|
Post by secretsquirrelsock on Mar 9, 2010 0:40:26 GMT -5
That's a bloody good point Sigmaleph. What about where both the parties are both too drunk to give a valid consent? Having been there, done that, I'm sort of curious to hear other people's thoughts? For myself, I'd say two people who have the hots for each other getting shitfaced in a situation were intercourse is likely, there's certainly a case to be made there for IMPLIED consent...
|
|
|
Post by safaraz on Mar 9, 2010 11:46:41 GMT -5
For myself, I'd say two people who have the hots for each other getting shitfaced in a situation were intercourse is likely, there's certainly a case to be made there for IMPLIED consent... Yeah, if they are both too drunk to be conscious of their actions, then I don't really see it as one forcing them selves on another, if you get what I mean. And also I think that this would be very different from an actual conscious rape, as it would be just be people's lust, rather than a desire for power etc that normally causes rape. (and sorry, I'm being really crap at explaining what I mean here >_<)
|
|
|
Post by cagnazzo on Mar 9, 2010 11:51:51 GMT -5
For myself, I'd say two people who have the hots for each other getting shitfaced in a situation were intercourse is likely, there's certainly a case to be made there for IMPLIED consent... Yeah, if they are both too drunk to be conscious of their actions, then I don't really see it as one forcing them selves on another, if you get what I mean. And also I think that this would be very different from an actual conscious rape, as it would be just be people's lust, rather than a desire for power etc that normally causes rape. (and sorry, I'm being really crap at explaining what I mean here >_<) Most rapists aren't conscious of it. I can try to find a cite later, but the studies I recall had a very high proportion of rapists believing they weren't rapists, while simultaneously seeing each other as rapists. That is, they can pick out rape, but believe they weren't doing it.
|
|
|
Post by valsa on Mar 9, 2010 16:17:17 GMT -5
If two drunk adults have sex and no one said "no" then, to me, it's a "no harm, no foul" kind of situation (assuming one is not significantly drunker than the other- if we have someone who would blow just barely above the legal intoxication limit having sex with someone who is just a step above black-out drunk, that's going to cause an issue)
However, if two drunk people are together, one says "no", and the other doesn't listen- the "but I was drunk too" defense is not going to fly.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on Mar 9, 2010 17:31:12 GMT -5
Then I doubt they have enough coordination to even fuck in the first place. I now wish to watch two drunks attempt coupling. It'd be funny as hell.
|
|
|
Post by Sigmaleph on Mar 9, 2010 18:00:20 GMT -5
That's a bloody good point Sigmaleph. What about where both the parties are both too drunk to give a valid consent? Complicated. Normally, I would assume that if both are drunk then nobody took advantage of the other, but it depends on the situation.
|
|
|
Post by mistermuncher on Mar 9, 2010 18:37:11 GMT -5
To ask a question that does actually bug me pretty deeply on the whole "dressed like that/asking for it" argument.
Is there any fucking evidence for such a thing, at all? It's presented as though it exists as some kind of fact, but can anyone point me to something reasonably conclusive, shit, even correlative, between "provocative" attire and incidence of rape.
It's always struck my as the kind of lazy thinking beloved of public house philosophers and taxi drivers, the kind of thing that's just "common sense" or "stands to reason". As well as that, it carries a distinct stench of a pattern of thinking I truly do not like the look, sound or feel of. When talking about it with a mate, we kind of reached the conclusion it was almost the mentality of a rapist in and of itself. Amy thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by safaraz on Mar 9, 2010 18:56:30 GMT -5
To ask a question that does actually bug me pretty deeply on the whole "dressed like that/asking for it" argument. Is there any fucking evidence for such a thing, at all? It's presented as though it exists as some kind of fact, but can anyone point me to something reasonably conclusive, shit, even correlative, between "provocative" attire and incidence of rape. It's always struck my as the kind of lazy thinking beloved of public house philosophers and taxi drivers, the kind of thing that's just "common sense" or "stands to reason". As well as that, it carries a distinct stench of a pattern of thinking I truly do not like the look, sound or feel of. When talking about it with a mate, we kind of reached the conclusion it was almost the mentality of a rapist in and of itself. Amy thoughts? Seeing as most rapes are done by someone the victim knows, I would say that dress has nothing to do with it. In the other cases I would seriously doubt it, as I've said before, I don't think rape is primarily about sex, but rather about power and control etc, so the victim's clothing is irrelevant. Although this is just my opinion, I have not seen any data to back it up, but would be interested to though.
|
|
|
Post by mistermuncher on Mar 9, 2010 18:59:37 GMT -5
I think we're on the same page, sir. It just seems odd to me people focus on the "blame" element of this argument, taking it's proposition as if it were axiomatic.
|
|
|
Post by davedan on Mar 9, 2010 19:57:07 GMT -5
I suppose the other thing is what is seen as provacative various across cultures. Personally I think I'm going to be spurred to rape the next person I see in a bow-tie.
|
|
|
Post by maskdt on Mar 9, 2010 23:37:18 GMT -5
I suppose the other thing is what is seen as provacative various across cultures. Personally I think I'm going to be spurred to rape the next person I see in a bow-tie. Exactly. There are still cultures where everyone goes shirtless, yet the men seem quite capable of excercising some basic self-restraint at the sight of a woman's bare breasts.
|
|
|
Post by jaHer on Mar 11, 2010 2:44:27 GMT -5
It's victim blaming mentality.
Bottom line is, you don't look at the victim of a crime for responsibility, you look at the individual who actually, you know, broke the law. Like with police cases where the police's reaction is called in to question, or their discipline is dubious. Some people insist on looking to the person not in power to take responsibility and excuse the actions of the person in power, and I can't wrap my mind around it. Even when there is no clear angel of innocence, what planet do you have to be from where you're sooner to look at and scoff the disadvantaged party?
Ahem, sorry, I went off on a tangent.
Edit: For clarification, I don't mean trials ought to never look at the "victim" party. I do mean entirely the public's condemning or suspicious eye.
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Mar 12, 2010 7:44:33 GMT -5
I suppose the other thing is what is seen as provacative various across cultures. Personally I think I'm going to be spurred to rape the next person I see in a bow-tie. Exactly. There are still cultures where everyone goes shirtless, yet the men seem quite capable of excercising some basic self-restraint at the sight of a woman's bare breasts. Well, the big difference there is if you're used to seeing them, I would assume they're not a really "prime" motivator compared to other cultures where it's kind of a goal to see tits But that's just my thoughts on it
|
|
|
Post by yojetak on Mar 12, 2010 12:16:35 GMT -5
Exactly. There are still cultures where everyone goes shirtless, yet the men seem quite capable of excercising some basic self-restraint at the sight of a woman's bare breasts. Well, the big difference there is if you're used to seeing them, I would assume they're not a really "prime" motivator compared to other cultures where it's kind of a goal to see tits But that's just my thoughts on it I really think america needs more nude beaches. People don't see normal naked people. Most of their experiences with nakedness is with porn and those people can hardly be called normal or average. Once nude beaches become commonplace, a lot of problems will disappear as normal nudity will become accepted because people will know what average naked people look like. Also the "she was wearing provocative dress" rape apology will go out the window. And men won't be so shocked when they see a normal non-porn pussy.
|
|
|
Post by observer on Mar 12, 2010 12:19:31 GMT -5
Ive noticed the rape apologists logic follows some of the same retardedness of burglars who sue people for getting injured in the burglary attempt, of the morons who sue fastfood restaurants for being fat. Dressing slutty may be stupid, but it doesnt excuse some one from exercising restraint. Silly me i thought humans were capable of self control...
|
|