The Ornery American Forums

General Category => General Comments => Topic started by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 01:55:55 PM

Title: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 01:55:55 PM
Despite my angry exchange of words with Pyr over this topic, I think that his is a point of view that should be listened to, although I hope it's ultimately not accepted as the new standard for the language on rape.  As best I can see it, here's Pyr's argument, made much more articulately, and from an ironic point of view.

http://thoughtcatalog.com/anonymous/2015/01/confessions-of-a-serial-rapist/

Quote
I was always in a committed relationship with my partners. This may surprise you, but I’ve always been the committed type. I had three long-term partners before my current, permanent partner to whom I have been legally married for a long time, but none of that stopped me.

When I wanted sex, I took it.

I’ll tell you a secret: it’s easier to rape when you are in a long term relationship. Consent gets pretty murky. My partners were not always into sex when I wanted it. I didn’t care. And because they valued me, and their relationship with me, they accepted it. Their own minds were murky. That’s the perfect storm.

Just what you want.

I didn’t care if they were tired. I didn’t care if they were feeling run down. I didn’t care if they just wanted to go to sleep. I never said it, but in the back of my mind all I could think was “*censored* you.”

So I did.

All the *censored*ing time.

I still do it.

Verbal consent? What’s that? I don’t ask. I impose. Like physically impose. Strip off my clothes and simply declare what is going to happen. What’s going to happen? Sex. Because I want it. I put up with all this relationship *censored* so I can have sex whenever I want, and I’m not initiating any stupid conversations about how and why your feelings are important. I don’t give a *censored*. I just want to *censored*.

I’m not a cheater. Have never cheated on a single partner my entire life. I don’t do cheating, and it’s not because I’m not smart enough to hide it or incapable of such betrayal or I’m afraid of being caught. Who cares if I’m caught? Go *censored* yourself and NEXT! I don’t cheat because being a loyal, honest and trustworthy human being is a central part of my identity and cheating means I give that up. You may not know I’ve cheated, but I will know and the person I see in the mirror matters to me. I want to look at that reflection and see a Marine. Semper Fidelis. Always faithful. It’s who I am.

So I don’t cheat.

I rape.

Or in other words, I take what I want. I coerce. I cajole. To a point. I’ll try and persuade you this is what you want, too, but ultimately, I don’t give a *censored*. I want to get laid. Right now. With you. So get undressed. Or don’t. I can do it for you. I’m more than happy to do it for you.

...

1. The Mustang Rape

We’re in our last year of highschool. I’ve been dating the same person since Grade 9 and now we are in Grade 12. It all ended amicably and I am on the loose. You have piercing blue eyes and jet black, wavy hair and I am totally smitten with your physical beauty. Your brothers have given you a car. A Mustang with an engine that needs to be rebuilt. I’m so in on this. In like Flynn. In hard and deep. We spend days talking, chatting, working on the car. We strip out the transmission and rebuild it. I’m amazed at your knowledge. I’m learning a ton myself but I try to hide that and act like I knew all this *censored* all along. I don’t think you buy it, but it’s clear you are willing to humor me. We have fun. You have a pool in your backyard and we end most days scantily clad in the water. My mouth is ravenous on yours, but you don’t seem to want to cross the line.

I put up with this.

For a while.

And then I’ve had enough. The car is almost done, the summer is almost over and I am sick of your *censored*ing games.

We’re alone. We swim and playfully swat each other back and forth. You get out of the pool, your body streaming with water and almost smoking under the summer sun. I get out behind you and strip off my wet suit. Naked. You’re kind of shocked. You start to talk. To argue. You’re not sure. I don’t care. I wrap my arms around you in a death grip and with a few deft hand moves, it’s done. Penetration. You’re moaning and so am I. I throw my full weight on you and get what I want. We date for a full year and it ends in a marriage proposal, which is refused.

For some reason.
2. The Cigar Store Rape

We meet at college. We’re both auditioning for a Shakespeare play our university is putting on. We both get cast. You love being on stage. Love the spotlight. Love all the attention. You’re beautiful and more importantly, when it comes to this campus, rich. You’ve inherited an unreasonable amount from your Daddy. His work funds your life. I *censored*ing hate acting. The real fun is behind the scenes. I begrudgingly play out my part but spend the next four years working as a stage manager, producer, and ultimately director. The college builds a new theatre. I direct the inaugural play. I cast you as the lead. Of course I do.

After college is over, you are a bit lost. You use some of your money to open a cigar store. You’re not a huge fan of cigars but you see the potential and Daddy’s advisors are incredibly helpful and you get a store up and running. And it’s quite successful.

But it takes up a lot of your time, which leaves me increasingly frustrated.

Sexually frustrated.

You’re just not giving me what I want anymore. It’s all about the store. The store, the store, the store. *censored* the store.

And *censored* you.

Some kind of event, I can’t recall what. You are there, dressed to the nines. Looking gorgeous. Chilling and sipping Laproiagh and I make a decision. I am going to *censored* you. You go down to the basement to fetch I don’t know what and I follow you down. I thrust you up against the wall. You’re protesting. You have to get back to the customers. I don’t care. I shove my hands rudely down the front of your clothes. Basically undress you.

I *censored* you up against the wall while you protest.

I so don’t care.

I take all the time I need to get what I want.

When I’m done, you’re sort of mad but not really and you go back upstairs and no one has any idea what just happened.

We date for another year and it ends in a marriage proposal, which is refused.

For some reason.

I finally meet my permanent partner and attempt rape, as per usual, but I get strongly resisted and it dawns on me that if this person has the guts, the strength, the confidence to resist me, chances are all other comers will be resisted too. I let the first few sessions go down as consensual, but slowly, slowly work my way towards taking what I want.

I’m an expert at this point and I know how to get what I want.

And I do it.

I still do.

I will never ask permission. It’s not who I am. I stop short of violence, because violence is vulgar and well beneath me. I stop short of violence because I doubt I would win. I stop short of violence because it’s ugly and crass and there are so many better ways, subtler ways, to get what I want.

I am a serial rapist.

And on the whole, my victims, love it.

Oh please, with your whining. They love it. They come back for more. Which I’m happy to deliver.

I am a serial rapist and I have no regrets.

PS: I’m also a woman, and all my victims are male.

Comments are interesting
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Gaoics79 on February 26, 2016, 08:04:44 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't think a woman would be strong enough to do what the article describes. Men are vastly stronger than women. Unless she is incredibly strong for a woman AND selecting incredibly weak men what's described in the article would be nearly impossible for most any woman to pull off without using a weapon of some kind.

I also think it would be anatomically very difficult, if not impossible in most cases to force a man to penetrate a woman in the way that's described in the article.

The writer tips her hand when she states: "I stop short of violence because I doubt I would win"

So she's admitting implicitly that if push comes to shove she can't actually "force" anything to happen.

I'm sorry, but none of it rings true. I think she's playing fast and loose with the definition of "rape" and what it means to "force" someone.

Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 08:09:56 PM
I'm sorry, but I don't think a woman would be strong enough to do what the article describes. Men are vastly stronger than women. Unless she is incredibly strong for a woman AND selecting incredibly weak men what's described in the article would be nearly impossible for most any woman to pull off without using a weapon of some kind.

It seems to me that you're replying on your own definition of rape rather than paying attention to what she actually "describes".

Quote
I also think it would be anatomically very difficult, if not impossible in most cases to force a man to penetrate a woman in the way that's described in the article.

At no point does she claim to have physically forced any man to penetrate her.

Quote
I'm sorry, but none of it rings true. Maybe she's playing fast and loose with the concept of "force" i.e. she's not really "raping".

She isn't playing fast and loose.  She's using the definition of rape that's being used in the universities against men.

Set aside your assumptions, and re-read.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Gaoics79 on February 26, 2016, 08:12:49 PM
Sorry Pete, I edited my post under your nose. Yes, I agree the issue is definition.

What is there to say except that there's a real definition of rape and one made up by academics and feminists. One definition is real, the other isn't. What's described in the article, if I'm understanding the author's words correctly, isn't actually rape.

I'm not sure what the point of this pseudo confession is,  to be honest.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 08:18:40 PM
I'm not certain what her point is either.  But here's what I take away from it:  the activities that feminist academics are calling rape, should not reasonably be called rape, but they aren't particularly healthy either.

Did you see our last thread on this topic?  I think you missed it.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Gaoics79 on February 26, 2016, 08:27:26 PM
Sorry Pete I'm not familiar with the topic this refers to.

I'm not entirely sure about what the intent of this article is, whether it's supposed to be taken seriously or if it's some kind of satire or criticism of wrong-headed "affirmative consent" laws.

What I do know is that what the author is calling "rape" isn't in any legitimate sense. When she says that she wouldn't win if it came to violence, what she's saying implicitly is that she's not strong enough to actually force herself on any of her "victims". That means that they are either passively accepting it despite having the power to stop it from happening or they are not nearly as unwilling as the author claims.

And I am not suggesting that a rape victim must fight back for it to be rape or that just because the rapist isn't physically stronger than the rape victim there can never be a rape. But when you have a huge power imbalance in terms of physical strength as exists between the vast majority of men and the vast majority of women, and consequently the "victim" already knows that he/she can physically put an end to the encounter (as almost any man would be able to do against almost any woman absent a weapon) and chooses not to, it simply isn't rape anymore.

If my wife wakes me up and demands sex despite me not being in the mood and I let her do it, despite not saying "yes", but of course knowing that I could physically stop her at any time I wanted to, only a fool would call that "rape", which makes a mockery of the word.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 08:50:13 PM
While I agree that the collegiate definition of rape is far to broad, you seem to be using an obsolete narrow version where rape comes down to a struggle of physical force.  And you're wrong that most any man could beat almost any woman in such a contest absent a weapon.  I suspect you've not watched many mixed wrestling match, or spent time in court listening to domestic violence cases.  If male on female rape is that easy, then why do so many male rapists use weapons, use groups, or beat a woman into unconciousness prior to raping her?

There are not just two definitions of rape, there are many, by jurisdiction and by time period.  Earlier in America and Canada, and still in parts of the world, it isn't considered rape if someone holds a knife to the victim's throat, or to her baby's throat, and makes her submit.  Or simply beats her until she submits.  The old standard is that she had to rather die than submit to sex, in order to for the attack to be rape.  I think that's too restrictive.

Now in a famous case in Engliand in the 1970s, a woman hired a "bodyguard" armed him with a gun, then took her ex boyfriend at gunpoint in handcuffs, shackled him to the bed in a house she'd rented, and then (with the armed bodyguard still in the house) screwed him while he was in chains.  Now Salon Magazine says that's not rape because the victim had an erection.  Enjoyment is not the same thing as consent.  I hope you agree that no means no, even though you disagree with Pyr that an absence of a sincere enthusiastic sober and competent "yes" means no.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 08:54:50 PM
Quote
If my wife wakes me up and demands sex despite me not being in the mood and I let her do it, despite not saying "yes", but of course knowing that I could physically stop her at any time I wanted to, only a fool would call that "rape", which makes a mockery of the word.

I agree.  And even if you didn't know you could stop her (say some sort of panic attack or psychosomatic paralysis occurred) and SHE didn't know it, it would be grossly unjust to charge her with rape, and yet you might be traumatized and might benefit from counseling.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 08:59:41 PM
Jason, here's the thread that you missed.  Have fun. Could use your input.

Quote from: http://www.ornery.org/forum/index.php/topic,59.0.html
...Flip a coin to decide who is the rapist in a drunken hookup

Pyr indicated that the male should have been disciplined for no other reason than the woman sought counseling.  (To be fair to Pyr he did say that the University was too harsh on him).  I think that two young kids waking up and finding out they'd had sex with a stranger while drunk was unhealthy and traumatic, but I find the idea of charging one of them a complete travesty.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Gaoics79 on February 26, 2016, 09:07:52 PM
Quote
If male on female rape is that easy

I didn't say it's "easy". And for the record, re: domestic violence, there is an obvious difference between the ability to injure someone and the ability to physically force yourself on them and overpower them. Any adult, even one with limited strength, can cause damage to a grown man. Heck, my 12 lbs housecat can injure me if she wants to and I'm not prepared. That's why I presume that raping isn't easy when the person you're raping fights back hard.

But the fact remains men are vastly stronger than women, end of story. Even pound for pound that remains true, as a 140 lbs man will easily overpower a 140 lbs woman.

For a woman to hold a man down and force his clothes off and then force him to penetrate her, is basically impossible in most cases, unless she has a gun or something. This just isn't a realistic scenario for the vast majority of men.

Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on February 26, 2016, 09:44:58 PM
Quote
If male on female rape is that easy

I didn't say it's "easy".

You said that "most men" could, without weapons or assistance, rape a healthy adult woman.  And I think you're mistaken.  The fact that you seem to be backing of from the original statement suggests that you aren't confident of it either.


Edited: I apologize, Jason. I misread when you said:
Quote
as almost any man would be able to do against almost any woman absent a weapon

I originally thought you were referring to rape, but you were talking about a man having the strength to get away from a woman that was trying to rape him by sheer physical force.  And you are right.  Apologies for careless reading.


Quote
For a woman to hold a man down and force his clothes off and then force him to penetrate her, is basically impossible in most cases, unless she has a gun or something. This just isn't a realistic scenario for the vast majority of men.

I absolutely agree that the both muscleweight discrepancy, and the simple anatomy of sex, makes it more likely that a male could forcefully rape a female, than vice versa.  That's all an exercise in the bleeding obvious.

What I get from the article cited above, is that the Academic feminist expanded definition of rape, if applied gender-blind, would probably capture a surprisingly high number of women.

I cited you a case where the female rapist used a gun and an assistant.  Other examples would be a combo of rohypnol and viagra (it's been done), using a man who was unconscious in the hospital, or a female doctor taking advantage of a severely retarded man in her care (also been done).  Are there any of those that you would not call actual rape?
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on February 26, 2016, 11:03:14 PM
I'm not sure what the point of this pseudo confession is,  to be honest.

At a glance I would say that the point of the pseudo-confession is to illustrate a point about the way the word "rape" is being used now by some people, and there is an obvious double standard in its use. The confession appears to play on the reader's automatic assumption that even by using the word "rape" in reference to oneself that the writer is automatically male, since in pop culture right now rape appears to be tied synonymously to males. In the case of violent forced rape this would no doubt be a reasonable approximation of the truth, even if imperfect. But as mentioned, the term is now being used in Universities (and perhaps elsewhere) to indicate all manner of sexual activity that may lack clear, decisive consent in 100% sober state of mind (i.e. much of the mutually-enjoyed sexual activity worldwide). In this context, there would be no reason at all to associate rape with males any more since rape is no longer strictly a function of strength to overpower, and yet the prevailing assumption is still that rape is something males do to females. The "flip a coin" thread Pete brought up was more or less directly on this point, and illustrated that despite both parties apparently raping each other the female is assessed as a victim and the male as an assailant. Maybe this is lag in the cultural assumptions catching up with the new definition of the word, or maybe this is a major issue with using such a word in a new way despite the old assumptions being more or less fixed. You can try to change what a word means but you're not going to change who people think the word refers to.

In short, I would suggest the article is about reverse sexism.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Gaoics79 on February 27, 2016, 11:21:17 AM
Fenring, I'm not certain that was the intent of the article, or if it was, I'm not sure that most people are going to take it that way. If you look at many of the comments under the article, it looks like most people are just taking the article straight and are outraged that this "rapist" is brazenly confessing her crimes.

I think part of the problem is that alot of people, male and female, don't really understand the strength difference between males and females. I used to know women who genuinely thought that the only physical difference between men and women was upper body strength, or that the physical difference was relatively minor and that an above average strong woman could equal or overpower a weaker or below average man.

Another problem is the article is kind of fudging words. The part where she states: "I doubt I would win" in respect to violence is kind of the key point. I think most of the people outraged who are commenting haven't actually paid attention to that little detail or thought about its implications.

If the article is meant to lampoon the present "affirmative consent" standard or illustrate how there is a double standard, I don't think it really succeeds. A better illustration would simply point out that if "affirmative consent" were actually taken seriously as a pre-requisite for consent, virtually every relationship everywhere is filled with rampant rape. A point I'm sure someone like Dworkin and many of the "rape culture" types would be pleased to embrace but not something palatable in the mainstream.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on February 27, 2016, 07:37:58 PM
Quote
I'm not sure that most people are going to take it that way.

Most people didn't take Modest Proposal that way.

But set aside intent.  Are the facts believable as stated by the writer?  Hell yes.  By the expanded definition of rape, what guy here hasn't had women at least attempt to "rape" him?  Buy you drinks to get you in the sack?  Hell, women use roofies too.

Quote
If the article is meant to lampoon the present "affirmative consent" standard or illustrate how there is a double standard, I don't think it really succeeds. A better illustration would simply point out that if "affirmative consent" were actually taken seriously as a pre-requisite for consent, virtually every relationship everywhere is filled with rampant rape.

Jason, that would not be a "better illustration" because it's not an "illustration" at all.  It's an argument.  What the author here provides is illustration, and I challenge you to provide a better one.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on February 27, 2016, 11:35:08 PM
Fenring, I'm not certain that was the intent of the article, or if it was, I'm not sure that most people are going to take it that way.

I think what you just said might well be the intent of the article - for it to be taken the wrong way. Let's call it aggressive irony where you get people outraged at something they shouldn't to demonstrate that they are similarly outraged at other things they should not be. By describing a female committing "rape" of this kind the article uses the extreme example where there is no rational way to assert that unwilling behavior occurred. Since the word "rape" is used early in the piece and the reader is convinced for the majority that it's a man speaking, they will be unwilling to face the contradiction in their beliefs and accept that the author is not a rapist by any rational definition. They will instead double down and insist that the author is bad, thus creating an absurdity. Think of it as a reductio ad absurdum where the reader's own reaction is the contradictory conclusion.

Quote
Another problem is the article is kind of fudging words. The part where she states: "I doubt I would win" in respect to violence is kind of the key point. I think most of the people outraged who are commenting haven't actually paid attention to that little detail or thought about its implications.

I think you spelled out right here why the affirmative consent idea is ridiculous - precisely because people in their hearts always associate rape with violence and even when they insist on using new definitions of the word their tacit assumptions always include old baggage such as male superior strength. By this logic, when the author specifies that he/she cannot overpower the victims, the reader will be prone to dismiss this comment since the word "rape" has already been asserted, which to the reader tacitly means that the author could, in fact, overpower the victim. In short, it means that the assumption that the author is a man is justification enough to ignore any assertion that violent forcing of sex was actually impossible, as you suggest. The reader's own assumptions about men victimizing women, and how this makes the affirmative consent idea preposterous, is, I think, the point here.

Quote
If the article is meant to lampoon the present "affirmative consent" standard or illustrate how there is a double standard, I don't think it really succeeds. A better illustration would simply point out that if "affirmative consent" were actually taken seriously as a pre-requisite for consent, virtually every relationship everywhere is filled with rampant rape. A point I'm sure someone like Dworkin and many of the "rape culture" types would be pleased to embrace but not something palatable in the mainstream.

Since you say people responding to the article doubled down by criticizing the rapist, it seems evident that when producing an argument such as you suggest here - that most real world relationships would be riddled with what they call rape - the people pushing that idea would no doubt double down there as well and agree that most relationships employ rape. In other words, that line would not persuade them in the slightest, and widening the scope of their moral condemnation would surely not come as a blow to them but rather as an augmentation of their point, if anything (despite how absurd their new position would really be). The better way to demonstrate the foolhardiness of the point would be to create a case, such as the one presented, where all of the 'victims' were most thankful for what they got, reducing the criminality of the act to something Pyrtolin has argued for - that a claim of victimhood, rather than the act itself, should specify what is and what isn't rape. Pyr's point on this topic has been that only someone claiming to be a victim is one, since only they can claim they didn't consent. The author here has created an identical scenario - questionable or absent affirmative consent - except where all instances of it resulted in satisfied customers. Ergo, by Pyr's reasoning there was no rape, even thought both the intent and the acts done by the author were the same as what is called rape when a man does them and a woman cries foul. What remains is the crying foul, which means that a claim that someone committed rape becomes identical with a legal fact of that person being a rapist, in this scenario and with this definition.

I think that is what the article set out to show, and I think to an extent that this was one of the few convincing ways to show it. The thoughtful reader needs to be confronted by all the unstated assumptions about what "rape" really implies by an article such as this, and I myself admit to have thought it was a guy and that his actions were bad as I read along. A dishonest reader will either double down or else deny that they were ever condemning the author in the first place. "Ah, I see what you did there" is the natural result of reading it, and although someone with foresight might have guessed the ending, shy of that I think a response of either condemnation or of dismissal largely misses the point. I'm not saying the article is brilliant, but its rhetorical method seems to me sound.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 01, 2016, 03:18:53 PM

Pyr indicated that the male should have been disciplined for no other reason than the woman sought counseling.
I never said that he should have been disciplined. I said that he should receive counseling as well, and in both cases that should include a review of why original consent is impossible to rely on when someone is impaired.

I pointed to the fact the she needed counselling as clear evidence that she did not actually consent, nothing more, nothing less.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: NobleHunter on March 01, 2016, 03:56:21 PM
Quote
I pointed to the fact the she needed counselling as clear evidence that she did not actually consent, nothing more, nothing less.
Not necessarily. One can consent to action that proves to be injurious and requiring remedial attention. You're assuming that she sought counselling because she hadn't consented. She may have sought counselling because she had consented and was having trouble reconcilling that consent with what she felt was appropriate behavior.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 01, 2016, 04:10:55 PM
Pyr indicated that the male should have been disciplined for no other reason than the woman sought counseling.
I never said that he should have been disciplined. I said that he should receive counseling as well, and in both cases that should include a review of why original consent is impossible to rely on when someone is impaired.

You may not say so, but you can't advocate for a certain kind of act to be called rape and then suggest it shouldn't be disciplined; that's completely contrary to reality. If the word "rape" applies to an act then 99.99% of people other than you will insist it be disciplined, and even if you personally appeal for this not to happen you will be ignored. Thus arguing for this definition of rape *is* arguing for such people who do it to be disciplined. But since you mention counseling - should such counseling be forced on them? And if it is, what happens if they decline to attend? Will be they be arrested? How is this different from being disciplined? And if they are not forced to attend, what disincentive is there to prevent people ignoring your definition and doing whatever they want anyhow? In other words, the word "illegal" has no meaning without enforcement.

Quote
I pointed to the fact the she needed counselling as clear evidence that she did not actually consent, nothing more, nothing less.

If need for counseling implies lack of consent, and if lack of consent is criminal, then need for counseling implies treating him as a criminal to whatever extent is appropriate for this particular act. Do you actually not see Pete's point, which is that it is unjust for a person, by deciding they need counseling, to thereby cause another person to become a criminal whereas if they decided they didn't the other person would not be one? This is post hoc criminality, which to whit doesn't exist and possibly should not exist. Note that this is different from whether someone chooses to press charges or not based on their mood; this is an actual classification of someone as having broken the law or not based on someone's mood after the fact.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 01, 2016, 05:08:51 PM

You may not say so, but you can't advocate for a certain kind of act to be called rape and then suggest it shouldn't be disciplined; that's completely contrary to reality.
So it's only rape if someone is punished for doing it? That makes very little sense at all. Actions are defined by their circumstances and direct outcomes, not by the legal systems that might be applied to handle them if there is cause to take such action.

Quote
Thus arguing for this definition of rape *is* arguing for such people who do it to be disciplined.
No it's not. Please stick to actually making your own arguments instead of trying to make stuff up about what someone else has said.That is distinctly not the argument I made, and no matter how much more convenient you might find it to argue against that position rather than what I presented, it's outright dishonest to try to pretend that it's what I said. If you want to argue against that position go and find someone taking it to argue with.

Quote
But since you mention counseling - should such counseling be forced on them? And if it is, what happens if they decline to attend?
This is all on the hypothetical of how they could require it, should they feel hat necessary which is something that you're injecting here:

Since we're talking in context of a school, what happens if they fail to take or attended any other required courses? In the specific case, if the violation is sever enough to merit it, the school could simply withhold credit/transcripts that the person needs to progress until they meet the requirements; not need to take any direct action against them, just to insist that they meet their obligations.

If someone borrows a ladder from you, you don't need to take punitive action against them to get it back if you don't feel its warranted, you can simply refuse to lend them anything else until they return it first if you thing that's more proportional and will provide them with enough motivation to act.

 
Quote
How is this different from being disciplined?
Being arrested wouldn't be different from being disciplined, certainly, but ta that point it would be being disciplined for failing to attend counseling as required, not for anything else. If hes' an ongoing threat to the security of campus if he's not in treatment, than arrest in order to remove him to a place where he cannot hurt others is reasonable, but that's well beyond the situation here.

Quote
And if they are not forced to attend, what disincentive is there to prevent people ignoring your definition and doing whatever they want anyhow?
Two different things here. There are ways to require them to attend without taking direct action against them, if it's seen as necessary to fully require that. If he wants to declining counselling if offered in the particular case and there isn't a clear reason to compel him, it should be no different than declining any other form of treatment given that this was a relatively minor incident that does not otherwise offer much in the way of need for restitution or actions to prevent him from doing further harm once the harm done itself was brought to his attention.

Quote
In other words, the word "illegal" has no meaning without enforcement.
It also has no relevance to the current context, since we're talking about providing services for someone that was involved in a harmful situation to help them recover from it and learn how to handle themselves better in the future.

Quote
Quote
I pointed to the fact the she needed counselling as clear evidence that she did not actually consent, nothing more, nothing less.
If need for counseling implies lack of consent,
The need to address the damage done due to lack of consent through counselling, if we want to break it down inch by inch, sure.

Quote
and if lack of consent is criminal,
It can be, it can also be accidental. Criminality depends far more on intent than simply evaluating the damage an certain incident caused. Criminal negligence is certainly a thing, but that's a much higher bar to get to than is the case here.

Quote
then need for counseling implies treating him as a criminal to whatever extent is appropriate for this particular act.
No, it's treating him as someone who was potentially injured.

If I'm not watching where I'm going, run into you, and we both fall down and end up pretty badly scraped up, it's not suggesting that I'm guilty of a criminal act to offer me treatment for the bruises that I sustained.

Quote
Do you actually not see Pete's point, which is that it is unjust for a person, by deciding they need counseling, to thereby cause another person to become a criminal whereas if they decided they didn't the other person would not be one?
Sure, but that's not relevant to saying that, in the case of mutual harm, as this was, that both should be offered counselling as an appropriate reaction (remembering that the point was made that he also came out of this feeling hurt, but had not made the active choice to seek out counseling for it).

Quote
Note that this is different from whether someone chooses to press charges or not based on their mood; this is an actual classification of someone as having broken the law or not based on someone's mood after the fact.
No, any talk about breaking the law here is your own insertion. The discussion was about what the school should have done in regards to its own handling of the incident. No one suggested that it should be elevated to a criminal matter; that's pure strawman.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 01, 2016, 05:29:18 PM

Pyr indicated that the male should have been disciplined for no other reason than the woman sought counseling.
I never said that he should have been disciplined.

That's not true.  You justified the fact that the so called counselor bullied the girl into making the rape accusation, despite her initial reluctance, by the fact that the girl had sought counseling.

Is it possible to consent to a bad sexual experience for which one might need counseling?  Is it possible to consent to sex for which one is emotionally unready?  I think so.  I asked you that earlier, and you dodged the question.

Quote
I said that he should receive counseling as well

Not quite.  You didn't say he should RECEIVE counseling.  If you'd said that, I would have agreed.  But instead, you implied that it was proper for the school to charge him with rape and not her, because of the fact that he failed to formally seek counseling.  On that you're being astonishingly ignorant of the abusive way that males are raised in the culture, and taught that it's unmanly to see sex as anything other than an accomplishment, and unmanly again to seek therapy.  The email trail shows that he was as traumatized by the experience as her, if not more, and the evil beast of a "counselor" used that as evidence that he was "grooming" her.


Quote
I pointed to the fact the she needed counselling as clear evidence that she did not actually consent, nothing more, nothing less.

And that assertion in itself is complete mindless bull*censored*, because anyone who has ever lived recognizes that it is possible to consent and willingly engage in an activity that ends up damaging you.  People willingly commit adultery and end up needing to undergo extensive therapy to deal with the shame and consequences of what they have done.  The fact that you suffer does not mean that you are the victim of another person's wrongdoing.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 01, 2016, 06:08:59 PM
That's not true.  You justified the fact that the so called counselor bullied the girl into making the rape accusation, despite her initial reluctance, by the fact that the girl had sought counseling.
I didn't "justify" anything having to do with your accusation.

The counsellor helped her figure out that the reason she was having trouble stemmed from the lack of consent. Any "bullying" there is pure conjecture on your part and not relevant to what I said.

Quote
Is it possible to consent to a bad sexual experience for which one might need counseling?
Perhaps, but that's out of context.

Quote
  Is it possible to consent to sex for which one is emotionally unready?
No, because that means that one is not actually capable of full consent, which is something we try (rather roughly and poorly) to address through age of consent laws.

Quote
  But instead, you implied that it was proper for the school to charge him with rape and not her, because of the fact that he failed to formally seek counseling.
I never said anything about "charging" anyone with anything. I said, _in the case_ that he did consent and was not experiencing any trauma, that the damage only went one way. And _in the case_ the he was, that it went both ways, and he should be offered counselling. What's more, since the case was that he did express some degree of damage, that offering him counselling would have been the more appropriate response.

Quote
  On that you're being astonishingly ignorant of the abusive way that males are raised in the culture, and taught that it's unmanly to see sex as anything other than an accomplishment, and unmanly again to seek therapy.
Am I? Or is that exactly why I suggested that the school should have made the effort to offer him therapy after he failed to seek it on its own?

Quote
  The email trail shows that he was as traumatized by the experience as her,
Indeed, which is why offering therapy would have been the more appropriate response.

Quote
And that assertion in itself is complete mindless bull*censored*, because anyone who has ever lived recognizes that it is possible to consent and willingly engage in an activity that ends up damaging you.
But not that ends up damaging you _because_ you don't feel like you properly consented.

 
Quote
The fact that you suffer does not mean that you are the victim of another person's wrongdoing.
Sure. It's also doesn't mean that tea costs $5 in China. We're talking about a situation where lack of proper consent did damage, so speculation about other possibilities doesn't speak to what actually happened.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 01, 2016, 06:24:20 PM
(In regards to the original post here)

I'm surprised that no one has tried to raise Stockholm Syndrome here, where it otherwise gets pretty easily tossed around in response to someone justifying behaving abusively on the basis of the other person coming around to enjoy it after the fact.

It's also to reflect on the preceding discussion in light of Pete very accurately pointing out:
Quote
the abusive way that males are raised in the culture, and taught that it's unmanly to see sex as anything other than an accomplishment, and unmanly again to seek therapy.
When it suddenly becomes convenient to fall back on that but not reading the above in light of that context as well.

That people are saying "Oh, it's a woman, so it's okay" is very indicative of the depth to which rape and related attitudes are embedded into our culture (and part of what was actually meant by the statement that it's very hard to separate sex from rape anywhere in our culture because of how deep the damage runs that often gets tossed around and misrepresented as a slander of feminism)

The writer doesn't address the mental health of the men that she interacted with at all there. It would be interesting to see how many are perfectly healthy, vs having some degree of need for counselling that they simply don't own up to (or maybe even do and are in treatment for) which this may have had an effect on in some way or another. Not to mention the degree to which such behavior encouraged them to repeat it or teach it in some way to others.

I'm not surprised at all by it, but rather see it as an example of exactly the kind of attitude that underlies all kinds of rape and perpetuates itself when people try to justify it as being okay in this case simply because of the sex or relationship status of the perpetrator.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 01, 2016, 06:45:56 PM
[snip my unkind and unnecessary swipe at Pyr, with apologies]

That's not true.  You justified the fact that the so called counselor bullied the girl into making the rape accusation, despite her initial reluctance, by the fact that the girl had sought counseling.
I didn't "justify" anything having to do with your accusation.

The counsellor helped her figure out that the reason she was having trouble stemmed from the lack of consent. Any "bullying" there is pure conjecture on your part and not relevant to what I said.

Bullying was my description of the facts described in the article.  The girl herself recollected going in for help and feeling pressured, against her requests, to call the incident "rape", a term she did not feel comfortable with.  And shouldn't have!  She was basically mind-raped by a counselor who was supposed to help her, but instead used her for a longstanding political agenda.  Read the *censored*ing article.


  But instead, you implied that it was proper for the school to charge him with rape and not her, because of the fact that he failed to formally seek counseling.
I never said anything about "charging" anyone with anything.

I was talking about the propriety of the school charging him, and you said, IN THAT CONTEXT, well he should have come and sought counseling.  I assumed you weren't being an idiot as to relevance.  If his need for counseling wasn't relevant to the propriety of the school charging him, then why did you bring it up in specific response to that point?



Is it possible to consent to a bad sexual experience for which one might need counseling?
Perhaps, but that's out of context.

Not at all.  You claimed that her need for counseling was proof positive that she was raped.  I call bullcrap.  The facts suggest other reasons that might have made her feel traumatized.  She might have consented and still felt traumatized, as an underaged virgin from a protected background.  The very fact of drinking to the point of passing out and missing memory is in itself traumatizing, as I remember well.  I have myself sought counseling for dealing with the trauma of my own former blackout drinking.  There's a reason that we try to prevent 17 year old's from alcohol, and it's not all about the possibility of being raped.  Missing time is traumatic in and of itself.  Your dogmatic insistence that trauma proves rape, even under this specific set of facts, suggests some combination of bad reading, lack of empathy, lack of imagination, and compulsion to evangelize the new rape order.


  Is it possible to consent to sex for which one is emotionally unready?
No, because that means that one is not actually capable of full consent, which is something we try (rather roughly and poorly) to address through age of consent laws.

Then shouldn't we charge anyone who gave her the drink with rape as well?  That would make more moral sense than charging John, the victim here, who was at least as intoxicated as Jane.


  On that you're being astonishingly ignorant of the abusive way that males are raised in the culture, and taught that it's unmanly to see sex as anything other than an accomplishment, and unmanly again to seek therapy.
Am I? Or is that exactly why I suggested that the school should have made the effort to offer him therapy after he failed to seek it on its own?

That wasn't part of the conversation that I was responding to.  If you'd said that, rather than saying what you said in the context you said it (i.e. that he should have sought counseling if he wasn't guilty of rape) then I would not have responded as I did.


  The email trail shows that he was as traumatized by the experience as her,
Indeed, which is why offering therapy would have been the more appropriate response.
Agreed there.

  And that assertion in itself is complete mindless bull*censored*, because anyone who has ever lived recognizes that it is possible to consent and willingly engage in an activity that ends up damaging you.
But not that ends up damaging you _because_ you don't feel like you properly consented.
Feelings can be manipulated, and in this case, following the facts in the article, it seems that the girl's feelings were manipulated by the counselor in question.  The counselor seems to concur with that since she claims, without explanation, that the girl misrepresented the interview to the magazine.  Well if the girl lied about what the counselor told her, that changes the facts and my assessment, obviously.  But you're the only one that seems to take the position that what the girl said the counselor did was OK.



   The fact that you suffer does not mean that you are the victim of another person's wrongdoing.
Sure. It's also doesn't mean that tea costs $5 in China. We're talking about a situation where lack of proper consent did damage, so speculation about other possibilities doesn't speak to what actually happened.

That's your speculation.  It's possible that the lack of consent caused the damage, but there are a number of other factors that may have caused the damage.

If I have sex when I'm emotionally unready to, e.g. too soon after my divorce, have I been "raped"?  What if I say, "I don't know if I'm ready for this" and the seduction continues ... does that make it rape?  At some point I've got to put on my big boy pants and say, I made a bad choice.

Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 01, 2016, 06:51:11 PM
(In regards to the original post here)

I'm surprised that no one has tried to raise Stockholm Syndrome here, where it otherwise gets pretty easily tossed around in response to someone justifying behaving abusively on the basis of the other person coming around to enjoy it after the fact.

I absolutely agree that both stockholm syndrome and what seems to me the separate issue of enjoyment apply in a great number of rape cases.  I'm not sure but am open to arguments that either principle applies to the facts of this case, but I think you'll have a hard time convincing me that post hoc pleasure defense and Stockholm syndrome are co-terminous.  I can see how they would overlap in some rape cases, certainly, but I don't think they are quite the same thing.

Also, it's possible that a victim might re-cast a completely traumatic incident as pleasurable, after the fact, for reasons that have nothing to do with Stockholm Syndrome, but rather in order to create an illusion of restored control.  Good example of this in fiction is the post-rape BDSM practices of the epynomous character in The General's Daughter.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 01, 2016, 08:17:16 PM
Quote
  Is it possible to consent to sex for which one is emotionally unready?
No, because that means that one is not actually capable of full consent, which is something we try (rather roughly and poorly) to address through age of consent laws.

I can't decide whether you're making an argument for the state to own the right to decide who is ready to decide what, or whether you have a very strange notion of what consent is. Let's assume the latter: it seems like you think consent is when a person possesses full knowledge of the universe and can make a philosophically complete decision using all information that exists with no possibility of error. To you, if a person feels they're competent to decide but some factor they're unaware of will later reveal to them they were mistaken, that  to you means they didn't really consent. So how does anyone know if they're ready to consent unless God himself tells them they know enough to decide? You seem to be equating consent with making a good choice. Legally there is a fairly clear line about what consent means, and if you want to meddle with this you invoke the state to determine who can have sex with whom. Socially the idea of consent is far more hazy and basically boils down to knowing what you're about to do and saying yes. The social construction of consent, then, is actually far less rigorous to show, and yet you're holding it to a far higher standard than how the law addresses it. You're saying that in casual social situations a person must not only take care to establish legal consent in case they're sued, but also must require of themselves a doctorate in philosophy (German phenomenology, of course) so they can be wise enough to know they're really consenting. It is so darn embarrassing to be informed after having sex that you were unqualified to consent because you were too dumb. Talk about the walk of shame...

I'm surprised that no one has tried to raise Stockholm Syndrome here, where it otherwise gets pretty easily tossed around in response to someone justifying behaving abusively on the basis of the other person coming around to enjoy it after the fact.

This is a funny thing to bring up. I'm a fan of conspiracy theories myself and even try to construct interesting ones sometimes. This strikes me as a conspiracy theory on the level of lizard men ruling the U.S. When confronted with a scenario where an attractive girl jumps guys who already like them for sex and they come out smiling, it takes a truly suspicious mind to assume the guy is happy because he's been traumatized like a hostage. While not impossible, I would rate the likelihood of this explanation somewhere along with the lizard men theory and the theory that aliens build the pyramids.

I think you've fallen prey to the trap the article intends to trap you with: you bought in hook line and sinker to the word "rape" as described and missed the irony where the author was actually just describing what is basically a standard male fantasy coming true for a few lucky guys. This isn't some kind of sexist analysis where "lucky" is a euphemism for having to comply with a sexist double standard. It actually means lucky, and no doubt the guys in question felt lucky too. "She's...trying to have sex with me? Well...uh...hell yeah!!!" The fact that it was forceful probably made it twice as good.

If anything the actual harm done by her would have been if she wasn't forthright about being a serial monogamist who had no desire for a long-term relationship. From the sound of it the guys had hope for more of a long-term thing with her and she just wanted to date, not marry. This is a significant issue and I would suggest that she was possibly insensitive to the feelings of her partners in this respect. This does not, however, make her a rapist, it just means she's a little selfish. Then again she never stated that she didn't communicate her lifestyle to the guys; I've seen it happen where a girl just like this is forthright and the guy hopes she'll change her mind (I was that guy once).
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Seriati on March 02, 2016, 09:23:57 AM
I never said anything about "charging" anyone with anything. I said, _in the case_ that he did consent and was not experiencing any trauma, that the damage only went one way. And _in the case_ the he was, that it went both ways, and he should be offered counselling. What's more, since the case was that he did express some degree of damage, that offering him counselling would have been the more appropriate response.
Can you clarify what you mean here, where you suggest that he could have consented?  There's is absolutely no question, by your standards consistently applied, that he was not capable of consent at the time of the act, that in fact her returning to his room at that time was a deliberate choice (for which her drunkenness is not an exculpatory excuse) to take advantage of a man who was incapable of consent.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 02, 2016, 10:49:21 AM
Quote
you bought in hook line and sinker to the word "rape" as described and missed the irony where the author was actually just describing what is basically a standard male fantasy coming true for a few lucky guys.

Speak more carefully.  Actual forceful violent rape is a fantasy for a number of women and men.  There's enough fiction written by women for women to establish that. But that doesn't mean it's not rape.  Idiots and enablers said, particularly when a teacher molested a 12 year old boy, etc., lucky boy.  Well he might have felt lucky, but what happened was still criminal
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2016, 10:52:37 AM
Quote
you bought in hook line and sinker to the word "rape" as described and missed the irony where the author was actually just describing what is basically a standard male fantasy coming true for a few lucky guys.

Speak more carefully.  Actual forceful violent rape is a fantasy for a number of women and men.  There's enough fiction written by women for women to establish that. But that doesn't mean it's not rape.  Idiots and enablers said, particularly when a teacher molested a 12 year old boy, etc., lucky boy.  Well he might have felt lucky, but what happened was still criminal

Perhaps you should read more carefully? The article specified that none of it was violent and that the 'victims' could have overpowered the 'rapist' at any time. What was actually said was that it was aggressive and lacking clear consent, which is why it qualifies as rape by the affirmative consent definition. This is exactly why I call it a lampoon; because it takes what most guys would call a godsend and calls it rape. What you are describing is a real thing and also irrelevant in context of the article.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 02, 2016, 11:30:31 AM
I kinda thought what Fenring just stated was obvious from the piece.   ::)
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 02, 2016, 11:52:14 AM
Quote
This is exactly why I call it a lampoon; because it takes what most guys would call a godsend and calls it rape.
And then they get really confused when they behave that way toward a woman they're attracted to and she calls it rape.

Don't have time to dig into the more complex replies right now, but this, right here, is the point. It's one thing to have a fantasy that's inherently problematic, perhaps even because it's inherently problematic and look for ways to fulfil it that mitigate the core issues; it's another to declare that it must not be problematic just because it's a fantasy.

"I'm entitled to force someone else to have sex with me without regard for their wishes" is an unhealthy, and ultimately damaging attitude to have, regardless of who has it, and justifying it facilitates and normalizes rape within a culture.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2016, 11:59:50 AM
"I'm entitled to force someone else to have sex with me without regard for their wishes" is an unhealthy, and ultimately damaging attitude to have, regardless of who has it, and justifying it facilitates and normalizes rape within a culture.

You really need to respond to what's actually been said, as opposed to asserting a straw man and responding to that instead. Nothing the author did was forced; it simply had an aggressive (see: assertive) tone and lacked a request for consent. Again, it was a physical impossibility for her to force sex on anyone.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 02, 2016, 12:17:07 PM
"I'm entitled to force someone else to have sex with me without regard for their wishes" is an unhealthy, and ultimately damaging attitude to have, regardless of who has it, and justifying it facilitates and normalizes rape within a culture.

You really need to respond to what's actually been said, as opposed to asserting a straw man and responding to that instead. Nothing the author did was forced; it simply had an aggressive (see: assertive) tone and lacked a request for consent. Again, it was a physical impossibility for her to force sex on anyone.

It wasn't _violently_ forced. That doesn't mean that it wasn't forced, it just didn't use physical force; there are many kinds of force that don't require physical power, but still result in one person acting against the objections or without the permission of another.

The writer makes it very clear that she did force sedxual activity to happen, just that she didn't use violence/physical power as the form of force employed.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2016, 12:40:27 PM
Quote
force
fôrs
noun
1. strength or energy as an attribute of physical action or movement.
"he was thrown backward by the force of the explosion"
synonyms:   strength, power, energy, might, effort, exertion; More

2. coercion or compulsion, especially with the use or threat of violence.
"they ruled by law and not by force"
synonyms:   coercion, compulsion, constraint, duress, oppression, harassment, intimidation, threats; More
verb

Force without [threat of] violence or coercion is not force. Since this wasn't violent you must mean it was coerced. So tell me, what were the consequences of the men refusing sex with her? What was the nature of the coercion?
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 02, 2016, 01:07:58 PM
If you;'re going to play semantics here instead of understanding the references to violence above were pretty clearly qualified as physical violence, it wasn't physically violent. It was mentally/emotionally violent. Again, the fact that she used non-physical force does not mean that she didn't use force. In the first case it seems she took advantage of the guy's confusion and perhaps a bit of his sense of masculinity to force him to act before he could coherently respond to the situation, in the second it was pretty clear that she took advantage of his exhausted and somewhat stressed state (and, for that matter, actively added to it, by the fact the he was clearly upset with her even afterwards by her description)
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2016, 01:11:46 PM
So you're saying she waited, like a predator, for moments of weakness, and that this approach would never have worked if the men were energetic and alert? If that is what you think I would suggest your knowledge about men is minimal.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 02, 2016, 01:17:16 PM
So you're saying she waited, like a predator, for moments of weakness, and that this approach would never have worked if the men were energetic and alert? If that is what you think I would suggest your knowledge about men is minimal.
It likely would not have worked if she had asked them and respected their actual wishes. It's specifically that she acted without regard for what hey wanted that it both became force and compromise their personal will. (In the first case, maybe she would have actually been successful, in the second it's pretty clear that she actively disregarded a clear refusal)

And trying to normalize it by saying "Well they really wanted it"? The reasons that it worked are the exact same ones that men tend to be the majority of rapists- because they're inculcated with the kind of ideas that make them open to it working on them and in turn allow them to justify acting that way toward others.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2016, 01:24:35 PM
So you completely dodged my question? You said she chose guys who didn't have their full wits about them, and their confusion is how she 'forced them' to have sex. I am asking whether her same approach would have worked on guys with their full wits about them. What do you say? (hint: one answer will undermine your position, and the other will sound ridiculous)
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 02, 2016, 01:43:18 PM
So you completely dodged my question? You said she chose guys who didn't have their full wits about them, and their confusion is how she 'forced them' to have sex. I am asking whether her same approach would have worked on guys with their full wits about them. What do you say? (hint: one answer will undermine your position, and the other will sound ridiculous)

It may or it may not. It totally depends on the person and their ability to resist being pressured. There really isn't much of a meaningful question there, particularly when you ask a self-contradictory question about whether the same tactic would work if she tried to employ a different tactic.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2016, 02:28:44 PM
It may or it may not. It totally depends on the person and their ability to resist being pressured.

What has being pressured got to do with what we're discussing? You said they were forced into having sex. And if you can't say that being alert would have changed the outcome then your claim that she was able to force them because they were tired or confused was vacuous, yes?

But oh man, this article really got you good. I must say I'm pleased to see the author enjoy some success as I perceive she intended it :)
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 02, 2016, 04:25:06 PM
Quote
you bought in hook line and sinker to the word "rape" as described and missed the irony where the author was actually just describing what is basically a standard male fantasy coming true for a few lucky guys.

Speak more carefully.  Actual forceful violent rape is a fantasy for a number of women and men.  There's enough fiction written by women for women to establish that. But that doesn't mean it's not rape.  Idiots and enablers said, particularly when a teacher molested a 12 year old boy, etc., lucky boy.  Well he might have felt lucky, but what happened was still criminal

Perhaps you should read more carefully? The article specified that none of it was violent and that the 'victims' could have overpowered the 'rapist' at any time. What was actually said was that it was aggressive and lacking clear consent, which is why it qualifies as rape by the affirmative consent definition.

What you just said THERE was a good argument.  But you are gravely mistaken to say that good argument is "exactly" the same as the other, incredibly crappy argument that you offered.

Quote
This is exactly why I call it a lampoon; because it takes what most guys would call a godsend and calls it rape. 

That's a very bad argument, and it pains me that you seem to think that it's exactly the same as the good argument you made re "could have overpowered."  There are men and women, both gay and straight, who fantasize about being physically overpowered. There are also people who use such fantasies to argue that such overpowering is not rape, if the overpowerful is handsome, beautiful, or desirable.  See Salon's rape apologetics for the pinup queen that with help of a bodyguard had her exboyfriend shackled to a bed at gunpoint for three days while she took him for a ride.  My point is that fantasy and pleasure has nothing to do with what makes a rape.  The fact that lots of guys would love to have been raped like that by such a cute blonde does not mean that he consented.  Even if he arguably enjoyed it.  If someone says no, and lacks power to physically resist, then the sex is rape.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2016, 04:57:15 PM
Quote
This is exactly why I call it a lampoon; because it takes what most guys would call a godsend and calls it rape. 

That's a very bad argument, and it pains me that you seem to think that it's exactly the same as the good argument you made re "could have overpowered."  There are men and women, both gay and straight, who fantasize about being physically overpowered. There are also people who use such fantasies to argue that such overpowering is not rape, if the overpowerful is handsome, beautiful, or desirable.  See Salon's rape apologetics for the pinup queen that with help of a bodyguard had her exboyfriend shackled to a bed at gunpoint for three days while she took him for a ride.  My point is that fantasy and pleasure has nothing to do with what makes a rape.  The fact that lots of guys would love to have been raped like that by such a cute blonde does not mean that he consented.  Even if he arguably enjoyed it.  If someone says no, and lacks power to physically resist, then the sex is rape.

Uh, ok, I'm not sure why you're jumping on the word "fantasy" and inserting some other fantasy than the one I'm talking about. I said the article describes a typical male fantasy - specifically, to have a girl you like be the initiator of random sex where she is the aggressor. A rape fantasy is a kind of fantasy as well, but it's not this one. Maybe it's more common than people think, but it's not the 'standard' fantasy where instead of having to seek out sex a man is handed it on a silver platter in a steamy setting.

If the article was lampooning rape fantasies you'd have a point, namely that merely by being a fantasy it doesn't mean that actualizing it isn't a rape. But the article didn't describe a rape fantasy (a guy being chained up or whatever), but merely described a female initiator who didn't bother asking if it was ok. Rape fantasies, as far as I've ever heard them described, always involve either physical violence, aggression, or at least the threat of such; the playing out, as it were, of a violent rape but with a sense of safety inserted. The article described nothing like this and I'm still not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. The lack of possibility for violence against the men would rule out a rape fantasy reading anyhow, even aside from the fact that nothing in the article suggests that scenario anyhow.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 02, 2016, 05:53:48 PM
Quote
I'm not sure why you're jumping on the word "fantasy" and inserting some other fantasy than the one I'm talking about. I said the article describes a typical male fantasy - specifically, to have a girl you like be the initiator of random sex where she is the aggressor.

Yes, exactly.  You're using language that could easily be confused with the Salon defense of the female pinup rapist.  In this context I don't think that's what you mean.  Not attacking you, just warning that you're using language that narrows the definition of rape to something archaic, unreasonable, and not what I think you want to be saying.

"I'm still not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. "

Simply because the fantasy argument tends to signify something other than what I think you mean.  Hence, "careful."
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2016, 06:09:45 PM
Yes, exactly.  You're using language that could easily be confused with the Salon defense of the female pinup rapist.  In this context I don't think that's what you mean.  Not attacking you, just warning that you're using language that narrows the definition of rape to something archaic, unreasonable, and not what I think you want to be saying.

I specified my terms both here and in the other thread. I'm not defining rape as anything; I'm commenting on an article that I take to be a lampoon on affirmative consent. I did get into a discussion about force with Pyr, but the issue of the rape fantasy is something you, yourself, introduced. I consider it to be off-topic and clearly not what I was talking about.

Quote
"I'm still not sure why you're bringing it up in this context. "

Simply because the fantasy argument tends to signify something other than what I think you mean.  Hence, "careful."

No, I don't think it 'tends' to signify any such thing. You think when a guy hears the word "make fantasy" there is an automatic assumption that this means being raped by a girl? On what planet?
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 02, 2016, 06:35:55 PM
Quote
You think when a guy hears the word "make fantasy" there is an automatic assumption that this means being raped by a girl?

No.  But Leftist Salon ragazine used language similar to your godsend/male fantasy argument  dismiss a clear cut case of rape, where the rapist used a musclebuilding male assistant, a gun, and manacles to secure her victim.  That's the reason it touched a sore spot for me.  But I've explained that to you three times already, and you don't seem to want to understand.  Let it go, then.  It's not critical to this particular set of facts; only to the general rational definition of rape, which I had previously assumed, based on your statements to Pyr, that you cared about protecting.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 02, 2016, 07:27:06 PM
No.  But Leftist Salon ragazine used language similar to your godsend/male fantasy argument  dismiss a clear cut case of rape, where the rapist used a musclebuilding male assistant, a gun, and manacles to secure her victim.  That's the reason it touched a sore spot for me.  But I've explained that to you three times already, and you don't seem to want to understand.  Let it go, then.  It's not critical to this particular set of facts; only to the general rational definition of rape, which I had previously assumed, based on your statements to Pyr, that you cared about protecting.

I understand why you think it's important to keep in mind, but the facts of this case are not those of that one. But let's let it go, sure.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 03, 2016, 07:56:15 AM
It may or it may not. It totally depends on the person and their ability to resist being pressured.

What has being pressured got to do with what we're discussing? You said they were forced into having sex. And if you can't say that being alert would have changed the outcome then your claim that she was able to force them because they were tired or confused was vacuous, yes?

Pressure is the application of force. She made it clear in both stories that when she asked previously they had declined, which is why she resorted to applying pressure while they were off-guard in order to force them to give in.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 03, 2016, 08:02:13 AM
Quote
Uh, ok, I'm not sure why you're jumping on the word "fantasy" and inserting some other fantasy than the one I'm talking about. I said the article describes a typical male fantasy - specifically, to have a girl you like be the initiator of random sex where she is the aggressor. A rape fantasy is a kind of fantasy as well, but it's not this one. Maybe it's more common than people think, but it's not the 'standard' fantasy where instead of having to seek out sex a man is handed it on a silver platter in a steamy setting.
Except hes not asked in either scenario and the sex happened against his stated desires. That makes it a rape fantasy. Having the other partner initiate is definitely a standard fantasy, but that fantasy involved having already consented, not being forced without consent to participate.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 03, 2016, 10:37:08 AM
She made it clear in both stories that when she asked previously they had declined, which is why she resorted to applying pressure while they were off-guard in order to force them to give in.

Show me one quote where she said anything like this. I think you just made it up to dare me to go back and check. I did, and now it's your turn. And yes, she applied pressure for sure, but if by "force" you just mean some small amount of force, as in, "forcefulness", and you call that alone "rape" then your definition is wanting. That would be you determining for others what tone their sex has to be and taking away their right to have forceful rather than amiable sex. But ah - you are worried about consent. The first story mentions the guy "arguing", but she doesn't say what he was arguing. You assume his argument was "no", but what if it was "wait, are you sure you're ready?" Your argument hinges on knowing what his argument is and that it's negative. In the second story she says he was "protesting" and continued to do so during. That seems like a clincher, then, except that the only thing she mentions him protesting is that he has customers upstairs. So again his protest could have been of the form "no, I don't want to do this now, some other time", which would validate your position, or it could have been "well of course I want to have sex but there are customers upstairs, this is crazy." How do you know which it was?

There's no question her actions weren't 100% cut and dry cordial, but for you to call them rape requires knowing more than you do. Are you sure you're not just calling it rape because she did and buying into her narrative? Because, again, I believe that is exactly how she wants certain kinds of people to react.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: NobleHunter on March 03, 2016, 12:02:51 PM
Using what reads like a dubious consent fantasy where the author has deliberately obfuscated her gender and that of her partners to consider issues of consent is a giant waste of time.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 03, 2016, 01:28:05 PM
Using what reads like a dubious consent fantasy where the author has deliberately obfuscated her gender and that of her partners to consider issues of consent is a giant waste of time.

Why?  You don't seem the type to argue that it's a waste of time to question our presumptions about gender.  Or to obfuscate the difference between withholding information, vs actual obfuscation.  Obfuscation would involve presenting information that to a reasonable unbiased mind would suggest that she was male.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: NobleHunter on March 03, 2016, 01:49:46 PM
She does more than just withhold information, her entire narrative is structured to evoke to impression of a male narrator, including using language similar to that used by MRA-types (or particularly entitled Doms *coughs*). She manipulates the performative aspect of gender, granting herself the actions and agency typically assigned to men while casting her partner/victim in a passive more usally female role. While she assiduously keeps her language gender-neutral on a denotive level, the connotations and context are gendered as all hell.

The piece suggests a number of interesting issues regarding gender roles, consent, masculinity and such, it's not really useful in coming to conclusions about it. The deception at the core of the piece renders makes it usuitable for testing the boundaries of consent or non-consent.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 03, 2016, 01:56:59 PM
Quote
She manipulates the performative aspect of gender, granting herself the actions and agency typically assigned to men while casting her partner/victim in a passive more usally female role.

That's not obfuscation; that's a very useful way of forcing us to question the sexist way that we assign agency to males and passivity to females.

Quote
The piece suggests a number of interesting issues regarding gender roles, consent, masculinity and such, it's not really useful in coming to conclusions about it.

I absolutely agree.  What buggers my mind is that you speak of that as if it were a bad thing.  I guess that the modern post-2000 feminist doesn't ask questions, but finds a piece useless unless it presents neatly packaged answers.  That's a bummer.

Quote
The deception at the core of the piece renders makes it usuitable for testing the boundaries of consent or non-consent.

It's not useful as a test of consent, but it's useful to evaluate the "tests" that we use for consent, to measure the degree to which we are still bundling consent with dangerous archaic and oppressive assumptions about gender.  It's a meta-test
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: NobleHunter on March 03, 2016, 02:07:48 PM
It's mostly in response to Pyrtolin and Fenring's blathering about forcefulness and coercion and rape. I'm half-expecting one of them to start in about Helen of Troy.

The article is useful on a conceptual level but not much good in evaluating the author's conduct. Nor is it good at considering the experiences of her partner/victims. It's not that the piece doesn't provide answers, it's that the piece inhibits answers. It sacrifices utility for cleverness.

Bleh, I'm not communicating well I think.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 03, 2016, 02:16:29 PM
Thanks for clarifying.

It's mostly in response to Pyrtolin and Fenring's blathering about forcefulness and coercion and rape. I'm half-expecting one of them to start in about Helen of Troy.

The article is useful on a conceptual level but not much good in evaluating the author's conduct. Nor is it good at considering the experiences of her partner/victims. It's not that the piece doesn't provide answers, it's that the piece inhibits answers. It sacrifices utility for cleverness.

Bleh, I'm not communicating well I think.

I agree that the piece is useless as applied to the victim's experience.  I do think that it's useful to deconstruct broken assumptions about rape.  And even the Helen story is useful there.  Have you read the Gorgias, Plato's recorded speech of a leading Sophist regarding Helen of Troy? Gorgias argues that Paris "compelled" Helen with his words, and that an artful speaker has such power to "compel" his audience to do anything.  (It is from the Plato's history of the Sophists, btw, that we get the word "sophistry.")  Interesting that some of the new constructs of "rape" revert to Gorgian sophistry, and assume an ability to force via mere verbal persuasion.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: NobleHunter on March 03, 2016, 02:23:05 PM
I was making a reference to that very argument. :)
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 03, 2016, 02:30:36 PM
I was making a reference to that very argument. :)

Then you are awesome.  8)
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 03, 2016, 02:49:35 PM
By chance I read the Gorgias again last week, although I didn't get NH's reference until Pete pointed it out. NH, my initial response was only an attempt to solve what the author's intent was. The rest of the 'blathering' was an attempt to get Pyr to define his terms since he claimed that she was a rapist. I agree with you that the conversation predictably became pedantic very quickly but that's what has to happen when creeping changing of definitions (even of the word "force") makes conversation using common language mired in confusion. This problem is indeed at the heart of the Gorgias, where Socrates knows that the three rhetors are not only using different definitions of the same words but don't even have a clear sense of what those definitions are when making broad sweeping statements. In other words, he shows the difference between rhetorical speech meant to convince and really getting into the issue. The issue here is not that exciting to me and I didn't think much of the article, but the meta-issue of subversion of language is very interesting to me.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 03, 2016, 08:48:52 PM
And even the Helen story is useful there.  Have you read the Gorgias, Plato's recorded speech of a leading Sophist regarding Helen of Troy? Gorgias argues that Paris "compelled" Helen with his words, and that an artful speaker has such power to "compel" his audience to do anything.  (It is from the Plato's history of the Sophists, btw, that we get the word "sophistry.")

Seeing as I read Plato's Gorgias quite carefully last week I felt kind of dumb straight up missing a reference to it. I wondered how in the world I could forget a reference as vivid as to Helen of Troy; I swear I had no recollection of such a passage. I just skimmed the whole dialogue again and cannot find any such passage; certainly not in a speech by Gorgias himself (of which there are very few since Socrates tries to forbid speeches in the Gorgias). Pete, is it possible you're actually thinking of the rhetorical speech written by Gorgias himself called the Encomium of Helen? This speech discusses in detail all the possible ways and reasons Helen might have gone to Troy with Paris. If this is actually what you were thinking of, rather than Plato's dialogue, I then have to ask NH whether he was referencing that same speech!
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 12:37:58 AM
quite possible.  I'd been told that the only speech we had by Gorgias himself had actually been recorded by Plato.  Was that erroneous?  It's been decades since I read it.  Funny that I instantly thought of it when I read NH's reference, but didn't realize his reference was intentional.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 04, 2016, 01:09:21 AM
quite possible.  I'd been told that the only speech we had by Gorgias himself had actually been recorded by Plato.  Was that erroneous?  It's been decades since I read it.  Funny that I instantly thought of it when I read NH's reference, but didn't realize his reference was intentional.

I did a little checking and I can't find any source saying that Plato is the one who transcribed the one extant Gorgias speech on Helen. In Plato's own dialogue featuring Gorgias all of the text is Plato's writing in a fictitious scenario, and there is only one short speech by Gorgias there, which only answers a question Socrates asked him about why rhetoric is useful.

I'm curious to know whether NH was referencing the dialogue or the Gorgias speech.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: NobleHunter on March 04, 2016, 10:01:02 AM
The classics geekery has just gone off the scale.

I encountered the argument unconnected to its source. It was a class on argumentation rather than philosophy or Greek.

Pete, what else would I have been referencing?
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 11:29:57 AM
The classics geekery has just gone off the scale.

I encountered the argument unconnected to its source. It was a class on argumentation rather than philosophy or Greek.

Pete, what else would I have been referencing?

I thought you were referencing the Helen story, not any particular argument about it.

Have you confused me with Fenring? 

I also encountered Gorgias in my studies of rhetoric, not of languuage or philosophy. Greek language is still Greek to me.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: NobleHunter on March 04, 2016, 11:35:53 AM
I meant that I don't see how the Helen of Troy story would have been relevant to Pyr and Fen's exchange without Gorgias' argument.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 11:46:17 AM
Exactly.  I thought you raised it as an example of something totally irrelevant to the topic.  hence my Gorgias response.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 04, 2016, 11:52:36 AM
I'm lost.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: NobleHunter on March 04, 2016, 11:54:18 AM
Exactly.  I thought you raised it as an example of something totally irrelevant to the topic.  hence my Gorgias response.
It would have been an incredibly fortuitous non-sequitor.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 04, 2016, 12:06:07 PM
Exactly.  I thought you raised it as an example of something totally irrelevant to the topic.  hence my Gorgias response.
It would have been an incredibly fortuitous non-sequitor.

Hence my eagerness to explain it.  Had no idea we had no less that three members educated in obscure rhetorica .  next you'll tell me you are familiar with Korax vs Tisias...
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: NobleHunter on March 04, 2016, 12:09:54 PM
Nope.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 08, 2016, 04:16:01 PM
She made it clear in both stories that when she asked previously they had declined, which is why she resorted to applying pressure while they were off-guard in order to force them to give in.

Show me one quote where she said anything like this.

One:
Quote
My mouth is ravenous on yours, but you don’t seem to want to cross the line.
Two:
Quote
You’re kind of shocked. You start to talk. To argue. You’re not sure. I don’t care.

Three:
Quote
I thrust you up against the wall. You’re protesting. You have to get back to the customers. I don’t care. I shove my hands rudely down the front of your clothes. Basically undress you.

Four:
Quote
I *censored* you up against the wall while you protest.

That's four quotes intended to show up that the other partner was objecting and ignored; that she forced them to have sex despite explicit objections.

Quote
I think you just made it up to dare me to go back and check. I did, and now it's your turn. And yes, she applied pressure for sure, but if by "force" you just mean some small amount of force, as in, "forcefulness",
Force as in pushing them to do something that they did not want to do. Again, violence isn't the only kind of force. She only said that she didn't resort to violence, not that she didn't force them to do things they objected to doing. In fact, she made it very clear that she did force them to have sex despite their objections. Again, you seem to be confusing being physically forceful/violent with the more general notion forcing someone to do something hey didn't want to do.

Quote
and you call that alone "rape" then your definition is wanting.
The lack of consent is what makes it rape.

Quote
That would be you determining for others what tone their sex has to be and taking away their right to have forceful rather than amiable sex.
That's absurdly irrelevan., Once can apply force in a consensual context. There's a huge difference between pushing someone who has agreed that they want to be pushed and pushing someone despite objections to being pushed.

 
Quote
But ah - you are worried about consent. The first story mentions the guy "arguing", but she doesn't say what he was arguing. You assume his argument was "no", but what if it was "wait, are you sure you're ready?"
Doesn't matter. He was objecting and instead of respecting the objections, she ignored them and proceeded anyway.

Quote
Your argument hinges on knowing what his argument is and that it's negative.
The story as presented depends on the implication that it was negative. It's possible that she's misrepresenting the scenario, but without evidence to support that, we should interpret it in the context that it's presented rather than inventing an infinite number of possibilities that could certainly change the context of the situation.

Quote
In the second story she says he was "protesting" and continued to do so during. That seems like a clincher, then, except that the only thing she mentions him protesting is that he has customers upstairs. So again his protest could have been of the form "no, I don't want to do this now, some other time", which would validate your position, or it could have been "well of course I want to have sex but there are customers upstairs, this is crazy." How do you know which it was?
An objection is an objection. It doesn't matter what the objection is that was overridden to have the effect of overriding and invalidating the objection being offered. It's just as damaging and degrading to be invalidated either way.

Quote
There's no question her actions weren't 100% cut and dry cordial, but for you to call them rape requires knowing more than you do. Are you sure you're not just calling it rape because she did and buying into her narrative? Because, again, I believe that is exactly how she wants certain kinds of people to react.
I called it rape because she acted without consent and despite explicit objections.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 09, 2016, 08:31:32 AM
Pyr is consistent on this.  But no one else who claims that view is.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 10:10:46 AM
Here's a good take on the matter, written from someone that gets it a bit better than the original article, which was, as noted, trying to mock the ideas that it highlighted when it played on harmful stereotypes to try to make a point:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ravishly/learning-to-practice-cons_1_b_8229342.html

Quote
I thought I had seduced him, but the next morning, I learned I had actually guilted him. “I didn’t want you to feel bad,” he said. He didn’t want me to be the girl whose naked body could not even arouse her boyfriend.

I told my friend the story the next day. I told her I realized I would not be OK with any guy doing that. Was this any different?

“I think it’s different because men are more threatening,” she said. I think this belief is really dangerous. There are plenty of women who are physically stronger than plenty of men, but that’s beside the point. Sexual misconduct isn’t always accomplished through physical force. It’s often accomplished through emotional manipulation. And I had done that.

The truth of the matter is, if you convince someone to sleep with you, then the sex is not 100% consensual. It’s not necessarily rape, but it is a form of misconduct. Even if someone physically gets on top of you, they are not making the decision freely if something other than their own desires are influencing them.[/quote[
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 21, 2016, 10:28:20 AM
Quote
The truth of the matter is, if you convince someone to sleep with you, then the sex is not 100% consensual.
This poorly thought out sentence pretty much ruins their whole point.
If you are "convinced" then it is indeed 100% consensual.  If you agree after being pressured, that can be something else.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 10:51:30 AM
Quote
The truth of the matter is, if you convince someone to sleep with you, then the sex is not 100% consensual.
This poorly thought out sentence pretty much ruins their whole point.
If you are "convinced" then it is indeed 100% consensual.  If you agree after being pressured, that can be something else.
How so? If you have to be convinced, then it's not consensual. That means someone had to apply pressure to you to get you to change your mind. (Unless you specifically put forth that you _want_ to be convinced as part of the process, but at that point you've already voluntarily engaged by confirming that you're open to the idea)
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 21, 2016, 10:56:58 AM
Do you believe we all have some sort of pre ordained destiny and that our first position is our final one and anything that makes us reconsider is an affront if not an assault?

"How so?"

In the manner that most if not all reasoning beings understand the concept of free will.

You are attempting to convey a point of view through a narrative which does not support it.  While it doesn't refute your point of view, the vehicle you (by agreeing with or defending the author) have chosen is faulty.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 11:10:48 AM
Do you believe we all have some sort of pre ordained destiny and that our first position is our final one and anything that makes us reconsider is an affront if not an assault?
Impressions change over time. There's a difference between allowing them to evolve naturally and applying pressure to someone to manipulate them to meet your will.

Quote
In the manner that most if not all reasoning beings understand the concept of free will.
Then all of advertizing and marketing is nonsense and doesn't work. The facts of the world disagree sharply. Emotional and psychological manipulation are real things and can have real effects on people, overriding their basic will. As the writer points out, we need to be very careful to distinguish between acting in ways that might lead to someone consenting and playing games that manipulate them into giving consent because we've decided that they will is less important to use than having our personal desires met.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 21, 2016, 11:22:51 AM
Now read the quote I took issue with again.
Quote
The truth of the matter is, if you convince someone to sleep with you, then the sex is not 100% consensual.

Are you suggesting that the act of convincing someone ALWAYS equates to manipulation?  Does this only apply to acts of sexual contact?  Are you proposing a "love at first sight" or "swipe for mutual consent based upon first impression app" as an ideal?

The reason making the point you are trying to, is so often met with resistance is not evidence of some wrong in the world or with a gender or preconceptions of gender norms.  It's that the approach often goes too far and looses cohesion. 

Advertising and marketing does work.  People ARE vulnerable to manipulation.  That does not however excuse or justify a position that any and all attempts to change someone's initial impressions or decisions is a sign of malevolence or even selfishness.  It is in my opinion the very definition of humanity.  When we become so insulated from others that our opinion is never influenced by others we have ceased to be human at all.

Maybe that's where things are trending?  It would explain our increasingly childish and uncivilized political rhetoric this season.  :P
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 11:37:36 AM
Quote
Are you suggesting that the act of convincing someone ALWAYS equates to manipulation?
Trying to convince someone is always a directed and intentional act. It's inherently manipulative. It's also very distinct from honestly presenting yourself and allowing them to choose how to react, because in the latter case, you're not applying pressure to them in order to push them toward your desired result. (Dishonestly presenting yourself, on the other hand is absolutely a ploy to try to convince them to do something by trying to force their reactions to go a certain way)

As soon as you step from "I'm doing this because this is who I am" (Which includes "This is how I react to what you've communicated to me") to I'm doing thins because I want to make you act in a certain way" you've stepped from controlling yourself to attempting to control others.

Quote
It is in my opinion the very definition of humanity.  When we become so insulated from others that our opinion is never influenced by others we have ceased to be human at all.
There's a difference between not being influenced by what others feel, and using the fact taht you know others will be influenced to control them and make them act in ways that they'd otherwise prefer not to. One can react to the opinion of others, even to offer the suggestion that the opinion is wrong or to demonstrate honest change because of it, without attempting to force them to change their opinion.

Acting better in an honest way because you'd like someone to have a more accurate impression of who you are is one thing. That's controlling your behavior and allowing them to react as they will. Intentionally putting on an act for someone in order to force them to react in a specific way that meets your desires is not okay. BEcause you've gone from controlling your behavior and allowing them to choose how to react to it to controlling their behavior and reactions through manipulation.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 21, 2016, 11:44:43 AM
DW, I think I know what Pyr is saying. He's saying that applying mental force to get someone to do what you want is morally questionable or even outright bad. Instead you should consult them about what they want and work with that. I recognize this as a kind of idealistic goal in human interaction, so let's work with that for a moment as assume it's a coherent goal.

What sorts of interactions in human society make use of persuasion where you finally get the person to do something other than what he/she originally wanted to, but where the final result is 'agreed' upon? If persuasion is going to be considered off-limits let's try and figure out which parts of life will be considered off-limits.

-Obviously advertising will be illegal, as its entire basis is in persuading people to do things. Sometimes it's borderline brainwashing, so advertising is right out. Likewise with attempts to market to customers or compete in any overt way.
-In business neither party in a transaction tends to accept an initial offer, and a negotiation must be made with each side trying to get the most out of the other. This will obviously be off-limits, and price negotiation will be illegal since it's 'coercive.' Market-based economics cannot function without initial disagreement and either one side persuading the other or a half-way point decided upon.
-There can be no moral education, since education (especially in young people) requires convincing someone that what they are currently doing, or at least naturally inclined to do, is harmful and should be stopped. Ironically this includes trying to persuade people that persuasion is illegitimate (!).
-The legal system is currently based upon two parties (lawyers) persuading a third party (judge or jury) of the merit of a case. There could be a legal system without persuasion, but the current one is based upon persuasion and so would obviously have to be scrapped.
-Jurisprudence and Congressional work also involve a great deal of persuasion. Even setting aside corruption for the moment, the activity of politics appears to mostly reside in the attempt to convince others to support or oppose a cause or a bill. Since this would now be considered as an assault jurisprudence and law-making as we know it would be scrapped in favor of another system.
-Friends who want to go out to the movies might have to all split up and go see different film alone, since persuading your friend to see the movie you want to see would be assault.

I think I can stop there. It should be evident by now that what I mean to say is that most human interaction of any kind involves persuasion and - ideally - agreement after the attempt to persuade or negotiate are concluded. Without each person being able to push their own idea of what should happen next, which in turn results in some kind of agreement being hammered out, then you have not only the end of personal agency within society, but also the end of society as we know it. From an idealistic standpoint maybe there would be something good about this, and indeed I wouldn't entirely be against the abolition of some of the cornerstones of culture as we know it. But typically when someone throws out a broad sweeping idealistic statement it will rarely come along with what the real consequences of its implementation would be. The words and the reality remain separate from each other, which is probably why the word "idealism" is met with such derision in most circles.

As DW has pointed out, it is Pyr's formulation of "persuasion cannot lead to consent" that is the issue here.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 12:00:01 PM
Quote
Obviously advertising will be illegal, as its entire basis is in persuading people to do things. Sometimes it's borderline brainwashing, so advertising is right out. Likewise with attempts to market to customers or compete in any overt way.
You are confusing right and wrong with legal and illegal. The two categories are orthogonal to each other. There's some overlap but it's absurd to suggest that they're even remotely the same. Advertising is coercive and manipulative. That means people should be aware of its nature so they can' better apply discernment. It doesn't mean that it should illegal.

Quote
In business neither party in a transaction tends to accept an initial offer, and a negotiation must be made with each side trying to get the most out of the other. This will obviously be off-limits, and price negotiation will be illegal since it's 'coercive.' Market-based economics cannot function without initial disagreement and either one side persuading the other or a half-way point decided upon.
THis is not true if you start from the premise taht both parties _want_ to make a deal. Negotiating toward an end goal that both want is not coercive. Approaching someone taht _does not want_ to make a deal and pressuring them until they give in and make a deal is coercive.

Quote
There can be no moral education, since education (especially in young people) requires convincing someone that what they are currently doing, or at least naturally inclined to do, is harmful and should be stopped.
Showing someone how something is hurtful and knowing that this will cause them to avoid that behavior is vastly different from making someone thing that a behavior is harmful to as to manipulate them into reacting. And again, there's the line between guiding someone who _wants to learn_ and forcing someone to listen who is uninterested in learning.

Quote
The legal system, which is currently based upon two sides (lawyers) persuading a third party (judge or jury) of the merit of a case. There could be a legal system without persuasion, but the current one is based upon persuasion and so would obviously have to be scrapped.
Our legal system as even more problems than it might seem if you start from the presumption that judges and juries do not _want_ to be convinced of a given position; that they're being forced to review evidence against their will.

Quote
Friends who want to go out to the movies might have to all split up and go see different film alone, since persuading your friend to see the movie you want to see would be assault.
Again, you're confusing negotiating toward a common goal with manipulating someone into participating in negotiation. Pretty much every item you put forth here ignores the difference between voluntary participation and being forced to participate.

Quote
It should be evident by now that what I mean to say is that most human interaction of any kind involves persuasion and - ideally - agreement after the attempt to persuade or negotiate are concluded.
PErhaps, but on a voluntary basis. People negotiate because they both want something. When only one person whats something and they force the other person to negotiate and eventually give in to their desires, you've violated taht important baseline of mutual desire and are, instead, imposing your will on them.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 21, 2016, 12:13:00 PM
Look up "convince" then "persuade" Pyr.  You appear to be running on an alternate definition where it is interchangeable with "coerce" or "deceit".
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 12:19:18 PM
Look up "convince" then "persuade" Pyr.  You appear to be running on an alternate definition where it is interchangeable with "coerce" or "deceit".
who do you convince or persuade someone who does not _want_ to be convinced or persuaded without first coercing them into being receptive in some way?

Again, as I directly qualified from the start, we're not talking about situations where someone has _invites_ another person to convince them, but rather where once person is trying to convince another _against their will_. That is fundamentally coercive.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 21, 2016, 12:24:42 PM
You are confusing right and wrong with legal and illegal. The two categories are orthogonal to each other. There's some overlap but it's absurd to suggest that they're even remotely the same. Advertising is coercive and manipulative. That means people should be aware of its nature so they can' better apply discernment. It doesn't mean that it should illegal.

I'm not confusing legal/illegal with right/wrong. On the contrary, it's you who forgets the link between these. When you suggest that persuasion in a sexual context prevents real consent you perhaps think you're making a right/wrong argument but you fail to realize that you are simultaneously making a legal argument as well. If there wasn't consent the act was illegal. There is no way in our current way of conceiving law to think of a sexual act as non-consensual but legal. Again, I think you are speaking in idealistic terms without sight of what your use of terms would imply in the real world.

Quote
THis is not true if you start from the premise taht both parties _want_ to make a deal. Negotiating toward an end goal that both want is not coercive. Approaching someone taht _does not want_ to make a deal and pressuring them until they give in and make a deal is coercive.

NO ONE in business wants to make less money than they dream of, and no one wants to accept high overheads and low profit from competitive selling prices. They accept this because they must, and because the choice is to be persuaded to offer goods and services at lower costs or else to lose the contract. I assure you they don't do this because it's what they always wanted. Negotiation in business doesn't happen because anyone wants to negotiate; it happens because otherwise you'll get nothing so you have to struggle with others to make a deal with them. In my experience commercial business is around 70% persuasion and 30% efficiency, with marketing and having the right access to resources being of primary importance.

Quote
And again, there's the line between guiding someone who _wants to learn_ and forcing someone to listen who is uninterested in learning.

You think children want to learn how to curb their behavior? That they've volunteered to be trained and managed? And what about college age students? Do you think they attend in order to learn right from wrong - that attendance there is synonymous with requesting a moral education? If moral education was only given to 'the willing' then there would likely be very little of it around.

Quote
Again, you're confusing negotiating toward a common goal with manipulating someone into participating in negotiation.

I'm not confusing anything. It is pretty much a de facto premise of living in society that you must be constantly open to negotiation. That basically is what living around others means. Simply congregating with others automatically implies that negotiations are constantly open, and only an explicit statement that "I am not open to negotiation right now" ought to be understood as being an exception. The idea that life isn't an exercise in constant negotiation is one or the more active arguments for the suppression of personal agency that I've seen. Agency means precisely trying to effect change in others!

Quote
People negotiate because they both want something. When only one person whats something and they force the other person to negotiate and eventually give in to their desires, you've violated taht important baseline of mutual desire and are, instead, imposing your will on them.

People always want something. What you mean to say is that one person may want something orthogonal to what the other person wants and the other person would like to create an alignment in their desires. Yes, how terrible, trying to get people to want the same thing. I guess agreement has to be a spontaneous and magical thing.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 21, 2016, 12:47:59 PM
Quote
That basically is what living around others means. Simply congregating with others automatically implies that negotiations are constantly open, and only an explicit statement that "I am not open to negotiation right now" ought to be understood as being an exception.
While criticizing the message, seems to be a no-no to Pyr, I think you just hit on a point I wasn't even aware I was trying to make Fenring.

The attempts to protect people from coercion and harm would likely benefit from a discussion on how to best convey "I am not open to negotiation right now".  Suggesting that it is never OK cannot help but be read as ridiculous.  We need solutions which do not erase what it means to be human beings taking part in a society. 
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 01:05:13 PM
Quote
I'm not confusing legal/illegal with right/wrong. On the contrary, it's you who forgets the link between these.
We have a broken system that has may laws built on ignoring that distinction. That doesn't make the system de facto right, nor does to make the system illegal. It meas that people who see how it's broken should try to advocate for ways to fix and improve it to be more just and less coercive.

Quote
NO ONE in business wants to make less money than they dream of, and no one wants to accept high overheads and low profit from competitive selling prices.
Sure most people are in business because they have a skill at creating a certain kind of value and they want to find a way to meet their needs and desire for luxury beyond them. Markets and money are tools they choose to use in pursuit of those goals because they've evolved to be the most effective way we have to transact on such issues. Heck, the most fundamental rule of markets:

Quote
But man has almost constant occasion for the help
of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their
benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to
another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which
I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every
such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the
far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is
not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.
Rests on pointing out that it's incumbent on anyone in business to fin out what others want and offer it to them so that they _want_ to trade with you, not to try to manipulate others into giving you what you want against their will.

Remembering, also, that the fundamental characteristic of a free market- the one that defines it as free, even, is the ability of other parties to choose to engage with each other on and honest and purely voluntary basis. Both parties have to want to reach a deal with each other, if one does not want to make a deal, but is compelled to transact, then the market is no longer a free one, whatever other market features it may still employ.

Quote
I'm not confusing anything. It is pretty much a de facto premise of living in society that you must be constantly open to negotiation.
About factors relevant to managing the society? Yes. About anything and everything taht someone whats to commodify? No. I must will willing to negotiate on the rules of society in order to come to common ground with others in that society. That's far different than saying I must be open to negotiating with every other person about meeting their arbitrary personal desires.

We have a tool for social negotiation- government and the rule of law. We even have guidelines for personal dealings- courtesy and ethics. Those are certainly areas taht you must be able and willing to negotiate on in order to exist with others in a non coercive state. But none of them are sexual availability or other forms of direct personal trade, service, or attention.

Quote
You think children want to learn how to curb their behavior?
Quote
Most children want to learn and they want to be treated justly. Most certainly want to know how to be liked and treated well by their peers. They are absolutely open to learning about morality and behavior standards as the basic tools to those ends, though they may object to coercive methods of teaching.

Quote
What you mean to say is that one person may want something orthogonal to what the other person wants and the other person would like to create an alignment in their desires.
Sure, which is why it's okay to ask if someone is open to making a particular deal, but not okay to manipulated them into doing so if they decline.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 01:08:24 PM

The attempts to protect people from coercion and harm would likely benefit from a discussion on how to best convey "I am not open to negotiation right now".  Suggesting that it is never OK cannot help but be read as ridiculous.  We need solutions which do not erase what it means to be human beings taking part in a society.
One would think that saying that would be sufficient, but the problem comes not from trying to say that, but from the way we punish those who say it or just outright ignore it in favor of persisting to push them to change their mind instead of accepting the reply and perhaps changing what we offer until they choose under their own will to come to the table.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 21, 2016, 01:22:10 PM
But man has almost constant occasion for the help
of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their
benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favour, and shew them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to
another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me that which
I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every
such offer; and it is in this manner that we obtain from one another the
far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is
not from the benevolence of the butcher the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity, but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities, but of their advantages.

Wait - does the highlighted part contradict your own intent in using this quote? It seems to me to detail what persuasion is and why it's necessary. The difference between persuasion and coercion is precisely that with persuasion you try to show how it would be in someone's interest to do something, even if they don't initially see it or agree. With coercion you don't care what they want and you try to force them.
 
Quote
Quote
I'm not confusing anything. It is pretty much a de facto premise of living in society that you must be constantly open to negotiation.
About factors relevant to managing the society? Yes. About anything and everything taht someone whats to commodify? No. I must will willing to negotiate on the rules of society in order to come to common ground with others in that society. That's far different than saying I must be open to negotiating with every other person about meeting their arbitrary personal desires.

Wrong. I'm willing to simply state that you have a mistaken understanding of this, or perhaps just missed what I was saying. Negotiation in society is about everything, full stop. Humans are constantly in the process of assessing, conforming, changing, trying to change, and fighting for what they want. If you don't think interpersonal relations are about negotiating what each person wants and can get then while I can't speak to your personal experience (maybe it is like this) I can certainly suggest that you don't have much of an understanding on how most other people interact with each other.

I could go further and detail how the brain's basic design is geared towards negotiation and a constant give-and-take in every aspect of consciousness, including identity and sense of reality, but I won't even go there since it's too much to tackle here.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: scifibum on March 21, 2016, 02:53:49 PM
The reason that the bright line is "sober, enthusiastic consent" is that there is no other bright line.  Reluctant or hesitant consent are red flags and potentially indicate some kind of coercion. 

It'd be good for everyone to make the distinction between sexual ethics and legal standards when talking about this stuff.  Pyrtolin is espousing a bright line standard for ethical sexual behavior, but is not proposing to use the same standard to distinguish between felonious acts and non-felonious acts.  However, he's using terms that often have a legal meaning, so it gets pretty confusing.

When teaching people not to rape, I think teaching them to follow the bright line ethical standard is the right thing to do.  We have to admit that there's gray area between this standard and the legal definition of rape, but that highlights the reason we should be teaching this stuff: not because we want to prevent violations of statutes, but because we want to prevent harmful acts.   

There's also some gray area between the bright line standard and harmful behavior, but there's no way to consistently navigate that gray area without making mistakes and causing harm. 

One could argue that teaching the bright line standard is counterproductive because no one actually follows it in practice, but I'm not convinced.  We DO need to straighten out the terminology so that "tipsy sex with a new partner may be unethical" doesn't get morphed into the claim "tipsy sex with a new partner means you have definitely committed a felony".  The latter WOULD be a counterproductive message in the cases where it isn't actually true.  But it's hard to draw the distinctions without softpedaling the importance of the message.  I don't think we've got it figured out yet.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: NobleHunter on March 21, 2016, 03:07:43 PM
Enthusiastic strikes me more of an ideal than a minimum requirement at least within certain contexts. There are reasons other than simple desire to engage in sexual activity. While some of them are bad reasons, not all of them are. I think it's important to recognize that sex may be transactional or circumstantial. Bright lines are good but people are rather messy and it's unfair to set a standard of behavior that doesn't reflect that.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 21, 2016, 03:09:11 PM
If Pyr wanted a bright line, he would use a term other thsn rape, because that is the sourde of all of the blurryiness, confusion, and catastrophe in the story.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 21, 2016, 03:22:20 PM
We DO need to straighten out the terminology so that "tipsy sex with a new partner may be unethical" doesn't get morphed into the claim "tipsy sex with a new partner means you have definitely committed a felony".

It would additionally need to be clear that when we say "tipsy sex may be unethical" that means that, as you put it, it's a red flag, but does not automatically imply anything. I find it very hard to accept any standard for consent that cannot permit the possibility of tipsy sex with a new partner. Naturally it's possible someone can use drunkenness in someone else to circumvent what they knew the person's previous decision was, or to cajole them with untruths that in their state they can't process that clearly. But it's also possible that two people who are shy or inhibited both want to unwind their brains and get a little alcohol in them to do what they both want. And as you say there are grey zones, where neither party really knows what they want and a little booze helps inform their decision. After all, booze not only inhibits your processing but can alter personality and desire. I hear it makes people horny, too (it's only a rumor). I think in cases of tipsy sex, for example, specifics need to be determined before one can start passing judgement. Actually I don't like the idea of passing judgement on other people anyhow, but insofar as perhaps we must do so to an extent, I would prefer to be clear that just because a scenario 'may be' problematic doesn't mean it should be saddled with judgemental baggage and assumed to be a problem.

Insofar as alcohol can change personality and desire, I would prefer to argue that someone choosing to drink is choosing to become a new person temporarily, rather than to argue that they are the same person they were before and now lose the right to agency. In fact I think the reality would often bear out this position, since I would argue that a large part of the incentive to drink is for people to cease being restricted by what they think of as their personality or reputation or whatever, and to enable doing what they really want (whether this is 'really having fun', or 'venting', or exploring sexuality). Insofar as the desire to alter one's personality or perspective may often be a voluntary and deliberate act, I do not like the idea of claiming that such a person should be considered incompetent to actually carry out those acts once under the influence. It's a prohibition-type argument, where people are effectively forbidden from exploring altered states of consciousness or perception, and I don't like the idea of people being dictated to like that. I would make the same argument for drug use, by the way, on a libertarian basis.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 04:08:16 PM
Quote
Wait - does the highlighted part contradict your own intent in using this quote? It seems to me to detail what persuasion is and why it's necessary. The difference between persuasion and coercion is precisely that with persuasion you try to show how it would be in someone's interest to do something, even if they don't initially see it or agree. With coercion you don't care what they want and you try to force them.
The difference is specifically in that last bit. In the quote they _already have the interest_ . You ask them "would you be willing to negotiate over this they say yes, and then everything is above board. IF they don't have an interest- if they say "No, this is not negotiable" and then you keep pushing them to negotiate regardless, you're not letting them freely choose to engage, but instead showing that you don't care what they want, but only about getting what you want from them. (The free choice to engage also applies if you're holding an existential need over their head- something they can't refuse to try to get because they need it to survive.

Remember wanting to not negotiate about something is, very much a thing they want. If you ignore that and try to force them to negotiate, then you are being coercive on that standard of not paying attention to what they want.

Quote
Negotiation in society is about everything, full stop. Humans are constantly in the process of assessing, conforming, changing, trying to change, and fighting for what they want. If you don't think interpersonal relations are about negotiating what each person wants and can get then while I can't speak to your personal experience (maybe it is like this) I can certainly suggest that you don't have much of an understanding on how most other people interact with each other.
Not everything is a commodity up for sale, and it's exceptionally dehumanizing to not respect that. IF a person wants to puts some part of themselves on the market for trade, that should be their decision, not yours to force them into because you want to be able to buy it. IF they say taht their sexual attention, secret thoughts, their family heirlooms, or anything else is not for sale, then it is absolutely coercion to try to force them to sell them to you, regardless of the price you offer. IF they later see that you have something they want and willingly come to you in order to make such a trade, knowing that you've expressed a given desire in the past, then you're working on equitable ground.

Some people do seek out and enjoy prostitution as a trade. But  you're effectively saying that everyone's a prostitute, all you have to do is keep on them to sell you sex until they give in and do it, and so long as they break down in the ned and give you what you want, you must have been right, without any regard to the damage done in the process.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 04:11:03 PM
If Pyr wanted a bright line, he would use a term other thsn rape, because that is the sourde of all of the blurryiness, confusion, and catastrophe in the story.
I like the phrase "sexual misconduct" that was used in this article to cover the grey area of things that are not okay, even if they may be legal. I'd be perfectly happy to run with that, since we lack much other language to specifically refer to it, short of pointing out the presence or lack of consent being the only real way to sort things between being labeled as sex or rape
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 21, 2016, 04:23:45 PM
Quote
It would additionally need to be clear that when we say "tipsy sex may be unethical" that means that, as you put it, it's a red flag, but does not automatically imply anything.
It means caveat emptor. You're taking a risk because you don't know how it's going to turn out. IT won't necessarily go wrong, but it if does, that's the price you take for taking the risk.

Quote
Insofar as alcohol can change personality and desire, I would prefer to argue that someone choosing to drink is choosing to become a new person temporarily, rather than to argue that they are the same person they were before and now lose the right to agency.
Sure, but unless they plan on staying drunk for the rest of their lives, you have to accept taht you're interacting with both people the sober and the drunk one, and that the sober one is likely going to be the one reacting to what happened after the fact, with as full legal rights to their body as the drunk person has (And alcohol is nothing compared to, say, MDMA (Molly/Ecstasy) when playing along those lines)

It's just as valid to say "I'm using this drug to help loosen my up to act a certain way" as it is to say "I trust that no one in this place will take advantage of my altered state to do something I would otherwise disapprove of" and there's no way to tell the difference unless you've talked to the sober self to understand what their actual desires are. It's fully possible you'll get the first case, but if you hit the second case, even if that was poor judgement on their part, the you can't walk back the damage after the fact.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 21, 2016, 09:28:18 PM
Quote
Sure, but unless they plan on staying drunk for the rest of their lives, you have to accept taht you're interacting with both people the sober and the drunk one, and that the sober one is likely going to be the one reacting to what happened after the fact, with as full legal rights to their body as the drunk person has (And alcohol is nothing compared to, say, MDMA (Molly/Ecstasy) when playing along those lines)

It's just as valid to say "I'm using this drug to help loosen my up to act a certain way" as it is to say "I trust that no one in this place will take advantage of my altered state to do something I would otherwise disapprove of" and there's no way to tell the difference unless you've talked to the sober self to understand what their actual desires are. It's fully possible you'll get the first case, but if you hit the second case, even if that was poor judgement on their part, the you can't walk back the damage after the fact.

Curious that your rule seems to pre-suppose or at least strongly imply the least likely scenario, namely that one party is tipsy and the other is stone cold sober. How about a more realistic one.

What if they're both tipsy?

If they both regret it the night after, does that make them both mutually guilty of "sexual misconduct"?

If one regrets it but the other doesn't, then the one whodoesn't regret it is guilty and the one who does regret it is innocent?

What if someone feels okay about it the next day, but a week later feels regret? Does that retroactively impugn said conduct? If so, does the resulting regret in the party accused of misconduct in turn transmute the initial regretor's conduct, rendering it "misconduct"?

And appropo to the spirit of this topic, does the sex of the regretor versus regretee play any role in evaluating the nature of the "misconduct"?
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 10:44:23 AM
Quote
What if they're both tipsy?
Then they both have impaired judgment and risk causing harm.

Quote
If they both regret it the night after, does that make them both mutually guilty of "sexual misconduct"?
If both drivers in an accident are drunk, are they both guilty of a DUI and shared fault in the accident? Or does it mean that there was no accident?

Quote
If one regrets it but the other doesn't, then the one who doesn't regret it is guilty and the one who does regret it is innocent?
If both drivers are drunk and the only driver that was injured was actually properly following the other rules of the road at the time (say, stopped at a red light) how does taht affect things?

Quote
What if someone feels okay about it the next day, but a week later feels regret? Does that retroactively impugn said conduct? If so, does the resulting regret in the party accused of misconduct in turn transmute the initial regretor's conduct, rendering it "misconduct"?
If it takes a week for an injury stemming from the accident to be identified, does it make it any less an injury from the accident?

Except for the kind of harm taht one is at risk of causing, there really is very little difference between getting drunk and deciding to drive on a public road and getting drunk and trying to have sex with someone that one does not have prior agreements in place with. It can and many times does go okay, but the degree to which it increases the risk of an accident and personal harm to someone makes it reasonable for us to tell people that they should just assume taht it's not okay from the outset; and we don't try to magically make the harm justified just because both people happened to be impaired, rather we do absolutely hold them mutually culpable for misconduct.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 23, 2016, 10:59:16 AM
I like the fact that you equate guilt or bad feelings resulting from sex to physical damage to a car. I suppose the car also gets to decide, based on public mores and advice from friends, whether or not it needs to go to the mechanic? Your analogy would be better if you were discussing injury or STD from sex, but when it comes to emotional fallout I don't see the analogy as being relevant. You may as well argue that you shouldn't get out of bed while tipsy, or better yet, that getting tipsy in the first place is a risk and you should only drink while tied down. After all, you could fall down the stairs.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 11:11:31 AM
A risk to your self is a risk taht it's your business to manage. A risk to you and other people aroudn you becomes a risk that everyone has a stake in managing.

And being dismissive about emotional and mental harm just contributes to it, you're actively begging the question when you try to handwave them away as if they weren't meaningful, especially since every bit of evidence we have points to them being at least, if not more crippling in many cases than physical harm.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 23, 2016, 11:28:42 AM
When you and someone else mutually agree to do something, you are not responsible for their part in deciding to do something, unless of course you engage in gross misconduct during the interaction and effectively break the deal. Anyone who has buyer's remorse after engaging in a voluntary act may feel badly about the other person but the only responsible party is him or herself.

Now, your analogy might be a little better if you were talking about drunken drag racing, but comparing an automobile accident to two people doing something legal and voluntary and one of them regretting it...l don't see the point. Sounds like a semantical waste of time.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 11:58:00 AM
Quote
Now, your analogy might be a little better if you were talking about drunken drag racing, but comparing an automobile accident to two people doing something legal and voluntary and one of them regretting it...l don't see the point. Sounds like a semantical waste of time.
Wait, so if we didn't have laws against DUIs you'd be fine with drunken accidents, since it was two people deciding to do something legal and voluntary?

The law against it is a recognition of the degree of potential for harm and damage, and the degree to which it's important to bring community assessment of cost to bear against the issue, not what makes it dangerous in the first place.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 23, 2016, 12:01:25 PM
I'm not sure the risk of crashing into a third party is equivalent to someone walking by an open door or window and seeing two drunkards going at it.  Some times there just aren't any good analogies.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 12:10:55 PM
I'm not sure the risk of crashing into a third party is equivalent to someone walking by an open door or window and seeing two drunkards going at it.  Some times there just aren't any good analogies.
Who said anything about witnesses. I mean, there is a risk that someone who is drunk might assault someone who is sober, btu that's even more of an argument for pushing the notion that if you've been drinking you should assume that your ability to make decisions about actions that might hurt others is impaired.

But were talking here about people who take end up taking actions that they aren't actually comfortable with and then come out with some form of PTSD related to it afterwards, not people who are subjected to a direct physical assault in this context.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 23, 2016, 12:20:40 PM
But were talking here about people who take end up taking actions that they aren't actually comfortable with and then come out with some form of PTSD related to it afterwards, not people who are subjected to a direct physical assault in this context.

It's funny, I was just chatting with a psychiatrist about PTSD, and he unequivocally described it as an error in thinking. In other words, it's the perception by the mind that there is danger or a current stressor when in fact there is none, and part of the treatment is to get the patient to realize there is, in fact, no present problem any more. The problem is in the false perception of a problem. Which sort of ties back into my comments on your analogy. When a car is crashed and the drivers sustain injuries, there is no question of perception or opinion. There is mechanical damage, period. It's just a terrible analogy when comparing that to people who arguably feel bad, or guilty, or conflicted, or confused, or not sure what they feel, or maybe later have someone suggest to them they were raped, or maybe liked it but they're not sure, etc etc. Even some kind of PTSD is not at all evidence that the PTSD was caused by the other person, even though its inception was coincident to the event of tipsy sex. It may have been triggered by interaction with the other person, but you want to try to draw a line of guilt or responsibility and I see no legitimate way of  you doing so under these circumstances.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 23, 2016, 12:25:54 PM
While I consider myself to never be one to "blame the victim" I have an amazingly hard time feeling sorry for anyone who doesn't care for the results of voluntary imbibing of alcohol or drugs.  The idea that if I drink, others are suddenly MORE responsible for making sure I do not harm myself or others is beyond repellent to me.

And that's said as someone who has far more experience than I would ever want caring for and protecting (often from themselves) acquaintances who are drunk and/or high.

There are no take backs.  YOU decide to get wasted, YOU deal with the fallout.  If you are lucky, and around people who care about you, they will likely protect you.  This is probably one of the most selfish acts you can take as an adult and even in "good company" is a gamble.  Some people are *censored*ty enough that even stone cold sober they will take advantage of you.  Intentionally choosing to disadvantage yourself and lower what defenses you have against "bad people" then blaming the world for not protecting you is pathetic.

There's PTSD related to being a true victim and then there is dealing with the sudden reality shattering realization that you are a grown up and your actions have consequences.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: NobleHunter on March 23, 2016, 12:37:09 PM
But were talking here about people who take end up taking actions that they aren't actually comfortable with and then come out with some form of PTSD related to it afterwards, not people who are subjected to a direct physical assault in this context.

It's funny, I was just chatting with a psychiatrist about PTSD, and he unequivocally described it as an error in thinking. In other words, it's the perception by the mind that there is danger or a current stressor when in fact there is none, and part of the treatment is to get the patient to realize there is, in fact, no present problem any more. The problem is in the false perception of a problem. Which sort of ties back into my comments on your analogy. When a car is crashed and the drivers sustain injuries, there is no question of perception or opinion. There is mechanical damage, period. It's just a terrible analogy when comparing that to people who arguably feel bad, or guilty, or conflicted, or confused, or not sure what they feel, or maybe later have someone suggest to them they were raped, or maybe liked it but they're not sure, etc etc. Even some kind of PTSD is not at all evidence that the PTSD was caused by the other person, even though its inception was coincident to the event of tipsy sex. It may have been triggered by interaction with the other person, but you want to try to draw a line of guilt or responsibility and I see no legitimate way of  you doing so under these circumstances.
Anxiety and depression are also associated with cognitive errors, though in some cases it's a matter of error of process rather than fact.

Quote
While I consider myself to never be one to "blame the victim" I have an amazingly hard time feeling sorry for anyone who doesn't care for the results of voluntary imbibing of alcohol or drugs.  The idea that if I drink, others are suddenly MORE responsible for making sure I do not harm myself or others is beyond repellent to me.
One, I question how voluntary the decision to get really trashed is. When sober, I may chose to have 2 or 3 three drinks only to decide to drink more after my judgement is impaired (but I have alcholic tendencies, so I don't know if it applies to a lot of other people).

Two, does one not have a duty to protect and care for people who are vulnerable? Though I think it's important to avoid the construction that such a duty is something imposed on an individual by the vulnerable person.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 23, 2016, 12:48:44 PM
Your point 2 is obviously true for many.  Assuming ALL those around you feel that way is, well demonstrably false and dangerous.

I stand by my point however that it is an imposition.  Hell, I've even drank on some evenings for the express purpose of advertising I was NOT their babysitter and a reliable safety net for their actions.  Not that I can say it had any significant effect other than avoiding driving to restock provisions or chauffeur people about...

Your point 1 is a good one as it obviously changes a lot from person to person.  I've intentionally gotten drunk to the point where the room was spinning, have done so to the point of vomiting one or more times and have even decided to make my bed for the evening a front porch couch on a rather chilly fall evening after a party.  All of those times I've never felt out of control mentally, physically impaired most defiantly... But I've never personally blacked out.  Been told I did things by someone and not remember having done it.  I HAVE acted like a damn fool, because everyone around was doing so and we were (or at least I was) giving ourselves permission to do so.

My brother however has on multiple occasions told me he has no memory at all of things he did while wasted.  I have friends who have used dresser drawers or closets as toilets and the like.  Obviously, it's not the same for everyone.  Maybe I'm overly cautious with myself because an addictive personality runs in my family?  In a lot of ways (most of the time) I judge others through my personal standards.  I'm a damn far cry from perfect and without vice, but when I see someone acting totally irresponsibly, I cannot help (not just a turn of phrase) but to believe they are using the situation, booze or drugs as an excuse to do so.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 01:00:45 PM
It's funny, I was just chatting with a psychiatrist about PTSD, and he unequivocally described it as an error in thinking.
Such errors in thinking are mental damage. They don't fix themselves, they require therapy to correct. I mean, we could call a stroke an "error in blood circulation through the brain"; that doesn't make it any less a serious medical issue that requires treatment.

It seems like you're trying to use the wording used to try to describe the issue as a tool to minimize or handwave away the damage.

Quote
In other words, it's the perception by the mind that there is danger or a current stressor when in fact there is none, and part of the treatment is to get the patient to realize there is, in fact, no present problem any more.
Indeed. A prior exposure to damage creates an ongoing fear that the damage will recurr, even if there isn't a rational reason to perceive danger in a given situation. That's part of why consent violations are a big deal- they lead to the future belief that one's consent in any given situation isn't relevant and thus eat a way at a person's sense of self worth. They trigger a form of PTSD where a person lives and acts in fear of future violations.

Quote
The problem is in the false perception of a problem.
Sure, which is caused by a prior problem that repeats itself over and over. Now you seen to be mistaking the ongoing fear of recurrence of misconduct toward a person who has experienced past misconduct with a suggesting that the past misconduct that triggered the ongoing fear is the thing that didn't happen.

Quote
Which sort of ties back into my comments on your analogy. When a car is crashed and the drivers sustain injuries, there is no question of perception or opinion. There is mechanical damage, period.
ANd when someone is the victim of misconduct, there is mental and emotional damage, period, as evidenced by the resultant errors in thinking that project fears on future misconduct on otherwise non-threatening situations in their life.

Quote
It's just a terrible analogy when comparing that to people who arguably feel bad, or guilty, or conflicted, or confused, or not sure what they feel, or maybe later have someone suggest to them they were raped, or maybe liked it but they're not sure, etc etc.
Well then good thing no one is trying to create a false narrative of minimization that tries to dishonestly suggest that a person suffering from PTSD after an incident is just feeling regret or guilt. Oh wait, that's exactly the kind of _wonderous_ combination of minimization, victim blaming, and gas lighting that you're applying here. Telling people they aren't feeling what they're feeling because you know better than them what they're feeling, so if they don't bow down to you're superior knowledge of their mental state, they must be being dishonest with themselves and everyone around them. Nice touch taht you polish it off by casting shade on medical professionals who help people taht don't understand that what they're feeling is PTSD sort out what it is that they're experiencing and what may have triggered it by asserting that you know better than them as well what the real problem is.

Here's a hint- if it were just regret taht they were feeling, they'd know what it was pretty clearly; there would be no confusion, and the issue of misconduct would not come up in the first place. It's specifically because they're feeling more than regret over a poor choice that they find themselves in a state where they often need professional help or an external perspective to sort out what's going on.

Quote
Even some kind of PTSD is not at all evidence that the PTSD was caused by the other person, even though its inception was coincident to the event of tipsy sex. It may have been triggered by interaction with the other person, but you want to try to draw a line of guilt or responsibility and I see no legitimate way of  you doing so under these circumstances.
Who else are you suggesting caused the violation of their trust that triggered the response? It's possible that it was caused by accident rather than intent (in fact highly likely in most cases) but the fact taht someone accidentally hurt someone else does not mean that they didn't hurt someone else, it just means that they wren't aware or did not intend the consequences their action caused. It suggests that better education and more mindfulness are important factors in preventing future occurrences, but it doesn't magically fix the damage done or need to address it honestly as damage rather than through minimization and blame cast on the person that was hurt.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 01:30:34 PM
The idea that if I drink, others are suddenly MORE responsible for making sure I do not harm myself or others is beyond repellent to me.
That's fair. But that's also why I'm advocating for the position that it's _your_ responsibility to make sure you don't accidentally hurt others. That "I was too drunk to tell that they wren't in a good state to offer consent" is no excuse, because you should be the one that's saying "I've been drinking, and thus not in a good position to make such calls" just like you should be the one that says the same about getting into a car in such a state. It's a community good that we watch out for others and try to help prevent such mistakes from happening, in my opinion- but my point here all along is that everyone should be more mindful of their own behavior and the unintentional harm that it can cause, particularly if they're impaired.

Quote
There are no take backs.  YOU decide to get wasted, YOU deal with the fallout.
Dealing with the fallout include honestly assessing and getting help for injuries that you sustain, not pretending that they're not injuries just because yo got them while drunk. It's perfectly fair for a person to come away saying "I should not take that risk again", but it's absurd to say "I should ignore my injuries" as well.

Quote
  If you are lucky, and around people who care about you, they will likely protect you.  This is probably one of the most selfish acts you can take as an adult and even in "good company" is a gamble.
Being able to trust others is not selfish, its a societal ideal. The degree to which we have to carry mistrust around as a shield is harm to ourselves and self perpetuating harm to our society, and the only way to fight back against it is to advocate for behavior standards that allow for more trust and thus healthier relationships and interactions instead of continuing to explicitly or even tacitly approve behavior that requires others to have to always be defensive.

It may not be possible to achieve, to be sure, but that's no reason to give up completely and stop pushing toward it.

Quote
  Some people are *censored*ty enough that even stone cold sober they will take advantage of you.  Intentionally choosing to disadvantage yourself and lower what defenses you have against "bad people" then blaming the world for not protecting you is pathetic.
Sure. But that's not what's happening here. What's happening is acknowledging that misconduct does harm to others and trying to teach people how to avoid accidentally engaging in it, so that they have more power to choose to avoid it, and thus we can more clearly isolate those taht mean to do harm from those that make mistakes. I mean, even if we got to the point where the response to the average consent violation was a heartfelt apology and an earnest attempt to understand what went wrong and how to avoid it in the future, instead of justifying it as normal behavior and telling the person who was hurt to suck it up, we've be on much better ground and most of the danger would fade pretty quickly. IT's only when we keep telling the people that get hurt that they really weren't hurt or that they're the ones trying to hurt people when they express the harm done to them that we maintain the culture that compounds the damage and destroys trust instead of enough racing peopel to take responsibility for it and builds toward more ability to extend trust to others.

Quote
There's PTSD related to being a true victim and then there is dealing with the sudden reality shattering realization that you are a grown up and your actions have consequences.
Absolutely. And ignoring someone's capacity to consent or denying their will has very real and damaging consequences. The way we invalidated consent may differ between men and women in our social constructs, but such invalidation is damaging regardless and contributes to pain and mistrust across the board.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 23, 2016, 02:27:11 PM
Quote
And ignoring someone's capacity to consent or denying their will has very real and damaging consequences. The way we invalidated consent may differ between men and women in our social constructs, but such invalidation is damaging regardless and contributes to pain and mistrust across the board.
Eroding the validity of peoples affirmative consent also has very real and damaging consequences.

Waving this particular magic wand in an attempt to stop rape may result in equally corrosive effects on society.  There MUST be a better path to eliminate date rape than abolishment of personal responsibility.

Your position strikes me as alarmingly sexists (though statistically relevant) but it’s the infantilizing of adults (even young adults) that concerns me most.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 02:49:11 PM
Quote
And ignoring someone's capacity to consent or denying their will has very real and damaging consequences. The way we invalidated consent may differ between men and women in our social constructs, but such invalidation is damaging regardless and contributes to pain and mistrust across the board.
Eroding the validity of peoples affirmative consent also has very real and damaging consequences.
Which is why violations of it need to be taken seriously.

Quote
Waving this particular magic wand in an attempt to stop rape may result in equally corrosive effects on society.  There MUST be a better path to eliminate date rape than abolishment of personal responsibility.
Indeed- that's why I push a solution that's specifically about personal responsibility instead of one taht lets people misbehave and then says "It can't be misbehavior since they were too drunk to know better"

Quote
Your position strikes me as alarmingly sexists (though statistically relevant) but it’s the infantilizing of adults (even young adults) that concerns me most.
how is it infantilizing to assert that people should be held responsible for damage/harm cause even if they're compromised when they do it? Seems to me that the position that tries to deny that there was any damage done and shelter peopel taht have done harm from facing the consequences of their mistakes in regards to the treatment of others is the one that allows the long established harmful cycle to continue.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 23, 2016, 02:51:08 PM
Who else are you suggesting caused the violation of their trust that triggered the response? It's possible that it was caused by accident rather than intent (in fact highly likely in most cases) but the fact taht someone accidentally hurt someone else does not mean that they didn't hurt someone else, it just means that they wren't aware or did not intend the consequences their action caused.

For every deed there is not a doer. Haven't your read your Nietzsche, man? There is simply no need on all occasions to track down someone as the cause of each bad thing in life that happens.

As for the rest of your points, although I always learn from discussing things from you it never ceases to be an annoyance when you dress your replies in such a way that you paint opposing opinions to yours as gaslighting or victimizing people, while your side is given the virtue of being on the side of victims. It's a manipulative rhetorical method (and yes, it is a purely rhetorical rather than dialectical technique) and hampered the quality of conversations with you. Any implication that 'your side' of the argument is more concerned with the general welfare of people than the other side should probably be discarded out of hand. I think it has no place in debate where both sides are supposedly respectful of each other.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 23, 2016, 03:15:03 PM
Quote
how is it infantilizing to assert that people should be held responsible for damage/harm cause even if they're compromised when they do it? Seems to me that the position that tries to deny that there was any damage done and shelter peopel taht have done harm from facing the consequences of their mistakes in regards to the treatment of others is the one that allows the long established harmful cycle to continue
The infantilizing part is assuming the harm done is caused by the other person because they are there without acknowledging the fact that the harm may be self inflicted. 


Fenring:  I find it more expedient to just put on the monster mask and carry on with the conversation.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 03:18:59 PM
For every deed there is not a doer. Haven't your read your Nietzsche, man? There is simply no need on all occasions to track down someone as the cause of each bad thing in life that happens.
Sure. But we're not talking about every deed, we're talking about a specific deed- in particular one where damage was done due to improper respect for consent. There plenty of situations where the above applies, this is not one of them.

Quote
As for the rest of your points, although I always learn from discussing things from you it never ceases to be an annoyance when you dress your replies in such a way that you paint opposing opinions to yours as gaslighting or victimizing people, while your side is given the virtue of being on the side of victims.
So I should accept false and demanding accusations in arguments because its bad form to point out when someone is making false accusations?

Quote
It's a manipulative rhetorical method (and yes, it is a purely rhetorical rather than dialectical technique) and hampered the quality of conversations with you.
And dismissing and trivializing the concerns of victims of harm isn't a rhetorical technique? Dismissing the trauma of being subject to misconduct as simply being confused and regretful isn't an attempt to erase the reported experience of others and replace it with your assertions?

Sure they're both rhetorical devices, but there's a difference- mine actually shows respect for people's reported experiences, while yours dismisses that testimony and replaced with your personal assertions of what you think they're feeling.

 
Quote
Any implication that 'your side' of the argument is more concerned with the general welfare of people than the other side should probably be discarded out of hand. I think it has no place in debate where both sides are supposedly respectful of each other.
If you were being respectful and not dismissive then I wouldn't find myself needing to point out where you are being dismissive. If you want a respectful discussion, then show respect in the arguments you make instead of being disrespectful and dismissive of others such taht it becomes necessary to point out that disrespect to counter misrepresentations inherent in it.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 23, 2016, 03:25:12 PM
Quote
Sure. But we're not talking about every deed, we're talking about a specific deed- in particular one where damage was done due to improper respect for consent. There plenty of situations where the above applies, this is not one of them.
Actually we ARE talking about every deed.  Your world view, should accommodate all options.  Your problem (or at least my problem with the way you post) is you speak in absolutes.

Of course nobody can disagree with this position, it's unassailable!
And it usually is.  However myself and others point out the, "what if" or "what about this ramification of taking that line of thought to it's natural conclusion?"  We DO talk about every deed.  Or at least we talk about how a particular notion or world view or thought should accommodate other possibilities.  Some of those possibilities contradict the point made or view expressed. 

Rather than adjust or moderate or clarify, you double down. 
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 23, 2016, 03:26:33 PM
Fenring:  I find it more expedient to just put on the monster mask and carry on with the conversation.

Ok I'll try it out:

And dismissing and trivializing the concerns of victims of harm isn't a rhetorical technique? Dismissing the trauma of being subject to misconduct as simply being confused and regretful isn't an attempt to erase the reported experience of others and replace it with your assertions?

Sure they're both rhetorical devices, but there's a difference- mine actually shows respect for people's reported experiences, while yours dismisses that testimony and replaced with your personal assertions of what you think they're feeling.

Blargh!
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 03:35:15 PM
Quote
how is it infantilizing to assert that people should be held responsible for damage/harm cause even if they're compromised when they do it? Seems to me that the position that tries to deny that there was any damage done and shelter peopel taht have done harm from facing the consequences of their mistakes in regards to the treatment of others is the one that allows the long established harmful cycle to continue
The infantilizing part is assuming the harm done is caused by the other person because they are there without acknowledging the fact that the harm may be self inflicted. 
How can one violate one's own trust and validity of consent in this case? I mean there are things people can do to create self-doubt in their own capabilities, to be sure, but that's not the kind of harm hat's in question here, but rather very specifically the kind of harm that arises from others acting toward you in ways that one would not consent to if you were properly able to express it.

You seen to be suggesting taht you cannot both acknowledge taht you were responsible for being in a compromised situation and also acknowledge that someone else hurt you while you were in that situation. The two are not mutually exclusive; one does not negate the other. Making a bad call does not justify harm done to you even if you would have been better able to defend yourself if you hadn't made that call. Hurting someone is wrong regardless of whether that person has put them selves into a position where it's easy to hurt them; in fact being in that position makes it _more_ incumbent o others to be careful not to accidentally hurt them.

If you trip and fall while crossing the street, that doesn't make it okay for me to run you over;' just the opposite, it means that I need take care to stop and give you more time to get out of the way than you would have needed if you had kept your balance. If you were doing something- maybe reading FAcebook on your phone while you crossed the street, and that caused you to miss your footing and fall, that is definitely a mistake on your part, but even taht wouldn't absolve me from culpability if I did not make an effort to avoid hitting you.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 23, 2016, 03:42:39 PM
Quote
How can one violate one's own trust and validity of consent in this case?
  Your use of “in this case” torpedoes this question before I even have a chance to answer it.  You have a VERY specific scenario in your mind.  You are asking me to apply my broad statement of one possible situation to the one in your mind.  You miss (intentionally or not) the whole point of my statement.

How can one EVER violate one’s own trust and decide that if sober you would never have chosen to make the same choices?  If that is your question, I am placed in the awkward position of trying to phrase “Duh, how can you not see that?” into a well mannered rebuttal. 
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 03:56:57 PM
Quote
How can one violate one's own trust and validity of consent in this case?
  Your use of “in this case” torpedoes this question before I even have a chance to answer it.  You have a VERY specific scenario in your mind.  You are asking me to apply my broad statement of one possible situation to the one in your mind.  You miss (intentionally or not) the whole point of my statement.
I though I was the one being overly broad in your complaint above? You can't have it both ways here- either take me at my word that I'm talking about a specific issue (violations of consent, specifically in regard to sexual activity) or that I'm talking in absolutes about everything. So far as I'm concerned the effect of being drunk on ones judgement is not really relevant here in as much as it's being put forward as an example of something that can affect one's ability to offer consent to sex. The fact that it might lead one to do other foolish or self-harmful things doesn't really have much bearing on the actual topic issue, and certainly doesn't obviate the harm that can arise from obtaining consent from someone in a compromised state.

If you stepped on my toe by accident, it doesn't really matter that I could also have hurt my toe by stubbing it on something and thus, because it was an accident, I must be the one at fault because you didn't mean to step on it. The scenario is still one where you stepped on my toe, not one where I acted alone and hit something with my foot.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 23, 2016, 04:16:01 PM
I’ll just spell this out.
1.  I believe that being drunk yourself does not make one blameless for, or excuse, taking advantage of someone in a drunk state.
2.  I believe that someone who regrets having had sex while drunk, having chosen to become drunk, is not automatically a victim.
3.  I believe that it is entirely plausible, possibly even most likely, that two drunk individuals engaging in sex together involves no exploitation, manipulation or act of harm.  In such a situation, any “harm” is likely better labeled remorse for one’s own actions.  That doesn’t make the harm any less real or serious, but it makes it exclusively the problem of the “harmed” individual.

Your statements seem to indicate that #3 is not plausible.  I was only attempting to get you to acknowledge it is.

If it is your suggestion that being drunk makes it impossible to consent.  To me at least, this logically leads to it being the responsibility of anyone else to evaluate if a potential partner is drunk.  OK, I’m still with you this far.  But how drunk is drunk?  I do not carry a breathalyzer.  Should I?  Does any drinking at all negate the ability to consent?  If you are suggesting all sex while under the influence should be illegal is wrong, just say that.  I don’t agree, but your position would be clear. 

As to intoxication not being the issue, I’m lost.  Unless you mean to say we are going back to the original topic of this thread?  The suggestion that affirmative consent is not legitimate consent was what I was focusing on.  It only seems a topic worth discussing as it relates to mental impairment either through physical trauma, illness or intoxication.

Quote
If you stepped on my toe by accident, it doesn't really matter that I could also have hurt my toe by stubbing it on something and thus, because it was an accident, I must be the one at fault because you didn't mean to step on it. The scenario is still one where you stepped on my toe, not one where I acted alone and hit something with my foot.
I would suggest we look at two people with heads down staring at their phones blundering right into each other on the side walk.  They share equal fault.  Suddenly one shouts that the other walked into them and they are the victim.  We as a society see the results of the collision, hear one person claiming victim-hood and our natural reaction is to console, comfort or help the person claiming to have been wronged and to condemn, punish or at least scowl disapprovingly at the other stunned party.  If the accused claims they were both at fault, it will reliably have little result to improve the situation for them or reduce sympathy towards the other person claiming to have been the victim. 

We are often held hostage by our own empathy.  Knowing this, I am hesitant to support a system which allows others to easily exploit that fact.  At the same time, you are attempting to address a serious issue for which I don't have a silver bullet solution for.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 23, 2016, 04:26:42 PM
If you stepped on my toe by accident, it doesn't really matter that I could also have hurt my toe by stubbing it on something and thus, because it was an accident, I must be the one at fault because you didn't mean to step on it. The scenario is still one where you stepped on my toe, not one where I acted alone and hit something with my foot.

You will never adequately address human interaction if you remain obsessed with someone necessarily being at fault when a bad thing happens. Incidentally this is also the reason why your comments lends themselves to legal interpretations, since the desire to establish fault is largely a legal concern rather than a social one. Even if you're not speaking about the law the legal aspect ends up being implied whether or not you intend to. Establishing guilt in social interactions (rather than 'were you kind/nice') seems to me generally reserved for religious pronouncements rather than ethical guidelines.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 23, 2016, 04:33:47 PM
Just to be clear, in your scenario the toe stepper is at fault and I am not suggesting they aren't.  I'm not suggesting that any failure to protect your toes against anyone who may accidentally or intentionally try to step on them leaves you to blame.  Choosing a drunk dance partner while you yourself are drinking then complaining about sore toes the next day IS a little suspect though.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 04:51:45 PM
Quote
1.  I believe that being drunk yourself does not make one blameless for, or excuse, taking advantage of someone in a drunk state.
That is the point

Quote
2.  I believe that someone who regrets having had sex while drunk, having chosen to become drunk, is not automatically a victim.
Absolutely. That's also irrelevant because regret is not the same as the kind of trauma in question and it's dishonest to accuse someone that has suffered harm of acting badly because of regret.

Quote
3.  I believe that it is entirely plausible, possibly even most likely, that two drunk individuals engaging in sex together involves no exploitation, manipulation or act of harm.
Absolutely. Again, no one has contested this. It's also possible to drive home while drunk and not get into an accident. That might even happen the majority of times people do it. The issue at had is ths greatly increased risk over baseline that the safe scenario doesn't play out.

Quote
  In such a situation, any “harm” is likely better labeled remorse for one’s own actions.  That doesn’t make the harm any less real or serious, but it makes it exclusively the problem of the “harmed” individual.
This is where you cross over into minimizing, because remorse is not harm. Recasting remorse at harm is disrespectful of those that have been harmed, because you're actively denying their experience and, at best, inserting your own narrative in place of their own testimony of what they experienced. At words you're accusing them of duplicity and trying to do harm to the person that hurt them.

Quote
If you are suggesting all sex while under the influence should be is wrong, just say that.  I don’t agree, but your position would be clear. 
It's not necessarily wrong. It simply bears a much greater risk of doing harm, and one should both acknowledge taht risk and be prepared to react accordingly if harm is done, rather than attempting to blame the other person for the harm that they suffered. It's even possible that mutual harm can be done, in which case both parties should seek to rectify the situation rather than attempting to minimize and dismiss the hurt of the other by denying their experiences.

Quote
I would suggest we look at two people with heads down staring at their phones blundering right into each other on the side walk.  They share equal fault.
Equal fault? Sure. Equal harm? No necessarily. And it's actively disrespectful and compounds the harm to try to pretend that no harm was done just because they were equally at fault. They still did harm to each other and still should react in proportion to the harm done, not attempt to absolve themselves of their role in hurting the other person simply because the other person was also distracted.

Quote
Suddenly one shouts that the other walked into them and they are the victim.
No. Suddenly one shouts "I think I broke my arm"while the other begins to insist taht it's impossible that they have a broken arm any they're lying just to get attention and get the person not so badly injured in trouble. Despite the fact taht the more hurt person's arm is, indeed, broken. Now the person with the broken are may be okay with taking care of the injury on their own terms, but for the other person to use that as an excuse to lay the blame on the hurt person and refuse to even apologize for their role because it's possible that the injured person might have walked into a wall and suffered the same injury? That's very much what's been happening in the arguments above. "Well the victim really wasn't hurt, but if they were, then it's entirely their own fault for getting hurt" both assertions are not only wrong, but perniciously so.

Quote
  If the accused claims they were both at fault, it will reliably have little result to improve the situation for them or reduce sympathy towards the other person claiming to have been the victim. 
It's not the uncontested notion that both were at fault that's at issue, though. It's the attempt the one party to deny that harm was done and often then proceeded to put full responsibility for the harm on the other person who was hurt instead of sharing culpability and, at the bare minimum apologizing for their error.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 05:03:30 PM
You will never adequately address human interaction if you remain obsessed with someone necessarily being at fault when a bad thing happens.
HEy, you can keep making completely false accusations, then step back and talk about respect too, and taht won't get us anywhere either.

We're not talking about any bad thing, we're talking about a specific bad thing, one where one person has hurt another, or two people have hurt each other, even if accidentally

There are plenty of situations where no one is at fault, but we're not talking about those situations and it's dishonest hand waving to point to those as if they were relevant.

Quote
Establishing guilt in social interactions (rather than 'were you kind/nice') seems to me generally reserved for religious pronouncements rather than ethical guidelines.
Then stop injecting guilt into what I'm saying. If I want to talk about guilt I'll bring it up. The fact taht you may want me to be talking about guilt when I haven't brought it up doesn't mean that you should try to jam it in wherever you feel like you want to, then pretend you're addressing what I've actually said.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 23, 2016, 09:20:48 PM
Quote
No. Suddenly one shouts "I think I broke my arm"while the other begins to insist taht it's impossible that they have a broken arm any they're lying just to get attention and get the person not so badly injured in trouble. Despite the fact taht the more hurt person's arm is, indeed, broken. Now the person with the broken are may be okay with taking care of the injury on their own terms, but for the other person to use that as an excuse to lay the blame on the hurt person and refuse to even apologize for their role because it's possible that the injured person might have walked into a wall and suffered the same injury? That's very much what's been happening in the arguments above. "Well the victim really wasn't hurt, but if they were, then it's entirely their own fault for getting hurt" both assertions are not only wrong, but perniciously so.

Pyr, your comment got me to recalling a fun case that my old firm acted on:

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/4637/index.do

In Mustapha v. Culligan water, Mr. Mustapha, the plaintiff, purchased one of those jugs of water you put in dispensers for his household. Culligan Water prided itself on its reputation for purity, which formed a significant part of its marketing.

One day, Mr. Mustapha noted a dead fly in his bottle. The bottle was unopened. He did not drink the water with the fly in it as the bottle remained unopened. His sole contact with the fly was seeing it floating in the bottle.

Following this event, Mr. Mustapha deteriorated psychologically. He could not get the image of the fly out of his head. He was unable to shower due to the association between water and the fly. His life deteriorated. His hair salon business suffered.

He sued Culligan Water for his pain and suffering and various other heads of damage, etc...

Now Culligan was plainly at fault, and based on the medical and psychiatric evidence, their negligence caused Mr. Mustapha's condition, which was real and not fabricated or malingered.

So was Culligan Water legally responsible?

I do see some parallels here between Pyr's reasoning and cases like Mustapha. At what point does someone's subjective reaction to an injury become so extreme, so outrageous, that a person, however guilty of the underlying cause, cannot be held responsible?
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 23, 2016, 09:56:42 PM
We're not talking about any bad thing, we're talking about a specific bad thing, one where one person has hurt another, or two people have hurt each other, even if accidentally

Actually no, you're the one insisting that we're talking about that. In fact *we* are trying to establish whether or not it can credibly be stated that one person hurt the other or directly caused hurt to occur to the other, and your objection to this line of inquiry is that we're dodging the issue of the fact that one person has hurt another. Do you see the disconnect? You are asserting the conclusion of your argument as a premise and requiring us to assert it along with you in determining how to assess what is going on when two tipsy people have sex.

Quote
Quote
Establishing guilt in social interactions (rather than 'were you kind/nice') seems to me generally reserved for religious pronouncements rather than ethical guidelines.
Then stop injecting guilt into what I'm saying. If I want to talk about guilt I'll bring it up.

You are playing a very tenuous word game when you want to speak of one person having done something wrong, and in so doing having directly caused harm to another, and yet insist this isn't about finding guilt. You even employ the word "victim" and seek to find out who is "at fault." If you can use these terms and yet claim to not be speaking of guilt, perhaps I should specify that I was using guilt in the sense of 'the guilty party', meaning the person who is at fault. I know you have a hangup about suggesting that anyone should feel guilt about anything, and so I hope this clarifies.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 23, 2016, 11:54:16 PM
Quote
At what point does someone's subjective reaction to an injury become so extreme, so outrageous, that a person, however guilty of the underlying cause, cannot be held responsible?
I'm not sure how it matters, because so long as the company admits that it made an error, apologizes, and takes future action to better ensure that such errors are prevented, we're already at the basically acceptable point that I'm talking about here, particularly where no legal claim has been filed. Should the issue be taken up in court, there are existing methods for figuring how just how the costs of the damage should be apportioned or if there is any criminal liability, but that's way out of context here.

The company didn't claim that he was at fault for the fly in the water because he was the one that bought the bottle. It admitted that the fly was its error, and hopefully attempted to rectify the error on reasonable terms. The arguments above amount to claiming that the man was at fault for buying a bottle of water with a fly in it, and that the shock it caused him was merely "regret" for making a poor choice of water bottles to buy.

But note, also, that we're talking about a level of damage seems like it's above and beyond what the average person might suffer given that they found a fly in a water bottle, but even that's an armchair analysis, not one informed by professional experience. On the other hand, the kind of PTSD in question from the consent related misconduct in the drunk/date rape scenario is exactly in line with the kind of damage that such situations cause, and similar damage exists in the completely sober scenarios posited in the two articles that have been referred to so far in this thread.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Gaoics79 on March 24, 2016, 05:27:48 AM
Quote
I'm not sure how it matters, because so long as the company admits that it made an error, apologizes, and takes future action to better ensure that such errors are prevented, we're already at the basically acceptable point that I'm talking about here, particularly where no legal claim has been filed. Should the issue be taken up in court, there are existing methods for figuring how just how the costs of the damage should be apportioned or if there is any criminal liability, but that's way out of context here.

Pyr, you seem to be missing the point. They took responsibility for allowing a fly to get into their water bottle, which means they apologized and offered to give him a replacement bottle free of charge. They didn't take responsibility for Mr. Mustapha's bizarre over the top reaction to this event. And while the trial judge held the company liable for his damages, the appellate courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, did not.

Quote
The company didn't claim that he was at fault for the fly in the water because he was the one that bought the bottle. It admitted that the fly was its error, and hopefully attempted to rectify the error on reasonable terms. The arguments above amount to claiming that the man was at fault for buying a bottle of water with a fly in it, and that the shock it caused him was merely "regret" for making a poor choice of water bottles to buy

No the argument is that while we can take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of our actions, we cannot take responsibility for consequences outlandish and extreme totally disproportionate to the underlying event. You, for instance, had earlier been speaking to PTSD like symptoms as a consequence of tipsy sex. That would be insane. Note, I don't call it impossible. I simply say that no one should be held responsible (criminally, civilly or otherwise) for such a bizarre, outlandish response.

Quote
But note, also, that we're talking about a level of damage seems like it's above and beyond what the average person might suffer given that they found a fly in a water bottle, but even that's an armchair analysis, not one informed by professional experience. On the other hand, the kind of PTSD in question from the consent related misconduct in the drunk/date rape scenario is exactly in line with the kind of damage that such situations cause, and similar damage exists in the completely sober scenarios posited in the two articles that have been referred to so far in this thread.

Ahhh, here we go.

Quote
Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a mental illness. It involves exposure to trauma involving death or the threat of death, serious injury, or sexual violence.

Note the word violence . You don't get PTSD from having "tipsy sex" and then regretting it the next day. That is not a normal or common reaction. If you get PTSD from having "tipsy sex", then that would be a bizarre, extreme reaction not typical or "in line with the kind of damage that such situations cause". And don't tell me I've insufficient expertise to speak to this. You are the one making the claim, so you defend it. I've spoken with enough psychiatric experts about PTSD to have a general idea of what causes it. Having "tipsy sex" is not a usual cause.

I do notice of course your insertion of the words "date rape" into your statement. The very thing that is at issue is whether or not "tipsy sex" could ever be characterized fairly as "date rape" in the first place. The use of the "R" word to describe sex between mutually intoxicated individuals who otherwise appear to consent (perhaps even enthusiastically) is the very matter in issue.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 24, 2016, 12:32:03 PM
Pyr, you seem to be missing the point. They took responsibility for allowing a fly to get into their water bottle, which means they apologized and offered to give him a replacement bottle free of charge.
Exactly the point. And if you accidentally violate someone's consent because they were too drunk to properly consent, you should similarly be prepared to apologize for the mistake and make restitution, not deny that you messed up and blame them for the damage.


Quote
No the argument is that while we can take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable consequences of our actions, we cannot take responsibility for consequences outlandish and extreme totally disproportionate to the underlying event. You, for instance, had earlier been speaking to PTSD like symptoms as a consequence of tipsy sex.
No, I spoke of PTSD as a result of a _consent violation_. The fact taht being tipsy facilitated that violation is completely incidental. What you're claiming I said here directly contradicts what I've repeated my position to be many times over in response to repeated attempts to distort it.

Being drunk does not mean that a consent violation will happen. But it does not excuse a consent violation either. The problem is the consent violation, not the completely incidental state of being drunk. Following from that, if you see that someone is drunk, you should assume that their ability to properly offer consent is compromised and understand the risk that you're taking of doing harm if you go ahead anyway. And, what's more, if you have been drinking and thus know that you cannot trust your own judgement as to whether or not another person is sober enough to consent, you should treat that no differently than if you've been drinking and thus cannot trust your own judgment as to whether you're sober enough to drive.

The baseline should always be, "It's my responsibility to play it safe if I'm compromised" rather than "If they get hurt because they're compromised, it's their own fault" most accidental harm that currently happens can be mitigated, in the same way that  that shift in attitude about drunk driving has significantly mitigated accidents.

Quote
Note the word violence .
A consent violation is a form of mental/emotional violence for the purposes of that definition (designed to give the general gist of the term and even remotely not be fully inclusive). Accidental harm done by one person to another is still a form of violence, because it's the harm, not the intent taht causes the damage.

Quote
You don't get PTSD from having "tipsy sex" and then regretting it the next day.
No, you don't. Which is why it's disingenuous to try to inject those completely irrelevant situations into the conversation, and very hurtful accusation to slander people with who have been hurt. IF you have clear evidence that someone is being dishonest in a given case, it's fine to present that. But to categorically accuse people who have been harmed of dishonesty by making a blanket assertion that harm from consent violations amounts to "regret" is an active contributor to the harm done in such incidents. At that point you've gone past accidentally providing a bottle of water with a fly in it to attacking the person who got the bottle for putting a fly in it and trying to blame it on you.


Quote
That is not a normal or common reaction. If you get PTSD from having "tipsy sex", then that would be a bizarre, extreme reaction not typical or "in line with the kind of damage that such situations cause".
Sure, but we're not talking about tipsy sex, we're talking about a consent violation (or even a mutual violation) that happened because one or both were tipsy. If there was not violation, there's no problem, and this situation is out of context. The problem cases are those where a violation occurred, not those were neither party feels like what happened was against their will.

Quote
I do notice of course your insertion of the words "date rape" into your statement. The very thing that is at issue is whether or not "tipsy sex" could ever be characterized fairly as "date rape" in the first place. The use of the "R" word to describe sex between mutually intoxicated individuals who otherwise appear to consent (perhaps even enthusiastically) is the very matter in issue.
Non, the issue is the subset of those situations that are otherwise characterized as date rape, not those where no violation occurred. And more to the point, the issue is attempting to trivialize cases of date rape and related misconduct as just fine or the fault of the victim by giving the person who did harm a free pass because the person that was hurt happened to be intoxicated, in this case.

There's a huge difference between "I wouldn't have approved of that if I'd been capable of making decisions properly" and "I approved of that, but now I know that I probably shouldn't have". The former is a consent violation, something that causes harm, and part of what's in context here, the latter is regret and serves as a learning experience, but does not amount to a consent violation, so is completely irrelevant except in that it's very common to slander and do further harm people in the first scenario by accusing them of actually being in the second scenario but looking to hurt others because of it.

Misconduct on its own wouldn't be as big an issue if people that engage in it would own their mistake, apologize for it, and attempt to make reasonable restitution and a good faith effort to prevent future instances, as per the water company, even in cases of mutual misconduct. What drives the response though is the violence inherent in blaming those who were hurt for getting hurt and trying to duck responsibility for causing harm- that social game afterwards is what really damages and undermines trust, and compounds the issue for other people hurt in the same way based on the expectation that they will be mistreated in the same way that they've seen other injured parties be mistreated.

If the guy with the water bottle had the expectation that the water company would have tried to sue him for defamation if he reported or returned the bottle with a fly in it, and perhaps even black listed him with other stores and companies that he needed to do business with because of the fly, then his reaction to finding the fly would be pretty understandable, as his issue would not just be that he got a fly in his water, but the way his life would be destroyed by demonization for having that happen to him.

And the issue is that that's exactly what we do to peopel who've suffered from misconduct that violated their consent- what's even happened here in this thread where people have tried to recast the damage done as, as best, their own fault, if not active malice stemming from regret on their part. This is core to what the point of the more recent article that I posted was. That these violations do real damage to people- both men and women, and we need to take more responsibility for not only recognizing them and trying to avoid them, but also how our dismissive reactions to them contribute to the harm they do and encourage further acceptance of doing such harm to others.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 24, 2016, 01:07:36 PM
Being drunk does not mean that a consent violation will happen. But it does not excuse a consent violation either. The problem is the consent violation, not the completely incidental state of being drunk. Following from that, if you see that someone is drunk, you should assume that their ability to properly offer consent is compromised and understand the risk that you're taking of doing harm if you go ahead anyway. And, what's more, if you have been drinking and thus know that you cannot trust your own judgement as to whether or not another person is sober enough to consent, you should treat that no differently than if you've been drinking and thus cannot trust your own judgment as to whether you're sober enough to drive.

I don't know why you're dancing around your real view on this and refusing to just come out and say what you think. Your position is clearly that sex while either party has even had one drink is wrong and should never happen. Your attempt to specify that being drunk doesn't mean that a consent violation will happen is mere doublespeak when you are quite clear that being drunk makes you incapable of consent. You've suggested particular cases where there is a pre-established standing rule (such as in a relationship) where sex will be accepted and that therefore consent is not required in a given instance. But not only is this exception totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand, but is it probably specious in the first place. I know of no legal or moral precedent to suggest that consent isn't needed in a given session of sex within a relationship. In each and every instance of sex there is consent, even if it comes in the form of reciprocating, nodding, smiling, or whatever else. If you are arguing that being intoxicated renders a person incompetent to consent then this MUST apply in all cases across the board. You cannot sign away in advance your right to not consent in the event you are intoxicated in the future.

So why not just admit that you are against sex if a single drop of alcohol has been consumed? It would be a consistent position, even if extraordinarily puritanical. But right now it doesn't seem like you're being entirely honest about your position, dancing around definitions of words to avoid making it clear what you really think.

Quote
The use of the "R" word to describe sex between mutually intoxicated individuals who otherwise appear to consent (perhaps even enthusiastically) is the very matter in issue.
Non, the issue is the subset of those situations that are otherwise characterized as date rape, not those where no violation occurred. And more to the point, the issue is attempting to trivialize cases of date rape and related misconduct as just fine or the fault of the victim by giving the person who did harm a free pass because the person that was hurt happened to be intoxicated, in this case.

You don't get to tell us what we are trying to argue. It doesn't work like that, sorry. You made some statements regarding consent and what counts as rape, and we are presently (some of us are) contesting your claims about whether or not there was consent. That is the issue. You can't say it isn't because it's the issue we brought up. It is also not coherent to say that this only applies to cases where claims of rape are alleged, because if you're right that consent doesn't exist after one drop of alcohol then all cases of sex under such conditions ought to count as non-consensual sex, whether or not anyone felt violated or infringed upon afterward. As others have mentioned, the idea that someone's feelings after the fact can retroactively affect whether or not there was consent not only defies logic but is also a reprehensible notion. Since I, at least, reject that this can be the case the possible lack of consent must have occurred right at the moment sex began, and prior to any harm that may have been incurred. The harm is what you're concerned about, but the harm itself is immaterial in establishing whether or not there was consent.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 24, 2016, 01:17:36 PM
Pyr, you are discussing the proper response to consent violation.
We are discussing how to establish if consent violation occurred.

The answer cannot be (in my opinion), “It happened because one party said it happened.”  That is far too easily abused.

Quote
Being drunk does not mean that a consent violation will happen. But it does not excuse a consent violation either. The problem is the consent violation, not the completely incidental state of being drunk. Following from that, if you see that someone is drunk, you should assume that their ability to properly offer consent is compromised and understand the risk that you're taking of doing harm if you go ahead anyway. And, what's more, if you have been drinking and thus know that you cannot trust your own judgement as to whether or not another person is sober enough to consent, you should treat that no differently than if you've been drinking and thus cannot trust your own judgment as to whether you're sober enough to drive.
I actually agree with this.  I just KNOW it is an extremely unorthodox position.  While I try to hold myself to this standard, I feel it borders on ridiculous to hold others to it.  As I see this as an untenable solution, I attempted to shift the discussion away from, “What is the response when it happens.”, to instead, “What is a reasonable way to improve public safety that we have a chance of achieving without attempting to institute prohibition 2.0?”
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Gary238 on March 24, 2016, 02:46:43 PM
I think that part of the problem here is that drunken, consentual, but regretted sex can be very traumatic and harmful. Consent and harm aren't mutually exclusive.

I agree with you-all that getting into an impaired state and having sex, particularly with someone else who is impaired, is a bad idea. I'm not sure I think it's morally wrong, and I definitely don't believe it would be practical to make it illegal.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 24, 2016, 03:02:48 PM
Quote
So why not just admit that you are against sex if a single drop of alcohol has been consumed?
Driving when it's raining is more dangerous than driving when the whether is good. If I say that you should be more careful when it's raining because you're still responsible for any accident you cause if you lose control in the rain, that's not saying that I want it to be illegal to drive in the rain. You can argue up and down that if I want to hold people responsible for causing accidents in t he rain instead of just saying that whoever got hit should be considered at fault because they also chose to be out in the rain and knew there was greater danger of someone driving irresponsibly, it doesn't make that the position that I'm taking. It just makes it seem like you want a legal blessing to drive however you want to when it's raining without having to take responsibility for any damage you may cause.

I'm not going to cop to your dishonest straw man just because it would make you feel like you were right. The law doesn't define right and wrong, or even what constitutes harm- it's a tool to give formal recourse to those that have been harmed in ways that our society has promised to protect them from.

It's not impossible to offer consent when drunk- it's impossible for another party to know for certain if consent was actually offered if someone is drunk. Familiarity and past agreements, cues, and the like can help in that situation, but only the person nominally offering knows for sure, and then only upon sober reflection on the matter.

Law is a tool to protect people who get hurt, not a tool to help justify acting in ways that hurt others, so from a legal standpoint, is should presume that someone who has been harmed by lack of consent was unable to properly communicate their lack of consent if they were drunk, not try to erase that harm by blaming them for anything that happened to them because they were drunk.

But the important thing is that the law defines the actual harmful act as illegal, not circumstances completely incidental to the harm. BEing drunk is completely incidental to whether consent was actually offered or not. IF can contribute to a confusing signal, but it's the responsibility of the person receiving that signal to sort taht out, not of the law to preemptively declare or deny that harm was done because of that confusion.

Drunken sex isn't the problem, consent violations are the problem. Being drunk isn't an excuse that magically makes a consent violation disappear, and victim blaming- trying to make the violation the fault of the person whose consent was violated, rather than the person who violated it compounds the harm.



Quote
Your attempt to specify that being drunk doesn't mean that a consent violation will happen is mere doublespeak when you are quite clear that being drunk makes you incapable of consent.
It _compromises_ one's ability to offer meaningful consent. That doesn't have a direct relationship to whether you actually consent, just whether you can properly express whether or not you consent.

Quote
You can't say it isn't because it's the issue we brought up. It is also not coherent to say that this only applies to cases where claims of rape are alleged, because if you're right that consent doesn't exist after one drop of alcohol then all cases of sex under such conditions ought to count as non-consensual sex, whether or not anyone felt violated or infringed upon afterward.
Right in a conversation about the harms of consent violations, you brought up accusations that people are being dishonest about whether their consent was violated and tried to inject justification of victim blaming into the mix by saying that some consent violations aren't really consent violations because you can effectively put aside personal responsibility to avoid hurting people if the person that gets hurt is drunk, then tried to use the fact that a given scenario can happen without a consent violation as a way to assert that consent violations can't happen under those circumstances.

Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 24, 2016, 03:11:37 PM
Pyr, you are discussing the proper response to consent violation.
We are discussing how to establish if consent violation occurred.

The answer cannot be (in my opinion), “It happened because one party said it happened.”  That is far too easily abused.
That's the only valid answer, unless you have evidence to prove that they're being dishonest. Put a price on abusing it if you want to prevent abuse, but anything short of that compounds the harm and legitimizes violating the consent of others.

Quote
Quote
And, what's more, if you have been drinking and thus know that you cannot trust your own judgement as to whether or not another person is sober enough to consent, you should treat that no differently than if you've been drinking and thus cannot trust your own judgment as to whether you're sober enough to drive.
I actually agree with this.  I just KNOW it is an extremely unorthodox position.  While I try to hold myself to this standard, I feel it borders on ridiculous to hold others to it.  As I see this as an untenable solution, I attempted to shift the discussion away from, “What is the response when it happens.”, to instead, “What is a reasonable way to improve public safety that we have a chance of achieving without attempting to institute prohibition 2.0?”
It's not unreasonable to hold others to it, or help others observe it at all, any more than it's unreasonable to hold others to the expectation that they'll use the same baseline reasoning for not driving while drunk. The only reason that it seems unreasonable is because of cultural pressure to continue justifying misconduct instead of discouraging it. And the only way to change that is through advocacy and education- getting people to understand the risks and damage so that they help set and maintain a new standard. You don't need prohibition, just a better understand of what responsible behavior is and encouragement to support it.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 24, 2016, 03:25:56 PM
Quote
I think that part of the problem here is that drunken, consentual, but regretted sex can be very traumatic and harmful.
There are many ways that people can get hurt, to be sure, but those aren't the kinds of harm that come from consent violations. And telling people that they're experiencing the former when they're experiencing the latter is like treating someone's left hand for a burn when when they've broken their right leg and insisting that you know better than they do what's wrong with them.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Fenring on March 24, 2016, 03:29:37 PM
Right in a conversation about the harms of consent violations, you brought up accusations that people are being dishonest about whether their consent was violated and tried to inject justification of victim blaming into the mix by saying that some consent violations aren't really consent violations because you can effectively put aside personal responsibility to avoid hurting people if the person that gets hurt is drunk, then tried to use the fact that a given scenario can happen without a consent violation as a way to assert that consent violations can't happen under those circumstances.

If you're not going to reply honestly to questions asked you will just end up making your position look ridiculous. Your views tend to be light years away from my own and yet I always attempt to plumb your reasoning as far as it will go to see how you construct your ideas and to see the other perspective. But when you're not honest about what questions have actually been posed and instead insist on replying to issues that have not been brought up by anyone other than you, the discussion has effectively ended. We could go round and round arguing over what it is we're arguing over, but I'll cut my losses on this one and bow out.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 24, 2016, 04:06:45 PM
Quote
That's the only valid answer, unless you have evidence to prove that they're being dishonest.
For consent violation (the manslaughter version of murder when it comes to the rape scale?) You advocate guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion, law or both?
Quote
The only reason that it seems unreasonable is because of cultural pressure to continue justifying misconduct instead of discouraging it. And the only way to change that is through advocacy and education- getting people to understand the risks and damage so that they help set and maintain a new standard. You don't need prohibition, just a better understand of what responsible behavior is and encouragement to support it.
To make such a statement suggests our cultures are either incredibly different, or you have chosen to focus on an ideal utopia, so far down the hypothetical road that we need literal magic to bridge the gap between where we are now and where your points are relevant.  Yet any discussion about the steps between are brushed off as meaningless.

Your noble attempt to reduce the amount of harm being done invites chaos and gross injustice in the hopes that it is just a brief regrettable but necessary step in reaching an ideal.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 24, 2016, 04:28:31 PM
Quote
That's the only valid answer, unless you have evidence to prove that they're being dishonest.
For consent violation (the manslaughter version of murder when it comes to the rape scale?) You advocate guilty until proven innocent in the court of public opinion, law or both?
Neither. I advocate respect and taking people at heir word in terms of interpersonal relationships. Such matters only become legal issues when interpersonal resolution fails.

IF it does go to court then I do absolutely support innocent until proven guilty- but that means that the person hurt needs to show that the person they say violated their consent did, in fact do that thing. (Imagine a parallel for a theft case- if person A wants to accuse person B of theft, they have to prove that person B has or at least took the thing. If person B wants to claim that they had permission to take it, it's incumbent upon person B to prove that. They cannot claim that they had permission then force person B to prove that they did not grant permission)

The claim that the person is lying about having consented is a positive claim that the other person has to prove, or else the innocent until proven guilty standard is violated, otherwise the only valid testimony as to whether it was given can come from the only person who actually knows if they gave it or not.


Quote
Quote
The only reason that it seems unreasonable is because of cultural pressure to continue justifying misconduct instead of discouraging it. And the only way to change that is through advocacy and education- getting people to understand the risks and damage so that they help set and maintain a new standard. You don't need prohibition, just a better understand of what responsible behavior is and encouragement to support it.
To make such a statement suggests our cultures are either incredibly different, or you have chosen to focus on an ideal utopia, so far down the hypothetical road that we need literal magic to bridge the gap between where we are now and where your points are relevant. 
It's only in an ideal utopia that people can understand that drinking and driving is unsafe and make the basic social standard one that recognizes that fact and actively encourages people to act with that in mind? The facts of the world disagree with that- just the opposite, once we made a point of acknowledging and educating people as to that fact, it seems to have caught on pretty well, even if people still do make mistakes. It's absurd to say that pushing for the same respect for others in regards to sexual consent can't similarly be pushed for.

Quote
Your noble attempt to reduce the amount of harm being done invites chaos and gross injustice in the hopes that it is just a brief regrettable but necessary step in reaching an ideal.
How is expecting people to behave in a responsible and respectful manner inviting chaos? Accountability is about as far from chaos as you can get.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 24, 2016, 04:48:24 PM
Quote
IF it does go to court then I do absolutely support innocent until proven guilty- but that means that the person hurt needs to show that the person they say violated their consent did, in fact do that thing. (Imagine a parallel for a theft case- if person A wants to accuse person B of theft, they have to prove that person B has or at least took the thing. If person B wants to claim that they had permission to take it, it's incumbent upon person B to prove that. They cannot claim that they had permission then force person B to prove that they did not grant permission)
This is where I find fault for the whole idea.  We treat sex as an object or a goal.  One person is attempting to obtain it or “score” and the other person is attempting to retain it or “defend”.  While we on rare occasion break this out of traditional gender roles, it does not allow for the concept of sex as a mutual act that two adults can just enjoy with each other.  It seems to suggest that at best they can use each other and be OK with being used a little in return. 

If someone came to me and said, “We had WAY too much to drink last night, I think you took advantage of me.”  After an “Haha <wink>… Oh *censored*!  You are being serious?” the next step is calling your lawyer.  Not sitting down having a good long conversation about how you can be more respectful to each other as individuals moving forward.

Quote
How is expecting people to behave in a responsible and respectful manner inviting chaos? Accountability is about as far from chaos as you can get.
OK… if you don’t see chaos, I’m not sure how I could convince you.  How about extinction level event?  :P

You are making an interesting argument against legal intoxicants.  The idea behind restricting drunk driving is that you are a danger to more than just yourself when intoxicated.  We have given people the right to impair themselves but not the right to put others at risk while doing so.  That is the line we chose to draw. 

You are suggesting that we redraw that line.  Not only should the law protect innocent bystanders from the intoxicated but the law should protect the intoxicated from themselves.  The most simple (and only logical) way to do this is to prohibit them from becoming intoxicated in the first place.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 24, 2016, 05:07:18 PM
This is where I find fault for the whole idea.  We treat sex as an object or a goal.  One person is attempting to obtain it or “score” and the other person is attempting to retain it or “defend”.  While we on rare occasion break this out of traditional gender roles, it does not allow for the concept of sex as a mutual act that two adults can just enjoy with each other.  It seems to suggest that at best they can use each other and be OK with being used a little in return. 
Indeed- which is exactly what comes of a culture that encourages people to try to cast blame on the the victims of consent violations on the person that was hurt. Instead of being able to trust that other people are doing their best to behave responsibly and can counted on to respect and acknowledge harm if they accidentally cause it, we have to constantly be on our guard not only from harm from others, but from people who will accuse us of being at fault if we get hurt.

That attitude is part and parcel of what people are trying to fix when they talk about trying to end rape culture. To not only end the bad effects of being under threat, but also the bad effects of constantly having to be on the defense.

Quote
If someone came to me and said, “We had WAY too much to drink last night, I think you took advantage of me.”  After an “Haha <wink>… Oh *censored*!  You are being serious?” the next step is calling your lawyer.  Not sitting down having a good long conversation about how you can be more respectful to each other as individuals moving forward.
And, of the two options, do you believe that's was better? Wouldn't it be better to apologize up front, talk about where things when wrong and how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, then move on with a better understanding of where each of your boundaries lie without having to involve the legal system at all?

Quote
OK… if you don’t see chaos, I’m not sure how I could convince you.  How about extinction level event?  :P
I've heard many, many abused reactions to suggesting that people should show each other respect and take responsibility for their actions, but usually it;'s the opposite that people claim will lead to extinction. I don't get at all how responsibility and civility lead to chaos and extinction.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 24, 2016, 05:16:26 PM
Quote
The idea behind restricting drunk driving is that you are a danger to more than just yourself when intoxicated.
You're confusing the reason for restricting drunk driving and the reason for legal penalties for drunk driving.

We _socailly_ restrict drunk driving to protect people themselves and others from harm. If I see you're too drunk to drive, I stop you from doing it as much for you as for anyone else on the road.

Our legal penalties are focused specifically on external damage and harm, because teh _law_ really doesn't have much business telling you what you can do to yourself (with all kinds of exceptions, many of which really shouldn't be laws, to be sure). BUt I'm not talking about law here, no matter how much people keep trying to change the subject to what should or shouldn't be _legal_. Just about proper an improper interpersonal behavior. The law only becomes a factor when you have interpersonal harm that people cannot equitably resolve between themselves on their own terms.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 24, 2016, 05:48:40 PM
Quote
Instead of being able to trust that other people are doing their best to behave responsibly and can counted on to respect and …

Quote
That attitude is part and parcel of what people are trying to fix when they talk about trying to end rape culture. To not only end the bad effects of being under threat, but also the bad effects of constantly having to be on the defense.
You are a very goal-centric conversationalist.  I am trying to get us from A (reality) to B (proposals) to C (more ideal situation) and I might end up somewhere at a finish line which resembles where you have started the conversation. 
 
Quote
And, of the two options, do you believe that's was better? Wouldn't it be better to apologize up front, talk about where things when wrong and how to avoid similar mistakes in the future, then move on with a better understanding of where each of your boundaries lie without having to involve the legal system at all?
Let’s play this out.
1:  We drank too much and you took advantage of me last night.
2:  Wait, we both agreed to have sex.  Didn’t we?
1:  I was drunk!  That I never suggested we have sex while sober doesn’t tell you anything?
2:  I assumed you wanted to, and were drinking to overcome your shyness…
1:  That’s ridiculous.  I can’t believe this happened!
2:  I’m sorry, I understand if you don’t want to have a physical relationship.

You suggest that by apologizing you are offering comfort and attempting to heal harm inflicted (even if it wasn’t intentional).  Instead, you are accepting the responsibility for a mutual act.  You aren’t mitigating harm, you are absolving the other party of guilt.  Now, in some situations being the bigger person and just taking on that burden for the benefit of the person who is ill equipped to handle responsibility for their own actions and habits is just a golly-gee nifty thing to do for someone!  In this case however, making that offer (one I find as condescending and innately harmful to start with) to the person also has another effect.

They have, intentionally or not threatened you.  Instead of defending yourself, you suggest the best course is to bear your neck and hope for mercy.  They threatened you with potential legal harm.  They threatened you with potential societal harm.  They threatened you with emotional blackmail.

So out of the two options.  Putting on your cloths, not saying a word and calling your lawyer is the FAR better solution to the un-envious problem of realizing you just had sex with a crazy person.

You do not solve a problem as serious as date rape by telling women that, if they drank, they are raped by default; unless they decide they are cool with the sex; oh, and they can change their answer at any time.  You have over-corrected and the result is ugly.  Not as ugly as ACTUAL rape, which is the only reason I cut you any slack and continue this discussion.

The extinction crack was you were making it so risky to have sex that people may opt out.  At least for heterosexual men anyway.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 24, 2016, 06:04:19 PM
Quote
You suggest that by apologizing you are offering comfort and attempting to heal harm inflicted (even if it wasn’t intentional).  Instead, you are accepting the responsibility for a mutual act.  You aren’t mitigating harm, you are absolving the other party of guilt.
What guilt are you absolving them of? Are you suggesting that they intentionally did something wrong to you in the process such that they have something that they should be considered guilty of?

I mean, if you're saying that you also feel that you did not offer proper consent on your part and are also feeling similar harm, the it wouldn't be out of line to respond with that and mutually apologize for the damage. But otherwise it's not clear what harm to you you suggest that you're absolving them of by apologizing for your error.

(It's also absurd, in general, to suggest that apologizing for your own mistakes excuses anyone else of the mistakes they have made. That's a rationalization that people use to deflect responsibility, not earnestly taking responsibility for ones own actions.)
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 24, 2016, 06:05:13 PM
Quote
You do not solve a problem as serious as date rape by telling women that, if they drank, they are raped by default; unless they decide they are cool with the sex; oh, and they can change their answer at any time.  You have over-corrected and the result is ugly.  Not as ugly as ACTUAL rape, which is the only reason I cut you any slack and continue this discussion.
It's a good thing that that's an imaginary argument that no one is making, then.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 24, 2016, 06:29:57 PM
People have second thoughts all the time.  People change their minds.  Some things you can take back and undo, some things you can't.  Sex you can't "take back". 

I'm not saying that anyone SHOULD feel guilty about their sexual activity.  I'm saying people often DO feel guilty. 

Maybe my observation of people is unique.  Maybe I hang with lots of damaged people.  I don't know.  It's possible but statistically unlikely as I'm not that much of a hermit so the set of variables is high.

Many, trending towards most drinkers I know, which amounts to say 90% or more of the adults I know, have at some point or another drank in part as a social cue to everyone around, that they were going to behave in an uncharacteristic way and expected everyone to note the drink(s) they were imbibing so that they judge their subsequent actions by a different standard.  Many I know make a habit of this.  Though they obviously also drink for the pleasant physical sensation (or chemical dependence...)

That act, an act which requires consensus approval or acceptance to function, is inherently irresponsible and selfish.  That is something we are taught early on is worth feeling guilty of after the fact.  If they did anything "wrong" it was this.  But as that is so "normal" an act in society, we don't tend to address it head on.  We are a culture that paradoxically allows adults to (temporarily) shelf that which makes them worthy of the responsibility that grants them adult status.  Occasionally (shockingly I know) bad things result.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 25, 2016, 11:35:15 AM
Quote
People have second thoughts all the time.  People change their minds.  Some things you can take back and undo, some things you can't.  Sex you can't "take back". 

I'm not saying that anyone SHOULD feel guilty about their sexual activity.  I'm saying people often DO feel guilty. 
Sure, but that's a completely different issue. And it's exceptionally harmful to accuse someone whose feeling like they didn't properly agree to it in the first place of just regretting having done it afterwards. It compounds the damage done by improper consent. People who feel guilty for their own actions react much differently than those who feel like they were violated They say "I shouldn't have done that" not "I wouldn't have done that if I'd been able to choose properly."

Quote
That act, an act which requires consensus approval or acceptance to function, is inherently irresponsible and selfish.
It can be, if they're doing it out of line with the situation that they're in; selfishness requires indulgence at the _expense_ of others, not simply sharing in a mutual enjoyable experience, but more often it's an expression of trust in the community that they've chosen to be part of. It's up to the community to validate that trust by helping to mutually ensure each other's safety, and when we fail to do that, damage occurs.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 25, 2016, 11:55:46 AM
Quote
Sure, but that's a completely different issue.
There are two (or more) possible scenarios.  You cannot effectively address one by ignoring the other exists.

Your solution creates another problem.  If you feel that the risk of unfair accusations or projecting one's guilt onto another for your own benefit is acceptable given the harm such a standard aims to prevent; that is at least a rational opinion.  I happen to disagree with it, but I understand it.

Refusing to accept we are talking about two things that are inseparable is not rational.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 25, 2016, 12:01:24 PM
Quote
but more often it's an expression of trust in the community that they've chosen to be part of.
I see this sentiment as a breeding ground for harm.  I know I'm pretty far out there on the "personal responsibility as an ideal" end of the scale compared to your "a society where there are no threats as an ideal".  It makes it hard for me to see your point some times.

Being too naive, as opposed to just a positive person, is hazardous to your health.  We have a hard enough time as a society protecting people who act sensibly and responsibly.  Teaching people it is OK to be trustful of those around you and lower your inhibitions and defenses is like letting children play with firearms.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 25, 2016, 12:24:11 PM
Quote
Sure, but that's a completely different issue.
There are two (or more) possible scenarios.  You cannot effectively address one by ignoring the other exists.
Not talking about something that's not relevant to a given situation isn't ignoring the fact that it exists, it's just staying on topic. If you need new brake pads on your car and a new turn signal bulb and are asking questions about what kind of bulb to get for the turn signal, someone trying to interrupt with the prices of brake pads, it's not ignoring the problem with your brakes to ask them to stay on topic or wait till you're actually ready to discuss the brakes. Even more so when they start insisting that the turn signal bulb isn't really a problem and that you shouldn't be talking about it at all because your brake pads are the only thing that matters.

Both problems can exist at the same time, but it's derailment to try to turn a discussion of one problem into a discussion of the other, and it's much worse to try to deny the existence of one problem and assert that the other is really the issue in both cases.

Quote
Your solution creates another problem.  If you feel that the risk of unfair accusations or projecting one's guilt onto another for your own benefit is acceptable given the harm such a standard aims to prevent; that is at least a rational opinion.  I happen to disagree with it, but I understand it.
Someone projecting guilt on you is an accusation that you should back up with proo if you're going to make it. IF you don't actually have direct evidence that it's happening, then it's an unfair accusation to make; in fact- making that accusation without any proof is an active act of projection your own guilt onto others instead of taking responsibility for what actions you were responsible for. Personal responsibility means that you take responsibility for what you did do, regardless of what you may suspect others are doing. If they actually are projecting their own guilt on you, that's none of your business, to be honest. That's their problem for them to work out on their own time and no skin off your teeth.

Now if you offer a non-confrontational apology and a good faith effort to help ensure that the situation doesn't come again, and they start trying to use the promise of forgiveness as tool to manipulate or punish you, we've moved into bad behavior on their part, but at that point you actually have evidence that they're looking for more than just an acknowledgement of the error and a path to rebuilding trust.

Quote
Refusing to accept we are talking about two things that are inseparable is not rational.
They can overlap, but they're two different things, especially in that one is direct testimony of a person's experience that should be taken at face value unless there is evidence to cast doubt on it, and the other is an accusation and speculation of motive that requires evidence to substantiate.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 25, 2016, 12:36:52 PM
Quote
If they actually are projecting their own guilt on you, that's none of your business, to be honest. That's their problem for them to work out on their own time and no skin off your teeth.
If this was true, I never would have interrupted your soapbox presentation.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 25, 2016, 12:40:10 PM
Quote
but more often it's an expression of trust in the community that they've chosen to be part of.
I see this sentiment as a breeding ground for harm.  I know I'm pretty far out there on the "personal responsibility as an ideal" end of the scale compared to your "a society where there are no threats as an ideal".  It makes it hard for me to see your point some times.
How are the two any different- they naturally follow from each other. If people take responsibility for managing their behavior, then there are no threats of anything but accidental harm or rare breakdown cases. It's only when we justify offloading responsibility for our actions on others- make it their responsibility to be on the defense rather than our responsibility to make every possible effort to not do harm, that we create a situation where people have to constantly defend themselves for others that are unwilling to act responsibly.

Quote
Being too naive, as opposed to just a positive person, is hazardous to your health.  We have a hard enough time as a society protecting people who act sensibly and responsibly.  Teaching people it is OK to be trustful of those around you and lower your inhibitions and defenses is like letting children play with firearms.
It's not "Ok", it's essential to healthy human relationships.  People need to be able to trust each other to stay mentally and emotionally healthy, never mind for society to function properly. Without trust everything eventually breaks down. And while a certain amount of wariness is pragmatic in public at our current level of standards, when you're talking about a party situation, you're talking about an environment that specifically markets it as one where the hosts have made an effort to see to the comfort and safety of their guests so that they can relax and relate to each other on a more direct and healthy level. That's exactly behavior in those situations that makes people feel less safe causes so much damage, particularly when people who know that alcohol lowers the defenses of others insist that they should not be responsible for making sure that they act in ways that are proportionally less dangerous.

It's about teaching kids gun safety and proper handling so that, when they grow up they know how to handle firearms without being a dangers to anyone, rather than just tossing them a gun and saying that they're not responsible if anyone fails to get out of the way when they try to use it.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 25, 2016, 12:45:00 PM
Quote
If they actually are projecting their own guilt on you, that's none of your business, to be honest. That's their problem for them to work out on their own time and no skin off your teeth.
If this was true, I never would have interrupted your soapbox presentation.
You can only be responsible for your own actions and your own feelings, in context. You cannot control those of others. You can offer to help people that are willing to trust you sort our their demons, but trying to force them to feel how you want them to feel is going to fail miserably. And more to the pint, any dysfunction that they're suffering from does not absolve you from taking responsibility for your own actions and reactions.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 25, 2016, 01:16:44 PM
Quote
And while a certain amount of wariness is pragmatic in public at our current level of standards, when you're talking about a party situation
You are.

As I mentioned earlier.  You are playing a VERY specific singular scenario in your head.  One, as far as I can tease it out, we do not disagree about.

I and others have tried to say, "Ya but what if...?"  You do grasp that right?  I mean, this is you attempting to preach a sermon about your singular scenario correct?  You haven't just failed to grasp that have you?
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 25, 2016, 05:16:04 PM
Quote
And while a certain amount of wariness is pragmatic in public at our current level of standards, when you're talking about a party situation
You are.

As I mentioned earlier.  You are playing a VERY specific singular scenario in your head.  One, as far as I can tease it out, we do not disagree about.

I and others have tried to say, "Ya but what if...?"  You do grasp that right?  I mean, this is you attempting to preach a sermon about your singular scenario correct?  You haven't just failed to grasp that have you?
You asked :What if" and then proposed a specific scenario, so I'm responding to that scenario. The scenario that was put forth was one regarding sex after getting drunk at a party (in parallel to the other thread about the college party where this happened) and whether or not it was possible for someone to say yes because of their intoxication, even though, when they were sober later, they realized that it was not something that they actually properly consented to.

From there we really haven't changed the scenario, so far as I could tell, but there has been an attempt to try to recast the scenario from something resembling the average case to something that represents the "struck by a meteorite" case. Regret certainly is possible, but regret so rarely leads to accusations of consent violation that it's only relevance to the scenario is in the way it's and exceptionally common victim-blaming technique to make unfounded accusations that a given situation is really the rare one. It's only meaningful relevance in a discussion about consent violations and the harm they do is as an example of how false accusations are used to minimize and exacerbate them; it's a bogeyman that's really just used to justify not taking responsibility for harm that a person may have caused.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 25, 2016, 06:22:23 PM
Quote
Regret certainly is possible, but regret so rarely leads to accusations of consent violation that it's only relevance to the scenario is in the way it's and exceptionally common victim-blaming technique to make unfounded accusations that a given situation is really the rare one. It's only meaningful relevance in a discussion about consent violations and the harm they do is as an example of how false accusations are used to minimize and exacerbate them; it's a bogeyman that's really just used to justify not taking responsibility for harm that a person may have caused.
This answers my question.  You are comfortable with a standard which is easily exploitable because you feel it is not, nor would be, exploited with a frequency that makes it worth consideration.

That you phrase this as fact, and the alternative absurd, also explains why we've managed to exchange so many words yet understood so little about what the other was saying.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 28, 2016, 08:16:14 AM
This answers my question.  You are comfortable with a standard which is easily exploitable because you feel it is not, nor would be, exploited with a frequency that makes it worth consideration.
I'm comfortable with this standard, because it is the only viable standard that can be applied. Anything short of it places an undue burden on those that have been harmed to prove something where the only direct evidence can be found in their memory. The fact that we do not only sell bulletproof clothing is equally easily exploitable by someone trying to shoot us, but the odds of that happening are so low as to not be requiring that all shirts be made of kevlar.

And similarly, to the degree that it might occasionally be exploited, we find it far more practical to legally bar the exploit, not punish the average person in order to prevent the rare exceptions.

Quote
That you phrase this as fact, and the alternative absurd, also explains why we've managed to exchange so many words yet understood so little about what the other was saying.
I state it as a fact because it is a fact. The entire argument is one based on an exceptionally rare case that it actively blown out of proportion and used to shame victims into silence; to justify misconduct so that that people can go on avoiding taking responsibility for their actions. And it's one that we already have pretty solid protection against, you just should need to actually prove it, not take advantage of a system that's currently rigged to encourage adding insult to injury in the way it creates and maintains this deceptive and outright sexist bogeyman. (And it actively hurts men as well, because it pretty directly supports the overriding false narrative that men are always consenting as well as that women aren't credible after the fact about whether they consented or not)
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 28, 2016, 10:30:48 AM
Just to be positive, you aren't framing your statement in a broader sense to lend it more credibility let me check something with you.

Person A chooses to have some drinks.
Person B chooses to have some drinks.
Person A and B become intoxicated to some extent.
Person A and B engage in sex where both consent.  During the act, both parties appear to the other as enjoying themselves.
Person A at some point after sex and/or sobering up comes to the determination that this never would have happened if they were sober and/or person B specifically was not present.
Person B at some point after sex and/or sobering up comes to the determination that this never would have happened if they were sober and/or person A specifically was not present.
Person A becomes upset.
Person B is in either pleased with the events of the encounter or brushes it off as unimportant or a simple mistake.

So the situation (in this hypothetical) is identical for both parties.  We are ignoring who is what sex or who initiated contact.  That person A is upset or feeling distress, I will concede is “harm” (or harmful).  Is there anything that justifies making person B responsible for dealing with that “harm” other than the “sexist bogeyman” that too many people are taken advantage of while intoxicated so it is best to assume anyone who is not 100% comfortable with the outcome of intoxicated sexual activity was “harmed”?  (Different from saying, “experiences harm”, which can be generated internally independent of any other party)

Am I correct in assuming you are comfortable with the before mention standard narrowly as it applies to consent violation? 

If two people get drunk and decide they are going to have an armature MMA fight, then the next day one decides it was assault on the part of the other and they never would have agreed if they were sober, is the standard the same? 

If two people get drunk and decide they are going to the casino, then the next day, after both having lost large amounts of money can one decide the other coerced them into going and in effect, stole their money and wasted it?  Is the standard still the same?

We need a solution that protects people from predators who will attempt to get someone so drunk that they can take advantage of them and dodge suspicion of wrongdoing.  I just feel we need a solution that can accomplish this without destroying the concept of personal responsibility. 
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 28, 2016, 01:04:18 PM
So the situation (in this hypothetical) is identical for both parties.  We are ignoring who is what sex or who initiated contact.  That person A is upset or feeling distress, I will concede is “harm” (or harmful).  Is there anything that justifies making person B responsible for dealing with that “harm” other than the “sexist bogeyman” that too many people are taken advantage of while intoxicated so it is best to assume anyone who is not 100% comfortable with the outcome of intoxicated sexual activity was “harmed”?  (Different from saying, “experiences harm”, which can be generated internally independent of any other party)
The fact that harm was done justifies it. It may have been accidental, but it was still harm. We all have a basic responsibility to not hurt other people by our actions, IF we fail in that responsibility then the bare minimum we can do is apologize and help make sure the person that we hurt will be all right.

Quote
Am I correct in assuming you are comfortable with the before mention standard narrowly as it applies to consent violation? 
I'm not exactly clear on what you're asking here, perhaps I addressed it above?

Quote
If two people get drunk and decide they are going to have an armature MMA fight, then the next day one decides it was assault on the part of the other and they never would have agreed if they were sober, is the standard the same?
It could be similar. It is somewhat distinct in as much as they're not, in most cases, living among people that they have to worry about future invitations to fight from. I imagine also that no one would blame thame for faking any injuries they sustained in the fight just for the sake of accusing the other person of hurting them.

Because the overall scenario is less fraught with pressure and trust issues, you're probably going to see a much higher proportion of cases of regret, rather than feeling like they were goaded into something that they didn't want to do in the first place, but, as wit sex, the nature of regret means that their reaction is almost never going to be to try to accuse the other person, because at that point they've already accepted that it was a bad choice on their part.

Quote
If two people get drunk and decide they are going to the casino, then the next day, after both having lost large amounts of money can one decide the other coerced them into going and in effect, stole their money and wasted it?  Is the standard still the same?

Was the other person using their money? Or otherwise playing on their trust? At this point you've strayed so far afield for trust relationships that it's not clear that the parallel works. They may well have a case against the Casino, on the other hand, if it was negligent in turning them away because they were too drunk for it it be legally allowing them to gamble. (Similar to the obligation of bartenders to not serve visibly intoxicated patrons)

Quote
We need a solution that protects people from predators who will attempt to get someone so drunk that they can take advantage of them and dodge suspicion of wrongdoing.  I just feel we need a solution that can accomplish this without destroying the concept of personal responsibility.
Absolutely- that's why, again, I push a concept directly rooted in personal responsibility. That's the entire point. Do no harm. Apologize and make amends if you do harm. Those are some of the most fundamental elements of taking responsibility for your actions. And less than that is shifting responsibility and blame for your actions onto others, blaming those you hurt for the harm you did to them, intentionally or not.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 28, 2016, 01:20:33 PM
Quote
Was the other person using their money? Or otherwise playing on their trust? At this point you've strayed so far afield for trust relationships that it's not clear that the parallel works.
After you made your bulletproof clothing comparison, I think your analogy criticism rights are revoked for a bit.  :P

Quote
Absolutely- that's why, again, I push a concept directly rooted in personal responsibility. That's the entire point. Do no harm. Apologize and make amends if you do harm. Those are some of the most fundamental elements of taking responsibility for your actions. And less than that is shifting responsibility and blame for your actions onto others, blaming those you hurt for the harm you did to them, intentionally or not.
I find it strange I reject your concept precisely upon the basis you use to justify it.  I agree with everything you said right here, and because of it, not despite it, I reject your concept on how to solve the problem… 

I was with you all day, I feel sad now.  Even though we were having fun while together, my sadness is your fault.  You should apologize because you accidentally made me sad.

Umm, I can maybe suggest a good shrink for you to work out your issues.  If hanging out with me makes you sad, despite the appearance of fun I observed, we don’t have to hang out.  Good luck with your problem.  Bye.

In my world you do not apologize for something you did not do.  (like inflict harm)
Doing so is “harmful” to both parties. 
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 28, 2016, 01:29:09 PM
Quote
In my world you do not apologize for something you did not do.  (like inflict harm)
Sure, but that's a different scenario,. When you violate someone's trust by misgauging their consent, you do harm to them. It may be completely accidental harm, particularly in situations where consent becomes difficult, if not outright impossible to accurately determine, but it's still harm. And that's why, in the latter cases, the responsible decision is to wait or at least accept that you may need to help pick up the pieces later if you make a bad call.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 28, 2016, 01:38:36 PM
When you violate someone's trust you do harm.
When someone claims, or even believes, to have had their trust violated by you, you MAY have done harm.

That distinction means everything to me and nothing at all to you.  I don't think further discussion will be helpful to anyone.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pyrtolin on March 28, 2016, 02:36:37 PM
When you violate someone's trust you do harm.
When someone claims, or even believes, to have had their trust violated by you, you MAY have done harm.

That distinction means everything to me and nothing at all to you.
Means nothing? I'm arguing that it matters a great deal, and that you need proof if you want to assert the latter case, rather than simply using it as a disingenuous rhetorical attack to undermine someone else's testimony in regards to themselves.

Is it really the distinction that matters to you, or the freedom to accuse others of falling on the wrong side of it in order to justify yourself without needing evidence to support your claim? I see little evidence that we disagree about the significance of the difference- our disagreement seems to be entirely on whether it's fair to accuse someone of misrepresenting themselves without evidence to back the claim.

Quote
I don't think further discussion will be helpful to anyone.
Perhaps, perhaps not. If you want to leave it here, or have the last word after this, that's fine (just so long as that last word is an expression of your opinion, and not something that miscasts my position.
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: D.W. on March 28, 2016, 03:15:16 PM
As the apology, even were it not anonymous, cannot ruin my life or open me up for criminal charges;
I apologize if I miscast your position. 
Title: Re: In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...
Post by: Pete at Home on March 29, 2016, 04:54:34 PM
As the apology, even were it not anonymous, cannot ruin my life or open me up for criminal charges;
I apologize if I miscast your position.

Which one, his initial position or the one he invented to say you'd miscast him? :P