Consensual Sex and the definition of Rape

[GostHacked]

Something was bugging me more than usual about this Wente piece and I think I figured it out.

It starts here:

She's pretty glib here about the role of alcohol in blurring the lines between consent and assault.

Now consider this as a counterpoint:

Sounds pretty reasonable? That's Wente again, just a few months ago, warning girls away from the demon rum as it increases their chances of being sexually assaulted.

Seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. If alcohol leads women into a minefield of sexual assault (says 2013 Wente), then perhaps there's more to a lot of drunk sex than regret (as Wente seems to believe in 2014)?

Conclusion: Wente is a fatuous assclown.

Looks like you are pointing to a problem with alcohol, and not rape itself. The alcohol is a huge factor in why this stuff happens.

[Black Dog]

Looks like you are pointing to a problem with alcohol, and not rape itself. The alcohol is a huge factor in why this stuff happens.

I know. It seemed odd to me that Wente would write a couple of columns on alcohol and sexual assault and then turn around a few month later and completely downplay the same concerns she raised. Basically, she went from "don't drink or you'll get raped" to "meh, you probably just had bad drunk sex" in like 6 months.

This also struck me.

Wente then:

According to one study, more than 80 per cent of campus sexual assaults involve alcohol – often on both sides.

Wente now:

The belief that universities are hotbeds of sexual violence is fuelled by inflated statistics that are widely repeated as the gospel truth.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Black Dog

[GostHacked]

This also struck me.

Wente then:

Wente now:

So she calls herself out on the matter. Good to know.

[Black Dog]

So she calls herself out on the matter. Good to know.

I doubt she's that self aware.

I mean to be fair, it's likely at least one of the two articles was cribbed from someone else and don't represent her actual beliefs....

Edited March 3, 2014 by Black Dog

[Argus]

Yeah asking men and women to take equal responsibility for communicating their sexual desires/needs is infantilizing to women.

It seems to me that requiring women have the 'courage' to say no would be making them take equal responsibility for communicating their sexual desires. No?

What this does is absolve them from the requirement to communicate. Instead it puts the onus on the male to, in effect, demand they consent and do so enthusiastically and repeatedly. Again, this infantalizes women. "Are you sure? Are you really sure? Are you still okay? Is this okay? That didn't sound enthusiastic! Are you sure you're not scared! No, we need more enthusiasm. You're not terrified are you?"

It's the male taking total responsibility because the female is so timid and helpless she can't even say no nor can she be trusted to know her own mind if she simply says yes.

I'll explain it simply so when you recover from your flashback you can have it all laid out in front of you:

• 
  
  • • Women should say no if they don't want sex with someone.
    • But on planet earth, sometimes people (men and women) might not be comfortable doing so for a variety of reasons! And that's ok!

No, that's actually NOT okay. Tell you what, I'll agree to any woman who is so timid and helpless she can't bring herself to say no to be presumed a non-adult, provided she has someone else who has power of attorney over her (presumably a woman) because she clearly isn't an adult and can't be making decisions about herself.

Honestly, I've never known a woman as timid as you people seem to think they are (I don't even know any little girls that timid), and frankly, wouldn't want to know one. But I'd have to assume there's something wrong with her and someone ought to be looking after her, perhaps in some sort of institution.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

I know. It seemed odd to me that Wente would write a couple of columns on alcohol and sexual assault and then turn around a few month later and completely downplay the same concerns she raised. Basically, she went from "don't drink or you'll get raped" to "meh, you probably just had bad drunk sex" in like 6 months.

I don't see the contradiction.

I think she's making the point that, yes, it does happen. However, most women who have sex who happen to be a little intoxicated at the time still did so willingly and don't regret it or think of it as rape the next day. She's differentiating, I think, between the strict legal definition and the reality of young people today. They go out, they party, they get drunk, they go home and have sex.

If we put everyone in prison who'd ever had sex while legally intoxicated we'd have more people inside than outside.

[cybercoma]

There's some incredibly creepy and disgusting posts in this thread.

[jacee]

There's some incredibly creepy and disgusting posts in this thread.

yup

[bleeding heart]

I especially like the implication that there are a bunch of lesbians, who are totally ignorant about any sexual issues outside of the Sapphic realm, and who are comprised of "Activists" screaming "rape!" at every turn...without thinking complex matters through in a sober fashion....like only a heterosexual male (and the inimitable Ms. Wente, of course) can do.

Edited March 5, 2014 by bleeding heart

[Black Dog]

It seems to me that requiring women have the 'courage' to say no would be making them take equal responsibility for communicating their sexual desires. No?

"Requiring?" How would this requirement be enforced. Oh right: through rape.

"She didn't want to do it, but he was the captain of the football team and he wouldn't stop trying, so she caved in and therefore deserved to be raped." - Argus, basically.

What this does is absolve them from the requirement to communicate. Instead it puts the onus on the male to, in effect, demand they consent and do so enthusiastically and repeatedly. Again, this infantalizes women. "Are you sure? Are you really sure? Are you still okay? Is this okay? That didn't sound enthusiastic! Are you sure you're not scared! No, we need more enthusiasm. You're not terrified are you?"

Explain how asking men and women to take equal responsibility for communicating their sexual desires/needs absolves women from communication. Or have we decided words no longer have meaning?

It's the male taking total responsibility because the female is so timid and helpless she can't even say no nor can she be trusted to know her own mind if she simply says yes.

I remain curious as to why asking a man to ask his partner if she wants to have sex strikes you as such a outrageous requirement. It's like you feel asking a man to do anything but to grimly jackhammer away is an affront to masculinity or something. I sure can't figure it out.

No, that's actually NOT okay. Tell you what, I'll agree to any woman who is so timid and helpless she can't bring herself to say no to be presumed a non-adult, provided she has someone else who has power of attorney over her (presumably a woman) because she clearly isn't an adult and can't be making decisions about herself.

This is heading into comedy territory. I can practically hear you stomping your feet as you insist it's not okay for people to not want to have sex with someone who wants to have sex with them (which, by the way, goes for both genders, but I'm sure you've never considered that in your world of priapic men sitting around making racist jokes to each other.)

Honestly, I've never known a woman as timid as you people seem to think they are (I don't even know any little girls that timid), and frankly, wouldn't want to know one. But I'd have to assume there's something wrong with her and someone ought to be looking after her, perhaps in some sort of institution.

I can only assume then that you've never had any real conversations with women. Or had sex. Or both.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Black Dog

[eyeball]

There's some incredibly creepy and disgusting posts in this thread.

I got creeped out the minute I found out Margaret Wente initiated the discussion.

I'm sure glad I'm married so I don't have to give too much thought to all this - I never say no, I just do as I'm told.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."

Edited March 5, 2014 by eyeball

[bleeding heart]

Camille Paglia used to be the go-to source for this sort of thing....but as she's become completely unhinged as of late, Wente and other members of the "men-are-the-real-victims here/Cool Girls guild" have stepped into the mostly reactionary vacuum.

[Michael Hardner]

But... where is the discussion really happening for the various stakeholders. The on-campus folks probably have their own fora for discussion.

Is the MSM discussion relevant then ?

[TimG]

Explain how asking men and women to take equal responsibility for communicating their sexual desires/needs absolves women from communication. Or have we decided words no longer have meaning?

Because such logic has no relevance in a criminal court where someone is either guilty or not. If the responsibility is shared and neither party lives up to their responsibility then it would be impossible to convict. However, you know that is not your intent because you want men to be convicted for not living up to their responsibility. This implies (whether you admit it or not) that women have no responsibility. Hence Argus's comments and my earlier comment that you are really a sexist that does not see women as equals to men.

So spare us your disingenuous platitudes about "equal responsibility". If you really believed that you would not support criteria that that put the entire onus on men.

Edited March 5, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

Because such logic has no relevance in a criminal court where someone is either guilty or not. If the responsibility is shared and neither party lives up to their responsibility then it would be impossible to convict. However, you know that is not your intent because you want men to be convicted for not living up to their responsibility. This implies (whether you admit it or not) that women have no responsibility. Hence Argus's comments and my earlier comment that you are really a sexist that does not see women as equals to men.

So spare us your disingenuous platitudes about "equal responsibility".

I sure hope you don't have daughters.

[Argus]

"She didn't want to do it, but he was the captain of the football team and he wouldn't stop trying, so she caved in and therefore deserved to be raped." - Argus, basically.

And once again I'm seeing a pattern among Lefties. Just as you are basically bigots who feel non-whites are inferiors, and thus need your paternalistic protection, you also denigrate women as children, non-adults, pathetic creatures without the ability to even express their preferences or make decisions about them.

Absent force, inebriation or coercion, if she decides to have sex then it's NOT rape. That's true whether she's 'enthusiastic' about the prospect, or whether she just decides to go ahead because the boyfriend wants it.

Explain how asking men and women to take equal responsibility for communicating their sexual desires/needs absolves women from communication.

That's not what you're asking. What you're asking is for men to have all responsibility for communicating both sides because you don't believe women are capable of expressing themselves.

]I remain curious as to why asking a man to ask his partner if she wants to have sex strikes you as such a outrageous requirement

I remain curious about why you constantly misstate the issue and my position. You answer me and then I'll answer you.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Argus

[Argus]

There's some incredibly creepy and disgusting posts in this thread.

Really? Name one, and maybe we can get into how utterly, utterly confused you are yet again.

[Black Dog]

Because such logic has no relevance in a criminal court where someone is either guilty or not.

Straw man. We weren't talking about criminal court. At least I wasn't. More general guidelines on how not to be a creep.

If the responsibility is shared and neither party lives up to their responsibility then it would be impossible to convict. However, you know that is not your intent because you want men to be convicted for not living up to their responsibility.

Straw man.

This implies (whether you admit it or not) that women have no responsibility.Hence Argus's comments and my earlier comment that you are really a sexist that does not see women as equals to men.

That's not what I implied. It's what you infered. But that's not my problem.

So spare us your disingenuous platitudes about "equal responsibility". If you really believed that you would not support criteria that that put the entire onus on men.

Straw man hat trick. Way to go champ.

[Black Dog]

And once again I'm seeing a pattern among Lefties. Just as you are basically bigots who feel non-whites are inferiors, and thus need your paternalistic protection, you also denigrate women as children, non-adults, pathetic creatures without the ability to even express their preferences or make decisions about them.

There's simply nothing in what I've said that would lead a reasonable human being to make such a conclusion.

Absent force, inebriation or coercion, if she decides to have sex then it's NOT rape. That's true whether she's 'enthusiastic' about the prospect, or whether she just decides to go ahead because the boyfriend wants it.

True as far as the letter of the law goes, but even the CC leaves wiggle room. It depends on the circumstances, which is why its a good idea not to make it a binary.

[That's not what you're asking. What you're asking is for men to have all responsibility for communicating both sides because you don't believe women are capable of expressing themselves.

Cite or GTFO.

I remain curious about why you constantly misstate the issue and my position. You answer me and then I'll answer you.

That's exactly what you've been doing to me.

"Women and men should communicate."

"ARG Y U WANT MEN TO DO EVERYTHING??"

But to answer your question: you've been whining incessantly about the suggestion, while hiding behind the laughable notion that it infantilizes women for men to have to ask. and even though I've made it clear it's a two-way street (to say nothing of its universal application to same sex relationships where the gender dynamics are different).

[Argus]

But to answer your question: you've been whining incessantly about the suggestion, while hiding behind the laughable notion that it infantilizes women for men to have to ask. and even though I've made it clear it's a two-way street (to say nothing of its universal application to same sex relationships where the gender dynamics are different).

I don't know. Maybe you just have trouble reading. Is English your fourth or fifth language? Are you using google's translator to try and figure out what the conversation is?

Nothing about this thread is about men seeking permission for sex. It is about the statement that in order to have sex that consent has to be both 'enthusiastic' and 'continuous', or else the sexual act constitutes rape. It is the concept that "yes" does not mean "yes" that we are discussing.

Maybe you'd like to rephrase everything you've said so far now.

Edited March 5, 2014 by Argus

[TimG]

Straw man. We weren't talking about criminal court. At least I wasn't. More general guidelines on how not to be a creep.

No we are not. The discussion is about what constitutes rape which is a criminal charge. Any discussion on this topic means we are discussing how these things would play out in a criminal court. It is not about not being a jerk. If you really did not understand that then you are pretty clueless.

Do you wish revise your claims given that you now know we are talking about the criminal definition of rape? Or are you going to continue to treat women as children that have no responsibility?

[g_bambino]

I'm sure glad I'm married so I don't have to give too much thought to all this - I never say no, I just do as I'm told.

By the definition seemingly held by some, if that extends to sex, it constitutes rape.

[Black Dog]

I don't know. Maybe you just have trouble reading. Is English your fourth or fifth language? Are you using google's translator to try and figure out what the conversation is?

Nothing about this thread is about men seeking permission for sex. It is about the statement that in order to have sex that consent has to be both 'enthusiastic' and 'continuous', or else the sexual act constitutes rape. It is the concept that "yes" does not mean "yes" that we are discussing.

Maybe you'd like to rephrase everything you've said so far now.

That wasn't the aspect under discussion when you woke up in your rocking chair and decided to wade back in. It was very much about "seeking permission for sex" or otherwise determining consent.

Finally, since the criminal code itself places the onus on one of the parties to "take reasonable steps...to ascertain that the complainant was consenting" there's certainly a legal basis for suggesting that its a good idea for the man (though again, the principle applies across the board) ensures the person he's having sex with wants to have sex. That doesn't negate the common sense principle that women should speak up, but it makes perfect sense itself.

It's also funny as hell that the campaign itself implicitly acknowledges the importance of women vocalizing consent, but don't let that get in the way of your mock concern for women.

[eyeball]

By the definition seemingly held by some, if that extends to sex, it constitutes rape.

Does it constitute slavery when it extends to doing the dishes?

[cybercoma]

Because such logic has no relevance in a criminal court where someone is either guilty or not.

An interesting diversion from comments you've made in the past that said, "not guilty does not mean innocent." Why does that logic suddenly not apply here?