FemiNotSee

I think about this in worst-case terms which often means addressing the legal side of things. If you're arguing that we should be more compassionate to those with whom we have intimate relationships, however brief, I have no issue with that at all. Where I have a problem is when someone is punished for an action and was given consent for that action to be performed. Should someone be punished for an act that both parties consented to because someone else develops feelings of regret later on? I would say "absolutely not." People are responsible for their choices and that includes responsibility for the consent that they give, even if that consent is regretted.

The sex offender registry does not have any actual value to society. The vast majority of sex offenders do not commit a new sex crime within 10 years of release from prison (USDOJ Bureau of Justice statistics says 5.3% recidivate within 3 years and New York Department of Corrections stats say 6% recidivate within 10 years) and the sex offender registry is largely feel-good security theater that strongly hinders rehabilitation and reintegration into society. I agree that clear false accusations should be criminally prosecuted but I also believe that the criminal registries need to be abolished and never should have been created in the first place. You should advocate for criminal prosecution, not registration. Registries are a modern form of public shaming (sort of an internet pillory) and we moved away from that kind of punishment a long time ago for several very good reasons.

The underlying problem you seem to want to address is the impact that a rape accusation has on the accused person's life. Unfortunately, that's a problem of public perception, and the only way to fix it is to go through the pain of these clearly false or trumped-up accusations and show all of society that false accusations DO exist and that they should learn to reserve their personal judgment of a person until the courts have an opportunity to do what they're designed to do. A casual observer does not have the fact-finding power of the courts and has no business coming to ANY conclusion of guilt based on mere accusation.

It's ridiculous because the logic is childishly oversimplified. "If there's a chance that even one child can be raped" is a very strict standard and by that logic all humans should be imprisoned in isolation because there's always a chance, however slim. Furthermore, what if it causes some rapes but prevents more rapes than it causes? The research I've seen on the subject suggests this is probably the case. If the goal is to reduce overall rapes then why have a standard like "if there is even a chance that a single incident will occur..." which ignores all incidents that already occur?

Why does everything have to have statistics behind it?

Because you have made assertions and you need to provide logical proof of your assertions. Appeals to emotion are not logically valid. You can't say that you FEEL like something naturally follows and then assert that feeling as factual. You made assertions and others want proof that your assertions are factual in nature and supported by something other than your own intuition and fear.

Furthermore, there IS scientific research on this subject which is relatively easy to find, but no one in this thread is bothering to look any of it up. Child pornography possession was 100% legal in Japan until it was banned in 2014 and as of 2016 Japan's rate of suspected abuse of minors had increased 46.5% over 2015 and child pornography victimization increased 45.1% over 2015. I also cited a study in one of my comments here which found that "the incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible."

There is some research available and most of what I have found suggests that possession of child pornography should be legalized to minimize child sexual abuse. This makes a lot of people extremely uncomfortable to the point that they lose their minds but it's a conclusion borne out of actual scientific research. One could argue based on available research that those who are against legalization could reduce actual child sexual abuse if they changed their position but they prefer to maintain their own comfort even if it means more kids get abused as a result. The information I've seen is based primarily on hard crime statistics rather than significantly weaker evidence such as surveys. I have seen several studies with contrary conclusions but all of them so far have had obvious methodology tailoring to find premises supporting the desired conclusion. In one instance I recall the study authors surveyed exclusively imprisoned recidivist child rapists and framed questions to maximize their affirmative responses, then the study attempted to extrapolate that out to a set of society-wide trends.

Available evidence so far indicates legalization of child pornography reduces child sexual abuse. This would generally include lolicon since it is a drawn approximation of child pornography. You DO want to reduce the number of children that are sexually abused, correct? Choosing to ignore the research on the subject puts you in the position of supporting increased child sexual abuse, however indirectly.

Don't have a comprehensive academic knowledge of the subject but this study seems to apply:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/11/101130111326.htm

"[T]he incidence of child sex abuse has fallen since 1989, when child pornography became readily accessible."

the idea that consent is merely "permission given"

That's exactly what consent is. You said

a shift in perspective toward a more holistic approach to consent - an extension of shared responsibility for the ramifications of the whole experience

which is a lot of words that don't seem to say anything. Both parties who consent to something already have to "share responsibility for the ramifications." It's not even a matter of choice; you have to live with what happened, for better or worse, and so does whoever else chose to be involved. That's just how reality works.

In "a world where we could be held liable for retroactive rape" the fundamental fabric of society breaks down, namely the ability of two people to make an agreement on something and expect that the terms set under that agreement will be followed by both parties. Anyone who advocates for ex post facto revocation of consent is simply wrong, much in the same way that those who attempted to legislate pi = 3 were wrong.

I read every single thing you wrote and fail to see what you're trying to say. Where are you trying to go with this, and what does it have to do with the fact that past consent cannot be revoked retroactively? I have no idea what you're actually advocating. Can you condense it down to an "elevator speech" that even a stubborn, ignorant fool like myself can comprehend?

You are already correct; your view is a fact and does not need to be changed. Consent in the past can certainly be regretted and ongoing consent can be revoked, but past consent can never be revoked retroactively. If this were not the case, all contracts and agreements from the casual to the formal between all people are void at the whim of anyone who made the agreement.

I have read some of the attempts to change your mind and it seems that all of their objections fit under one of two categories: either they already work under the "past consent cannot be revoked retroactively" framework or they are elaborate straw man fallacies which only serve to distract and muddy the waters to somehow validate a double standard where the straw man builder wishes that SOME consent could be withdrawn after the fact.

In the case of the "had sex with twin" hypothetical, the consent was given and cannot be revoked. "But that's rape because of deception!" the poser of the hypothetical would respond, and YES, it is. Why? Because the consent was given for sex with the "right" twin rather than the "wrong" twin, therefore the "wrong" twin deceptively replacing the "right" twin has obtained consent for sex with someone other than themselves.

In the case of questionable sobriety, the only time consent cannot be given is when the drunk person in question is losing consciousness. Being drunk does not shield you from the consequences of your actions. A favorite among feminists is to take this very simple hard truth and try to muddy it up with "but what if they wouldn't have consented to it if they were sober?!" The logical response is that that question is completely irrelevant because they were not sober and they are still responsible for their actions. Regretting your choices doesn't wash away your choices. Learn from your regret and make different choices in the future. Now if you're unable to walk or passing out? THEN you aren't able to make a choice nor signal consent in any way, but if you're still ambulatory, you're still responsible for your choices, period.

How about that HIV hypothetical posed in this thread? How does withholding information that might cause consent to not be given stack up under this framework? Simple: the consent is still valid, but the withholding of potentially damaging information to obtain that consent is fraud and the intentional potential infection of another person with a life-threatening disease is assault. Same deal with purchasing an item with known defects that the seller withheld: the transaction was consensual but a separate act of fraud was committed by the seller to make it happen.

What about where a significant power imbalance exists between the person seeking consent and the person demanding consent? Simple answer: the consent was still given, but if an abuse of power is used to obtain that consent then that abuse of power is the act of wrongdoing. The mere existence of an imbalance of power or authority in a relationship is not sufficient; there must be clear leverage of that power for unrelated personal gain and that abuse of power is what must be punished.

A related issue exists with the "fire in a crowded theater" example used to wrongly justify restrictions on freedom of speech. One should always be free to yell "fire!" in a crowded theater; if this results in a trampling mob injuring or killing people to escape the theater, the punishable offense is the trampling and injury to others caused by the deception rather than the mere act of shouting "fire!"

tl;dr: consent in the past cannot be retroactively withdrawn. This is not a matter of opinion.

Wow, the posts there are really something. I love me a good train wreck.