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
...
Yes means yes.
I don't get the whole idea of really pushing people to understand that no means no under all circumstances, but wanting to turn around and play halfsies for the other side, and act like yes only means yes sometimes. As long as you have the choice to say yes or no, what you decide is what you mean. For it to be otherwise completely undermines the idea.
Yes means yes.
I don't get the whole idea of really pushing people to understand that no means no under all circumstances, but wanting to turn around and play halfsies for the other side, and act like yes only means yes sometimes. As long as you have the choice to say yes or no, what you decide is what you mean. For it to be otherwise completely undermines the idea.
It's always good to have a 'safe' word.
No Ma'am, you NEED to say what you mean.
If you pressure or threaten someone into saying 'yes', does it count as consent?
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'?
I suspect those are the sorts of complications that are behind the idea that 'yes doesn't always mean yes'.
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'?
I suspect those are the sorts of complications that are behind the idea that 'yes doesn't always mean yes'.
It is somewhat depressing you have to explain that.
If you pressure or threaten someone into saying 'yes', does it count as consent?
Pressure yes. Threaten no.
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'?
If they say they want sex when drunk then they want sex when drunk. They however may regret the decision later or maybe not. It has been known to impair judgement however even an impaired or pressured yes is still a yes and shows intent.
I suspect those are the sorts of complications that are behind the idea that 'yes doesn't always mean yes'.
Such as?
Pressure yes. Threaten no.
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'?
If they say they want sex when drunk then they want sex when drunk. They however may regret the decision later or maybe not. It has been known to impair judgement however even an impaired or pressured yes is still a yes and shows intent.
I suspect those are the sorts of complications that are behind the idea that 'yes doesn't always mean yes'.
Such as?
however even an impaired or pressured yes is still a yes and shows intent.
No, it doesn't. Consent only works when someone is consenting while of sound mind and body.
No, it doesn't. Consent only works when someone is consenting while of sound mind and body.
I think you're confusing willingness with consent.
For instance, thirteen year old can be willing, even eager, to have sex, but is not usually considered to be able to consent to sex.
In a purely legal sense, this is recognised elsewhere. Piercing and tattoo studios may not be legally allowed to offer their services to drunk persons. Contract law may require documents to be signed 'under sound mind'. These sorts of requirements go beyond 'willingness'.
But it's surely even more obvious in a purely moral sense.
Let's put the concepts away for a moment; let's imagine that you have a friend who is intoxicated to the point of not really being fully aware of what they are doing and very definite not in a sound mind to make decisions that are in their best interests (as might be judged by themselves when they're sober).
I'd say that most perspectives on morality suggest that the appropriate behaviour is to safeguard their interests; to make sure that they don't do things that are harmful to themselves, to guide them away from decisions that they will regret in the morning, and to generally be 'a good friend'.
I'd also say that most perspectives on morality would suggest that taking advantage of them is not morally appropriate. You certainly shouldn't try to convince them into behaviour that is to your advantage but which you know they will regret, and you shouldn't even do it if it's their own spontaneous idea. Even if we were just talking about a very drunk friend trying to gift me with something more expensive that they'd regret giving to me the next day, I still wouldn't be prepared to accept that gift until they'd confirmed the gesture whilst sober.
So, even if we avoid words like 'rape' or 'consent', if you have sex with someone who is so intoxicated that they can't stand and can't remember what is happening from one moment to the next, you are a vile person, Whatever we call that behaviour, it's disgusting and it ought to be illegal.
For instance, thirteen year old can be willing, even eager, to have sex, but is not usually considered to be able to consent to sex.
In a purely legal sense, this is recognised elsewhere. Piercing and tattoo studios may not be legally allowed to offer their services to drunk persons. Contract law may require documents to be signed 'under sound mind'. These sorts of requirements go beyond 'willingness'.
But it's surely even more obvious in a purely moral sense.
Let's put the concepts away for a moment; let's imagine that you have a friend who is intoxicated to the point of not really being fully aware of what they are doing and very definite not in a sound mind to make decisions that are in their best interests (as might be judged by themselves when they're sober).
I'd say that most perspectives on morality suggest that the appropriate behaviour is to safeguard their interests; to make sure that they don't do things that are harmful to themselves, to guide them away from decisions that they will regret in the morning, and to generally be 'a good friend'.
I'd also say that most perspectives on morality would suggest that taking advantage of them is not morally appropriate. You certainly shouldn't try to convince them into behaviour that is to your advantage but which you know they will regret, and you shouldn't even do it if it's their own spontaneous idea. Even if we were just talking about a very drunk friend trying to gift me with something more expensive that they'd regret giving to me the next day, I still wouldn't be prepared to accept that gift until they'd confirmed the gesture whilst sober.
So, even if we avoid words like 'rape' or 'consent', if you have sex with someone who is so intoxicated that they can't stand and can't remember what is happening from one moment to the next, you are a vile person, Whatever we call that behaviour, it's disgusting and it ought to be illegal.
Not as depressing as having to defend it after having explained it.
consent
Use Consent in a sentence
con·sent [kuhn-sent] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.
to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2.
Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
noun
3.
permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.
4.
agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.
5.
Archaic. accord; concord; harmony.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consent
It does not say that in the definition of consent. You can be pressured and still be of sound mind and body. As far as being drunk and making a decision to have sex I'd say it is up for debate as far as the level of intoxication. Everyone is different in this regard to tolerance and BAC. However people are not human breath alcohol testers and their is a difference between a few beers drunk and passed out drunk so really we asp people have only our own moral compass to guide us and the consent of the intoxicated individual.
Use Consent in a sentence
con·sent [kuhn-sent] Show IPA
verb (used without object)
1.
to permit, approve, or agree; comply or yield (often followed by to or an infinitive): He consented to the proposal. We asked her permission, and she consented.
2.
Archaic. to agree in sentiment, opinion, etc.; be in harmony.
noun
3.
permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence: He gave his consent to the marriage.
4.
agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.
5.
Archaic. accord; concord; harmony.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/consent
It does not say that in the definition of consent. You can be pressured and still be of sound mind and body. As far as being drunk and making a decision to have sex I'd say it is up for debate as far as the level of intoxication. Everyone is different in this regard to tolerance and BAC. However people are not human breath alcohol testers and their is a difference between a few beers drunk and passed out drunk so really we asp people have only our own moral compass to guide us and the consent of the intoxicated individual.
For instance, thirteen year old can be willing, even eager, to have sex, but is not usually considered to be able to consent to sex.
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.
So, even if we avoid words like 'rape' or 'consent', if you have sex with someone who is so intoxicated that they can't stand and can't remember what is happening from one moment to the next, you are a vile person, Whatever we call that behaviour, it's disgusting and it ought to be illegal.
I agree with you 110%
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.
So, even if we avoid words like 'rape' or 'consent', if you have sex with someone who is so intoxicated that they can't stand and can't remember what is happening from one moment to the next, you are a vile person, Whatever we call that behaviour, it's disgusting and it ought to be illegal.
I agree with you 110%
**However people are not human breath alcohol testers and their is a difference between a few beers drunk and passed out drunk so really we asp people have only our own moral compass to guide us and the consent of the intoxicated individual.
**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'?
If they say they want sex when drunk then they want sex when drunk.
Which is it? You take a calculated guess as to whether a drunk woman means yes; or if a drunk woman says yes, she means yes?
If a woman is drunk, no matter what level of drunk, she is not in any condition to consent to having sex. Anyone taking advantage of a woman who is drunk and says yes to sex is raping her. End of story.
**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'?
If they say they want sex when drunk then they want sex when drunk.
Which is it? You take a calculated guess as to whether a drunk woman means yes; or if a drunk woman says yes, she means yes?
If a woman is drunk, no matter what level of drunk, she is not in any condition to consent to having sex. Anyone taking advantage of a woman who is drunk and says yes to sex is raping her. End of story.
Is someone pressures you, you still have a choice. If you say yes, then it's yes. If someone threatens and forces you, that limits your choice, and therefore falls under "as long as you have the choice to say yes or no."
As for the drunk thing - if one party is sober, that's definitely taking advantage of. Maybe I should amend my previous statement to qualify further "s long as you have the choice and mantel facility to say yes or no."
If both parties are drunk though - I don't see how one person can be held accountable for their actions and decisions but the other not.
As for the drunk thing - if one party is sober, that's definitely taking advantage of. Maybe I should amend my previous statement to qualify further "s long as you have the choice and mantel facility to say yes or no."
If both parties are drunk though - I don't see how one person can be held accountable for their actions and decisions but the other not.
So if he holds a gun to my head, and I give up and say yes because I want to survive, it isn't rape?
"If a woman is drunk, no matter what level of drunk, she is not in any condition to consent to having sex."
lol Yes, any time a woman has sex while drunk, she is being raped.
My god, you are an idiot.
lol Yes, any time a woman has sex while drunk, she is being raped.
My god, you are an idiot.
Did you even read my reply? I clearly said that if someone threatens you, it limits your ability to choose; ergo, you don't have a free choice to say yes or no. Since "choice" was the initial qualifier to determining rape, that makes it kind of clear. Reading comprehension.
The difference between "threaten" and "pressure" is totally subjective and a rather weak semantic distinction.
Probably, but I didn't pick those particular words.
I suppose threaten carries the "threat" of negative consequences if one does not comply whereas pressure doesn't. But yes, I agree that they're subjective to some degree.
I suppose threaten carries the "threat" of negative consequences if one does not comply whereas pressure doesn't. But yes, I agree that they're subjective to some degree.
I seriously doubt the OP would say that a man is being raped if he is having sex while intoxicated.
If they both are drunk, are they raping eachother? :P
As I said in a comment above - If both people are drunk, I don't see how you can hold one person responsible for their choices and actions, but not the other.
If they both are drunk, are they raping eachother? :P
As I said in a comment above - If both people are drunk, I don't see how you can hold one person responsible for their choices and actions, but not the other.
It does not say that in the definition of consent.
Thankfully, Merriam-Webster doesn't write our laws.
Thankfully, Merriam-Webster doesn't write our laws.
This is a legal issue because of age.
Yes, but then you put on your critical thinking cap and consider why that's the case, and you can then see how it applies to someone being intoxicated, drugged, or otherwise not of sound mind and body.
Yes, but then you put on your critical thinking cap and consider why that's the case, and you can then see how it applies to someone being intoxicated, drugged, or otherwise not of sound mind and body.
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 stoned? Or does this only work when asking for sex? Suppose a person catches their spouse in a drunken act of adultery ... can the later sober offender get a pass on the divorce proceedings by telling the judge, "My adultery isn't grounds for divorce because I was drunk so it doesn't count"? I admit there is a distinction between what is law and what is moral ... but these moral issues often become unfair laws when people don't think them through. Righteous morality can be an offense in and of itself.
Edited 2013-03-29 10:37 (UTC)
Because they are a minor and not reached the age of consent. This is much different than somebody who is otherwise possibly impaired because of drugs or alcohol.
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. Every person on crutches or in a wheelchair for instance can be of sound mind but not of sound body for just starters. Many people that make last wills and testaments are of sound mind but not sound body that is the whole point of them making the will in the first place because they are about to kick the bucket and they want to get their last wishes down before they go.
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. Every person on crutches or in a wheelchair for instance can be of sound mind but not of sound body for just starters. Many people that make last wills and testaments are of sound mind but not sound body that is the whole point of them making the will in the first place because they are about to kick the bucket and they want to get their last wishes down before they go.
Page 1 of 3