"I'm not claiming that that was what happened; I'm just saying that filmed semicomatose intercourse does not, for me, prove rape. I suspect that the law backs me up, and I suspect that that's why the case never went to trial."
I knew you were going to say that. I had a response typed out and everything, but I erased it to give you the benefit of the doubt.
You speak English fairly well. I'll go ahead and say you're a native speaker; things like context and implication aren't foreign concepts to you.
When you write:
"For instance, someone can get intoxicated with members of the opposite sex for the purpose of intercourse- should that consent be totally invalidated by their lack of consent at the moment of entry? I don't think so."
and then match that with
"I'm not claiming that that was what happened; I'm just saying that filmed semicomatose intercourse does not, for me, prove rape. I suspect that the law backs me up, and I suspect that that's why the case never went to trial."
you imply that, regardless of what "the law says" (which you seem to think agrees with you--it doesn't, actually) any consent given prior to "the moment of entry" is actual consent
( ... )
"Consent, if you haven't noticed, is fluid. A man or woman can deny consent at any time."
"A man or woman who is unable to continuously give consent is not giving consent."
Thank you for bringing up these points. I wonder if people are pretending to be fucking brain dead for kicks or if they actually believe the bullshit they are spouting. I don't know which is scarier.
Re: Right...daveanthonyJanuary 26 2008, 19:55:04 UTC
I do feel that an explicit verbal agreement to drunken sex (even if vague as to which participants should be involved) followed by deliberate overconsumption of alcohol constitutes consent to... drunken sex.
And here is the central flaw of your position. I just pointed this about above. You are straight-up wrong to say that this constitutes consent to drunken sex because you specifically state that it is the case "even if vague as to which participants should be involved." You are confusing intent with consent. A woman's intent may be to have drunken sex with a then-unknown man. But she is NOT giving consent to any man to have sex with her. Consent does not refer or apply only to acts, but the person with whom those acts are done. You CANNOT separate consent from party the way you do here and claim some kind of before-the-fact consent. Sex has to be consented to not only on the basis of the act itself, but the person with which that act is performed.
A woman intending to have sex with a guy is not in any way consenting to
( ... )
Reply
Reply
"I'm not claiming that that was what happened; I'm just saying that filmed semicomatose intercourse does not, for me, prove rape. I suspect that the law backs me up, and I suspect that that's why the case never went to trial."
Reply
I do think that such a film should be basis for investigation. But more investigation and context would still be necessary to establish proof.
Reply
You speak English fairly well. I'll go ahead and say you're a native speaker; things like context and implication aren't foreign concepts to you.
When you write:
"For instance, someone can get intoxicated with members of the opposite sex for the purpose of intercourse- should that consent be totally invalidated by their lack of consent at the moment of entry? I don't think so."
and then match that with
"I'm not claiming that that was what happened; I'm just saying that filmed semicomatose intercourse does not, for me, prove rape. I suspect that the law backs me up, and I suspect that that's why the case never went to trial."
you imply that, regardless of what "the law says" (which you seem to think agrees with you--it doesn't, actually) any consent given prior to "the moment of entry" is actual consent ( ... )
Reply
"A man or woman who is unable to continuously give consent is not giving consent."
Thank you for bringing up these points. I wonder if people are pretending to be fucking brain dead for kicks or if they actually believe the bullshit they are spouting. I don't know which is scarier.
Reply
Reply
Reply
And here is the central flaw of your position. I just pointed this about above. You are straight-up wrong to say that this constitutes consent to drunken sex because you specifically state that it is the case "even if vague as to which participants should be involved." You are confusing intent with consent. A woman's intent may be to have drunken sex with a then-unknown man. But she is NOT giving consent to any man to have sex with her. Consent does not refer or apply only to acts, but the person with whom those acts are done. You CANNOT separate consent from party the way you do here and claim some kind of before-the-fact consent. Sex has to be consented to not only on the basis of the act itself, but the person with which that act is performed.
A woman intending to have sex with a guy is not in any way consenting to ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment