|
Post by cupcakes on Mar 30, 2018 12:48:09 GMT
tpfkar I’m in the military and military law is usually a clearer reflection of civil law. What I said is exactly the way sexual assault training is taught (from a legal perspective). And I can also guarantee that irrespective of how the law is “written”, people are naturally inclined to treat it this way until proven otherwise. Terms may be gender neutral, but in practice “person” when used to refer to the victim is ALWAYS presumed to be a “woman”, unless both parties were male. Society generally teaches that a woman cannot consent to sex if she is drunk. The military might be the place where the common assumption, based on patriarchy and the somewhat changing reality (w/statistically rare exceptions) that the dudes generally have the physical power, and the dudettes are generally the ones deciding whether or not to farm out the goods - gets challenged more frequently. give up the donuts
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 30, 2018 13:12:52 GMT
So should a 14 year old girl be allowed to give a fifty year old man a blow job then considering consent is not an issue here and they have "obviously consented"? Why do these conversations always turn into "So... Why can't I have sex with a willing child?" What brings alcohol into question is that there is a huge grey area where alcohol has an ability to inhibit one from actually providing rational consent. With a child... There is also a question of whether or not that they can properly provide rational consent... especially to an adult. But... You should already know this... ...and I got a feeling that this conversation is about to take a turn for the worse.
|
|
|
Post by kls on Mar 30, 2018 13:15:41 GMT
I think the tricky thing with this issue is just how drunk does one have to be to not be able to consent? With driving under the influence there is a specific blood alcohol content under the law. Nothing objective in this area.
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 30, 2018 13:25:25 GMT
So should a 14 year old girl be allowed to give a fifty year old man a blow job then considering consent is not an issue here and they have "obviously consented"? Why do these conversations always turn into "So... Why can't I have sex with a willing child?" What brings alcohol into question is that there is a huge grey area where alcohol has an ability to inhibit one from actually providing rational consent. With a child... There is also a question of whether or not that they can properly provide rational consent... especially to an adult. But... You should already know this... ...and I got a feeling that this conversation is about to take a turn for the worse. " "So... Why can't I have sex with a willing child?"" When did I ever say that? Pointing out somebody's inconsistent beliefs is not wanting to do the those things. What a bizarre thing to believe! So rational consent, and not consent is what matters? Ok so at what point is one not able to give rational consent (whatever the hell that even means) and why is it at that point that the line should be drawn?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 30, 2018 18:14:36 GMT
And I can gaurantee that you are wrong. I’m in the military and military law is usually a clearer reflection of civil law. What I said is exactly the way sexual assault training is taught (from a legal perspective). And I can also guarantee that irrespective of how the law is “written”, people are naturally inclined to treat it this way until proven otherwise. Terms may be gender neutral, but in practice “person” when used to refer to the victim is ALWAYS presumed to be a “woman”, unless both parties were male. Society generally teaches that a woman cannot consent to sex if she is drunk. And that is what has been taught for years! Isapop just provided a convenient link for me above. You say you guarantee I'm wrong, and then go on to say what I said ("how the law is “written..." terms may be gender neutral...") and didn't cite anything to show how who does what is ignored. So I don't see where you're really disputing what I'm saying. You seem to just be tangentially ranting. Things might seem that way when you get a direct response that you don’t like. But my opinion is no more of a rant than yours is. Burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim. Why don’t YOU cite something to back up your assertion that “who did what” is always factored in to deciding whether a rape happened? Because I would argue that “who accused who”, is always factored in, and “which gender is which” is always factored in FIRST. Who did what MAY come into play, but there’s no reason to assume that it always is.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 1:41:36 GMT
First question: The same reason someone can be held responsible when they drink and drive. Second question: Consent applies when something's being done to you, not when you're the one doing something. If you're doing something you obviously consented to it. If both parties are engaging in the sex, ie, both taking active part in it, and both are drunk, then it's either mutual rape or mutual consent. I don't see how how you square gender equality with any other interpretation. OTOH, you can also formulate it so it's gender equal in terms of it being rape on just one side. If either a male or female is passed out drunk on a bed and a female or male comes in and has sex with them and the other side doesn't engage, then it's rape. "First question: The same reason someone can be held responsible when they drink and drive." Well I would say someone should be held responsible for drinking and driving only because it reduces the amount of people who drink and drive. I dont know if that's is what you believe though. Is that what you believe also? Sure, but the comparison was meant to show that you can hold people responsible for doing bad things while drunk. "Consent applies when something's being done to you, not when you're the one doing something. If you're doing something you obviously consented to it." So should a 14 year old girl be allowed to give a fifty year old man a blow job then considering consent is not an issue here and they have "obviously consented"? My statement was meant to include the implication that it was possible to give consent in the first place. If someone is underage then they can't legally give consent at all. I guess the same could be said to apply when drunk. "mutual rape" How could something be mutual rape? It couldn't. That was just meant as a little joke.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Mar 31, 2018 2:00:21 GMT
You say you guarantee I'm wrong, and then go on to say what I said ("how the law is “written..." terms may be gender neutral...") and didn't cite anything to show how who does what is ignored. So I don't see where you're really disputing what I'm saying. You seem to just be tangentially ranting. Things might seem that way when you get a direct response that you don’t like. But my opinion is no more of a rant than yours is. Burden of proof is on the one making the affirmative claim. Why don’t YOU cite something to back up your assertion that “who did what” is always factored in to deciding whether a rape happened? Because I would argue that “who accused who”, is always factored in, and “which gender is which” is always factored in FIRST. Who did what MAY come into play, but there’s no reason to assume that it always is. It has nothing to do with me not liking the response, it has to do with you either not contradicting what I said (in fact, you basically confirmed one thing I said), and not really addressing the other. Of course "who accused who" is factored in, since that's what decides who's the plaintiff and defendant; but are you seriously suggesting that when an accusation happens that the law--both police and courts--do not gather statements about what happened and try to gather any evidence they can to corroborate an account? They just consider the genders of who made the complaints and that's it?
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 31, 2018 2:17:26 GMT
Please explain how a man needs to consent to having sex with a woman, seeing as if she is drunk enough to not be able to consent, and he fucks her. 'Consent' in this circumstances is nonsense.
He either does the deed or he does not. He is either too drunk to do it, or not.
If he does and she didn't consent, then he raped her.
DUH
|
|
Lugh
Sophomore
@dcu
Posts: 848
Likes: 77
|
Post by Lugh on Mar 31, 2018 9:15:22 GMT
"First question: The same reason someone can be held responsible when they drink and drive." Well I would say someone should be held responsible for drinking and driving only because it reduces the amount of people who drink and drive. I dont know if that's is what you believe though. Is that what you believe also? Sure, but the comparison was meant to show that you can hold people responsible for doing bad things while drunk. "Consent applies when something's being done to you, not when you're the one doing something. If you're doing something you obviously consented to it." So should a 14 year old girl be allowed to give a fifty year old man a blow job then considering consent is not an issue here and they have "obviously consented"? My statement was meant to include the implication that it was possible to give consent in the first place. If someone is underage then they can't legally give consent at all. I guess the same could be said to apply when drunk. "mutual rape" How could something be mutual rape? It couldn't. That was just meant as a little joke. "Sure, but the comparison was meant to show that you can hold people responsible for doing bad things while drunk." Okay but why hold somebody responsible for fucking a woman who was conscious and the woman had the ability to deny him? Even if that is immoral why should the law step in?
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 31, 2018 12:48:08 GMT
It has nothing to do with me not liking the response, it has to do with you either not contradicting what I said (in fact, you basically confirmed one thing I said), and not really addressing the other. Of course "who accused who" is factored in, since that's what decides who's the plaintiff and defendant; but are you seriously suggesting that when an accusation happens that the law--both police and courts--do not gather statements about what happened and try to gather any evidence they can to corroborate an account? They just consider the genders of who made the complaints and that's it? No, that’s not what I said or suggested. That is a ridiculous straw man argument that I hope was unintentional (based on your genuine inability to comprehend), rather than an intentional attempt to distort my argument to score points. The point I am making is that women are accusers (men are not), and women are always assumed to be victims first, while accused men are always assumed to be rapists first. Any attempt to deny this is futile because that’s exactly how it works in reality today! I can point to any number of examples from the “me too” movement to back that up. Now, if it is established by both sides that sex did happen, courts assume FIRST that the accuser (which is female) was raped UNTIL the defendant can prove otherwise, because in rape cases where the facts have established that sex occurred, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent. If there is evidence that the woman was intoxicated, the male is presumed guilty! If there was evidence that the male was intoxicated, he is presumed guilty. If there was evidence that they were both intoxicated, the male is presumed guilty. The only scenario where the male is presumed NOT guilty is if neither were intoxicated, or they didn’t actually have sex. If neither were intoxicated, then the woman has to prove rape. That’s how rape/sexual assault proceedings generally go.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 31, 2018 12:53:14 GMT
Please explain how a man needs to consent to having sex with a woman, seeing as if she is drunk enough to not be able to consent, and he fucks her. 'Consent' in this circumstances is nonsense. He either does the deed or he does not. He is either too drunk to do it, or not. If he does and she didn't consent, then he raped her. DUH Seriously? A man needs to consent to having sex if SHE FUCKS HIM! Of course, everyone just likes to avoid talking about that scenario for the sake of convenience (because drunk sex is always assumed to be rape of the female first). But “consent” is supposed to go both ways and should be treated differently based on gender. It takes two to tango, and being “too drunk to perform” isn’t relevant to who got raped or not. What’s relevant is whether they were too drunk to CONSENT. Those are two different things! What part about that do you not understand?
|
|
|
Post by kls on Mar 31, 2018 13:39:32 GMT
Please explain how a man needs to consent to having sex with a woman, seeing as if she is drunk enough to not be able to consent, and he fucks her. 'Consent' in this circumstances is nonsense. He either does the deed or he does not. He is either too drunk to do it, or not. If he does and she didn't consent, then he raped her. DUH Seriously? A man needs to consent to having sex if SHE FUCKS HIM! Of course, everyone just likes to avoid talking about that scenario for the sake of convenience (because drunk sex is always assumed to be rape of the female first). But “consent” is supposed to go both ways and should be treated differently based on gender. It takes two to tango, and being “too drunk to perform” isn’t relevant to who got raped or not. What’s relevant is whether they were too drunk to CONSENT. Those are two different things! What part about that do you not understand? It's obvious passed out is too drunk to consent. But beyond that nobody in this thread (that I'm aware of) has come up with a standard to determine how drunk someone must be to be considered too drunk to consent to sex.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 31, 2018 20:56:55 GMT
Seriously? A man needs to consent to having sex if SHE FUCKS HIM! Of course, everyone just likes to avoid talking about that scenario for the sake of convenience (because drunk sex is always assumed to be rape of the female first). But “consent” is supposed to go both ways and should be treated differently based on gender. It takes two to tango, and being “too drunk to perform” isn’t relevant to who got raped or not. What’s relevant is whether they were too drunk to CONSENT. Those are two different things! What part about that do you not understand? It's obvious passed out is too drunk to consent. But beyond that nobody in this thread (that I'm aware of) has come up with a standard to determine how drunk someone must be to be considered too drunk to consent to sex. That’s exactly my point. There is no objective standard to what “to drunk to consent” means, other than someone being “passed out”. But the law doesn’t require a woman to be passed out in order to be considered “intoxicated”!
|
|
|
Post by kls on Mar 31, 2018 21:00:41 GMT
It's obvious passed out is too drunk to consent. But beyond that nobody in this thread (that I'm aware of) has come up with a standard to determine how drunk someone must be to be considered too drunk to consent to sex. That’s exactly my point. There is no objective standard to what “to drunk to consent” means, other than someone being “passed out”. But the law doesn’t require a woman to be passed out in order to be considered “intoxicated”! Your point? Okay, but I thought that was what I was bringing up as an issue in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 31, 2018 21:19:29 GMT
That’s exactly my point. There is no objective standard to what “to drunk to consent” means, other than someone being “passed out”. But the law doesn’t require a woman to be passed out in order to be considered “intoxicated”! Your point? Okay, but I thought that was what I was bringing up as an issue in the first place. And I agreed with you. My disagreement was with Goz.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 1:58:22 GMT
Sure, but the comparison was meant to show that you can hold people responsible for doing bad things while drunk. My statement was meant to include the implication that it was possible to give consent in the first place. If someone is underage then they can't legally give consent at all. I guess the same could be said to apply when drunk. It couldn't. That was just meant as a little joke. "Sure, but the comparison was meant to show that you can hold people responsible for doing bad things while drunk." Okay but why hold somebody responsible for fucking a woman who was conscious and the woman had the ability to deny him? Even if that is immoral why should the law step in? The “had the ability to deny him” is the crux: did she? If she did and didn’t then I’d say consent was given, likewise if the sex was reciprocal. People are acting like it’s only the man that does something during sex.
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 1, 2018 1:59:01 GMT
It has nothing to do with me not liking the response, it has to do with you either not contradicting what I said (in fact, you basically confirmed one thing I said), and not really addressing the other. Of course "who accused who" is factored in, since that's what decides who's the plaintiff and defendant; but are you seriously suggesting that when an accusation happens that the law--both police and courts--do not gather statements about what happened and try to gather any evidence they can to corroborate an account? They just consider the genders of who made the complaints and that's it? No, that’s not what I said or suggested. That is a ridiculous straw man argument that I hope was unintentional (based on your genuine inability to comprehend), rather than an intentional attempt to distort my argument to score points. The point I am making is that women are accusers (men are not), and women are always assumed to be victims first, while accused men are always assumed to be rapists first. Any attempt to deny this is futile because that’s exactly how it works in reality today! I can point to any number of examples from the “me too” movement to back that up. Now, if it is established by both sides that sex did happen, courts assume FIRST that the accuser (which is female) was raped UNTIL the defendant can prove otherwise, because in rape cases where the facts have established that sex occurred, the defendant is guilty until proven innocent. If there is evidence that the woman was intoxicated, the male is presumed guilty! If there was evidence that the male was intoxicated, he is presumed guilty. If there was evidence that they were both intoxicated, the male is presumed guilty. The only scenario where the male is presumed NOT guilty is if neither were intoxicated, or they didn’t actually have sex. If neither were intoxicated, then the woman has to prove rape. That’s how rape/sexual assault proceedings generally go. I think you need to go back and read our specific exchange because I still feel like what you're saying has no relevance to what I said. You just seem to be addressing completely different points. You started off by mentioning the law, but then talk about what people assume and suggest that who does what doesn't matter, only who makes the claim. You're just all over the map here. I think you need to settle down, stop shotgunning points/statements, and try to focus on one thing at a time, and hopefully one of them will be relevant to what I originally said. I'd also suggest you provide some evidence to back up any of the claims you make in the second paragraph.
|
|