As cheesy as it sounds, I think that this page largely sums up the issue, and WHY it is rape.
Simply put: if there is a contract (implicit or explicit) between person A and person B, that contract cannot be applied to persons C, D, and E without the expressed consent of person A.
That is like taking a gift certificate that you got from Wendy's and trying to use it at Burger King and McDonald's. Just because Wendy's recognizes that tender, it does not mean that other restaurants need to recognize that tender.
Also, as the page says, consent is an ongoing process because the nature of communication is fluid.
Not too long ago, a woman was sleepwalking and was raped. Legally, that sleepwalking woman and the drunk woman at the party are BOTH considered incapacitated and are not reliable witnesses to whether they themselves gave consent, so there is no way that they could be considered able to give clear consent
( ... )
If a woman is drunk and has sex with a bunch of guys all at once, that's a clearer form of rape (to me) because there is no way that she was likely to have given consent to that sex act. Unless there's a signed document, proof of payment, and cameras around, it becomes more clear to me that people took advantage of a person in that scenario.
That's a helluva judgment call... some folks get down like that without cameras or money... just sayin'.
However, it's not really helpful for this discussion.
The page combines ethical, legal, and practical issues into a short online pamphlet that constitutes a great guide for young people's behavior.
Such a pamphlet cannot really help in a discussion that seeks to separate legal from ethical issues, and seeks to discuss boundaries and grey areas.
With respect to the originally-posted question: the problem (which exemplifies the need for explicit boundaries wherever possible) is that the contract was implicit, and its vague nature did not clearly define the participants; there were unstated expectations that were never explicitly defined.
That makes things more difficult. In any context, it is harder to hold people criminally or ethically responsible for the violation of unstated expectations.
I agree that the nature of the sex act makes rape more likely; but I really don't know if that constitutes anything even vaguely like "proof"...
Simply put: if there is a contract (implicit or explicit) between person A and person B, that contract cannot be applied to persons C, D, and E without the expressed consent of person A.
That is like taking a gift certificate that you got from Wendy's and trying to use it at Burger King and McDonald's. Just because Wendy's recognizes that tender, it does not mean that other restaurants need to recognize that tender.
Also, as the page says, consent is an ongoing process because the nature of communication is fluid.
Not too long ago, a woman was sleepwalking and was raped. Legally, that sleepwalking woman and the drunk woman at the party are BOTH considered incapacitated and are not reliable witnesses to whether they themselves gave consent, so there is no way that they could be considered able to give clear consent ( ... )
Reply
That's a helluva judgment call... some folks get down like that without cameras or money... just sayin'.
Reply
Intoxication = impaired judgement. Any person willing to sleep with someone whose judgement is impaired, is suspect to me.
Reply
But "suspect" should not be the same as "automatically guilty".
Reply
However, it's not really helpful for this discussion.
The page combines ethical, legal, and practical issues into a short online pamphlet that constitutes a great guide for young people's behavior.
Such a pamphlet cannot really help in a discussion that seeks to separate legal from ethical issues, and seeks to discuss boundaries and grey areas.
With respect to the originally-posted question: the problem (which exemplifies the need for explicit boundaries wherever possible) is that the contract was implicit, and its vague nature did not clearly define the participants; there were unstated expectations that were never explicitly defined.
That makes things more difficult. In any context, it is harder to hold people criminally or ethically responsible for the violation of unstated expectations.
I agree that the nature of the sex act makes rape more likely; but I really don't know if that constitutes anything even vaguely like "proof"...
Reply
Leave a comment