Republicans and Rape

[dre]

Holy shit. You are a rapist.

Yeah if thats rape then my wife and are both serial offenders I guess. I even just walk up to her sometimes and kiss her without getting written permission! Legally thats sexual assault I suppose since it would be illegal to do that to a stranger, since theres no such thing as implied consent.

There is gray areas especially in long term relationships where theres a pattern of mutually acceptible behavior. If I get woken up by a blowjob I rarely call the police .

Edited August 23, 2012 by dre

[cybercoma]

Holy shit. You are a rapist.

Normal? Maybe. Rape? Definitely. There's no such thing as implied consent.

By this logic, a husband couldn't rape his wife. But we know that's not true.

Not that I expect an admitted rapist to get it, but the issue is the same: no consent was granted for the sexual act. Knife point, drunk, or sleeping, it's all basically the same.

Engaging someone whom you share a bed with for sex while (s)he's sleeping is not rape. Forcing that person to have sex when (s)he doesn't want to is rape.

[Guest American Woman]

Not that I expect an admitted rapist to get it, but the issue is the same: no consent was granted for the sexual act. Knife point, drunk, or sleeping, it's all basically the same.

It's the same in that it's all sex without consent, but they are different, just as first degree murder, second degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide are the same in that they all end in death, but they are different by intent and degree.

But to believe that one has a right to sex just because they are sharing the same bed is rather mind boggling. If one has an agreement with a spouse/life partner/GF/BF that this is acceptable and always ok, that's one thing - although it seems to me a conscious, participating partner would be more desirable - but to assume it's ok simply because they are sharing a bed and have consented in the past is difficult to understand.

[TimG]

If one has an agreement with a spouse/life partner/GF/BF that this is acceptable and always ok, that's one thing - although it seems to me a conscious, participating partner would be more desirable - but to assume it's ok simply because they are sharing a bed and have consented in the past is difficult to understand.

It is not always ok. The issue is what does one presume given no knowledge of the details. A stranger breaks into a house and has sex with a sleeping occupant. Rape can be presumed unless shown otherwise. Someone has sex with a live in sexual partner who happened to be sleeping. Consent should be presumed unless shown otherwise. There are always exceptions but there is nothing wrong with making a starting assumption.

[Guest American Woman]

Someone has sex with a live in sexual partner who happened to be sleeping. Consent should be presumed unless shown otherwise.

Ummmm. No. That's something that should be discussed beforehand, not presumed.

[Black Dog]

Yeah if thats rape then my wife and are both serial offenders I guess. I even just walk up to her sometimes and kiss her without getting written permission! Legally thats sexual assault I suppose since it would be illegal to do that to a stranger, since theres no such thing as implied consent.

There is gray areas especially in long term relationships where theres a pattern of mutually acceptible behavior. If I get woken up by a blowjob I rarely call the police .

If its something you've discussed with your partner and it's okay, fine. The issue is when you presume that prior consent to sex applies to future sex acts: that's the issue in the Assange case.

[Guest Manny]

Reading this is like hearing nails on a chalkboard. It is unbelievable how completely f'ing stupid these a'holes are.

I'm always fascinated by how similar their attitude is toward women compared with conservatives in places like Saudi Arabia.

[Black Dog]

Engaging someone whom you share a bed with for sex while (s)he's sleeping is not rape. Forcing that person to have sex when (s)he doesn't want to is rape.

Rape, broadly, is sex without consent. So if someone can't give consent because they are unconscious, that constitutes rape in my books.

[Black Dog]

It is not always ok. The issue is what does one presume given no knowledge of the details. A stranger breaks into a house and has sex with a sleeping occupant. Rape can be presumed unless shown otherwise. Someone has sex with a live in sexual partner who happened to be sleeping. Consent should be presumed unless shown otherwise. There are always exceptions but there is nothing wrong with making a starting assumption.

I couldn't disagree more. Consent should be obtained before assuming otherwise. And even if there's prior consent, it doesn't hurt to double check. Sometimes you just want to get some sleep.

[Guest American Woman]

According to some, all one has to do when their partner says "no, not tonight" is wait until they are asleep. After all, if they are sharing a bed, they are entitled to help themselves.

[TimG]

I couldn't disagree more. Consent should be obtained before assuming otherwise. And even if there's prior consent, it doesn't hurt to double check.

If you had your way men would be thrown in jail for having sex without obtaining written consent notarized by a lawyer.

[TimG]

According to some, all one has to do when their partner says "no, not tonight" is wait until they are asleep. After all, if they are sharing a bed, they are entitled to help themselves.

Again it depends on the details of the relationship. If it happened once and the partner made it clear that she does not wish to participate to such acts then it would be called rape if it happened again. I don't think the state has any business getting involved in these kinds of relationship issues between two people who choose to have an ongoing sexual relationship.

[Guest American Woman]

Again it depends on the details of the relationship. If it happened once and the partner made it clear that she does not wish to participate to such acts then it would be called rape if it happened again.

Why should she have to make it clear that she doesn't want it again? And what if she does want it again at some point? Say, when she's conscious, and in the mood?

I don't think the state has any business getting involved in these kinds of relationship issues between two people who choose to have an ongoing sexual relationship.

Fortunately, the courts don't feel the same way.

[TimG]

Why should she have to make it clear that she doesn't want it again? And what if she does want it again at some point? Say, when she's conscious, and in the mood?

It is insane to expect people to obtain explicit consent before every act. The state has NO business getting involved in consenting relationships if either partner can leave at any time.

Fortunately, the courts don't feel the same way.

The courts do many idiotic things because of idiotic laws passed by idiotic politicians pandering to idiotic extremists. Most normal people know these kinds of issues are best resolved privately between partners (possibly by ending the relationship).

[Guest American Woman]

It is insane to expect people to obtain explicit consent before every act. The state has NO business getting involved in consenting relationships if either partner can leave at any time.

There's nothing insane about it. Either have sex when your partner is conscious and can consent, or discuss it ahead of time and determine if it's ok to 'help oneself' when the other is sleeping whenever one desires. How hard is that?

The courts do many idiotic things because of idiotic laws passed by idiotic politicians pandering to idiotic extremists. Most normal people know these kinds of issues are best resolved privately between partners (possibly by ending the relationship).

Oh, really. "Most normal people know" that, do they? And your proof is ..... ?

[wyly]

Continuing to **** someone when they ask you to stop ****ing them is rape (which is one of the allegations facing Assange, regardless of what we call it here.)

that's not what happened, she didn't want to at first then agreed and then continued the relationship and slept with him for another week,...really if this was rape she had every opportunity to go to the police immediately...what's been described as rape here would send most canadian men to prison...

[Melanie_]

Again it depends on the details of the relationship. If it happened once and the partner made it clear that she does not wish to participate to such acts then it would be called rape if it happened again. I don't think the state has any business getting involved in these kinds of relationship issues between two people who choose to have an ongoing sexual relationship.

No. If it happens once, and she says that she doesn't want it to happen and he continues, it is rape. Simple. No consent = rape. Why are you even disputing this?

Anyway, the whole issue has been derailed. The issue isn't about rape (and I am in no way denying the gravity and violation of rape), it is about whether or not abortion is justified in cases of rape. I am completely opposed to having this discussion. It seems to me that if you believe that life begins at conception, it shouldn't matter to you how the conception happened, the life is just as valid as a fetus conceived in love. And if you believe that women have the right to choose whether or not to continue a pregnancy, it doesn't matter what any individual woman's reasons for terminating are - it is her decision to make, as she knows her life and circumstances best.

I'm well past bearing children, but I have daughters and granddaughters. I trust their judgement, and don't want some politician to decide for them something so personal as when they become a mother.

[TimG]

No. If it happens once, and she says that she doesn't want it to happen and he continues, it is rape. Simple. No consent = rape. Why are you even disputing this?

Why don't you try reading what I said again because I said the same thing you did.

[Melanie_]

Why don't you try reading what I said again because I said the same thing you did.

No. You said if it happens again it is rape. I say if he doesn't have consent the first time it is rape. He can't assume she consents. If she isn't aware enough to consent, it is rape.

[TimG]

discuss it ahead of time and determine if it's ok to 'help oneself' when the other is sleeping whenever one desires.

You really have no business deciding for other people what amounts to consent. Whether you like or not there are grey areas in relationships and both partners have an obligations to set boundaries that they are comfortable with. If either partner does not like the boundaries then the relationship will likely to have to end. What I object to is the nanny state trying to involve itself in personal relationships.

[TimG]

I say if he doesn't have consent the first time it is rape. He can't assume she consents. If she isn't aware enough to consent, it is rape.

That is not what you said. But if that is what you meant fine. Like I said, consenting adults in a relationship they choose to be in do not need the nanny state regulating their sexual relationship. Just like the nanny state should not be telling people what sex their partner has to be or telling women they have to carry a unwanted child to term.

I frankly find it hypocritical for people to demand that nanny state involve itself in personal relationships only when their particular peccadilloes are violated but scream bloody murder when someone else tries to use the state to impose their peccadilloes on them. Freedom and liberty also means you have to take responsibility for your own choices and accept that people will make choices that you disagree with.

Edited August 24, 2012 by TimG

[CANADIEN]

apparently, this instructive graphic is a part of the upcoming Republican convention delegates information packet

Too funny.

[CANADIEN]

That Huckabee's real message is meant to make children of rape feel better about themselves, or to educate the public about their worthiness?

Yeah....it sounds like a bit of a stretch, shall we say.

If that's what he meant, he may be to hire himself a better speech-writer.

[CANADIEN]

That is not what you said. But if that is what you meant fine. Like I said, consenting adults in a relationship they choose to be in do not need the nanny state regulating their sexual relationship. Just like the nanny state should not be telling people what sex their partner has to be or telling women they have to carry a unwanted child to term.

I frankly find it hypocritical for people to demand that nanny state involve itself in personal relationships only when their particular peccadilloes are violated but scream bloody murder when someone else tries to use the state to impose their peccadilloes on them. Freedom and liberty also means you have to take responsibility for your own choices and accept that people will make choices that you disagree with.

Sex without consent is rape. Simple. Period. And if one partner in a relationship feels she (usually, it's a she) has been raped and goes to the police, it is the State's DUTY to investigate, and if the accusions ppear to be or are true, prosecute.

Interesting that you use the word consenting. Rape is the absence of consent. The "it,s a private matter and none of the business of the Nanny state" argument does not wash up here.

[TimG]

Interesting that you use the word consenting. Rape is the absence of consent. The "it,s a private matter and none of the business of the Nanny state" argument does not wash up here.

You have obviously not been reading the thread because the argument is about what is 'consent' so don't waste time with meaningless platitudes about rape being the absence of consent. This the discussion started because various 'nannies' decided that a sleeping person cannot give consent therefore having sex with a sleeping person is always rape - even if there is an ongoing sexual relationship. I say in these situations it is up to the people involved to decide what consent is and that nannies should butt out. The freedom to decide what consent is in these situations is no different than the freedom to decide what sex your partner is. Edited August 24, 2012 by TimG