In a self described serial rapist's own words, with an interesting twist...

[D.W.]

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?

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

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)

[D.W.]

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. 

[Pyrtolin]

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.

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?

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.

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)

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.

[D.W.]

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. 

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. 

[Pyrtolin]

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.

[D.W.]

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.

[Pyrtolin]

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.

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.

[D.W.]

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. 

[Pete at Home]

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?