あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]tom_buzzBritish Anarchist-leaning Capitalist - http://libertybook.club 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (20子コメント)

If they "submit" out of drunkness, i.e. their judgement was impaired, not that they were too drunk to actually put up a decent fight, then no, that's not a rape for the same reason it's not rape when a guy gets hammered and has sex with someone he later finds repulsive. It's just poor judgement assisted by alcohol.

[–]0xstev3Agorist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I think it's close to fraud in the sense that I push you into going drinking with me, get you drunk as fuck, and then have you sign a contract that nobody in their right mind would sign. You're essentially lying about your product by tricking the other person into agreeing to it.

[–]InitiumNovumFisting deep for liberty 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I believe they did something similar with Native American chiefs, brought them into their camp, got them really really drunk and had them sign away all their tribe's lands.

[–]natermer 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The only real best solution to this is not to get shitfaced around strangers. Or if you do decide to do that make arrangements to be baby sited by a sober person you trust.

One of the more disturbing and mentally ill facets of our culture is this sort of 'Cult of Victim-hood'. There is this popular notion that anybody (especially women) can pretty much engage any sort of high risk behavior that they want with no consequences. If, then, somebody was to do something untoward them while engaging in high risk behavior then they are automatically the most evil people on the planet and should be punished... while the 'victim' should be cherished, praised, and supported on a few different levels (emotionally, financially, legally, etc)

And while it is technically true that people should be able to engage in high risk behavior without being assaulted or whatever... that is not how things work in the real world. And the sad part is that people are being trained by schools and support groups to volunteer for terrible things to happen to them.

High risk behavior is exciting and stimulating because it is high risk. Otherwise what is the point? It's excited and titillating to do 'naughty' things. It's a conscious decision to engage in behavior that could land you in a lot of trouble because it's excited to put yourselves in those situations.

So... due to the nature of high risk behavior.. If you are a young women and you go half-naked into a house full of pretty much anonymous, single, young men and want to get shit-faced on drugs and alcohol.. then that actually amounts to a tentative consent for sexual things to happen to you.

Some women actually engage in that behavior because they WANT to get laid while getting drunk and stoned. It's fun. I've met people like that, they exist and they really do like just hooking up with people at a party. Some women don't... how is anybody person suppose to really tell the difference when they look and behave in a almost identical fashion?

So really what should be taught at schools, if people wanted to actually have a positive effect is that:

  1. Finding a women passed out drunk in your bed is not a invitation to have sex.

  2. Don't go to stranger's parties and get wasted and pass out on their beds if you don't want to have sex with them.

Don't forget at these sort of situations everybody ends up fucking wasted. It's not like men should be considered immune from bad judgment either.

Of course this applies to all sorts of high risk behavior, not just getting drunk at parties. If you are a man and you like to get into frequent arguments at bars it's a actual invitation to getting your ass kicked. Walking around in bad neighborhoods and flashing high end clothing, accessories, and money is a invitation to get robbed. Leaving tools in unlocked in the back of your pickup at a shopping center is a invitation to get them stolen. So on and so forth. Sure robbing somebody or punching somebody in the face is something I would never condone.. just like I'd probably kick the shit out of anybody I saw feeling up passed out girl at a party.. but it in these situations these people have taken a active participation in turning themselves into victims. The blame is not entirely on the criminal.

Now if somebody was to go to a party with friends and is drinking responsibly, but then some guy spikes her drink and manipulates her to a bad situation... then that guy is a shitstain of a lowest order and deserves entirely to be considered a rapist and a fraud.

[–]0xstev3Agorist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The only real best solution to this is not to get shitfaced around strangers. Or if you do decide to do that make arrangements to be baby sited by a sober person you trust.

I agree with being proactive but I think teaching people better what consent is is a fine thing to do, and we're not necessarily talking about strangers here.

If, then, somebody was to do something untoward them while engaging in high risk behavior then they are automatically the most evil people on the planet and should be punished...

This is fine with me, minus the moral damnation. Walking through the hood at night is stupid and you're definitely asking to get your ass beat, but you have every right to walk through it.

So... due to the nature of high risk behavior

and I don't think it's fair to assume if you've been date raped that there's even a high chance you've been engaging in 'high risk behaviour'.

If you are a young women and you go half-naked into a house full of pretty much anonymous, single, young men and want to get shit-faced on drugs and alcohol.. then that actually amounts to a tentative consent for sexual things to happen to you.

No, it really doesn't??

Some women don't... how is anybody person suppose to really tell the difference when they look and behave in a almost identical fashion?

Ask them?

Don't go to stranger's parties and get wasted and pass out on their beds if you don't want to have sex with them.

Passing out on someone's bed isn't you giving them consent to fuck you.

The blame is not entirely on the criminal.

I'm not sure what blame you're talking about but I would say they should be 100% legally at fault.

[–]quantumfox64Voluntarist 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I think it's close to fraud in the sense that I push you into going drinking with me, get you drunk as fuck, and then have you sign a contract that nobody in their right mind would sign. You're essentially lying about your product by tricking the other person into agreeing to it.

I don't know that I would go so far as to call it fraud, but most voluntary agreements are based on the presumption that both parties are in the correct state of mind; however, this particular situation does not involve the sort of action that can later be revoked. I think that we can agree that there is some level of intoxication or what-have-you that would not nullify such an agreement, but I'm unsure as to whether the onus of responsibility should be on the person attempting to engage in intercourse... as that person may similarly be intoxicated. So then who is at fault? Are they defrauding each other? I don't think that's quite right.

An interesting discussion I had the other day with a friend was about this scenario:

Say every time you fed someone ice cream they would have sex with you. Not out of voluntary tit-for-tat, mind you, but because they were essentially out of their state of mind -- the ice cream led them to a state of being where they would, without fail, submit. Is this coercion then to take advantage of this person? Arguably yes, although some people would say it depends on whether the person taking the ice cream was aware of the effects (after which point it could become somewhat murkier).

Now let's apply the same concept but with something that lubricates willingness to perform a certain action. Would interacting with a person with impaired judgement also be coercive? Again, assuming the person was aware of the effects, it seems like they share some responsibility for what happens, not unlike a recreational drug user is responsible for their own safety. But the real question here is, if someone has sex with that person, is it rape? And I say no. And the reason I say no is not because the person was in the state of mind for positive consent, but because I believe that the action of rape requires the intentional disregard for the expression of a negative either implicitly or explicitly, just as an affirmation can come either implicitly or explicitly.

I think someone being unable to physically participate in the act of sex, for example, demonstrates an implicit negative, as is the incapability of expressing a positive or negative (that is, in the absence of an implicit affirmative, and when incapable of providing an explicit affirmative or negative, the individual is demonstrating an implicit negative).

What are your thoughts on that?

[–]PhrenicoLibertarian Transhumanist 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Say every time you fed someone ice cream they would have sex with you. Not out of voluntary tit-for-tat, mind you, but because they were essentially out of their state of mind -- the ice cream led them to a state of being where they would, without fail, submit. Is this coercion then to take advantage of this person?

Yes (and I don't think it's taking advantage) for two reasons (though the second reason, while valid, I would use discretion before acting on):

  1. They voluntarily decided to eat ice cream and knew the consequences (I'm assuming they did, or else it would make your hypothetical clearly rape)

  2. Whatever their current state of mind, they agree. Who are we to say whether their mind-state post ice cream is more impaired than their mindstate pre ice cream? Maybe before they've eaten, they're hungry and willing to do anything for food.

And I'm sure you know that hormones and other involuntary stimuli do very similar, but less extreme, things to our psychology as your hypothetical ice-cream example.

[–]InitiumNovumFisting deep for liberty -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Right so according to your logic it's not rape to spike someone's drink and have sex with them when they're unconscious because their "judgement was impaired". Similarly, according to your logic, it's not rape to have sex with someone when they're in a deep sleep. It's just as bad as rape and it should be prosecuted as such. I don't understand how this is a contentious point.

[–]SnakesoverEaglesMurray Rothbard 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (5子コメント)

He didn't say anything like that dude.

[–]tom_buzzBritish Anarchist-leaning Capitalist - http://libertybook.club 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't get why it's impossible to talk about this subject without having your view caricatured and words put into your mouth.

[–]InitiumNovumFisting deep for liberty -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

He's just another rape apologist.

[–]tom_buzzBritish Anarchist-leaning Capitalist - http://libertybook.club 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I find rape abhorrent. And by rape I'm talking about actually physically having sex against their will. Not the new man-hating definition which is basically "any time a man has sex with a woman and she didn't sign a form in triplicate."

Men are not morally responsible for women's bad decisions. If she sleeps with you and she drank the alcohol of her own free will, and that alcohol wasn't in any way interfered with, it's not rape.

If I got hammered and got seduced by some fat pig, there's no way I'd be allowed to claim I was date-raped.

[–]InitiumNovumFisting deep for liberty 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

If someone is drunk and their judgement is heavily impaired then their will or ability to consent is also impaired. Any sex that lacks consent is rape and it doesn't matter if it's man-on-woman, man-on-man, woman-on-woman or woman-on-man, it's rape.

[–]tom_buzzBritish Anarchist-leaning Capitalist - http://libertybook.club 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

my point is, if I was "date raped" by a woman under your definition, I doubt anyone would care.

I also find the idea that we need to somehow protect women from predatory men is a bit fucking stupid. Women like sex too. Sex is one of the best things about being alive, and rape is really rare. Most of those stats that say it's common come from expanding the definition of rape insanely wide. Teaching everyone to find sex almost inherently violent and exploitative is fucking retarded.

The obvious contradiction is illustrated by that scene in Superbad where Michael Cera is downing booze so he's as drunk as the girl he wants to fuck because "it's ok if he's drunk too" even though she wanted sex anyway, regardless of whether he was drunk or not.

Fucking a passed out girl is rape, undoubtedly. If a girl is very drunk and is a willing, active participant at the time, in no way is that rape. To say it is is just misandry, and a guilty-by-default attitude to men.

Teaching men to be really really cautious and careful and "is that ok, are you sure, etc" is unfair on women too since it robs them of the decisive masculinity they're attracted to.

[–]tom_buzzBritish Anarchist-leaning Capitalist - http://libertybook.club 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Where did I say anything about spiking them? If they chose to get into a judgement-impaired state their actions are still their own responsibility. This is the same as when you get into a drunken fight and glass someone. Your choices are your own responsibility and being drunk will not absolve you of that in court.

[–]victort123 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (5子コメント)

If they "submit" out of drunkness, i.e. their judgement was impaired, not that they were too drunk to actually put up a decent fight, then no, that's not a rape for the same reason it's not rape when a guy gets hammered and has sex with someone he later finds repulsive. It's just poor judgement assisted by alcohol.

I also question whether it should be classified as rape (maybe a lesser form, or something). However, I would still classify it as something morally wrong. It is not rape if a guy gets hammered and has sex with someone ugly, so long as initiated/actively pursued sex. However, if the girl did not actively consent to sex, and was too inebriated to say no/resist, then she did not consent. To make a comparison, I cannot walk on your property without your consent, perform some actions, and then justify my trespassing by saying "you never said I couldn't". That action requires you to actively give me your consent. All these feminists are asking for is that the same applies for sex. I agree with Lew in some of his criticisms, but fundamentally, what they are doing is correct in terms of libertarian principles.

[–]tom_buzzBritish Anarchist-leaning Capitalist - http://libertybook.club -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I also question whether it should be classified as rape (maybe a lesser form, or something)

It's not rape full stop. It's a drunken mistake. Men are not responsible for women's decisions. If she was a willing participant, no matter how drunk, it's definitely not rape. It might be morally questionable if you're sober and predating on drunk girls, but should not be illegal.

if the girl did not actively consent to sex

There's the problem, I can't think of a single time in my life where there was "active consent" when I had sex. Try asking a girl "do you definitely consent?" in the heat of passion and see if you still get laid.

I agree with Lew in some of his criticisms, but fundamentally, what they are doing is correct in terms of libertarian principles.

It's an old Rothbard article, and I disagree that the new man-hating, anti-rape, rape-until-proven-consensual nonsense is "correct in terms of libertarian principles." It's not

[–]victort123 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

It's not rape full stop. It's a drunken mistake. Men are not responsible for women's decisions. If she was a willing participant, no matter how drunk, it's definitely not rape. It might be morally questionable if you're sober and predating on drunk girls, but should not be illegal.

You didn't respond to my metaphor. Let's try another one. Say I am completely drunk, and you convince me to take out my wallet, and then take my money. I am unable to object, and maybe unable to realize exactly what is happening. Is that theft or not?

There's the problem, I can't think of a single time in my life where there was "active consent" when I had sex. Try asking a girl "do you definitely consent?" in the heat of passion and see if you still get laid.

You would, especially if she actually wants to. I have had many times when I saw "want to have sex" or something similar, and the girl responded yes. Admittedly, it wasn't every time, but it certainly doesn't instantly kill all the romance to say "let's fuck". It doesn't have to be formal, but unless your sex involves complete silence and the girl pushing you away every chance you get, you will almost certainly get an affirmation if you ask in the heat of the moment.

It's an old Rothbard article, and I disagree that the new man-hating, anti-rape, rape-until-proven-consensual nonsense is "correct in terms of libertarian principles." It's not

Ok, so it's ok for me to break into your house as long as I do it without you saying no? Just want to clarify here. (Note, I do agree with the underlying criticisms here - the bias against men especially, and I have very limited support for this new feminist movement. I am strictly arguing the fundamentals here)

[–]tom_buzzBritish Anarchist-leaning Capitalist - http://libertybook.club -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

"want to have sex"

My gf hates that phrase. Total turn-off. People do not need verbal consent to have sex (also, why am I asking her, why doesn't she have to ask me?). Why is my consent assumed because I'm male, she regularly initiates. The other side of the coin is that what does it matter if you get verbal consent and she still decides she was drunk so therefore rape.

The whole debate is a distraction. It makes no sense, we've just come to accept certain core parts of it uncritically.

You didn't respond to my metaphor. Let's try another one. Say I am completely drunk, and you convince me to take out my wallet, and then take my money. I am unable to object, and maybe unable to realize exactly what is happening. Is that theft or not?

In a court of law. No. If I persuade you to hand over the money instead of just taking it from the wallet. And how is "tricking you into giving me money because your drunk" a good metaphor for "having sex with someone you might not have done normally because your standards/inhibitions were lowered." The two aren't relevant. It's subconsciously viewing the sex through that "inherently exploitative" "man taking something from the woman" sexist lense.

[–]victort123 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (1子コメント)

My gf hates that phrase. Total turn-off. People do not need verbal consent to have sex (also, why am I asking her, why doesn't she have to ask me?).

Fair criticism, doesn't touch the fundamentals of it at all. If it's an established relationship, then ongoing consent has generally been given. Just as I do not need ongoing consent to visit my clients once a relationship has been established, as they have given consent to do it ongoing. The criticism of why you have to ask, not her, is completely valid.

In a court of law. No.

Really? I find that hard to believe. I never agreed to give you my money - you took it without my permission.

[–]tom_buzzBritish Anarchist-leaning Capitalist - http://libertybook.club -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If it's an established relationship, then ongoing consent has generally been given.

From the beginning that was the case. If I'd acted the way you're saying, we wouldn't be together. Women like the man to take the lead, and they certainly don't want to take responsibility for their actions during the process of being swept off their feet. That would be a major buzzkill.

I never agreed to give you my money

You did agree, the argument is that your judgement was too impaired for you to agree properly.

You also haven't addressed why tricking someone out of money is an adequate metaphor for drunken sex you later regret.