Consensual discussion of consent by adults who voluntarily hit the submit button

[telee.kom]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/can-she-consent-to-sex-after-drinking/article17158564/

What are your thoughts on "you can't give consent while drunk"? This is exclusive thing to America, I've never heard of this anywhere in Europe and I find this "law" retarded. Not even mentioning that the way this is perceived makes women automatically the victim.

[Volband]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/can-she-consent-to-sex-after-drinking/article17158564/

What are your thoughts on "you can't give consent while drunk"? This is exclusive thing to America, I've never heard of this anywhere in Europe and I find this "law" retarded. Not even mentioning that the way this is perceived makes women automatically the victim.
Wow, that was blood boiling to read. The possibilities are endless if you want to blackmail men in the future if such a law is made. "Consent at every stage" - hahahahaha.
- Yeah, fuck me!
- Wait-wait, hold up. Do you want me to keep fucking you for real, or was it just out of enjoyment, possibly increased by your alcohol level.
- ... What?
- I mean, could you make another sign in here, please? *gives her the paper*
- I already told you I want it, and I have signed it 7 times already, what the fuck?!
- Yeah, but that was before we changed positions.

Stuff like this make a real good job to give a terrible name for feminism.

[botley]

Margaret Wente is a fucking idiot troll. Has been for years. Just like you, Volband. Congratulations on finding one of your own!

In other news, this response (https://populismblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/statement-on-the-lost-girls) to the Jackie Fox revelation in the HuffPo made me doubly sad: first that she was abused by her manager while her bandmates were right in the room, which is horrible, second that it came out in a kind of lurid exploitative journalistic context. Evelyn McDonnell is absolutely wonderful, everybody interested in that period of history should read her book Queens of Noise.

[Volband]

Margaret Wente is a fucking idiot troll. Has been for years. Just like you, Volband. Congratulations on finding one of your own!

Love ETS feminist ragers <3

But care to elaborate? I mean all you monkeys do is either half-ass something or start a facepalm session like some kids, and get offended by everything.

[botley]

I will leave you to discover more about your new guru, a washed-up Canadian plagiarist desperately clinging to her space in a rag newspaper by tut-tutting at "millennials" for being a whole generation of useless crybabies.

[Volband]

I will leave you to discover more about your new guru, a washed-up Canadian plagiarist desperately clinging to her space in a rag newspaper by tut-tutting at "millennials" for being a whole generation of useless crybabies.
Dude, I don't have a guru. I don't know who she is, and frankly I do not even care - and same goes to everything which was her opinion in the linked article. Just today I saw an ad dissected on reddit, where a man and a woman were presented, both as drunks, and it basically said if the guy has sex with that girl, he is raping her, because there is no consent if the girl had been drinking alcohol. I thought it was some kind of a joke, then I saw the link to that article here, and I was like nooo way.

My only point is that I strongly disagree with that mindset, and imo it would only create some really toxic environment for both women and men who would be affected by such a law or view. That's it. Now, feel free to state your points as to why you disagree with it, but it's getting repetitive that basically the same ~3 idiot is just rubbing their clit/dick with the facepalm button, while others doing the discussion for them. I really don't mind feminism, but some of the representatives of it on ETS are rather disheartening.

[eversonpoe]

Dude, I don't have a guru. I don't know who she is, and frankly I do not even care - and same goes to everything which was her opinion in the linked article. Just today I saw an ad dissected on reddit, where a man and a woman were presented, both as drunks, and it basically said if the guy has sex with that girl, he is raping her, because there is no consent if the girl had been drinking alcohol. I thought it was some kind of a joke, then I saw the link to that article here, and I was like nooo way.

My only point is that I strongly disagree with that mindset, and imo it would only create some really toxic environment for both women and men who would be affected by such a law or view. That's it. Now, feel free to state your points as to why you disagree with it, but it's getting repetitive that basically the same ~3 idiot is just rubbing their clit/dick with the facepalm button, while others doing the discussion for them. I really don't mind feminism, but some of the representatives of it on ETS are rather disheartening.

consent while intoxicated is an extremely complicated issue. there are a lot of factors to take into account, and every situation is different.
are the two people in a relationship where they regularly have consensual sex? do they regularly drink together? even if the answer to both of those is yes, the sex can still become rape in certain circumstances.
if the two people are strangers, then it's even more complicated and hard to judge.
in general, i think having laws that protect people is a good idea. as a rape victim who was completely sober when it occurred, i still blacked out and literally didn't even remember the experience for about a week. so imagine how confusing it would be for someone who was intoxicated.

[Sallos]

It's rape when the beer goggles wear off.

[Sallos]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/can-she-consent-to-sex-after-drinking/article17158564/

What are your thoughts on "you can't give consent while drunk"? This is exclusive thing to America, I've never heard of this anywhere in Europe and I find this "law" retarded. Not even mentioning that the way this is perceived makes women automatically the victim.

http://i.imgur.com/cIiJ1Sy.jpg

[playwithfire]

Considering how y'all are clearly not feminists and have different ideals, it's amazing/disappointing to how much some of y'all spend time poking around the feminism and trans threads. Why don't you go live your life away from all the icky critical thinking we enjoy?

For the record, even having dated my boyfriend for like 4 years (meaning we have a much clearer understanding of our own boundaries), I pretty much always make a point of getting his verbal consent when he's drinking and usually when he's very tired.

[orestes]

http://38.media.tumblr.com/4f63914cebb691eb91a5e0d23a0c4088/tumblr_inline_ndqc17q6TM1sqqavy.jpg

Also, all this bitching in this thread about consensual sex is so heteronormative it's making my eyes glaze over. (Not you, playwithfire, you're golden!)

[playwithfire]

Consent-gathering language is a really natural part of the sex I have and the behavior of all of my recent partners. People are idiots. It's not difficult.

[playwithfire]

http://i0.wp.com/amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/rape-and-consent-590.jpg
forever

[playwithfire]

Also (sorry for multiple posts) this is why having a pre-sex elevator speech is WONDERFUL and best practices:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9v0CYsGPYg

[Volband]

Edit: fuuuck me if I deleted my other quote. (no, this is not consent, leave me alone!)

Considering how y'all are clearly not feminists and have different ideals, it's amazing/disappointing to how much some of y'all spend time poking around the feminism and trans threads. Why don't you go live your life away from all the icky critical thinking we enjoy?

For the record, even having dated my boyfriend for like 4 years (meaning we have a much clearer understanding of our own boundaries), I pretty much always make a point of getting his verbal consent when he's drinking and usually when he's very tired.
What, is this a cult or something? You discuss things in your way, then when someone challenges you, you either freak out, search for cover, throw dirt around, all of these at once? All we said that it is a ridiculous idea, period, then some of you acted as the typical negative stereotype feminists, with the exception of calling us pigs, that did not happen (yet?).

As for relationships, you can't base off everything from one perspective. There are people who only had one partner and never even wanted anyone else. And there are people who enjox sex in all forms in huge quantity. The latter people usually meet eventually at parties, with drinks involved, and when they give each other the "fuck me" stare, then start kissing passionetly, and one thing leads to another, then they both consider it consent.

[Volband]

consent while intoxicated is an extremely complicated issue. there are a lot of factors to take into account, and every situation is different.
are the two people in a relationship where they regularly have consensual sex? do they regularly drink together? even if the answer to both of those is yes, the sex can still become rape in certain circumstances.
if the two people are strangers, then it's even more complicated and hard to judge.
in general, i think having laws that protect people is a good idea. as a rape victim who was completely sober when it occurred, i still blacked out and literally didn't even remember the experience for about a week. so imagine how confusing it would be for someone who was intoxicated.
It might be a complicated issue, but I still can't understand how can you think it's the right solution. This law would create an environment where even if a girl literally starts sucking you out of the blue, if she is drunk, and you don't cut if off asap, then you can be in some huge trouble the next day, which is frankly, a big bullshit.

And people love to drink and love to fuck; ask any teenager, boy or girl, and the majority of them will say HELL YEAH for both of these. Come oon, you must've been to parties, so don't tell me it was always drunk boys being pushy with saint girls.

I don't know why you people can't see the big picture and THEN make a point. Honestly, teenagers are retarded, and prohibiting anything from them is simply never going to work. The goal shouldn't be to to forbid, but to make awareness. If it's really needed, then grant the girls all the tools (both mental and physical tools) so such an unfortunate scenario could not happen. They can learn from that, they can benefit from them. Telling them not to drink and then not to feel horny as fuck? Yeah, good job with that one.

(sorry, I had a longer answer, but internet is too hard, and I lost it)


http://i0.wp.com/amptoons.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/rape-and-consent-590.jpg
forever
Aaah, the old hyperbole. No one meant having sex with a lifeless, but breathing "doll".

[playwithfire]

If someone is making it abundantly and verbally clear that they want to have sex with you, whether they've consumed alcohol or not, then this legislation doesn't apply to you so, uh, yeah?

[Volband]

If someone is making it abundantly and verbally clear that they want to have sex with you, whether they've consumed alcohol or not, then this legislation doesn't apply to you so, uh, yeah?
Isn't it the whole point of the law, that if you drank too much, then your conesnt means nothing? You can be drunk as F, but still function properly, instead of lying lifelessly on the ground. And this is where the problem comes, because who on Earth will decide how drunk is OK.

Not to mention the other problematic part, which is if a pretty drunk girl's consent can not be considered consent, then why is a pretty drunk boy's pushiness can be considered as a potential rape attempt?

[playwithfire]

The point of the law it to protect people who were raped when they were too drunk to say "no" or fight back. Because without that legislation, it is a lot harder for survivors of that kind of assault to get justice.

The point of the law isn't for the fact that people like to get drunk and hook up and occasionally a horrible person will use it to do something horrible to another person and lie. Which, by the way, happens all the time with ALL SORTS OF LAWS. That doesn't negate the importance of the law. Someone could also say that you gave them drugs without their consent when they consented, they could fake being hit, they could lie about ALL SORTS OF THINGS. And yet the legislation people whine about seems to be the legislation that might kill their potential fun.

[Volband]

Sadly, "he raped me" has been a top hit false claim in recent years, which not only hurt innocent men, but also women who has been raped for real. So no, I would not be surprised if the loopholes of this new particular laws would be utilized. But let's hope I'll be wrong - will only know from the news, since nothing like this exists in Europe.

Isn't it tiring to be one of the few non-cavedweller member of this feminist group? It has to be an ungrateful job, to be among the reasonable ones, while the rest is acting like the stereotype they are fighting against - at least according to them, they do. Oh well, no wonder I read so many women having conflicting opinions about feminism, it has to suck for them to be associated as one big group, when there are such differences under the same term.

Anyway, if we typed rape 100 times today, I suppose it belongs here: http://www.jantakareporter.com/india/girl-raped-twice-in-maharashtra-as-trap-set-by-police-fails-to-protect-her/6516 ... I don't even...

[playwithfire]

That's the thing, though. For every one false accusation, there are dozens and dozens of people who are assaulted (male survivors too, for the record) and can't do anything about it. Rape is a hard thing to prove. It just is. There are rarely witnesses, rarely real proof. Short of a rape kit, hundreds of which are never processed (http://www.endthebacklog.org/backlog/what-backlog), a survivor really doesn't have a lot of evidence most of the time. That makes prosecuting it really hard. Our society doesn't favor the victims here. Our justice system says "Innocent until proven guilty." but again, rape is a hard thing to prove. I'd even argue that "what if a woman lies about being assaulted" gets a comparable amount of attention and concern as "thousands of women are assaulted and we aren't helping them." And that's a huge problem. Legislation to help counter that is important.

There are tons of differing viewpoints under feminism. And I appreciate that you think I'm reasonable, because I consider myself very reasonable. And yes, I'm tired, but not about that. I'm tired of constantly reading about women being assaulted, and then watching the public call them liars and crazy. I'm tired of all of the insane awful shit happening around abortion legislation, of my bodily autonomy being legislated. I think there are a lot of smart people in this thread, and I'm happy to be counted in their company.

[Leviathant]

Love ETS feminist ragers <3

But care to elaborate? I mean all you monkeys do is either half-ass something or start a facepalm session like some kids, and get offended by everything.

Hi!

I noticed you're being a condescending shit, coming into a thread about feminism and calling the contributors monkeys, children, and easily offended.

I suggest you be a shit in another forum - not another thread in this forum, but another forum. If you're going to be a shit in this forum, I'm going to ban you. I've got way too much shit going on, I can't even find the time to fix the administration for the NIN Hotline, let alone try and reason with your amateur-hour trolling.

Does that offend you? Please post your response in our Reports & Suggestions subforum. If you reply to me here, I'm going to ban you.

This pretty much goes for anyone else being a shit in this thread. I'm here to be patient and chew bubble gum, and I'm all out of patience. Or something.

[Baphomette]

A couple of days ago, the HuffPo published a piece by Jason Cherkis about the rape of Runaways member Jackie Fuchs (http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-lost-girls/) (aka Fox) by shitbag "producer", Kim Fowley (TW). Jackie hadn't discussed the rape before - she'd never felt safe enough to do so until after Fowley died - and felt it was time to share what had happened because...

...she started seeing similar stories everywhere. More than a dozen women had come forward against Bill Cosby. Kesha filed a lawsuit alleging that she had been drugged and assaulted by her producer, Dr. Luke. 3 And there were so many undergraduate women who were finally speaking up about sexual assault. “I realized, ‘Oh my God, this is what’s happening on college campuses,’” she said. Jackie saw herself in those young women and knew all the hurt and shame that awaited them. “They have to be making the same value judgments about themselves as I made about me,” she explained. “I know from personal experience how all those things can eat away at you. They can take vibrant young people and turn them into something else.”

At first, all I saw were supportive statements by friends who shared the story, which was awesome. A couple of them even had their own Fowley horror stories (apparently, the guy was a known molester). And then yesterday, shit started getting ugly (http://www.vulture.com/2015/07/joan-jett-responds-to-jackie-fuchs-rape-story.html). Then it got REALLY ugly (http://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/rock/6627293/cherie-currie-statement-kim-fowley-rape-allegations). People posting old YouTube clips of Jackie's appearance on the Dating Game (because, you know, only sluts went on those shows); people posting an entry from Jackie's old blog where she denies an account of the rape by another band member (because, you know, if it REALLY happened, why couldn't she talk about it before?); a writer of a Runaways biography even joined in, blasting the HuffPo writer for "stealing her original scoop (https://populismblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/statement-on-the-lost-girls/)" and dismissing Jackie's rape because it was "old news."

It's disgusting. Beyond disgusting. I want to punch so many people in the face right now.

[telee.kom]

If someone is making it abundantly and verbally clear that they want to have sex with you, whether they've consumed alcohol or not, then this legislation doesn't apply to you so, uh, yeah?

Well, no? That was my point. It says "when you drunk, you can't give consent". That means, even when you want to give consent, you can't, because apparently people who drink suddenly become irresponsible children who can't make decisions for themselves. We should probably stop penalize driving under influence, because "alcohol made you do it". And to be clear (because I can see your pitchforks out already) I'm not talking about being passed out or sleeping or stuff like this. I'm talking about being drunk, partying, having fun. Being drunk doesn't make you unaware of what is going on, it's not like people who are partying can't suddenly make decisions. They are drunk decisions, yes, but you are still aware of what are you doing and you can decide for yourself if you want to have sex or not. I just don't understand what is this law here for? Rape is rape whether you are drunk or not.


A couple of days ago, the HuffPo published a piece by Jason Cherkis about the rape of Runaways member Jackie Fuchs (http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/articles/en/the-lost-girls/) (aka Fox) by shitbag "producer", Kim Fowley (TW). Jackie hadn't discussed the rape before - she'd never felt safe enough to do so until after Fowley died - and felt it was time to share what had happened because...


The only thing I don't understand is, why she waited 40 years to tell this story. Because the guy died?


Our society doesn't favor the victims here. Our justice system says "Innocent until proven guilty." but again, rape is a hard thing to prove.

But what else should justice system said? How would it be better if it was "guilty until proven innocent"? And that's not exclusive to rape only, but any crime really.


Considering how y'all are clearly not feminists and have different ideals, it's amazing/disappointing to how much some of y'all spend time poking around the feminism and trans threads. Why don't you go live your life away from all the icky critical thinking we enjoy?


But I am genuinely interested in gender issues. My viewpoint may not align with feminist ones, but this thread is also "equality thread". So when I want to discuss gender stuff I think I'm in the right thread

[Volband]

But what else should justice system said? How would it be better if it was "guilty until proven innocent"? And that's not exclusive to rape only, but any crime really.
There have been some outrage after certain cases when the accused, dragged, shamed man turned out to be innocent (sometimes after serving prison time as well) and the false accuser pretty much got away with it. It's almost like rape man victims. If I'd been raped by women, most of the people would laugh at me, and I doubt after I'm being ignored with a "we'll look into it, sir" (then nothing happens ofc.), anyone would go to the streets for me. This kind of inequality is a real issue as well, it's just majorly overshadowed, and the biggest problem is that the most vocal people from each side are trying to make it into a competition.




But I am genuinely interested in gender issues. My viewpoint may not align with feminist ones, but this thread is also "equality thread". So when I want to discuss gender stuff I think I'm in the right thread
Exactly. I can be rightfully smacked down for the mocking remarks, but if you read this thread, it should be obvious to everyone who and how contributes to it. Some people are on a really high horse, and treat this thread and the whole topic of feminism as some elitist club - which is fine, but then make a sticky post somewhere, that this thread is not about feminism and equality, but for a group of people who support this idea (on their own terms) and want to be left alone.

Good point on the "equality thread" by the way, the irony of it has not yet occured to me.

edit: oh, just seeing that you are the same guy who brought up this law topic. You got shit as well, despite being as modest as one could be - without getting any actual response first, of course. *European fistbump of solidarity!*

[playwithfire]

Well, no? That was my point. It says "when you drunk, you can't give consent".

The two things presented in this thread were a garbage article and a terrible, awful poster.

Here is the ACTUAL TEXT of an affirmative consent law (California's):

"(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."

Now, where do you find fault with that?


But what else should justice system said? How would it be better if it was "guilty until proven innocent"? And that's not exclusive to rape only, but any crime really.

I was illustrating that rape is an incredibly hard thing to prove (more than "any crime" since unlike most crimes it typically happens without witnesses) and that our legal system doesn't favor the survivor.

Even *if* someone decides to falsely accuse someone of it, our legal system likely won't help them and people will probably not believe them. Y'all are so concerned for these "falsely accused men" and it'd rock if you cared as much about the survivors of assault our society drags through the mud and then dismisses.

[Sarah K]

The false report of rapes is right on par with false reports of other violent crimes - estimated to be between 2 and 8%.

Let's please stop living in this fantasy land where victims are making up their stories. It's already a difficult enough topic to address.

[allegro]

For the record: American criminal laws are not intended to discriminate between males and females, and case law (stare decisis) defines said laws. This particular law in California was enacted due to so many cases wherein sexual assault could not be prosecuted because the victim was severely intoxicated and was sexually assaulted (or even gang-assaulted) and the assault was recorded on cell phones and shared via YouTube and the victim either:

* opened one or both eyes during the assault for a brief period
* moved in some way (moved a hand or a limb)

Etc., thereby deemed to having been conscious enough to have "consented" to said sexual assault, even though said victim had zero recollection of said events the next day and witnesses indicated that the victim was clearly unconscious.

This law was not enacted for any other purpose, and the judicial system in this country is slanted FAR in favor of the assailant, even when there are witnesses, so the judicial system and stare decisis will not allow this law to go beyond the scope of its intent in the state of California.

Also, if you read the first few posts in this thread, you will see that this thread was not created intentionally but was split off from another thread. The name and inclusion of the word "equality" intended to mean "equality for women," specifically, although at some point changing it to "LGBTQ equality" was discussed.

If you want an "equality for men" thread, however, you probably need to start another thread.

[botley]

A writer of a Runaways biography even joined in, blasting the HuffPo writer for "stealing her original scoop (https://populismblog.wordpress.com/2015/07/10/statement-on-the-lost-girls/)" and dismissing Jackie's rape because it was "old news."

Not what she said at all. That piece was in response to people asking why she had not outed Fox as the victim in the book, why it hadn't come out earlier, etc. She had a problem with the HuffPo story (which liberally quotes from her original research) for being a sensationalized, lurid account of Fowley's atrocious history of assaulting women — which it is. She never dismissed anything.

[telee.kom]

playwithfire this vary by the state though and in lot of cases the law regarding consent while intoxicated is written in very vague and moot terms that could be interpreted in lot of ways. It's usually something like

"Intoxication by alcohol or drugs impaired the victim's ability to consent. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known about the victim's impairment."
Some states have "being too drunk to consent" or "lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact" line in there.

What does that mean? Why not just stick with the consent itself? Of course your judgement will be affected and impaired by drugs and alcohol, that's why people do it. You are still responsible for your actions though. I agree that consent could be revoked at any time during the intercourse. But not the morning after. Which is something that this kind of legislation facilitate.


If you want an "equality for men" thread, however, you probably need to start another thread.

But I'm not arguing about equality for men (or at least I don't see where and how), I'm just discussing a topic that is, to my knowledge, a feminist issue. And I don't even see how is what I'm saying "anti-feminist". I'm not trying to pick a fight here, I would think that what I'm saying is common sense.

[Sarah K]

And for many people, affirmative consent laws seem common sense...

[orestes]

@playwithfire (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=15) this vary by the state though and in lot of cases the law regarding consent while intoxicated is written in very vague and moot terms that could be interpreted in lot of ways. It's usually something like

"Intoxication by alcohol or drugs impaired the victim's ability to consent. The defendant knew or reasonably should have known about the victim's impairment."
Some states have "being too drunk to consent" or "lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact" line in there.

What does that mean? Why not just stick with the consent itself? Of course your judgement will be affected and impaired by drugs and alcohol, that's why people do it. You are still responsible for your actions though. I agree that consent could be revoked at any time during the intercourse. But not the morning after. Which is something that this kind of legislation facilitate.

But what about assault victims who unknowingly had their drink spiked? You wouldn't hold them culpable for their own assault, would you?

[Khrz]

That amounts to saying that you really wanted and deserved that dick tattooed on your forehead.

There's a huge difference between things done by you, and things done to you.

You're drunk and ask/pay for a pair of hairy balls tattoed on your forehead : sucks to be you, nothing you can do.
You're drunk and your friends ask/pay for a pair of hairy balls to be tattoed on your forehead : you have ground to legally fuck their shit up.

That's really simple and I don't see what's so complicated with that...

[telee.kom]

But what about assault victims who unknowingly had their drink spiked? You wouldn't hold them culpable for their own assault, would you?

These are two separate things. The legislation distinguishes when drug is given to you by someone else without your knowledge.

see this (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920)as an example

[allegro]

I'm just discussing a topic that is, to my knowledge, a feminist issue.
It's not, not in this country, anyway. It's a technical, legal issue to further define sexual assault that was in direct response to some very specific cases in this country, on high school and college campuses (see below).

In the U.S., drunk people cannot (legally):

* operate a motor vehicle, depending on level of impairment
* sign a contract (ever)

And, IN SOME STATES:
* consent to sex, depending on level of impairment

This is not a feminist issue, it's a legal definition, especially since gay men have been sexually assaulted.

Also, there is no Federal definition of rape or sexual assault. EACH STATE has its own definition. Some (most) states have completely replaced the term "rape" with "sexual assault."

Also, no court has ever found a victim of sexual assault to be guilty of contributory negligence when the victim was intoxicated.

People ask for examples of "too drunk to consent" but they're just being obtuse.

We have, literally, hundreds of well-known headline cases in the U.S.

Here is one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/28/two-former-vanderbilt-football-players-convicted-of-rape-thanks-to-pictures-one-of-them-took-of-it/

Here is another:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case

Also, the way you are "discussing" this issue is in a way that is considered classic "trolling" as defined by online forum rules, e.g. going into a parenting thread and saying "there are way too many children in this world and I think people should stop having babies" and when people protest you say, "what?! I'm just discussing children! Do you only want like-minded people in here??"

Well, actually, yes, or those who at least bring something thoughtful to the discussion and are not insensitive and won't hurt all the people in here who have actually been sexually assaulted (there are some in here).

Although, again, this is not technically a feminist issue so much as it's a legal issue, although the end result is that revised laws may help women, what will help women (well, everyone) a LOT MORE will be THE END OF RAPE CULTURE.

I still contend that college campuses need to stop binge drinking in the U.S., but that's another thread.

[orestes]

These are two separate things. The legislation distinguishes when drug is given to you by someone else without your knowledge.

see this (https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/920)as an example

Then what is your issue with this law? You keep speaking in absolutes, as if this law was passed to punish responsible, consenting adults or to create a "gotcha" situation for regrettable sex when it clearly isn't the intention of said law.

[telee.kom]

We have, literally, hundreds of well-known headline cases in the U.S.

Here is one:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/01/28/two-former-vanderbilt-football-players-convicted-of-rape-thanks-to-pictures-one-of-them-took-of-it/

Here is another:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case


And both those examples would obviously still be rape no matter if there was a "too drunk to consent" line in a law or not.


Also, the way you are "discussing" this issue is in a way that is considered classic "trolling" as defined by online forum rules, e.g. going into a parenting thread and saying "there are way too many children in this world and I think people should stop having babies" and when people protest you say, "what?! I'm just discussing children! Do you only want like-minded people in here??"

Well, actually, yes, or those who at least bring something thoughtful to the discussion and are not insensitive and won't hurt all the people in here who have actually been sexually assaulted (there are some in here).

I'm sorry what? How am I being insensitive? I seriously don't understand what the hell am I doing wrong here. How did I offend you? By what?


Then what is your issue with this law? You keep speaking in absolutes, as if this law was passed to punish responsible, consenting adults or to create a "gotcha" situation for regrettable sex when it clearly isn't the intention of said law.

Maybe it's not intention, but it is a possibility. It is up to a judge to decide whether you can legally give consent while drunk or not. I don't get it, I don't think it's necessary. I don't think we need court to decide whether you can fuck someone while you are drunk or not.

[orestes]

No, it isn't. If you think this law gives this sort of power to judges, then you clearly don't have an understanding of the judicial system in this country. Once again, it needs to be stressed, that this law was passed to legally define was is consensual sex. (Side note: it wasn't so long ago that marital rape wasn't considered a thing either until laws were passed to protect spouses. Just because you think a law is unwarranted doesn't mean it isn't needed.)

[Khrz]

I don't think we need court to decide whether you can fuck someone while you are drunk or not.

The problem is that too many people think they can just fuck someone who never agreed to have sex to begin with.

If you're worried that someone might try and accuse you of rape the day after, follow the basic rule that too many women have already had to learn the hard way : don't go fucking someone you can't trust.

It's simple, and the law's only framing this simple principle : if your partner can't respond to your advances, they have not given consent. How's that hard to fathom ?

[allegro]

Maybe it's not intention, but it is a possibility. It is up to a judge to decide whether you can legally give consent while drunk or not. I don't get it, I don't think it's necessary. I don't think we need court to decide whether you can fuck someone while you are drunk or not.
Like orestes just said, you have ZERO knowledge of the legal system in the State of California and ZERO knowledge of this law in question or its intent.

We actually had a big discussion about this law back in September of 2014 but you were either not here or were sleeping (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/255-Random-General-Headlines?p=211624#post211624).

The main point of this law is that college campuses were not reporting sexual assaults on their campuses to anybody, often not even to campus security, were barely even filling out a campus security report, and therefore were not reporting the information to other students, and were violating the terms of agreements with the Federal Government relating to Federal College Loans relating to requirements regarding how to handle these matters, because the colleges were far too concerned about sweeping such matters under the rug and keeping their Federal Funding than worrying about kids getting sexually assaulted on campus.

HERE IS THE ACTUAL TEXT OF THE LAW (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967). I've put BOLD on the important parts for you.


SECTION 1. Section 67386 is added to the Education Code, to read:
67386. (a) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt a policy concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking, as defined in the federal Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. Sec. 1092(f)) involving a student, both on and off campus. The policy shall include all of the following:

(1) An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

(2) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in any disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse to alleged lack of affirmative consent that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the sexual activity under either of the following circumstances:

(A) The accused’s belief in affirmative consent arose from the intoxication or recklessness of the accused.

(B) The accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain whether the complainant affirmatively consented.

(3) A policy that the standard used in determining whether the elements of the complaint against the accused have been demonstrated is the preponderance of the evidence.

(4) A policy that, in the evaluation of complaints in the disciplinary process, it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.

(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.

(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.

(b) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall adopt detailed and victim-centered policies and protocols regarding sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking involving a student that comport with best practices and current professional standards. At a minimum, the policies and protocols shall cover all of the following:

(1) A policy statement on how the institution will provide appropriate protections for the privacy of individuals involved, including confidentiality.

(2) Initial response by the institution’s personnel to a report of an incident, including requirements specific to assisting the victim, providing information in writing about the importance of preserving evidence, and the identification and location of witnesses.

(3) Response to stranger and nonstranger sexual assault.

(4) The preliminary victim interview, including the development of a victim interview protocol, and a comprehensive followup victim interview, as appropriate.

(5) Contacting and interviewing the accused.

(6) Seeking the identification and location of witnesses.

(7) Providing written notification to the victim about the availability of, and contact information for, on- and off-campus resources and services, and coordination with law enforcement, as appropriate.

(8) Participation of victim advocates and other supporting people.

(9) Investigating allegations that alcohol or drugs were involved in the incident.

(10) Providing that an individual who participates as a complainant or witness in an investigation of sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, or stalking will not be subject to disciplinary sanctions for a violation of the institution’s student conduct policy at or near the time of the incident, unless the institution determines that the violation was egregious, including, but not limited to, an action that places the health or safety of any other person at risk or involves plagiarism, cheating, or academic dishonesty.

(11) The role of the institutional staff supervision.

(12) A comprehensive, trauma-informed training program for campus officials involved in investigating and adjudicating sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking cases.

(13) Procedures for confidential reporting by victims and third parties.

(c) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall, to the extent feasible, enter into memoranda of understanding, agreements, or collaborative partnerships with existing on-campus and community-based organizations, including rape crisis centers, to refer students for assistance or make services available to students, including counseling, health, mental health, victim advocacy, and legal assistance, and including resources for the accused.

(d) In order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, the governing board of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions shall implement comprehensive prevention and outreach programs addressing sexual violence, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. A comprehensive prevention program shall include a range of prevention strategies, including, but not limited to, empowerment programming for victim prevention, awareness raising campaigns, primary prevention, bystander intervention, and risk reduction. Outreach programs shall be provided to make students aware of the institution’s policy on sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking. At a minimum, an outreach program shall include a process for contacting and informing the student body, campus organizations, athletic programs, and student groups about the institution’s overall sexual assault policy, the practical implications of an affirmative consent standard, and the rights and responsibilities of students under the policy.

(e) Outreach programming shall be included as part of every incoming student’s orientation.

[allegro]

And both those examples would obviously still be rape no matter if there was a "too drunk to consent" line in a law or not.
Actually, in the 2nd case, the boys were nearly acquitted because their attorneys nearly successfully argued that the victim consented because she herself drank the alcohol and she herself "moved" a few times and did not say "no" and the lack of "no" indicated "yes" and the boys did not have any signs of "resistance" like "scratch marks or bite marks" showing that the victim tried to "fight back." For most of our legal history, "no means no" is the rule of law, so the lack of "no" has been interpreted as "yes." If the victim is so intoxicated or under the influence of drugs that the victim cannot say "no," then this is interpreted as "yes."

Also, further, with regard to the "yes means yes" law in California see this explanation from Justia which explains the Title IX of the Educational Amendments Act of 1972 (https://verdict.justia.com/2014/10/29/making-sense-yes-means-yes).

[telee.kom]

if your partner can't respond to your advances, they have not given consent. How's that hard to fathom ?


It isn't? Where have I argued about this? You are all acting like I want some free pass to rape people. Just read what am I actually saying before you go all hysterical on me. I'm saying that even when I'm drunk I can give consent and don't need some stupid law to tell me how drunk I can be to have sex. Consent is still a consent when you are drunk. Again (because you are failing to grasp this), I'm not talking about being passed out, I'm talking about instances when you can and want to give consent, when are you having fun. Do you guys know that? Have you been drunk before?

[Khrz]

Are you understanding what the law is about, or are you just arguing in circle ?

[orestes]

Have you had sex before?

[Volband]

So, to sum it up:
- If all you can say is "asmbdsamadsb" or move a little, when someone is about to sex you up, it is not consensual.
- If you are wasted as fuck, going to vomit your soul out 3 hours later, BUT you can still say "yes, I want you babyyy" (even if a vomit cuts this sentence in half), then it is consensual.

Is it right? Because I'm pretty sure I can talk for us both, that the only thing we were mortified about if BOTH of these cases can be considered as rape.

[telee.kom]

Why are you keep bringing up California and affirmative consent as some form of argument against me? I'm not arguing against affirmative consent, I think I very clearly stated what I have a problem with. This isn't specific to California nor it is bound to affirmative consent.

[allegro]

So, to sum it up: If all you can say is "asmbdsamadsb" or move a little, when someone is about to sex you up, it is not consensual.
The defense for the football players in the Steubenville High School case attempted to prove that it was NOT sexual assault because she did not say "no" and "no means no" and the lack of "no" means "yes." Also, she did not "fight back" (probably because she was totally unconscious, they dragged her by her ankles and wrists from house to car, and car to house) and the accused star football players did not have any visible marks on them showing her trying to "fight back" or indicating "no." So the lack of "no" means "yes" was their defense.

[Khrz]

- If you are wasted as fuck, going to vomit your soul out 3 hours later, BUT you can still say "yes, I want you babyyy" (even if a vomit cuts this sentence in half), then it is consensual.

Irrelevant, but seriously : if having sex with someone who's not in shape to enjoy it is good enough for you, I don't know what to say...

[allegro]

Why are you keep bringing up California and affirmative consent as some form of argument against me? I'm not arguing against affirmative consent, I think I very clearly stated what I have a problem with. This isn't specific to California nor it is bound to affirmative consent.

Because the State of California is the only state in the United States that has passed an Affirmative Consent law?

http://i.imgur.com/iHVPqYN.jpg

[telee.kom]

The defense for the football players in the Steubenville High School case attempted to prove that it was NOT sexual assault because she did not say "no" and "no means no" and the lack of "no" means "yes." Also, she did not "fight back" (probably because she was totally unconscious, they dragged her by her ankles and wrists from house to car, and car to house) and the accused star football players did not have any visible marks on them showing her trying to "fight back" or indicating "no." So the lack of "no" means "yes" was their defense.

What their lawyers based their defense on isn't really an argument, because lawyers will say anything to defend their client no matter how morally wrong and disgusting it might be. Also they lost, so..

[Volband]

The defense for the football players in the Steubenville High School case attempted to prove that it was NOT sexual assault because she did not say "no" and "no means no" and the lack of "no" means "yes." Also, she did not "fight back" (probably because she was totally unconscious, they dragged her by her ankles and wrists from house to car, and car to house) and the accused star football players did not have any visible marks on them showing her trying to "fight back" or indicating "no." So the lack of "no" means "yes" was their defense.
I see and I am not sure how to respond to this. I mean, I never said it should be considered consensual, so there is no need to convince me about it.

Irrelevant, but seriously : if having sex with someone who's not in shape to enjoy it is good enough for you, I don't know what to say...
I'm sorry, but what does it have to do with me? I'm just presenting the most radical example of a girl, who is obviously veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery drunk, but is still capable of saying yes. Not just nodding, or moving her arm, or breathing, saying the actual word "yes" or anything else which implies consent (i. e. the cut and dry "fuck me").

I'm looking for the answer to this question, because that's basically either settles or backs up my (and possibly our) concern. If it is consensual, then I agree. How morally acceptable from both parties to go through with it is an entirely different question.

[allegro]

What their lawyers based their defense on isn't really an argument, because lawyers will say anything to defend their client no matter how morally wrong and disgusting it might be. Also they lost, so..
It's still a defense based on the culture of this country, a typical belief. The only reason they lost is that there was VIDEO posted online showing just how unconscious this victim was, but the crazy public outcry about these "poor boys" and how "their lives are ruined" and how they'll have to register as sex offenders boo hoo hoo was nuts, and there was plenty of "but that drunk slut ruined these boys' lives" comments online.


I'm sorry, but what does it have to do with me? I'm just presenting the most radical example of a girl, who is obviously veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeery drunk, but is still capable of saying yes. Not just nodding, or moving her arm, or breathing, saying the actual word "yes" or anything else which implies consent (i. e. the cut and dry "fuck me").
Sorry to be the drift police, here, but we have strayed WAYYYYYY outside the topic of this thread, here, and this has actually gotten to be pretty offensive. We're just beating a dead horse, here.

[orestes]

Not counting the fact that the case probably wouldn't have gone to trial if Anonymous hadn't leaked info beforehand.

------------------

I can see why consent laws can be so confusing when EU members aren't consistent in criminalizing offenses. European solidarity! (http://eige.europa.eu/gender-based-violence/eiges-studies-gender-based-violence/study-identify-and-map-existing-data-and-resources-sexual-violence-against-women-eu)

[Volband]

Sorry to be the drift police, here, but we have strayed WAYYYYYY outside the topic of this thread, here, and this has actually gotten to be pretty offensive.
How is it off-topic when I ask a question to see exactly what does the law mean, instead of beating around the bush? And this is a rhetoical question, so please, only answer me if you fully understand this law - which I don't, that's why I ask questions -, and can tell me whether it would be considered a rape or not.

And you saying it is offensive actually offended me, so now we are both offended! (But seriously, stop with the drama, we are talking about rape, it is a disgusting topic, it is not for everyone, but don't lash out on every second post about it...)

[allegro]

Not counting the fact that the case probably wouldn't have gone to trial if Anonymous hadn't leaked info beforehand.
That's right, I forgot about that.

[allegro]

How is it off-topic when I ask a question to see exactly what does the law mean, instead of beating around the bush? And this is a rhetoical question, so please, only answer me if you fully understand this law - which I don't, that's why I ask questions -, and can tell me whether it would be considered a rape or not.
First, it's not "rape," in most states it is sexual assault and, again, each state has its own definition of sexual assault so it depends on each state, there is no single definition of sexual assault. In the State of Ohio, digital penetration falls under the definition of sexual assault. And, you are asking rhetorical questions about "law" -- I have been in law for 26 years, and there is no one single answer about "law," because it depends on:

(1) the State

(2) that State's criminal statutes

(3) the facts of the case

(4) the evidence

(5) if the accused is acquitted or brought to trial

(6) if there is a jury trial or a bench trial

(7) the details of the trial

In that Vanderbilt case, for instance, there was a mistrial because during the voir dire of the jury, somehow it was missed that the jury foreman had been sexually assaulted.

The "law" means there is only ONE law in the United States (the State of California) relating to Affirmative Consent, and it ENTIRELY relates to college campuses and I posted the entire text of the law for you to read, wherein it very specifically spells out each and every aspect of the law.

Here is the specific sentence defining affirmative consent in that law:

"An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."

[allegro]

And you saying it is offensive actually offended me, so now we are both offended! (But seriously, stop with the drama, we are talking about rape, it is a disgusting topic, it is not for everyone, but don't lash out on every second post about it...)
I have not "lashed out" at anyone, nor have I indicated any drama. For people who have been sexually assaulted or have been forced to do shit while drunk, this isn't a comfortable discussion, so this isn't "drama." This kind of discussion wherein you are making "funny" comments and making light of it just isn't funny, do you understand? Can you attempt to understand? Or do we need to summon Leviathant for assistance?

[Volband]

First, it's not "rape," in most states it is sexual assault and, again, each state has its own definition of sexual assault so it depends on each state, there is no single definition of sexual assault. In the State of Ohio, digital penetration falls under the definition of sexual assault. And, you are asking rhetorical questions about "law" -- I have been in law for 26 years, and there is no one single answer about "law," because it depends on:

(1) the State

(2) that State's criminal statutes

(3) the facts of the case

(4) the evidence

(5) if the accused is acquitted or brought to trial

(6) if there is a jury trial or a bench trial

(7) the details of the trial

In that Vanderbilt case, for instance, there was a mistrial because during the voir dire of the jury, somehow it was missed that the jury foreman had been sexually assaulted.

The "law" means there is only ONE law in the United States relating to Affirmative Consent, and it ENTIRELY relates to college campuses and I posted the entire text of the law for you to read, wherein it very specifically spells out each and every aspect of the law.
The rhetorical question part was referring to "How is this off topic...?", but anyway, it doesn't matter.

I asked a yes or no question. I don't mind if the actual answer is more complicated than that, but so far, no one could answer me. So, let me propose it again, this time, specifically to YOU, since you just stated you are quite versed in law. If such a case I mentioned were brought to a Californian jury, what would their verdict be?

(If you forgot my theoretical case, here's the gist of it: drunk boy wants to have sex with very drunk girl, girl says yes. I really can not say it any more simpler)

[allegro]

The rhetorical question part was referring to "How is this off topic...?", but anyway, it doesn't matter.

I asked a yes or no question. I don't mind if the actual answer is more complicated than that, but so far, no one could answer me. So, let me propose it again, this time, specifically to YOU, since you just stated you are quite versed in law. If such a case I mentioned were brought to a Californian jury, what would their verdict be?

(If you forgot my theoretical case, here's the gist of it: drunk boy wants to have sex with very drunk girl, girl says yes. I really can not say it any more simpler)

"An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."

[Volband]

I have not "lashed out" at anyone, nor have I indicated any drama. For people who have been sexually assaulted or have been forced to do shit while drunk, this isn't a comfortable discussion, so this isn't "drama." This kind of discussion wherein you are making "funny" comments and making light of it just isn't funny, do you understand? Can you attempt to understand? Or do we need to summon @Leviathant (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=1) for assistance?
First of all, I am not forcing anyone to be part of this discussion, so that point is irrelevant Secondly, where did I make any funny remarks after my warning? Show me, quote me, print screen it, whatever you want - I am waitng.

I won't even react to how you just threatened me with Leviathan, lol...

[Volband]

"An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent."
tl;dr: yes

Great, then I have no problem with this law, and my initial freak-out was based on a misunderstanding.

[allegro]

First of all, I am not forcing anyone to be part of this discussion, so that point is irrelevant Secondly, where did I make any funny remarks after my warning? Show me, quote me, print screen it, whatever you want - I am waitng.

So, to sum it up:
- If all you can say is "asmbdsamadsb" or move a little, when someone is about to sex you up, it is not consensual.
- If you are wasted as fuck, going to vomit your soul out 3 hours later, BUT you can still say "yes, I want you babyyy" (even if a vomit cuts this sentence in half), then it is consensual.

I imagine if somebody has been sexually assaulted while drunk, this is insensitive and probably isn't very amusing.

[Volband]

I imagine if somebody has been sexually assaulted while drunk, this is insensitive and probably isn't very amusing.
Give me a law degree, and I will be capable to speak and write in the fanciest English words which exist out there. As for sexual assault victims, I bet that every single letter in such discussions are not very amusing, so...

And to refer back to your threatening and what you accused me in that post: flamebaiting is punished pretty seriously as well and it is part of trolling.

[Swykk]

"...because Volband is on your ignore list."

Best ignore decision since Pulsipher. And now, back to vacation!

[Volband]

"...because Volband is on your ignore list."

Best ignore decision since Pulsipher. And now, back to vacation!
If anyone is interested, this is the mature guy (or girl, don't remember) who replied to me like once, and he basically finished his post with telling me that I'm ignored since he doesn't agree with me. It actually reminded me of my 13 years old self, when I told a girl on MSN I love her, then went offline because I was afraid to read her reaction.

The fact he needed to state it again actually makes up for a nice profile about his personality.

Aaaanyway, the discussion I was interested in is pretty much settled, so.... go-go California, I guess.

[tony.parente]

(If you forgot my theoretical case, here's the gist of it: drunk boy wants to have sex with very drunk girl, girl says yes. I really can not say it any more simpler)
The people here know very well my general viewpoints on life, but the way I see it...if I'm at a party and a girl try's to fuck me when she's drunk I'm going to deny EVERY SINGLE TIME.

1. Because drunk morals
2. I don't wanna be sleezy
3. She could regret it and claim rape.

To word this to an MRA type person (not saying you are) don't fuck drunk chicks if you don't want to open up the possibility of rape charges.

[telee.kom]

The people here know very well my general viewpoints on life, but the way I see it...if I'm at a party and a girl try's to fuck me when she's drunk I'm going to deny EVERY SINGLE TIME.

1. Because drunk morals
2. I don't wanna be sleezy
3. She could regret it and claim rape.

To word this to an MRA type person (not saying you are) don't fuck drunk chicks if you don't want to open up the possibility of rape charges.

What if it was your girlfriend or wife?

[Volband]

The people here know very well my general viewpoints on life, but the way I see it...if I'm at a party and a girl try's to fuck me when she's drunk I'm going to deny EVERY SINGLE TIME.

1. Because drunk morals
2. I don't wanna be sleezy
3. She could regret it and claim rape.

To word this to an MRA type person (not saying you are) don't fuck drunk chicks if you don't want to open up the possibility of rape charges.
Naah, I'm not an activist for anything, I'm just curious about stuff. 95% of the things which actually fire me up are inequality cases, and yes dear ladies, believe it or not, it applies to both women and men as well - I'm just an ass, not a women hater.

I deliberately tried to stay as dry as I could be with my example, because I did not want to discuss the moral of it. It's easy to caught up in flames, and I did not want a debate where we talk about whether the guy who takes advantage of the situation is a lowly scum or not. I mean, it's an interesting topic as well, because imo it really case dependant, not black and white at all. We are having quite the difficulties to discuss black and white topics (like this sexualt assault one, at least the way I was pursuing this discussion), so I wouldn't feel comfortable going into cases which are more advanced.

As disgusting some people might deem my example, where this girl throws up while saying yes, it was purely to test the law in question to it's extreme, so I can understand if yes is always considered a yes, or there is a line where it's debateable with the excuse "she was too drunk". I initially thought that was the case, so I found it ridiculous that such a rubber law could exist, but as I eventually got my answer, as long as she remains conscious and clearly giving signs of agreement (in forms of words, I suppose, not sure if producing sounds of enjoyment can be considered as a fulfilling response), no matter how piss drunk she is, it can't be considered a sexual assault.

But to reflect on what you said, I think it is important to distinguish between strangers and acquintances. What you said is totally true for strangers, but if you have a history with the girl, it can be different. And to give an example before someone freaks out: let's say you two are buddies, and occasionally have sex. You don't date or anything, but such drunk nights had already happened in the past, so even if from the outside it could be considered as taking advantage, it actually has been what you've been doing on and off.

Anyway, as you can see, drunk sex is not a black and white topic.

[tony.parente]

What if it was your girlfriend or wife?
Don't date crazy women that will scream false rape. There's no answer for every scenario but you gotta do what you can to protect yourself against rape charges. Don't do rapey things and you'll be fine for the most part. Also don't rape but that's obvious.

[orestes]

What if it was your girlfriend or wife?

Show some self-restraint/respect for your partner and don't be that guy​. It's okay, you can get your dick wet some other time.

[telee.kom]

Show some self-restraint/respect for your partner and don't be that guy​. It's okay, you can get your dick wet some other time.

What guy? What if she wants it? That's pretty sexist what you just said you know that?

[orestes]

No, enlighten me. I was replying directly to you. If was speaking in general, I wouldn't have quoted you, honestly.

[telee.kom]

Well for one, you are implying that guys would be the ones who are automatically initiating sex and have to restrain themselves from their animal impulses. You are also implying that women aren't capable of making a conscious decision to have sex while drunk, but the guy should. What if we are both drunk? Would we be raping each other? Why should I (as a guy) restrain myself? Shouldn't you be against this kind of stuff?

[icklekitty]

It's not sexist. In the context of the conversation it's obviously not OK for you to take advantage of someone just because they're your spouse.

This is not a conversation about consensual non-consent.

[tony.parente]

You fellas are acting like every girl is out to fuck your over, this is not the case. It's just general common sense legislation as well as common sense precautions.

[telee.kom]

Again, you are implying that I (as a man) would be automatically taking advantage of woman, just because I'm a man. It's kinda funny how you don't see that.

[icklekitty]

Reverse the gender pronouns and the story is identical.

[Volband]

You fellas are acting like every girl is out to fuck your over, this is not the case. It's just general common sense legislation as well as common sense precautions.
I am honestly trying my best to understand how on Earth is it an ass move to have drunken sex with your girlfriend whom you are with for let's say 3 years, let alone with your wife, whom you might be with for 20+ years, have children, etc.

Tony, are you guys really THIS sensitive in America? Or are they immidietly assuming that when we talk about drunken sex we mean "she is totally knocked out!" ? - which is, in fact, not the case. (Though honestly, if a couple is into that kind of kink...)

[telee.kom]

You fellas are acting like every girl is out to fuck your over, this is not the case. It's just general common sense legislation as well as common sense precautions.

Not at all what I'm saying. I would actually like for common sense to prevail. I think adult people can make decisions for themselves and don't need a nanny state to told them how many beers can you drink when you want to have sex with somebody.

[orestes]

nanny state

And there you have it.

[Volband]

Not at all what I'm saying. I would actually like for common sense to prevail. I think adult people can make decisions from themselves and don't need a nanny state to told how many beers can you drink when you want to have sex with somebody.
You are right, but allegro already quoted that you can drink as many as you want, as long as you are still a somewhat functioning human being. So if you lay with a very, very drunk girl who is very much consent to the idea, then it is fine.

If she's barely moving, or incapable of forming proper words, then it is suddenly not okay, and I think that's fine. I mean, I know girls - at least in here - are terrible drinkers, and some of them are always wasted as hell, and if they do it in a party with tons of strangers then they are plain and simply morons (and careless), but it's all right to protect them. If someone is repeatedly an idiot, they will make their life a misery anyway. Also, putting stuff into girl's drinks is pretty common, and I think none of us would like if people kept hunting on girls this way, while defending themselves with "but she did not say no!!"

[Khrz]

Not at all what I'm saying. I would actually like for common sense to prevail. I think adult people can make decisions for themselves and don't need a nanny state to told them how many beers can you drink when you want to have sex with somebody.

So really, you haven't been following any of the previous explanations, carefully laid out for you in the previous page. Where stuff is explained about the law thing on the topic of the alcohol stuff relatively to the rapey shit.

[slave2thewage]

I swear to God, every time I come into this thread lately, all I can see are -

https://stephparkyy.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/fedoras1.jpg

[telee.kom]

You are right, but allegro already quoted that you can drink as many as you want, as long as you are still a somewhat functioning human being. So if you lay with a very, very drunk girl who is very much consent to the idea, then it is fine.

If she's barely moving, or incapable of forming proper words, then it is suddenly not okay, and I think that's fine. I mean, I know girls - at least in here - are terrible drinkers, and some of them are always wasted as hell, and if they do it in a party with tons of strangers then they are plain and simply morons (and careless), but it's all right to protect them. If someone is repeatedly an idiot, they will make their life a misery anyway. Also, putting stuff into girl's drinks is pretty common, and I think none of us would like if people kept hunting on girls this way, while defending themselves with "but she did not say no!!"

I get that, but I was trying to communicate that the consent should be what matter the most, or better yet the affirmative consent (the yes is yes) and consent should be what should always go first. There is zero reason for having a line about how drunk can you be, when the law is set up in a way, that you need a clear consent that the other party is okay with having sex. Obviously when you are drunk so much you can't even speak, than you can't give affirmative consent. This automatically solves the problem of alcohol and drugs in regards to sex.. or at least in my opinion anyway

[allegro]

I get that, but I was trying to communicate that the consent should be what matter the most, or better yet the affirmative consent (the yes is yes) and consent should be what should always go first. There is zero reason for having a line about how drunk can you be, when the law is set up in a way, that you need a clear consent that the other party is okay with having sex. Obviously when you are drunk so much you can't even speak, than you can't give affirmative consent. This automatically solves the problem of alcohol and drugs in regards to sex.. or at least in my opinion anyway
But the law ISN'T set up that way. The reason why the State of CA passed that law was because the basic common law rule has always been "No Means No" and the lack of "No" (or any signs of conveying "No" in the absence of a verbal "No" e g. kicking, scratching, or fighting off an attack in any way) has been determined to mean "Yes" or compliance or consent. So "Yes Means Yes" is an attempt to replace (or supplement) "No Means No." So if she or he is unconscious or isn't saying "Yes" throughout sex (passes out halfway through), it's not consensual sex. In California on campuses, at least.

Nobody is doing a Breathalizer Test. The determiner of "how drunk" is whether or not the person was sober enough to give verbal consent throughout sex (not passed-out, unconscious, blacked-out, in-and-out of consciousness). This is pretty easy stuff, here. The reason WHY is because there was case law in CA wherein a few Defendants claimed that an unconscious victim did not say "No" and therefore consented (lack of No = Yes). Also, again, over 50 colleges and universites had been found to have hidden evidence in sexual assault cases, in direct violation of Title IX laws, so the law further requires stuff related to that.

[playwithfire]

What guy? What if she wants it? That's pretty sexist what you just said you know that?

So that was horrible to say, but do you remember pages ago where I said I STILL always make sure to get affirmative consent from my boyfriend when he's very drunk or very tired? I go "Is this okay?" or "Can I ____? This is okay? You're sure?" depending on things.

[allegro]

Drunk sex sucks, anyway. Guys' dicks either won't go up, or won't go back down, and it all just goes on forever (or doesn't even start) and it's all boring and nothing feels as good, anyway. Nobody should have drunk sex. It's a waste of good sex.

If I was in charge of the world, everyone would be happy, there would be no hangovers, and better sex.

You're welcome.

[Khrz]

...And on the other side of the stick, you're having sex with someone who literally can't give a fuck.

[telee.kom]

So that was horrible to say, but do you remember pages ago where I said I STILL always make sure to get affirmative consent from my boyfriend when he's very drunk or very tired? I go "Is this okay?" or "Can I ____? This is okay? You're sure?" depending on things.

Don't take this the wrong way but I would find this horribly unsexy. There should be some balance to these things. Especially if it's a long time partner, you can probably tell even non verbally if he/she is enjoying it or not. And if not, you can always say to stop. I wouldn't want the constant reassuring to be honest.

[allegro]

Don't take this the wrong way but I would find this horribly unsexy. There should be some balance to these things. Especially if it's a long time partner, you can probably tell even non verbally if he/she is enjoying it or not. And if not, you can always say to stop. I wouldn't want the constant reassuring to be honest.

I think when they barf all over the inside of the car and then become incoherent, it's a pretty good sign that sexy time not good idea.

Not only from a legal standpoint but from a "worst sex ever" standpoint. Nobody is that desperate.

[playwithfire]

Don't take this the wrong way but I would find this horribly unsexy. There should be some balance to these things. Especially if it's a long time partner, you can probably tell even non verbally if he/she is enjoying it or not. And if not, you can always say to stop. I wouldn't want the constant reassuring to be honest.

Nah. "Can I go down on you?" is music to my ears.

[Swykk]

It's funny when someone on my ignore list post quotes me. I'm not going to read it. Ever.

On topic, I'm not a one night stand kind of guy nor would I be taking advantage of any girl, if she's my wife or girlfriend...because anyone that's wiling to sleep with me and put up with my anxiety and depression, deserves my respect at the very least.

[allegro]

On topic, I'm not a one night stand kind of guy nor would I be taking advantage of any girl, if she's my wife or girlfriend...because anyone that's wiling to sleep with me and put up with my anxiety and depression, deserves my respect at the very least.
Aw that's nice.

I only know one thing: if G is really drunk, he ain't getting laid that night.

And I'm sleeping in the spare bedroom because he's gonna snore like a FREIGHT TRAIN all night.

But G has never tried to fuck me when I've been drunk. Probably because he was also drunk and drunk sex is just bad sex, ugh.

Now I don't drink anymore, except for an occasional glass of champagne.

[playwithfire]

I honestly cannot STAND drunken sex (unless I'm horny enough, heh, but it's not good). I had sex with my boyfriend once when he was very, VERY drunk and I was sober. And that's when I was like "Hey, this is okay? You're sure?" a lot. Because I was super horny. It wasn't good sex at all but I got off? Generally when he's really tired or something I just check in like once since I don't want to assume it's cool. Affirmative consent practices are really really natural and far from unsexy.

[Volband]

It's funny when someone on my ignore list post quotes me. I'm not going to read it. Ever.

On topic, I'm not a one night stand kind of guy nor would I be taking advantage of any girl, if she's my wife or girlfriend...because anyone that's wiling to sleep with me and put up with my anxiety and depression, deserves my respect at the very least.
Meh, suddenly I feel bad for taking up the gauntlet with you - did not know you suffer from depression. But here's a free advice which you won't read anyway. (Ever. Ever ever - we got it) : don't keep saying "I don't see you, I don't care", because it pretty much means the exact opposite of it. Everyone has to ignore a few people in their lives, and in your case, few might turn into many (because of your condition), but you clearly care, which basically ruins the whole purpose of ignoring someone. You leave people behind because they make a bad influence on you, so you should only keep mentioning those whom you actually care about, because talking about ignored people is kinda counter-productive, and basically you just get worked up for nothing. It's hardly a serious matter with me, but since we pretty much reflect ourself even in here, I am concerned ithat your approach is the same towards real life acquintances.

Obviously I understand the ego boost part of saying "la la I don't hear you!", but it fades quickly, while you are still missing the core concept of ignoring someone.

Well, my good deed/week ratio just skyrocketed!

[Mantra]

You know, I feel like the "Don't murder people" rule should just be common sense. Why do we need the nanny state to hold our hand with all these silly "no murder" laws when we could just work it out among ourselves like reasonable adults?

[playwithfire]

Meh, suddenly I feel bad for taking up the gauntlet with you - did not know you suffer from depression. But here's a free advice which you won't read anyway. (Ever. Ever ever - we got it) : don't keep saying "I don't see you, I don't care", because it pretty much means the exact opposite of it. Everyone has to ignore a few people in their lives, and in your case, few might turn into many (because of your condition), but you clearly care, which basically ruins the whole purpose of ignoring someone. You leave people behind because they make a bad influence on you, so you should only keep mentioning those whom you actually care about, because talking about ignored people is kinda counter-productive, and basically you just get worked up for nothing. It's hardly a serious matter with me, but since we pretty much reflect ourself even in here, I am concerned ithat your approach is the same towards real life acquintances.

Obviously I understand the ego boost part of saying "la la I don't hear you!", but it fades quickly, while you are still missing the core concept of ignoring someone.

Well, my good deed/week ratio just skyrocketed!

Dude, I have Obsessive Compulsive Disorder and spend between 10/20 minutes in the bathroom basically every time. We all got issues and it's not really a condition that means we need to be treated delicately.

That said... uh, other than that you just gave good advice. Damn it.

[telee.kom]

You know, I feel like the "Don't murder people" rule should just be common sense. Why do we need the nanny state to hold our hand with all these silly "no murder" laws when we could just work it out among ourselves like reasonable adults?

If you want this comparison to make sense, it would have to be a law that says "don't murder people while you are drunk" while you have the law to "not murder people" anyway. Because this is all I was saying the whole time.

[icklekitty]

Don't drink and drive, kids

[eversonpoe]

oh, i missed a lot in this thread over the weekend. i'm not going to try to respond to everything i'd like to discuss : /

anyway, my wife and i practice active consent, whether we've been drinking or not, because sometimes one of us is in the mood for a particular activity but the other one of us is not. i'm not going to just force her to let me go down on her if she doesn't want it, even if i do, because that's not right. so i ASK, EVERY TIME (in a variety of ways, attempting to keep it fun and sexy rather than mechanical and "unsexy") before i just do it. it's really not difficult.

also, we almost never have drunk sex, because (for some reason) getting drunk lowers her sex drive. so on the rare occasion that we do, we make sure that we're both aware enough of everything so that neither one of us is uncomfortable.

@Volband (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3656) & @tele.kom i was raped, by a girl, when i was 15. i was very prude, and i was very not ready to have sex. i didn't say no because i couldn't say anything; because i was terrified. i was completely sober, but i blacked out partway through. i didn't remember the experience for about a week, and for the longest time, because of the way society treats men and masculinity (and the fact that i hadn't figured out my gender dysphoria yet), my own brain kept telling me i made it up. i had doubts for YEARS, until one day, about eight years later, i saw my rapist on the train. i started having an extreme panic attack and barely made it home. i managed to find her on facebook and wrote her a message because i needed some kind of closure. it was extremely difficult for me, especially because i still had that voice in the back of my head telling me it never actually happened. but then she replied, and confirmed that it did happen. she tried to apologize, which was essentially meaningless, but it at least finally silenced that horrible voice in my head telling me i had imagined the experience.

just sharing so that you have some kind of understanding of my viewpoint, and that misogyny affects EVERYONE, and it affects almost everyone negatively.

[Volband]

anyway, my wife and i practice active consent, whether we've been drinking or not, because sometimes one of us is in the mood for a particular activity but the other one of us is not. i'm not going to just force her to let me go down on her if she doesn't want it, even if i do, because that's not right. so i ASK, EVERY TIME (in a variety of ways, attempting to keep it fun and sexy rather than mechanical and "unsexy") before i just do it. it's really not difficult.
It's not difficult, but the point is that it's not necessary. People in long term relationships (including marriage and such) should be aware of how they prefer their sex life. I mean, there are people out there whose kink is rape fantasy, so while playwithfire finds "can I go down on you?" extremely hot, there are others out there who prefer an entirely different approach. And that should be fine.



@Volband (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=3656) & @tele.kom i was raped, by a girl, when i was 15. i was very prude, and i was very not ready to have sex. i didn't say no because i couldn't say anything; because i was terrified. i was completely sober, but i blacked out partway through. i didn't remember the experience for about a week, and for the longest time, because of the way society treats men and masculinity (and the fact that i hadn't figured out my gender dysphoria yet), my own brain kept telling me i made it up. i had doubts for YEARS, until one day, about eight years later, i saw my rapist on the train. i started having an extreme panic attack and barely made it home. i managed to find her on facebook and wrote her a message because i needed some kind of closure. it was extremely difficult for me, especially because i still had that voice in the back of my head telling me it never actually happened. but then she replied, and confirmed that it did happen. she tried to apologize, which was essentially meaningless, but it at least finally silenced that horrible voice in my head telling me i had imagined the experience.

just sharing so that you have some kind of understanding of my viewpoint, and that misogyny affects EVERYONE, and it affects almost everyone negatively.
Who did you tell this after the incident? And honestly, how did they react? Do you feel, looking back, you would get the same treatment if you were a girl and your assaulter a boy?

I watched quite a lot of videos, where the girl (physically and verbally) abuses the boy to the point he fights back, and 90% of these footages are from the U S A. All of these videos have recurring themes:
- Abuser girl feels invulnerable, takes it granted that she is in control.
- People either laugh or even cheer the girl on.
- The boy hesitates to act, he rather walks away even after being slapped numerous times, than to empower her
- The boy finally slaps, pretty much silences the girl instantly by usually hitting her (though saw a vid where he literally threw her, lol)
- People freak the fuck out, storm the boy and rescue the girl asap.

Based on this, and on the few male rape victim reports I happened to read, I'm fairly certain your case was not taken half as seriously as if the genders has been reversed. Sure, the story ends well, since a.) you got closure (which is always great, imo) and apparently you have a wife, so even if you still have some demons left around you, you have a partner by side.

Not entirely sure what you meant with your closing sentence. Misogyny means the hatred and belittlement of women, right? I don't see how it affected your case.

[Sarah K]

People who have and responsibly act out rape fantasies generally have discussed that in exhausting detail. It's not like "Oh hey, this is my rape fantasy" and then it happens. There are many discussions leading up to the acting out of such fantasies.

[Volband]

People who have and responsibly act out rape fantasies generally have discussed that in exhausting detail. It's not like "Oh hey, this is my rape fantasy" and then it happens. There are many discussions leading up to the acting out of such fantasies.
Yes, this is why I said long term relationships. You obviously don't just randomly tackle your girl-/boyfriend from behind just because he/she MIGHT enjoy it.

[Sarah K]

Using that as a point to argue against active consent is really silly, was my point. Rape fantasies are usually discussed in exhausting detail with consent established over and over again.

[Volband]

It was an example of my point. My point is that if you know each other well-enough, such step-by-step inquiries about consent are not necessarily needed. To make another example, consensual sex could happen without any of the participants even saying anything. It's all about preferences once you know each other well enough.

[Lunatica]

Meh, suddenly I feel bad for taking up the gauntlet with you - did not know you suffer from depression. But here's a free advice which you won't read anyway. (Ever. Ever ever - we got it) : don't keep saying "I don't see you, I don't care", because it pretty much means the exact opposite of it. Everyone has to ignore a few people in their lives, and in your case, few might turn into many (because of your condition), but you clearly care, which basically ruins the whole purpose of ignoring someone. You leave people behind because they make a bad influence on you, so you should only keep mentioning those whom you actually care about, because talking about ignored people is kinda counter-productive, and basically you just get worked up for nothing. It's hardly a serious matter with me, but since we pretty much reflect ourself even in here, I am concerned ithat your approach is the same towards real life acquintances.

Obviously I understand the ego boost part of saying "la la I don't hear you!", but it fades quickly, while you are still missing the core concept of ignoring someone.

Well, my good deed/week ratio just skyrocketed!

Wow, you're a narcissistic dick.

(Sorry, off topic. But he started it!)

You have to tell someone that they are not going to engage you on the internet because there are no social ques to let you know they are bored/repulsed by you. Makes me think that in real life you're not very good at reading people.


My point is that if you know each other well-enough, such step-by-step inquiries about consent are not necessarily needed. To make another example, consensual sex could happen without any of the participants even saying anything. It's all about preferences once you know each other well enough.

Who's preferences? Because it sounds like you don't really like considering anybody, let alone a partner. And in your case it sounds like you're in for repetitive and boring sex. Consent can open up a new sexy conversation/situation too.

[telee.kom]

I think nobody here is arguing against active consent, and I'm not saying that people who practice it in a relationship or marriage are weird or anything, but from my experience it seems redundant. You know the person well, you should understand even without words if your sexual advances are being accepted positively or not.

Geez can we stop with the drama? "I don't agree with you so I start to insult you" becomes kinda boring by now.

[Sarah K]

There are lots of things in the world that should be understood, but aren't... or are simply disregarded.

[Volband]

Wow, you're a narcissistic dick.
Stop it, you are flattering me!



You have to tell someone that they are not going to engage you on the internet because there are no social ques to let you know they are bored/repulsed by you. Makes me think that in real life you're not very good at reading people.
Welp, I read him quite accurately, so... I guess thanks for your input anyway. And to be completely precise, HE started it, but don't even bother with that.



Who's preferences? Because it sounds like you don't really like considering anybody, let alone a partner. And in your case it sounds like you're in for repetitive and boring sex. Consent can open up a new sexy conversation/situation too.
How is that boring if you (warning: I'm going to be somewhat graphic here!) walk behind your partner while they do whatever they are doing, start caressing and kissing her from behind, then fucking her right there right then - possibly without saying anything. It sounds a hella more exciting to me than "honey, would you like to have intercourse in our bedroom? Really? Great!". Then again, I'm not judging, whatever satisfies your needs, it's all about enjoying yourselves, and it shouldn't matter if a couple is into some wild BDSM or plain vanilla missionary all day everyday.

As for your last sentence, it's true, but I never said it isn't so... once again.... thanks, I guess? You can have some raw quickie from behind one day without saying a word, and discuss something wild and fun, and sexy and whatnot the other day.

[Volband]

Geez can we stop with the drama? "I don't agree with you so I start to insult you" becomes kinda boring by now.
Honestly, like 70% of the drama comes down from their side assuming we are always thinking about the worst, unless we literally spell everything out. It's not even the language barrier: you asked tony about his thoughts on having drunken sex with your wife/husband and you immidietly got wrecked by facepalmes and responses which all assumed that you surely get your wifey knocked out by alcohol every day then get on top of her and have your way...

Your question was fair and simple, and did not have anything offensive in it. It's like everything has to be a battle here, just for the sake of it.

[Lunatica]

How is that boring if you (warning: I'm going to be somewhat graphic here!) walk behind your partner while they do whatever they are doing, start caressing and kissing her from behind, then fucking her right there right then - possibly without saying anything. It sounds a hella more exciting to me than "honey, would you like to have intercourse in our bedroom? Really? Great!". Then again, I'm not judging, whatever satisfies your needs, it's all about enjoying yourselves, and it shouldn't matter if a couple is into some wild BDSM or plain vanilla missionary all day everyday.

This is horribly generalized and not based on reality at all. But thanks for proving my personal point about the type of person that you are.

In my PERSONAL experience I've only really enjoyed sex that was consensual. Yes, I've been in immature relationships where this concept of "Dramatic Hollywood Romantic Lovemaking" has left me puzzled and very unsatisfied. It tips the scale on the other person getting most of the pleasure because they are already in that mindset, while their partner's mind was somewhere else doing shit like balancing a check book or washing dishes.

Even if you know the person well over 40 years if you want to keep a partner really happy you should consider their mindset. Trust me, it's awesome if you do.

[telee.kom]

It's not even the language barrier

I actually sometimes wonder if I'm explaining myself correctly here, because I keep reading arguments against something I've never said and never meant it like that. So I don't know if some people here are just trying to find some narrative to this discussion no matter what I say, or maybe I just suck at English.

[allegro]

Your question was fair and simple, and did not have anything offensive in it. It's like everything has to be a battle here, just for the sake of it.
Where are you seeing all this battle and facepalms? It's just a discussion, as far as I can see. There is no "drama" anywhere. The only "drama" I can see is from you two guys, asking the same questions over and over as if you're confused when other people (male and female) here seem to get it. I'm guessing maybe it's a cultural thing and your country is just drunk all the time, although American college students (for which this law was created) binge drink a lot so it'd be pretty hard to out-drink them (and they do have a cultural thing of fucking unconscious people). But bringing these theoretical what-if's about marriage and long-term dating when this law had nothing to do with that (although a few members say they use consent language in their sex life with a long-term partner) is just stirring up some weird shit in a "feminist" thread and I'm scratching my head about why this is in here. Shouldn't this be in the "fucking" thread?

Btw, Lunatica has been here since 2002 and English is her second language, so I don't imagine that there is a language barrier involved, she's just REALLY honest, lol.

[telee.kom]

maybe it's a cultural thing and your country is just drunk all the time

oh well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_beer_consumption_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capit a

[allegro]

oh well

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_beer_consumption_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_alcohol_consumption_per_capit a
Your Honor, I rest my case.

:p

[Volband]

This is horribly generalized and not based on reality at all. But thanks for proving my personal point about the type of person that you are.

In my PERSONAL experience I've only really enjoyed sex that was consensual. Yes, I've been in immature relationships where this concept of " Dramatic Hollywood Romantic Lovemaking" has left me puzzled and very unsatisfied. It tips the scale on the men getting most of the pleasure because he's already in that mindset, while the woman's mind was somewhere else doing shit like balancing a check book or washing dishes. Even if you know the person well over 40 years if you want to keep a partner really happy you should consider their mindset. Trust me, it's awesome if you do.
Smart? Handsome? Charming? Don't leave me hangin'!

Allegro asked what drama I mean, well here's a nice example: I never said that my example was not consent. You get all worked up, because you assume the girl did not enjoy it, and she was stressed, etc. I never said that, you just painted it into my example, then replied to it that way. Once again, this should not be about what me or you enjoy in a sexual act, rather discussing possibilities. And spontaneous sex, without even giving verbal consent in the literal way is a possibility, it is real. Maybe you just look into each other eyes and already know that you both want it, since you've been together for years - sure, reality is not that romanticized, but you get what I mean. So please, do not color it your way.


I actually sometimes wonder if I'm explaining myself correctly here, because I keep reading arguments against something I've never said and never meant it like that. So I don't know if some people here are just trying to find some narrative to this discussion no matter what I say, or maybe I just suck at English.
Surely I'm not the right person to say yes or no here, but your wife/husband question was as obvious as something could be. Everyone who bashed you basically added extra words into your mouth. I'm actually glad you are here, because I could give a pass on the hatred toward me (which also results in putting words into my mouth) with the explanation that my personality definitely not won over the ladies here, but you've been on point and cultural throughout this all, so at least they could spare you.

Where are you seeing all this battle and facepalms? It's just a discussion, as far as I can see. There is no "drama" anywhere. The only "drama" I can see is from you two guys, asking the same questions over and over as if you're confused when other people (male and female) here seem to get it. I'm guessing maybe it's a cultural thing and your country is just drunk all the time, although American college students (for which this law was created) binge drink a lot so it'd be pretty hard to out-drink them (and they do have a cultural thing of fucking unconscious people). But bringing these theoretical what-if's about marriage and long-term dating when this law had nothing to do with that (although a few members say they use consent language in their sex life with a long-term partner) is just stirring up some weird shit in a "feminist" thread and I'm scratching my head about why this is in here. Shouldn't this be in the "fucking" thread?

Btw, @Lunatica (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=104) has been here since 2002 and English is her second language, so I don't imagine that there is a language barrier involved, she's just REALLY honest, lol.
The reason it can belong here because the main vibe I'm getting from many responses, is that if I, as a male human being drunkenly initiate sex with my also drunken girlfriend, and God forbid I don't literally ask the question "Can I have sex with you, darling?", then I am that guy. No seems to care whether she wants it or not, or enjoys it or not, everyone assumes I would basically assault her, which is mind-blowing... (No, it is not about the law anymore by the way, it's more of a moral discussion)

If you really don't see the drama, then play a game, proposed by me. Start at the beginning, where telee.kom linked the article, and here comes the hardest part of the game: stay objective. Don't look at [XY]'s post as your buddy-buddy and do not look at our posts as some post-communist Eastern-European barbarians whose hobby is to eat women. Do not fill in the gaps we leave; just because we do not explain every possible scenario, it does not mean we automatically have the worst in mind (aka. when we mention drunken sex, we do not mean she's completely passed out, or when I mention doing a raw quickie from behind, do not assume she automatically hates it and does not enjoy it at all - if it's not clear, then ask). Then you can analyze this discussion which should be put between ""s, because most of the responses are about others shouting witchraft at us, while we try to clear it up, which then results in some endless circle where we literally can't say anything "right".

Examples:
- telee.kom (just like me) wasn't fully aware how this law worked. If it wasn't for us pursuing the question among all the dirt throwing, it might have been a lone post from him with 3-4 facepalms.
- he also asked why is it considered a shit move to have drunken sex with your love? the responses which he got were crazy.
- you accused me of being insensitive (after Leviathant stepped in, I know I had one or two flamebaiting comment before that) and THREATENED me to be silenced by him, just because you found my wording. I mean, we were discussing rape, sexual assault - it is a depressing topic and it is going to be graphic. But reaching for the gun just because you do not agree with some of the words I used... you see, when you want to have a discussion, you mainly focus on the topic, and do not try to nitpick on things. Everyone slips eventually - you yourself flamebaited me, remember? (flamebaiting btw is the equivalent of verbally provoking an irl fight, so the other guy gets in trouble, even though he was provoked)

[playwithfire]

http://media.salon.com/2014/07/Screen-Shot-2014-07-27-at-5.25.59-PM.png

[Lunatica]

Smart? Handsome? Charming? Don't leave me hangin'!

A virgin troll.



Maybe you just look into each other eyes and already know that you both want it, since you've been together for years - sure, reality is not that romanticized, but you get what I mean. So please, do not color it your way.

Oh yes, "The Look".

As a somewhat attractive member of the female sex (I have my days) I get "The Look" from even random guys on the street sometimes. Men and Woman can project their own desires on a person or a partner through their eyes but it does not mean they feel the same way if they look back. The polite and respectful thing to do is ask. Sure, if you're in a long term relationship you might even have a code word for it, but you always make sure that they are in the same mindset because other wise you are just projecting.

And is really not my fault that you don't like where the conversation is going. This is how conversations usually go between humans, you're accusing people of controlling the conversation and starting drama, yet you're the one making the rules (which I'm ignoring because that's retarded) and being dramatic.

[allegro]

The reason it can belong here because the main vibe I'm getting from many responses, is that if I, as a male human being drunkenly initiate sex with my also drunken girlfriend, and God forbid I don't literally ask the question "Can I have sex with you, darling?", then I am that guy. No seems to care whether she wants it or not, or enjoys it or not, everyone assumes I would basically assault her, which is mind-blowing... (No, it is not about the law anymore by the way, it's more of a moral discussion)
I don't know that I saw anybody assume that, maybe I'm missing something. This law (as I've stated ad nauseum) is intended for college students who sexually assault passed-out unconscious people who don't say "no" and, up until this time, "no means no" has been the rule of law and the lack of "no" is interpreted as "yes" even if the person is totally unconscious. The original post was "omg, this makes my blood boil" because the original poster completely misunderstood the law because the journalist sensationalized the law and made it into something it's not, and extended it into areas where it's not intended.

The law (as we've already concluded, here) is intended for people to not fuck unconscious people. yes, there are so many fucking stupid or just plain evil people out there that a law had to be created that says "the lack of no does not mean go ahead and fuck that unconscious person" and the drunk unconscious girl is not a "drunk slut who deserves to be fucked" just because you got her really drunk (yes, this is some kind of weird cultural phenomenon here on college campuses wherein females can't hold their alcohol like males and unsuspecting females are given plastic cups full of seemingly innocent-looking fruit drinks at parties that are loaded with Everclear or really strong liquor and then the girl is passed out drunk and naked and being gang-raped by a bunch of guys).

And joking about this is kind of a sensitive topic in this country, yeah, it's a touchy subject, and we have had a few discussions on here about this and it ends up that a few people on ETS have actually had this happen to them, and one person on ETS is actually working with females on college campuses about raising awareness about this issue and trying to get it stopped, etc. It's a pretty serious issue in this country, serious enough that we had to pass what seems to be a really dumb law, because college campus administrations were sweeping this under the rug trying to cover it up and they weren't even notifying police about it. And saying stuff like "this is stupid, why do we need this" (when maybe you didn't understand it) can be really offensive (or painful) to people when it's happened to them, you know?

And going on and on and on and on, beating a dead horse with scenarios that don't apply to this law, "what if a wife and husband are on an anniversary dinner, and he comes up behind her, and sticks his tongue in her ear, and puts his finger into her pussy, and then he rubs his balls on her clit, and then she licks his ear, and then ..." have nothing to do with four football players pissing all over a passed-out drunk co-ed and then taking pictures of her and posting the pictures to Facebook and then the police not being called because the girl was too passed out to say "no" and the college doesn't want their star football players getting into trouble.

Also, asking if an Admin needs to be called -- at least on this Board -- is not a "threat." It's always been a way to keep arguments in check and to keep discussions on track when things have been going in circles or when people are obviously just trolling in a thread. In the old days, we'd take it to the "Shit List." Having an Admin deal with it is a nicer way of dealing with it, now. It's better than a Shit List, it's better than users trying to control a thread. I was a SysAdmin and a Forum Admin for years. When users try to deal with this, it never works. We've wasted 4 fucking pages on this stupid shit. I posted the entire law 3 pages ago, but you guys decided tl;dr and that arguing was much more fun. Don't tell me what a flame bait is, dude, I've been doing this since this mid-80s and I owned a fucking 8-line BBS with a news feed; what I did wasn't a flame bait; what I did was an attempt to get the subject back on track. I can flame bait better than anybody, and if I wanted to flame bait, your fucking ass would be on fire.

What orestes said in her post, when she said "don't be that guy" -- or, what she meant, anyway, and what we in the U.S. understand it to mean -- is, if you are with a girl and she is passed-out drunk (unconscious), don't be the guy that fucks the passed-out girl and you're good to go. "That guy" is the guy who fucks the girl who is totally unconscious. And "that guy" is THE GUY THIS LAW IS AIMED AT. orestes never once said, or even implied, that you were "that guy." YOU TOOK IT TO MEAN THAT. She just said that this law is only bad for those guys, and if you're not that guy, this doesn't even affect you.

WHO THIS LAW IS NOT INTENDED FOR:

* Married couples who have drinks together at dinner and both are conscious and consenting when having sex (said consent does not have to be verbalized, as lack of consent can be verbalized as "NO" if the person is conscious and there is no duct tape on the spouse's mouth, although if the spouse is being mentally abused that is a whole other topic of discussion, SEE THIS (http://www.ncdsv.org/images/powercontrolwheelnoshading.pdf))
* Dating couples who have drinks together and both are conscious and consenting when having sex
* People who just met and got drunk and just want to fuck each other in the parking lot on the back of the car and are totally shitfaced but are conscious and consenting when having sex
* People at a sex club who got drunk and just want to fuck each other in front of everybody and are totally shitfaced but are conscious and consenting when having sex
* People at a bar who got drunk and just want to fuck each other and are so drunk they are barfing on each other but they don't care but they are into that and they are conscious and consenting when having sex

[Volband]

A virgin troll.
So you're saying there's still a chance the above three might be true? Neat!




Sure, if you're in a long term relationship you might even have a code word for it, but you always make sure that they are in the same mindset because other wise you are just projecting.

Could you say there might be a code chain of events, like the look--->the kiss--->the touches and if both of them keep up with the progression of these actions, then they know even without words that both of them wants to have sex?

(See, I kinda had to control the conversation to finally reach the point where we are almost on the same exact track. High five? No?)


I don't know that I saw anybody assume that, maybe I'm missing something. This law (as I've stated ad nauseum) is intended for college students who have been fucking passed-out unconscious people who don't say "no" and, up until this time, "no means no" has been the rule of law and the lack of "no" is interpreted as "yes" even if the person is totally unconscious. The original post was "omg, this makes my blood boil" because the original poster completely misunderstood the law because the journalist sensationalized the law and made it into something it's not, and extended it into areas where it's not intended.
Yes.


The law (as we've already concluded, here) is intended for people to not fuck unconscious people. yes, there are so many fucking stupid or just plain evil people out there that a law had to be created that says "the lack of no does not mean go ahead and fuck that unconscious person" and the drunk unconscious girl is not a "drunk slut who deserves to be fucked" just because you got her really drunk (yes, this is some kind of weird cultural phenomenon here on college campuses wherein females can't hold their alcohol like males and unsuspecting females are given plastic cups full of seemingly innocent-looking fruit drinks at parties that are loaded with Everclear or really strong liquor and then the girl is passed out drunk and naked and being gang-raped by a bunch of guys).
Clear as day!


And joking about this is kind of a sensitive topic in this country, yeah, it's a touchy subject, and we have had a few discussions on here about this and it ends up that a few people on ETS have actually had this happen to them, and one person on ETS is actually working with females on college campuses about raising awareness about this issue and trying to get it stopped, etc. It's a pretty serious issue in this country, serious enough that we had to pass what seems to be a really dumb law, because college campus administrations were sweeping this under the rug trying to cover it up and they weren't even notifying police about it. And saying stuff like "this is stupid, why do we need this" (when maybe you didn't understand it) can be really offensive (or painful) to people when it's happened to them, you know?
I wasn't joking, aside from the off comments with/about other posters, which I got warned for. Also, referring back to the first quoted part (from you), when we initially said it is a dumb law, we actually misunderstood it, that is why I tried my best to find out how does this law work in "action". Once you answered my question, it was all clear.


And going on and on and on and on, beating a dead horse with scenarios that don't apply to this law, "what if a wife and husband are on an anniversary dinner, and he comes up behind her, and sticks his tongue in her ear, and puts his finger into her pussy, and then he rubs his balls on her clit, and then she licks his ear, and then ..." have nothing to do with four football players pissing all over a passed-out drunk co-ed and then taking pictures of her and posting the pictures to Facebook and then the police not being called because the girl was too passed out to say "no" and the college doesn't want their star football players getting into trouble.
No, it does not. But it was a new discussion, so no point mashing these up. Of course it looks ridiculous if you compare the two cases!


Also, asking if an Admin needs to be called -- at least on this Board -- is not a "threat." It's always been a way to keep arguments in check and to keep discussions on track when things have been going in circles or when people are obviously just trolling in a thread. In the old days, we'd take it to the "Shit List." Having an Admin deal with it is a nicer way of dealing with it, now. It's better than a Shit List, it's better than users trying to control a thread. I was a SysAdmin and a Forum Admin for years. When users try to deal with this, it never works. We've wasted 4 fucking pages on this stupid shit. I posted the entire law 3 pages ago, but you guys decided tl;dr and that arguing was much more fun. Don't tell me what a flame bait is, dude, I've been doing this since this mid-80s and I owned a fucking 8-line BBS with a news feed; what I did wasn't a flame bait; what I did was an attempt to get the subject back on track. I can flame bait better than anybody, and if I wanted to flame bait, your fucking ass would be on fire.
#rekt All right, all right. See? You're actually a cool dudette and perfectly capable of some good ol' smackdown without threatening me with telling me off. I'm only in the biz' since, huh... 2003, early 2004? I dunno, but I can say the best discussions have always been with people who are not there to get offended, or immidietly alert the cops if someone "slips".


What @orestes (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4) said in her post, when she said "don't be that guy" -- or, what she meant, anyway, and what we in the U.S. understand it to mean -- is, if you are with a girl and she is passed-out drunk, don't be the guy that fucks the passed-out girl and you're good to go. "That guy" is the guy who fucks the girl who is totally unconscious. And "that guy" is THE GUY THIS LAW IS AIMED AT. @orestes (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=4) never once said, or even implied, that you were "that guy." YOU TOOK IT TO MEAN THAT. She just said that this law is only bad for those guys, and if you're not that guy, this doesn't even affect you.
All right, but the dude still got facepalmed into oblivion and it wasn't the only negative response to his question, so you might as well post this part to everyone involved. If he does not say the word "unconscious" then don't just pretend he actually meant it.


WHO THIS LAW IS NOT INTENDED FOR:

* Married couples who have drinks together at dinner and both are conscious and consenting when having sex (said consent does not have to be verbalized, as lack of consent can be verbalized as "NO" if the person is conscious and there is no duct tape on the spouse's mouth, although if the spouse is being mentally abused that is a whole other topic of discussion, SEE THIS (http://www.ncdsv.org/images/powercontrolwheelnoshading.pdf))
* Dating couples who have drinks together and both are conscious and consenting when having sex
* People who just met and got drunk and just want to fuck each other in the parking lot on the back of the car and are totally shitfaced but are conscious and consenting when having sex
* People at a sex club who got drunk and just want to fuck each other in front of everybody and are totally shitfaced but are conscious and consenting when having sex
* People at a bar who got drunk and just want to fuck each other and are so drunk they are barfing on each other but they don't care but they are into that and they are conscious and consenting when having sex
And this is just all kinds of beautiful. You even did a homage for me with the vomiting part. Is this love? No, but seriously, these are actual great answers, though we've already got through most of it the hard way, aka. by beating around the dead horse. And once again, the wife and sex without saying a word discussion is not about the law, but about morals.

[allegro]

All right, but the dude still got facepalmed into oblivion and it wasn't the only negative response to his question, so you might as well post this part to everyone involved. If he does not say the word "unconscious" then don't just pretend he actually meant it.
If he'd come in here (should have been in the General Headlines thread, where it was once already a year ago, but whatever) and said "hey, what does this affirmative consent mean, am I misunderstanding this?" Instead, he came in here, proverbial guns blazing, this means we can't get drunk and fuck!, and I don't think he'd even really read the whole article or went and researched the (ALLEGED) pieces cited in the article or considered the source of the article, which really would have helped a lot in advance to understand the article (note the original article never once mentioned "unconscious" because it was way too much fun to publish a one-sided inflammatory article intended to get people all riled up thinking the government was gonna take away drunk fucking), and perhaps the English language hindered the initial understanding, but the initial affect came across a tad ... um ... Donald Trumpian. :p


And once again, the wife and sex without saying a word discussion is not about the law, but about morals.
Well, I think the whole topic comes down to morals, right? The reason why we needed what seems to be a "common sense" law is because some people totally lack morals; what we consider to be common sense or good morals.

Of course, you're going to have journalists out there who are going to find cases and spin it a way that sensationalizes it and twists it because (a) they probably don't understand it, either and (b) news articles sell advertising; more hits = more ads.

So I think the initial face-palming was more like "I can't believe you actually took that bait, dude" (and, also, we'd discussed it for about 9 pages during the Steubenvllle Trial (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/1520-Steubenville-trial-and-rape-culture?highlight=steubenville), and he was about 3 years late to the party, which of course he didn't know but whatever).

But, I'm giving up because now I think he's just fighting for his right to party.

[telee.kom]

Just to clear up what I meant by "drama"- is making this conversation personal.. and I'm sorry, but if you say about someone that he's a "narcissistic prick" or when you say that I'm insensitive towards rape victims, then you are taking this conversation a bit too far and there is seriously no need for that. I've never done this and was trying to be as polite a can be, so I just think it's uncalled for.

I am aware that this affirmative consent thing is aimed at universities only (I don't exactly see why should be campuses their own state inside of state, but that's another conversation) I was aware of this from the beginning. BUT the laws I cited were state laws and I just can't for the love of me understand why are we still talking about affirmative consent when I said three pages ago that this is not what I'm talking about to begin with? The initial article I posted was about California university, but I then pretty clearly proceeded to the general notion of alcohol and sex.

"Intoxication by alcohol or drugs impaired the victim's ability to consent." - this is California state law

" Victim lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact" - this is Minnesota state law

"The victim is incapable of consent by reason of drugs, alcohol, sleep or any other similar impairment of cognition" - this is Arizona state law

etc. Again, the only thing I was arguing about is that having this in a law is dangerous precedent because things like "lack of judgement" or "impairment of cognition" are very vague terms when you are consuming alcohol and it would be much better to specify this by some other means, one of it would be the freaking active consent of both parties, or just the notion that both parties have to be active participants and you can't have sex with somebody who is unconscious or half asleep.

And I'm repeating myself because you don't seem to get what I'm saying here. You keep arguing about affirmative consent when I never said it is a bad thing. I only said, that IN A RELATIONSHIP it seems redundant, not when you are drunk with somebody you don't really know and you want to have sex.

[eversonpoe]

It's not difficult, but the point is that it's not necessary. People in long term relationships (including marriage and such) should be aware of how they prefer their sex life. I mean, there are people out there whose kink is rape fantasy, so while playwithfire finds "can I go down on you?" extremely hot, there are others out there who prefer an entirely different approach. And that should be fine.


Who did you tell this after the incident? And honestly, how did they react? Do you feel, looking back, you would get the same treatment if you were a girl and your assaulter a boy?

I watched quite a lot of videos, where the girl (physically and verbally) abuses the boy to the point he fights back, and 90% of these footages are from the U S A. All of these videos have recurring themes:
- Abuser girl feels invulnerable, takes it granted that she is in control.
- People either laugh or even cheer the girl on.
- The boy hesitates to act, he rather walks away even after being slapped numerous times, than to empower her
- The boy finally slaps, pretty much silences the girl instantly by usually hitting her (though saw a vid where he literally threw her, lol)
- People freak the fuck out, storm the boy and rescue the girl asap.

Based on this, and on the few male rape victim reports I happened to read, I'm fairly certain your case was not taken half as seriously as if the genders has been reversed. Sure, the story ends well, since a.) you got closure (which is always great, imo) and apparently you have a wife, so even if you still have some demons left around you, you have a partner by side.

Not entirely sure what you meant with your closing sentence. Misogyny means the hatred and belittlement of women, right? I don't see how it affected your case.

misogyny is the belief that men are better, stronger, and less emotional than women. it is the fuel in the fire of women being treated as less than men, and of men who are feminine or emotional being looked down upon by other men. as someone who LOOKS like a straight white dude, i am held, by society at large, to a standard i do not fit. i am extremely emotional, extremely sensitive, and extremely feminine (despite my beard).

the majority of the reason it took me so long to reconcile what had actually happened with what my brain was telling me had happened was a combination of the emotional trauma of the experience and the fact that i was being told it was "impossible" for a woman to rape a man; that i should have wanted it no matter what. misogyny is what caused that, and it is what turns men into rapists, because they feel they have power over women and that women owe them something (sex). it's a plague among our species that tries to keep the gender binary so formalized that people like me end up trying to kill themselves (yes, that happened too after suffering other severe traumas) because they just don't know what to do or how to be functioning members of society.

to answer your first questions, the first person i told was my mom, who didn't believe me. i was in the middle of a panic attack at home after a bullying incident at school earlier in the day, and that's when the memory came back to me. (side note: my mom is an incredibly understanding, very sympathetic person. the reason she didn't believe me is because she, like so many other people, believed it to be physically impossible) she so vehemently denied it that it made my panic attack worse, and i barricaded myself in the bathroom for over an hour while my parents attempted to get the door open. they only made it in when my panic attack turned into an asthma attack and i essentially lost my ability to breathe for long enough that i could no longer hold the door closed.

i never reported it to the police because i knew they wouldn't take it seriously (how could they if my own mother couldn't?) and because i didn't even know the girl's last name. i had met her two days previous, and she was my mom's friend's boyfriend's daughter who just happened to mistake my shy intimidation and passiveness (which eventually turned to fear) for compliance, and decided to take what she wanted from me.

this is ALL a product of misogyny, so it has EVERYTHING to do with it.

[playwithfire]

https://41.media.tumblr.com/873b808447dcdac0d2dd918d16940a80/tumblr_nbdti6gFQh1rmv7upo1_500.png

[Lunatica]

Could you say there might be a code chain of events, like the look--->the kiss--->the touches and if both of them keep up with the progression of these actions, then they know even without words that both of them wants to have sex?

(See, I kinda had to control the conversation to finally reach the point where we are almost on the same exact track. High five? No?)



Code chain of events? No, I'm not going to say that there's a "code chain of events" because you seem to think all men are idiots (It really comes off that way) and can't muster a simple "wanna do it?" when horny. If you can't respect someone's space, even if you're dating them for a while, that's your problem. I'm honestly trying to be helpful here.

[Mantra]

if I, as a male human being drunkenly initiate sex with my also drunken girlfriend, and God forbid I don't literally ask the question "Can I have sex with you, darling?", then I am that guy. No seems to care whether she wants it or not, or enjoys it or not, everyone assumes I would basically assault her


I think the question of whether close couples should practice affirmative consent has to do with avoiding the potential for serious problems and hurt feelings. Leaving sex completely undiscussed creates the potential for ambiguity and misunderstanding, even between couples who have been together for many years.


If you really want to get specific, there are certain details that can come up during sex that really can't be worked out without some kind of talking. For example, someone might be in the general mood for sex but not for a particular sex act (i.e: maybe you want to fuck, but not give/recieve oral, or maybe you really aren't in the mood for anal penetration tonight, only fingering). There is no "look" that says, "Hey I'm totally down for some hardcore fucking, and possibly giving oral, but NOT receiving oral, and maybe not anal but that depends on how good you are with the foreplay. Also, tie my hands but not my feet." That stuff can only be worked out by confirming it with the other person, but there are certain people (usually dudes, but definitely not always) who think that just cause the other person is in the mood for sex it now means that every possible activity is on the agenda. I've had two friends (one male, one female) who were extremely upset about their partner doing something to their asshole when they were not remotely in the mood for that and it seriously pissed them off and ruined the whole fucking experience, and in one situation actually injured them.


Does that make their partner a rapist? I think it depends on the specific circumstances and also on who those individuals are. There are definitely times when it seems like rape to me, but I can also acknowledge that there are situations where it may just be a genuinely stupid mistake. Even so, it makes you seem like a fucking idiot, completely preoccupied with your own happiness. So really, even if the silent look bullshit works fine for you 99 times out of a hundred, it just seems like a better to just avoid the issue altogether by saying a sentence or two, that way everyone cums in peace and lives happily ever after.



Again, the only thing I was arguing about is that having this in a law is dangerous precedent because things like "lack of judgement" or "impairment of cognition" are very vague terms when you are consuming alcohol and it would be much better to specify this by some other means, one of it would be the freaking active consent of both parties, or just the notion that both parties have to be active participants and you can't have sex with somebody who is unconscious or half asleep.


But the "notion that both parties have to be active participants and you can't have sex with somebody who is unconscious or half asleep" is literally what these laws are establishing, so your post makes no sense. The law says that just because a person didn't vocally say "don't fuck me" doesn't mean it's okay to go ahead fuck them, and it also established that being intoxicated doesn't change this basic fact (which is the argument that a lot of fucking idiots try to make). So what, specifically, is the "dangerous precedent" being being set by establishing these pretty basic and straightforward concepts in law?

[allegro]

"Intoxication by alcohol or drugs impaired the victim's ability to consent." - this is California state law
No, it's way more complicated than that (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967):

(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition.


" Victim lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact" - this is Minnesota state law
No, it's way more specific (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.341):

609.341 DEFINITIONS.
Subdivision 1.Scope. For the purposes of sections 609.341 to 609.351, the terms in this section have the meanings given them.
Subd. 2.Actor. "Actor" means a person accused of criminal sexual conduct.
Subd. 3.Force. "Force" means the infliction, attempted infliction, or threatened infliction by the actor of bodily harm or commission or threat of any other crime by the actor against the complainant or another, which (a) causes the complainant to reasonably believe that the actor has the present ability to execute the threat and (b) if the actor does not have a significant relationship to the complainant, also causes the complainant to submit.
Subd. 4.Consent. (a) "Consent" means words or overt actions by a person indicating a freely given present agreement to perform a particular sexual act with the actor. Consent does not mean the existence of a prior or current social relationship between the actor and the complainant or that the complainant failed to resist a particular sexual act.
(b) A person who is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless as defined by this section cannot consent to a sexual act.
(c) Corroboration of the victim's testimony is not required to show lack of consent.
Subd. 5.Intimate parts. "Intimate parts" includes the primary genital area, groin, inner thigh, buttocks, or breast of a human being.
Subd. 6.Mentally impaired. "Mentally impaired" means that a person, as a result of inadequately developed or impaired intelligence or a substantial psychiatric disorder of thought or mood, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or to sexual penetration.
Subd. 7.Mentally incapacitated. "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person's agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration.
Subd. 8.Personal injury. "Personal injury" means bodily harm as defined in section 609.02, subdivision 7, or severe mental anguish or pregnancy.
Subd. 9.Physically helpless. "Physically helpless" means that a person is (a) asleep or not conscious, (b) unable to withhold consent or to withdraw consent because of a physical condition, or (c) unable to communicate nonconsent and the condition is known or reasonably should have been known to the actor.
Subd. 10.Position of authority. "Position of authority" includes but is not limited to any person who is a parent or acting in the place of a parent and charged with any of a parent's rights, duties or responsibilities to a child, or a person who is charged with any duty or responsibility for the health, welfare, or supervision of a child, either independently or through another, no matter how brief, at the time of the act. For the purposes of subdivision 11, "position of authority" includes a psychotherapist.
Subd. 11.Sexual contact. (a) "Sexual contact," for the purposes of sections 609.343, subdivision 1, clauses (a) to (f), and 609.345, subdivision 1, clauses (a) to (e), and (h) to (o), includes any of the following acts committed without the complainant's consent, except in those cases where consent is not a defense, and committed with sexual or aggressive intent:
(i) the intentional touching by the actor of the complainant's intimate parts, or
(ii) the touching by the complainant of the actor's, the complainant's, or another's intimate parts effected by a person in a position of authority, or by coercion, or by inducement if the complainant is under 13 years of age or mentally impaired, or
(iii) the touching by another of the complainant's intimate parts effected by coercion or by a person in a position of authority, or
(iv) in any of the cases above, the touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts, or
(v) the intentional touching with seminal fluid or sperm by the actor of the complainant's body or the clothing covering the complainant's body.
(b) "Sexual contact," for the purposes of sections 609.343, subdivision 1, clauses (g) and (h), and 609.345, subdivision 1, clauses (f) and (g), includes any of the following acts committed with sexual or aggressive intent:
(i) the intentional touching by the actor of the complainant's intimate parts;
(ii) the touching by the complainant of the actor's, the complainant's, or another's intimate parts;
(iii) the touching by another of the complainant's intimate parts;
(iv) in any of the cases listed above, touching of the clothing covering the immediate area of the intimate parts; or
(v) the intentional touching with seminal fluid or sperm by the actor of the complainant's body or the clothing covering the complainant's body.
(c) "Sexual contact with a person under 13" means the intentional touching of the complainant's bare genitals or anal opening by the actor's bare genitals or anal opening with sexual or aggressive intent or the touching by the complainant's bare genitals or anal opening of the actor's or another's bare genitals or anal opening with sexual or aggressive intent.
Subd. 12.Sexual penetration. "Sexual penetration" means any of the following acts committed without the complainant's consent, except in those cases where consent is not a defense, whether or not emission of semen occurs:
(1) sexual intercourse, cunnilingus, fellatio, or anal intercourse; or
(2) any intrusion however slight into the genital or anal openings:
(i) of the complainant's body by any part of the actor's body or any object used by the actor for this purpose;
(ii) of the complainant's body by any part of the body of the complainant, by any part of the body of another person, or by any object used by the complainant or another person for this purpose, when effected by a person in a position of authority, or by coercion, or by inducement if the child is under 13 years of age or mentally impaired; or
(iii) of the body of the actor or another person by any part of the body of the complainant or by any object used by the complainant for this purpose, when effected by a person in a position of authority, or by coercion, or by inducement if the child is under 13 years of age or mentally impaired.
Subd. 13.Complainant. "Complainant" means a person alleged to have been subjected to criminal sexual conduct, but need not be the person who signs the complaint.
Subd. 14.Coercion. "Coercion" means the use by the actor of words or circumstances that cause the complainant reasonably to fear that the actor will inflict bodily harm upon the complainant or another, or the use by the actor of confinement, or superior size or strength, against the complainant that causes the complainant to submit to sexual penetration or contact against the complainant's will. Proof of coercion does not require proof of a specific act or threat.
Subd. 15.Significant relationship. "Significant relationship" means a situation in which the actor is:
(1) the complainant's parent, stepparent, or guardian;
(2) any of the following persons related to the complainant by blood, marriage, or adoption: brother, sister, stepbrother, stepsister, first cousin, aunt, uncle, nephew, niece, grandparent, great-grandparent, great-uncle, great-aunt; or
(3) an adult who jointly resides intermittently or regularly in the same dwelling as the complainant and who is not the complainant's spouse.
Subd. 16.Patient. "Patient" means a person who seeks or obtains psychotherapeutic services.
Subd. 17.Psychotherapist. "Psychotherapist" means a person who is or purports to be a physician, psychologist, nurse, chemical dependency counselor, social worker, marriage and family therapist, licensed professional counselor, or other mental health service provider; or any other person, whether or not licensed by the state, who performs or purports to perform psychotherapy.
Subd. 18.Psychotherapy. "Psychotherapy" means the professional treatment, assessment, or counseling of a mental or emotional illness, symptom, or condition.
Subd. 19.Emotionally dependent. "Emotionally dependent" means that the nature of the former patient's emotional condition and the nature of the treatment provided by the psychotherapist are such that the psychotherapist knows or has reason to know that the former patient is unable to withhold consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration by the psychotherapist.
Subd. 20.Therapeutic deception. "Therapeutic deception" means a representation by a psychotherapist that sexual contact or sexual penetration by the psychotherapist is consistent with or part of the patient's treatment.
§Subd. 21.Special transportation. "Special transportation service" means motor vehicle transportation provided on a regular basis by a public or private entity or person that is intended exclusively or primarily to serve individuals who are vulnerable adults or disabled. Special transportation service includes, but is not limited to, service provided by buses, vans, taxis, and volunteers driving private automobiles.
Subd. 22.Predatory crime. "Predatory crime" means a felony violation of section 609.185 (first-degree murder), 609.19 (second-degree murder), 609.195 (third-degree murder), 609.20 (first-degree manslaughter), 609.205 (second-degree manslaughter), 609.221 (first-degree assault), 609.222 (second-degree assault), 609.223 (third-degree assault), 609.24 (simple robbery), 609.245 (aggravated robbery), 609.25 (kidnapping), 609.255 (false imprisonment), 609.498 (tampering with a witness), 609.561 (first-degree arson), or 609.582, subdivision 1 (first-degree burglary).
Subd. 23.Secure treatment facility. "Secure treatment facility" has the meaning given in sections 253B.02, subdivision 18a, and 253D.02, subdivision 13.


"The victim is incapable of consent by reason of drugs, alcohol, sleep or any other similar impairment of cognition" - this is Arizona state law

No, it's way more specific (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/01401.htm):

13-1401. Definitions

In this chapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

1. "Oral sexual contact" means oral contact with the penis, vulva or anus.

2. "Sexual contact" means any direct or indirect touching, fondling or manipulating of any part of the genitals, anus or female breast by any part of the body or by any object or causing a person to engage in such contact.

3. "Sexual intercourse" means penetration into the penis, vulva or anus by any part of the body or by any object or masturbatory contact with the penis or vulva.

4. "Spouse" means a person who is legally married and cohabiting.

5. "Without consent" includes any of the following:

(a) The victim is coerced by the immediate use or threatened use of force against a person or property.

(b) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental disorder, mental defect, drugs, alcohol, sleep or any other similar impairment of cognition and such condition is known or should have reasonably been known to the defendant. For purposes of this subdivision, "mental defect" means the victim is unable to comprehend the distinctively sexual nature of the conduct or is incapable of understanding or exercising the right to refuse to engage in the conduct with another.

(c) The victim is intentionally deceived as to the nature of the act.

(d) The victim is intentionally deceived to erroneously believe that the person is the victim's spouse.

See also (http://www.azleg.gov/FormatDocument.asp?inDoc=/ars/13/01406.htm&Title=13&DocType=ARS):

13-1406. Sexual assault; classification; increased punishment
A. A person commits sexual assault by intentionally or knowingly engaging in sexual intercourse or oral sexual contact with any person without consent of such person.
B. Sexual assault is a class 2 felony, and the person convicted shall be sentenced pursuant to this section and the person is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as specifically authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B until the sentence imposed by the court has been served or commuted. If the victim is under fifteen years of age, sexual assault is punishable pursuant to section 13-705. The presumptive term may be aggravated or mitigated within the range under this section pursuant to section 13-701, subsections C, D and E. If the sexual assault involved the intentional or knowing administration of flunitrazepam, gamma hydroxy butyrate or ketamine hydrochloride without the victim's knowledge, the presumptive, minimum and maximum sentence for the offense shall be increased by three years. The additional sentence imposed pursuant to this subsection is in addition to any enhanced sentence that may be applicable. The term for a first offense is as follows:
Minimum Presumptive Maximum
5.25 years 7 years 14 years

The term for a defendant who has one historical prior felony conviction is as follows:
Minimum Presumptive Maximum
7 years 10.5 years 21 years

The term for a defendant who has two or more historical prior felony convictions is as follows:
Minimum Presumptive Maximum
14 years 15.75 years 28 years

C. The sentence imposed on a person for a sexual assault shall be consecutive to any other sexual assault sentence imposed on the person at any time.
D. Notwithstanding section 13-703, section 13-704, section 13-705, section 13-706, subsection A and section 13-708, subsection D, if the sexual assault involved the intentional or knowing infliction of serious physical injury, the person may be sentenced to life imprisonment and is not eligible for suspension of sentence, probation, pardon or release from confinement on any basis except as specifically authorized by section 31-233, subsection A or B until at least twenty-five years have been served or the sentence is commuted. If the person was at least eighteen years of age and the victim was twelve years of age or younger, the person shall be sentenced pursuant to section 13-705.


Laws are not twisted in favor of the Prosecution, they are nearly always twisted in favor of the Defense (innocent until proven guilty). About the only time you see an innocent person convicted of sexual assault is if they're black and a confession was beaten and tortured out of them by the police (we have that a lot in Chicago).

For instance, see this case (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/guilty-verdict-tossed-sex-assault-woman-cerebral-palsy-article-1.1175342):


Connecticut’s Supreme Court overturned the conviction of a man found guilty of sexually assaulting a woman who can only communicate at a 3-year-old’s level.

In a 4-3 ruling earlier this week, the high court found that even though the woman could not say it, she still had the physical ability to refuse sex with defendant Richard Fourtin Jr, 28.

Fourtin, convicted in 2008 and sentenced to six years in prison, is now free and cannot be tried again, the Connecticut Post reported.

In court, the 29-year-old handicapped woman went only by the initials L.K. She suffers from severe cerebral palsy and can only communicate by moving her right index finger.

The woman testified by passing her finger over the words “yes” and “no” as well as over the letters of the alphabet if she needed to spell something. This process lasted four days, according to the Post.

Fourtin’s defense argued that disability or not, L.K. still had enough physical capacity to protest, presenting testimony from a home aid who said that she kicks and groans when she is not given the food she wants.

The justices ultimately ruled they were not convinced the woman was “so uncommunicative that she was physically incapable” of denying Fourtin consent.

The majority decision was met with severe criticism advocates for the disabled.

“People with disabilities are much more likely to be sexually assaulted than people who do not have disabilities,” James McGaughey, executive director of the Office of Protection and Advocacy for Persons with Disabilities, told NBC.

“Our justice system should provide them with protection, not require them to resist their attackers,” he said.

Lack of physical resistance is not evidence of consent, according to the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network.

“Many victims make the good judgment that physical resistance would cause the attacker to become more violent,” reads the organization’s website.

And Connecticut State Rep Gerald Fox III (D-Stamford), who is chair of the House Judiciary Committee, told reporters he aims to create legislation that will clarify assault legislation.

[allegro]

misogyny is the belief that men are better, stronger, and less emotional than women.
There is also misandry, which a lot of people ignore or don't understand or don't know about. Feminism has nothing to do with misandry, of course.

Also, the instances of lesbian and bisexual female sexual assaults are greatly under-reported or ignored. When I was about 19 years old, I had a pretty scary run-in with a biker type lesbian alone in the bathroom of a gay bar that was like a scene from a Linda Blair prison movie that I didn't know really existed and made me realize how naive I was.

See this article: When women rape (http://www.autostraddle.com/when-women-rape-everything-were-not-talking-about-185931/).

See also this (http://www.nclrights.org/sexual-assault-in-the-lgbt-community/)


April is Sexual Assault Awareness Month. This month is a reminder that through a combination of stigma and myths, sexual assault in the LGBT community is often rendered invisible or dismissed outright, despite CDC statistics that show the sexual assault rate for LGBT individuals is comparable or higher than the sexual assault rate for heterosexual individuals.

Approximately 1 in 8 lesbian women and nearly half of bisexual women experience rape in their lifetime, and statistics likely increase when a broader definition of sexual assault is used. Nearly half of bisexual men and four in ten gay men have experienced sexual violence other than rape in their lifetime, and though statistics regarding rape vary, it is likely that the rate is higher or comparable to heterosexual men. As with most hate-based violence, transgender individuals are the most likely to be affected in the LGBT community. A staggering 64% of transgender people have experienced sexual assault in their lifetime.

Though the Violence Against Women Act of 2013 (VAWA) recently extended LGBT nondiscrimination protections in resources for domestic and sexual violence, service providers across the country still lack the cultural competency needed to serve the LGBT community.

Until recently, intra-community sexual assault went largely unacknowledged, particularly for women who have sex with women. Moreover, we are only just now beginning to de-stigmatize the idea that there are male survivors of sexual assault, including gay and bisexual men.

Part of the problem is that populations that are hypersexualized by society, including people of color and the LGBT community, are victimized by a rape culture that tells those assaulted they are responsible for their sexual assaults. This same phenomenon is particularly exacerbated for women of color and indigenous women, who experience the highest rates of sexual assault, statistics that clearly outline the remnants of colonization and slavery’s categorical devaluing of black and brown bodies.

LGBT people must also face the specter of hate violence in the form of sexual assault. This and other violence occurs both inside and outside the prison system, but comprehensive legislation to protect against sexual violence in prison has finally been implemented. The Prison Rape Elimination Act, or PREA, is a big step toward reducing sexual violence in prisons and jails, but activists must fight ensure compliance with the regulations, and advocate for their expansion to immigration detention centers (which remain unprotected).

A particularly disturbing dynamic arises when the assaults are perpetrated by other LGBT community members. Denial, misrecognition, and the dismissal of outside-the-community concern as latent homophobia are examples of responses to sexual assault that occurs between members of the LGBT community. Moreover, because many LGBT communities are small and tight-knit, survivors of assault may not know where to turn, either because they fear they will not be believed or supported, or because they do not want to malign another member of the community or reinforce negative stereotypes. Additionally, seeking services or reporting often requires coming out as queer or trans, which raises problems of cultural competency in the medical and social service professions, along with general social stigma.

Finally, as with most disparities, holders of multiple marginalized identities are even more likely to experience sexual violence. Due to this reality, some activists who work to support survivors are attempting to move away from a carceral model in deference to the fact that people with marginalized identities are already more likely to be criminalized and imprisoned.

With April coming to an end, these disparities provide a good reminder that issues around sexual assault in the LGBT community deserve more thought. Fortunately, with VAWA’s explicit inclusion of LGBT individuals, and with today’s clarification by the Department of Justice that Title IX also protects students on the basis of gender identity/gender stereotypes, sexual assault prevention and support resources for the LGBT community should continue to grow. In the meantime, work to ensure the way you think about, advocate for, and discuss sexual violence prevention and support is inclusive of LGBT individuals.

From a review of the book, "Woman-to-Woman Sexual Violence: Does She Call it Rape?"


As a survivor of lesbian sexual violence, I have not only experienced the soul shattering experience of sexual assault, but also seen the range of responses people have when they hear about such an experience. While experts have learned to handle lesbian sexual violence in the same way as heterosexual sexual violence, the same is not often the case with others. There is a lot of insensitivity based on ignorance, since lesbian sexual violence is seen as softer and more harmless that heterosexual rape. This is a book that everyone should read. In addition to giving facts and statistics, this book describes what lesbian sexual assault entails, and the kind of impact it has. Please read this book, and share it with your friends and family. Lesbian rape is a crime that is rarely discussed or reported, but it happens more than you might think. It may have even happened to friends or family members. Lesbian rape is a crime that should no longer be hidden and ignored, and should be brought to the attention of all.

From the above "When Women Rape" link:

Ann Russo wrote about the struggle to discuss female on female rape within the feminist community, which has heterosexist elements, in her 2001 book, “Taking Back Our Lives: A Call to Action for The Feminist Movement.” Russo wrote that she has struggled in lesbian relationships characterized by abusive power and control tactics, and has spoken to female students who have experienced abuse and rape at the hands of lovers, friends and family members.

In the book, Russo states why feminists often leave lesbian and bisexual women out of conversations about rape:

“By labeling the source of violence against women as (heterosexual) male dominance and patriarchy, many feminists (lesbian and heterosexual) assume that lesbian relationships are free of oppressive mistreatment…”

Russo hits the nail on the head. It is important to remember that rape culture exists, and that it is pervasive. It also important to look at the ways in which misogyny hurts bisexual, homosexual and transgender people; in this case through police officers who may not acknowledge the validity of the person’s rape. In this case, women are not considered rapists because women are not considered agents of violence or initiators of sex.

[theimage13]

Not saying that this is right or wrong - just wanted to throw in my own two cents on the whole consent thing.

My girlfriend and I are monogamous and very much in love with each other. We discuss sex sometimes in regard to things we like, don't really care for, or are thinking about trying. When it comes to consent, it's pretty simple:

Either of us can attempt to initiate it at any time. No series of questions; no attempt to formally ask for a yes. Spontaneity is the spice of life, after all.
That said: if one of us isn't in the mood, we can simply say so, and that's that.
Also: if one of us is in any state that would prohibit us from actively saying either yes OR no, the other already knows that the answer is no. We both know that that's a really shitty thing to do. Neither of us drink or do drugs, so this is never really a situation we're faced with.

For us, that works just fine. As long as that's adhered to, we're both happy. We don't believe that sex needs to be some bureaucratic process that requires explicit consent each and every time we want it. We just use common sense and say no if we're not up for it.

[DigitalChaos]

Also: if one of us is in any state that would prohibit us from actively saying either yes OR no, the other already knows that the answer is no. We both know that that's a really shitty thing to do. Neither of us drink or do drugs, so this is never really a situation we're faced with.

but wakeup sex

[Baphomette]

Not what she said at all. That piece was in response to people asking why she had not outed Fox as the victim in the book, why it hadn't come out earlier, etc. She had a problem with the HuffPo story (which liberally quotes from her original research) for being a sensationalized, lurid account of Fowley's atrocious history of assaulting women — which it is. She never dismissed anything.Bullshit. Absolute bullshit. "Sensationalized"?? "Lurid"?? Jackie Fuchs was RAPED in front of an entire room of people, including fellow band members. How the FUCK is that being sensationalist? It's the fucking truth.

This piece came out today. (http://boingboing.net/2015/07/13/the-jackie-fox-rape-disclosure.html) It's fucking brilliant.

If people wonder why victims avoid reporting their own rapes, they need only look to this week’s headlines to understand the trauma and revictimization that comes with rape disclosure in America. There’s a great satirical video illustrating how ludicrous our approach to rape reporting is. Additionally, in the case of celebrity perpetrators, victims find themselves publicly challenged by people who support the powerful men to whom they owe their status or careers. People, it seemed to me, like Camille Cosby and Joan Jett.

BTW, Jackie Fuchs was a member of The Runaways. She was raped by music producer Kim Fowley after he drugged her. People laughed about it at the time, brushing it off as drunken sex.

[Khrz]

but wakeup sex

...happens when both are awake. You don't straight away start to fuck someone while they're asleep, right ? You kiss them, caress them gently, you wake them up that way and see if they're in the mood or not...

[telee.kom]

But the "notion that both parties have to be active participants and you can't have sex with somebody who is unconscious or half asleep" is literally what these laws are establishing

Is literally what your interpretation of these laws is, but I think it's kinda ambiguous. I mean, they do list "sleep" besides being drunk and law is always about interpretation, it is ambivalent on purpose so that the judge have some leeway to decide one way or another. And I don't know, maybe judges rule guilty only in cases when the victim was clearly unable to consent (you would have to study each case that included alcohol separately to know for sure how often this is or not) but I still stand by the fact, that getting rid of sentences like "judgement impaired by alcohol" and replace it with the active consent would be better way to do things. And maybe you don't think it would be better, that's up to a debate, but would it make it worse somehow? Because you seem like you are against it for some reason. I really thought about it and I just don't see what would be the problem with this. Cases where the victim was too drunk to give consent would be rape automatically. I think it would be even easier to prosecute these kinds of things, because you wouldn't have to speak in some subjective and vague terms like "how drunk was the victim?". It doesn't matter, she didn't give consent, because she couldn't. End of story. The evidence of these things are always hard to find, this wouldn't exactly change anything, it would in most cases still be word against word, but that's the nature of the crime.

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) I read it, I don't know why are you cite me this. It doesn't change anything about the wording of those particular paragraphs. Mental disabilities or drugs in your drink are completely different issues and I never said anything against these. This should obviously stay


It's the fucking truth.

I just want to point out that both Joan Jett and Cherrie Currie said they are not aware of such thing ever happened (they were both supposed to be there). Especially what Currie said was interesting, I recommend you to read it (https://www.facebook.com/CherieCurrieOfficial/posts/1143015069058746) (and also this (http://runawaysstories.blogspot.cz/2009/08/october-20-2000-truth-shall-set-you.html)) if you haven't because it seemed genuine even more so in the context of this (https://www.facebook.com/CherieCurrieOfficial/posts/1143143485712571?comment_id=1143197325707187&reply_comment_id=1143545712339015&total_comments=14&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D) .

[Volband]

Code chain of events? No, I'm not going to say that there's a "code chain of events" because you seem to think all men are idiots (It really comes off that way) and can't muster a simple "wanna do it?" when horny. If you can't respect someone's space, even if you're dating them for a while, that's your problem. I'm honestly trying to be helpful here.
Don't derail my question. I asked whether it is possible that a couple has a code chain of events which leads to sex, without even saying anything? Because if there is, then said couple does not need to muster up anything, they already know if these chain of events are reciprocated all the way, then it is basically a consent from both parts, and if not, something is wrong, i.e. one of them is really not that into the idea right then, so the other can stop and/or ask about it.


misogyny is the belief that men are better, stronger, and less emotional than women. it is the fuel in the fire of women being treated as less than men, and of men who are feminine or emotional being looked down upon by other men. as someone who LOOKS like a straight white dude, i am held, by society at large, to a standard i do not fit. i am extremely emotional, extremely sensitive, and extremely feminine (despite my beard).

to answer your first questions, the first person i told was my mom, who didn't believe me. i was in the middle of a panic attack at home after a bullying incident at school earlier in the day, and that's when the memory came back to me. (side note: my mom is an incredibly understanding, very sympathetic person. the reason she didn't believe me is because she, like so many other people, believed it to be physically impossible) she so vehemently denied it that it made my panic attack worse, and i barricaded myself in the bathroom for over an hour while my parents attempted to get the door open. they only made it in when my panic attack turned into an asthma attack and i essentially lost my ability to breathe for long enough that i could no longer hold the door closed.

i never reported it to the police because i knew they wouldn't take it seriously (how could they if my own mother couldn't?) and because i didn't even know the girl's last name. i had met her two days previous, and she was my mom's friend's boyfriend's daughter who just happened to mistake my shy intimidation and passiveness (which eventually turned to fear) for compliance, and decided to take what she wanted from me.

this is ALL a product of misogyny, so it has EVERYTHING to do with it.
This basically summed up my problem with feminism 100%. Just because they add "oh, and for men too, of course!" at the very end to their protest, it doesn't mean they actually give a shit about it. And it pains me that this is a race between men and women rights, and the former can not win exactly because the inequality which put women on a pedestal - not that any of them should win, I already said I could only stand behind an equality movement, not men OR women's rights. It is called double standard, and if you were a girl, then you can be damn sure your assaulter would've been chased down by dogs, and if it went viral that your mother refused to believe you, people would've bullied her out of her skin. But you were a boy, so the reaction would probably been "you got a freebie, what's your problem??"

I just can't stand pretentiousness and pretentious people. Maybe people got a sense of civilized society after the recent gay rights victory, but the sad reality is that we are still ridiculously narrow minded, and it goes to almost every activist group as well. There are only a few people who has an open minded approach and it feels like it's the fashionable thing to be part of a group.

But yeah, fighting misogyny... I can stand behind that.

edit: I locked myself one time as well. My parents were divorcing and I completely lost my shit, just laid on the floor and cried, even wrote some stuff on my wardrobe with a black marker. I guess you can imagine what I thought when recently I was reading "THE ONLY HEALTHY MARRIAGE IS BETWEEN A WOMAN AND A MAN!!" on my fbook feed and people were liking it up and agreeing to it. Fucking morons.

Not saying that this is right or wrong - just wanted to throw in my own two cents on the whole consent thing.

My girlfriend and I are monogamous and very much in love with each other. We discuss sex sometimes in regard to things we like, don't really care for, or are thinking about trying. When it comes to consent, it's pretty simple:

Either of us can attempt to initiate it at any time. No series of questions; no attempt to formally ask for a yes. Spontaneity is the spice of life, after all.
That said: if one of us isn't in the mood, we can simply say so, and that's that.
Also: if one of us is in any state that would prohibit us from actively saying either yes OR no, the other already knows that the answer is no. We both know that that's a really shitty thing to do. Neither of us drink or do drugs, so this is never really a situation we're faced with.

For us, that works just fine. As long as that's adhered to, we're both happy. We don't believe that sex needs to be some bureaucratic process that requires explicit consent each and every time we want it. We just use common sense and say no if we're not up for it.
T H A N K Y O U

[allegro]

And I don't know, maybe judges rule guilty only in cases when the victim was clearly unable to consent

Judges don't rule unless the Defendant requests a bench trial; juries determine the verdict. The juries are given jury instructions that contain the law and they must apply the law to the facts of the case. And, yes, the facts must show that the person was clearly unable to consent.


Volband, men already HAVE the rights that women have sought / are seeking so there is no "race." Not in this country, anyway. An additional benefit of the women's rights movement has been that it has benefitted men, too (e.g. men are mostly no longer obligated to be the sole breadwinners in the family; U.S. Federal family leave laws apply to men, too; many companies extend maternity and family leave to men, etc.) In the case of eversonpoe's story, that's gender crap that's been hammered into people's brains that society has accepted as "truth" e.g. "how could a man be sexually assaulted by a woman?" To an older generation person like his mother, it was probably like telling her the sky was green. It's the same thing as the articles I posted about lesbian rapes; cops often don't believe it, because they don't believe women are capable of that. It doesn"t fit the narrative we've been socialized to believe. Kind of like children who were sexually abused by priests; for years, they were afraid to tell because they knew that nobody would believe them; it did not fit Catholic society's narrative; priests don't "do that." Or, like the narrative, "the only marriage is a hetero marriage" which of course is total crap but a lot of society still believes this to be true. (My parents were divorced when I was 4.)

[allegro]

I just want to point out that both Joan Jett and Cherrie Currie said they are not aware of such thing ever happened (they were both supposed to be there). Especially what Currie said was interesting, I recommend you to read it (https://www.facebook.com/CherieCurrieOfficial/posts/1143015069058746) (and also this (http://runawaysstories.blogspot.cz/2009/08/october-20-2000-truth-shall-set-you.html)) if you haven't because it seemed genuine even more so in the context of this (https://www.facebook.com/CherieCurrieOfficial/posts/1143143485712571?comment_id=1143197325707187&reply_comment_id=1143545712339015&total_comments=14&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D) . Miss Baphomette already quoted both of those in an earlier quote. Cherie Currie actually wrote about the Fuchs sexual assault in her book, but changed the narrative to be about a groupie who "wanted" or somehow "asked for" the assault, and Fuchs filed a lawsuit and the book was stopped. Currie, in response to a Facebook inquiry, says this:


Jackie was altered. I didn't know her well at that time. I also know that young girls slept with older man far more then date of their own age. It was the 70's culture. Some things had to be altered in that chapter but if I had for one minute heard Jackie say stop instead of acting like an active participant I would have cracked his skull. That night was traumatizing to me because I had never witnessed such a thing. That was why I had to write about it even with not using Jackie as part of it. She had me dropped from my book deal in 2000 because of her legal threats to the book company. Statutory rape is rape by law. But no 16 year old girl is going to be able to stop something that neither party seemed to want to stop. I left in disgust but I faced Kim with no support from Jackie. The timing sucks and I am being accused of watching "a brutal rape" and doing nothing.

For the record, Quaaludes were really popular in the 70s, I had friends who experienced them (voluntarily) a few times. High doses of 'ludes literally paralyzed you. I don't know why anyone would want to take these voluntarily, but whatever. (Quaaludes have since been banned.) Fuchs was 16 at the time, and Foley was witnessed giving Fuchs at least 4 Quaaludes without her knowing what they were. She was young and all of the Runaways were under his control. At least 4 other witnesses have indicated that the other Runaways were in the room when Fowley was putting on a show and having sex with a mostly-unconscious Fuchs. When Fuchs quit the band and was replaced by Victory Tischler-Blue, Tischler-Blue said that band members regularly joked about the night that Jackie Fuchs was raped by Kim Fowley.

Kari Krome, another teen who was assaulted by Fowley, witnessed the event and said she remembers Jett and Currie "nearby and 'snickering' during the attack."

From the HuffPo article:

One witness told Jackie that she looked “not in distress” during the rape. That was probably due to the Quaaludes. Dr. Yngvild Olsen, an addiction specialist in Baltimore, says that someone under the influence of the drug might appear as if she is having a good time, but "in reality, that's not necessarily the whole picture."

Bill Cosby was giving Quaaludes to women (http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/07/us/bill-cosby-quaaludes-sexual-assault-allegations/). Roman Polanski gave Quaaludes to a 13-year-old girl before sexually assaulting her. Quaaludes were the 70s version of the Roofie.

[telee.kom]

Cherie Currie actually wrote about the Fuchs sexual assault in her book, but changed the narrative to be about a groupie who "wanted" or somehow "asked for" the assault, and Fuchs filed a lawsuit and the book was stopped.

Currie said this about it: "I asked Jackie back in 2000 to write that chapter with me. This is what I got from her. Her last quote is the kicker. "We should respect one another, as people, as musicians, and most of all as humans. Sordid sex tales don't do that and aren't very interesting anyway. They should be left where they belong -- in Cherie's imagination." So I don't know, take what you want from this.

I don't know what happened, I was just responding to big uppercase statement that "this is truth", when obviously there is an other side of the story that claims something else. I'm sure drugs played a big part in all of this. If Fuchs really took quaaludes and Jett and Currie were also on something I guess it could sadly play out like this even without them knowing. I just don't think Jett or Currie would have any incentive to protect Fowley. They hated the this guy's guts, he stole their band from them, they lost shit ton of money to him and were in a years long lawsuit with him. If it happened the way Fuchs said (or if they knew) they could have ruin Fowley's career years ago while he was still alive which would make much more sense.

[allegro]

Currie said this about it: "I asked Jackie back in 2000 to write that chapter with me. This is what I got from her. Her last quote is the kicker. "We should respect one another, as people, as musicians, and most of all as humans. Sordid sex tales don't do that and aren't very interesting anyway. They should be left where they belong -- in Cherie's imagination." So I don't know, take what you want from this.

I don't know what happened, I was just responding to big uppercase statement that "this is truth", when obviously there is an other side of the story that claims something else. I'm sure drugs played a big part in all of this. If Fuchs really took quaaludes and Jett and Currie were also on something I guess it could sadly play out like this even without them knowing. I just don't think Jett or Currie would have any incentive to protect Fowley. They hated the this guy's guts, he stole their band from them, they lost shit ton of money to him and were in a years long lawsuit with him. If it happened the way Fuchs said (or if they knew) they could have ruin Fowley's career years ago while he was still alive which would make much more sense.
As I said, Jackie Fuchs sued Currie over her fictionalized "tale." At the time, Fuchs' head might have been in a different space; she now says that all of the Cosby victims coming forward gave her more courage to come forward (more courage in numbers). When you've been drugged and that's happened to you, and the guy who did it to you was one of the most powerful guys on the Sunset Strip, who's gonna believe whom? I agree with her about sordid tales just to make money (something Currie has made a living on for years) wasn't prudent, especially when you were the victim. (And Currie was nursing Fowley's health when he was dying of bladder cancer, so you can see where her alliance resided.) The truth is the truth, and the "other side" is just perhaps what Currie and Jett didn't know was the truth while they were witnessing it. Foley didn't "ruin" their "band." He CREATED their fucking band. He financed it, backed it, created all the PR, etc. Otherwise, they'd be sitting in the lobby at the Riot House begging for scraps. The Runaways basically sucked. They were sold and marketed as teen sex dreams, they didn't have one ounce of talent, and even then I couldn't believe (as a teen, myself) and that it was even LEGAL.


Creem Magazine, April 1977 -- These bitches suck. That's all there is to it. Despite what the West Coast Blow Job Coordinator might say, they're not any good, they're not so bad they're good, they're not anything.


New Musical Express, August 14, 1976 and Creem, November 1976 -- Like Barbie dolls, this band was composed of girls trying to act like boys. Actually, they were girls trying to act like David Bowie who tried to act alternatively like a girl or an android... so where is that at? Girl or boy, a poseur is a poseur.

So at least they weren't buying that shit that Foley was selling. At least Lita Ford came out of it as a guitarist, and Joan Jett attempted some kind of career. Currie? What's she doing? Chain saw wood carvings? Now, Currie is going back-and-forth between "yeah, I saw it" to "I didn't see anything, give me a polygraph test" to "I asked Jackie to help me write the groupie chapter in my book" to "I saw it and Jackie was altered" ... what next, "I was out of town at the time?"

Jackie actually addresses all of this, rather compassionately, as bystander syndrome, that being a bystander is not a crime, and that she understands that witnessing what happened to her was as traumatic to them as it was for her and that they have spent a lifetime trying to navigate the whole thing, all of them (and a lot of the witnesses) having been teens at the time, too.

Jackie says this:

I know some people watching the online drama unfold have been discouraged by the lack of support I’ve received from my former bandmates. To which I can only say that I hope you never have to walk in their shoes. My rape was traumatic for everyone, not just me, and everyone deals with trauma in their own way and time. It took exceptional courage for many of the witnesses to talk frankly about how they felt. Most have apologized to me for their inaction that night — apologies that have been unnecessary, though welcome.

My rape also left scars on Victory and the other people who only experienced indirectly what happened that night. It can’t have been easy to listen to the way the band treated me after I left (treatment I was mercifully unaware of at the time). All I can say about what was said and done is that my bandmates were children who’d witnessed something criminal and tragic. I’ve no doubt they were dealing with it as best they were able. They had no responsible adults to guide them – only a rapist and his apologists.

If I am disappointed in one thing, it is that the story has become about who knew what when and who did or didn’t do what. That isn’t the story at all. It would be nice if everyone who was there the night I was raped could talk about how it has affected them over the years. But if they don’t want to talk it about, I respect that. It’s taken me years to talk about it without shame. I can only imagine what it must have been like to have watched it happen.

I only wish that if my bandmates can’t remember what happened that night – or if they just remember it differently –they would stick simply to saying that. By asserting that if they’d witnessed my rape, they’d have done something about it, they perpetuate the very myth I was trying to dispel when I decided to tell my story. Being a passive bystander is not a “crime.” All of us have been passive bystanders at some point in our lives.

If we have any hope at all of putting an end to incidents like these, we need to stop doubting the accusers and start holding rapists, abusers and bullies accountable. What we don’t need to do is point fingers at those who weren’t to blame for their actions.

[telee.kom]

I personally don't care about Runaways that much, so say what you will about the members, I just don't think that Currie would go back and forth with what she's saying. At least the way I understand it, she acknowledges that Foley did have sex with Fuchs and they were present while that was happening, but that it wasn't "rape" rape but statutory rape.


being a bystander is not a crime

Is this true though? I would have thought that witnessing crime and doing nothing about it (meaning, report it to the police for example) would be crime in itself.

[allegro]

I personally don't care about Runaways that much, so say what you will about the members, I just don't think that Currie would go back and forth with what she's saying. At least the way I understand it, she acknowledges that Foley did have sex with Fuchs and they were present while that was happening, but that it wasn't "rape" rape but statutory rape.
Fuchs was drugged, several witnesses saw her being drugged, and Fuchs was in fact raped. Currie admits that Fuchs appeared "altered." But Currie, while now admitting that Fuchs appeared "altered," now seems to be struggling with what she witnessed and that she didn't "do" anything. The problem is that she didn't have to "do" anything. It wasn't her job to "do" anything. Sometimes bystanders are powerless to "do" anything. Currie has changed her version several times, probably because she is negotiating the narrative after witnessing such an event (Fowley was not only "fucking Fuchs like a dog," he penetrated her with a hairbrush in front of a group of people, he stood above her like an "orchestra conductor" -- according to witnesses -- and put on a show while "fucking her" in front of a crowd of people). I imagine this scene and your 16-yr-old bass player being the female involved would be rather traumatic, something you'd never forget. When you're 16, you're too embarrassed by something like that, you're not equipped to handle something like that, you're supposed to still be in history class for Christ sake.


being a bystander is not a crime

Is this true though? I would have thought that witnessing crime and doing nothing about it (meaning, report it to the police for example) would be crime in itself.
No. It is not a crime.

Fuchs should know. She has a J.D. from Harvard Law School.

[telee.kom]

When you're 16, you're too embarrassed by something like that, you're not equipped to handle something like that

Well that's for sure. Our age of consent is 15 so I don't exactly care for 16 yo having sex, but it's one thing having sex and other thing living the life of rockstar when 16. And Fowley is a creep nontheless being 20 or so years older than her. I just don't get how Jett and Currie wouldn't know that he gave her drugs when others knew it. And they would never talk about it, while being in the same band and they just only learn about it 40 years later? This story from the perspective of these three doesn't make much sense to me, so either somebody is lying or this is some crazy drug hazzed coincidence.


No. It is not a crime.

Interesting. You can get 3 years for this in Czech rep.

[allegro]

Well that's for sure. Our age of consent is 15 so I don't exactly care for 16 yo having sex, but it's one thing having sex and other thing living the life of rockstar when 16. And Fowley is a creep nontheless being 20 or so years older than her. I just don't get how Jett and Currie wouldn't know that he gave her drugs when others knew it. And they would never talk about it, while being in the same band and they just only learn about it 40 years later? This story from the perspective of these three doesn't make much sense to me, so either somebody is lying or this is some crazy drug hazzed coincidence.
I'm not convinced that they "didn't know it." I'm sure, if so many people in that room saw him give her the drugs, they saw it, too, and they're only now providing a revisionist story only because, again, they feel like they need to somehow have an excuse for not "doing" anything when it wasn't their job to do anything. Kari Krome, the 13-yr-old who was sexually assaulted by Fowley, remembers warning Sandy West and Joan Jett after she was assaulted to be careful, they may be next, and they just laughed and blew it off, and this was BEFORE the Fuchs assault. After Krome was assaulted, Fowley was regularly assaulting Krome and mind-fucking her with various threats, manipulating her so that she wouldn't tell her parents. She was 13.

The guy published THIS in a local entertainment page for Christ sake:

http://highline.huffingtonpost.com/images/runaways/document-42bd50ed.jpg

There were enough witnesses to the Fuchs assault (and his drugging her without her understanding what was happening) to completely corroborate Fuchs' story. It doesn't really matter that her bandmates were there; what really hurt Fuchs was that they poked fun at her, for a long time, afterwards. After it happened, Fuchs says that nobody said a word to Fuchs, never asked her about it, and Fuchs was too ashamed to talk about it (and didn't even remember some of it), I think really that they were all too young to navigate what happened and they had no adult figures around (except Foley) to discuss what happened and, at 16, you don't even have fully-formed cerebral cortex, yet, so it was just all too much. Add to it that Fowley had deliberately set up a rivalry between all of the bandmates, set them against each other, some kind of mind-fucking game he enjoyed, which added to the stress. Btw, the Runaways were not "living the life of a rock star." At the time, they were barely known. The only place they were a little better known was in Japan. Because in the 70s, Japan loved everything American. If GG Allin had been around in the 70s, he woulda been a star in Japan. He would've had a "Live at Budokan!" album, hurling poop at Japanese people.

Here's Cherie Currie and Fowley, much more recently:
http://www.letoilemagazine.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/Currie-+-Fowley-30-years-later.jpg

[Mantra]

Is literally what your interpretation of these laws is, but I think it's kinda ambiguous.
No.

The exact wording of the law is...

------------
"it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition."
-------------

There is no "how drunk was she" factor. There is no ambiguity behind words like "unconscious" or"incapacitated" or "unable to communicate." So like I said....the"notion that both parties have to be active participants and you can't have sex with somebody who is unconscious or half asleep" is literally what these laws are establishing.

[DigitalChaos]

...happens when both are awake. You don't straight away start to fuck someone while they're asleep, right ? You kiss them, caress them gently, you wake them up that way and see if they're in the mood or not...

I've been on the receiving end and it definitely didn't start with both parties awake.

morning wood yo


I should receive some sort of prize for talking about morning wood in the feminism/equality thread

[Khrz]

That would elicit a massive "The fuck you doing ?" from me...

[allegro]

No.

The exact wording of the law is...

------------
"it shall not be a valid excuse that the accused believed that the complainant affirmatively consented to the sexual activity if the accused knew or reasonably should have known that the complainant was unable to consent to the sexual activity under any of the following circumstances:

(A) The complainant was asleep or unconscious.
(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity.
(C) The complainant was unable to communicate due to a mental or physical condition."

Exactly. And the jury would be provided with instructions containing that exact wording, and the jury would also be provided with all of the (allowed) facts in case (e.g. sworn testimony, blood alcohol levels, witness statements, police reports) and a preponderance of facts must show, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the crime has occurred, otherwise the Defendant is acquitted.

[DigitalChaos]

That would elicit a massive "The fuck you doing ?" from me...
I never minded unless I had to pee really bad. Then it was more of a "unless you are into early morning water sports... and these don't look to be the right sheets.... you better give me a second..."

[allegro]

I never minded unless I had to pee really bad. Then it was more of a "unless you are into early morning water sports... and these don't look to be the right sheets.... you better give me a second..."
When your spouse / SO is "sleeping" in the morning and you're screwing her from behind? Um, yeah, she's not really sleeping. Just so you know.

Sorry if I wrecked it for you.

[DigitalChaos]

When your spouse / SO is "sleeping" in the morning and you're screwing her from behind? Um, yeah, she's not really sleeping. Just so you know.

Sorry if I wrecked it for you.

wut? Other way around.

[allegro]

wut? Other way around.

Your spouse is screwing you from behind? With what, a stapler?

I believe this is in the wrong thread, guys.

[DigitalChaos]

Your spouse is screwing you from behind? With what, a stapler?

I believe this is in the wrong thread, guys.

It's called morning wood, and the person wanting to use it jumping on top. We are in a thread talking about consent and trying to define it in this overly conservative way.

[allegro]

It's called morning wood, and the person wanting to use it jumping on top. We are in a thread talking about consent and trying to define it in this overly conservative way.
No no no no, we are not. Finito. Go away.

[DigitalChaos]

push the edge case into the corner and ignore it. it's inconvenient and it hurts our absolutism!

[allegro]

push the edge case into the corner and ignore it. it's inconvenient and it hurts our absolutism!

Listen, Mr. Drift King, you should especially set an example seeing that you're an ADMIN.

Why isn't this just split off into its own thread?

[DigitalChaos]

I'll gladly split the last 5 pages into a consent thread.

[allegro]

For the record, I think that if two people are married and one spouse "jumps on the other's 'morning wood,'" (1) there would have to be a statute in that couple's state indicating that said "jumping on 'morning wood' while owner of said 'morning wood' was sleeping was in fact illegal, and (2) the owner of said 'morning wood' would have to file a police report, (3) the jumper onto said 'morning wood' would have to be arrested, (4) the jumper would have to be arraigned, and then it would have to be determined, by a preponderance of facts, by a jury of the jumper's peers, whether or not the owner of said 'morning wood' was in fact sleeping or if he was in a semi-state of slumber or pretending to be sleeping or if he was awakened by the jumping onto said 'morning wood' by his spouse and, upon that jumping, became a willing participant in said jumping.

[DigitalChaos]

For the record, I think that if two people are married and one spouse "jumps on the other's 'morning wood,'" (1) there would have to be a statute in that couple's state indicating that said "jumping on 'morning wood' while owner of said 'morning wood' was sleeping was in fact illegal, and (2) the owner of said 'morning wood' would have to file a police report, (3) the jumper onto said 'morning wood' would have to be arrested, (4) the jumper would have to be arraigned, and then it would have to be determined, by a preponderance of facts, by a jury of the jumper's peers, whether or not the owner of said 'morning wood' was in fact sleeping or if he was in a semi-state of slumber or pretending to be sleeping or if he was awakened by the jumping onto said 'morning wood' by his spouse and, upon that jumping, became a willing participant in said jumping.
nearly pissed myself laughing at this. nicely done

but what if this happens in California? Doesn't this lack the required affirmative consent?

[marodi]

...happens when both are awake. You don't straight away start to fuck someone while they're asleep, right ?

Not unless you're Chainer...

[playwithfire]

Y'know how you do consent with that? I am not okay with being woken up for/by sex, my boyfriend is. We've established this clearly. If that changes, we'll let each other know.

Also who caarreessssssssssss tho

[allegro]

Not unless you're Chainer...

yes, that is actually known on ETS as "Pulling a Chainer."

[DigitalChaos]

Y'know how you do consent with that? I am not okay with being woken up for/by sex, my boyfriend is. We've established this clearly. If that changes, we'll let each other know.

Also who caarreessssssssssss tho
sooooo that's the "no means no" approach and it fails the affirmative consent angle.

[DigitalChaos]

Also who caarreessssssssssss tho
People who see some of this shit as not a whole lot different than when republicans wanted to legislate in the bedroom?

[marodi]

yes, that is actually known on ETS as "Pulling a Chainer."

I knew the context and I knew the "Pulling a" and the missing name I had on the tip of my tongue. Orestes gave it to me.

Chainer also could not understand that what he (?) did was rape.

[telee.kom]

I think I just established for myself that dating a feminist would be too much shit to worry about for me. Thanks

[playwithfire]

Girl, feminists don't want to date you.


sooooo that's the "no means no" approach and it fails the affirmative consent angle.

Yeah, sure. Not all consent is affirmative. We practice affirmative consent a lot, but we also pre-discuss things, like "I'm okay with you doing ____. I'd like to do ____ sometime, would you be down?" We've been together for a long time and I'm comfortable with that. It's not like there isn't lots of consent talk that can happen around that shit, though. For the record, I've never had sex with my boyfriend while he's asleep, even though I know he'd be fine with it.


People who see some of this shit as not a whole lot different than when republicans wanted to legislate in the bedroom?

Well, we disagree there.

[allegro]

I think I just established for myself that dating a feminist would be too much shit to worry about for me. Thanks

You established that from DigitalChaos' insisted morning wood scenario? You do know he's a married dude, right?

I hate morning sex so I count myself out of this entire scenario. I'm just playing lawyer and writing statutes to suit DigitalChaos' Libertarian needs. Because I'm supposed to be composing real estate documents right now and I'm totally wasting time.

G and I practice affirmative consent by belching "Battlestar Galactica." Which is LOT harder than you think!

[playwithfire]

I also want to say that a part of affirmative consent is on us, individually, to communicate. You should tell your partner what you like, what you want, what you don't. They should also ask. It's communication.

I DON'T mean that you should ever be held responsible for something happening to you, obviously

[DigitalChaos]

I think I just established for myself that dating a feminist would be too much shit to worry about for me. Thanks
You've always ignored my replies, but I'll attempt it again: My wife also considers herself a feminist. She thinks a lot of this stuff is stupid as hell too. All the shit you are describing is creating a massive strawman that does NOT apply to all feminists...

[DigitalChaos]

L
hey fuck you!

[DigitalChaos]

G and I practice affirmative consent by belching "Battlestar Galactica." Which is LOT harder than you think!


holy

fuck

i am goddamned dying again.



The top posts in this thread are 100% from allegro

[telee.kom]

You've always ignored my replies, but I'll attempt it again: My wife also considers herself a feminist. She thinks a lot of this stuff is stupid as hell too. All the shit you are describing is creating a massive strawman that does NOT apply to all feminists...

It was a joke, I get that not all feminist are the same.. this thread tho'

Also I'm sorry if I ignored you, that wasn't my intention. Can we be friends again?

[DigitalChaos]

Can we be friends again?


http://i.imgur.com/wsjvpgl.jpg

[Mantra]

People who see some of this shit as not a whole lot different than when republicans wanted to legislate in the bedroom?

Come on, a law that makes it illegal to rape someone who's passed out isn't even in the same universe as "legislating in the bedroom."

[allegro]

http://i.imgur.com/wsjvpgl.jpg
I'm offended by that (and I hate the word "tits.")

I prefer this:

http://sd.keepcalm-o-matic.co.uk/i/keep-calm-and-shut-your-dick.png

[allegro]

Come on, a law that makes it illegal to rape someone who's passed out isn't even in the same universe as "legislating in the bedroom."
He's Libertarian, he's always worried about the Government over-legislating everything. He's willing to eat the chemicals in fruit, the chickens with the 500 pounds of hormones in them with the giant boobs, the cancer-causing shit in the baby food, whatever, just get that pesky Government out of it.

[DigitalChaos]

Come on, a law that makes it illegal to rape someone who's passed out isn't even in the same universe as "legislating in the bedroom."
But affirmative consent doesn't make rape illegal. It makes the lack of affirmative consent illegal. This makes plenty of sex acts illegal that are NOT rape.

[Mantra]

This makes plenty of sex acts illegal that are NOT rape.

Like what?

[DigitalChaos]

Like what?

Like any sex act that isn't initiated with affirmative consent but is otherwise mutually voluntary.

[Sarah K]

Thread title fuckin' sucks, btw.

[Mantra]

Like any sex act that isn't initiated with affirmative consent but is otherwise mutually voluntary.

Such as what?

Honestly not trying to be obtuse here, I just literally can not imagine what specific scenarios you're referring to, unless, were you actually being totally sincere about those morning wood posts?

[telee.kom]

Such as what?

Honestly not trying to be obtuse here, I just literally can not imagine what specific scenarios you're referring to, unless, were you actually being totally sincere about those morning wood posts?

Probably every sex that wasn't initiated with specific vocal confirmation that both parties want to have sex. Which is I would guess 95% of every sex on the planet

[playwithfire]

I won't date a cis guy who doesn't identify as a feminist. I would possibly date a woman of color or trans* person, since they have waaaay more valid reasons, but feminism is super important to me.

So yeah, feminists ain't want you.

[telee.kom]

Okay. I don't see what this have to do with anything

[playwithfire]

Haha, I totally misread your post as some part of your earlier comment about not dating feminists. I've had a weird day.

BUT I STAND BY MY POST.

[DigitalChaos]

Probably every sex that wasn't initiated with specific vocal confirmation that both parties want to have sex. Which is I would guess 95% of every sex on the planet

Add in anyone who mixes inebriation with sex too. They aren't allowed to consent on a legal level.

Bunch of puritanical bullshit because people think the ends justify the means... And any of the externalities are ignored as being part of the ends.

[playwithfire]

Yeah, but by those standards plenty of BDSM is potentially illegal, isn't it? Affirmative consent or no. Doesn't stop us.

[DigitalChaos]

Yeah, but by those standards plenty of BDSM is potentially illegal, isn't it? Affirmative consent or no. Doesn't stop us.

This is the foundation for some of the more disgusting rights violations in recent history. You open the door for vindictive people to hurt innocent people, especially with a very damaging life-long record. Pissed off ex partners or possibly even 3rd parties can do this.

And not that it should matter, but it usually hurts minorities in disproportionate amounts.

- Having the wrong sexual orientation a few decades ago.
- minor possession of drugs is still applicable.
- having the wrong political alignment or nationality.






To beat the pedants: there are ways to execute most BDSM with affirmative consent but this isn't the point.

[allegro]

But affirmative consent doesn't make rape illegal. It makes the lack of affirmative consent illegal. This makes plenty of sex acts illegal that are NOT rape.

First, it's not called "rape" anymore, even in California it's called sexual activity (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967) and since it is not specified it can pretty much include anything. No, you can't perform BDSM without affirmative consent, but that whole scene is chock full of agreements, already.

Look at the specifics in Minnesota (https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=609.341). They call it "sexual contact" and spell it out almost down to the color of your anus.

Not quite as specific in Arizona, but specific (http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/01401.htm).


Pissed off ex partners or possibly even 3rd parties can do this.
Oh, please, that's always existed, even without that law. Did you see that case I posted a few pages ago, where a guy sexually assaulted a girl with severe cerebral palsy with the intellect of a 3-yr-old in Connecticut and the CT Supreme Court overturned his conviction because they determined that she could still have FOUGHT HIM OFF? Seriously? She was obligated, with severe CP, and the intellect of a 3-yr-old, to be the one to "fight him off" and he had no obligation to keep his fucking dick in his pants and not sexually assault a mentally and physically handicapped individual? And people are worried that their "rights" could be violated with this law? Honey, there are WAYYYYY the fuck more times that police departments have rape kits growing mold in a warehouse, where there was "unsubstantiated evidence," where there "weren't enough facts," where the police didn't bother filing a report, etc., than there are innocent people convicted due to some kind of unfounded loophole in a law. The only time I see innocent people in jail is when some poor black dude is hooked up to a car battery in a police department and electrocuted until he admits to committing a crime he didn't do.

[orestes]

Girl, feminists don't want to date you.

I love you.

I know I'm late to the party but what's wrong with a little fingering in the morning? Geez, why can't we take things slow in the morning? Also, some of us don't have partners that have to deal with morning wood so I find this example a bit silly.

[playwithfire]

#NotAllMorningWood

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/282061/104217938/stock-photo-young-man-wearing-hat-and-casual-clothes-in-sunny-day-leaning-on-palm-tree-at-summer-park-104217938.jpg

[orestes]

#NotAllMorningWood

http://cache1.asset-cache.net/gc/88623432-lesbian-couple-sleeping-gettyimages.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=%2F1mTc%2B2uhze2yz3igV5dUdWFJeZbY8FyCDnQLEuNk1S7 fdlvFUj6FlvR1vyB4N3D

[playwithfire]

If a dude gets morning wood in a forest can anyone hear him or does he not practice dat affirmative consent doe

[allegro]

I dunno, but I thought this was funny
http://whyrll.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/11/how-to-pee-with-morning-wood-11886.jpg

[DigitalChaos]

First, it's not called "rape" anymore, even in California it's called sexual activity (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967)

Right. In this conversation, my use of "rape" should be considered the same as sexual assault.

And the rape situation is broken. But you don't use that to justify removing due process. You are making people guilty by default. That is incredibly wrong.
"Innocent until proven guilty" used to be the foundation of our legal system. Now we want it to be "well... we can give that up if it means convicting more criminals"

[Mantra]

Add in anyone who mixes inebriation with sex too. They aren't allowed to consent on a legal level.

Bunch of puritanical bullshit because people think the ends justify the means... And any of the externalities are ignored as being part of the ends.

Please, this post is ludicrous.

The law does not in any form whatsoever apply to kinky things couples want to do in their bedrooms. The laws don't even define affirmative consent as being strictly vocalized. It simply says it must be "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary" and that silence itself does not automatically imply consent (a necessary inclusion to address the argument that the unconscious victim didn't verbally say "no" and so it automatically became consensual). The exact text of the laws in question have been posted multiple times in this thread, so anyone who is still trying claim that these laws are going to hinder their drunken kinky fun is simply being hysterical and dishonest. There's nothing "puritanical" about making it illegal to rape a college student who blacked out at party, which is the specific problem these laws are addressing.

[DigitalChaos]

Please, this post is ludicrous.

The law does not in any form whatsoever apply to kinky things couples want to do in their bedrooms. The laws don't even define affirmative consent as being strictly vocalized. It simply says it must be "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary" and that silence itself does not automatically imply consent (a necessary inclusion to address the argument that the unconscious victim didn't verbally say "no" and so it automatically became consensual). The exact text of the laws in question have been posted multiple times in this thread, so anyone who is still trying claim that these laws are going to hinder their drunken kinky fun is simply being hysterical and dishonest. There's nothing "puritanical" about making it illegal to rape a college student who blacked out at party, which is the specific problem these laws are addressing.
Are you saying that the law does NOT specifically call out intoxication as something that legally bars you from consenting? If so, YOU need to go back and read the very laws you are referencing. If someone has alcohol or other drugs in their system, the cannot legally give consent.


so that actually makes your post the ludicrous one, by the very definition of the word.

[playwithfire]

It was called the Giving Tree not the "I'm literally a tree and can't be consent" tree. #NotAllMorningWood


Are you saying that the law does NOT specifically call out intoxication as something that legally bars you from consenting?

Are we talking California's? "(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."

I took that as "This person is in a state due to intoxication that prevents them from consenting." not "lol they drank what even IS judgement, guys?"

[Mantra]

Are you saying that the law does NOT specifically call out intoxication as something that legally bars you from consenting?

Correct. It says...

"(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."

[allegro]

Right. In this conversation, my use of "rape" should be considered the same as sexual assault.

And the rape situation is broken. But you don't use that to justify removing due process. You are making people guilty by default. That is incredibly wrong.
"Innocent until proven guilty" used to be the foundation of our legal system. Now we want it to be "well... we can give that up if it means convicting more criminals"

Funny, I'm in law and I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.

Wait, half the time I have no fucking idea what you're talking about.


Are you saying that the law does NOT specifically call out intoxication as something that legally bars you from consenting? If so, YOU need to go back and read the very laws you are referencing. If someone has alcohol or other drugs in their system, the cannot legally give consent.
No, YOU are misunderstanding; that is NOT what it says; the mere presence of alcohol or drugs in their system does not prevent consent. There is not ONE PLACE in that CA law (or ANY of these laws) that says that. Go read it again, slowly, using a highlighter pen.

[allegro]

Correct. It says...

"(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."

Exactly.

And the Minnesota law says:

"Subd. 7.Mentally incapacitated. "Mentally incapacitated" means that a person under the influence of alcohol, a narcotic, anesthetic, or any other substance, administered to that person without the person's agreement, lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent to sexual contact or sexual penetration." This doesn't mean the mere presence of alcohol in a person's system. This means MENTALLY INCAPACITATED. Now, this does say "under the influence" but a jury will determine the extent, because it still says "mentally incapacitated" and "lacks the judgment to give a reasoned consent ..." so that means pretty shitfaced. The intent isn't mere presence of alcohol. That would mean a witch hunt, which NO law intends.

And the Arizona law says:

"(b) The victim is incapable of consent by reason of mental disorder, mental defect, drugs, alcohol, sleep or any other similar impairment of cognition and such condition is known or should have reasonably been known to the defendant. For purposes of this subdivision, "mental defect" means the victim is unable to comprehend the distinctively sexual nature of the conduct or is incapable of understanding or exercising the right to refuse to engage in the conduct with another." Again, not the mere presence of alcohol.

You know, the more I read these statutes, the more I think "sleep" is defined more as "under the influence of a sleeping pill" and not just normal sleep.

[allegro]

not "lol they drank what even IS judgement, guys?"
Yeah, one glass of wine and the consent police come barging through the door with machine guns, GET OFF OF THAT WOMAN!! PUT THE GLASS OF WINE DOWN! DID YOU EXECUTE THE CONSENT AGREEMENT?

IS THAT MERLOT? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! YOU DON'T DESERVE HER, YOU FUCKING PIG! YOU'RE UNDER ARREST! PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK! GET ON THE GROUND!

[orestes]

It's quite complicated, actually.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4568PIRnk

[DigitalChaos]

Are we talking California's? "(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."

I took that as "This person is in a state due to intoxication that prevents them from consenting." not "lol they drank what even IS judgement, guys?"






Correct. It says...

"(B) The complainant was incapacitated due to the influence of drugs, alcohol, or medication, so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity."





No, YOU are misunderstanding; that is NOT what it says; the mere presence of alcohol or drugs in their system does not prevent consent. There is not ONE PLACE in that CA law (or ANY of these laws) that says that. Go read it again, slowly, using a highlighter pen.


Those are your personal assumptions. There is a reason there has been a lot of questioning of that exact line out here in california. Even the local NPR stations have discussed this. "incapacitated" is extremely ambiguous in the text (unlike the minnesota law)

http://ggulawreview.org/2015/04/21/yes-means-yes-bill-fails-to-adequately-address-link-between-alcohol-and-sexual-assault/


And lets say they end up clarifying it to mean "blackout drunk" to resolve the problem... that still leaves all the other situations where affirmative consent doesnt happen (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/threads/3842-Consensual-discussion-of-consent-by-adults-who-voluntarily-hit-the-submit-button?p=262647#post262647)...

[allegro]

Those are your personal assumptions. There is a reason there has been a lot of questioning of that exact line out here in california. Even the local NPR stations have discussed this. "incapacitated" is extremely ambiguous in the text
NPR my ass.

"so that the complainant could not understand the fact, nature, or extent of the sexual activity" further defines incapacitated, AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE will ever further define incapacitated, AS IS THE CASE WITH ALL LAWS.

If the facts of a case show that the "victim" was sitting upright and had one glass of wine, it's likely that the "assailant" won't even be arrested because that won't be considered "incapacitated." Each case is handled on a case-by-case basis, blood alcohol levels will be taken, witnesses will be interviewed, etc. to determine how incapacitated the victim was and whether or not she / he had the ability to consent.



http://ggulawreview.org/2015/04/21/yes-means-yes-bill-fails-to-adequately-address-link-between-alcohol-and-sexual-assault/

This link is what I had been saying in the Steubenville case, which is COMPLETELY SEPARATE from this statute, and is a big problem, absolutely, but the consent issue had to be handled, first (mostly because of Title IX), before we try to tackle the giant problem of binge drinking in this country, which is absolutely a big problem, especially since alcohol is used on campus in a predatory nature, especially in some frat houses.

[DigitalChaos]

but the consent issue had to be handled, first (mostly because of Title IX), before we try to tackle the giant problem of binge drinking in this country

and you honestly think California's recent legislation even comes close to fixing consent? It still comes down to what one person says vs another. This law doesn't increase the availability of any sort of tangible evidence. I don't think it will even put a dent in sexual assault statistics.

As for everything else, I guess we will wait and see what happens after a few cases pop up where this new law is utilized. Pushing the burden of proof onto the accused is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" ideals that we should be using.

[allegro]

Pushing the burden of proof onto the accused is contrary to the "innocent until proven guilty" ideals that we should be using.
In cases of sexual assault, the assailant is always innocent until proven guilty and the burden of proof is never on the "accused" but is always based on the FACTS, no matter what statute is cited. This "new" law doesn't make it any easier for a victim of sexual assault. The whole reason this law was enacted was an attempt to rectify those cases where there was a gaping loophole, before; cases where the victim was unconscious and there was a lack of "no." This is only there in an attempt to serve as a deterrent on college campuses, to make assailants think twice before having sex with a passed-out coed, and to fix that loophole. If that works, it was worth it. Also, it's important that colleges and universities are put on notice that this law requires them follow the RULES and not cover this up.

[telee.kom]

@DigitalChaos (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=598) this is (almost word for word) the exact same thing I was trying to argue on the last 7 pages of this thread and it is just impossible, because people here just can't accept the fact that there is a possibility of this law being missused or missinterpreted. Which is quite optimistic mindset considering that USA isn't exactly known for their impeccable and fair judgement system for everybody that wouldn't make controversial decisions. And if it will really only apply on cases where the victim literally couldn't give consent and it will not be interpreted in a way that "victim was drunk and didn't really know what he/she was doing" so be it. But I'm saying that this opens a possibility for the latter. And you can say how many times that this isn't possible, but like somebody in this thread once told me, "repeating something, doesn't make it true".

And if you're having trouble imagining white CIS male being screwed up by this precedent, imagine black gay man or transsexual woman being accused of rape after their counterparts sober up and start to have regrets or feeling of shame after last night. I think it's so easy to "blame alcohol" in these instances. "I don't know what I was doing, I was intoxicated, I couldn't understand, I was incapacitated", etc. And this is only one angle of this, but I'm honestly kinda tired of this discussion already.

[allegro]

You can't just SAY you were incapacitated; you have to PROVE you were incapacitated. You have to PROVE that you were UNABLE to give consent. With FACTS, blood tests, hospital reports, witnesses, etc.

Judges' strict adherences to the letter of the laws doesn't allow these laws to be misused or misinterpreted by juries, here. Maybe that happens in your country, but the OPPOSITE happens, here; loopholes in laws allow criminals to go free all the time. Especially in cases of sexual assault. Like the woman with cerebral palsy with the intellect of a 3-yr-old, and the CT Supreme Court overturned the assailant's conviction because the victim could communicate by "moving two fingers" (her only method of communication) or she could have "kicked" to "fight back." So the obligation to avoid being sexually assaulted was solely up to her, and he had zero obligation not to assault her. Because CT law was not specific enough.

[Mantra]

And lets say they end up clarifying it to mean "blackout drunk" to resolve the problem... that still leaves all the other situations where affirmative consent doesnt happen...

"All the other situations" mean fuck-all in this context, because this law is specifically meant to provide the necessary legal framework to prosecute on-campus sexual assault, and also to give a little smackdown to the universities that were basically acting like the catholic church by protecting their students. This has no relevance to you or your partner or to anyone else who isn't assaulting students on a college campus. This is simply a law which says "Just because she didn't scream no due to her being unconscious doesn't mean it was consensual."

I would also like to point out that, under the definition of affirmative consent given in that law, nothing in that ridiculous post of telee kom's that you linked to would be considered sexual assault. The law says absolutely nothing about "specific vocal confirmation" being a prerequisite for sex, only that silence in and of itself doesn't automatically equal consent, which should be perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain.



Those are your personal assumptions. There is a reason there has been a lot of questioning of that exact line out here in california. Even the local NPR stations have discussed this. "incapacitated" is extremely ambiguous in the text (unlike the minnesota law)


http://ggulawreview.org/2015/04/21/yes-means-yes-bill-fails-to-adequately-address-link-between-alcohol-and-sexual-assault/ (http://ggulawreview.org/2015/04/21/yes-means-yes-bill-fails-to-adequately-address-link-between-alcohol-and-sexual-assault/)


The context of that line makes it clear what is meant by incapacitated. That entire section of the law is addressing situations where the other person is: asleep, unconscious, could not understand, unable to communicate, etc. So why would "incapacitated" be this uniquely strange, nebulous word that could mean any random thing? It's incredibly obvious what they're talking about, especially given that the law is meant to address all the "she never screamed no" bullshit.

[telee.kom]

The law says absolutely nothing about "specific vocal confirmation" being a prerequisite for sex


You know, you seem awfully sure about something that is very obviously up to an interpretation. It isn't specified what actually does "affirmative consent" means exactly, if it has to be verbal or not. That is something that either each campus would have to specify, or is it up to a court to decide if it comes down to that. I would personally understand is as verbal agreement if I would read this law without any context and further clarification.

[allegro]

It isn't specified what actually does "affirmative consent" means exactly, if it has to be verbal or not.
If it had to be in a specific form other than verbal, it would have specified that form (written, in blood on a willow tree). The standard accepted consent is verbal although this allows for non-verbal consent. The point is that the lack of any consent at all (e.g. "dead body" unconscious) is not acceptable. Which is primarily what the law (in affect for nearly a year) aims for. But law enforcement and the judicial system will look at all of the FACTS in the case to determine if the victim was incapable of consenting.

Here's a very good Time Magazine article from August 28, 2014, shortly before the California bill passed (http://time.com/3211938/campus-sexual-assault-consent-california/).

[allegro]

You guys have to remember that this law SUPPLEMENTS or IS IN ADDITION TO the current sexual assault laws on the books in the State of California and does not replace said law:


(a) Rape is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person not the spouse of the perpetrator, under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where a person is incapable, because of a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability, of giving legal consent, and this is known or reasonably should be known to the person committing the act. Notwithstanding the existence of a conservatorship pursuant to the provisions of the Lanterman-Petris-Short Act (Part 1 (commencing with Section 5000) of Division 5 of the Welfare and Institutions Code), the prosecuting attorney shall prove, as an element of the crime, that a mental disorder or developmental or physical disability rendered the alleged victim incapable of giving consent.
(2) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.
(3) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known by the accused.
(4) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, "unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(A) Was unconscious or asleep.
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.
(C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud in fact.
(D) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraudulent representation that the sexual penetration served a professional purpose when it served no professional purpose.
(5) Where a person submits under the belief that the person committing the act is the victim's spouse, and this belief is induced by any artifice, pretense, or concealment practiced by the accused, with intent to induce the belief.
(6) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph, "threatening to retaliate" means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.
(7) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, "public official" means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.
(b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in appraising the existence of duress.
(c) As used in this section, "menace" means any threat, declaration, or act which shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another. 261.5. (a) Unlawful sexual intercourse is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished with a person who is not the spouse of the perpetrator, if the person is a minor. For the purposes of this section, a "minor" is a person under the age of 18 years and an "adult" is a person who is at least 18 years of age.
(b) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is not more than three years older or three years younger than the perpetrator, is guilty of a misdemeanor.
(c) Any person who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is more than three years younger than the perpetrator is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170.
(d) Any person 21 years of age or older who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor who is under 16 years of age is guilty of either a misdemeanor or a felony, and shall be punished by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding one year, or by imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 for two, three, or four years.
(e) (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, an adult who engages in an act of sexual intercourse with a minor in violation of this section may be liable for civil penalties in the following amounts:
(A) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor less than two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed two thousand dollars ($2,000).
(B) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least two years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed five thousand dollars ($5,000).
(C) An adult who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor at least three years younger than the adult is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed ten thousand dollars ($10,000).
(D) An adult over the age of 21 years who engages in an act of unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor under 16 years of age is liable for a civil penalty not to exceed twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000).
(2) The district attorney may bring actions to recover civil penalties pursuant to this subdivision. From the amounts collected for each case, an amount equal to the costs of pursuing the action shall be deposited with the treasurer of the county in which the judgment was entered, and the remainder shall be deposited in the Underage Pregnancy Prevention Fund, which is hereby created in the State Treasury. Amounts deposited in the Underage Pregnancy Prevention Fund may be used only for the purpose of preventing underage pregnancy upon appropriation by the Legislature.
(3) In addition to any punishment imposed under this section, the judge may assess a fine not to exceed seventy dollars ($70) against any person who violates this section with the proceeds of this fine to be used in accordance with Section 1463.23. The court shall, however, take into consideration the defendant's ability to pay, and no defendant shall be denied probation because of his or her inability to pay the fine permitted under this subdivision.

(a) Rape of a person who is the spouse of the perpetrator is an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
(1) Where it is accomplished against a person's will by means of force, violence, duress, menace, or fear of immediate and unlawful bodily injury on the person or another.
(2) Where a person is prevented from resisting by any intoxicating or anesthetic substance, or any controlled substance, and this condition was known, or reasonably should have been known, by the accused.
(3) Where a person is at the time unconscious of the nature of the act, and this is known to the accused. As used in this paragraph, "unconscious of the nature of the act" means incapable of resisting because the victim meets one of the following conditions:
(A) Was unconscious or asleep.
(B) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant that the act occurred.
(C) Was not aware, knowing, perceiving, or cognizant of the essential characteristics of the act due to the perpetrator's fraud in fact.
(4) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to retaliate in the future against the victim or any other person, and there is a reasonable possibility that the perpetrator will execute the threat. As used in this paragraph, "threatening to retaliate" means a threat to kidnap or falsely imprison, or to inflict extreme pain, serious bodily injury, or death.
(5) Where the act is accomplished against the victim's will by threatening to use the authority of a public official to incarcerate, arrest, or deport the victim or another, and the victim has a reasonable belief that the perpetrator is a public official. As used in this paragraph, "public official" means a person employed by a governmental agency who has the authority, as part of that position, to incarcerate, arrest, or deport another. The perpetrator does not actually have to be a public official.
(b) As used in this section, "duress" means a direct or implied threat of force, violence, danger, or retribution sufficient to coerce a reasonable person of ordinary susceptibilities to perform an act which otherwise would not have been performed, or acquiesce in an act to which one otherwise would not have submitted. The total circumstances, including the age of the victim, and his or her relationship to the defendant, are factors to consider in apprising the existence of duress.
(c) As used in this section, "menace" means any threat, declaration, or act that shows an intention to inflict an injury upon another.
(d) If probation is granted upon conviction of a violation of this section, the conditions of probation may include, in lieu of a fine, one or both of the following requirements:
(1) That the defendant make payments to a battered women's shelter, up to a maximum of one thousand dollars ($1,000).
(2) That the defendant reimburse the victim for reasonable costs of counseling and other reasonable expenses that the court finds are the direct result of the defendant's offense.
For any order to pay a fine, make payments to a battered women's shelter, or pay restitution as a condition of probation under this subdivision, the court shall make a determination of the defendant's ability to pay. In no event shall any order to make payments to a battered women's shelter be made if it would impair the ability of the defendant to pay direct restitution to the victim or court-ordered child support. Where the injury to a married person is caused in whole or in part by the criminal acts of his or her spouse in violation of this section, the community property may not be used to discharge the liability of the offending spouse for restitution to the injured spouse, required by Section 1203.04, as operative on or before August 2, 1995, or Section 1202.4, or to a shelter for costs with regard to the injured spouse and dependents, required by this section, until all separate property of the offending spouse is exhausted.

266c. Every person who induces any other person to engage in sexual
intercourse, sexual penetration, oral copulation, or sodomy when his
or her consent is procured by false or fraudulent representation or
pretense that is made with the intent to create fear, and which does
induce fear, and that would cause a reasonable person in like
circumstances to act contrary to the person's free will, and does
cause the victim to so act, is punishable by imprisonment in a county
jail for not more than one year or in the state prison for two,
three, or four years.
As used in this section, "fear" means the fear of physical injury
or death to the person or to any relative of the person or member of
the person's family.

[elevenism]

@allegro (http://www.echoingthesound.org/community/member.php?u=76) , is that law not specific to spousal rape?

and secondly, the whole issue of "what constitutes ability to give consent" wasn't very solid in that bit of law you posted, either, is it?

How much influence of what amount and type of anesthetic/intoxicant does one have to have ingested to not be able to give consent, or implied consent, and where does implied consent fit in anyway?

Are there lots and lots of lawsuits with word mincing about the meaning of rape?

I don't keep up with that sort of thing, although i have definitely noticed a few cases here and there where the "men's rugby team" or some shit gang-raped some poor girl, looked guilty as sin and got off.

And good LORD, that shit has got to be the worst because the victim is doubly victimized by being portrayed as a liar and called a "gold digging slut" and the like...i can't fucking imagine that sort of emotional pain.


This thread has gotten a little testy, hasn't it? I didn't even read it...i'm just guessing. I came in and looked at the most recent page. And damn. 213 posts in a few days

[allegro]

allegro , is that law not specific to spousal rape?
I don't understand the question. It's not specific to anything except affirmative consent. So it changes the narrative in sexual assault from "no means no" to "yes means yes" meaning the "absence of no" (because she was totally unconscious) does not mean "yes." And this particular law in California was specifically aimed at college campuses. Read the Time article I just linked.

This doesn't focus on the "ability to give consent" but, instead, the INABILITY to give consent. The previous law on the books in California left a gaping hole that didn't take into consideration these campus sexual assaults wherein the victim was completely or nearly completely unconscious and therefore was unable to provide consent. And, again, this law is primarily aimed at college campuses. No, there are not lots and lots of lawsuits regarding the meaning of rape. These are involving criminal charges, which are not lawsuits. Read the Time article (above).


The so-called “affirmative consent” standard that California’s legislature has introduced in the latest bill is not a new concept. Similar affirmative consent policies already exist at some 800 post-secondary institutions across the country, including the 10 campuses that make up the University of California system. Educators from the University of California collaborated on the bill with its author, State Sen. Kevin de Leon, a Democrat, and the system’s president, Janet Napolitano, has endorsed it. This would be the first time that a state has tried to put such a policy, usually confined to student conduct handbooks, into law.


READ THIS FOR MORE INFORMATION (http://www.npr.org/sections/ed/2014/11/30/366348383/the-history-of-campus-sexual-assault)

[telee.kom]

1991 by Antioch University in Ohio, which required verbal consent (excluding “moans”) for “each new level” of sexual activity

ha.. this is hilarious

I understand the intention behind affirmative consent and I agree with it in general I just think it should be more clearly written. Not like the example above obviously, but I think the lack of definition of what it is, might be why so many people have problem with it. I understand how you are defining it allegro I also understand how writer of that article defined it, but that is not how the law itself define it, because there is not definition in there. Just something like "either verbal or non-verbal display of interest in sexual activities" would suffice. It might sound horrible because I just though it up on the spot, but it would clear things up for a lot of people. When you say affirmative consent, some people would almost start to pick up pen and paper. It could use some definition

[elevenism]

I don't understand the question
262. (a) Rape of a person who is the spouse of the perpetrator is
an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under any of the following
circumstances:

As for what i said about lawsuits, i meant courtroom battles, waged around the meaning and wording of the law. Forgive me. We got a new coffee machine last night and i had two "four cup" servings at about 1 am, so no sleeps for good old eleveno! :p

as far as "putting pen to paper," well, Dave Chappelle covered this some years back.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo4568PIRnk

[allegro]

262. (a) Rape of a person who is the spouse of the perpetrator is
an act of sexual intercourse accomplished under any of the following
circumstances
Oh, that's not the new law, that's existing California law. The new additional ("affirmative consent") law is here (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967).

Yeah, somebody linked that Chapelle video a few pages ago, heh.


It could use some definition
I think, according to our standard of law, and the fact that it supplements the current law's definition, it is already defined enough to not hamstring the law, and that the facts of each case will more clearly define the lack of consent. Because it's not "consent" we're defining, ultimately, but the lack thereof. (I have been in law for 26 years, so maybe I've just been swimming in American law for too long.) The lawyers who are against this bill are typical defense attorneys who bitch and moan because they LIKE loopholes and legal "flexibility" that lets their clients get away with sexual assault. Which is what they've been doing for a very long time (and will probably continue to get away with, anyway, and they know it).

If you over-define a law, you end up creating yet another technicality that lets perpetrators get away. So, case law will further define the law.

"No matter how the policy is written, colleges investigating sexual assault will come up against the same challenging he-said, she-said, confusion that any person investigating sex crimes must contend with. This policy at least gives students more information about the college’s expectations. "

[playwithfire]

You guys it was called Atlas SHRUGGED not Atlas said yes at each new sexual level read the facts smh

[Mantra]

You know, you seem awfully sure about something that is very obviously up to an interpretation. It isn't specified what actually does "affirmative consent" means exactly, if it has to be verbal or not.

Would you be willing to quote the exact part of the text that you feel is going to be abused/misinterpreted? Here's what it says...

“Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

[Baphomette]

If it happened the way Fuchs said (or if they knew) they could have ruin Fowley's career years ago while he was still alive which would make much more sense.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jYcdvL9_vi0

From 1989. Ffwd to 2:48. Any doubts now?

[DigitalChaos]

1991 by Antioch University in Ohio, which required verbal consent (excluding “moans”) for “each new level” of sexual activity

ha.. this is hilarious


note, this is NOT a parody video. This was created by supporters of the law.

bonus points if you notice a man get raped(edit: sexually assaulted) in this video



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVHYvUpeqKI

[DigitalChaos]

and to add some balance to that:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hUwAKhHDXlU

[telee.kom]

From 1989. Ffwd to 2:48. Any doubts now?

Cherrie Currie never said the sex didn't happen, she said it wasn't rape. This doesn't really prove anything. But we already been through it all you're late to the party

[allegro]

Cherrie Currie never said the sex didn't happen, she said it wasn't rape.
In that video she described it as "brutality" and as "terrifying." (Fowley described himself as the Sex Dog); says she told a "person of authority" "Down Dog." She also says she was on drugs and had been sober by that point for 2 years. Dude, do you actually speak English or is it not so good? Seriously, I'm not joking.

[telee.kom]

note, this is NOT a parody video. This was created by supporters of the law.


I have alientube installed in chrome which is a plugin that shows reddit threads where the video was posted instead of youtube comments and the consensus in feminist subs like r/feminism or r/twoxchromosomes (I wonder how this sentence would sound to someone from 1960) the consensus seems to be that this video is sexy.. and not awkward as hell and cringeworthy at all. #consentissexy I guess

[telee.kom]

In that video she described it as "brutality" and as "terrifying." (Fowley described himself as the Sex Dog); says she told a "person of authority" "Down Dog." She also says she was on drugs and had been sober by that point for 2 years. Dude, do you actually speak English or is it not so good? Seriously, I'm not joking.


I would imagine that this would be terrifying experience no matter if it was consensual or not. There is nothing in that video that's saying that it was rape. I wouldn't want to watch two people have sex like that and I'm 25 let alone if I was 15. And to be clear I'm just saying what Currie said, not what I think of all this.

[allegro]

I would imagine that this would be terrifying experience no matter if it was consensual or not. There is nothing in that video that's saying that it was rape. I wouldn't want to watch two people have sex like that and I'm 25 let alone if I was 15. And to be clear I'm just saying what Currie said, not what I think of all this.
I dunno, "brutality" is still brutality, and I don't think she'd say, on a national TV show, that she witnessed a rape because the next question to her would be "well, didn't you call the police?" and of course then she would have to say, "Um, no." She technically still witnessed a "rape." It was a statutory rape, because Fuchs was 16, and it was a rape because Fuchs has said it was a rape. Currie had knowledge that it was at least a statutory rape, which is still illegal but a rape nonetheless (and a "brutal" one at that) and if Fuchs asserts it was a rape, then it was a rape, especially considering that more than 5 people corroborate Fuchs' story.

But, describing the statutory rape as "brutal" and all that sure goes beyond how she's described it so far. It's more how Jackie and the rest of the witnesses have described it.

[telee.kom]

Yeah it was statutory rape obviously and Currie acknowledged that, but she said that it was consensual from Fuch's part.


"I'm not denying statutory rape," she said. "It happened in that room. Just not the way Jackie said it happened. Different culture, different time and I never saw a band member date a man under the age of 18."

[allegro]

Yeah it was statutory rape obviously and Currie acknowledged that, but she said that it was consensual from Fuch's part.
Yeah, and in that video she said it was "brutal" and "terrifying" and she's just making different stories up and changing the story each time because she has bystander syndrome. Dating is not the same as a 16-yr-old who had just barely met this guy who was controlling these girls, and who at least FIVE people in the room saw this man give Fuchs at least 4 Quaaludes but somehow Currie missed it? Bullshit. Unless Currie was 'luded out, too, which is entirely possible. Currie is burying memories just to protect her own bystander syndrome because she thinks she was supposed to "do something" when there was nothing she could do. She even claims that she got up in the room and said something to Fowley while he was raping Fuchs. She also said she later confronted Fowley about it. She was helpless to change the facts, later, so she keeps changing her story because that's all she can do to make herself feel better; what she should be doing is calling the person it happened to and discuss her feelings about it, and get some therapy, for sure.

Here's the account from that article:


When Helen Roessler and Trudie Arguelles, two of Jackie’s friends from the Sunset music scene, showed up, they couldn’t believe the state she was in. They had known her for a year and never once had they seen her intoxicated. “It didn’t seem OK,” Roessler says. “Jackie was always really in control.”

At some point, Jackie says she had to lie down on a bed to rest. She was having trouble staying upright. When a roadie checked to see if she was OK, Fowley asked him if he was interested in having sex with her. “She doesn’t mind,” Fowley said. “Do you?”

Jackie tried to protest, but she was frozen. “You don’t know what terror is until you realize something bad is about to happen to you and you can’t move a muscle,” she says. “I can’t move. I can’t speak. All I can do is look him in the eye and do the best I can do to communicate: Please say no. ... I don’t know what it looked like from the outside. But I know what was going on inside and it was horror.” The roadie declined Fowley’s offer, and soon after, Jackie says she started to slip in and out of consciousness.

According to Roessler, Fowley stood over Jackie and began to unbutton her blouse. Jackie wasn’t wearing a bra. “Nobody seemed to really care,” Roessler says. “It was really weird. Everybody was sitting in there alone with themselves. It felt like everyone was detached or trying to pretend like nothing was going on.”

But Roessler couldn’t stop staring at Fowley. She hoped he would notice her mute pleading, the rage in her eyes. “I remember really clearly just staring at him like, ‘If only I stare at him hard enough, it’ll make this all stop,’” Roessler says. “If only I stare at him and he looks at me, he’ll go, ‘Oh my God, what am I doing?’”

When Fowley started taking Jackie’s pants off, Roessler couldn’t bear it anymore. She got in her parents’ car and left. Around this time, Williams stumbled into the room. Multiple witnesses say that Fowley began to penetrate Jackie with the handle of a hairbrush. “It was one of those times you feel like there’s a spotlight on you,” Williams says. “Everybody’s looking at you to see how you would respond. You just want to get out of there.” And, soon enough, he did.

Fowley invited other guys to have sex with Jackie before removing his own pants and climbing on top of her. “Kim’s fucking someone!” a voice shouted from the door of the motel room to the partygoers outside, calling them in to watch. Arguelles returned to the room to see if this was all a big joke.

On the bed, Fowley played to the crowd, gnashing his teeth and growling like a dog as he raped Jackie. He got up at one point to strut around the room before returning to Jackie’s body.

“I remember opening my eyes, Kim Fowley was raping me, and there were people watching me,” Jackie says. She looked out from the bed and noticed Currie and Jett staring at her. She says this was her last memory of the night. Jett, through a representative, denied witnessing the event as it has been described here. Her representative referred all further questions to Jackie “as it’s a matter involving her and she can speak for herself.”

Currie claims that she spoke up and stormed out of the room. All witnesses say they felt intimidated. “It turned into this really disgusting Grand Guignol–like theater performance that he put on,” Krome says. “And Jackie was dead, dead, dead drunk—like corpse drunk. She was just laying down on her back, sound asleep, out of it.” Krome says Fowley picked up Jackie’s arm “and it flopped down like a marionette. … He had to manually move her body parts into positions that he wanted for himself.”

Krome escaped to the adjoining room and began drinking. She was confused why nobody did anything to end the attack. She recalls that Jett and Currie were sitting off to the side of the room for part of the time, snickering. “I didn’t know what to do,” she says. “Like what was I going to do? Go outside and drive and find a pay phone and call the police? I didn’t want to call the police on anyone, but at the same time I knew what was happening was wrong.” Krome was 14.

Jackie showed up at the next band practice some days later, not ready to stop being a Runaway. Although she was nervous about how her bandmates would treat her, she at least expected them to acknowledge that something bad had happened. But the girls hardly registered her presence. They just plugged in and started running through their songs. That was the day, Jackie says, “the elephant joined the band.”

Jackie took her bandmates’ silence to mean that she should keep quiet, too. “I didn’t know if anybody would have backed me,” she says. “I knew I would be treated horribly by the police—that I was going to be the one that ended up on trial more than Kim. I carried this sense of shame and of thinking it was somehow my fault for decades.”

Currie says the girls, who were then all 16 and 17, never talked about how to handle the rape. There was no decision or strategy. The unspoken rule was simply, “you forget it and you move on,” Currie explains. “I pushed it out of my mind the best I could.”

Jackie tried to do the same. She didn’t tell her parents what had happened. She did tell her sister Carol, who was just 13 at the time. Carol believes that Jackie “compartmentalized” the rape so that she could stay in the band.

[DigitalChaos]

I have alientube installed in chrome which is a plugin that shows reddit threads where the video was posted instead of youtube comments and the consensus in feminist subs like r/feminism or r/twoxchromosomes (I wonder how this sentence would sound to someone from 1960) the consensus seems to be that this video is sexy.. and not awkward as hell and cringeworthy at all. #consentissexy I guess
no doubt, but after going through this thread and learning about the law... it seems like there is quite a difference between what the law says and what that brand of feminism WANTS it to be... right?

[allegro]

If anybody really wants to get into the weeds with prosecuting sexual assault while intoxicated cases, THERE'S THIS (http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/pub_prosecuting_alcohol_facilitated_sexual_assault .pdf).




PROSECUTING ALCOHOL-RELATED SEXUAL ASSAULT

When possible, the prosecution should proceed under a theory of rape
by force as this is more consistent with the stereotype of rape believed by
the public, and thus, by potential jurors. Moreover, the victim’s state of
intoxication, which can be difficult to prove, need not be proven under
this theory. Even if it could be proven,“[t]here is no bright line test that
defines precisely how much alcohol or drugs result in a person’s inability
to consent to sex.” Moving from an estimated value for the BAC to a
correct statement about the degree of intoxication during the crucial
period can be challenging.

Even where the measured values are reliable and accurate, substantial variability
in tolerances for alcohol, absorption rates, and clearance rates, both
among individuals and within the same individual from one situation to
another, complicates efforts to deduce the true extent of intoxication at the
time of an arrest or accident. “Expert testimony would ordinarily be
needed to establish that the party with the measured or inferred BAC was
intoxicated during the period in question.”

If no physical force was used but the victim was unconscious, the prosecution
should proceed under the theory that the perpetrator raped an
unconscious victim.When dealing with a victim who was unconscious,
the primary challenge will be showing that the victim actually was
unconscious for all or part of the rape. Meeting the element of penetration
also will usually be a challenge with an unconscious victim. If the
first two alternatives are not options, the prosecution can proceed under
the theory that the victim was too intoxicated to consent.
When deciding whether to charge based on the theory that it was rape
because the victim was too intoxicated to consent, it is crucial to analyze
the elements of the crime being alleged.As in all cases, prosecutors must
ensure that they are proceeding under a valid legal theory.Although
intercourse with someone who is too intoxicated to consent always constitutes
moral rape, it is only a crime if it meets the legal definition of
rape. In the United States, jurisdictions define this crime in various ways,
which include the following:

Either statute or case law specifically outlaws having intercourse
with a person who is too intoxicated to consent. In these states,
the victim’s intoxication negates the element of consent, thereby
showing that the sexual act occurred without consent.

• Rape occurs when the defendant has sexual intercourse with a
person who is “mentally incapacitated,” which is generally defined
as being rendered temporarily incapable of appraising his or her
conduct due to the influence of a narcotic, anesthetic, or other
substance. In these jurisdictions, the prosecution generally must
show that the victim was “mentally incapacitated” or “mentally
incapable of resisting due to drugs, alcohol, or an anesthetic.”

• Rape occurs when the defendant has intercourse with someone
who is “physically helpless.” In these jurisdictions, the prosecution
can show that the victim was intoxicated to the point of being
physically helpless because she was unconscious, unaware that the
intercourse was occurring, physically powerless, physically incapable
of resisting, or physically disabled due to intoxication.

In addition to the elements stated above, some jurisdictions require the
prosecution to prove that the defendant knew that the victim was intoxicated.
A victim can become intoxicated by drugs and/or alcohol in three
ways: (1) surreptitious administration by the assailant; (2) mixing of prescription
or over-the-counter drugs with alcohol or recreational drugs; or
(3) recreational use by the victim.This monograph focuses on the latter
two forms of intoxication only.

Once the charging theory has been determined, a chart analyzing what
evidence exists regarding each element should be prepared. Can the victim
testify to all elements of the crime? It is not uncommon for victims
who were intoxicated at the time of the crime to forget pieces of the
incident.This may or may not be fatal to a prosecution, depending on
whether other evidence exists. For this reason, the chart is helpful in
visualizing which memory lapses are fatal and which are not.

http://i.imgur.com/3a2OFaT.png

The primary challenge in prosecuting rape cases where the victim is voluntarily
intoxicated is that society tends to have difficulty distinguishing
between drunken sex and rape. Instead of assuming that it was probably
rape because the woman was too drunk to consent, people tend to
assume that the woman consented because she was intoxicated and simply
regretted the sexual encounter later. In these cases, the defense tends to
argue:“It’s not rape; it’s regret,” or,“It’s buyer’s remorse.” Prosecutors must
overcome the tendency to focus on and blame the victim and re-direct
the focus back to the offender’s actions, and thus on the elements of the
crime. It is the prosecutor’s job to show jurors why the case before them
is a case of sexual assault and not just drunken sex that was later regretted.

Generally, there is not a bright-line test for showing that the victim was
too intoxicated to consent, thereby distinguishing sexual assault from
drunken sex. In drunk driving cases, the prosecution can show that the
driver had a certain BAC; therefore, the driver is guilty. Sexual assault
cases involving alcohol are not as clear cut.There is not a universal BAC
at which the law or the experts agree that people are no longer capable
of consenting to intercourse. Instead, the equation involves an analysis of
the totality of the circumstances and numerous factors.The factors discussed
herein are divided into two parts: (1) general factors and (2)
predatory behavior on the part of the defendant. By analyzing these factors
and considering the totality of the circumstances, the prosecutor can
determine whether the case is sexual assault or not.

Analyzing Consent and Distinguishing Rape from Drunken Sex:
General Factors
■What is the type of rape alleged? If the type of rape involves force or
the threat of force, the defense that the victim consented and merely
regretted it later is viable only if the defendant claims the victim consented
to whatever rough sex was equivalent to the force.When the
prosecution has alleged force or threats of force, the consent defense
should be looked upon with skepticism.
■ How drunk was the victim? The more intoxicated the victim was, the
less likely it is that she was capable of consenting.The following factors
can aid in this determination:
● Was she conscious or unconscious? Did she regain consciousness
during the rape? Did she pass out during the rape? If so,
what did the accused do?
● Did she black out?
● Did she vomit?
● Could she speak? Was she slurring? Was she able to
communicate coherently?
● Was she able to walk or did someone (in particular, the
defendant) have to carry her? Did she have to lean on
someone?
● Was she able to dress/undress herself?
● Were her clothes disheveled?
● Was she responsive or in a nonresponsive state?
● Was she able to perform physical tasks or was her coordination
impacted? For example, did she light the wrong end of a
cigarette or spill things?
● Did she urinate or defecate on herself?
● What was her level of mental alertness?
● Did she do anything else to indicate whether she was capable
of cognitive functioning? For example, did she use her credit
card? Did she use her cell phone or e-mail?
■ Is there a motive to lie? If not, why is the victim’s veracity being
questioned?
■What are the time and circumstances of the report? Did the victim
come forward as soon as she was physically able or did she wait? What
made her come forward? Did she tell anyone about the incident prior to going to the hospital or calling the police? What prompted her to
report when she did and why?
● A delayed report is not fatal to the prosecution of a rape case;
however, the reason for the delay must be explored. Investigators
must interview any eye or ear witnesses to the delayed report, the
rape itself, and to anything that might have happened in the intervening
time between the rape and the report to the police.
● When analyzing the impact of a delayed report, remember that,
according to the National College Women Sexual Victimization
Survey, almost half of the women who are by definition rape victims
do not self-identify as rape victims. These women know
that something bad happened to them, that someone had sex
with them when they were too drunk to consent, or that someone
held them down and forced them to have sex against their
will. But they often do not label themselves as “rape victims.” If a
victim does not self-identify as a rape victim, it will impact her
choice to call the police immediately.Why call the police if you
have not been raped?
■What was the victim’s physical condition? Was she menstruating? Was
she wearing a tampon? Was she previously injured? Was she undergoing
medical treatment for a yeast or fungal infection or other uncomfortable
condition? Was there anything else that would argue against the
intercourse being voluntary?
■Was the victim injured? If so, what do the injuries show?
■Where did the incident happen? Which of the parties was at the incident
location first? Is this a case where the victim went to bed and the
defendant followed her to her bedroom? Are the facts of the incident
consistent with a consensual encounter?
■What sexual positions are alleged and how do those positions fit with
the victim’s degree of intoxication? For example, it would be difficult
(although not necessarily impossible) for a person who was too drunk
to consent to intercourse to stand and have sex in a shower stall.
■Was there prior interaction between the victim and the defendant? Are
they boyfriend and girlfriend? Did they even know each other before
the night in question?Analyzing Consent and Distinguishing Rape from Drunken Sex:
Defendant’s Predatory Behavior
Prosecutors will face perhaps their greatest challenge in AFSA cases
where the defendant was drunk as well.Alcohol consumption by perpetrators
and victims tends to co-occur. The reality is that approximately
fifty percent of all sexual assaults are committed by a man who has been
drinking. “Although alcohol consumption and sexual assault frequently
co-occur, this phenomenon does not prove that alcohol use causes sexual
assault.” Nevertheless, many defendants will attempt to use alcohol as an
excuse for rape. The public has a tendency to view rape of a voluntarily
intoxicated victim as more of an opportunistic crime than a predatory
crime.When a jury hears that the defendant was drinking, it is easy for
jurors to assume that it was drunken sex as opposed to sexual assault
unless prosecutors disenchant them of the idea. Jurors may think:“There
but for the grace of God, go I (or my son or my friend).” It is the prosecutor’s
job to keep the focus on the defendant and his behavior.
Most states do not recognize voluntary intoxication as a defense; however,
some do. Even in states that do not recognize intoxication as a defense, it
may be a barrier to prosecution. Prosecutors can overcome the hurdle of
the intoxication defense by looking for the defendant’s predatory behavior.The
prosecutor must look carefully at all the facts of the case to determine
whether the defendant is a predator or just a drunk guy who did
not intentionally rape anyone. Often, a successful predator will mask his
actions in such a way that they appear opportunistic as opposed to predatory.The
more predatory the defendant’s behavior, the easier it is to prove
that he is a rapist. Factors to consider include the following:
■ Did the defendant use force or threaten the victim? Using force or
threats of force to accomplish intercourse is not consistent with
consensual sex.
■ Did the victim say “no?” If so, why did the defendant disregard her
“no?”Why was the victim’s “no” not good enough for the defendant?
Ignoring a sexual partner when she says “no” is not consistent with
consensual sex.
■ Look at the defendant’s level of intoxication. What was his capacity to
do other things? Could he walk? Talk? Play pool? Drive a car? Was his speech slurred? The more sober he was, the easier it is to show he was
a predator, especially if the victim was extremely intoxicated.
■Was there any planning or manipulation on the part of the defendant?
Were there any attempts to deceive the victim? Did the defendant do
anything to control the situation and overcome the victim’s will? Did
he isolate her? Did he lie to her?
■ Is there any evidence of grooming? Did the defendant do anything during
the time prior to the rape to gain the victim’s trust? Did he do
anything to make it easier to rape her? Is there any evidence that he
set her up? For example, did he talk about making a “special punch” to
get his “target” drunk? Did he buy her drinks and encourage her to
drink them in an attempt to get her drunk?
■ Did the defendant prey upon the victim’s vulnerabilities? Did he do
anything to wear down the victim’s resistance? Is there any evidence
that the defendant selected the victim because he knew that she would
be an easy target?
■ Has the defendant done it before? Have anyone else ever accused him of
rape or other misconduct? Has anyone ever seen women leaving his
room/apartment/home crying or distraught?
■ Did the defendant know the victim? If so, did he use his knowledge or
familiarity with the victim to gain access to her or to isolate her? Did
he use his knowledge to attempt to silence her?
Consideration of the factors listed above should help prosecutors analyze
whether the defendant is a predator and distinguish between drunken sex
and rape.

[DigitalChaos]

I find it insane we need so many words within laws to get people to just not be shitty. How fucking hard is it to exist within a space of voluntary interaction? Fucking dumbshit humans.

[allegro]

I find it insane we need so many words within laws to get people to just not be shitty. How fucking hard is it to exist within a space of voluntary interaction? Fucking dumbshit humans.

LOL, have you ever BEEN to a law library? They usually have at least SIX FLOORS.

Our law library, just in our law office (before nearly everything went digital) had at least 15 books dedicated solely to pattern and non-pattern jury instructions, civil and criminal. Which changed ALL THE FUCKING TIME, and every so often you get a delivery of a shitload of boxes of these things called "pocket parts" that are additions to books that you have to insert into the backs of the books so they don't have to reprint the books.

You have to learn how to "Shepardize" which means to use Shepard's (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shepard%27s_Citations) to cross-reference all legal citations you are using to make sure all of your citations are current and haven't been replaced by something new. (Now, LexisNexis and Westlaw pretty much do that for you, but we used to do it BY HAND.)

[elevenism]

allegro , i must be missing something. all i was saying is that the existing law that you linked says...oh, fuck. Nevermind.
I kept misreading it. I thought it said "with a person who IS the spouse of the perpetrator."

LOLZ. I'm sorry. I STILL haven't slept. It's been a long, long day. I've been awake since like 10 am YESTERDAY morning.

Carry on with the arguing.

[allegro]

allegro , i must be missing something. all i was saying is that the existing law that you linked says...oh, fuck. Nevermind.
I kept misreading it. I thought it said "with a person who IS the spouse of the perpetrator."
It does. One section is spouse and one is non-spouse. I had them flipped and unflipped the order. But in CA you can be arrested for sexually assaulting a spouse. Think John and Lorena Bobbitt. Except she did her own justice.

[elevenism]

Well i should HOPE you can be arrested for sexually assaulting your wife! "I do" doesn't mean "fuck me whenever you want, however you want, whether i like it or not!"

[Lew]

Yeah, one glass of wine and the consent police come barging through the door with machine guns, GET OFF OF THAT WOMAN!! PUT THE GLASS OF WINE DOWN! DID YOU EXECUTE THE CONSENT AGREEMENT?

IS THAT MERLOT? ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME?! YOU DON'T DESERVE HER, YOU FUCKING PIG! YOU'RE UNDER ARREST! PUT YOUR HANDS BEHIND YOUR BACK! GET ON THE GROUND!


you. are. incredible.
the end.
no it isn't...
i love you, allegro.
for the deep thinking you inspire as much as the bladder splitting laughs you provoke.
yep. (sorry for public fan girling you, but pm wouldn't send)

almost done reading this whole thread.

fwiw: i have told my 13 year old son that you only fool around with a girl or boy who says yes. if they are drunk or on drugs, you don't touch them AT ALL. if you see friends trying to touch them, you step in or try to get help. if you are inside of someone, after they say yes, and they say stop...you do. if at any time during sexual activity he/she says stop...you do. end of story. i think the horse shit that went on here with rehtaeh parsons really affected him.

[allegro]

i love you, allegro
I send you a high-five and a hug and a heartfelt thank you :)

And if people don't know about Retheah Parsons (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Rehtaeh_Parsons) (God rest her soul).

[allegro]

http://i.imgur.com/F6piRmY.jpg

[Dra508]

http://www.upworthy.com/how-7-things-that-have-nothing-to-do-with-rape-perfectly-illustrate-the-concept-of-consent?g=2&c=upw1

I fb friend of mine always posts about consent issues and sexual assault put this one up today.
The cartoon is great.