Booze and Rape

[Chishimotata]

What in the flying fuck is wrong with you?! THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A DEFAULT STATE OF CONSENT.

I didn't say default state of consent did I? I say that if you consent to one thing it may be worth considering that said consent extends to other things as a result. For example if you consent to whole organ donation by extension you have also consented to tissue donation (despite the fact that nowhere is tissue donation stated in the authorization.)

Also keep in mind until the 70's I believe marital rape wasn't even considered a crime. The logic was a consent to marry was consent to sex in perpetuity. It was until like the 80 or 90's that it became outlawed in the whole USA and if not too much mistaken marital rape is still treated differently today in some states the rape between unrelated persons.

Additionally and no offense but men and women have plyed each other with alcohol to get things from the other for centuries if not millennia, doesn't mean it was right but as a historical truth it certainly happened alot in the past and so by default many of us are at some point descended from a "drunk rapist".

Also just because I don't necessarily by the argument that alcohol impaired consent is equal to rape doesn't mean I have a desire to rape anyone.

Don't you even DARE lie to me. You stated that if you consent to drinking you automatically consent to sex.

The law was (and is) stupid, and now we're fixing them. That's because we now know better.

And no, you are a fucking rape apologist and/or a rapist. Just because people have used alcohol before to manipulate people is no fucking excuse. Just because it's happened before doesn't make it acceptable.

Don't you DARE try to speak from tradition, because that's fucking bullshit.

Now again, what the hell is wrong with you?

[Llamalandia]

Then why on earth is alcohol legal in the united states. If it truly causes such great impairment that people can't control their own bodies and wills, then ican't imagine how any sane person would say people should be allowed to consume it (even if it is mostly used in moderation though I question given this because of the purported stats on rape).

Alternatively I would positive a theory of "transitive consent" that is if you consent to surrender your free will to a mind altering substance then by extension you have consented to anything you may agree to while in that altered state.

Dude, what the fuck is the matter with you? Can you not be a fucking creepy rapist, is that so much to ask?

Im not a creepy rapist, I have never rape anyone nor have I ever had sex with anyone who had recently consumed alcohol so I'll thank you to refrain from the personal attacks on thanx very much. If you don't want a frank, honest, and open discussion why are you here?

Also not saying i endorse this theory of transitive consent (posit may not have been the best choice of phrasing) just suggesting it as something to think about.

[Chishimotata]

Then perhaps you should not make a post that states a desire to rape people through copious amounts of drugs.

To what post are you referring in which I claim "I personally" wish to rape anyone through copious amounts of drugs (and it was solely alcohol that was being discussed in the first place).

Alternatively I would positive a theory of "transitive consent" that is if you consent to surrender your free will to a mind altering substance then by extension you have consented to anything you may agree to while in that altered state.

You have stated that you support this idea. You have stated that you think that if you're drunk, you gave consent to sex. That's rapey.

Again, what the hell is wrong with you?

[Llamalandia]

I didn't say default state of consent did I? I say that if you consent to one thing it may be worth considering that said consent extends to other things as a result. For example if you consent to whole organ donation by extension you have also consented to tissue donation (despite the fact that nowhere is tissue donation stated in the authorization.)

Also keep in mind until the 70's I believe marital rape wasn't even considered a crime. The logic was a consent to marry was consent to sex in perpetuity. It was until like the 80 or 90's that it became outlawed in the whole USA and if not too much mistaken marital rape is still treated differently today in some states the rape between unrelated persons.

Additionally and no offense but men and women have plyed each other with alcohol to get things from the other for centuries if not millennia, doesn't mean it was right but as a historical truth it certainly happened alot in the past and so by default many of us are at some point descended from a "drunk rapist".

Also just because I don't necessarily by the argument that alcohol impaired consent is equal to rape doesn't mean I have a desire to rape anyone.

Don't you even DARE lie to me. You stated that if you consent to drinking you automatically consent to sex.

The law was (and is) stupid, and now we're fixing them. That's because we now know better.

And no, you are a fucking rape apologist and/or a rapist. Just because people have used alcohol before to manipulate people is no fucking excuse. Just because it's happened before doesn't make it acceptable.

Don't you DARE try to speak from tradition, because that's fucking bullshit.

Now again, what the hell is wrong with you?

Youre assuming I believe all these positions personally which is in no way true, I am merely suggesting an alternative viewpoint. And again please refrain from personally attacking me I have in no way shape or form ever been involved in in any way a rape or attempted rape.

[The Steel Magnolia]

Dude, what the fuck is the matter with you? Can you not be a fucking creepy rapist, is that so much to ask?

Im not a creepy rapist, I have never rape anyone nor have I ever had sex with anyone who had recently consumed alcohol so I'll thank you to refrain from the personal attacks on thanx very much. If you don't want a frank, honest, and open discussion why are you here?

Also not saying i endorse this theory of transitive consent (posit may not have been the best choice of phrasing) just suggesting it as something to think about.

This is literally you. You are literally hitler in this scenario.

[Chishimotata]

Don't you even DARE lie to me. You stated that if you consent to drinking you automatically consent to sex.

The law was (and is) stupid, and now we're fixing them. That's because we now know better.

And no, you are a fucking rape apologist and/or a rapist. Just because people have used alcohol before to manipulate people is no fucking excuse. Just because it's happened before doesn't make it acceptable.

Don't you DARE try to speak from tradition, because that's fucking bullshit.

Now again, what the hell is wrong with you?

Youre assuming I believe all these positions personally which is in no way true, I am merely suggesting an alternative viewpoint. And again please refrain from personally attacking me I have in no way shape or form ever been involved in in any way a rape or attempted rape.

I'm not attacking you. I'm calling a spade a spade. If you think my words are actionable, report me to moderation.

You yourself have argued this position. You yourself said that you think positive on that viewpoint on consent. When I called you out on it just now, you advanced that position with "tradition!" bullshit.

I also remember you referring to sexually-active women with a slur and slut-shaming women, so you have no excuse.

Now take responsibility for your words and admit that either you're wrong, you're a rapist, or you're a rape apologist.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

This is a tricky one. It's things like this that make the "rape is rape" sloganeering seem pretty disconnected from reality. I mean, yeah, rape is rape, of course it is, buttermilk is buttermilk and mousemats are mousemats. But that doesn't mean there aren't different kinds and levels of severity or that the boundaries can't be a little fuzzy. It's complicated and when people claim it isn't they make me feel like there's some deeper comprehensive definition that's in their bonus edition.

That is my opinion too.

On a side note, until 2009, the Brazilian legal definition of rape defined only forced vaginal penetration. What else was "atentado violento ao pudor" and the penalty was from 6 to 10 years, but generally less than rape that could easily go up to 12 when couple with physical violence (when the cops DID care about the atentado, because they are often sexist and homophobic pricks so to them male rape either did not exist or was deserved).

This effectively merged atentado violento ao pudor with rape, and allowed that anal, oral and male rape as things that legally exist for the first time: http://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_a ... l12015.htm aside calling statutory rape a rape but at the same time lowering the age of consent, aside other things https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lei_12015_de_2009

[Llamalandia]

To what post are you referring in which I claim "I personally" wish to rape anyone through copious amounts of drugs (and it was solely alcohol that was being discussed in the first place).

Alternatively I would positive a theory of "transitive consent" that is if you consent to surrender your free will to a mind altering substance then by extension you have consented to anything you may agree to while in that altered state.

You have stated that you support this idea. You have stated that you think that if you're drunk, you gave consent to sex. That's rapey.

Again, what the hell is wrong with you?

I never said I supported it and I even admitted that purport was a fairly bad choice of wording.

Nothing is wrong with me I just don't dogmatically by into talking points about serious issues (well at least not to often).

Let me assauage your concern some though. I would apply the same logic to drug addiction. If you consent to using drugs once and become addicted (rare but it happens) you have essentially consent to all future drug uses. Even if a drug dealer knows youre a junkie and still sells to you it's equivalent to him "forcing the drugs on you" you consented to one thing (trying the drug) knowing it could lead to your own involuntary action to do another (continue using drugs becasue youre addicted despite the fact that you know they are bad and may even "want" to quit.)

[Chishimotata]

You have stated that you support this idea. You have stated that you think that if you're drunk, you gave consent to sex. That's rapey.

Again, what the hell is wrong with you?

I never said I supported it and I even admitted that purport was a fairly bad choice of wording.

Nothing is wrong with me I just don't dogmatically by into talking points about serious issues (well at least not to often).

Let me assauage your concern some though. I would apply the same logic to drug addiction. If you consent to using drugs once and become addicted (rare but it happens) you have essentially consent to all future drug uses. Even if a drug dealer knows youre a junkie and still sells to you it's equivalent to him "forcing the drugs on you" you consented to one thing (trying the drug) knowing it could lead to your own involuntary action to do another (continue using drugs becasue youre addicted despite the fact that you know they are bad and may even "want" to quit.)

You said you want to put forward that logic. Own up to it.

Drug dealers are not related, don't you DARE try to change the subject, and no, that's not valid either.

[Llamalandia]

Im not a creepy rapist, I have never rape anyone nor have I ever had sex with anyone who had recently consumed alcohol so I'll thank you to refrain from the personal attacks on thanx very much. If you don't want a frank, honest, and open discussion why are you here?

Also not saying i endorse this theory of transitive consent (posit may not have been the best choice of phrasing) just suggesting it as something to think about.

This is literally you. You are literally hitler in this scenario.

Wow the hitler comparison never seen that on the internet before anywhere ever.

[Llamalandia]

I never said I supported it and I even admitted that purport was a fairly bad choice of wording.

Nothing is wrong with me I just don't dogmatically by into talking points about serious issues (well at least not to often).

Let me assauage your concern some though. I would apply the same logic to drug addiction. If you consent to using drugs once and become addicted (rare but it happens) you have essentially consent to all future drug uses. Even if a drug dealer knows youre a junkie and still sells to you it's equivalent to him "forcing the drugs on you" you consented to one thing (trying the drug) knowing it could lead to your own involuntary action to do another (continue using drugs becasue youre addicted despite the fact that you know they are bad and may even "want" to quit.)

You said you want to put forward that logic. Own up to it.

Drug dealers are not related, don't you DARE try to change the subject, and no, that's not valid either.

Well there you go you agree that it's not valid there is at least some decent debate here finally (even if you feel the analogy is in artful. )

That said I won't "own up to it" because i never have nor ever would want to engage in sex with someone in this way regardless of whether it is consensual or not. I can't honestly believe it would be very satisfying to have sex with someone who is too drunk to know what their doing, maybe others can but personally that's not me. If you think that somehow makes me a rape apologist then fine I guess. But i seriously don't appreciate being accused of being or desiring to be a rapist.

Also when i say "put forward that logic" i mean for the purposes of this academic debate not because i secretly want to have sex with everyone who is drunk.

[Chishimotata]

You said you want to put forward that logic. Own up to it.

Drug dealers are not related, don't you DARE try to change the subject, and no, that's not valid either.

Well there you go you agree that it's not valid there is at least some decent debate here finally (even if you feel the analogy is in artful. )

That said I won't "own up to it" because i never have nor ever would want to engage in sex with someone in this way regardless of whether it is consensual or not. I can't honestly believe it would be very satisfying to have sex with someone who is too drunk to know what their doing, maybe others can but personally that's not me. If you think that somehow makes me a rape apologist then fine I guess. But i seriously don't appreciate being accused of being or desiring to be a rapist.

Also when i say "put forward that logic" i mean for the purposes of this academic debate not because i secretly want to have sex with everyone who is drunk.

You are continuing to argue with that logic, even though we've stated that it's convoluted and disgusting and wrong. You continue to argue that logic, even though we've stated that your logic is terrible.

At least admit that you're a rape apologist who thinks that it's a woman's fault that she got raped. Then we know where we stand.

[Llamalandia]

Youre assuming I believe all these positions personally which is in no way true, I am merely suggesting an alternative viewpoint. And again please refrain from personally attacking me I have in no way shape or form ever been involved in in any way a rape or attempted rape.

I'm not attacking you. I'm calling a spade a spade. If you think my words are actionable, report me to moderation.

You yourself have argued this position. You yourself said that you think positive on that viewpoint on consent. When I called you out on it just now, you advanced that position with "tradition!" bullshit.

I also remember you referring to sexually-active women with a slur and slut-shaming women, so you have no excuse.

Now take responsibility for your words and admit that either you're wrong, you're a rapist, or you're a rape apologist.

Hey you want to call a spade a spade then I will too, and im not sure i recall exactly who I supposedly refered to with a slur (at least in a serious manner). And no I have no desire to report you to moderation provided you refrain from calling me a rapist without evidence (and there isn't any because i'm not a rapist).

[Llamalandia]

Well there you go you agree that it's not valid there is at least some decent debate here finally (even if you feel the analogy is in artful. )

That said I won't "own up to it" because i never have nor ever would want to engage in sex with someone in this way regardless of whether it is consensual or not. I can't honestly believe it would be very satisfying to have sex with someone who is too drunk to know what their doing, maybe others can but personally that's not me. If you think that somehow makes me a rape apologist then fine I guess. But i seriously don't appreciate being accused of being or desiring to be a rapist.

Also when i say "put forward that logic" i mean for the purposes of this academic debate not because i secretly want to have sex with everyone who is drunk.

You are continuing to argue with that logic, even though we've stated that it's convoluted and disgusting and wrong. You continue to argue that logic, even though we've stated that your logic is terrible.

At least admit that you're a rape apologist who thinks that it's a woman's fault that she got raped. Then we know where we stand.

But i don't think it's a woman's fault she got raped. It's always the rapist responsibility, what were arguing about is whether or not inebriated sex is the same thing as rape that's basically what this whole thread is about. If all youre going to do is call people names and insult them then I don't see what the point of you being here is.

[Chishimotata]

I'm not attacking you. I'm calling a spade a spade. If you think my words are actionable, report me to moderation.

You yourself have argued this position. You yourself said that you think positive on that viewpoint on consent. When I called you out on it just now, you advanced that position with "tradition!" bullshit.

I also remember you referring to sexually-active women with a slur and slut-shaming women, so you have no excuse.

Now take responsibility for your words and admit that either you're wrong, you're a rapist, or you're a rape apologist.

Hey you want to call a spade a spade then I will too, and im not sure i recall exactly who I supposedly refered to with a slur (at least in a serious manner). And no I have no desire to report you to moderation provided you refrain from calling me a rapist without evidence (and there isn't any because i'm not a rapist).

You were writing up an example and you used a slur to refer to the female character in said example.

Alright, I'll report myself in moderation. In fact, I already did.

[Llamalandia]

Well there you go you agree that it's not valid there is at least some decent debate here finally (even if you feel the analogy is in artful. )

That said I won't "own up to it" because i never have nor ever would want to engage in sex with someone in this way regardless of whether it is consensual or not. I can't honestly believe it would be very satisfying to have sex with someone who is too drunk to know what their doing, maybe others can but personally that's not me. If you think that somehow makes me a rape apologist then fine I guess. But i seriously don't appreciate being accused of being or desiring to be a rapist.

Also when i say "put forward that logic" i mean for the purposes of this academic debate not because i secretly want to have sex with everyone who is drunk.

You are continuing to argue with that logic, even though we've stated that it's convoluted and disgusting and wrong. You continue to argue that logic, even though we've stated that your logic is terrible.

At least admit that you're a rape apologist who thinks that it's a woman's fault that she got raped. Then we know where we stand.

Yes I am arguing with this logic not because i have a desire to troll anyone or because in my "heart of hearts" i believe it. Im am putting it forward for the sake of argument and understanding. Feel free to point out the specific criticism you have with it please.

[Llamalandia]

Hey you want to call a spade a spade then I will too, and im not sure i recall exactly who I supposedly refered to with a slur (at least in a serious manner). And no I have no desire to report you to moderation provided you refrain from calling me a rapist without evidence (and there isn't any because i'm not a rapist).

You were writing up an example and you used a slur to refer to the female character in said example.

Alright, I'll report myself in moderation. In fact, I already did.

Ok fine with me don't know why you reported yourself but ok.

[Llamalandia]

Hey you want to call a spade a spade then I will too, and im not sure i recall exactly who I supposedly refered to with a slur (at least in a serious manner). And no I have no desire to report you to moderation provided you refrain from calling me a rapist without evidence (and there isn't any because i'm not a rapist).

You were writing up an example and you used a slur to refer to the female character in said example.

Alright, I'll report myself in moderation. In fact, I already did.

Oh wait was that nymphomaniac remark from several months ago, I don't recall that being that big a deal, and I believe i apologized for using the term of art in the manner i did in that case.

[Chishimotata]

You are continuing to argue with that logic, even though we've stated that it's convoluted and disgusting and wrong. You continue to argue that logic, even though we've stated that your logic is terrible.

At least admit that you're a rape apologist who thinks that it's a woman's fault that she got raped. Then we know where we stand.

Yes I am arguing with this logic not because i have a desire to troll anyone or because in my "heart of hearts" i believe it. Im am putting it forward for the sake of argument and understanding. Feel free to point out the specific criticism you have with it please.

For starters... THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A STATE OF DEFAULT CONSENT. EVER.

[The Parkus Empire]

Dude, what the fuck is the matter with you? Can you not be a fucking creepy rapist, is that so much to ask?

Im not a creepy rapist, I have never rape anyone nor have I ever had sex with anyone who had recently consumed alcohol so I'll thank you to refrain from the personal attacks on thanx very much. If you don't want a frank, honest, and open discussion why are you here?

Also not saying i endorse this theory of transitive consent (posit may not have been the best choice of phrasing) just suggesting it as something to think about.

Rape is something that has hurt many of us. Even for those of us who have never been raped, just about all of us have friends who have been raped. While it might appear to you that offering to exclude certain instances of rape from the definition is no greater of an emotional concern than saying a commonly recognized rococo piece of art should really be classified as baroque, to us it is a way of giving verbal support to rapists.

[Hetalian Indie Rio de Janeiro]

The first post by Llamalandia wasn't much different from what I said...

To the exception I admitted drunk sex was rape, but that people invest in the risks against their integrity when they consume mind-altering drugs in a place without people they trust and even more so with people they shouldn't trust.

[Llamalandia]

Im not a creepy rapist, I have never rape anyone nor have I ever had sex with anyone who had recently consumed alcohol so I'll thank you to refrain from the personal attacks on thanx very much. If you don't want a frank, honest, and open discussion why are you here?

Also not saying i endorse this theory of transitive consent (posit may not have been the best choice of phrasing) just suggesting it as something to think about.

Rape is something that has hurt many of us. Even for those of us who have never been raped, just about all of us have friends who have been raped. While it might appear to you that offering to exclude certain instances of rape from the definition is no greater of an emotional concern than saying a commonly recognized rococo piece of art should really be classified as baroque, to us it is a way of giving verbal support to rapists.

Again please bare in mind that I wasn't intentionally trying to hurt anyone. If i offended or hurt you personally i apologize. That said, many people are hurt by many things but we can't let hat stifle debate on topics just because they are painful. Many people have been hurt by racism in real life and that is discussed openly and honestly here, smae thing with other controversiall topics such as terrorism and suicide. Again I personally apologize to you and anyone else who is has been or may in future be offended by my comments again no intent to harm is meant by them. And no I wouldn't support in someone actually having sex with an inebriated person in real life again I fail to see any point to it. And yes ido realize and appreciate that this is certainly a more sensitive topic than art criticism but again I won't silence myself for the sake of sparing another feelings and I'm sorry if you feel that is cold or harsh of me.

[The Parkus Empire]

The first post by Llamalandia wasn't much different from what I said...

To the exception I admitted drunk sex was rape, but that people invest in the risks against their integrity when they consume mind-altering drugs in a place without people they trust and even more so with people they shouldn't trust.

That's as stupid as a woman deliberately running over her neighbor's child for kicks, and then someone saying to the parents, "Well, yeah it was murder, but obviously the kid should have looked both ways."

[The Parkus Empire]

Rape is something that has hurt many of us. Even for those of us who have never been raped, just about all of us have friends who have been raped. While it might appear to you that offering to exclude certain instances of rape from the definition is no greater of an emotional concern than saying a commonly recognized rococo piece of art should really be classified as baroque, to us it is a way of giving verbal support to rapists.

Again please bare in mind that I wasn't intentionally trying to hurt anyone. If i offended or hurt you personally i apologize. That said, many people are hurt by many things but we can't let hat stifle debate on topics just because they are painful. Many people have been hurt by racism in real life and that is discussed openly and honestly here, smae thing with other controversiall topics such as terrorism and suicide. Again I personally apologize to you and anyone else who is has been or may in future be offended by my comments again no intent to harm is meant by them. And no I wouldn't support in someone actually having sex with an inebriated person in real life again I fail to see any point to it. And yes ido realize and appreciate that this is certainly a more sensitive topic than art criticism but again I won't silence myself for the sake of sparing another feelings and I'm sorry if you feel that is cold or harsh of me.

It's cold and harsh to be defending rapists, yeah, I feel that way.

[Chishimotata]

Rape is something that has hurt many of us. Even for those of us who have never been raped, just about all of us have friends who have been raped. While it might appear to you that offering to exclude certain instances of rape from the definition is no greater of an emotional concern than saying a commonly recognized rococo piece of art should really be classified as baroque, to us it is a way of giving verbal support to rapists.

Again please bare in mind that I wasn't intentionally trying to hurt anyone. If i offended or hurt you personally i apologize. That said, many people are hurt by many things but we can't let hat stifle debate on topics just because they are painful. Many people have been hurt by racism in real life and that is discussed openly and honestly here, smae thing with other controversiall topics such as terrorism and suicide. Again I personally apologize to you and anyone else who is has been or may in future be offended by my comments again no intent to harm is meant by them. And no I wouldn't support in someone actually having sex with an inebriated person in real life again I fail to see any point to it. And yes ido realize and appreciate that this is certainly a more sensitive topic than art criticism but again I won't silence myself for the sake of sparing another feelings and I'm sorry if you feel that is cold or harsh of me.

Uh, yeah, except for the fact that I know way too many people who have been raped. So defending rapists? No.