Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

tea and rape

Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 11:13:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I saw this video and thought of all (both) the DDO people who believe in that whole crazy preconsenting sh1t. If you're still here, this is for you. <3
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 12:34:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 11:13:53 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I saw this video and thought of all (both) the DDO people who believe in that whole crazy preconsenting sh1t. If you're still here, this is for you. <3



And who might those people be?
If you are referring to me, you are grossly mistaken about everything I've ever said on the matter, and even the video suggests something you don't approve of.
My work here is, finally, done.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 1:21:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Girls, please don't ask me for consent. Just grab my dick. If I smack your hand away that means no, if I don't just do whatever you want next, and we'll see what happens. If you ask for consent, I'm more likely to say no, even if I want sex.
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 1:58:43 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 1:21:31 AM, Wylted wrote:
Girls, please don't ask me for consent. Just grab my dick. If I smack your hand away that means no, if I don't just do whatever you want next, and we'll see what happens. If you ask for consent, I'm more likely to say no, even if I want sex.

No means yes. Yes means anal. Smacking means take it if you can.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 2:47:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 11:13:53 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I saw this video and thought of all (both) the DDO people who believe in that whole crazy preconsenting sh1t. If you're still here, this is for you. <3



So when your having sex with an unconscious person don't make them tea..............got it.
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 3:41:03 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 12:34:33 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/23/2015 11:13:53 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I saw this video and thought of all (both) the DDO people who believe in that whole crazy preconsenting sh1t. If you're still here, this is for you. <3



And who might those people be?
If you are referring to me, you are grossly mistaken about everything I've ever said on the matter,

Okay

and even the video suggests something you don't approve of.

If you say so.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 3:41:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 1:21:31 AM, Wylted wrote:
If you ask for consent, I'm more likely to say no, even if I want sex.

Why?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 4:11:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 3:41:03 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/24/2015 12:34:33 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/23/2015 11:13:53 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I saw this video and thought of all (both) the DDO people who believe in that whole crazy preconsenting sh1t. If you're still here, this is for you. <3



And who might those people be?
If you are referring to me, you are grossly mistaken about everything I've ever said on the matter,

Okay

The least you could do is state if you were referring to me or not in the OP.

and even the video suggests something you don't approve of.

If you say so.
Well, it does, if you extrapolate. "If they start drinking tea, then fall asleep, they don't want tea...." Since that is referring to people passing out, it suggests that people near the point of passing out are somehow able to consent.
Ironic that a video that shows how simple the concept of not raping people is would suggest a drunk person can consent, which is by and large the most confusing aspect of the issue, since I doubt 99% of people would suggest that every other case is not rape.
My work here is, finally, done.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 5:15:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 4:11:41 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/24/2015 3:41:03 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/24/2015 12:34:33 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/23/2015 11:13:53 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I saw this video and thought of all (both) the DDO people who believe in that whole crazy preconsenting sh1t. If you're still here, this is for you. <3



And who might those people be?
If you are referring to me, you are grossly mistaken about everything I've ever said on the matter,

Okay

The least you could do is state if you were referring to me or not in the OP.

Yes.

and even the video suggests something you don't approve of.

If you say so.
Well, it does, if you extrapolate. "If they start drinking tea, then fall asleep, they don't want tea...." Since that is referring to people passing out, it suggests that people near the point of passing out are somehow able to consent.
Ironic that a video that shows how simple the concept of not raping people is would suggest a drunk person can consent, which is by and large the most confusing aspect of the issue, since I doubt 99% of people would suggest that every other case is not rape.

The point is, you're never justified in forcing someone to drink tea, see? The point about when the person first says they want tea and then changed their minds reminded me of you and date night, and that whole sage about pre-consenting. Which I really don't want to discuss again because...glahh. But here I am. I have three really important deadlines all at once this week that I have no hope of meeting. So I thought I'd come here and chat about rape.
PetersSmith
Posts: 5,848
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 6:17:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/23/2015 11:13:53 AM, Garbanza wrote:
I saw this video and thought of all (both) the DDO people who believe in that whole crazy preconsenting sh1t. If you're still here, this is for you. <3



Moral of the story: don't trust English people.
Empress of DDO (also Poll and Forum "Maintenance" Moderator)

"The two most important days in your life is the day you were born, and the day you find out why."
~Mark Twain

"Wow"
-Doge

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet just because there's a picture with a quote next to it."
~Abraham Lincoln

Guide to the Polls Section: http://www.debate.org...
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 9:18:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 3:41:47 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:21:31 AM, Wylted wrote:
If you ask for consent, I'm more likely to say no, even if I want sex.

Why?

Because I'm not sure if you really want sex or are just teasing me. If you increase the level of physical contact or just make a move, I can know you're serious. I understand verbally giving consent is needed for a few sociopaths who have a hard time not noticing a rejection unless it's flatly stated, but I think for most of us, we know that if I start moving my hand up a woman's thigh and she smacks my hand away, that she is either rejecting me, or I rushed things with her a bit, and I should slow down.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2015 1:06:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 5:15:50 AM, Garbanza wrote:

and even the video suggests something you don't approve of.

If you say so.
Well, it does, if you extrapolate. "If they start drinking tea, then fall asleep, they don't want tea...." Since that is referring to people passing out, it suggests that people near the point of passing out are somehow able to consent.
Ironic that a video that shows how simple the concept of not raping people is would suggest a drunk person can consent, which is by and large the most confusing aspect of the issue, since I doubt 99% of people would suggest that every other case is not rape.

The point is, you're never justified in forcing someone to drink tea, see? The point about when the person first says they want tea and then changed their minds reminded me of you and date night, and that whole sage about pre-consenting. Which I really don't want to discuss again because...glahh. But here I am. I have three really important deadlines all at once this week that I have no hope of meeting. So I thought I'd come here and chat about rape.

The point is, "date night" wasn't even close to being represented, and the closest thing to it was the example I said "they start to drink tea then fall asleep", which suggests that date night IS CONSENT, since the whole point of the date night example is extrapolating consent in a situation where there is no objection, but no ability to consent (i.e. having sex BEFORE they pass out).

So, I don't know why you thought of me, when the video says NOTHING that I disagree with, nor have ever indicated I challenge.
As I have said countless times, there are clear cases of rape (and every case in this video was clear), and then there are issues that are unclear, and those are ALWAYS revolved around consent, and what consent means.

I would be more than happy to discuss this further, but there is no point, as you clearly do not understand my position, and make a thread with the purpose, in part, to insult me based on beliefs I do not have.
My work here is, finally, done.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 10:33:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 1:06:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/24/2015 5:15:50 AM, Garbanza wrote:

and even the video suggests something you don't approve of.

If you say so.
Well, it does, if you extrapolate. "If they start drinking tea, then fall asleep, they don't want tea...." Since that is referring to people passing out, it suggests that people near the point of passing out are somehow able to consent.
Ironic that a video that shows how simple the concept of not raping people is would suggest a drunk person can consent, which is by and large the most confusing aspect of the issue, since I doubt 99% of people would suggest that every other case is not rape.

The point is, you're never justified in forcing someone to drink tea, see? The point about when the person first says they want tea and then changed their minds reminded me of you and date night, and that whole sage about pre-consenting. Which I really don't want to discuss again because...glahh. But here I am. I have three really important deadlines all at once this week that I have no hope of meeting. So I thought I'd come here and chat about rape.

The point is, "date night" wasn't even close to being represented, and the closest thing to it was the example I said "they start to drink tea then fall asleep", which suggests that date night IS CONSENT, since the whole point of the date night example is extrapolating consent in a situation where there is no objection, but no ability to consent (i.e. having sex BEFORE they pass out).

So, I don't know why you thought of me, when the video says NOTHING that I disagree with, nor have ever indicated I challenge.

Oh well that's nice then.

As I have said countless times, there are clear cases of rape (and every case in this video was clear), and then there are issues that are unclear, and those are ALWAYS revolved around consent, and what consent means.

Yeah, I can't remember everything you said. I'm thinking of when you said that if it's date night, then you get to have sex, and you can assume consent unless your wife actively says no. That just gives me goosebumps. Not in a good way.

I would be more than happy to discuss this further, but there is no point, as you clearly do not understand my position, and make a thread with the purpose, in part, to insult me based on beliefs I do not have.

You're so easily insulted. But okay. You make a good point, that the tea video doesn't mention what to do when the person is really drunk and trying to drink tea. I suppose if a friend is trying to drink boiling hot tea when they're blind drunk, it might be kind to take the tea away from them, but the metaphor breaks down.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 10:35:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/24/2015 9:18:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/24/2015 3:41:47 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:21:31 AM, Wylted wrote:
If you ask for consent, I'm more likely to say no, even if I want sex.

Why?

Because I'm not sure if you really want sex or are just teasing me. If you increase the level of physical contact or just make a move, I can know you're serious.

That makes sense.

I understand verbally giving consent is needed for a few sociopaths who have a hard time not noticing a rejection unless it's flatly stated, but I think for most of us, we know that if I start moving my hand up a woman's thigh and she smacks my hand away, that she is either rejecting me, or I rushed things with her a bit, and I should slow down.

Yeah sure it's never a problem with nice sensitive guys. Not all guys are sensitive though, hey.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 11:13:10 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 10:33:10 AM, Garbanza wrote:

As I have said countless times, there are clear cases of rape (and every case in this video was clear), and then there are issues that are unclear, and those are ALWAYS revolved around consent, and what consent means.

Yeah, I can't remember everything you said.
Then I'm glad you covertly called me out in this thread when you don't know what I have said on the matter, what my actual beliefs on the matter are, or what I take issue with.

I'm thinking of when you said that if it's date night, then you get to have sex, and you can assume consent unless your wife actively says no. That just gives me goosebumps. Not in a good way.

The date night example is my wife giving me consent and after a few glasses of wine, she does not ever withdraw consent. What is the difference between me asking for consent, and for the next few hours not asking again while I set the mood, foreplay, etc, and have sex. I assume this is fine. But, as the date night example explores, if I factor in a few glasses of wine, why does this change?
Or, should I be asking every hour? Every minute? Every second?

Look at the wording of what you say: I "can assume consent" like it is wrong for me to do so. Of course I can, I had it. Consent was given. Should I not assume consent when I asked five minutes ago? Is that wrong? How long is consent valid before I need to verbally renew said consent?


I would be more than happy to discuss this further, but there is no point, as you clearly do not understand my position, and make a thread with the purpose, in part, to insult me based on beliefs I do not have.

You're so easily insulted.
Being called a rapist and one who condones rape by people like you who do not even understand my position and then make threads, in part, to call me out is quite insulting.

But okay. You make a good point, that the tea video doesn't mention what to do when the person is really drunk and trying to drink tea. I suppose if a friend is trying to drink boiling hot tea when they're blind drunk, it might be kind to take the tea away from them, but the metaphor breaks down.

Yeah, when you actually stop the rhetoric and focus on the gray area of the issue, it is not so simple or clear cut. For example, under a strict reading of the rhetoric, if I am inside a woman, and she changes her mind because it hurts too much, and I immediately withdraw, I have still raped her, since in the time it took to withdraw, I was actively inside her without her permission (i.e. rape).

Or take my date night issue. The issue is if consent is given, then consent cannot be given (three glasses of wine), but refusal is not offered in any way, is that consent still valid?
My work here is, finally, done.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 11:20:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 11:13:10 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

You're so easily insulted.
Being called a rapist and one who condones rape by people like you who do not even understand my position and then make threads, in part, to call me out is quite insulting.

I have never said anything even remotely like that. What a hypocrite you are.

Or take my date night issue. The issue is if consent is given, then consent cannot be given (three glasses of wine), but refusal is not offered in any way, is that consent still valid?

No.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 11:38:26 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 11:20:20 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:13:10 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

You're so easily insulted.
Being called a rapist and one who condones rape by people like you who do not even understand my position and then make threads, in part, to call me out is quite insulting.

I have never said anything even remotely like that. What a hypocrite you are.
Don't make me find it.
Regardless, you still admit to not understanding my views, and called me out on your misinterpretation. Can I not be insulted that you think I take issue with the tea video examples?

Or take my date night issue. The issue is if consent is given, then consent cannot be given (three glasses of wine), but refusal is not offered in any way, is that consent still valid?

No.
Why?
Why three glasses and not one?
Why does wine remove consent, but not time? If I said, "want to have sex after we run our errands", and she says yes, do I need to ask her again three hours later before I touch her? After all, if I touch her, and she changed her mind, she can say no.

Hell, if I touch my wife in a sexual manner, and she responds with a "don't", did I just sexually assault my wife?
Should I ask her in the morning if it is okay to hug her or kiss her? Or, is that assault also?

Where is the line, Garbanza? Surely, if sexual assault is sexual contact without consent, then assault is contact without consent.
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 11:55:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
One more thing, Garbanza, as I want to test your consistency, because maybe this is where we differ and is causing some confusion....

Assume you and I were married and I got wasted drunk last night, and while I was drunk, I did any of the following:
1. had sex with another woman
2. smacked you around

Would you hold me personally accountable and contact a lawyer for divorce for cheating on you, or contact the police for hitting you? I would, because I don't view alcohol as an excuse for the decisions you make.

As such, I see it inconsistent to say that I should be accountable for cheating on you or beating on you while I was drunk (ignore the fact that the woman clearly raped me), but saying consenting to sex is beyond my ability if I am drunk.

Obviously, if you were unknowingly drinking because I spiked your drink, that is another issue.
My work here is, finally, done.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 5:37:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 11:38:26 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:20:20 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:13:10 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

You're so easily insulted.
Being called a rapist and one who condones rape by people like you who do not even understand my position and then make threads, in part, to call me out is quite insulting.

I have never said anything even remotely like that. What a hypocrite you are.
Don't make me find it.

So you're going to maintain the fiction that I accused of criminal behavior even though you've got no evidence of it.

Regardless, you still admit to not understanding my views, and called me out on your misinterpretation. Can I not be insulted that you think I take issue with the tea video examples?

Sure. If you're going to be insulted by stuff I didn't say, it's actually LESS insane to be insulted by stuff I did say.


Or take my date night issue. The issue is if consent is given, then consent cannot be given (three glasses of wine), but refusal is not offered in any way, is that consent still valid?

No.
Why?
Why three glasses and not one?
Why does wine remove consent, but not time? If I said, "want to have sex after we run our errands", and she says yes, do I need to ask her again three hours later before I touch her? After all, if I touch her, and she changed her mind, she can say no.

With normal people, there's this idea of active participation, which counts as consent. Like, for example, you could wait for your wife to touch you.

Hell, if I touch my wife in a sexual manner, and she responds with a "don't", did I just sexually assault my wife?
Should I ask her in the morning if it is okay to hug her or kiss her? Or, is that assault also?

Where is the line, Garbanza? Surely, if sexual assault is sexual contact without consent, then assault is contact without consent.

Of course there are grey areas. I never said that there weren't. I just said (along with almost everyone else in the world) that you can't preconsent. Just because someone consented earlier doesn't "count" as consent later on. It's in the tea example.
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 9:42:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 10:35:13 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/24/2015 9:18:24 AM, Wylted wrote:
At 10/24/2015 3:41:47 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/24/2015 1:21:31 AM, Wylted wrote:
If you ask for consent, I'm more likely to say no, even if I want sex.

Why?

Because I'm not sure if you really want sex or are just teasing me. If you increase the level of physical contact or just make a move, I can know you're serious.

That makes sense.

I understand verbally giving consent is needed for a few sociopaths who have a hard time not noticing a rejection unless it's flatly stated, but I think for most of us, we know that if I start moving my hand up a woman's thigh and she smacks my hand away, that she is either rejecting me, or I rushed things with her a bit, and I should slow down.

Yeah sure it's never a problem with nice sensitive guys. Not all guys are sensitive though, hey.

I'm sensitive :)
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 3:48:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 11:55:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
One more thing, Garbanza, as I want to test your consistency, because maybe this is where we differ and is causing some confusion....

Assume you and I were married and I got wasted drunk last night, and while I was drunk, I did any of the following:
1. had sex with another woman
2. smacked you around

Would you hold me personally accountable and contact a lawyer for divorce for cheating on you, or contact the police for hitting you? I would, because I don't view alcohol as an excuse for the decisions you make.

As such, I see it inconsistent to say that I should be accountable for cheating on you or beating on you while I was drunk (ignore the fact that the woman clearly raped me), but saying consenting to sex is beyond my ability if I am drunk.

Obviously, if you were unknowingly drinking because I spiked your drink, that is another issue.

Sorry missed this before. You're making the wrong kind of comparison, because the consent issue is about the person who has sex with the drunk person, not really about the actions of the drunk person. You could reframe it as:

It is okay to have sex with someone who's too drunk to know what's going on?

A similar question would be, if you ask an intoxicated person if they want to be punched in the face and they say yes, is it okay to punch them?
SM2
Posts: 546
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 10:41:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Three glasses of wine wouldn't render a person incapable of consent, unless they had very low alcohol tolerance. I personally don't become suggestible until I've finished the bottle, and that's only if I don't space it out.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 12:17:37 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 3:48:53 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:55:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
One more thing, Garbanza, as I want to test your consistency, because maybe this is where we differ and is causing some confusion....

Assume you and I were married and I got wasted drunk last night, and while I was drunk, I did any of the following:
1. had sex with another woman
2. smacked you around

Would you hold me personally accountable and contact a lawyer for divorce for cheating on you, or contact the police for hitting you? I would, because I don't view alcohol as an excuse for the decisions you make.

As such, I see it inconsistent to say that I should be accountable for cheating on you or beating on you while I was drunk (ignore the fact that the woman clearly raped me), but saying consenting to sex is beyond my ability if I am drunk.

Obviously, if you were unknowingly drinking because I spiked your drink, that is another issue.

Sorry missed this before. You're making the wrong kind of comparison, because the consent issue is about the person who has sex with the drunk person, not really about the actions of the drunk person. You could reframe it as:

It is okay to have sex with someone who's too drunk to know what's going on?

A similar question would be, if you ask an intoxicated person if they want to be punched in the face and they say yes, is it okay to punch them?

You are mistaking the issue here. The issue is CONSENT (i.e. LEGALITY), not morality.
What is "okay" or "not okay" to do is irrelevant. The issue is what is legal.
There are legal ramifications in my example of my being drunk and engaging in behavior. I am held legally liable. Whether it is cheating on my wife (cause for divorce), beating her (domestic abuse), driving and killing another (vehicular manslaughter), or even walking down the street talking too loud (drunk and disorderly).

If I am held responsible for my actions while drunk, then why am I not responsible for my actions (i.e. giving consent)? This is the legal aspect I challenge most. After all, if I am drunk and thus cannot consent (i.e. enter a contract), then how is taking my money when I say I want pizza not theft?
In both cases, I am given something I say I want, I am equally drunk in both cases, the other party gets something they want (sex or profit), but it is a legal issue only in one case. I find this inconsistent and a case of special pleading.

Why is being drunk an NOT an excuse to excuse every other behavior mankind does EXCEPT for consenting to have sex?

Remember, I am making a legal comparison, not a moral one. After all, it is not illegal to cheat on your wife, but it is still wrong.
My work here is, finally, done.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 1:47:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Or take my date night issue. The issue is if consent is given, then consent cannot be given (three glasses of wine), but refusal is not offered in any way, is that consent still valid?

No.
Why?
Why three glasses and not one?
Why does wine remove consent, but not time? If I said, "want to have sex after we run our errands", and she says yes, do I need to ask her again three hours later before I touch her? After all, if I touch her, and she changed her mind, she can say no.

With normal people, there's this idea of active participation, which counts as consent. Like, for example, you could wait for your wife to touch you.

Um.... what? How exactly does this "consent" think not work in reverse? Why are they both not in the same 'holding pattern'?

Hell, if I touch my wife in a sexual manner, and she responds with a "don't", did I just sexually assault my wife?
Should I ask her in the morning if it is okay to hug her or kiss her? Or, is that assault also?

Where is the line, Garbanza? Surely, if sexual assault is sexual contact without consent, then assault is contact without consent.

Of course there are grey areas. I never said that there weren't. I just said (along with almost everyone else in the world) that you can't preconsent. Just because someone consented earlier doesn't "count" as consent later on. It's in the tea example.

... so how do withdraw consent without actually withdrawing consent? Because, lets be honest, that's what this is talking about. The ability to re-neg, and when such a withdrawl of consent is assumed to be automatic. And who such automatic withdrawal applies to.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 12:31:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 1:47:01 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Or take my date night issue. The issue is if consent is given, then consent cannot be given (three glasses of wine), but refusal is not offered in any way, is that consent still valid?

No.
Why?
Why three glasses and not one?
Why does wine remove consent, but not time? If I said, "want to have sex after we run our errands", and she says yes, do I need to ask her again three hours later before I touch her? After all, if I touch her, and she changed her mind, she can say no.

With normal people, there's this idea of active participation, which counts as consent. Like, for example, you could wait for your wife to touch you.

Um.... what? How exactly does this "consent" think not work in reverse?

? It does.

Why are they both not in the same 'holding pattern'?

Not sure what that means.


Hell, if I touch my wife in a sexual manner, and she responds with a "don't", did I just sexually assault my wife?
Should I ask her in the morning if it is okay to hug her or kiss her? Or, is that assault also?

Where is the line, Garbanza? Surely, if sexual assault is sexual contact without consent, then assault is contact without consent.

Of course there are grey areas. I never said that there weren't. I just said (along with almost everyone else in the world) that you can't preconsent. Just because someone consented earlier doesn't "count" as consent later on. It's in the tea example.


... so how do withdraw consent without actually withdrawing consent? Because, lets be honest, that's what this is talking about. The ability to re-neg, and when such a withdrawl of consent is assumed to be automatic. And who such automatic withdrawal applies to.

If someone's too drunk to know what's going on, they're not consenting. So you can assume there's no consent at that time.
Garbanza
Posts: 1,997
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 12:34:51 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 12:17:37 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 10/27/2015 3:48:53 AM, Garbanza wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:55:34 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
One more thing, Garbanza, as I want to test your consistency, because maybe this is where we differ and is causing some confusion....

Assume you and I were married and I got wasted drunk last night, and while I was drunk, I did any of the following:
1. had sex with another woman
2. smacked you around

Would you hold me personally accountable and contact a lawyer for divorce for cheating on you, or contact the police for hitting you? I would, because I don't view alcohol as an excuse for the decisions you make.

As such, I see it inconsistent to say that I should be accountable for cheating on you or beating on you while I was drunk (ignore the fact that the woman clearly raped me), but saying consenting to sex is beyond my ability if I am drunk.

Obviously, if you were unknowingly drinking because I spiked your drink, that is another issue.

Sorry missed this before. You're making the wrong kind of comparison, because the consent issue is about the person who has sex with the drunk person, not really about the actions of the drunk person. You could reframe it as:

It is okay to have sex with someone who's too drunk to know what's going on?

A similar question would be, if you ask an intoxicated person if they want to be punched in the face and they say yes, is it okay to punch them?

You are mistaking the issue here. The issue is CONSENT (i.e. LEGALITY), not morality.
What is "okay" or "not okay" to do is irrelevant. The issue is what is legal.
There are legal ramifications in my example of my being drunk and engaging in behavior. I am held legally liable. Whether it is cheating on my wife (cause for divorce), beating her (domestic abuse), driving and killing another (vehicular manslaughter), or even walking down the street talking too loud (drunk and disorderly).

If I am held responsible for my actions while drunk, then why am I not responsible for my actions (i.e. giving consent)? This is the legal aspect I challenge most. After all, if I am drunk and thus cannot consent (i.e. enter a contract), then how is taking my money when I say I want pizza not theft?
In both cases, I am given something I say I want, I am equally drunk in both cases, the other party gets something they want (sex or profit), but it is a legal issue only in one case. I find this inconsistent and a case of special pleading.

Why is being drunk an NOT an excuse to excuse every other behavior mankind does EXCEPT for consenting to have sex?

No, it's to do with who is doing the action. I think it would be equally illegal to inject someone with drugs when they are too drunk to know what's going on, for example. Mostly, people aren't motivated to do that, so it doesn't come up as much.

Remember, I am making a legal comparison, not a moral one. After all, it is not illegal to cheat on your wife, but it is still wrong.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 3:01:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/28/2015 12:34:51 AM, Garbanza wrote:

Why is being drunk an NOT an excuse to excuse every other behavior mankind does EXCEPT for consenting to have sex?

No, it's to do with who is doing the action. I think it would be equally illegal to inject someone with drugs when they are too drunk to know what's going on, for example. Mostly, people aren't motivated to do that, so it doesn't come up as much.

No, it's to do with the inability to consent. The huge gray area of rape is for the rapist to somehow know that the victim has enough wherewithal to consent when they say "yes".
I am drunk and I beat you. Shame on me.
I am drunk and I consent to have sex. Shame on you.

It's as straight forward an analogy as it can get. In one case, I am held responsible for my actions. In the other, I am not.
If you can convince me that there is an objective difference between the two scenarios, I'd be much less controversial in my views.

.....or is the action you are referring to the sober one of you filing charges against me for beating you?

Remember, I am making a legal comparison, not a moral one. After all, it is not illegal to cheat on your wife, but it is still wrong.
My work here is, finally, done.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,225
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/28/2015 11:03:57 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Or take my date night issue. The issue is if consent is given, then consent cannot be given (three glasses of wine), but refusal is not offered in any way, is that consent still valid?

No.
Why?
Why three glasses and not one?
Why does wine remove consent, but not time? If I said, "want to have sex after we run our errands", and she says yes, do I need to ask her again three hours later before I touch her? After all, if I touch her, and she changed her mind, she can say no.

With normal people, there's this idea of active participation, which counts as consent. Like, for example, you could wait for your wife to touch you.

Um.... what? How exactly does this "consent" think not work in reverse?

? It does.

By which I mean "that doesn't work". You are unconsciously putting one person into a position to be the sole arbiter for sex.

Why are they both not in the same 'holding pattern'?

Not sure what that means.

She needs permission to touch him, just in the same fashion as he needs permission to touch her, yes?


Hell, if I touch my wife in a sexual manner, and she responds with a "don't", did I just sexually assault my wife?
Should I ask her in the morning if it is okay to hug her or kiss her? Or, is that assault also?

Where is the line, Garbanza? Surely, if sexual assault is sexual contact without consent, then assault is contact without consent.

Of course there are grey areas. I never said that there weren't. I just said (along with almost everyone else in the world) that you can't preconsent. Just because someone consented earlier doesn't "count" as consent later on. It's in the tea example.


... so how do withdraw consent without actually withdrawing consent? Because, lets be honest, that's what this is talking about. The ability to re-neg, and when such a withdrawl of consent is assumed to be automatic. And who such automatic withdrawal applies to.

If someone's too drunk to know what's going on, they're not consenting. So you can assume there's no consent at that time.

However this doesn't work in practicality, as typically, when two drunk people 'consent' one is considered an aggressor, and one has the ability (or at least is vying for the ability) to withdraw what was previously seen as consent.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...