cybercoma Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Rape, broadly, is sex without consent. So if someone can't give consent because they are unconscious, that constitutes rape in my books. That's pretty much a stretch. I'm not sure how you sleep with someone without waking them up. If you wake them up and they say stop and you keep going, then I completely agree with you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 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. What the hell are you talking about? This is quite obviously not giving consent. I don't think anyone here would suggest that the scenario you presented is not rape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 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. I stand corrected. Some posters here do condone rape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 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). What's idiotic is saying that people lose legal protections for rape (and what else? Assault and battery too?) because they're married. That's idiotic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) What's idiotic is saying that people lose legal protections for rape (and what else? Assault and battery too?) because they're married. That's idiotic. blah blah blah. Is English your second language? I ask because you frequently have problems understanding what was written.What i said is the people involve should decide what consent is. This argument necessarily implies that if one of the people Involved decides that no concent was given then it would be rape. What it also means is busy bodies like blackdiog has no business passing judgement on others given the fact that he has no idea whether all people involved felt they gave consent. Edited August 24, 2012 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) 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. On the contrary, I have read it. The "nannies should just butt out" bit does not work with me, no matter how you want to put it. What is consent or not consent does not change because there is an ongoing sexual relationship. Being in a relationship is not a licence for any of the partners to do whatever they want without asking first. As far the argument that "the freedom to decide what consent is in these situations is no different than the freedom to decide what sex your partner is" - the freedom is actually that of the person to determine what he/she consents to. Not the same thing. various 'nannies' decided that a sleeping person cannot give consent Let's go back to that one. So, this is just a decision by nannies? Really? Care to explain to me how a person who is asleep can be aware of, and therefore give consent to anything? Edited August 24, 2012 by CANADIEN Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 What's idiotic is saying that people lose legal protections for rape (and what else? Assault and battery too?) because they're married. That's idiotic. I dont think anyone is saying that. What I WOULD say is this. People in a relationship establish which behavior is expected/excepted. Some times they may not exactly be compatible with the law and sometimes consent is established over time, and its unspoken and unwritten. I used myself as an example of someone that sometimes initiates an "encounter" in the middle of night because I half wake up and just feel like for whatever reason. When this happens it wakes my wife up and she might say "bugger off its 4AM" or she might not. Technically I did not have consent to even begin so by the letter of the law I would at least be guilty of sexual assault even before the point where there is real sex... and at that point shes usually at least half awake and can tell me to stop if she wants:P There is no force what-so-ever in my marriage. The legal definition of sexual assault would probably include a whole lot of different things that happen between couples. If you even smack a women on the ass (or vice versa) its sexual assault and I supposed the legality here would be the same whether its a co-worker or spouse. But logically and morally you have to consider the context, even when the law itself does not. Patting my wife on the ass is NOT the same thing as patting a co-worker on the ass at work, and THAT is the absurdity that this line of argument leads to. The thing is... because of the way our relationship works and my absolutely knowledge that my wife does not consider any of these things to be sexual assault its not going to end up before the courts. Calling me a rapist seems a little over the top... We can argue about the legal definition of rape, but the legal definition of RAPIST is someone that has been found guilty by a court of law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 I dont think anyone is saying that. What I WOULD say is this. People in a relationship establish which behavior is expected/excepted. Some times they may not exactly be compatible with the law and sometimes consent is established over time, and its unspoken and unwritten. I used myself as an example of someone that sometimes initiates an "encounter" in the middle of night because I half wake up and just feel like for whatever reason. When this happens it wakes my wife up and she might say "bugger off its 4AM" or she might not. Technically I did not have consent to even begin so by the letter of the law I would at least be guilty of sexual assault even before the point where there is real sex... and at that point shes usually at least half awake and can tell me to stop if she wants:P There is no force what-so-ever in my marriage. The legal definition of sexual assault would probably include a whole lot of different things that happen between couples. If you even smack a women on the ass (or vice versa) its sexual assault and I supposed the legality here would be the same whether its a co-worker or spouse. But logically and morally you have to consider the context, even when the law itself does not. Patting my wife on the ass is NOT the same thing as patting a co-worker on the ass at work, and THAT is the absurdity that this line of argument leads to. The thing is... because of the way our relationship works and my absolutely knowledge that my wife does not consider any of these things to be sexual assault its not going to end up before the courts. Calling me a rapist seems a little over the top... We can argue about the legal definition of rape, but the legal definition of RAPIST is someone that has been found guilty by a court of law. Yes, I think you've explained it very well, and I think a lot of posters--who are, actually, at least roughly in agreement--are talking past one another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted August 24, 2012 Author Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 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 believe everyone agrees that the people in the relationship have the right and indeed the responsibility to communicate the terms of their sexual relationship. Where we part company is over your notion that being in a relationship grants the parties carte blanche to what they want, when they want without having that discussion in the first place. That's pretty much a stretch. I'm not sure how you sleep with someone without waking them up. If you wake them up and they say stop and you keep going, then I completely agree with you. I'm not comfortable with putting that much onus on the injured party. There's a lot of dynamics in play as to why someone might not say no once the act has started even if they didn't agree to it in the first place, just as there are many reasons why rape and sexual assault go unreported so frequently. Don't have sex with someone unless they've said you can. Don't assume that because someone had sex with you once before that you can do it again. These are pretty simple things, not sure why they are controversial. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 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. Geeze, thinking back I should have charged my gf at the time of rape when I woke up to find her giving me oral sex, but .... it just felt so damn good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 Geeze, thinking back I should have charged my gf at the time of rape when I woke up to find her giving me oral sex, but .... it just felt so damn good. That wasn't your girfriend............. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 That wasn't your girfriend............. Well whoever it was, I should thank them. Sexual assault is a serious offense, however, what consenting adults do and the understanding they have between each other is up to them. Also, I did date one lady who had a rape fantasy. She told me she wanted to be one of those girls in the park that got raped at night .... after knowing that i soon ended that relationship. It just weirded me out too much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) Back to the OP, There's more baffling stupidity coming out of the GOP camp. Apparently, one of their lawmakers, State Senator Stacey Campfield, seems to think it's "virtually impossible to get AIDS from heterosexual sex." How can anyone vote for people this uneducated? Story: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/26/gop-lawmaker-virtually-impossible-to-get-aids-through-heterosexual-sex/ Here's the Politifact on his comments: http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/feb/03/stacey-campfield/knoxville-republican-says-aids-came-man-having-sex/ Edited August 24, 2012 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bleeding heart Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 (edited) Back to the OP, There's more baffling stupidity coming out of the GOP camp. Apparently, one of their lawmakers, State Senator Stacey Campfield, seems to think it's "virtually impossible to get AIDS from heterosexual sex." How can anyone vote for people this uneducated? Story: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/01/26/gop-lawmaker-virtually-impossible-to-get-aids-through-heterosexual-sex/ Here's the Politifact on his comments: http://www.politifact.com/tennessee/statements/2012/feb/03/stacey-campfield/knoxville-republican-says-aids-came-man-having-sex/ Ok. that's it. Stupidity knows no bounds, and is profound. (Cue Shady showing up to discuss a Biden gaffe or some such thing...and pretend it is just as bad. But even his heart isn't in it any more.) Republicans are simply slightly...stupider than everyone else. Edited August 24, 2012 by bleeding heart Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 24, 2012 Report Share Posted August 24, 2012 You really have no business deciding for other people what amounts to consent. Whether you like or not there are grey areas in relationships.... There's nothing to decide. If consent hasn't been given, it's not consent. There is no gray area. ....both partners have an obligations to set boundaries that they are comfortable with. That's exactly what I said. You said that if there has been consensual sex once, it's assumed that there's consent again. I said, no. Both partners have to discuss it ahead of time because it's not something that can be assumed. 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. If one partner breaks the law, then it must get involved. All one has to do is not engage in sex where the other has not consented and the "nanny state" will not involve itself in personal sexual relationships. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan on abortion exceptions: Rape is just another ‘method of conception’ Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says that he personally believes that rape is just another “method of conception” and not an excuse to allow abortions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 (edited) Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Paul Ryan on abortion exceptions: Vice presidential candidate Paul Ryan says that he personally believes that rape is just another “method of conception” and not an excuse to allow abortions.Rape is just another ‘method of conception’ There's some real playing with his words there. The only words he said were "method of conception;" what he actually did say is: “I’m very proud of my pro-life record, and I’ve always adopted the idea that, the position that the method of conception doesn’t change the definition of life." Quite different from what it's being presented as, and quite frankly, consistent with his beliefs that abortion is murder. Killing a baby conceived through rape is no less murder than killing a baby conceived through consensual sex, so it stands to reason that some who think abortion is murder would still feel that way when the pregnancy is the result of rape. But he most definitely did NOT say that rape is just another method of conception. Edited August 26, 2012 by American Woman Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 But he most definitely did NOT say that rape is just another method of conception. oh pleeeese! You can't be serious. Ryan was specifically asked about rape - his reply, "The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest American Woman Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 oh pleeeese! You can't be serious. Ryan was specifically asked about rape - his reply, "The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life". Here's a newsflash - the method of conception doesn't change the definition of life - which I clearly addressed. I'm not even remotely a supporter of Ryan nor his view on abortion rights, but if you truly can't understand what he was saying, why he believes what he does, then that part of the problem lies with you and the rest of your ilk pushing this totally twisted version of what he did say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 This is the real point of the discussion. If someone believes that life begins at conception, how that conception occurred is irrelevent. Life has begun. I have no respect for someone who says that it is wrong to take the life of a fetus, unless they don't like how that fetus was conceived. This isn't my belief, by the way, but the whole discussion of exceptions for rape seems hypocritical to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 but the whole discussion of exceptions for rape seems hypocritical to me. Me too. If you believe that life begins at conception, then the method of conception really shouldn't matter..... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 I have no respect for someone who says that it is wrong to take the life of a fetus, unless they don't like how that fetus was conceived.It is a rather bizarre position. You obviously disagree with these people and would be quite upset if their views were allowed to change the law of the land. Seems to me that you would be better off respecting those that seek to find ways to compromise rather than sticking to a rigid ideology. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 Seems to me that you would be better off respecting those that seek to find ways to compromise rather than sticking to a rigid ideology. But the compromise position makes absolutely no sense. Either life begins at conception, or it doesn't (it doesn't). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melanie_ Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 (edited) But what kind of compromise is that? If I believed that life began at conception, how could I justify taking a life based on how that life began? It is an irreconcilable contradiction. You can't say these conditions are ok, but these ones are not, especially when talking about what someone believes is an innocent life. (edited for spelling - damn you, Shiraz!) Edited August 26, 2012 by Melanie_ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted August 26, 2012 Report Share Posted August 26, 2012 But he most definitely did NOT say that rape is just another method of conception. oh pleeeese! You can't be serious. Ryan was specifically asked about rape - his reply, "The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life". Here's a newsflash - the method of conception doesn't change the definition of life - which I clearly addressed. I'm not even remotely a supporter of Ryan nor his view on abortion rights, but if you truly can't understand what he was saying, why he believes what he does, then that part of the problem lies with you and the rest of your ilk pushing this totally twisted version of what he did say. you can choose to continue to be an apologist for Ryan; however, clearly, Ryan's steadfast 'no exceptions' abortion policy... the imposed draconian 'must carry to full term', no exceptions abortion policy, absolutely usurps any/whatever pro-choice interpretations of 'when life begins' there are. Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan when asked specifically about rape/abortion exceptions: "The method of conception doesn't change the definition of life". Interpretation MLW, 'American Woman', objects to: "Rape is just another ‘method of conception’" let me be the most obvious of obvious wordsmiths: - Republican Vice Presidential candidate Paul Ryan: as (conception by) rape is just another method of conception that doesn't change the my definition of life, my no exceptions abortion policy dictates your rape conception must be carried to full term. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.