Wait, This Need To Be Taught?

[BubbleBurst]

snip

You are right, they have responsibility of reinforcing. The problem is that reinforcing morality isn't teaching it wholesale. Reinforcing in schools is using the established moral framework and demonstrating it in a sort of test social framework. This should be where differences in individual moral understandings are ironed out before they are put into full society. Not where you start from the base and give them all the moral guidance the parents can't be asked to.

Schools have an ever increasing curriculum of practical base skills and social experiences to teach kids as it is, adding in morality as well and one has to ask what the hell the point of parents are at that point when the school is the one doing all the work at that point. And that is before we even get into the ways some schools try to push morality, such as through religion.

snip

Yeah, like the people who have legal guardian ship of them in the first place, or even gave birth. The people who's responsibility in society thanks to having the children or ownership of the children include raising that child to be a well adjusted member of the society.

don't get me wrong, reinforcing the idea though school is great, but that wasn't ever what I was arguing against. I was arguing against the school having responsibility to teach morality in the first place. Though I suppose there is a question to ask about how they can do even that much since, you know, sex isn't something that happens under guidance and permission in the school and is acknowledged as something proper if done right. Or did I miss where schools let you have sex on the premise because it was a valuable life experience they were suppose to help teach?

I haven't seen anyone here saying that schools should replace parents or anyone else in teaching responsibility, morality, whatever. I have been saying that schools should have some responsibility to teach that, period. I think we can all agree that it's best for kids to get these messages multiple times from multiple sources in multiple settings. If they hear it from their parents, great. If they hear it in a church they attend, that works. If they see it as a message communicated in the media they read or watch, awesome. Not everyone will get it from all of those, but hopefully everyone will get it from some of those. What's the perceived harm of having schools on that list, particularly since school is one of the more important part of a kid's life?

Also, reinforcing would generally mean "teaching it wholesale." It just means you're "teaching it wholesale" to someone who is fortunate to have already heard it somewhere else.

snip

No, because stealing a wallet is a crime of theft that isn't based on consent. Sort of like that other example you gave, the state of the person it is perpetrated on doesn't change that you are doing something illegal to them unlike when the state of the crime is based on consent, such as rape.

Here, let me put it this way, lets say you convinces someone drunk, who chose to drink themselves stupid without your help, to give you $50. Is THAT theft? Because that is the argument in a nutshell here, that a person is no longer responsible for their actions after they get themselves drunk. Except the amount of time a person has been charged with murder for drinking while driving, hell the amount of people charged with cow-tipping has shown that you never stop being responsible for your actions in the eyes of the law, even when you consciously choose to make yourself stupider beforehand. And do note, this all only applies when the person consciously chooses to drink themselves, not spiking a drink or any of that stuff. Or would getting shitfaced excuse me from the responsibility of acting like a productive member of society and thus allow me to go around harassing women by grabbing at them since I was no longer responsible for the choices I make after the initial choice of drinking like a fish, knowing full well my decision making would be hindered?

Hell, you want a prime example of this, see any gambling casino. You start winning, they start giving you free drinks in hopes you do something stupid and lose it. That is intentionally trying to get people drunk to get them to do something stupid and is still legally acceptable since the person's actions are still their damn own, why does that suddenly stop when you mix sex into it? And it seems that is the only case where a person is no longer responsible for their own choices in society, or can change their mind about it after the fact and regret sinks in. Or could I drag the MGM Grand to court and sue for damages since they gave me free alcohol and because that may have impede my judgement, caused me to make stupid bets that cost me thousands?

I don't really know if I can keep myself sane if I keep saying this, so I'm really gonna try to make this the last time. If you drink, that doesn't abrogate your responsibility for your own actions or your own stupidity. If you get behind a wheel, if you tip a cow, if do any number of stupid things, you should be held responsible for that.

It also doesn't mean you take on responsibility for someone else's actions. If someone takes advantage of me when they know (or when a reasonable person should know) that I'm incapacitated, that's on them. They're the actor, they're the one doing something wrong, and whether the victim put themselves in a position to be victimized or not, it doesn't change the fact that they were victimized by someone, and that's not their fault.

I... I really am not the only person who hears "but look how they were dressed!" when someone says "but they were drinking!", right? That doesn't make anyone else throw up in their mouth, a little bit?

 

[Doclector]

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.

Yeah, kinda reminds me of all those "stranger danger" PSAs when I was a kid. "Don't talk to strangers, kids! Strangers not simply being people you don't know, but being tall figures wearing trenchcoats, shades, and panama hats.

 

[BubbleBurst]

I also want to encourage people to not assume genders when we're talking about this stuff. Men can be victims, and women can be be victimizers. Pretty much all of the literature shows most rapists are men and most victims of rape are women, but men can be victims and women can be perpetrators. Most sources also agree that rape against men (no matter the perpetrator) is probably pretty widely under-reported, and rape by women may be as well. Either way, I think we can all agree that everyone benefits if we don't assume men are the attackers and women are being attacked.

If nothing else, it will stop people from kicking the door in while screaming about "social justice warriors," and that will do just a hell of a lot of good where my blood pressure is concerned.

 

[R0guy]

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.

I'm not familiar with Ayn Rand, but this does not prove that all academics can only communicate through convoluted arguments of semantics. Nor does it prove that college education is responsible. Somehow, Jet planes are built without people philosophising wether crashing said aircraft would be a good thing or not, and people explore the bottom of the seas without wanting to teach water not to drown because they're offended at being taught how to swim.

Rape is a crime perpetrated by psychopaths, you don't teach psychopaths not to be a psychopath, you medicate and/or exclude them from society (prison) if they're guilty of even attempting it.

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

Dude, thanks for "teaching" me this. But this wasn't what was written, by people who should know better. Although I have seen that one floating around the web too.

Also, who blames rape victims?

 

[runic knight]

I haven't seen anyone here saying that schools should replace parents or anyone else in teaching responsibility, morality, whatever. I have been saying that schools should have some responsibility to teach that, period. I think we can all agree that it's best for kids to get these messages multiple times from multiple sources in multiple settings. If they hear it from their parents, great. If they hear it in a church they attend, that works. If they see it as a message communicated in the media they read or watch, awesome. Not everyone will get it from all of those, but hopefully everyone will get it from some of those. What's the perceived harm of having schools on that list, particularly since school is one of the more important part of a kid's life?

Also, reinforcing would generally mean "teaching it wholesale." It just means you're "teaching it wholesale" to someone who is fortunate to have already heard it somewhere else.

I meant "teaching it wholesale" as in, teaching it from the start. Essentially, teaching it for the first time.
I will agree that it is good to get the message from multiple sources, but I have seen it happen too often that people push and push more responsibility onto schools to cover their own failings or just lack of desire for the responsibility of being parents in the first place. And honestly, this seems more of that line of reasoning in my eyes. Society has a problem? Better get the schools to teach the right answer to it. Never mind how it was never meant to be the responsibility of the schools to be the teacher of morality, and to say nothing of how much of a minefield it can be to try having a state-institution trying to teach morality in nations that actively distrust and blame the government, such as the states.

I don't really know if I can keep myself sane if I keep saying this, so I'm really gonna try to make this the last time. If you drink, that doesn't abrogate your responsibility for your own actions or your own stupidity. If you get behind a wheel, if you tip a cow, if do any number of stupid things, you should be held responsible for that.

It also doesn't mean you take on responsibility for someone else's actions. If someone takes advantage of me when they know (or when a reasonable person should know) that I'm incapacitated, that's on them. They're the actor, they're the one doing something wrong, and whether the victim put themselves in a position to be victimized or not, it doesn't change the fact that they were victimized by someone, and that's not their fault.

I... I really am not the only person who hears "but look how they were dressed!" when someone says "but they were drinking!", right? That doesn't make anyone else throw up in their mouth, a little bit?

The problem with your interpretation that I think I am seeing is that you keep seeing the act of "person has sex with someone drunk" as a crime by default. The problem is that because consent determines if it actually is a crime or not, the discussion becomes about personal responsibility while drunk and what constitutes consent while intoxicated.

My previous examples, and those of others, still stand.
Is it robbery if you convince someone to give you money when they are drunk?
Is it right to ask for a refund if you buy something while drunk even if there is a no-refund policy?
Is it right to sue a casino if you made a bet while drunk?

The problem is that you presume that people have to be protected from being "taken advantage of" as a result of their own actions.
Yes it is unethical when someone does that, I will not deny that in the least. But unlike the examples you keep giving, I am talking about cases where there is still giving consent.
Saying "look how she was dressed" isn't consent, that is an excuse and you know that is not what anyone here was actually trying to argue. Same with your other examples. All you have done to offer in analogy is give examples of people being victims of actions that are crimes universally instead of examples of actions that would be crimes only with lack of consent which is the actual topic here.

See that robbery example above? If consent was not given to take the money, it becomes theft. If it was, it is not. Thus the analogy is "is it robbery to be gifted money from someone drunk?"

Someone getting drunk and making a stupid choice though is not a clear argument of victimhood, as there is then an actual knot of an issue involving consent and personal responsibility. Furthermore, you keep using terms like "victimized" in situations where I already expressly defined people were not victims of intent of other people trying to get them drunk or manipulate their decision by force or threat. When I said "voluntarily get intoxicated" I thought that was pretty clear I was only referencing incidents where the person got drunk of their own desire to get drunk, not someone spiking their drink or rolling drunks.

You use words like "incapacitated", which suggests a full removal of conscious choice, when that was never the point I was trying to discuss. I am talking about intoxicated, where the decision making process is slowed and hindered but not completely stopped as seems to be the only response I get in reply.

Perhaps you are having such a hard time keeping "sane" because you are reading more into what I am trying to say then is actually there and are arguing against evils I don't actually support?

 

[Netrigan]

Also, who blames rape victims?

This is pretty much the entire foundation of those signs. Instead of putting the blame on the rapists and saying "how can we get them to stop doing this", far too many people put the focus on what the woman was wearing or whether she "led him on" or if she was drunk or how many sexual partners she's had or any number of things.

The high school rape case we were just discussing is a pretty good example, as many people put the blame on her for getting that drunk in the first place. While I don't think they mean their comments to come across so horribly, it often sounds like you can't hold boys responsible if someone goes around leaving their vagina unguarded while they're passed out. I seem to recall some folks saying we shouldn't destroy these boy's lives... because apparently an unguarded vagina is just asking to be penetrated.

 

[PlayerDos]

If you choose to drink, you voluntarily write off your ability to make well thought out critical choices, but you still have to take responsibility for the actions you made while intoxicated, be it paying a fine for tipping a cow, or having to accept you consented to sleeping with someone you regretted after.

If you don't choose to drink but someone spikes your drink, then you were denied the choice and thus did not consent in good faith and can claim rape.

Why would you want to sleep with someone who is drunk enough they can't make informed decisions?

Because you're fucked up as well?

OT: I've got to say, there are so many people here talking about this subject that I just have to weigh in on something.

If you have sex with a drunk girl/guy you're not going to be sent to prison for rape.

I've slept with many drunk girls, and they've slept with a few drunk me's (I's... eyes? Hrm) and oddly enough none of us have accused the other with rape.

There's *having sex with drunk people while drunk* and there's *having sex with someone so beyond fucked up that they slur every single word, can't stand, can't think, can't walk, don't know their name, would die if left alone on the street for a few minutes while you're completely sober and have been feeding them drinks all night*.

For the latter situation, unless you are their significant other and you planned something like that beforehand then just don't fucking do it, and the evil mantrapping rapecryhappy females won't touch you. Believe it or not most women and men I've found and met in the real world aren't actually too interested in calling their casualhookup partners rapists and seeing them rot in prison.

Like, I really fucking hate this topic because some of the guys act like it's a common thing to sleep with someone then get called a rapist cause 8 weeks later she's like *uhhh nah I don't really want to consent for that, let's send him to prison forever ))*

Just use common sense and don't fucking rape people. It really isn't as hard as all the armchair bandits on the internet think it is. Sure you'll get the story of the odd woman or guy trapping people into these situations, but it really isn't as common as you probably think.

Sure, most of that is just my experience and maybe you slept with a girl or guy after she or he had one bacardi and coke and they yelled rape, but I doubt it.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Ahem. I may have passed out a bit. All right, let's get into this...

Except, well, they don't. Ifnothing else, this thread has made that pretty clear. Everyone knows "Rape(tm)" is wrong, but lots of people only think of "Rape" as a violent stranger assault. People don't think about rape in the context of consent, or lack thereof. Even people who do think of that can have trouble determining what "consent" is, and when it's been obtained. Hell, even among the 40-odd posts on this forum, we haven't reached a clear consensus on that. If only we could educate ourselves better, and make certain that society as a whole was educated better. Possibly from a source of authority? Maybe in some sort of educational setting...

The point I was attempting to make with my rambling was that there simply isn't an agreed upon consensus for what constitutes "consent," primarily because the parameters for said consent revolve entirely around context.

Unfortunately, due to the nebulous nature of the idea, what one person considers to be "technical rape" in one situation can, with just as much validity, be considered a fun quirk to another in a different situation. The only concrete forms of a lack of consent are "No" and any instance where sex is forced, violently or otherwise...and that "otherwise" can be somewhat thorny too. Psychological threats are very real, but someone could very easily claim to have felt forced in any circumstance.

Which is why, I suppose, it needs to be addressed on an individual basis, primarily through communication and adjudication between responsible adults.

Communication, I believe, being the key element in most, if not all, of the fuzzy consent stuff.

I made that comment to "runic knight" initially, in the context of him questioning whether schools should be involved in "teaching" morals and consent, etc. Because of that, I'm not entirely sure hwo to respond here. I think "consent" is pretty simple, but you're right, context matters a lot. That's why we need to talk about it as a society, continuously, in schools and here and in public and on television and wherever else, so that we're all clear that silence isn't consent, "Yes" under duress isn't consent, there are certain people/ages/states incapable of consenting, and so on. The only way to clear things up is to talk about them, but not just between the two people about to have sex. They need a foundation to work from, which is the entire purpose of this thread, I think.

I'm aware. I was mostly responding to the "Even people who do think of that can have trouble determining what "consent" is, and when it's been obtained. Hell, even among the 40-odd posts on this forum, we haven't reached a clear consensus on that" bit, since my first post fit the criteria and I was trying to clarify.

You're right there. A foundation is definitely required. I do think that we've got a pretty clear starting point, ie. 'No means no' and a lack of ability to consent means a lack of consent, but it definitely needs further exploration.

I didn't ignore that part at all, I just didn't quote it in my response for brevity's sake, and because I thought his "So to sum up" summed his point up pretty well. What you're ignoring is that each of our (Shanicus' and my) examples include someone taking advantage of another person in a disabled state. You and Runic Knight appear (to me) to be saying that someone who is voluntarily intoxicated is still responsible for the decisions that they make while intoxicated. To a point, I agree with you. If you go out and tip a cow, if you get behind a wheel while drunk, that's on you. If someone takes advantage of you because they're in a disabled state, that person is the actor, and that act (you know, rape) is on them.

I apologize for using "ignored," when I meant "missed." Less antagonistic sounding. Both of your examples left out any agency on the part of the drunk, impaired or not.

If you'd said you were, say, "convincing" the person it was a good idea to get into that cart to the point where they agreed or "confused" them into thinking their wallet was, in fact, not their own and using that to get them to hand it over willingly...then those would have been pretty adequate parallels to what I was suggesting.

In either of those instances, you'd be the asshole doing the wrong, but the drunk would still have made a decision, enacting some level of agency, which was impaired by their own previous decision.

Someone driving while drunk first chose to drink, then they chose to drive, while drunk, which "impaired" their decision making...and yet, they're still held accountable for subsequent decisions and their outcomes.

To be more specific, a drunk driver who kills someone is responsible for each decision leading up to that as well as the result.

A drunk who is convinced into going down a hill in a cart toward grizzly bears is, still, responsible for each decision leading up to that, as well as the result...however, the other party is at fault for their decision, which was to mislead and endanger the drunk.

The same can be said for someone who agrees to sex while drunk and regrets it later. They made the decision to drink and are responsible for subsequent decisions...UNLESS-

We come to a bit of a problem. How drunk is too drunk to make decisions? I've been incredibly drunk, good sirs/madams, and still retained enough mental acuity to recognize when I wasn't pleased with a situation and what decisions I was or was not making. If, however, you're talking about black out drunk? Someone so drunk that they literally cannot put up any sort of resistance to someone if they wanted to? You're unconscious? Etc? And someone takes advantage of you?

They are 100% in the wrong for their actions. You, however, are still responsible for your initial decision to get wasted, but NOT the result, since you weren't taking part in the decision making process.

*shrug* It's just a matter of recognizing personal responsibility and decision-making opportunities...I hope that explained where I was coming from a bit better?

I don't really have a good response to this that hasn't been said before in this thread, maybe even by me, so I'll keep it short. I didn't bring up the agency of the victim, because the agency of the victim doesn't matter when they're the victim. People make choices all the time, and some people make the choice to drink, possibly to excess. That doesn't make them complicit in any assault, or any other crime, committed against them.

I'm a medical student in Chicago. I work weird hours, I don't live in the best (or the worst) neighborhood. I was walking home from work in the pre-dawn hours once about 6 months ago, took a shortcut through an empty park, and got mugged at knife point. Did I choose to take the shortcut? Sure. Would I have gotten mugged if I hadn't? Probably not, almost certainly not then or by that man. Was it arguably a foolish decision to take the shortcut? In retrospect, yes. Does that make me complicit in my own mugging?

(No. The answer is no. When somebody victimizes someone else, they're the one at fault. Period. There's no but.)

The agency of the victim doesn't matter...because they're a victim? You're disregarding an individual's personal responsibility for their own actions/decisions because they were ultimately wronged by someone else? I can't agree to that line of reasoning at all.

I am sorry that something like that happened to you. In that instance, you are not responsible for being mugged. The person who mugged you is responsible. You did not consent to being mugged. It was an action that was forced upon you...which is what you guy's previous examples were doing to the hypothetical drunk...however, as you yourself have admitted, you are still responsible for making the decision to walk through that park. Just because you were harmed by someone else for making that decision does not absolve you of responsibility for making that decision.

A more nuanced explanation in the next section...

Anybody who believes someone who is drunk to be "fair game" is an asshole. But. The person who chose to drink made the decision to drink and to impair themselves. They did not choose to be abused with their decision, nor do they deserve it, but they've made a decision that opens them up to the potential for said assholes to benefit.

You say that they don't deserve to be abused, right before saying they chose to drink, so... "that opens them up to the potential for said assholes to benefit." I can't be the only person here hearing "You know, that person should not have assaulted and raped the victim. But look how the victim was dressed! And why was the victim even walking around at that time of night?"

You're victim blaming. Don't do that. It hurts your argument and your credibility, whether you intend it to or not, and it hurts a whole lot of other people, too.

I was initially going to put in an additional "This is not victim blaming, because..." paragraph, but I didn't want to come off as paranoid (more so than I am, apparently.)

You really can be the only person taking that from what I said, because it's not what I said. You're putting a phrase in my mouth that I find utterly reprehensible.

I said, as you quoted, "The person who chose to drink made the decision to drink and to impair themselves. They did not choose to be abused with their decision, nor do they deserve it, but they've made a decision that opens them up to the potential for said assholes to benefit."

The person does not deserve (key word) to be abused for making their decision. They still made the decision in the first place. They are responsible for their decision, but not for the result if they did not consent to the action taking place which leads to the result.

An example of this idea in action would be...well...yours.

You made a decision which resulted in a higher chance of being taken advantage of by an asshole. You ultimately were. And. Again. You are only responsible for the decisions YOU make. The asshole is responsible for theirs.

Your being mugged is not your fault. Your choosing to take that route, however, is. They're decidedly mutually exclusive ideas.

Here's another, more pithy example. I choose to go swimming. A shark attacks me, oddly enough, without my consent. I am responsible for choosing to swim. I am not responsible, nor at fault, for the shark attacking me.

Sincerely, it's just a matter of recognizing ones own decisions and taking responsibility for them

I believe I addressed most of this above...but, sincerely, I take umbrage to that last statement.

"Hey you chose to drink that makes you fair game."

First, I never once said anything like the above.

Second, you're conflating recognition of personal responsibility, along with the nuances/context/degree of intoxication involved in the situation, with what appears to be...approval for negative consequence? Fair game? Seriously?

Anybody who believes someone who is drunk to be "fair game" is an asshole. But. The person who chose to drink made the decision to drink and to impair themselves. They did not choose to be abused with their decision, nor do they deserve it, but they've made a decision that opens them up to the potential for said assholes to benefit.

I hope I'm getting this across well enough. I'm quite tired.

If you didn't say anything like it then don't take umbrage. I apologise for any offense caused but my statement was directed entirely at people who think people who consent while drunk just need to accept what happened to them as if they weren't raped.

But you are kind of moving the goal posts a bit if I'm being honest. Your initial point was that you are just as responsible for your actions when drunk as when sober, using drunk driving as an example and arguing that theft or bear maulings (it's weird that I have to mention that now) are things that are done TO you. I and others just argued that someone taking advantage of your impaired state is something that is done TO you also. You were saying that they should take responsibility for actions performed while drunk now you've pulled back to say they should just take responsibility for being drunk. For being in a position where they could be taken advantage of. Don't you see why that's problematic and a bit victim blamey.

Statistically as a male I am far less likely to be raped when I am drunk. It doesn't even enter my mind when I go out that I need to be careful about how much I drink in case someone takes me home and takes advantage of me. It has not come up, nor has it come up for any guy I know (as in I don't know any guy who woke up the next day and legitimately felt taken advantage of or abused, or been with a girl considerably less drunk than he who intentionally took advantage). I'm sure they exist but in smaller numbers. Women should have that same freedom to go out and enjoy themselves as I do without having to worry about being raped. They shouldn't have to consider their actions even more carefully than I do. They should be able to go out and not get raped. The blame falls squarely on the perpetrator. Not the victim.

Also as something to consider (again this is in general, not directed at you) if you think getting off is more important than the woman involved potentially greatly regretting it the next day then isn't that just fundamentally wrong? If you think the person could regret it why try and justify why it's okay to do it anyway? Just don't do it.

No offense taken.

I don't believe I am moving the goal posts here. I haven't deviated from the initial idea that you are, as you stated, responsible for your actions while drunk. Those two examples were things being done TO a person without their consent or involvement in the decision making process directly leading to the result. I don't, at all, see how someone stealing your wallet and someone, say, convincing you to hand over your wallet while you're drunk are comparable. Certainly, both result in your wallet missing, which sucks, but the former did not involve any agency on your part while the latter did. Someone doing the latter is doing something "with" you, not "to" you. Someone doing the former is doing something "to" you.

Get the distinction I'm making here? :/

And THAT idea changes depending on how drunk we're talking. As I stated before, if you're black out drunk, unconscious, or otherwise incapable of offering resistance, then you've lost your ability to consent to any actions taken against or for you.

A pair of examples; If you've had a few and agree to sleep with someone. You're responsible for that decision.
If you've had enough to render you incapable of speech, let alone movement, and someone sleeps with you? You are not responsible for that decision... BUT AGAIN, here's where it gets murky-

If your state mirrors that of the latter and you wind up driving then you are held accountable by the law for what happens, regardless of whether or not you're making a conscious decision...it's a clusterfuck is what it is, gents.


All right, well, I'm one of the men who actually feels, at least partly, taken advantage of by the situation you describe. I regret the decision making that went into the result coming about, but I still take responsibility for said decisions.

And...seriously...of course women SHOULD be able to do whatever the hell they want without the fear of being raped. Unfortunately, you and I both know that, no matter how much we discuss this, the potential for that occurring still exists, because there are and always will be fucking horrible people out there. In much the same way that there shouldn't be Ebola rampaging through Africa right now, but it is, whether or not something should be a certain way does not influence the way that it actually is.

And, I hope, we all agree that a rapist is 100% to blame for the act of rape. Nobody is contesting that fact. Or at least I truly, truly hope they're not.

As for the final bit; I don't personally subscribe to that line of thinking. *shrug* With that said, regret is, sadly, a part of life. Regret doesn't automatically invalidate a person's decisions or their responsibility for making them though.

I...I really hope I'm being more clear here? I'm hammering on personal responsibility in general.

 

[Netrigan]

Is it right to ask for a refund if you buy something while drunk even if there is a no-refund policy?
Is it right to sue a casino if you made a bet while drunk?

In the first instance, businesses usually account for buyer's remorse and allow for returns. I recently watched Frisky Business on Netflix about an on-line sex shop where a very large number of their returns are on orders made at night while the person was drunk. They happily accept returns. If there's a no return policy... well, they say no return. In practice, you can often complain up the ladder until someone agrees to give you a refund or store credit. You don't even have to be drunk to enjoy these privileges.

In the second instance, casinos have had to return money. There's a fine line they have to walk here because they happily ply gamblers with drinks, but the cameras are always on so if someone is too far gone, it's their responsibility to cut him off. In fact, bars have to cut people off if they've clearly had too much to drink as they can be held responsible if the person dies of alcohol poisoning.

Contracts can be thrown out if they're extremely drunk. Marriages can be annulled. The law frequently doesn't hold drunks accountable for their actions.

They especially can't be held accountable for the actions of others.

You seem to be talking more about the situations where a woman consents while drunk then pleads drunk, while we're discussing situations where a drunk person was acted upon by an Asshole Rapist... as in there is absolutely no defense for their actions. So I concede some points on your front, although I don't think this is a widespread problem at the moment. Whereas there's there's plenty of Asshole Rapists preying upon semi-conscious or unconscious drunk girls. I don't have figures, but I'd be shocked if what you're talking about is as a tenth as widespread as what I'm talking about.

 

[BubbleBurst]

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

Dude, thanks for "teaching" me this. But this wasn't what was written, by people who should know better. Although I have seen that one floating around the web too.

Also, who blames rape victims?

Who blames the rape victims? Seriously?

It happens all of the time. Hell, it's happening in this thread. But to point out a few fairly recent example in the news:

"District Judge G. Todd Baugh unleashed a firestorm of criticism because of the lenient sentence and for saying the victim, who later committed suicide, "seemed older than her chronological age."

"I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: Don't take drinks from other people"

"Like the spider and the fly. Wasn't she saying, 'Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly?' ", [a defense attorney] asked a witness.

There's just... so many more. But I start feeling like I need a shower if I read too much of that stuff.

 

[runic knight]

Is it right to ask for a refund if you buy something while drunk even if there is a no-refund policy?
Is it right to sue a casino if you made a bet while drunk?

In the first instance, businesses usually account for buyer's remorse and allow for returns. I recently watched Frisky Business on Netflix about an on-line sex shop where a very large number of their returns are on orders made at night while the person was drunk. They happily accept returns. If there's a no return policy... well, they say no return. In practice, you can often complain up the ladder until someone agrees to give you a refund or store credit. You don't even have to be drunk to enjoy these privileges.

In the second instance, casinos have had to return money. There's a fine line they have to walk here because they happily ply gamblers with drinks, but the cameras are always on so if someone is too far gone, it's their responsibility to cut him off. In fact, bars have to cut people off if they've clearly had too much to drink as they can be held responsible if the person dies of alcohol poisoning.

Contracts can be thrown out if they're extremely drunk. Marriages can be annulled. The law frequently doesn't hold drunks accountable for their actions.

They especially can't be held accountable for the actions of others.

You seem to be talking more about the situations where a woman consents while drunk then pleads drunk, while we're discussing situations where a drunk person was acted upon by an Asshole Rapist... as in there is absolutely no defense for their actions. So I concede some points on your front, although I don't think this is a widespread problem at the moment. Whereas there's there's plenty of Asshole Rapists preying upon semi-conscious or unconscious drunk girls. I don't have figures, but I'd be shocked if what you're talking about is as a tenth as widespread as what I'm talking about.

I do notice that all counter examples given do not treat the person based on their being drunk so much as other factors. Be it either rely on a willingness to grant the requests for refund (probably because it is good business practice), responsibility for their life being threatened (ala legal pressure from negligence laws) or cases where you still have to prove an intent of getting the person drunk in order to get a better contract in the first place (such as contracts and even marriages).
And all that is well and good, but essentially none of the example are a matter of protecting the drunk from their own actions so much as other factors addressed (be it business sense as you complain up the corporate latter for an exception, existing negligence laws, or the result of coercion and the same sort of underhanded tactics I already tried to define as not part of the discussion)

You would be right on that distinction of what I am talking about, though there is an overall point I was trying to make out of that. No it isn't as wide spread an issue, but it is a legal one that needs to be defined and showcases how much of a pain that can be and the general ethical view on it. Furthermore it was meant to show a difference between what we all already agreed to as obvious Asshole Rapists preying upon semi-conscious or unconscious drunk girls and cases where consent was a lot more grey and how the idea of teaching kids about rape would work. Namely, the obvious Asshole Rapists that you yourself said was the bigger problem wouldn't be the sort any such teaching would affect and it would likely be the drunk hook-ups that would be caught in efforts to tighten the "loopholes" that others have mentioned. If that makes sense.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

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

Dude, thanks for "teaching" me this. But this wasn't what was written, by people who should know better. Although I have seen that one floating around the web too.

Also, who blames rape victims?

Who blames the rape victims? Seriously?

It happens all of the time. Hell, it's happening in this thread. But to point out a few fairly recent example in the news:

"District Judge G. Todd Baugh unleashed a firestorm of criticism because of the lenient sentence and for saying the victim, who later committed suicide, "seemed older than her chronological age."

"I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: Don't take drinks from other people"

"Like the spider and the fly. Wasn't she saying, 'Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly?' ", [a defense attorney] asked a witness.

There's just... so many more. But I start feeling like I need a shower if I read too much of that stuff.

And we can both agree that those are some fucked up ways of approaching this.

BUT. And, god do I hate that I have to say this, BUT the second one doesn't seem to be advocating for the defense or blaming the girl for being raped.

"Do you think it was fair, what they got?

They did something stupid, but I don't know. I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: Don't take drinks from other people," Williams said to Rodrick. "She's 16, why was she that drunk where she doesn't remember? It could have been much worse. She's lucky. Obviously, I don't know, maybe she wasn't a virgin, but she shouldn't have put herself in that position, unless they slipped her something, then that's different."

I'll admit that she's dipping into blame territory, though I think it's blaming her for making the decision to drink rather than being raped, and it's not exactly the best way to put it overall, but I think she's just harping on responsibility...which seems to be interpreted as 'rape apology' way, way, way, way, way too often. Her language is ultimately too vague though...and suspect in parts (What's with the virgin thing? What does that matter, Serena? And 'she's lucky'? How is she lucky!?), which can lead to an obvious misunderstanding...and she specifically points out the "slipped her something" thing too, which I'd argue leads back into the overarching "there are a lot of grey areas" conversation.

Then again, maybe I'm just misinterpreting and she's a rape apologist. I dunno.

The other two? Right there with ya. Fuck those guys.

 

[Something Amyss]

Yes, I do think it's bullshit, don't get drunk. I don't really have much more to say beyond that.

And yet, it didn't stop you.

Of course, your Taco Bell parallel isn't the only one, which was my point.

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.

Just imagine if we applied that elsewhere.

"I can't believe you shot him!"
"Well, he shouldn't have been speeding!"
"Well...fair enough!"

 

[chiggerwood]

Spoiler: Giant snip

These people are under the assumption the teaching this will somehow make rape stop happening.

Or, alternatively, that the number of rapes would be reduced.

I think one of the more infuriating aspects when it comes to discussions about consent and such matters is this particular idea:

From all my interactions with women on the subject, this isn't completely literal.

The frustration centers around how often the woman's behavior or clothing being brought up. That it's their responsibility to not act or dress in any manner that might incite a rape. You're supposed to focus on the first part of that statement, to not say it's her fault she got raped.

Unfortunately, so many people seem to leap-frog over that bit and focus like a laser beam on the second part, as if women don't already take extraordinary measures to protect themselves. Not too long ago a series of animated gifs popped up on my Tumblr feed. The first one has a professor asking his male students "how many of you pull out your keys before you get to your car?" A few hands go up. "Okay, how many of you make sure no one is in the back seat before you get into your car?" A total of four men have their hands in the air. "How many women do both of those things all the time?" Just about every woman puts her hand in the air.

And this is the intended meaning behind that sign. Women are sick and tired of having their rapes excused because they didn't do enough to prevent them. This is why they get so pissed off at victim-blaming. They locked the doors, barred the windows, armed themselves, and they're still held accountable for letting it happen to them

Because, and this bit of knowledge came as a surprise to me when I finally figured it out after chiming in on the subject many, many, many times, they already know everything that is going to come out of their mouth. A rape victim already blames herself. She's already trying to work out what she could have done differently to prevent her rape. All those points we men keep trying to inject into this discussion should be met with a patronizing pat on the head because we've got so much less experience on the subject of personal safety than the average woman that the vast, vast, vast majority of times our "insightful" thoughts are dead-obvious to anyone with half a brain. Every 13 year old can come up with the "don't walk down a darkened alley at night and expect not to be victimized" thought, but it doesn't stop an infinite number of idiots from speaking that out loud like the thought has never occurred to anyone before.

Now, this isn't to say that an incoming freshmen doesn't need to be taught how to protect herself, because they're entering into a new environment where they don't know the rules yet. You usually don't have to tell a young woman to attend any such class on the subject, because they're usually well-aware they can easily be physically over-powered by the average man.

But the frustration is on the flip side, where guys are often not called out on their rapey behavior by their fellow men. I wish I could remember where I read it, but a guy talked about the Rape Talk his college gave him, which essentially amounted to "don't fuck crazy" because they'll file false rape-charges against you... because when told that 10-20% of rape accusations are false, we have this tendency to ignore the larger percentage and focus on the much smaller number that applies to us.

I think why the first part is leaped frogged over, by myself at least, is due to the fact that it seems that the person holding the sign is pointing at all men and saying that they have the innate urge to rape, and that it isn't just a relatively small percentage of men who are assholes or mentally ill or insane. I believe the first part wholeheartedly. It doesn't matter what a woman wears the only rights you have with her body is what she affords you. It's just that the second part makes a man feel as if he's being viewed as an animal. At least that's how it is in my case. I think it would be better to use a variation of the Dick Gregory quote "If I'm a woman and I'm walking down the street naked, you still don't have the right to rape me."

It keeps the focus where it should be and doesn't have anything on the periphery that can get distracting or cause a feeling of ostracization, which is what the current phrase does. And you can't really get mad for someone focusing on what makes them feel ostracized due to the fact that ostracization actually goes through the physical pain processes in the brain as if you've been physically injured, and you literally can't help it. It's weird I know.

TL;DR Change the sign to something that brings the main issue of victim blaming and how it's complete and utter bullshit into the forefront and avoid fear flinging at an entire gender.

Remember you can soothe a person with gentle words, but that same person will scream at you if you yell in their face.

 

[chiggerwood]

First off that'll just piss off the non-rapist in the groups, and cause them to feel like they're being ostracized.

Yeah, I can live with that. Some men being annoyed isn't worse than women being raped.

Second off the people that need to be taught that won't get the attention they need, and finally it ignore the fact that rapist are need of extensive group and individualized therapy, and despite the therapy existing in prisons the actual rate of success varies greatly, meaning that there is still no definitive way to properly teach a rapist not to rape.

Why are they in need of therapy? Is this true for all of them?

It's very often pointed out that different cultures across the world and throughout time have had different attitudes towards, and thus rates of, rape. People can be taught about that.

Yeah, I can live with that. Some men being annoyed isn't worse than women being raped.

It's not annoyed, it's ostracized. The feeling of ostracization goes through all the same pain processes as actual physical pain. It's not just a feeling of annoyance, it's like being punched in the face and it's involuntary, it bypasses all logic and reasoning that the usual emotions go through, so you can't just logic it out of your mind. So you get a group of people that feel ostracized by the same thing and that thing tends to be an aggressive force then bad things happen. Mainly they make annoying videos and I swear one of them is an evil alternate universe John Waters. anyways treating all men like rapist will just cause aggression. Basically, you don't fight asshole behavior with asshole behavior, because two assholes don't make a flower patch, just a pile of shit and a bad smell. Use kindness it works better. I find it useful to think, "How would Mr. Rogers handle this?" and yeah I know OP. I never said I was good at asking that question, but I'm trying.

Why are they in need of therapy? Is this true for all of them?

The creation of a rapist varies, but many of them have neurological and/or psychological issues and need therapy to learn to suppress their urges and to avoid situations that cause those urges.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Rape is a crime perpetrated by psychopaths, you don't teach psychopaths not to be a psychopath, you medicate and/or exclude them from society (prison) if they're guilty of even attempting it.

It's also perpetuated by people who aren't psychopaths.

treating all men like rapist will just cause aggression.

Sure...this has little to do with teaching people not to rape, though.

Basically, you don't fight asshole behavior with asshole behavior, because two assholes don't make a flower patch, just a pile of shit and a bad smell. Use kindness it works better.

More flies with honey/the tone argument?

Yeah, there are all sorts of problems with that, not least that it doesn't work. IF someone is going to feel hurt and ostracised by people pointing out that there's a lot of rape going on, mostly perpetuated by men, tiptoeing around them isn't going to help.

the creation of a rapist varies, but many of them have neurological and/or psychological issues and need therapy to learn to suppress their urges and to avoid situations that cause those urges.

How many is "many"? Now, sure, it'd be a non-zero number, and with the amount of rapists around, the proportion would be substantial, but there's plenty of otherwise well adjusted people who think it's ok, or at least when they do it.

 

[carnex]

Well, I can only have a smile on my face when I see that my position on these topics is not lone pine on birch forest anymore. Sure the topic is touchy like very few others but it's exactly as important to a young mind.

But I do have one thing to add to the question of consent. Since "silent consent" is a major part of both casual sex crowd and those who are only for committed sex partners I'm convinced that pursuit of explicit consent or something akin to that is fruitless endeavor. Rather we should teach people to say not "NO" but "STOP, I DON'T WANT ...". To show opposition in manner that can't be easily misunderstood. Only then we can have some clear break and some clearer legal grounds on which to prosecute.

Yes, much of the same problems for prosecuting sexual activity against will of one or more participants faces in court will remain given and it will still probably be criminal offense hardest to prosecute but it would be move for the better.

As for drunk sex... my position is simple, if you are legally capable on committing a crime, you are legally capable of giving consent to an sexual act. Otherwise you would always be at mercy or four partner which could be interpenetrated as a romantic level of trust but I still don't like it.

P.S. Most of the sexual activity against will of one or more participants is committed by repeat offenders be it classical movie scenario or abuse of deliberating intoxication or one of more subtle scenarios.

 

[Netrigan]

I think why the first part is leaped frogged over, by myself at least, is due to the fact that it seems that the person holding the sign is pointing at all men and saying that they have the innate urge to rape

Aren't people who do the "she shouldn't have been drunk" or "her skirt was too short" implying the exact same thing? Them women parts, them make men crazy and we all know they can't help themselves.

 

[R0guy]

Who blames the rape victims? Seriously?

It happens all of the time. Hell, it's happening in this thread. But to point out a few fairly recent example in the news:

"District Judge G. Todd Baugh unleashed a firestorm of criticism because of the lenient sentence and for saying the victim, who later committed suicide, "seemed older than her chronological age."

"I'm not blaming the girl, but if you're a 16-year-old and you're drunk like that, your parents should teach you: Don't take drinks from other people"

"Like the spider and the fly. Wasn't she saying, 'Come into my parlor, said the spider to the fly?' ", [a defense attorney] asked a witness.

I'm not American, so don't be surprised that I hadn't seen these examples. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

Disclaimer: I'm taking these articles you linked at face value.

Article 1: The 30 day sentence part is scandalous and I can totally relate to how revolted people were. I'm not sure I understand the rest though. It's saying the judge tried to break the law, by giving the guy 30 days, because he thought the girl looked older than she was actually was?

Article 2: Insensitive, sure. Still not blaming. Just out of curiosity, how would you go about making a cautionary tale out of a horrible situation? Would you consider "Don't do drugs" victim blaming, and intended to shift the issue away from drug cartels and dealers?

Article 3: I only agree with the part of the article about defense lawyers, they say anything or do anything to get their clients out of trouble.

But from the 3d article: "As long as juries keep acquitting based on this myth that women routinely make up rape accusations for the hell of it, defense attorneys will continue to use it." Is bad reasoning.

You know what, before answering, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial

And explain to me where exactly you would consider the line to be, in a legal system, between asking due questions, even when they'd be considered insensitive (or worse) and victim blaming?

 

[BubbleBurst]

snip

I'm not American, so don't be surprised that I hadn't seen these examples. Thanks for bringing me up to speed.

Fair enough. I used recent stories that have been around US news, because they were easiest for me to find and link, and I thought they'd be most familiar to people. That being said, victim blaming is really widespread in our society, I'm certain that you'll find plenty of examples on your own if you give your local media an honest look.

Disclaimer: I'm taking these articles you linked at face value.

Article 1: The 30 day sentence part is scandalous and I can totally relate to how revolted people were. I'm not sure I understand the rest though. It's saying the judge tried to break the law, by giving the guy 30 days, because he thought the girl looked older than she was actually was?

Article 2: Insensitive, sure. Still not blaming. Just out of curiosity, how would you go about making a cautionary tale out of a horrible situation? Would you consider "Don't do drugs" victim blaming, and intended to shift the issue away from drug cartels and dealers?

Article 3: I only agree with the part of the article about defense lawyers, they say anything or do anything to get their clients out of trouble.

But from the 3d article: "As long as juries keep acquitting based on this myth that women routinely make up rape accusations for the hell of it, defense attorneys will continue to use it." Is bad reasoning.

Bit by bit.

Article 1: The judge didn't break the law, he exercised judicial power in sentencing to give the rapist what most consider an absurdly short sentence. His reasoning was that the victim, who was 14 at the time and later committed suicide, was "older than she looked." In other words, it's not about the teacher who raped one of his students (who was 14 at the time, and was incapable of legal consent, regardless), he made it about the victim. That's victim blaming.

Article 2: Insensitive, yes. I agree with you (and LostGryphon, above) that this is the least egregious of the three articles I linked. That being said, it still takes a story that is about multiple people raping an unconscious girl, and tries to make the story about the girl. That's victim blaming; it's almost a textbook example. Victim blaming doesn't have to be mean-spirited towards the victim, or even intentional. At its core, victim blaming means not focusing on the rapist (who, you know, raped someone) because we're too busy focusing on what the victim may or may not have done wrong.

Article 3: Sure, defense attorney will say whatever they think will work. That's kind of the point. At least one (presumably well-educated) lawyer thought his best possible defense was trying to convince a jury of 12 (presumably reasonable) people that a young girl was "asking" to be violently raped by multiple men. Again, even putting aside how abhorrent that is on the face of it, that's trying to take a story about rapists committing rape, and turn it into a story about a rape victim doing something wrong.

You know what, before answering, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outreau_trial

And explain to me where exactly you would consider the line to be, in a legal system, between asking due questions, even when they'd be considered insensitive (or worse) and victim blaming?

Sorry, I answered before getting to this, but I did read it before typing anything. Basically, I'm not saying that every accusation doesn't require scrutiny, and of course that includes (maybe mostly includes) the legal system. We don't want to live in a world where an accusation of a crime results in the same punishment as a conviction because, yes, sometimes accusations are false, or mistaken, or misleading.

The Outreau Trial you linked seems to be a pretty clear case of that, albeit not one that I'm very familiar with. But it has nothing to do with victim blaming, unless I'm missing something. It seems to have been a pretty strong impetus to take a hard look at the conduct of the prosecution in France, and maybe the evidentiary standards used when accepting testimony, particularly as part of a deal. No one ever tried to turn it around, and make it about the children who were abused. ("They were much older than their chronological age." "He was asking for it." "She was dressed provocatively, and why was she visiting someone alone?") Again, it's possible I'm missing something.

My basic point: Victim blaming is everywhere if you're aware of it, it's not always mean-spirited or intentional, I honestly think most people don't mean to do it or even realize they're doing it. It just means talking about what we think the victim did wrong, or could have done better, rather than talking about what the rapist (who, again, is a rapist) did wrong.