have her period. From my experiences, that is old enough to be able to "tell the truth about parental abuse"

[Samuraikoku]

Ah, definition by omission! English truly is a hard language. Basically this says he who overcomes resistance and proceeds to sex is a rapist, yes? So...we're back to my old "Don't fuck anyone who objects to it"?

Why no! Consent has to be expressed, has it not? Ones will has to be expressed to be considered known, does it not? Are we not once more at "don't fuck anyone who does object to it"?

Yes, I know where his question is aimed. He wants to find a legal definition of consent. Which would be aimed at "oh, but this doesn't fit the legal definition of consent, therefore it's not rape!". Which is, I'm afraid, an attempt to be a rape apologist.

Doesn't matter that the law says "well obviously if someone is coerced, threatened, forced, at the unprotected mercy of someone, or incapable of resistance, there isn't consent", it's not rape.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

[Herador]

I've been meaning to ask this question for a while, and this thread seems like the best place to clear this up before it turns into a serious issue for me. So we established that someone can't really give consent when drunk, easy to understand, but what if both people involved were drunk? It's not totally unforeseeable that neither would could "consent" much thought in that situation (being drunk and all), so who is to blame? Or is anyone?

E: When I say "consent" I mean the fact that both are drunk and not in the proper state of mind to give it, that is all.

[Choronzon]

What's a different case? We were talking about your victim blaming when it came to I-ness, and you said that you "weren't sensitive" as a method of failing to comprehend the point that children can't be counted on to protect themselves or tell the truth about parental abuse. I pointed out that this has nothing to do with sensitivity, just basic knowledge of human nature, and that's where we are now.

She was old enough to have her period. From my experiences, that is old enough to be able to "tell the truth about parental abuse"

If only your experience counted for anything.

[Seperates]

I assume he missed the "coercion", "threat", "force", "exploiting situation", "unprotected mercy", and "incapable of resistance". Or ignored them outright.

Ah, definition by omission! English truly is a hard language. Basically this says he who overcomes resistance and proceeds to sex is a rapist, yes? So...we're back to my old "Don't fuck anyone who objects to it"?

It's easier to express it as 'Have sex with only those who have expressed the desire to have sex in an un-enbriated, or otherwse non-threatened enviorment.'

[Ljvonia]

Ah, definition by omission! English truly is a hard language. Basically this says he who overcomes resistance and proceeds to sex is rapist, yes? So...we're back to my old "Don't fuck anyone who objects to it"?

Why no! Consent has to be expressed, has it not? Ones will has to be expressed to be considered known, does it not? Are we not once more at "don't fuck anyone who does object to it"?

Yes, I know where his question is aimed. He wants to find a legal definition of consent. Which would be aimed at "oh, but this doesn't fit the legal definition of consent, therefore it's not rape!". Which is, I'm afraid, an attempt to be a rape apologist.

Doesn't matter that the law says "well obviously if someone is coerced, threatened, forced, at the unprotected mercy of someone, or incapable of resistance, there isn't consent", it's not rape.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

What was it that was to prove then?

[Aghny]

Ah, definition by omission! English truly is a hard language. Basically this says he who overcomes resistance and proceeds to sex is a rapist, yes? So...we're back to my old "Don't fuck anyone who objects to it"?

It's easier to express it as 'Have sex with only those who have expressed the desire to have sex in an un-enbriated, or otherwse non-threatened enviorment.'

Different people have different way of expressing things.

Also if you are in a position to object, resist and even fight back or avoid, but choose not to, then that is no different from any other sex as far as others are considered. Saying it is rape is absurd.

[Kvatchdom]

Only a sith deals an absolute.

You seem to be operating under the mistaken opinion you're funny.

I was nerdquoting

[Ljvonia]

Ah, definition by omission! English truly is a hard language. Basically this says he who overcomes resistance and proceeds to sex is a rapist, yes? So...we're back to my old "Don't fuck anyone who objects to it"?

It's easier to express it as 'Have sex with only those who have expressed the desire to have sex in an un-enbriated, or otherwse non-threatened enviorment.'

That I consider false: it is easier to have sex with those who do not object to it.

...also un-inebriated? Good one.

Edit: please tell me what you consider a "threatened environment"...assuming you don't speak of tropical rain forest that is.

[Anachronous Rex]

What's a different case? We were talking about your victim blaming when it came to I-ness, and you said that you "weren't sensitive" as a method of failing to comprehend the point that children can't be counted on to protect themselves or tell the truth about parental abuse. I pointed out that this has nothing to do with sensitivity, just basic knowledge of human nature, and that's where we are now.

She was old enough to have her period. From my experiences, that is old enough to be able to "tell the truth about parental abuse"

You'll forgive me if your "experiences" are not a trustworthy source. I'd like to know what expertise you have in the field of child psychology that justifies this claim.

The average age of first menstruation is 12, but can begin much sooner. So apparently ~12 year olds should fend for themselves? That's just lovely.

[Choronzon]

It's easier to express it as 'Have sex with only those who have expressed the desire to have sex in an un-enbriated, or otherwse non-threatened enviorment.'

That I consider false: it is easier to have sex with those who do not object to it.

Tell me, why do women's bodies exist in a state of default consent?

[Choronzon]

You'll forgive me if your "experiences" are not a trustworthy source. I'd like to know what expertise you have in the field of child psychology that justifies this claim.

All that time as a biology professor.