Is it rape?

[Jello Biafra]

In scenario A she is intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness. Not all changes to one's mental state make one unconscious.

that doesn't answer my question at all, because people are still charged with rape when their victim isn't unconscious but is intoxicated. it would only answer my question if the courts drew the arbitrary line of changes to mental state as ''unconscious'', but they seem to draw it at ''intoxicated''.

i think we can all agree that being unconscious means that if someone has sex with you you're being raped, not because it radically changes your decision-making faculties, but because you literally can't make a decision, let alone a rational one.

If unconsciousness makes it so one can't make a decision, is it possible that there are mental states where someone is conscious but still unable to make a decision?

[Grave_n_idle]

Yeah, so what I support is called "yes means yes, no means no." It is not about enthusiastic or affirmative consent. .

Unless you're arguing that unconsciousness is a yes, you are, indeed, arguing for affirmative consent. Whether you call it that or not.

Or ARE you arguing that unconsciousness is consent?

[New Edom]

Yeah, so what I support is called "yes means yes, no means no." It is not about enthusiastic or affirmative consent. .

Unless you're arguing that unconsciousness is a yes, you are, indeed, arguing for affirmative consent. Whether you call it that or not.

Or ARE you arguing that unconsciousness is consent?

I'm not for these reasons.

1. People who make it clear it's all about protecting women.

"- Currently, many men assume if a woman "does not say no" then that means "yes" or interpret "silence/saying nothing" as a "yes" -- this ambiguity can lead to rape/sexual assault."

I cannot convey to you how much hatred I feel towards people who keep pushing the 'protect the ladies' idea about issues of consent and refuse to discuss ways women also undermine consent. So fuck this site.

2. I have made it clear that I support "Yes means yes, no means no" because it makes it far more clear than affirmative consent. People insist that it doesn't, but to me it means you need a yes or a no. I don't take silence to be a yes. This is sorta like affirmative consent without all the bullshit lingo, perhaps. If it is I don't care, but as I stated above, I hate the rhetoric surrounding it.

3. [url=http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-law-decisive-on-what-constitutes-sexual-consent-theres-nothing-implied-or-implicit-about-it]It's still actually controversial.

I don't believe it helps anything either. According to RAINN, many rapes, acts of harassment, groping, etc happen in association with other criminal behaviour. I don't see that this is being addressed by the affirmative consent crowd. As a professor said in the article I quoted:

"“I’m not saying the high rates of sexual assault in Canada are due to people’s lack of understanding of the meaning of consent. Lots of people have a pretty good understanding of what consent means,” she said. “The problem, really, is that they’re not willing to accept sexual refusals and they’re pushing on anyway.”

4. Affirmative consent advocates have different stories, as I've said. Do you need an explicit verbal yes, or body language? Educators on the subject differ. Until there is only ONE definition that is broadly accepted, then no, I don't support the idea.

If you want to think I'm a rape apologist, please go ahead. I point you again to me saying that I believe in the old definition of yes means yes, no means no.

[Tahar Joblis]

Yeah, so what I support is called "yes means yes, no means no." It is not about enthusiastic or affirmative consent. .

Unless you're arguing that unconsciousness is a yes, you are, indeed, arguing for affirmative consent. Whether you call it that or not.

Or ARE you arguing that unconsciousness is consent?

That is a false dichotomy.

The doctrine of affirmative consent is represented variously as follows:

Affirmative consent is a knowing, voluntary, and mutual decision among all participants to engage in sexual activity. Consent can be given by words or actions, as long as those words or actions create clear permission regarding willingness to engage in the sexual activity. Silence or lack of resistance, in and of itself, does not demonstrate consent.

Not consent by this definition: Passive compliance from someone fully capable of saying "no," e.g., as actually used as a signal of consent by a plurality of both men and women. Also; ambiguous signalling followed by slow escalation and no refusal.

The Affirmative Consent Standard states that the person who initiates sexual contact must receive a VERBAL YES (affirmative consent) from the other person before engaging in any sexual activity -- and that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual encounter.

]
Not consent by this definition: Clear non-verbal signals.

Of course, to consult the gold standard... the original affirmative consent standard comes from Antioch College in 1991:

1. For the purpose of this policy, "consent" shall be defined as follows: the act of willingly and verbally agreeing to engage in specific sexual contact or conduct.

2. If sexual contact and/or conduct is not mutually and simultaneously initiated, then the person who initiates sexual contact/conduct is responsible for getting the verbal consent of the other individual(s) involved.

3. Obtaining consent is an on-going process in any sexual interaction. Verbal consent should be obtained with each new level of physical and/or sexual contact/conduct in any given interaction, regardless of who initiates it. Asking "Do you want to have sex with me?" is not enough. The request for consent must be specific to each act.

4. The person with whom sexual contact/conduct is initiated is responsible to express verbally and/or physically her/his willingness or lack of willingness when reasonably possible.

5. If someone has initially consented but then stops consenting during a sexual interaction, she/he should communicate withdrawal verbally and/or through physical resistance. The other individual(s) must stop immediately.

6. To knowingly take advantage of someone who is under the influence of alcohol, drugs and/or prescribed medication is not acceptable behavior in the Antioch community.

7. If someone verbally agrees to engage in specific contact or conduct, but it is not of her/his own free will due to any of the circumstances stated in (a) through (d) below, then the person initiating shall be considered in violation of this policy if:

a) the person submitting is under the influence of alcohol or other substances supplied to her/him by the person initiating;

b) the person submitting is incapacitated by alcohol, drugs, and/or prescribed medication;

c) the person submitting is asleep or unconscious;

d) the person initiating has forced, threatened, coerced, or intimidated the other individual(s) into engaging in sexual contact and/or sexual conduct.

Note that the policy explicitly says that asking "do you want to have sex with me?" is insufficiently specific. Also classified as rape: Sex with someone who gave you booze or drugs (7-a) so that you are "under the influence," or the very loosely-defined (6) "taking advantage" (usually in practice meaning "regrets after the fact") of someone under the influence of medication.

The SNL skit was not an exaggeration. It was satirical, but it was a straight play of satire by taking the policy exactly as written and showing it to be absurd.

The intent of the affirmative consent, or enthusiastic consent, standard is clear: It is to automatically classify as rape anything an accuser wants to claim as rape. Consequentially, it opens the door to absurdities involving mutual rape - two drunk people, neither of whom would willingly have sex with one another sober, take advantage of one another; two people take turns escalating a sexual encounter but without verbal consent cues; etc.

The idea that having sex with an unconscious person is generally rape, barring special circumstances, dates back significantly further than the doctrine of affirmative consent, and is not dependent on the doctrine of affirmative consent; conversely, the doctrine of affirmative consent includes a great deal more than "deciding to have sex with an unconscious person is rape."

[Tahar Joblis]

You're so heavily focused on the fact that I referred to autism, when I'm not making the comparison between intoxicants and autism exclusively. The simplification is vital, because the comparison made between autism and intoxication after the simplification is the underlying factor of changes to mental state to a degree that impairs rational decision making faculty is the basis for why intoxication invalidates consent.

The distinction between intoxication and incapacitation is vital and required in order to avoid commonplace mutual rape scenarios.

Drunk people have sex with other drunk people all the time. Quite willingly. If intoxicated persons are unable to consent, then neither participant is able to consent; and therefore both participants have committed rape. Since mutual rape is an absurdity, then - reductio ad absurdum - intoxication of a participant is insufficient cause to classify a sex act as rape. You must introduce some method of breaking the asymmetry. Traditionally, this is done by being sexist and assuming everything is the fault of any male participant(s), but that is not acceptable.

Incapacitated individuals, e.g., persons who are passed out or otherwise largely incapable of voluntary action, generally cannot engage in sex acts with other incapacitated persons, and thus incapacitation is not an absurd bar to sexual consent. In scenario (A), rape does not occur in the stage of the two intoxicated individuals engaging in oral sex; only in one choosing to engage in a sex act with the other after the other is incapacitated.

[Chessmistress]

The Affirmative Consent Standard states that the person who initiates sexual contact must receive a VERBAL YES (affirmative consent) from the other person before engaging in any sexual activity -- and that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual encounter.

That's a quotation from me.

Since when I'm "AffirmativeConsent.com"?

[Grave_n_idle]

I cannot convey to you how much hatred I feel towards people who keep pushing the 'protect the ladies' idea about issues of consent and refuse to discuss ways women also undermine consent. So fuck this site.

I don't care about your hatred towards... well, whatever.

If you want to talk about women undermining consent.... I think that's a different subject.

2. I have made it clear that I support "Yes means yes, no means no" because it makes it far more clear than affirmative consent. People insist that it doesn't, but to me it means you need a yes or a no. I don't take silence to be a yes.

You don't take silence as a yes? And you don't take no as a yes?

Then I have news for you - you're an advocate affirmative consent.

If you want to think I'm a rape apologist, please go ahead.

I don't want to think that. Why would I?

The idea that there are people out there who actively ARE rape apologists is bad enough - I certainly don't want to entertain the idea I might be trying to debate with one. The very thought makes me ill.

[Centuran Republic]

Yes, all three are rape, since all three did not fully consent.

[New Edom]

I cannot convey to you how much hatred I feel towards people who keep pushing the 'protect the ladies' idea about issues of consent and refuse to discuss ways women also undermine consent. So fuck this site.

I don't care about your hatred towards... well, whatever.

If you want to talk about women undermining consent.... I think that's a different subject.

2. I have made it clear that I support "Yes means yes, no means no" because it makes it far more clear than affirmative consent. People insist that it doesn't, but to me it means you need a yes or a no. I don't take silence to be a yes.

You don't take silence as a yes? And you don't take no as a yes?

Then I have news for you - you're an advocate affirmative consent.

If you want to think I'm a rape apologist, please go ahead.

I don't want to think that. Why would I?

The idea that there are people out there who actively ARE rape apologists is bad enough - I certainly don't want to entertain the idea I might be trying to debate with one. The very thought makes me ill.

tahar Joblis did a good response to your post above actually.

[Tahar Joblis]

That's a quotation from me.

Since when I'm "AffirmativeConsent.com"?

No, it is not a quote from you. Although I can see, on examination, that you have quoted the same page, that does not make you the author of the words that both of us have quoted from the same source.

Affirmativeconsent.com is not, mind, an authoritative source in any scholarly sense, but it is one of the visible public efforts on behalf of the adoption of an affirmative consent standard, so the standards that it quotes are illustrative of the standards that are being pushed as affirmative consent.

[Mushet]

I'd say all 3, the physical threats really pull that last one over the edge.

[Fartsniffage]

I'm honestly worried that nearly a third of voters in this poll don't understand rape.

Is this really representative of society?

[Galloism]

I'm honestly worried that nearly a third of voters in this poll don't understand rape.

Is this really representative of society?

Id say generalizing this poll to society is probably being massively fucking generous to society.

[Chessmistress]

I'm honestly worried that nearly a third of voters in this poll don't understand rape.

Is this really representative of society?

I'm even more worried that it seems to me that just only 7% people understand of it really works: the 9 persons who voted "A and C".
Though, as I said, there's an enormous difference between A and C.

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm honestly worried that nearly a third of voters in this poll don't understand rape.

Is this really representative of society?

I'm even more worried that it seems to me that just only 7% people understand of it really works: the 9 persons who voted "A and C".
Though, as I said, there's an enormous difference between A and C.

Don't be silly Chess, only B is rape.

[Gages Icelandic Army]

I believe all are rape. But I think the morally bankrupt among us would want an option in the survey to say none are rape. If it's possible to say that only A is rape or only B is rape or only C is rape then it makes sense that someone would look at these and think none of them are.

[Chessmistress]

I'm even more worried that it seems to me that just only 7% people understand of it really works: the 9 persons who voted "A and C".
Though, as I said, there's an enormous difference between A and C.

Don't be silly Chess, only B is rape.

I did a detailed analysis, and it was very fair: I said that in the case A even if guilty perhaps he should not even do jailtime, since if she wouldn't had passed out then she was clearly going to consent and also due he was partially impaired too.

And however I want to highlight a thing: A e B are minor cases, it doesn't matter so much if you think it barely meet the definition or it barely skip the requisites for being rape: still both perpetrators of A and B aren't dangerous criminals.
The case C is totally different and really really really worrying, such situation it's even likely to end in a femicide.

[Setgavarius]

So NSG what do you think constitutes as rape? Many people have different views on the subject. Personally I think all three of the below scenarios qualify as rape. I would ask that you take these all as they are, assuming there are no other circumstances of which you are unaware.

Scenario A: A woman goes to the local bar alone, has a number of drinks while flirting with a man there, and agrees, intoxicated, to go to a motel with him. At the motel the two fool around, making out and engaging in oral sex. The woman provides a condom, but as the man gets ready to have intercourse with her, she finally passes out from intoxication. The man, also drunk, but fully aware of her state, decides to proceed with intercourse anyway. Is it rape?

Scenario B: A young couple who have been going out for awhile, and they’re both in love. The guy is new to dating and wants to take things slow, and they have had explicit conversations about what is and isn’t okay at this point. In spite of that, his girlfriend, who has much more experience, gets really heated while they're fooling around and ends up holding down her boyfriend and performing oral sex on him until he orgasms, though her boyfriend has said this is past his comfort zone and tells her to stop. The boyfriend refrains from hitting her to get her to stop because he doesn't want to hurt her. Afterward, the girlfriend apologizes but says she was “caught up in the moment” and she knew that it would make him feel good if he’d just loosen up and let her do it. Is it rape?

Scenario C: A married couple are living together. They have company over for dinner, and everyone has enough wine that they decide it’s best to stay the night. After retiring to bed, the husband tries to initiate sex, but the wife makes it clear that she is not in the mood. They start fighting (verbally) about it, and the husband gets louder and angrier, eventually making physical threats. The wife, afraid to be embarrassed in front of the house guests and have them witness her husband's bullying, gives in and allows him to have sex with her, though she doesn’t participate. Is it rape?

All of these asswipes are rapists, to the jail cells with them.

[Galloism]

Don't be silly Chess, only B is rape.

I did a detailed analysis, and it was very fair: I said that in the case A even if guilty perhaps he should not even do jailtime, since if she wouldn't had passed out then she was clearly going to consent and also due he was partially impaired too.

And however I want to highlight a thing: A e B are minor cases, it doesn't matter so much if you think it barely meet the definition or it barely skip the requisites for being rape: still both perpetrators of A and B aren't dangerous criminals.
The case C is totally different and really really really worrying, such situation it's even likely to end in a femicide.

Heard it here first: holding someone down while they scream "no" and forcing them to have sex in the hope they will enjoy it later is a "minor case."

Having sex with someone's literally passed out drunk lifeless body is a "minor case".

[Chessmistress]

I did a detailed analysis, and it was very fair: I said that in the case A even if guilty perhaps he should not even do jailtime, since if she wouldn't had passed out then she was clearly going to consent and also due he was partially impaired too.

And however I want to highlight a thing: A e B are minor cases, it doesn't matter so much if you think it barely meet the definition or it barely skip the requisites for being rape: still both perpetrators of A and B aren't dangerous criminals.
The case C is totally different and really really really worrying, such situation it's even likely to end in a femicide.

Heard it here first: holding someone down while they scream "no" and forcing them to have sex in the hope they will enjoy it later is a "minor case."

Having sex with someone's literally passed out drunk lifeless body is a "minor case".

There aren't people screaming and crying in the case A, and: yes, both A and B are minor cases when compared to the level of domestic violence and abuses perpetuated and repeated through time that are implied in a case like C.

[Galloism]

Heard it here first: holding someone down while they scream "no" and forcing them to have sex in the hope they will enjoy it later is a "minor case."

Having sex with someone's literally passed out drunk lifeless body is a "minor case".

There aren't people screaming and crying in the case A,

No, that's case B. A "minor case" apparently, when you hold someone down while they scream "no" and force them to have sex in the hope they'll enjoy it later.

and: yes, both A and B are minor cases when compared to the level of domestic violence and abuses perpetuated and repeated through time that are implied in a case like C.

Oh good lord.

[Esternial]

and: yes, both A and B are minor cases when compared to the level of domestic violence and abuses perpetuated and repeated through time that are implied in a case like C.

Basing your judgement off a single implied situation and not going over any alternative scenarios doesn't sound like a detailed analysis.

Nothing explicitly states it's a recurring event. It can be equally plausible that the husband was drunk and horny which - judging by your assessment of A - makes it less severe. You just imagined a specific narrative and went with it rather than evaluating the scenario using the limited details provided.

[Galloism]

and: yes, both A and B are minor cases when compared to the level of domestic violence and abuses perpetuated and repeated through time that are implied in a case like C.

Basing your judgement off a single implied situation and not going over any alternative scenarios doesn't sound like a detailed analysis.

Nothing explicitly states it's a recurring event. It can be equally plausible that the husband was drunk and horny which - judging by your assessment of A - makes it less severe. You just imagined a specific narrative and went with it rather than evaluating the scenario using the limited details provided.

It's also specifically plausible that B is part of an overall trend and this woman goes around 'getting in heat' and raping men who don't enthusiastically make their pants fly off at the sight of her, her thinking "they will enjoy it" if "they loosen up".

It's just as plausible.

[New Edom]

Don't be silly Chess, only B is rape.

I did a detailed analysis, and it was very fair: I said that in the case A even if guilty perhaps he should not even do jailtime, since if she wouldn't had passed out then she was clearly going to consent and also due he was partially impaired too.

And however I want to highlight a thing: A e B are minor cases, it doesn't matter so much if you think it barely meet the definition or it barely skip the requisites for being rape: still both perpetrators of A and B aren't dangerous criminals.
The case C is totally different and really really really worrying, such situation it's even likely to end in a femicide.

This is what affirmative consent advocates wanted though: to make it socially unacceptable to wonder whether something is rape or not. They honestly appear to think that this will eliminate rape, if it is made unthinkable. I think it's a stupid policy. RAINN's policy is far superior because it actually takes actions.

Also, Chess, you can't have it both ways. Women cannot be equal to men and yet deserving of more protection than men.

[Free Alaska]

All of them are rape.