That's what happens when you see things from a black and white perspective. You open terrible precedents.
So is this an accusation? Am I the black and white one here? I can't tell.
That's what happens when you see things from a black and white perspective. You open terrible precedents.
Tesseracts wrote:There are ambiguities where drunkenness is concerned. However, we can all agree someone who is unconscious, for any reason, is not capable of consent. Right? Whether they chose to get drunk, or roofied, or were intoxicated against their will, or just fell asleep, or whatever... Once they are no longer conscious, they aren't consenting, right?
Hardly. If you roofie someone, you're conning them right from the start, which is illegal in and of itself. They didn't consent to the drug, by definition of the term "roofie", so it follows that anything that occurs afterwards to directly due to something which they did not give consent to. If they took the drug of their own volition, on the other hand, that changes matters entirely.
Tesseracts wrote:That's what happens when you see things from a black and white perspective. You open terrible precedents.
So is this an accusation? Am I the black and white one here? I can't tell.
Tesseracts wrote:Lindvaettr wrote:Hardly. If you roofie someone, you're conning them right from the start, which is illegal in and of itself. They didn't consent to the drug, by definition of the term "roofie", so it follows that anything that occurs afterwards to directly due to something which they did not give consent to. If they took the drug of their own volition, on the other hand, that changes matters entirely.
So if someone voluntarily takes a drug which knocks them unconscious it's not rape if someone has sex with them? My understanding of consent is it requires the ability to think and communicate, and loss of thinking ability is withdrawal of consent.
Matthew Notch wrote:Incidentally, someone's fetish is surely getting roofied, in which case as long as consent was given before the person gets the roofie, it's not rape, correct?
Tesseracts wrote:There are ambiguities where drunkenness is concerned. However, we can all agree someone who is unconscious, for any reason, is not capable of consent. Right? Whether they chose to get drunk, or roofied, or were intoxicated against their will, or just fell asleep, or whatever... Once they are no longer conscious, they aren't consenting, right?
Tesseracts wrote:I'll attempt to paraphrase this story with reversed genders.
"I felt unwanted, but an older hot girl would laugh at a couple of my jokes. One day at 8 AM she called and told me to come over. I went to her room and found she had been drinking all night. She threw me in bed and we had sex, although she wasn't physically aroused and kept falling asleep as she went down on me. I pushed her off and left and she never called me again."
Crimson847 wrote:Tesseracts wrote:I'll attempt to paraphrase this story with reversed genders.
"I felt unwanted, but an older hot girl would laugh at a couple of my jokes. One day at 8 AM she called and told me to come over. I went to her room and found she had been drinking all night. She threw me in bed and we had sex, although she wasn't physically aroused and kept falling asleep as she went down on me. I pushed her off and left and she never called me again."
If the older hot girl was bigger and stronger than him, the fact that she initiated the act in such an aggressive manner actually would make me think very differently about such a case. It seems like the fact that the drunk guy threw Schumer onto the bed and jumped on her is being treated as a minor detail of little consequence, which is weird to me. Yes, this is the kind of thing couples do in bed all the time, but coming from "some guy who laughed at a couple of my jokes once" I could see it having a very different effect.
That said, I didn't read the book, so for all I know he only did that because she stripped naked and said "c'mere big boy". Out of context, though, calling the person who had force used against them a rapist comes off really strange.
Tesseracts wrote:I don't see how it matters who is the top. Any sexual act without consent is rape. This is the logic which leads people to conclude women can't rape, because only penetration is rape. It doesn't matter if she played the passive role in sex, she made a decision she didn't have to make.
Toy wrote:I wonder where BDSM falls on that.
The Oatmeal wrote:Live life passionately and love everyone like they are family, because Jesus is always with you. Jesus loves you seriously bigtime. He'd hug you until your eyeballs exploded out of your skull if he ever met you. He'd windsurf across oceans of dead Nazis which he personally slaughtered just to tell you that your new haircut is the bee's knees. [...]
Praise Jesus, especially when it's sunny outside because Jesus would totally be cool with you praising while you get a nice tan.
Matthew Notch wrote:Incidentally, someone's fetish is surely getting roofied, in which case as long as consent was given before the person gets the roofie, it's not rape, correct?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests