Apparently, Rape is not Rape

[The_pantless_hero]

So the vast majority of men who have had one-night stands are malicious and dangerous rapists et al. The sex offenders' list would soon be like a male version of the census.

How in the hell are you getting there from what TCT said?

Because apparently you are all reading something that wasn't actually said where the level headed people are actually reading what TCT was responding to.

[Angleter]

So the vast majority of men who have had one-night stands are malicious and dangerous rapists et al. The sex offenders' list would soon be like a male version of the census.

How in the hell are you getting there from what TCT said?

So if a drunken man has sex with a drunken woman then the man is a malicious and dangerous rapist who must be removed from society for a number of years and placed permamently on the sex offenders' list?

Yeah. That is (1) exactly what I said

Here's how. You don't seriously believe that one-night stands are entirely sober, do you?

[Dempublicents1]

It does raise an interesting question of "how specific does consent have to be" and "how broad can one reasonable interpret consent"

Is it unreasonable to interpret consent of "I want you to do this to me" to be broader than "I want you to do this to me, but only if I don't pass out".

Now, don't get me wrong, I think his action was monumentally stupid. And I"m not necessarily falling on one side of the fence or the other. I'm merely posing the hypothetical.

Here's a question. Suppose they finished having sex with her fully conscious and laid down. Then she passed out. Would it be ok for him to have sex with her, assuming that her earlier consent still stood?

I see no significant difference between that case and this one.

Also, I would say that intentionally having sex with someone while unconscious is pretty fucking kinky. We had a thread about it a while back - There were some people who were totally into it, but most people seemed pretty disturbed by the idea and this is a forum where most people seem pretty open to experimentation. So I think something like this would have to be approached like any sexual tastes that are out of the ordinary. Someone who is heavy into BDSM can't just go pick up a random person at the bar, take her home for sex, and then starting smacking her around the minute she walks into his apartment. It has to be agreed upon ahead of time, because it isn't reasonable to assume that any random person off the street shares those tastes. I would put this in the same category - actually I'd say this it's probably less likely that someone would want to be fucked while unconscious. So, with something like this, I'd say that consent to this action has to be explicitly clear.

[Poliwanacraca]

So the vast majority of men who have had one-night stands are malicious and dangerous rapists et al. The sex offenders' list would soon be like a male version of the census.

How in the hell are you getting there from what TCT said?

So if a drunken man has sex with a drunken woman then the man is a malicious and dangerous rapist who must be removed from society for a number of years and placed permamently on the sex offenders' list?

Yeah. That is (1) exactly what I said

Here's how. You don't seriously believe that one-night stands are entirely sober, do you?

Oh good grief. The combination of the facepalm and eye-rolling smilies didn't give you a glimmer of a hint that sarcasm was present?

[The_pantless_hero]

It does raise an interesting question of "how specific does consent have to be" and "how broad can one reasonable interpret consent"

Is it unreasonable to interpret consent of "I want you to do this to me" to be broader than "I want you to do this to me, but only if I don't pass out".

Now, don't get me wrong, I think his action was monumentally stupid. And I"m not necessarily falling on one side of the fence or the other. I'm merely posing the hypothetical.

Here's a question. Suppose they finished having sex with her fully conscious and laid down. Then she passed out. Would it be ok for him to have sex with her, assuming that her earlier consent still stood?

I see no significant difference between that case and this one.

Then you are obviously not seeing this objectively.

[Dempublicents1]

So the vast majority of men who have had one-night stands are malicious and dangerous rapists et al. The sex offenders' list would soon be like a male version of the census.

How in the hell are you getting there from what TCT said?

Somebody's sarcasm meter is broken.

[The_pantless_hero]

Oh good grief. The combination of the facepalm and eye-rolling smilies didn't give you a glimmer of a hint that sarcasm was present?

He used a list, the eye rolling and face-palm only came after point 2 where he declared it absurd and said something sarcastic, thus REINFORCING point one.

[Sdaeriji]

It does raise an interesting question of "how specific does consent have to be" and "how broad can one reasonable interpret consent"

Is it unreasonable to interpret consent of "I want you to do this to me" to be broader than "I want you to do this to me, but only if I don't pass out".

Now, don't get me wrong, I think his action was monumentally stupid. And I"m not necessarily falling on one side of the fence or the other. I'm merely posing the hypothetical.

Here's a question. Suppose they finished having sex with her fully conscious and laid down. Then she passed out. Would it be ok for him to have sex with her, assuming that her earlier consent still stood?

I see no significant difference between that case and this one.

You do not see the significant difference between continuing an act that he had prior consent for, and starting a new act that he had no such consent?

[The_pantless_hero]

It does raise an interesting question of "how specific does consent have to be" and "how broad can one reasonable interpret consent"

Is it unreasonable to interpret consent of "I want you to do this to me" to be broader than "I want you to do this to me, but only if I don't pass out".

Now, don't get me wrong, I think his action was monumentally stupid. And I"m not necessarily falling on one side of the fence or the other. I'm merely posing the hypothetical.

Here's a question. Suppose they finished having sex with her fully conscious and laid down. Then she passed out. Would it be ok for him to have sex with her, assuming that her earlier consent still stood?

I see no significant difference between that case and this one.

You do not see the significant difference between continuing an act that he had prior consent for, and starting a new act that he had no such consent?

It's like a logic teleporter.

[Dempublicents1]

It does raise an interesting question of "how specific does consent have to be" and "how broad can one reasonable interpret consent"

Is it unreasonable to interpret consent of "I want you to do this to me" to be broader than "I want you to do this to me, but only if I don't pass out".

Now, don't get me wrong, I think his action was monumentally stupid. And I"m not necessarily falling on one side of the fence or the other. I'm merely posing the hypothetical.

Here's a question. Suppose they finished having sex with her fully conscious and laid down. Then she passed out. Would it be ok for him to have sex with her, assuming that her earlier consent still stood?

I see no significant difference between that case and this one.

Then you are obviously not seeing this objectively.

Why? The argument being made is that, since she did not explicitly withdraw consent, she still consented. This is the same situation. The only difference is a little bit of time lapsed between. Are you saying that you would agree it was rape if after she passed out he stopped, answered the phone, then came back and finished fucking her?

[Hydesland]

2. All rape is REAL rape.

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

[Poliwanacraca]

Oh good grief. The combination of the facepalm and eye-rolling smilies didn't give you a glimmer of a hint that sarcasm was present?

He used a list, the eye rolling and face-palm only came after point 2 where he declared it absurd and said something sarcastic, thus REINFORCING point one.

........dear god. You're arguing this point? Seriously? I really wouldn't think the smilies would be necessary, given that that was quite obviously NOT "exactly what he said." "Exactly what he said" would be "All rape is REAL rape. Period. End of discussion. If you are having sex with someone that isn't consenting, you are committing rape," but he helpfully included BOTH "I am being sarcastic now" smilies just to help make the sarcasm so screamingly obvious that a mentally challenged toddler would have difficulty missing it.

[Neo Art]

Though it is interesting to note that all the discussion of what exactly constitutes consent, what constitutes revocation of consent, what constitutes a reasonable belief or an unreasonable one, and all of it, does underline that these kind of issues can have gray areas. There are some things we can unambigously call "consent", and some we can unambiguously call "not consent", and then sometimes...there's a bit of haze in the middle.

Which only serves to underscore the role the justice system has for factfinders like juries and...well....judges.

[Phenia]

It never ceases to amaze me that even seemingly reasonable people still whip out the silence-equals-consent argument.

[Poliwanacraca]

2. All rape is REAL rape.

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

How so?

[Angleter]

Oh good grief. The combination of the facepalm and eye-rolling smilies didn't give you a glimmer of a hint that sarcasm was present?

He used a list, the eye rolling and face-palm only came after point 2 where he declared it absurd and said something sarcastic, thus REINFORCING point one.

Exactly what I was going to say.

[Neo Art]

It never ceases to amaze me that even seemingly reasonable people still whip out the silence-equals-consent argument.

Except nobody has argued that. At the most extreme (ignoring some trolls) all that anyone has argued is "consent is consent, and silence in the face of past, unambiguous consent can not be construed as revoking that consent"

[Hydesland]

How so?

How can something simultaneously be rape, but not be REAL rape.

[Dempublicents1]

It does raise an interesting question of "how specific does consent have to be" and "how broad can one reasonable interpret consent"

Is it unreasonable to interpret consent of "I want you to do this to me" to be broader than "I want you to do this to me, but only if I don't pass out".

Now, don't get me wrong, I think his action was monumentally stupid. And I"m not necessarily falling on one side of the fence or the other. I'm merely posing the hypothetical.

Here's a question. Suppose they finished having sex with her fully conscious and laid down. Then she passed out. Would it be ok for him to have sex with her, assuming that her earlier consent still stood?

I see no significant difference between that case and this one.

You do not see the significant difference between continuing an act that he had prior consent for, and starting a new act that he had no such consent?

Not really, no. But that's because I don't think me giving someone consent to start a sex act is also permission for them to finish it. As Bottle said, consent is an active process and can be withdrawn at any time (unless, of course, one is incapable of withdrawing it). But everyone is making the assumption that once given, consent lasts until explicitly withdrawn. Thus, unless she actively withdraws consent, it is ok to continue a sex act that she may or may not now consent to. By that logic, starting a new sex act would be perfectly fine as long as the other person hasn't explicitly told you that they don't want to have sex again.

Like I said earlier, I think the idea that this is ok, but starting a new sex act wouldn't be comes from the idea that women who dare to withdraw consent during the sex act are doing something wrong. Thus, we can assume that she's not a dirty tease or whatever and thus wouldn't have withdrawn consent.

[Hydesland]

Except nobody has argued that. At the most extreme (ignoring some trolls) all that anyone has argued is "consent is consent, and silence in the face of past, unambiguous consent can not be construed as revoking that consent"

All I'm arguing is that he doesn't deserve prison and that he doesn't deserve to be put in the same category as people who stalk victims in an alley and rape them without them EVER giving consent. I also argue that people are being too dramatic.

[Poliwanacraca]

How so?

How can something simultaneously be rape, but not be REAL rape.

It can't. But a lot of people argue that it is, which is why TCT is pointing out that it's a stupid argument. I've heard it claimed that "date rape isn't REAL rape" more than once.

[The_pantless_hero]

Oh good grief. The combination of the facepalm and eye-rolling smilies didn't give you a glimmer of a hint that sarcasm was present?

He used a list, the eye rolling and face-palm only came after point 2 where he declared it absurd and said something sarcastic, thus REINFORCING point one.

........dear god. You're arguing this point? Seriously? I really wouldn't think the smilies would be necessary, given that that was quite obviously NOT "exactly what he said." "Exactly what he said" would be "All rape is REAL rape. Period. End of discussion. If you are having sex with someone that isn't consenting, you are committing rape," but he helpfully included BOTH "I am being sarcastic now" smilies just to help make the sarcasm so screamingly obvious that a mentally challenged toddler would have difficulty missing it.

Then I will repeat, more eloquently, what I said directly to him. He can write sentences that make sense or expect people to misinterpret them.

[Hydesland]

It can't. But a lot of people argue that it is, which is why TCT is pointing out that it's a stupid argument. I've heard it claimed that "date rape isn't REAL rape" more than once.

I guess by REAL they mean what is commonly thought of as the severe horror when most people think of rape, i.e. forcing a victim, while she explicitly doesn't want to and is struggling against it, to have sex, obviously some types of rape are significantly less severe than others.

[Angleter]

Here's a question. Suppose they finished having sex with her fully conscious and laid down. Then she passed out. Would it be ok for him to have sex with her, assuming that her earlier consent still stood?

I see no significant difference between that case and this one.

Then you are obviously not seeing this objectively.

Why? The argument being made is that, since she did not explicitly withdraw consent, she still consented. This is the same situation. The only difference is a little bit of time lapsed between. Are you saying that you would agree it was rape if after she passed out he stopped, answered the phone, then came back and finished fucking her?

Consent is given on a fuck-by-fuck basis. In the case in question, she gave consent to the intercourse that was completed after she passed out (thus it is not rape). In your event she did not give consent to the second one (thus it is rape).

[Poliwanacraca]

Except nobody has argued that. At the most extreme (ignoring some trolls) all that anyone has argued is "consent is consent, and silence in the face of past, unambiguous consent can not be construed as revoking that consent"

All I'm arguing is that he doesn't deserve prison and that he doesn't deserve to be put in the same category as people who stalk victims in an alley and rape them without them EVER giving consent. I also argue that people are being too dramatic.

....ah, so he's not a REAL rapist.

Out of curiosity, if someone is raped by their significant other - someone who has obviously "ever" had consent - does that rape "count" more or less than the one in the alley?