Wait, This Need To Be Taught?

[runic knight]

To better illustrate what I think that sign was going toward. The Steubenville Rape Case.

A girl got incredibly drunk and was raped by two football players when she wasn't capable of intelligible speech, much less consent to sex.

Yet many people focused on her getting that drunk, as if rape was just one of those things which naturally happens when you pass out drunk somewhere. People made this point so heavily, it often sounded like they were excusing the two boys who raped her.

And, yes, you do have to be careful getting that drunk anywhere. There's a bit of an object lesson to be had here. Getting insensibly drunk is never a smart thing, regardless of gender. But it doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others.

But those two boys still made the decision to rape her. The responsibility is 100% on them. Her being drunk doesn't in any way excuse their actions. At all. Not even a tiny, tiny bit. They're rapist assholes.

100% agreed.

Being that she couldn't give consent, or any intelligible speech or that matter, the action was done without consent and thus was rape. Problem is, most cases of "I was drunk so it was rape" aren't about the ones who passed out drunk. If you are passed out, or completely incoherent, you can no longer give consent so yeah, anything you do with them would be by definition rape.

Instead it becomes an issue of giving consent while intoxicated and influenced by alcohol and whether or not that is legally acceptable consent. Drinking affects decision making processes and can make a bad decision seem less so. Thus in order to address the argument that intoxication affects decisions and thus consent, I went about defining it as I have done before along the lines of who made the decision to get drunk in the first place.

My conclusion was "If you choose to get drunk, you still have to accept responsibility for the actions you agree to while under the influence, since the initial decision to reduce your critical thinking was voluntarily taken." Anything less is justification to excuse any action taken while drunk, and would, for example, also excuse the actions of the rapists if they too had been intoxicated.

Being intoxicated is not an excuse for poor decisions, and should never be attempted to be used to avoid personal responsibility, regardless how much the decision is later regretted. The men who raped her should be persecuted for her lack of consent. Those that hook up with someone at a bar should not.

 

[Netrigan]

To better illustrate what I think that sign was going toward. The Steubenville Rape Case.

A girl got incredibly drunk and was raped by two football players when she wasn't capable of intelligible speech, much less consent to sex.

Yet many people focused on her getting that drunk, as if rape was just one of those things which naturally happens when you pass out drunk somewhere. People made this point so heavily, it often sounded like they were excusing the two boys who raped her.

And, yes, you do have to be careful getting that drunk anywhere. There's a bit of an object lesson to be had here. Getting insensibly drunk is never a smart thing, regardless of gender. But it doesn't make you responsible for the actions of others.

But those two boys still made the decision to rape her. The responsibility is 100% on them. Her being drunk doesn't in any way excuse their actions. At all. Not even a tiny, tiny bit. They're rapist assholes.

100% agreed.

Being that she couldn't give consent, or any intelligible speech or that matter, the action was rape. Problem is, most cases of "I was drunk so it was rape" aren't about the ones who passed out drunk. If you are passed out, or completely incoherent, you can no longer give consent.

Instead it becomes an issue of giving consent while intoxicated and influenced by alcohol and whether or not that is legally acceptable consent. Thus the defining it as I have done before along the lines of who made the decision to get drunk in the first place.

Thus the conclusion of "If you choose to get drunk, you still have to accept responsibility for the actions you agree to while under the influence, since the initial decision to reduce your critical thinking was voluntarily taken." Anything less is justification to excuse an action taken while drunk, and would, for example, also excuse the actions of the rapists if they too had been intoxicated.

Being intoxicated is not an excuse for poor decisions, and should never be attempted to be used to avoid personal responsibility, regardless how much the decision is later regretted.

This is why you're in the gray area... but it's always been treated as a gray area, as men have been plying women with alcohol and not minding terribly if they were or weren't conscious during sex.

Coming up with clear-cut laws on the situation is tough. And from what I understand a rape trial is an incredibly humiliating thing for a woman to go through. Considering all the drinking and drunken regretful sex which happens and we're not neck deep in drunk rape cases, I don't think it's an enormous problem. Certainly a concern and something to try to deal with in a fair manner, but there's a lot of rights balancing going on... and that's why we have jury trials. Trust me, even if you have a jury made up exclusively of women, they're not going to be terribly keen to accept a "I agreed to have sex with him, but I was drunk" accusation. Pretty much everyone knows that's bullshit.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

Also, there's first world countries that don't have compulsory sex education? Does...does britain have compulsory sex education? I mean, I know I had it. Jesus, I had it once on the ass end of primary, twice in secondary, and yet fucking again in college! But you mean to tell me there's some schools in britain teaching kids around the age of puberty that don't fucking have sex education? That's all kinds of fucked up. I mean, male or female, our sex education pretty much boiled down to "Use a condom, here are some gross pictures of what happens if you don't" so mine wasn't really good, but jesus christ, at least I HAD it.

I live in Canada, and while we had sex ed just about as much as you did, rape never really came up in the topic. STDs were brought up, protection, anatomy, but I don't remember rape being given any sort of attention. Makes sense not to talk about it at the Elementary school level, but it should definitely be a topic in junior high.

I think that it would be a good thing to teach, not only for the people who might commit the rape, but also for bystanders or victims. Just to give them extra confidence in thinking "Okay, this is actually not okay, I'm not just being crazy"

 

[runic knight]

This is why you're in the gray area... but it's always been treated as a gray area, as men have been plying women with alcohol and not minding terribly if they were or weren't conscious during sex.

Coming up with clear-cut laws on the situation is tough. And from what I understand a rape trial is an incredibly humiliating thing for a woman to go through. Considering all the drinking and drunken regretful sex which happens and we're not neck deep in drunk rape cases, I don't think it's an enormous problem. Certainly a concern and something to try to deal with in a fair manner, but there's a lot of rights balancing going on... and that's why we have jury trials. Trust me, even if you have a jury made up exclusively of women, they're not going to be terribly keen to accept a "I agreed to have sex with him, but I was drunk" accusation. Pretty much everyone knows that's bullshit.

I've seen rape accusations alone, even over-turned ones, still destroy people's careers and lives because of the social stigma of even being accused. Hell, Brad Wardell had one claim that was dropped that still results in him being harassed to this day thanks to the media trumpeting about it the way they did. It is very humiliating to be accused of rape as well, and that doesn't stop if the accusations are determined false. So it is not a good issue to be on either side of the court on for the innocent party.

Still, how do we clear things up? Honestly, outside of banning alcohol for how it affects judgement to remove the complaint there-in, you will always have the complaint of affected judgement versus what constitutes conscious consent (ignoring for the moment unconsciousness, as that is pretty damn obviously rape due to lack of consent). What is even worse, because of how law descriptions work, outside of having a breathalyzer and body-weight blood alcohol chart to determine if someone is "too drunk to consent properly", there would be little way to accurately assess things, and that is even if you are aware the exact legal definitions or were not intoxicated yourself when the opportunity came up. Really, it still devolves into a big mess.

People who willingly choose to reduce their ability to think critically and make decisions shouldn't be protected from the results of their decisions, and especially shouldn't be able to do harm to others because of regret for those decisions.

 

[V da Mighty Taco]

I'm not gonna lie - the status on being drunk is incredibly confusing to me, and I say this as someone who actively doesn't fuck. If a married couple get drunk together and fuck, were they both raped? What about someone who actively goes to a bar with the intent of getting themselves drunk and getting laid? What about someone who's had just enough drinks to not be legally allowed to drive, but is still very coherent? If someone get's smashed, laid, then states afterwards that they consented, is it still rape? Where exactly is the line for somebody to be too drunk for sex?

Fortunately, I think I could safely say that I wouldn't fuck someone I thought was drunk even if I did fuck. However, these are still questions that I feel need answering.

At the moment, it's one of those weird legal judgment calls. By being drunk, you can't legally consent to sex, which means you have grounds to pursue legal action afterwards.

This, by the way, is true of contract law. If you're drunk when you sign a contract, you have grounds to pursue legal action to get out of the contract.

And this is where the legal judgment call comes in. Absolutely everyone understands that being drunk doesn't absolve you from bad decisions. The question becomes did someone take advantage of you being drunk to get you to do something you didn't want to do. Did they ply you with alcohol to get you to submit? Did they take advantage of you when you were clearly in a state of advanced inebriation? If you're signing a contract and the other side comes in completely drunk, then don't sign the contract until a sober representative is there. That's how you protect yourself.

Odds are nothing is going to come of it. Odds are the worse that will happen when you drunkenly hook up the drunken girl is no more than her disappointment in your poor performance and the giggles of her friends every time you enter a room

But a good rule of thumb is to avoid hooking up with a girl who is extremely drunk. She may not remember agreeing to sex the following morning, she may vomit on you, she may just be really annoying. Basically, an extremely drunk person (male or female) is an albatross about your neck. Get them home safely and leave it at that.

Fortunately, I don't drink either, so I doubt that this will ever be a problem for me personally. Nevertheless, it still seems like something that needs a lot more clarity, for the good of the general public. So much grey area on such a serious issue doesn't seem acceptable, imho.

What's scary to me is what could happen to someone who straight-up wasn't trying to take advantage of a drunk person or rape them, but genuinely thought that they were stable enough for their consent to actually qualify as consent. Take this hypothetical scenario:

A guy chats with a woman after a movie. They both hit it off well, with her speaking clearly and not showing any clear signs of being intoxicated. After a while, things get a little spicy and next thing you know they're fucking at the woman's apartment, with her having fully agreed to it. Turns out after the fact though, that the woman was a bit buzzed at the time due to having a shot before the movie (and I do mean only a bit buzzed, for this scenario), and now regrets having said sex.

By law, it seems like the woman could now press charges for rape, if she wished. This can go both ways, of course - anyone could be stuck in a situation where they genuinely believed that the person they slept with was sober enough to give consent (meaning no obvious signs of being drunk) and didn't mean any harm whatsoever, only to find themselves facing charges that would ruin their lives even if found innocent. That's absolutely terrifying to me, especially when you factor in whether the accuser genuinely feels raped or not (leading to two very horrible, yet different scenarios).

I hoped I explained that well enough.

EDIT: Edited for clarity.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

I've seen rape accusations alone, even over-turned ones, still destroy people's careers and lives because of the social stigma of even being accused. Hell, Brad Wardell had one claim that was dropped that still results in him being harassed to this day thanks to the media trumpeting about it the way they did. It is very humiliating to be accused of rape as well, and that doesn't stop if the accusations are determined false. So it is not a good issue to be on either side of the court on for the innocent party.

Still, how do we clear things up? Honestly, outside of banning alcohol for how it affects judgement to remove the complaint there-in, you will always have the complaint of affected judgement versus what constitutes conscious consent (ignoring for the moment unconsciousness, as that is pretty damn obviously rape due to lack of consent). What is even worse, because of how law descriptions work, outside of having a breathalyzer and body-weight blood alcohol chart to determine if someone is "too drunk to consent properly", there would be little way to accurately assess things, and that is even if you are aware the exact legal definitions or were not intoxicated yourself when the opportunity came up. Really, it still devolves into a big mess.

People who willingly choose to reduce their ability to think critically and make decisions shouldn't be protected from the results of their decisions, and especially shouldn't be able to do harm to others because of regret for those decisions.

That's what makes rape such a big tricky mess. It's a crime that is so difficult to prove. Because while a false accusation can destroy someone's reputation, an unconvicted rape can be pretty torturous as well. If it's a fellow employee who raped you then on top of being raped, unless you want to see them every day, you also need to find a new job. Not to mention any sort of mutual acquaintances are bound to take sides and to many you will be remembered as the ***** who tried to ruin their friend's life. This is something I have heard happen a lot with rape victims.

It is just a crime that's better to stop before it happens, which hopefully things like this will try to do.

While I realize you weren't seriously proposing banning alcohol, I think that'd only make things worse. If alcohol is banned people are still going to drink it, it'll just be illegal. That means that if someone is raped while committing the crime of getting drunk they won't have a leg to stand on.

 

[Fasckira]

Ricky sums it up for me:


Ensure basic human respect towards each other and empathy is being adopted by pupils (of course leading by example) and things like this should really become a non-issue.

 

[SadisticFire]

I think it's mostly about drunk rape, though. Hell, it wasn't until a couple of years ago that I learned having sex with someone who is drunk was considered rape. I think that's the real kicker with this, and is something that should be more clearly taught when we're young. Of course it's common sense that forcing someone to the ground, or taking advantage of them while unconscious etc is a terrible act. But for me not too long ago, I'd have thought nothing of it if a drunk woman said yes to sex. So I can certainly understand why that would confuse a lot of others, who may not take that into account.

Just a thought.

This, and I also honestly disagree with it. It's kind've bullshit some one can say "Yes" but still be able to charges of rape. It wasn't like some one drugged your drink, you willingly got drunk for what ever dumbass reason that was. If I ever get drunk (Which I can't foresee happening) I want to be held responsible for what ever action. I *chose* (or you chose) to get drugged up, not the other person.
I.E.) Don't drink maybe?

On a different note, wait for an explicit yes? Know the person before you have sex with them? It's the annoying thing with sex, the moment you shut the door, no one knows what you or your partner said. So you best make sure you got a yes, approval, and maybe some how document/record it (again with approval from your partner).

On a different different note: What I've learned over my teen years from repeated hammering of the interwebs. Don't have sex with anyone. Good thing I don't have to worry about it!

EDIT) One thing that I forgot to mention! TEACH PEOPLE TO SAY NO. It's far too often that some one is involved with sexual activities because they felt embarrassed about saying no, or what they were getting themselves into.

 

[runic knight]

That's what makes rape such a big tricky mess. It's a crime that is so difficult to prove. Because while a false accusation can destroy someone's reputation, an unconvicted rape can be pretty torturous as well. If it's a fellow employee who raped you then on top of being raped, unless you want to see them every day, you also need to find a new job. Not to mention any sort of mutual acquaintances are bound to take sides and to many you will be remembered as the ***** who tried to ruin their friend's life. This is something I have heard happen a lot with rape victims.

It is just a crime that's better to stop before it happens, which hopefully things like this will try to do.

While I realize you weren't seriously proposing banning alcohol, I think that'd only make things worse. If alcohol is banned people are still going to drink it, it'll just be illegal. That means that if someone is raped while committing the crime of getting drunk they won't have a leg to stand on.

Quite the damn mess.

Still, I don't think things like this will actually help all that much. Much in how the war on drugs only made matters worse and more dangerous over all, I see attempts to more strictly define rape as just forcing predators to get better at what they do, if not more dangerous in other ways while the new net captures other people to distract.

When it comes to teaching kids, I think it should be part of the overall teaching of morality they need to get from the ones raising and responsible for them. I suppose just going so far as teaching the definition of "sex without consent is rape, no excuses" in a sex ed class would help, but in much the same way that sex education itself has been subverted and turned into political bullshit like "abstinence only" before, I have questions about the point or value of trying to do so, especially if the underlying moral framework required to understand the ethical point of the definition isn't there in the first place.

I suppose the best way I can word it is that I don't think the problem should be that we teach kids what rape is and not to rape, but rather we teach kids the basic core of why they shouldn't do that or a number of other behaviors and have them actually apply it. Sadly the cultural narrative has shifted into something more akin to "being violent is bad" which sounds like a good lesson, but it then excuses so many horrible behaviors for by "well, it isn't violent". Being ethical, honorable or morally upright isn't sought after, instead an ideal of doing whatever you can so that you win outside of violence. As long as you aren;'t violent you can get away with lying, cheating, stealing, fraud, slander, backstabbing, etc. This is especially obvious in social and cultural reaction to white-collar crime versus blue-collar crime and message the different reactions send.

And I see it reflected in the rape discussion, where predators instead of being violent, resort to trickery, loopholes and various other methods to get what they want with the justification of "it wasn't violent" or as someone else said "what I did wasn't rape" because it wasn't violent.

Maybe I just see a pattern that isn't there though.

 

[QuicklyAcross]

Non-consent and rape have been missused to the extent that it now basically means looking at someone the wrong way or simply saying something that could subjectively be "experienced" or "perceived" as forcefulness.

When im being called a ****** on the internet im not having my sexuality attacked nor do i "experience" this so called "virtual homophobia", im simply observing stupidity coming from some anonymous person with poor vocabulary, and nothing else.

The one problem i see with this is that the definition has now lost all its meaning and its simply a buzzword for people to for example, nullify critique or nullify any kind of free-thinking about any "controversial" subject.

You just dont shout just to prove your point because it doesnt prove your point, all it proves is that you as a person rely on broad and vague definitions of words in order to further your agenda and your own personal opinions, based only on emotional manipulation and bias.

 

[Something Amyss]

While I realize you weren't seriously proposing banning alcohol, I think that'd only make things worse. If alcohol is banned people are still going to drink it, it'll just be illegal. That means that if someone is raped while committing the crime of getting drunk they won't have a leg to stand on.

Hell, look at Steubenville. People were very quick to point out the victim shouldn't have been drinking because she was underage.

Ricky sums it up for me

I find it really disturbing that after watching that, the first suggested video was "She is ready for 'GANG RAPE' MUST WATCH!" Went right from laughter to...Well, feeling more than a little skeeved.

This, and I also honestly disagree with it. It's kind've bullshit some one can say "Yes" but still be able to charges of rape.

Do you think it's kind of bullshit someone can say "yes" but not be held to the terms of a contract? We have laws regarding consent that go beyond rape in Western culture. Not all drunks can get out of a contract, but then, not all drunken sex is considered rape. Except by fanatics, and as a general rule, I don't want fanatics making any decision that involves me or other people.

At the same time, sex has consequences even if you're not drunk, so why wouldn't you err on the side of caution?

 

[SadisticFire]

Do you think it's kind of bullshit someone can say "yes" but not be held to the terms of a contract?

Yes, I do think it's bullshit, don't get drunk. I don't really have much more to say beyond that. You can't go to taco bell drunk, order everything eat it, come back and say you want a refund cause you didn't have the proper mindset. You chose to get drunk, not my fault what decision you chose. Honestly I think schools should be teaching to kids that being drunk just makes bad shit happen, cause it only seem to do that. Car crashes, accidental pregnancies, alcoholics/addictions, STD's/STI's. Violence and injuries, why is getting drunk such a good idea? People seem to get drunk because nothing bad can happen to them because only a few things can be held responsible to them.

 

[R0guy]

Academia is a terrible place to come up with your slogan. They're fucking awful at it. They over-intellectualize everything and it often comes out the other side as stupid.

And you actually believe that excuse? If anything, the entire point of higher studies is to be able to come out knowing how to express one-self coherently and concisely. Nor does that explain how common that line of thinking is.

https://www.google.fr/search?q=teach+them+not+to+rape&espv=2&biw=1680&bih=925&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=nSAnVOqQKJDXav69gJgN&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

And when it get's explained in more detail, it still stinks:

In the end you get a sign which goes in two directions at once. They're pissed because men keep telling them something which is immaterial, while men get pissed because the second part suggests they don't know rape is wrong.

But then many people seem to be very good at getting defensive when something is aimed in their general direction. I personally don't get upset when people share their bad Gamer stories, because I don't do those sort of asshole things. Other people get offended for exactly the same reason because they're Gamers and don't act like assholes... although often I'd suggest they rethink that particular opinion, because their overly insulting response suggests otherwise

That still isn't a valid excuse to make hasty generalisations and suggest that people are to blame for their particular genetic make-up. If we leave all morality aside, you could totally make a sign, that since non-whites commit violent crimes to a higher proportion than whites,

"Don't tell me where I shouldn't go, teach them NOT TO MURDER".

And it would be equally unacceptable and fallacious.

 

[Netrigan]

On a different note, wait for an explicit yes? Know the person before you have sex with them? It's the annoying thing with sex, the moment you shut the door, no one knows what you or your partner said. So you best make sure you got a yes, approval, and maybe some how document/record it (again with approval from your partner).

Well, the explicit yes is a bit silly, but clothes don't tend to come off accidentally. Women don't get into position to receive you accidentally. In my experience, once you make a serious play for the bare breasts and she's game, she's out the bra. Mostly you're just there to play the Unhook The Bra game, which is pretty much a laugh for everyone if you can't do it

If she's not eagerly helping you along, you might be a rapist.

Assuming you're a relatively decent guy who doesn't inspire fear in people (and she isn't falling down drunk/high), if she wants to stop, you will know.

You'll never be completely safe from a false rape accusation (and never was), so mostly you're just counting on the person you want to play with being a generally cool individual... and if she's not, why do you want to play with her? I like crazy as much as the next guy, but you learn to spot and avoid that as soon as possible.

 

[Netrigan]

Academia is a terrible place to come up with your slogan. They're fucking awful at it. They over-intellectualize everything and it often comes out the other side as stupid.

And you actually believe that excuse? If anything, the entire point of higher studies is to be able to come out knowing how to express one-self coherently and concisely. Nor does that explain how common that line of thinking is.

https://www.google.fr/search?q=teach+them+not+to+rape&espv=2&biw=1680&bih=925&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=nSAnVOqQKJDXav69gJgN&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

And when it get's explained in more detail, it still stinks:

In the end you get a sign which goes in two directions at once. They're pissed because men keep telling them something which is immaterial, while men get pissed because the second part suggests they don't know rape is wrong.

But then many people seem to be very good at getting defensive when something is aimed in their general direction. I personally don't get upset when people share their bad Gamer stories, because I don't do those sort of asshole things. Other people get offended for exactly the same reason because they're Gamers and don't act like assholes... although often I'd suggest they rethink that particular opinion, because their overly insulting response suggests otherwise

That still isn't a valid excuse to make hasty generalisations and suggest that people are to blame for their particular genetic make-up. If we leave all morality aside, you could totally make a sign, that since non-whites commit violent crimes to a higher proportion than whites,

"Don't tell me where I shouldn't go, teach them NOT TO MURDER".

And it would be equally unacceptable and fallacious.

Okay, literal laugh out loud moment there.

There's a reason why intellectuals are a joke. They're often the dumbest people you will find. They're excessively prone to thinking so deep into a problem that they forget really basic stuff.

I'll give you a Far Right example, Ayn Rand. To Rand, the most evil thing in the world was altruism.

But how could this be. Isn't altruism simply doing for other with no thought for what you might get out of it? Well, in Ayn Rand's over-intellectualized world-view, to be truly altruistic would be to have no regard to the positive benefits of your actions. So if you donate money to a charity, you can't simply choose a charity which will do the most good... because you could be said to benefit from that action. No, to be altruistic is to give money to any charity, even if it's something horrible and corrupt like the Nazi Trust To Harm Cute Kittens.

And it takes about an ounce of common sense to realize that no one outside of the intellectuals of the world are using the word anything like that. To be altruistic is simply to be giving. That's how people use that word. That's what they mean when they use it. Over-thinking the concept until it has no meaning in the real world is a constant pitfall of academia.

At it's root, it's "Don't blame me for getting raped. Blame the rapist."

Short, to the point, does exactly what it says on the tin. That has never been a strong point of academia where you should never use one word when 20 would suffice.

 

[SadisticFire]

On a different note, wait for an explicit yes? Know the person before you have sex with them? It's the annoying thing with sex, the moment you shut the door, no one knows what you or your partner said. So you best make sure you got a yes, approval, and maybe some how document/record it (again with approval from your partner).

Assuming you're a relatively decent guy who doesn't inspire fear in people (and she isn't falling down drunk/high), if she wants to stop, you will know.

You're right! And you're not, there's some people (Like meeeeee) who have the hardest time to saying no ever. It would only be till the last moment, if then, that I'd probably manage to say no.. and I doubt my partner would have patience and be much stronger than me anyways. But that's why I avoid those damned riled up younguns(and also probably rather vanilla) and stay inside by myself where it's safe and there's much porn to watch.

EDIT) I just realized this might be interpeted as a couterpoint to my previous post, but this is why I'm saying teach it in schools. It's because it was far too late for me to realize I could've said no or even the concept of sex because schools didn't start teaching it early enough.

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

While I realize you weren't seriously proposing banning alcohol, I think that'd only make things worse. If alcohol is banned people are still going to drink it, it'll just be illegal. That means that if someone is raped while committing the crime of getting drunk they won't have a leg to stand on.

Hell, look at Steubenville. People were very quick to point out the victim shouldn't have been drinking because she was underage.

Exactly, I'm glad someone brought this up because I had completely forgotten about that aspect of Steubenville. People don't need any extra ammunition for victim blaming. All that her being drinking underage should have done was possibly put her up for a charge for underage drinking. Her underage drinking in no way lessens the crimes of those who commited the rape.

Quite the damn mess.

Still, I don't think things like this will actually help all that much. Much in how the war on drugs only made matters worse and more dangerous over all, I see attempts to more strictly define rape as just forcing predators to get better at what they do, if not more dangerous in other ways while the new net captures other people to distract.

When it comes to teaching kids, I think it should be part of the overall teaching of morality they need to get from the ones raising and responsible for them. I suppose just going so far as teaching the definition of "sex without consent is rape, no excuses" in a sex ed class would help, but in much the same way that sex education itself has been subverted and turned into political bullshit like "abstinence only" before, I have questions about the point or value of trying to do so, especially if the underlying moral framework required to understand the ethical point of the definition isn't there in the first place.

I suppose the best way I can word it is that I don't think the problem should be that we teach kids what rape is and not to rape, but rather we teach kids the basic core of why they shouldn't do that or a number of other behaviors and have them actually apply it. Sadly the cultural narrative has shifted into something more akin to "being violent is bad" which sounds like a good lesson, but it then excuses so many horrible behaviors for by "well, it isn't violent". Being ethical, honorable or morally upright isn't sought after, instead an ideal of doing whatever you can so that you win outside of violence. As long as you aren;'t violent you can get away with lying, cheating, stealing, fraud, slander, backstabbing, etc. This is especially obvious in social and cultural reaction to white-collar crime versus blue-collar crime and message the different reactions send.

And I see it reflected in the rape discussion, where predators instead of being violent, resort to trickery, loopholes and various other methods to get what they want with the justification of "it wasn't violent" or as someone else said "what I did wasn't rape" because it wasn't violent.

Maybe I just see a pattern that isn't there though.

Actually, that second last paragraph is an area where some sort of education would do wonders. People come with such a sensationalized idea of what rape or rapists look like. It's some stranger violently attacking a helpless woman in a dark alley. The idea of using threats, implied threats, or any sort of duress to get your way is rarely conflated with rape. And that's a big problem.

Also, while my school definitely encouraged abstinence, they never shied away from teaching us various methods of protection, and teaching us about STDs. To my knowledge, most schools in my city did that too, even some of the Christian schools. It might be a different thing in the states though.

 

[Netrigan]

On a different note, wait for an explicit yes? Know the person before you have sex with them? It's the annoying thing with sex, the moment you shut the door, no one knows what you or your partner said. So you best make sure you got a yes, approval, and maybe some how document/record it (again with approval from your partner).

Assuming you're a relatively decent guy who doesn't inspire fear in people (and she isn't falling down drunk/high), if she wants to stop, you will know.

You're right! And you're not, there's some people (Like meeeeee) who have the hardest time to saying no ever. It would only be till the last moment, if then, that I'd probably manage to say no.. and I doubt my partner would have patience and be much stronger than me anyways. But that's why I avoid those damned riled up younguns(and also probably rather vanilla) and stay inside by myself where it's safe and there's much porn to watch.

I had a good friend who was like that. She'd do almost anything not to put herself in a position to say no. And it's why one of the biggest dodges at a bar is "I need to go to the bathroom" when they mean "I don't want to hurt your feelings, but I'm ditching you."

And it's funny to watch the guys who have obviously had this done to them a hundred times waiting for them outside the bathroom to avoid the ditching... because they know.

If you're constantly the one pushing the sexual encounter forward, then she's probably not into it.

But, yeah, you're right. There are some girls who wouldn't stop you if you tried to set them on fire. They just expect you to pick up on their obvious lack of enthusiasm and stop trying. And if my friend is any indication, such situations rarely went sexual. The guy usually got frustrated along the way and stop pursuing.

 

[runic knight]

Actually, that second last paragraph is an area where some sort of education would do wonders. People come with such a sensationalized idea of what rape or rapists look like. It's some stranger violently attacking a helpless woman in a dark alley. The idea of using threats, implied threats, or any sort of duress to get your way is rarely conflated with rape. And that's a big problem.

Also, while my school definitely encouraged abstinence, they never shied away from teaching us various methods of protection, and teaching us about STDs. To my knowledge, most schools in my city did that too, even some of the Christian schools. It might be a different thing in the states though.

Yeah, the states have it a lot worse considering the general "sex is bad" cultural idea. Hell, people have been fired for trying to teach about safe sex. Some states are fine for it, but others are crazy backwards about it.

Threats and coercion are considered wrong in their own right. I would assume that used in conjecture with sex would still resort in the actions viewed as rape. Though yeah, since that isn't "violent" in itself, it is seen as more excusable and justifiable I guess.