jackelgull
An aberration of nature
Obviously the sooner all sexual activity falls under the remit of contract law the better for everyone.
Isn't that called marriage?
Obviously the sooner all sexual activity falls under the remit of contract law the better for everyone.
You mean like... write the part where it changes from an act of attempted persuasion into an act of rape? And then... what? Look at the rape fiction you've just written and... become enlightened by it somehow?
Well, why? There's no self-evident relationship between how voluntarily a person reached this chemical state and their ability to give consent. You're offering no mechanism by which a person can pre-emptively consent to events they did not know would occur.
I'm not sure I follow?
Why should sexual consent be the one exception?
If they approached you, it's on them.
Isn't that called marriage?
Because women. Gotcha.
Maybe there could be an official ranking system. If she's too out of your league, you should assume she might feel molested the next day.That's the issue. In retrospect, it's very hard to prove who approached who. All we know is that after the sex, someone feels molested enough to complain.
The burden here isn't very high. Don't have sex with someone who might feel molested the next day.
No one is saying you cannot have sex with a drunk person, merely that if they end up feeling like they were molested, there's an issue.
It's a higher burden of consent. Wah.
That's generous of you. You assume it's bitterness and not the alternative - that he's a sexual predator. Nice..Wow you're really bitter. I mean, I assume its bitterness and that you're not a predator of drunk women but still, wow. Bitter about supposed special treatment women receive. You've got a fairly consistent position in these threads.
I still think this is an excellent rebirth of the traditionalism of the old marriage ceremony. We might take California's idea and run with it. Have a tiny little recorded sexual consent ceremony before intercourse can be engaged in, unless, of course nobody complains. But no consent ritual, no consent. Different parts can include things like field sobriety tests. That could probably be highly amusing.
That's generous of you. You assume it's bitterness and not the alternative - that he's a sexual predator. Nice..
Maybe there could be an official ranking system. If she's too out of your league, you should assume she might feel molested the next day.
We cannot make perfect laws.
No, we can't. We trade-off freedom for control where we think it pays greater dividends. And even then we'll have droppage. I'm not actually kidding about the recorded consent ceremony with something like a field sobriety test attached to it. I'm pretty much behind the California redefinition. I'm behind my extension of it at first glance unless somebody wants to convince me I'm too far.
I'm not disagreeing that having a strong clearcut consent system is an okay idea. I'm just baffled at the idea that people would feel the need to use it.
I'm afraid that if you don't spontaneously feel that a written authorisation being required each time you engage in personal intercourse with someone is nightmarishly intrusive and downright insane, it'll be hard to convince you about it...No, we can't. We trade-off freedom for control where we think it pays greater dividends. And even then we'll have droppage. I'm not actually kidding about the recorded consent ceremony with something like a field sobriety test attached to it. I'm pretty much behind the California redefinition. I'm behind my extension of it at first glance unless somebody wants to convince me I'm too far.