Judge Mowat comments: Is it impossible to have a proper discussion on rape?

[jackelgull]

Obviously the sooner all sexual activity falls under the remit of contract law the better for everyone.

Isn't that called marriage?

 

[Borachio]

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?

Nah!

I don't know what I mean, really. I had an idea to write the dialogue of some scenario where a woman is clearly being persuaded into something against her will.

But, honestly, I don't have the gift for writing convincingly, and I just gave up.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

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?

So going back to the drink driving example, are you saying someone who decides to get drunk, and then whilst drunk decides to go for a drive, is not responsible for that decision because they made that decision in an altered state of mind? Or if they decide to go and assault someone? Or decide to break into someone's house? No of course not, you're held accountable/responsible for almost all of your actions preformed when drunk, even if it wasn't pre-meditated and you only decided to do it whilst already drunk, because it seemed like a good idea at the time. The whole reason being that getting that drunk in the first place was a voluntary decision so you're responsible for the knock-on effects. Why should sexual consent be the one exception?

 

[El_Machinae]

Why should sexual consent be the one exception?

'Cause girls are getting raped.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Because women. Gotcha.

 

[El_Machinae]

And the douches that molest them, obviously.

If they approached you, it's on them.

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.

 

[Farm Boy]

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.

 

[Rashiminos]

Isn't that called marriage?

If it was, comedians would have much less material.

 

[Senethro]

Because women. Gotcha.

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.

Look, lets make it any other drug. Loopy off a pain medication like morphine? Half comatose off sleeping tablets? Can these women consent meaningfully?

Basically, you think a woman who gets drunk is an exception and you compare her action to a bunch of criminal offenses like DUI or assault. Telling.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

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.

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.

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.

That's generous of you. You assume it's bitterness and not the alternative - that he's a sexual predator. Nice..

 

[Borachio]

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.

I have consent forms printed in triplicate. With a space for witnesses to sign.

 

[Senethro]

That's generous of you. You assume it's bitterness and not the alternative - that he's a sexual predator. Nice..

You're talking about me like I'm the jerk here. Yes, objectively, I am a jerk. But I try not to harbour attitudes that enable predators and I consider those that do the real jerks.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

Use whatever system you wish to avoid leaving your tipsy target feeling molested the next day.


I mean, clearly you can use your giant brain to work around whatever laws are created such that you may leave molested victims in your wake. We cannot make perfect laws.

 

[Farm Boy]

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.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

It's not a horrid idea. It does lead to the common sense question why are you banging someone for whom you feel a recorded consent will maybe be necessary later?

I've literally had drunken sex hundreds of times. I've never felt molested later, and neither has any of my partners.

 

[Farm Boy]

Because the world's a crazy place. If we're concerned about women being molested and willing to take due care to reduce legitimate misunderstandings or intentional predations, if we're concerned that men may become rapists inadvertently through drunkenness or error: Then a short little conventional hoop to jump through seems a small price to pay for reduction of badness, and where badness remains, production of evidence. It's really the same question behind, "Why should only yes mean yes?" Just a little farther down the path.

 

[El_Machinae]

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.

 

[Farm Boy]

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.

Well, people could fail to comply if they saw fit. They fail to use condoms during casual sex too and that makes no sense to me. But it seems to me that predators, if we're concerned about predators, shield behind decent human misunderstandings. So let's make is socially acceptable to reduce those misunderstandings as a matter of course. It probably didn't seem anything short of baffling that people would choose to have sex with balloons at first glance either.

 

[Akka]

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 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...

Laws is required to avoid abuse. If you're going to nanny-state people into following red tape procedures when they are in their private sphere, that's no more laws, that's dystopia.

 

[Farm Boy]

I've considered it might be a tad intrusive. But it's not like you're going to have to go record the consent with the local anti-rape office every time you do it. And I didn't say written. I said recorded with a field sobriety like test. I'm not sure how to get around that for people that don't have access to recording equipment so it's probably not feasible yet. But I think it very well maybe should be.