What's new
Troll Kingdom

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Game Of Thrones 4.3 'Breaker Of Chains'

[video=youtube_share;k0ly_TYWnCs]http://youtu.be/k0ly_TYWnCs[/video]

"She 20% wanted it, 80% didn't want it, it was rape, it was bad."
 
If an Angry Black Man thinks it's rape...IT'S RAPE.

Mirah said:
"If a woman or man does not consent to a sexual act, and the other person forces him or her to continue, it’s rape. An incident cannot be both rape and “not rape.” There is no “yes and no” about it. A rape cannot “become consensual at the end.” You do not convince someone over the course of the act that they actually consented."
Click to expand...

This is how I feel every time I click "I agree to the Terms & Conditions..." on the internet.
 
If a person can withdraw consent at anytime, doesn't it stand to reason that they ought to be able to issue consent at anytime as well?
 
You can't unring the bell once the act of physically forcing yourself on someone is committed. If they decide "I can't physically stop this from happening so I'll just lay back until it's over"-- that's not what many would call consent. It's like deciding to let the robber get away with your wallet instead of trying to wrestle the gun from him. You're still the victim of a crime.
 
I'm not saying the person acting without consent can change the recipient's mind. Nor am I saying playing along equals consent in any way.

I'm saying that if consent can't be given at anytime it may call into question the idea that it can be taken away at anytime. Slippery slope style.

Consent that can be withdrawn but not given when the consenter sees fit leaves the power of consent in the hands of the person acting without it.

Logically, it's tough to have it both ways. Or one way and not the other rather.
 
'Gear said:
I'm saying that if consent can't be given at anytime it may call into question the idea that it can be taken away at anytime. Slippery slope style.

Consent that can be withdrawn but not given when the consenter sees fit leaves the power of consent in the hands of the person acting without it.
Click to expand...

What? No.

If someone has sex with someone else without consent, that's rape. That's it. That's literally all there is to it.

It doesn't matter if in some magical hypothetical scenario the victim decided to consent half way through (and even if they did it would be very hard to make sure that it's actual legitimate enthusiastic consent and not coerced consent what with them being raped), the point is if someone has sex with someone else without consent ever at all ever it is rape and that can't be take back. You can't un-rape someone.
 
The Tomtrek said:
What? No.

If someone has sex with someone else without consent, that's rape. That's it. That's literally all there is to it.

It doesn't matter if in some magical hypothetical scenario the victim decided to consent half way through (and even if they did it would be very hard to make sure that it's actual legitimate enthusiastic consent and not coerced consent what with them being raped), the point is if someone has sex with someone else without consent ever at all ever it is rape and that can't be take back. You can't un-rape someone.
Click to expand...

Easy there hombre. I'm familiar with the definition of rape. And as I already said the person acting without consent can't change the recipients position.

I'm talking about the theory of consent.
 
That theory can be discussed regarding business transactions and other kinds of agreements, but not rape. Rape is not a sexual act, it is an act of violence. When someone decides to forcibly penetrate another person, all theory goes out the window. It is assault.

Bell. Unring. Can't.
 
I understand that. However, when a consentual sex act is converted to an assault by way of withdrawal of consent, the definitions start to present problems for the construct.
 
It doesn't automatically become assault unless the person who was asked to stop says FUCK IT I'm not stopping... because let's be for real there is no reason a person can't stop once they realize the other person wants them to.
 
I just want to make it clear that I have a wife I don't want raped and two sons I don't want to be rapists.

Strong definitions that withstand scrutiny protect the innocent.
 
I guess i just don't get what part of the definition you don't think stands up to scrutiny. If you're having consensual sex and the other person says stop, don't you at least pause and find out what's the matter? It doesn't seem that murky to me. Most people wouldn't withdraw consent during the act on a whim, I don't think. I'm sure there's someone out there who has, but even then...

Are you concerned about false rape accusations? Like more concerned about a false rape accusations than about rape?
 
ALSO, I'm not trying to give you shit about it. I read similar comments here and there on the internet, but it's usually places that I don't post so I never ask questions.
 
I'm more concerned about bulletproofing rape prosecutions tbh.

What I'm wondering about is the mechanics of maintaining the legal definition of consent.

What would it look like theoretically if a rape victim maintained the ability to give consent at any time during the assault, but chose not to (obviously) before during and after the fact? Could but didn't as it were.
 
I don't know... if the person didn't give consent at the beginning of the act it's rape, if the person didn't give consent during the act it's rape, and after the fact doesn't matter. I don't mean that every act of sex has to have a verbal permission slip (like, I'm sure you know if your wife is up for some sex), but if you're not sure about the other person getting consent is important.

I don't think it's possible to bulletproof a rape prosecution. Most of them occur without witnesses, and most are perpetrated by a person known to the victim.
 
Gear said:
If a person can withdraw consent at anytime, doesn't it stand to reason that they ought to be able to issue consent at anytime as well?
Click to expand...

Theoretically, yes. In theory, it is possible that a situation where someone who gets raped finds out they take pleasure from it and give their consent during the act can happen, just like it theoretically is possible that Bill Gates finds out about my existence and in an awesome stroke of luck on my part, decides to give me 2 billion dollars out of the goodness of his heart. Extremely improbable, but still a possibility.

Of course, that would also mean that, if the person consenting to the act after force has been applied is an honest individual, there would be no charges pressed since said person enjoyed the act, so the case would not be submitted to any court.

If the person does decide to still press charges, then by legal definition, the fact alone that there was an instant of non-consensuality would make the act fall under the 'rape' category. And if the accusant shows physical signs that clearly point to force having been used, then the consent having been given after the violation means shit-all to the judge and jury.


Now, aside from the legal situation. When something starts out as rape, true, enthusiastic consent (as opposed to one given in order to, for example, avoid more pain/being killed) given at a later time will not undo the fact that it was rape, but simply means that up to that point in life, the raped person hadn't known that s/he gets turned on by that kind of violence and just had one hell of an epiphany. I strongly advise against assuming that there are enough people out there who might feel like that to even consider taking the chance, though.

ETA -

What would it look like theoretically if a rape victim maintained the ability to give consent at any time during the assault, but chose not to (obviously) before during and after the fact? Could but didn't as it were.
Click to expand...

The fact alone that someone has the ability to give consent doesn't mean anything, as long as the consent has not actually been given. What it boils down to is that if someone wants to have sex, the object of their desire has to actively and conclusively express their consent to meet the definition of 'consensual'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top