Schroedinger's Rape Victim

[Crezth]

Some cultures, such as American culture, like to apologize for rapists by claiming that women were asking for it, or invent mythologies such as womens' bodies being able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate rape. This is not my viewpoint, I am merely representing someone else's viewpoint.

 

[Sommerswerd]

In that case I would actually retract my statement. I think it's pretty clear we're talking about rape here and the radio host simply enjoyed it. There was no consent and absolutely no way whatsoever for her SO to know for sure that she'd enjoy it.

What your statement reminds me of, is that many people are into BSDM, and enjoy very much to be physically assaulted during sex, spanked, pinched, bitten, choked, etc... all sorts of acts that would constitute criminal assault. Now of course if the parties got together and spelled everything out beforehand and agreed on all the boundaries and parameters, then we would have a straightforward consensual encounter, role-play, fantasy, whatever... But its reasonable to assume that it doesn't always work that way, especially not the first time around with people discovering that they like these things. So if during foreplay, or in the middle of the act itself, one of the parties up and spanks the other, with no warning, pre-discussion or consent whatsoever... and the other person thinks "hmmm I kinda liked that"... would you feel that an assault has taken place? Or does the consent-after-the-fact negate the assault in your mind as the OP suggests? What I'm getting at... and what I think the OP alludes to... is the idea of post-act consent. Do you buy that concept? And if so, what about post-act withdrawal-of-consent?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

What your statement reminds me of, is that many people are into BSDM, and enjoy very much to be physically assaulted during sex, spanked, pinched, bitten, choked, etc... all sorts of acts that would constitute criminal assault. Now of course if the parties got together and spelled everything out beforehand and agreed on all the boundaries and parameters, then we would have a straightforward consensual encounter, role-play, fantasy, whatever... But its reasonable to assume that it doesn't always work that way, especially not the first time around with people discovering that they like these things. So if during foreplay, or in the middle of the act itself, one of the parties up and spanks the other, with no warning, pre-discussion or consent whatsoever... and the other person thinks "hmmm I kinda liked that"... would you feel that an assault has taken place? Or does the consent-after-the-fact negate the assault in your mind as the OP suggests? What I'm getting at... and what I think the OP alludes to... is the idea of post-act consent. Do you buy that concept? And if so, what about post-act withdrawal-of-consent?

Very nice thought experiment, I definitely see what you're getting at. I would still say, however, that specifically in your BDSM example there was some sort of consent that wasn't outspoken, something much more nuanced like body language, voice and intonation, mimic.. I doubt many people just straight up go into BDSM unexpected, I think at least some sort of conversation will have taken place, or those people met at a place or situation that already makes it clear that both are into it. I think a person can consent even without saying: "Yes, I would love to be spanked for the next few hours, maybe some bondage, too".

But then we enter the problem of misinterpreting someone else's signals. If consent doesn't have to be direct, like a conversation, then everything gets very muddy, especially in regards to the law.

Personally I don't really believe in the concept of post-act consent. Or, to be more precise, I would still consider having sex with a blacked out person as rape, even if that person consents later. To me, crime is all about intent, and in this specific case we have constructed there is no way for the man to tell whether his partner was going to consent or not. It is simply a guessing game. The fact that the man, in your example of the radio host, guessed correctly, does not redeem him in my opinion.

 

[Ryika]

Very nice thought experiment, I definitely see what you're getting at. I would still say, however, that specifically in your BDSM example there was some sort of consent that wasn't outspoken, something much more nuanced like body language, voice and intonation, mimic.. I doubt many people just straight up go into BDSM unexpected, I think at least some sort of conversation will have taken place, or those people met at a place or situation that already makes it clear that both are into it. I think a person can consent even without saying: "Yes, I would love to be spanked for the next few hours, maybe some bondage, too".

Why can there not be implicit consent for being used for sex while being passed out?

If a person slaps their partner during sex, without asking, without having explicit consent, purely based on the assumption that due to previous actions they would be okay with it...
or
If a person has sex with their passed out partner, without asking, without having explicit consent, purely based on the assumption that due to previous actions they would be okay with it...

...seems to be pretty much the same thing, just on a different level of magnitude. If the partners had sex before, and there is no reason to assume that the partner will consent to future acts of sex, why would you insist that it is rape, and not just in an overreach based on flawed assumptions? Would the reasonable reaction to not liking it not just be the same as to being slapped during sex? "Okay, I don't like that, please don't do it again."?

How are the two different in principle?

And if so, what about post-act withdrawal-of-consent?

The most ridiculous invention of all time. There is no such thing as post-act withdrawal-of-consent, at best, there is consent that was never fully given, but that is also not something that is within the realm of responsibility of the partner, unless they did so under false pretends - such as when your brother sneaks into your bedroom in the middle of the night and pretends to actually be your boyfriend and you only realize that after the act.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Why can there not be implicit consent for being used for sex while being passed out?

If a person slaps their partner during sex, without asking, without having explicit consent, purely based on the assumption that due to previous actions they would be okay with it...
or
If a person has sex with their passed out partner, without asking, without having explicit consent, purely based on the assumption that due to previous actions they would be okay with it...

...seems to be pretty much the same thing, just on a different level of magnitude. If the partners had sex before, and there is no reason to assume that the partner will consent to future acts of sex, why would you insist that it is rape, and not just in an overreach based on flawed assumptions? Would the reasonable reaction to not liking it not just be the same as to being slapped during sex? "Okay, I don't like that, please don't do it again."?

How are the two different in principle?


The most ridiculous invention of all time. There is no such thing as post-act withdrawal-of-consent, at best, there is consent that was never fully given, but that is also not something that is within the realm of responsibility of the partner, unless they did so under false pretends - such as when your brother sneaks into your bedroom in the middle of the night and pretends to actually be your boyfriend and you only realize that after the act.

>Why can there not be implicit consent for being used for sex while being passed out?

There can, I specifically said so in my last post.. ???

>...seems to be pretty much the same thing, just on a different level of magnitude.

It is clearly not the same thing.. When you're having violent sex with a person.. Hitting them, choking them, they can tell you off. They can end it in an instant, the blink of an eye. If, for some reason, one of the partners is not into it or not comfortable with it, it can be stopped immedeatly.

When you're having sex with a sleeping person without any form of consent that person cannot stop you, they cannot be asked, they cannot respond with language nor physically. That's why those two situations are completely different.

>why would you insist that it is rape, and not just in an overreach based on flawed assumptions?

Rape is often simply an overreach based on flawed assumptions.. Too many men think they're 'unwiderstehlich', or that 'no means yes' or that due to their position of power or privilege, a woman can't refuse. The two are not mutually exclusive..

>The most ridiculous invention of all time. There is no such thing as post-act withdrawal-of-consent, at best, there is consent that was never fully given, but that is also not something that is within the realm of responsibility of the partner, unless they did so under false pretends - such as when your brother sneaks into your bedroom in the middle of the night and pretends to actually be your boyfriend and you only realize that after the act.

Post-act withdrawal of consent is something completely normal and okay, it is not ridiculous at all. People change their minds, what is so special about that? What would be ridiculous is if it had any legal consequences, because clearly any adult should be help responsible for their decisions. Legally speaking what should matter is whether clear consent was given at that time. Again, rape is both about consent and intent. If the woman (sorry, it's just easier this way) consented, then that makes it hard to ascribe malicious intent on her partner's behalf. It works the other way around, too: If there was no prior consent then the partner consciously made the decision to ignore consent, meaning he had a malicious intent. Of course reality is more complex than this simple example, I just used it as an outlier to explain my perspective.

You cannot decide to have an abortion when your child is three years old, you can however regret bringing it into this world

 

[red_elk]

mythologies such as womens' bodies being able to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate rape.

What does this even mean?

 

[Crezth]

What does this even mean?

https://www.politico.com/story/2012/08/akin-legitimate-rape-victims-dont-get-pregnant-079864

I tried to find a Fox News link just in case we have any Fake News people skulking around here but they seem to have refused to report on this story. Good for them: can't go against the party.

Todd Akin, Missouri’s Republican Senate candidate, sparked controversy with a claim, made in a TV interview posted Sunday, that victims of “legitimate rape” very rarely get pregnant because their bodies prevent them from doing so.

Speaking to Charles Jaco on the Jaco Report on St. Louis’s Fox station, Akin was answering a question about allowing abortions in the case of rape. He said, “If it’s a legitimate rape, the female body has ways to try to shut that whole thing down.”


Akin, who is attempting to oust Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, also stated that if a women did conceive after a rape, he would still oppose abortion in this case because “the punishment ought to be on the rapist and not attacking the child.”

 

[Ryika]

>Why can there not be implicit consent for being used for sex while being passed out?

There can, I specifically said so in my last post.. ???

Uhhh... well, you wrote: "I would still consider having sex with a blacked out person as rape, even if that person consents later." Not sure where we're talking past each other here, but this seems to go against the idea that implicit consent can be given. Did you mean having sex with them without implicit consent?

>...seems to be pretty much the same thing, just on a different level of magnitude.

It is clearly not the same thing.. When you're having violent sex with a person.. Hitting them, choking them, they can tell you off. They can end it in an instant, the blink of an eye. If, for some reason, one of the partners is not into it or not comfortable with it, it can be stopped immedeatly.

Well no, the example I was referring to was spanking a person without asking first, which Sommerswerd had mentioned, to which you had written: "I would still say, however, that specifically in your BDSM example there was some sort of consent that wasn't outspoken, something much more nuanced like body language, voice and intonation, mimic."

That act of slapping is done before the person can withdraw consent, just as sex-while-passed-out is done before they can withdraw consent. The "lived experience" is even worse if you're being slapped, because you are conscious while it happens.

So... no, I don't see much of a difference, other than the magnitude. People who don't like being spanked are more likely to be able to just brush it off, that's likely not as easy when you wake up, realize a person who you had sex with before has now also used you again while you were asleep. But still, just spanking a person can go horribly wrong, especially if the person who's being spanked has lived through actual abuse (that the person doing the spanking may not know of) and gets sent into traumatic memories by it.

So I really cannot see how you can argue for implicit consent in one case, but in the other case deny the possibility of implicit consent and say a rape has taken place even if the person acted on implicit consent and the other person then later likes that it has happened.

Because here again:

Rape is often simply an overreach based on flawed assumptions.. Too many men think they're 'unwiderstehlich', or that 'no means yes' or that due to their position of power or privilege, a woman can't refuse. The two are not mutually exclusive..

How is that not also true for spanking a person without asking first purely based on how you perceive their behavior, and hoping for the best?

I can see arguments for and against both positions, but arguing for one and against the other at the same time seems inconsistent. But maybe this too is part of the misunderstanding of the other post, so feel free to tell me where I got you wrong there.

Post-act withdrawal of consent is something completely normal and okay, it is not ridiculous at all. People change their minds, what is so special about that? What would be ridiculous is if it had any legal consequences, because clearly any adult should be help responsible for their decisions. Legally speaking what should matter is whether clear consent was given at that time. Again, rape is both about consent and intent. If the woman (sorry, it's just easier this way) consented, then that makes it hard to ascribe malicious intent on her partner's behalf. It works the other way around, too: If there was no prior consent then the partner consciously made the decision to ignore consent, meaning he had a malicious intent. Of course reality is more complex than this simple example, I just used it as an outlier to explain my perspective.

You cannot decide to have an abortion when your child is three years old, you can however regret bringing it into this world

Regret and post-act withdrawal of consent are not the same though. People who argue for post-act withdrawal of consent usually mean that they want to retroactively change the status of consent of the time that it happened, not that you now feel differently about it.

Here's an example:

How does our relationship to consent change if we think of “consent” as a real experience people have of feeling that what happened to them was okay, and “violation” as more nuanced than simply committing an un-permitted action?

In such a model, if Bob and Andy have sex, and Andy says, “Yes,” “Sure,” “Okay, fine, whatever,” or even, “Ooh baby, do it to me!” but still wakes up the next morning feeling like he was raped, that means Andy was raped. Conversely, if Andy and Francois have a steamy make-out session in which no words are exchanged but they both go home feeling great about it, and they keep feeling great about it, that experience was consensual.

I really suggest reading that article, because it does give quite a bit of insight in why people think that's acceptable, but the main point is that post-act withdrawal of consent literally means changing the status of the act that happened in the past, that how you feel about an act in the future changes what the act was in the past - not that you've changed your mind about whether it was a good idea or not.

 

[Arent11]

I didn't purposefully misunderstand your post at all, I get that you were "representing someone else's viewpoint" (whoever that may be), but these supposed scenarios that you conjured up are more telling about what you think than you think (hope you like this sentence, I put a lot of effort into it)

No offense taken. I would just hope that you give others the benefit of doubt before you flame them And yes, that is a very nice sentence.

 

[yung.carl.jung]

Uhhh... well, you wrote: "I would still consider having sex with a blacked out person as rape, even if that person consents later." Not sure where we're talking past each other here, but this seems to go against the idea that implicit consent can be given. Did you mean having sex with them without implicit consent?


Well no, the example I was referring to was spanking a person without asking first, which Sommerswerd had mentioned, to which you had written: "I would still say, however, that specifically in your BDSM example there was some sort of consent that wasn't outspoken, something much more nuanced like body language, voice and intonation, mimic."

That act of slapping is done before the person can withdraw consent, just as sex-while-passed-out is done before they can withdraw consent. The "lived experience" is even worse if you're being slapped, because you are conscious while it happens.

So... no, I don't see much of a difference, other than the magnitude. People who don't like being spanked are more likely to be able to just brush it off, that's likely not as easy when you wake up, realize a person who you had sex with before has now also used you again while you were asleep. But still, just spanking a person can go horribly wrong, especially if the person who's being spanked has lived through actual abuse (that the person doing the spanking may not know of) and gets sent into traumatic memories by it.

So I really cannot see how you can argue for implicit consent in one case, but in the other case deny the possibility of implicit consent and say a rape has taken place even if the person acted on implicit consent and the other person then later likes that it has happened.

Because here again:

How is that not also true for spanking a person without asking first purely based on how you perceive their behavior, and hoping for the best?

I can see arguments for and against both positions, but arguing for one and against the other at the same time seems inconsistent. But maybe this too is part of the misunderstanding of the other post, so feel free to tell me where I got you wrong there.


Regret and post-act withdrawal of consent are not the same though. People who argue for post-act withdrawal of consent usually mean that they want to retroactively change the status of consent of the time that it happened, not that you now feel differently about it.

Here's an example:



I really suggest reading that article, because it does give quite a bit of insight in why people think that's acceptable, but the main point is that post-act withdrawal of consent literally means changing the status of the act that happened in the past, that how you feel about an act in the future changes what the act was in the past - not that you've changed your mind about whether it was a good idea or not.

>Uhhh... well, you wrote: "I would still consider having sex with a blacked out person as rape, even if that person consents later." Not sure where we're talking past each other here, but this seems to go against the idea that implicit consent can be given. Did you mean having sex with them without implicit consent?

Post-act consent means nothing to me, however a person can certainly consent before said drunk abuse happens. If it is (somehow, does not need to be verbal) communicated between both partners that our radio host is totally okay with being sexed in her sleep, then that is consent.

>That act of slapping is done before the person can withdraw consent, just as sex-while-passed-out is done before they can withdraw consent.

No, the act of slapping is not necessarily done, because if the opposing person flinches, one might stop. Furthermore, violent sex usually isn't a single slap or a single choke, but a series of. For me, this is a false equivalency. A slap is something that happens in the blink of an eye, raping a drunk woman is a process that can go on for a long time (or be over after mere minutes, but still, it's a process).

I see it like this: Slapping a woman without her consent is like kissing a woman without her consent. Often times a kiss is something that happens so fast and so spontaneously that one will just do it as an impulse, without ever thinking about it. A slap is similiar in nature, I think. Raping someone in his sleep is the exact opposite, it is something that is almost always planned (or at least considered, right? you have to make a conscious decision, as opposed to a kiss, where it could be almost instinctual).

>The "lived experience" is even worse if you're being slapped, because you are conscious while it happens.

Very subjective, clearly one thing is not objectively worse than the other. I'm sure for a lot of women the thought of being sexually abused while they are at their most vulnerable, while they are completely passive is absolute stuff for nightmares, I would argue it is psychologically worse than being hit, which while violent still is not nearly as creepy. I'm certain even though the woman doesn't "live through it" or "see it with her own eyes" it can be equally as damaging and traumatizing, if not more.

>So I really cannot see how you can argue for implicit consent in one case, but in the other case deny the possibility of implicit consent and say a rape has taken place even if the person acted on implicit consent and the other person then later likes that it has happened.

I was never saying that there cannot be implicit consent, I was merely saying that in the specific example of the radio host there did not seem to be any, hence why I considered it rape. I do believe in implicit consent, and so does everyone really to some degree, because if we did not we would be obliged to set up a contract every time we wanted to fug

>Regret and post-act withdrawal of consent are not the same though.

I was just making a joke, not trying to draw an equivalency here

>People who argue for post-act withdrawal of consent usually mean that they want to retroactively change the status of consent of the time that it happened, not that you now feel differently about it.

I am aware these people exist, but I don't like giving a voice to them. For every intersectional feminist consumed with hatred there's a strongly opinionated, convinced egalitarian who believes all people are goodhearted by nature

 

[Crezth]

Welcome to the Valessa tries to apologize for rape thread, the hors d'oeuvres are on the right and the vomitorium is on the left.

 

[Ryika]

Welcome to the Valessa tries to apologize for rape thread, the hors d'oeuvres are on the right and the vomitorium is on the left.

This thread is not about apologizing for rape, it's a conversation where we explore the limits of consent in very borderline-ish situations.
If I said anything you heavily disagree with, make a counter-argument, don't just accuse me of such BS. Makes you look like a child.

 

[Crezth]

"Is a crime a crime if the victim doesn't know about it?" asks Valessa cunningly as she places a pillow over a sleeping man's face.

 

[Ryika]

That's not even similar to the case described in the OP. If a person is used for sex while they're sleeping, wakes up and doesn't actually notice that it happened, then that is clearly a crime even if they are not aware of it. The question is what happens if they notice and decide that they're okay with it or even like it, and whether that changes the status of the act as a "crime" retroactively, and as an extension to that, whether the public interest in the criminal energy used in the act should be valued as bigger than the interest of the victim to not pursue any legal action.

You seem to very clearly fall on one side of the issue, so why not just give your opinion instead of dancing around the issue?

In any case, I do like your writing style, that was kind of hot! Do you have experience with erotic roleplay?

 

[Crezth]

Yeah okay sure. Always it is fun to play ball.

Perchance do you think euthanasia should be legal? This isn't meant to be a loaded question just a frank one: do you think the victim being agnostic about a crime being done to them overcomes the criminal nature of said crime?

In this case it's far simpler actually. Let's examine it legalistically. Juries tend to give the accused the benefit of the doubt. The standard of evidence for rape is high. Usually it comes down to the raped's choices to press charges. No obligation exists to press charges. If the raped does not believe they have been raped, they are not likely to press charges. Changing one's mind many times is possible but does not change the standard for evidence wherein, again, the benefit of the doubt persists. It comes down to whether or not charges are pressed and whether or not a jury can be convinced past the benefit of the doubt there was lack of prior consent.

Indeed, it is the "prior" consent that makes it assault and not consensual touching. You can beat a man senseless in a dark alley without his consent and the act of doing so against his will is what makes it an act of force and coercion. If later the man decides he rather enjoyed being beaten senseless and chooses not to press charges, so be it - legally that will prevail. However, logically that has no bearing on whether or not the act of attacking the man was, in itself, an assaulting act.

As for cultural values I could care less. I can't force the person to believe they were raped and I don't think the state has a duty to intervene on their behalf to make that judgment for them unless the person is impaired from making a proper judgment. Legally, therefore, it is moot. Is this rapist a hazard against society and the public interest? Maybe, but they have enough to be acquitted for so it's moot.

Thank you for complimenting my writing style. I am indeed extremely awesome. It's gratifying to see proles recognize that.

 

[Ryika]

Perchance do you think euthanasia should be legal? This isn't meant to be a loaded question just a frank one: do you think the victim being agnostic about a crime being done to them overcomes the criminal nature of said crime?

Well, that depends on the case, doesn't it? I'm absolutely for Euthanasia if the patient, in a reasonably clear state of mind, brings a coherent argument for why they want to die. Not allowing a person the right to die is probably one of the biggest moral blind spot of our time. But you seem to mean killing a person without their consent in their sleep or something like that? In that case, no, it's obviously still a crime and still missing the point of the thread. Being agnostic to a crime that was committed against you is not the same thing as realizing that a crime was committed against you and liking it. That is obviously a rare situation, but it's one that occurs, as some of the other examples that were mentioned in this thread.

Indeed, it is the "prior" consent that makes it assault and not consensual touching. You can beat a man senseless in a dark alley without his consent and the act of doing so against his will is what makes it an act of force and coercion. If later the man decides he rather enjoyed being beaten senseless and chooses not to press charges, so be it - legally that will prevail. However, logically that has no bearing on whether or not the act of attacking the man was, in itself, an assaulting act.

Yeah, and that is just the same for the act of rape, I don't think anybody has denied that. Obviously, if you have sex with a sleeping person, that is rape, as I very clearly said in the op, and even if the victim likes the idea afterwards, nothing can change that the perpetrator went there with criminal intent, did something that is against the law, and it is pure luck that their victim is one of the likely very, very few people who would come out of that and see it as a positive thing. But it is still the case that, if the victim reacts that way, we suddenly have a person who is a rape victim if we look at it from outside, but does not actually think of themselves as a rape victim - hence the title 'Schroedinger's Rape Victim'.

All the questions I posed explore this very unique situation, about how much value their perception of the situation has, and how their self-interest stands in contrast to the public interest - none of the questions is "So, we agree that the person raping the passed-out person nothing wrong, right? Right?!", because that's not even on the table.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

In that case I would actually retract my statement. I think it's pretty clear we're talking about rape here and the radio host simply enjoyed it. There was no consent and absolutely no way whatsoever for her SO to know for sure that she'd enjoy it.

Well, other than that they're a couple who are presumably regularly intimate with each other and probably know each other quite well.

 

[plarq]

If it ain't caught, it ain't crime.

The problem is, even if you find semen and DNA-tracked to the perpetrator, it is difficult to prove that the act was non-consensual.