Argus Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 (edited) So St. Mary's has issued this report saying that sex is basically rape, even if the woman consents (no one talks about men consenting) unless that consent is "enthusiastic and continuous". This brings a couple of things to mind. One, what if the guy isn't that good? I mean, we've seen the porn films, of course, but what if the woman isn't so thrilled and isn't that great an actress and isn't continually shouting "YES!"? Does that mean the guy has to stop? How much time between the last "YES!" has to pass before he needs more reassurance? And frankly, from my memories, most young guys really aren't all that good, so perhaps they need some sort of lessons to get the necessary 'enthusiastic and continuous affirmation' from their partners? I'm not trying to make light of rape, by the way. But the problem with defining rape is like the problem of defining art. We all know it when we see it, but trying to write it down, well... that causes... issues when you start to get beyond the obvious (force, coercion, date rape drugs). And the law certainly doesn't help (even the real law, never mind the St. Mary's version). For example, say a woman is unhappy, lonely, and has a few drinks. While over the legal limit she goes out, seduces some very drunk guy, pulls him home, and has her way with him. Well, that's rape, under the law. Her behavior and consent don't matter because she was intoxicated. He should have refused her, even though he was drunk (his being drunk is not permitted to be used as a defense). This is one of the oddities of how we treat sexual assault in this country. Basically we treat sex as something men want and women do not. Therefore the male is always considered to be the initiator of sex on helpless women who really don't want it (unsurprisingly, a large number of female social activists are lesbians). So we must do everything we can to protect the poor, helpless, stupid woman (any woman dating men is stupid the way many of these activists see it) from being brutalized by the oversize, violent beast that is the male. And this includes protecting her from herself, because, well, obviously, she can't do it herself. So, men, better start getting your women screaming passionately and continuously, and it wouldn't be a bad idea to record it -- oh but make sure she signs a document allowing you to do that first... http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/can-she-consent-to-sex-after-drinking/article17158564/#dashboard/follows/ Edited March 1, 2014 by Charles Anthony changed title; old tilte was "Yes! Yes! Yes! Oh my God, YES!" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 *Opens article* *Sees Wente* *Closes article* Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 *Opens article* *Sees Wente* *Closes article* Translation "Considers opening mind." "Decides not to." "Has nothing to contribute." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Topaz Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Isn't the talk that drunk men can't so it, they go to sleep instead or pass out. I think in Canada or in certain provinces, being drunk or high isn't a excuse anymore. When someone say NO, man or woman, they mean NO! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 *Opens article* *Sees Wente* *Closes article* Thanks for the heads up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gunrutz Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Thanks for the heads up. What an enlightened attitude, there have been lots of articles about this, but perhaps no writer would meet with your lofty standards. Anyway, as an actual response to the op, the discussion has been taken over by extremists, and it is so strange to me that any woman who wants true equality with men would also want to allow the man to determine if she should be allowed to have sex with him. Anyway, the only way men are safe from this crazy idea is to have a signed consent form, witnessed by two people, and you must also carry a breathalyzer. I dont know if the courts put this sort of burden on males, but for someone that has sons, it's a bit frightening. I once took part in a discussion on rabble.ca where a significant number of women there considered pouting by a man when his wife wasn't interested in sex that day as rape, no bullshit, they completely beleive that it was coersion and therefore rape. That is the kind of people who are driving the bus on some of these arguments. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 Translation "Considers opening mind." "Decides not to." "Has nothing to contribute." Please. Wente is a hack plagiarist steeped in Boomer entitlement, I haven't the faintest idea why you'd...oh wait. Ah. Right. I mean, lookit this horseshit: As for those armies of would-be rapists lurking in every shadow – they’re your sons, your grandsons, your nephews and your brothers. I used to think the war on men was an exaggeration. I don’t think so any more. Only in Wenteworld would the idea that sex should be consensual, with communication between partners, be some gross violation of men's rights. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
waldo Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 I once took part in a discussion on rabble.ca where a significant number of women there considered pouting by a man when his wife wasn't interested in sex that day as rape, no bullshit, they completely beleive that it was coersion and therefore rape. That is the kind of people who are driving the bus on some of these arguments. from either a husband's or wife's perspective, does a marriage license preclude the need for consent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 1, 2014 Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 (edited) Only in Wenteworld would the idea that sex should be consensual, with communication between partners, be some gross violation of men's rights.The point you are missing is that women can be dishonest liars too. If the requirements for determining consent are raised too high then many innocent men can be victimized by dishonest women. You probably think that it does not matter because seeing 10 innocent men victimized by false allegations is worth the price of ensuring that one meek woman who is unable to say no can press charges. But others disagree and this does not mean the condone rape. It just means they recognize that relationships are complicated. Edited March 1, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 from either a husband's or wife's perspective, does a marriage license preclude the need for consent? Can you state categorically that every time you've had sex in your life your partner has 'enthusiastically and continually' affirmed their consent? Not saying no, does not mean yes, remember. Cooperating does not mean yes. One yes does not mean yes. Otherwise it's rape. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 1, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 1, 2014 And by the way, my title for this thread was a lot less dull than the substitute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 *Opens article* *Sees Wente* *Closes article* All I need to know, thanks for taking that one for the team. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 (unsurprisingly, a large number of female social activists are lesbians). So we must do everything we can to protect the poor, helpless, stupid woman (any woman dating men is stupid the way many of these activists see it) from being brutalized by the oversize, violent beast that is the male. And this includes protecting her from herself, because, well, obviously, she can't do it herself. I am assuming this is your perception of female social activists. Talk about stereotyping! You need to get out there and meet more women! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 I once took part in a discussion on rabble.ca where a significant number of women there considered pouting by a man when his wife wasn't interested in sex that day as rape, no bullshit, they completely beleive that it was coersion and therefore rape. That is the kind of people who are driving the bus on some of these arguments. Are there certain married women who are a certain 'kind of people'. I didn't know that. If a woman or man does not want to have sex with their partner and the partner coerces them, isn't that a form of rape? They said 'No'. No means no, regardless of the relationship between the two parties. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 from either a husband's or wife's perspective, does a marriage license preclude the need for consent? Oh, I don't know. As someone who has been married for over thirty years, I can't say with my hand on my heart that there has never been a case of "oh come on, it'll be fun" when one of us wasn't feeling too frisky, and the other one was. I have to make it perfectly clear though, I do not believe my wife deserves any jail time! Still, given the zeitgeist coming from our learning institutions, I can't help but feel a little... violated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 I don't quite get a lot of this duscussion at all. I am not bragging but I have over my years had a number of relationships, some long term, some short, some even one night stands. And sometimes there was even alcohol involved. I can honestly say I have never had any doubt about consensuality. I don't think one needs to be extremely perceptive to figure it out. But if that's not your forte, then perhaps a reasonable understanding of the language would suffice. NO, means no. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 In answer to Waldo's question criminal law is clear in Canada.Being married to someone does not give you consent to have sex with them. A husband most certainly is capable of raping his wife or using the correct legal words, sexual assault. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rue Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) On Guard it can be more complex than you think. We have cases of men in drunken stupors raping women, men sleep walking and raping women and the law is not clear with such cases. I am sure you heard there was one case a man successfully was not found guilty using the sleep walking defence and another did the same saying he could not form criminal intent capacity in his stupor. In criminal law one must show beyond reasonable doubt. It doesn't mean the rape targets can't still sue in civil court and win for assault and battery and be awarded for pain and suffering. Criminal law has been all over the place with sex assault. At one point it said you can lie to a prostitute, tell her you will pay her for sex with her, then refuse to pay after you are done, and that is still consensual sex even though you did so under false pretense. There was also a case where a man impersonated being a doctor and was assisted by his friend who was a doctor doing this so he could see a woman naked. The law said, no problem. There was a time when women were simply property of men. No more, no less so beating them or forcing sex on them was ok. Obviously our laws have changed. Today capacity and consent are very much inter-related. There is no consent if the person you have sex with is deemed to lack sufficient capacity, i.e., is a minor, mentally ill. if someone slips drugs in their drink that is a rape for that reason. Today as well as the capacity issue, sex is presumed to be consensual, i.e., between two legal aged persons who both consent, i.e., no coercion, no duress inflicted to procure the sex. If someone claims to have been sexually assaulted there are degrees of it. Full penetration and fondling get the same charge but when the sentence is handed out the severity of the act is considered in the length of the sentence. Virtually all sex assault cases today in Ontario are being plea bargained. Crowns do not like them. Invariably the persons claiming to be assaulted make problematic witnesses for obvious reasons, especially the more brutal the act or when they are children, mentally ill or seniors. There are new techniques used to cross examine sex victms. I worked on developing some during my graduate studies and I can tell you the Toronto police sex crimes unit is a fantastic one. Those officers are tops. They really are but its a difficult issue. Sometimes we see false charges being laid in custody disputes or when the alleged victim is mad at the other party for having split up with them or thy found out they were married or cheating on them or they are pregnant and panic and try protect their reputation. Some accusers have had false memory issues. There are some very questionable psychologists who may engage in hypnotism to retrieve memories but the problem with hypnotism is that it feeds the answer-the person goes into a sedated state where they will simply repeat back what they think the hypnotist wants to hear. When we used to cross examine children we suspected of being raped it could take many months. We might use music, play, animals to indirectly talk to them to find out what is going on but you can' ask direct questions to some people you have to wait for it to come out spontaneously as an aside during a discussion and then let it happen. For me working with youth and horses was a good way to do it. Horses have a remarkable quality to calm people down and make them feel safe believe it or not. All I can say is its a very complex issue and not black and white. There are at minimum two versions of what may have happened and when it comes to the mentally ill, children, seniors, it sometimes is impossible to really know what happened. The system tries hard to balance the presumption of innocence and assurance the evidence relied on is accurate and credible. I can tell you lie detectors are not accurate. A good repeat rapist easily can pass them. Rapists come in many different profiles. Some are sadists. They need to inflict pain to get aroused. Others are impotent and lash out in anger at women and probably do this because they have unresolved issues as to their own sexual identity. Some are abusive men who treat their wives, girlfriends and children like dirt. Do children who witness rape go on to rape. No that is a fallacy. Some may, some may not. We don't know yet. They arestill studying that one. Its probable you are more likely to commit violence if you see it a lot and become used to it yes. But not everyon e who comes from a violent family goes on to be violent. Certainly studies show high testosterone levels in men are associated with high sex drives. Its very complex. We do know in war or in crowds, both situations cause chemical changes in brains of the people in these settings. Being in a group or in a war and attacking civilians works to de-inhibit the brain like booze. Edited March 2, 2014 by Rue Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Argus Posted March 2, 2014 Author Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 I am assuming this is your perception of female social activists. Talk about stereotyping! You need to get out there and meet more women! "I have met many feminists who were not Lesbians but I have never met a Lesbian who was not a feminist." - Martha Shelle Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Dog Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 The point you are missing is that women can be dishonest liars too. If the requirements for determining consent are raised too high then many innocent men can be victimized by dishonest women. You probably think that it does not matter because seeing 10 innocent men victimized by false allegations is worth the price of ensuring that one meek woman who is unable to say no can press charges. But others disagree and this does not mean the condone rape. It just means they recognize that relationships are complicated. Ensuring consent is freely given and clearly communicated works for both parties. No grey area. As for the false allegations thing: given how many women don't report legit sexual assaults, why do you think this would encourage more women to lie about it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 (edited) Ensuring consent is freely given and clearly communicated works for both parties. No grey area.Not when your definition is based on amount of "enthusiasm". Not when your definition allows a woman to argue that yes does not mean yes. It creates nothing but a huge grey area. I am OK with the "no means no" definition. If a woman is not willing to communicate her lack of desire by clearly stating "No" then she should have no grounds for a sexual assault claim. As for the false allegations thing: given how many women don't report legit sexual assaults, why do you think this would encourage more women to lie about it?And how many women consent to sex and later feel guilty about it? Does it make any sense to give these women the ability to lay a rape charge after the fact? To bring up my first point: why do you think that it is too much to demand clear communication from women? Why do you thing the onus should be put entirely on men to demand that the woman communicate clearly? Is saying "NO" too hard the meek little victimized women that seem to inhabit your universe? Is that the problem? That despite rhetoric, are you really a huge sexist that thinks women need to be protected from nasty men? Edited March 2, 2014 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestCoastRunner Posted March 2, 2014 Report Share Posted March 2, 2014 "I have met many feminists who were not Lesbians but I have never met a Lesbian who was not a feminist." - Martha Shelle Ooohhh, that's very profound. And this adds to the discussion by.......? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 Translation "Considers opening mind." "Decides not to." "Has nothing to contribute." You can't really blame people if they avoid reading the work of a plagiarist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 I don't quite get a lot of this duscussion at all. I am not bragging but I have over my years had a number of relationships, some long term, some short, some even one night stands. And sometimes there was even alcohol involved. I can honestly say I have never had any doubt about consensuality. I don't think one needs to be extremely perceptive to figure it out. But if that's not your forte, then perhaps a reasonable understanding of the language would suffice. NO, means no. Ya, it's not rocket science, but apparently we have a small few here who are still having trouble grasping the facts of life. So ... for those who are still confused about basic decency, it should also be noted that a woman who is being raped may not say "no" because she may be afraid of being beaten or murdered too. I suppose if you're still uncertain whether you're raping a woman, the smart thing to do (duh) would be to stop ... and see if she wants you to continue. (duh) If she's just lying there passively , well, either she's just not really interested, scared, passed out/asleep/dead (maybe you should check) or you haven't done a decent job of stimulating her interest. In either case, just ploughing ahead would be totally gross. Oh ... and if you pick up the drunkest woman you can find to improve your chances of getting laid ... well ... you deserve whatever you get ... whether it's getting puked on ... beat up by her boyfriend ... a rape charge ... a baby ... the clap ... whatever ... You deserve it. There are women out there who are predators, and they're likely going to be easy pickups. (duh) Maybe a little caution, discretion and class would be wise for those who fear rape charges? And if any of you STILL have trouble figuring out any of the above ... well ... maybe you're just not qualified to drive that thing! Stick to liver in a jar. . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted March 3, 2014 Report Share Posted March 3, 2014 There are women out there who are predators, and they're likely going to be easy pickups. (duh) Maybe a little caution, discretion and class would be wise for those who fear rape charges? Yeah? Or maybe its the predator who should be stuck with the rape charge instead of the victim, regardless of gender? 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.