Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Hmmm, I've just seen a new moderator - piegasm. His avatar is Quark from Deep Space 9. I wonder whether anybody has ever pointed out to him how easy it is to make an argument that Ferengi are little but a collation of Jewish stereotypes, right down to the large ears and nose, as seen in propaganda literature of Nazi Germany?

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/45886511beb9982f5a.jpg[/qimg]

I wonder how that would go down over there?
Click to expand...

You think that is bad?

For the past two weeks, I've been trying to imagine the magnitude of cognitive dissonance that must occur when a hardcore SJW adopts the handle "Eowyn Entwife".

I mean, the only way Eowyn could be more of a poster girl for antiquated patriarchal privilege, is if she adopted the surname "Entwife".

I'd almost suspect the 'plusser of adopting the handle ironically, but she just seems so earnest about everything, I can't help but think she's earnest about this, as well.

ETA: Yes, "she". Anyone who calls herself "Eowyn Entwife", and adopts an avatar of the same, cannot reasonably be referred to by any personal pronoun other than the female.
 
Last edited:
kellyb said:
I'm still not understanding, even a little bit.
Click to expand...

Being drunk makes a person incapable of consenting to sex, any person who has sex with them therefore is- by definition- having sex with them without consent.
Being drunk does not absolves you of responsibility for any criminal acts you commit. Therefore it is technically possible for two drunk people to each be violating each other's consent. It's a quirk of the law (as it exists in many places) that only really applies if the two people involved are intoxicated to exactly the same degree- in almost all circumstances the criminal justice system would ignore it.

If one party is much less drunk than the other and takes advantage of this fact to violate the consent of the more drunk party then this is a clear case of sexual assault.
 
brodski said:
Sorry, I don't see the problem. Rebbecca is saying that her opinion on whether a partner is consenting or not is much less relevant than the opinion of the partner themself. I think her and I would agree here, no matter what else we disagree on.
Click to expand...


she is replying to the question "what if you are also drunk, did they rape you as well?"

not much of an answer imo.
 
s_pepys said:
so, if two 13 year olds have consensual sex they are guilty of raping each other in your opinion?
Click to expand...

In the eyes of the law where I live they are both guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse, which is technically separate from rape. Unless there were aggravating circumstances no legal action would be taken against either party.
 
Myriad said:
I agree, except that the problem with the wording is far from subtle. The pattern repeats often enough to make it appear that the unclarity is deliberate. The conversation plays out something like this (except over the course of a hundred posts, instead of four):

A: "Never ever ever have sex with a drunk person, it makes you a rapist."

B: "What? My current gf likes to have two or three drinks and have sex with me. That doesn't make me a rapist."

C (to B): "Stop trying to confuse the issue. Clearly A is talking about situations where one person is far too drunk to consent and there is no established relationship for prior consent to exist. These situations are common and are a real problem, which you're trying to minimize using strawman scenarios."

D (to B, simultaneously): "Yes it does. Rapist!"

What makes it appear deliberate is that A and C will never, ever, attempt to correct or contradict D.

Respectfully,
Myriad
Click to expand...

I think that is more about the way people generally behave in a debate. If a person is ostensibly arguing on the same broad "side" as you, but says something really stupid it is easier to ignore it than argue with them as well as the people you were originally arguing with. I've seen that sort of behavior happen on all sorts of topics. I try not to do that, but it means I tend to be ignored because I'm not clearly seen as being on one side or the other. Its part of why most debates get so polarised, IMO.
 
brodski said:
Being drunk makes a person incapable of consenting to sex, any person who has sex with them therefore is- by definition- having sex with them without consent.
Being drunk does not absolves you of responsibility for any criminal acts you commit. Therefore it is technically possible for two drunk people to each be violating each other's consent. It's a quirk of the law (as it exists in many places) that only really applies if the two people involved are intoxicated to exactly the same degree- in almost all circumstances the criminal justice system would ignore it.

If one party is much less drunk than the other and takes advantage of this fact to violate the consent of the more drunk party then this is a clear case of sexual assault.
Click to expand...

can you show some examples of this "quirk" in the law? any time prosecution has been attempted or a case brought to trial in any state?

lxxx
 
brodski said:
Being drunk makes a person incapable of consenting to sex, any person who has sex with them therefore is- by definition- having sex with them without consent.
Being drunk does not absolves you of responsibility for any criminal acts you commit. Therefore it is technically possible for two drunk people to each be violating each other's consent.
Click to expand...

Well, according to that logic, ANY and EVERY time two drunk people get it on, they're raping each other.

Also, I'm uncomfortable with claims like "Being drunk makes a person incapable of consenting to sex". I don't think it's so black and white.
 
brodski said:
In the eyes of the law where I live they are both guilty of unlawful sexual intercourse, which is technically separate from rape. Unless there were aggravating circumstances no legal action would be taken against either party.
Click to expand...

cite please?
 
s_pepys said:
can you show some examples of this "quirk" in the law? any time prosecution has been attempted or a case brought to trial in any state?

lxxx
Click to expand...

Did you read my post?
If you did your question makes little sense.
 
Professor Yaffle said:
If both people are that far gone, sex probably isn't going to be happening. IME you need at least one partner aware of their surroundings and in control of their faculties/coordination etc for anything to be happening.
Click to expand...

It sounds like you define unable to consent as unable to refuse. Those can be very different standards.
 
kellyb said:
Also, I'm uncomfortable with claims like "Being drunk makes a person incapable of consenting to sex". I don't think it's so black and white.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Many people make the conscious decision to get drunk and then have sex. I don't think it is black and white at all. I think there is a cline (gradient) from definately not rape to definitely rape. A drunk couple who have sex on their first encounter is more likely to be a sustainable case for rape than a couple that routinely get drunk and have sex. Not that it is impossible in such a case.
 
brodski said:
Did you read my post?
If you did your question makes little sense.
Click to expand...

can you not then point out the law in your area which says a minor having sex with another minor is a sexual offence.

if an adult has sex with a minor, that is surely covered. where is this "quirk"?

tell me the area ill check for you, eh?

lxxx
 
Professor Yaffle said:
Well in all the court cases I have read about, the woman has been pretty falling down drunk, as in having to be guided to wherever the other person wanted them to go.

There was a recent UK case where a woman alleged rape against 2 men when she was drunk. The circumstances were that she had sex with one of them and then the other guy came in and took his place later on. The first guy was found not guilty, because tho she was drunk she wasn't too drunk to know what she was doing. The second guy was found guilty because she was too drunk to realize that a different guy had taken his place. So that implies you have to be pretty off your face...

Of course if you want to be safe, its probably best to not have sex with anyone anywhere near that area. you know, if you are interested in not accidentally raping someone...
Click to expand...

The thing is people define it differently from you and treat their definitions as inarguable. For an even more complex situation what about blackouts where someone is more functional than that but doesn't remember?
 
ponderingturtle said:
It sounds like you define unable to consent as unable to refuse. Those can be very different standards.
Click to expand...

That's not my definition. Mine would be more like unable to understand the nature of what is happening and therefore by definition cannot consent to it. Reread my post about the rape case against 2 men. The woman was drunk but capable of understanding what was happening with the first guy, who was the guy she had gone back to the hotel with. But she was too drunk to realize a different guy had got into bed with her and unable to properly understand what was happening in that case, so she couldn't consent to him having sex with her. So it's not just about the level of drunkenness but also about the nature of the situation that they need to be aware of and hence consent to.
 
kellyb said:
Well, according to that logic, ANY and EVERY time two drunk people get it on, they're raping each other.

Also, I'm uncomfortable with claims like "Being drunk makes a person incapable of consenting to sex". I don't think it's so black and white.
Click to expand...

But admitting to complexities is just you showing your rational person privilige.
 
ponderingturtle said:
The thing is people define it differently from you and treat their definitions as inarguable. For an even more complex situation what about blackouts where someone is more functional than that but doesn't remember?[/quote

Well personally, I keep away from anyone that drunk so I'd. Never be in that situation. That sort if situation is for the courts to sort out, and I don't want to be anywhere near treating a person in a way that would need courts to unravel whether I raped them or not. I like my sex to be unequivocally consensual. I'm. Funny that way....
Click to expand...
 
Professor Yaffle said:
That's not my definition. Mine would be more like unable to understand the nature of what is happening and therefore by definition cannot consent to it. Reread my post about the rape case against 2 men. The woman was drunk but capable of understanding what was happening with the first guy, who was the guy she had gone back to the hotel with. But she was too drunk to realize a different guy had got into bed with her and unable to properly understand what was happening in that case, so she couldn't consent to him having sex with her. So it's not just about the level of drunkenness but also about the nature of the situation that they need to be aware of and hence consent to.
Click to expand...

And that sounds like a reasonable approach but makes a poor social justice slogan.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom