http://trog.livejournal.com/ (![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png)
trog.livejournal.com) wrote in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
politicartoons2013-03-28 09:49 pm
trog.livejournal.com) wrote in politicartoons2013-03-28 09:49 pm
And as far as "sound body" goes are you saying a person who is of poor health or of frail body can not give consent? If this is the case then I know of many handicapped and sick people that would disagree with you
Oh, okay.
Oh, okay.
Does that mean if you are drunk or stoned and give a law officer consent to search your person, car or home ... you can later legally contest the results of the search because you were drunk or stone
It would be interesting to see that argument in court.
It would be interesting to see that argument in court.
"lol Yes, any time a woman has sex while drunk, she is being raped."
I tend to find the problem with these discussions are that people use the term 'drunk' differently, which isn't surprising as there is no cut-off point between 'no drunk' and 'drunk'
This is why I went for 'as drunk as possible whilst still being able to express willingness to have sex': "How about if they're too intoxicated to stand, remember what they were doing half a minute ago, but are just about able to slur our the word 'yes'?"
Let's fill out that scenario a bit more; you go to a party. At this party there is a long-term couple, they've been together most of their lives. The woman is someone you know and have fancied, but she's never been interested in you. The couple are drinking, and have a huge earth-shaking fight and she's very upset and continues drinking. She over-does it and drinks to excess, to the point of being barely able to talk.
She's very emotionally vulnerable, she's impaired through alcohol, and wants to have sex with you as a revenge fuck, which will undoubtedly make her feel sick, disgusted and ashamed of herself in the morning.
She's saying 'yes', but is it ethical to have sex with her?
Sleeping with her rather seems like vile behaviour to me. It would seem to be obviously callous behaviour.
I tend to find the problem with these discussions are that people use the term 'drunk' differently, which isn't surprising as there is no cut-off point between 'no drunk' and 'drunk'
This is why I went for 'as drunk as possible whilst still being able to express willingness to have sex': "How about if they're too intoxicated to stand, remember what they were doing half a minute ago, but are just about able to slur our the word 'yes'?"
Let's fill out that scenario a bit more; you go to a party. At this party there is a long-term couple, they've been together most of their lives. The woman is someone you know and have fancied, but she's never been interested in you. The couple are drinking, and have a huge earth-shaking fight and she's very upset and continues drinking. She over-does it and drinks to excess, to the point of being barely able to talk.
She's very emotionally vulnerable, she's impaired through alcohol, and wants to have sex with you as a revenge fuck, which will undoubtedly make her feel sick, disgusted and ashamed of herself in the morning.
She's saying 'yes', but is it ethical to have sex with her?
Sleeping with her rather seems like vile behaviour to me. It would seem to be obviously callous behaviour.
"Of course. This is a legal issue because of age. The age of consent varies from state to state. However this is a cultural thing as well It is not unusual for people to have sex or even be married this young in other countries."
Sure, the idea that there is a set age at which people become legally able to consent shows that some level of social construction is at work within the legal concept of concept. However, it does rather prove that the legal concept of consent is not the same as willingness.
Non-legal uses may have more blurry lines, but I'd still say that it's unusual to use consent as a straight synonym for willingness.
Sure, the idea that there is a set age at which people become legally able to consent shows that some level of social construction is at work within the legal concept of concept. However, it does rather prove that the legal concept of consent is not the same as willingness.
Non-legal uses may have more blurry lines, but I'd still say that it's unusual to use consent as a straight synonym for willingness.
I think it's the sound mind issue that's relevant, rather than the sound body.
Mental disability would have to be very severe to impact on the ability to consent, but such cases have been known to cause legal issues in some places. I'm not going to take a stance on how that should be resolved, but it is flagged as a problem.
Mental disability would have to be very severe to impact on the ability to consent, but such cases have been known to cause legal issues in some places. I'm not going to take a stance on how that should be resolved, but it is flagged as a problem.
The issue there is that you do still have the chance to choose, just what options you're choosing between are limited.
I think there's a mistake in seeing this issue as split between 'free choice' and 'no free choice'. There's a grey area in-between the two.
I rather think that the choice to have sex needs to be as far outside of that grey area as possible, which means that it's unethical to pressure people into sex. In extreme cases, use of pressure may constitute rape.
I think there's a mistake in seeing this issue as split between 'free choice' and 'no free choice'. There's a grey area in-between the two.
I rather think that the choice to have sex needs to be as far outside of that grey area as possible, which means that it's unethical to pressure people into sex. In extreme cases, use of pressure may constitute rape.
No more vile or callous than her wanting to have sex with you as a "revenge fuck".
You're evading the question.
(for the record, I do consider having consensual sex with someone to get back at another person to be less vile than rape)
(for the record, I do consider having consensual sex with someone to get back at another person to be less vile than rape)
Ethical? No. Rape also no. Is she also vile? Yes.
Ladies- if yes doesn't always mean yes, please don't say yes unless you really mean yes....
When I say yes, I mean yes. Not just with sexual matters, but...well, everything.
I'm really confused about that statement, "yes doesn't always mean yes". Why not? When might it be necessary for a woman to say 'yes' when she does not mean 'yes'?
I'm really confused about that statement, "yes doesn't always mean yes". Why not? When might it be necessary for a woman to say 'yes' when she does not mean 'yes'?
Edited 2013-04-01 00:20 (UTC)
when she's being forced to say yes. When she says yes out of fear. When she says yes to someone presenting themselves under false pretenses.
Spin the story however you want, the key features were 'drunk' and 'emotionally vulnerable'.
Although the former should have been enough given my first example: "too intoxicated to stand, remember what they were doing half a minute ago, but are just about able to slur our the word 'yes'"
Someone who tattooed a willing person whilst that drunk would be in legal trouble because it wouldn't have met the standard of consent required for tattooing someone. Apparently you agree that having sex with someone in that state is unethical, but the standard for consent in sexual relationships that you want to advocate is basically just 'willingness' all by itself.
Although the former should have been enough given my first example: "too intoxicated to stand, remember what they were doing half a minute ago, but are just about able to slur our the word 'yes'"
Someone who tattooed a willing person whilst that drunk would be in legal trouble because it wouldn't have met the standard of consent required for tattooing someone. Apparently you agree that having sex with someone in that state is unethical, but the standard for consent in sexual relationships that you want to advocate is basically just 'willingness' all by itself.
How am I spinning? You also left out the key feature of "revenge fuck" Your words not mine.
Have you a tattoo? There are other reasons why a tattoo artist should not tattoo an intoxicated person that goes beyond consent. There is a big difference between unethical and illegal. Yes I would say that willingness would be the standard. What would you say the standard should be?
Have you a tattoo? There are other reasons why a tattoo artist should not tattoo an intoxicated person that goes beyond consent. There is a big difference between unethical and illegal. Yes I would say that willingness would be the standard. What would you say the standard should be?
That is understandable. That was the only situations I could think of as well.
But in a normal, healthy relationship....?
But in a normal, healthy relationship....?
In a normal healthy relationship, the parties have their rules that they live by.
I guess that's why the sign in the photo confused me. I thought it was directed to the normal relationship, not coercive situations.
I expect it's directed at all relationships.
In reference to one of your above comments: I do not consider a normal, healthy relationship between two human beings to involve coercion, fear, or lies. Based on that comment, and in absence of those things, yes should always mean yes in a normal, healthy relationship, should it not?
Edited 2013-04-01 23:58 (UTC)
It's not up to me to define how other people manage the rules in their relationships. If you're generalizing, then sure, I suppose in theory that's right.
it would indeed. Certainly, it's been argued that when a child lets the officers in to search a home, that the search should be thrown out due to lack of comprehension. Same thing when the person letting in the officers didn't speak english as a first language.
My point is that the story can be spun however you want, it's just a hypothetical. If you find the concept of a 'revenge fuck' too distracting then let's drop that element and focus on the topic.
Part of the standard of legal consent is being off sound mind. This is already built into law in many places (such as in the UK, where having sex with someone too drunk to consent is illegal).
Part of the standard of legal consent is being off sound mind. This is already built into law in many places (such as in the UK, where having sex with someone too drunk to consent is illegal).
It can also be spun however you want. You are spinning it now adding and then dropping elements to fit your narrative. I use you own words and I am spinning somehow.
Adults are presumed competent to consent. This presumption can be rebutted, for instance in circumstances of mental illness or other incompetence (i.e. intoxication or drugged).
People have drunk sex all the time. Some regret this decision. It doesn't mean that it is rape.
Adults are presumed competent to consent. This presumption can be rebutted, for instance in circumstances of mental illness or other incompetence (i.e. intoxication or drugged).
People have drunk sex all the time. Some regret this decision. It doesn't mean that it is rape.
"It can also be spun however you want. You are spinning it now adding and then dropping elements to fit your narrative. I use you own words and I am spinning somehow."
As I just explained, it's a hypothetical scenario. We can alter it it to fit whatever point we are attempting to illustrate.
Trying to put a spin on real life situations, but hiding some facts and drawing attention to others, is deceptive because they really happened. Hypothetical scenarios are not real; there is no foul play in changing the 'facts' of a hypothetical scenario around.
The ethics of a 'revenge fuck' are not relevant to the ethics of having sex with the severely intoxicated. If the former was becoming a distraction, it's best to drop it so we can turn our focus on the actual topic.
"Adults are presumed competent to consent. "
Unless drunk.
As I previously mentioned, it is illegal to have sex with a severely intoxicated person in the UK. They are not legally able to consent, and it is considered (by law) to be rape.
"People have drunk sex all the time. Some regret this decision. It doesn't mean that it is rape."
If I was trying to argue 'all drunk sex is rape' then I wouldn't have taken the time to craft an example about someone who was severely intoxicated.
As I just explained, it's a hypothetical scenario. We can alter it it to fit whatever point we are attempting to illustrate.
Trying to put a spin on real life situations, but hiding some facts and drawing attention to others, is deceptive because they really happened. Hypothetical scenarios are not real; there is no foul play in changing the 'facts' of a hypothetical scenario around.
The ethics of a 'revenge fuck' are not relevant to the ethics of having sex with the severely intoxicated. If the former was becoming a distraction, it's best to drop it so we can turn our focus on the actual topic.
"Adults are presumed competent to consent. "
Unless drunk.
As I previously mentioned, it is illegal to have sex with a severely intoxicated person in the UK. They are not legally able to consent, and it is considered (by law) to be rape.
"People have drunk sex all the time. Some regret this decision. It doesn't mean that it is rape."
If I was trying to argue 'all drunk sex is rape' then I wouldn't have taken the time to craft an example about someone who was severely intoxicated.
Page 2 of 3