Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by Randwolf, Jul 4, 2008.
Consent need not be verbal.
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
So why all the talk about "if she did not say yes then you could be raping her"
Hell, if she did say yes you could be raping her. That's why I send Valentine's Day cards to my hand.
EmptyForceOfChi if you put a gun to her head and say "do you agree to have sex with me" then no matter what the answer is its still rape. Thats what its talking about
What if she puts a gun to my head to make me start, then wants me to stop halfway through and I insist on finishing?
do actually have a brain?
Yes, of course I have a brain.
Err... because you could be?
Sex without consent is rape.
29 pages and we finally get it right!
The ladies don't care if I consent or not.
Then MK, you're being raped.
I usually say "fucked" but I believe that you are right.
But this poll option is missleading to me.
"If you don't ask permission and she says neither 'Yes' or 'No' then you could be a rapist."
Thats talking about verbal consent right?, and if she has not given a verbal (or written) "yes" then you are raping her?.
Notes on ... subtlety?
It should be enough to work with what's there instead of inventing new stuff to skew the point.
As to the broad and unworkable definitions, there are a couple of points to consider.
You might recall posting a topic last November about the claim that all whites are racist. The proposition is another of those I hear about more frequently from the people complaining about it than I do from the people promoting such ideas.
Some of our members were greatly chagrined by the issue. But as I explained in my first response to the issue:
The problem, though, is that such specific definitions, in order to foster such septic conservative outrage and infect otherwise rational people with grotesquely misbegotten fears, must be recklessly applied ....
.... The truth of the matter is that I do benefit from the white supremacist system. And, like most of my racist neighbors, I haven't really done much about that system except benefit from it. The only real problem I have with such a definition is that, if it is taken out of its proper context--and the basis of our discussion, this topic, reflects one of those improper contextual shifts--it can legitimize severe behavior .....
And as I noted later in that thread, some of the complaints were overreactions to a "definition of the word 'racist' includes them". I reiterated, a couple of posts later,
Think about it: All [the one] had to do was shrug and say, "Well, that pretty much includes every white person, and is therefore an inapplicable, generally useless, obscure definition that hasn't much practical value." All [the other] had to do was shrug and say, "Okay, I think that's bullshit. What is it for?"
That's all I did. I'm not disturbed at being called a racist according to such weak terms. Why does it bother them, or anyone else, so much? If this was about drugs or sex or music piracy, people would wonder about the sharp reaction and what it suggested about the person.
And yet again:
Even [he] acknowledges that the broad definition applies to him; he just rejects the idea that it's racism. And he's got a point. After all, if he murders someone, takes their money, and buys some drugs with it, and he and I get high together, I haven't exactly committed murder. Neither am I innocent, however, if I know that the profits were ill-gotten.
And that seems to be what upsets him. He doesn't want to think of himself as guilty in any way, even if that way has no actual moral effect or assignation. At least, that's how it seems. It would be easier to know what it all equals if we weren't using wildly subjective variables whose only purpose is to create the basis for complaint.
Or maybe ... again?
I just don't understand why people are so distressed that a broad standard of racism would include them. If we were looking at other people reaping benefits off a history of injustice, we would include the beneficiaries among the guilty ....
.... As one who is, by this definition, guilty, I'm puzzled at the reactionary hyperbole put forth by exceptionalists. In the grand scheme of things, it's a pretty weak indictment and, as I noted, brings certain problems when applied generally.
I tend to not be particularly worried about whether or not my "nagging" equaled rape. But that doesn't mean I can write off the experience. Far from it. Rather, we do our best and carry on.
Another point that came up in that topic:
It's obvious that some who are offended have sought to apply the standard wrongly, specifically so that they can claim offense. Watching people get all primadonna about this suggests the unwieldy application of "racist" has some merit.
And the same holds true with the fifty-one points. If you go back to the list and review point 13 as it was presented, the word "nag" is presented between quote marks. It's not a difficult distinction to notice.
Your argument seems to pertain to a very mundane form of nagging akin to the stuff of shitty sitcoms. This is what most people think of when they think of nagging. It seems to be the aspect and degree in question. It is also the most obvious reason that the word was placed in quotes in the list.
So let's consider that in the context of something else you wrote:
I think it was the summer after ninth grade. I was in a McDonald's in Puyallup when I came across one of my classmates, a nice girl who answered to "Billie". We only talked for a few moments before someone started yelling at her and cussing her out from across the restaurant. It was her father. She slunk away with downcast eyes and a scowl on her face, trailing along like a reprimanded puppy as he berated her all the way to the car. I had never witnessed anything like it before.
Turns out, her father was infamous for this sort of thing. All their neighbors knew about it. But he never, to anyone's knowledge, beat her. Just cussed her out, shouted at her, and never seemed to speak to her in a remotely civilized tone. Of course, these facts only came to my knowledge later, through the local press, when it turned out that one day, after having enough of it, she shot her father in the head while he slept, and went over to a friend's house.
She freely confessed to the crime, was sentenced to state custody until her twenty-first birthday, and even the cops who arrested her and the prosecutor who managed the case came away with the impression that, whatever else people might think, the girl was just happy it was all over with.
His psychological abuse was noted in her defense at sentencing, but there was no significant talk of physical abuse.
I tend to think there's a tremendous difference between "[plying] an eventual 'yes' from a weary victim" and the kind of shit stupid people think is funny on prime time television.
Which is why I'm not particularly disturbed by my past behavior. Certainly, my last partner and I had our own soap opera going, but nothing about the relationship suggests anything so severe. Rather, I think of occasions when my partner tempted me to leave a social function by suggesting she was horny and then didn't deliver. After a few repetitions of that behavior, one gets used to it, and is not surprised, and stops expecting any sort of delivery on the suggestions.
As our experience around Sciforums should clearly remind, people don't like being told that behavior others consider negative is expected of them. Probably the worst argument we ever had about sex has never been resolved, and that is the question of why she lied about enjoying it in the first place. It only took her six years to finally acknowledge what I suspected all along. And there's nothing I can do to assuage any wounds she might have sustained as a result of her own lies.
Does that mean I didn't learn anything for the next time I find myself in a sustained relationship? No. Rather, I would hope to learn not just about my own sense of cruelty, but also about how to respond to the aggression and cruelty of others.
Again, we simply do our best and carry on. I'm confident in the direction of my evolving conduct as pertains to this point. And part of that confidence comes from considering the issues as honestly as I can and trying to achieve rational, progressive, and humane resolutions.
Perhaps this is too much to expect of other people. It certainly sounds like it.
As I would hope to have explained in this post, I'm considering nagging as psychological abuse as compared to merely being "a pain in the ass".
Because I want to provide a route to escape the effects of the double standard that has received much discussion, the difference between how we regard men and women as relates to sexual intercourse. Like I noted before, if you're willing to functionally compare consistent and extended sexual harassment to haggling over prices at a fruit stand, I would expect that you have some relevant experience.
There is quite a difference between penetrating and being penetrated. It is easier to see how one might compare this issue to "calling negotiation theft" if I look at it only from the perspective of the penetrator.
Right when someone told me that there was a huge difference between being penetrated and doing the penetrating, the entire female gender lost its chance of ever having sex with me again. My attitude is that I have been fucked enough already.
And these are the same people who would plow my ass for any sexist remark. They don't want equality.
The greater good?
Make sure you put out a press release. You might actually get a lot of thank-you notes.
Feminists don't want equality?
You might want to point that to a few of the trolls in this thread.
I love you
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I think I just did.
Separate names with a comma.