![]() |
Quote:
Quote:
Saying that we need to include everyone or whatever is all very well and good, but in practice it's kind of ridiculous. If you're not addressing these problems at their roots and educating the public about the inequalities people face, then you're not getting anywhere. I don't see the problem with saying "hey, x group don't have equal rights and face discrimination - and that needs to change". |
I feel like a lot I would have said has already been touched on.
Quote:
I feel like people need to understand that consent should be enthusiastic. The description from the story certainly didn't make it look like the woman involved was enthusiastic. If we have enthusiastic consent, then less situations like this would happen. I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that there are people who think Ansari acted appropriately. In all fairness I've gone through similar situations myself so perhaps I'm a little too sensitive to the topic, but honestly. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Also, I disagree with consent needs to be enthusiastic. Consent is when someone is willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not. If someone doesn't want to do it, then there needs to be a clear point sent across that says, "Hey I'm not doing this." Perhaps if consent was only for enthusiastic things then maybe less situations would happen, but that's not a reason in itself to set up a societal standard. I don't think he acted like he should have or at least with respects to how she felt about it. The issue I have is that if you don't like something, "You need to get your message out". A common problem I see in society is that people misunderstand things, which leads into a false sense of them not wanting to do it when the person probably just didn't understand or get the message. Communication is a two way street and while I won't say he's scot free on it for not trying to make sure she was fine with it, but at the same time if what you're doing isn't working you need to step it up a notch to get your point across. I don't think there is a more proper (or at least universally understood) consent than a firm "yes". Yes there needs to be better communication between the partners so that situations like this can be avoided in the future. |
Quote:
I did a couple of quick lookups for definitions of sexual assault. To be entirely honest I didn't take a look to see what jurisdiction you live in, so I apologize in advance. Here's one sort of America-centric: Quote:
I bolded some keywords. Explicit is sort of tricky to understand in this situation-- It's very clear that we see it two separate ways. I feel that she didn't explicitly consent, due to the fact she rescinded her consent in later parts of their encounter. If I understand correctly, you feel that she did explicitly consent because she said it out loud. I bolded fondling because that seemed to be a very large part of what could have potentially made the encounter into a sexual assault. Quote:
I've bolded the word coerce so that it's used as a point of consideration in discussing this topic. When I read the situation regarding Aziz Ansari, it seemed clear to me that the woman was coerced. While she seemed to consent in parts, it seemed clear that she also did not fully consent in other parts. Is it fair to say that she was coerced in this situation? If she was, it certainly fits this definition of sexual assault that is used in a textbook meant to educate trainee doctors in Emergency Room settings. I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, but I personally think that, considering the facts, it's fair to compare this to sexual assault. Quote:
Quote:
https://i.imgur.com/2RWvtod.png While sort of sassy, this was taken from a situation I had many years ago. To make a long story short, I got drunk and ended up going home with somebody. It was very clear that he wanted to have sex with me, but I wasn't entirely motivated and comfortable doing it. He goaded me until I eventually gave him consent to have sex with me, despite the fact I didn't want to have it in the first place. To use your language, I " was willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not.". Was I willing to carry it out? Absolutely, I used it as a mechanism that prevented me from having an argument despite the fact I didn't want it in the first place. Did I want it at all? No. I didn't want it whatsoever. in literally NO world did I want to have sex, but I had to so that I A) Didn't potentially get further hurt B) Get kicked out drunk and forced to make my own way back home. This isn't real consent. No amount of mental gymnastics anybody goes through will ever justify this being actual, legitimate, true consent, despite the fact I was willing to carry it out. Refer back to the earlier definition that I gave. I was coerced into having sex. Do you know what a great way to understand whether someone wants to have sex with you or not? Enthusiastic Consent. Quote:
--- I'm also going to be honest and say that I may not respond to you guys further. I don't spend a lot of time on this website, so your replies may get sidetracked to some of my other responsibilities. I certainly hope I gave you some food for thought though. |
Quote:
That isn't to say a man shouldn't try to pick up on these clues but if a woman says yes, you can't exactly blame the blame for taking that as a yes. In the moment, his enthusiasm was probably high enough to not notice her enthusiasm but she did say yes. It boils down to that, frankly. |
Doing a movement that supports everyone is that it does kinda ignore the group that is struggling. We don't have movements to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage. The latter is already a thing, and doesn't need any support at the moment. At the same time most men don't face the same problems women face because of their gender. It doesn't mean that men can't face discrimination at all, but it's rare for them to be underestimated or seen as weak because of their gender identity. They face a differnt kind of problem with having more pressure on gender roles, which is a thing that should be dealt with on its own.
More rights for one group of people does not mean less for the rest. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
When it comes to consent, it's up to the consent to give consent. They can refuse to; they can clarify for the person to stop. I don't believe it coercing someone to get what you want, cause that is a childish tactic that is befitting of an adult. When I disagree that consent needs to be enthusiastic I refer not to the person giving consent but the person that is given the consent. I wouldn't know what goes on in a person's mind so how would I think that they would be less than enthusiastic for that specific reason, unless I asked. (an example of the other party trying to ensure they get the point) I'm not giving saying a person should consent after being constantly asked/argued nor am I advocating a quick solution. I know couples situations are different. So what I mean by consent, I mean once it's given there isn't an excuse to claim anything about "Forced to do something you don't want" Unless you slam that door to begin with or shut the door in the middle. Quote:
Also, might I add that there is a society guideline that someone that is intoxicated is a factor to consider as well as others. Here's a link that explains them in order, feel free to treat it with scrutiny. https://www.rainn.org/articles/legal-role-consent In that situation I will say you weren't in a state to give consent if you were intoxicated. Look, I'm not trying to play devils advocate, I'm trying to analyze this from the perspective of someone outside of this scenario. If you were drunk to one of the intoxication levels, you legally can't give consent. Therefore what you gave to him wasn't consent and he could be charged for it. Quote:
I'm not debating on the person's consent level of interest, because if it's given then there isn't anything legal that can be done if the consent is legally given. I have plenty of opinions on that and I keep them aside so I can treat this from a legal/in-biased (hopefully)/broad perspective. I hope I didn't come off too despicable since my opinions on consent and all aren't too far from what you're saying. I feel it's important to make sure everyone is on board and wants to be there and it's important to establish that first and foremost. But not everyone is like me and justice doesn't care for my definitions on the matter. I don't say that to be condescending, but to keep things in perspective. Quote:
Thank you for the discussion and for being respectful with your response. I wish you well. |
Quote:
Given this assumption, your supposed ideal scenario actually seems to make things worse in many casses! Let's say I've gotten pulled by a big scary geezer with tattoos all up their arm and they calmy ask someone if they wanna come back to the lad pad, go on it'll be fun, i promise it won't be awkward, etcetera. He's actually a tender hearted soul, but I am absolutely terrified, and also likely drunk. I am unlikely to be in a position to "say no if I want to say no" because training falls apart In star lord's ideal world, where the responsibility lies entirely on the side of the person posing the question, I give unenthusiastic consent, the scary geezer uses his training and realises that his looks have spooked me out, and quietly reassures me that it's chill, I don't have to. But people are flawed machines;. It's possible he pressures me more, and we spend the night together. I didn't consent enthusiastically, and I can make a case against him the morning after. Now let's look at your ideal world, where responsibility lies upon me. I've been told to only say yes when I mean it, and say no for the rest. I say no. He graciously backs off. But people, as I say, are flawed machines: It's possible I forget my training, get scared by him, and say yes. He's well aware of society's training, so to him this categorically means that I want to spend the night. So we do. The morning after I have nothing to do. It was my fault. Why would I be able to get justice for myself when in the eyes of society it is my own screwup?? Do you see the difference? All we did was put the training on the victim rather than the accuser, and suddenly the bad scenario seems infinitely harsher on statutory rape victims.Unwanted intimacy, and I cannot stress this enough, Messes you up. We need a safety net for those affected. the training, and by extension, the blame, should lie with the person asking. Also this issue is unrelated to gender politics unless we're discussing favorable treatment of women in the courts. gay guys have consent issues too. So do women asking men. Let's go back to feminism. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Shame on you. |
They've gotten rid of grid girls in F1. Feminism literally losing women good jobs.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The law can only do what the law has and if consent is given within the law's stipulation nothing of legal action can be done unless proven illegal. It isn't heartless nor is it something to be shamed for in keeping that in realistic sense. I've read in this thread and KetsuekiR has already stated that KetsuekiR's opinion isn't too far off save for the "Legal" action done as a result of it. This isn't a case of playing devil's advocate, this is a case of perspective thinking and understanding how the law does things. If a person gives consent that is within the law, there isn't any legal action that can be done until it's illegal. I personally have opinions on the matter that go beyond the law and honestly I do want both parties to be enthusiastic and want to do it with each other. The issue is that my feelings on the matter are not a reason to "Legally" press a accusation when if consent is given "legally" then I can't do anything in regards to legal action. I'm not saying I support it, nor am I saying I condone it. The issue with this whole thing is that women and men aren't perfect and won't always understand each other's "communication" signals. I agree that society should try and make it simpler to understand, but you can't make it law based on that for reasons I gave earlier. If someone says a weak "yes" but the other only catches up on the "yes", then what more do you want? If the signal isn't clear and they don't get the message then what's the roadblock? I can agree that a person can give consent without wanting to do it and if the other person tries to clarify if the consent giver really wants to then that's all well and good, but not every person will do that first nor will every person see that there's something off by signals they don't recognize. I get this isn't a comfortable topic, nor is taking a legal perspective pretty. However, I'm firmly against using "shaming" tactics on another for the sole reason of a difference in opinion. I'm not saying you should be okay with these things, but at the same time rules won't consider the factors outside it's jurisdiction. That's all I have to say and Star-Lord I'm not trying to come off as condescending or attacking, but I'm trying to say that the legal perspective is a very neutral and cold perspective that can come off as heartless. It may be like that, but it's an important view point to understand, to avoid the lynching/shaming tactics that have been used to ruin people's lives. I wish you well |
I understand how the law works perfectly well which is why I chose not to respond to your earlier comment. What we as a society are able and unable to prosecute under the law is a talking point I've never brought up. It's part of why I elected to not talk about the legality surrounding my situation any further. While I think you had good intentions trying to unpack what happened to me with your perspective, I need you to understand that as this is a situation that happened to me, not yourself, and because of that I already did all the necessary research into the legality of it and my legal options. Honestly I was sort of dumbstruck at the fact you felt the need to try and "educate" me on it (for a lack of a better word). I mean no ill-will but it was an insanely bizarre experience for me.
As for what my actual goals and intentions are, I think I've made it clear that I'm trying to make us as a society think critically on the notion of consent in the first place. A theme that is present in this thread (that you yourself are not guilty of, actually) is that "Yes means yes and no means no". On paper that sounds great, and of course I agree with empowering people so that they have the ability to say yes and no clearly. That would be an ideal world, but the reality of the world we live in is that it's obviously not ideal. It's already been explained in this thread that context is important when analyzing behaviors in situations-- A woman saying"yes" to consent to sex because she's too afraid to be subjected to violence (despite the fact she doesn't want to have sex in the first place) needs to be examined critically. Can it be prosecuted under a statute? That's debatable, but I'm really not interested in debating in, as I've said. We don't need to be able to prosecute a situation for it to be considered sexual assault, and I think that focusing it on this purely under the legal scope of the law is short-sighted to the fact that this is a societal problem. Many victims don't have the financial ability or are otherwise unable to pursue litigation against their assailant. Law in general doesn't always do what people feel is the most "fair" or "ethical" decision-- That's why I'm focused on broadening society's views on sexual assault in the first place. Through education I think we may have a shot of preventing further sexual assault. After all, if people have a better notion of consent through context (my goal!) then there will be less people who feel assaulted and violated. I have very little patience for people who succumb to an context lacking and un-nuanced definition of consent. If this makes me a "shamer", so be it. All the best. |
Educating you was not the intention I wished to display, for that I apologize. As for the unpacking, it wasn't my intention either for education in that field and I can't blame you for feeling that way. I wasn't trying to "assert" into that nor claim that you didn't educate yourself in this or have knowledge in this area. I don't debate for a condescension or pride points for myself and I do apologize that I came off that way to you.
I do agree with that force (whether direct or indirect) is a violation of consent. I understand that it's an important detail to delve into and treat with scrutiny. Quote:
My concern with what you are saying isn't the intention or motive. I'm concerned in exactly the effect in it. The reason I press the whole "communications" thing is that one sometimes isn't aware of the situation. I'm not using that as an excuse, but it's a real thing that exists. I sometimes don't know that I'm hurting someone and aren't aware of the influence and that takes "communication" from either me or the other person to bridge that gap. Inherently I don't think education in this is bad; I do think it's bad if it's treated as someone not "caring" or avidly "doing it intentionally" if they just fail to read the signs. I understand education would help, but not everyone would get that education always be on their toes on it, aware when something is wrong, will recognize it and I don't think it's reasonable for people that aren't intentionally trying to harm their partner should be scapegoated for it. I'm not against your education nor am I against the reasoning. I only want to say that misreading signals shouldn't be "villainized" or people "scapegoated" as a result. That's the only thing I disagree with you on. Everything else, I'm fine with and makes sense, but in my own opinion that's where I differ. I do believe that "context" is important and I understand that you aren't debating on the matter of law now and so I won't debate on that section further (or at least try not to, I'm only human). I hope this clarifies my opinion on the matter and sorry that I caused you frustration. It wasn't my intention to come off as "educating" you; I just fail at writing sometimes. I do think your intentions are honorable and your education if handled well can be a good thing. I've already stated where my own opinion differs and it's fine for us to disagree. I wish you well |
Quote:
Moving on, my point actually goes fairly well with yours. The world is not ideal. This is exactly why I'm against someone misreading a situation to be put on the same level of severity as serious sexual assault. As much as I am against victim blaming, attacking men who took yes as a yes and didn't notice the woman wasn't enthusiastic enough doesn't seem like a very good idea to me. We're reaching a point now where if a guy doesn't pick up on small "non-verbal cues", he can be branded a sexual predator and his career and life ruined (see, again, Aziz Ansari). How is this helpful? |
Wow, there sure is a lot of strawmanning feminism in this thread. It's interesting that so many people are defining feminism by ideas they dislike. I wonder how many people have in good faith gone out and read a variety of feminist literature written by different feminists. If you want to learn some feminism 101, there is no shortage of blogs, YouTube videos, podcasts and more to learn about this stuff in 2018.
Let's be clear: feminists are not a hive mind. We don't all agree. The same way you get tons of Christians with different ideas about what Christianity means and how to practice it, with plenty of well-meaning people and a minority of loud obnoxious people making the rest look bad, so do you have the same with feminism. I don't assume all Christians are like the Westboro Baptist Church; imo it's ridiculously naive to believe such things about any group, feminists included. There are plenty of crappy feminists with beliefs I don't agree with, but it's silly to define it from that alone or pretend nothing good has come out of the movement. Anyhow, here are a few feminist ideas that I like, agree with, and think benefit our society:
I think most of this is pretty common sense and not all that radical or controversial. I imagine most people here will agree with most of them; a lot of these ideas are already mainstream (because of feminism). I came to some of these conclusions through feminist texts and perspectives, which I have found eye-opening and empowering. It's super edgy these days to be anti-feminist/anti-SJW. There's a popular narrative of how those fighting feminism are real progressives, defending society from oppressive man-haters who want to turn society into a dystopian matriarchy. To which I say...you caught us, that's the real feminist agenda, and we've already won; that's why Hilary Clinton is President and Oprah is the head of the CIA, intersectional feminism is beloved and accepted (and understood) by the entire galaxy, we're the oppressive Empire and you're the plucky Rebels, you figured us out. ~Psychic PS: For the love of all that is good, don't have sex with people who are not clearly enthusiastic about having sex with you. Especially if it means you might mentally and physically harm someone, and possibly face criminal charges and everything that entails. Getting some lackluster sex is very little reward weighed against some pretty significant risks. This is a ridiculous thing to defend imo. |
Fair enough, Psychic. I'm pretty sure anyone with a lick of sense (or wit enough to be observant) would be able to conclude that not all peeps in a group are the same and not a couple of a group speak for the group as a whole.
I can say I do agree with some of your list not all of it, but let's agree to disagree. Just one thing though I do want to mention. Quote:
But overall, I think I've made my points clear and see no reason for myself to continue unless I'm asked to clarify something. I wish you all well. |
I used to support a feminism (i'm male btw) until i found out
feminists are pro choice. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Unwanted sexual contact IS sexual assault in the eyes of the law, so BOTH the bad cases I've give here are defined as a form of "genuine" sexual assault. Suggesting this is not a form of "genuine" sexual assault is both false and probably harmful to its victims. How do you suppose "sexual assault" being an umbrella term rather than a narrow one actually causes some form of harm? We are fundamentally debating semantics here! Seriously. If you're suggesting that victims of more serious sexual assault will somehow be degraded or maltreated by having the term cover a broad range of crimes rather than a narrow one, I genuinely don't know why or how that would ever be the case? If I'm a victim of assault and battery and I came away badly bruised, I doubt I'd feel degraded by the fact that assault and battery also covers people who got nasty things shouted at them. I also doubt that my injury case would be treated the same as the others' shouting match case, even if the two come under the same legal terminology. Law courts aren't full of idiots blind to nuance, sentencing isn't done based off the title of the offence, and cases have ALWAYS been treated on a case by case basis. In the real world, the cases I gave are NOT being "treated the same" as more serious forms of sexual assault, and for my part I have never suggested they should be. I don't think you've identified any issue here. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
To start off, the entire argument is full of holes in its incomparability to pregnancy. Being connected to another adult human is not quite the same as having a baby. I think we can safely agree it's vastly less inconvenient (which is such a bad word to use when discussing life) to have a baby than connected to walking, talking individual. I don't know how you can see this argument as a very valid one, in all honesty. Let's move on imagining it is valid though. I'm not actually sure what your stand on it is, but seeing as the violinist argument is one for abortion, I'll go with that (correct me if I'm wrong). If this violinist was connected to you, and you knew that unplugging them would be killing them, would you really unplug them? Really think about it. This living human, who has done nothing wrong, and doesn't deserve to die, should die because it's inconvenient for you? If it were me, the answer would be no. I wouldn't be okay with unplugging the violinist. |
Quote:
Quote:
Of course it sucks, but in this case one man's screwup has resulted in someone's personal space and intimacy being compromised, in a way that has various psychological impacts. Manslaughter is a crime, even if it is a mistake. It sucks, but something obviously should be done in this case to dissuade people from screwing up in the same way. Now, as I spent my first comment explaining, it is better that we come down on the assaulter rather than the victim. You need to come up with an alternative. There is no perfect solution, but the current solution is better than your one of "just put more of the responsibility on victims", because that one does not work. Final thing, aziz ansari's career and life have not been ruined. Those who commit this crime do not have their life ruined. You need to stop making false equivalences. |
Quote:
I'm not saying Aziz Ansari couldn't have read the situation better, or that it's fair to say it's all her fault. However, I don't think to label him a sexual predator for misreading it is fair either. This isn't a false equivalence, this is something multiple feminist media sources did. I will digress, however, that later on, most media outlets agreed this wasn't sexual assault, but rather a jerk and a bad date. The alternative you asked for is what I've been pushing here; put more responsibility on both parties to ensure they know what they're doing. |
Quote:
Here's another example: If me and someone else are lifting a box, and we both drop it on the other guy's foot, we "should" both accept blame equally, absolutely. But we should not be punished equally. Punishment and persecution should only fall to me, because for the other guy, having a box dropped on your foot is bad enough. That is how the current system works, and I think it's absolutely fit for purpose. In continuation, out of respect, I would accept blame for the whole thing. Our opinions just differ fundamentally here, and I'm not going to try and convince you of this personal belief, but I think my points about punishment only falling on one party work well regardless of what your feelings may be. Then we go about telling people not to drop boxes on other people's feet. We could tell people not to drop boxes on their own feet, but as I say, dropping a box on your foot is bad enough. People intuitively don't want to drop boxes on their own feet anyway, it's bloody obvious. Let's return to the analogy. TW: Spoiler:
Quote:
What a great example for my points! He's not being persecuted for it because (as I have explained) most people aren't dumb as hell, and understand some forms of sexual assault are more serious than others. |
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:14 AM. |
![]()
© 2002 - 2018 The PokéCommunity™, pokecommunity.com.
Pokémon characters and images belong to The Pokémon Company International and Nintendo. This website is in no way affiliated with or endorsed by Nintendo, Creatures, GAMEFREAK, The Pokémon Company or The Pokémon Company International. We just love Pokémon.
All forum styles, their images (unless noted otherwise) and site designs are © 2002 - 2016 The PokéCommunity / PokéCommunity.com.
PokéCommunity™ is a trademark of The PokéCommunity. All rights reserved. Sponsor advertisements do not imply our endorsement of that product or service. User generated content remains the property of its creator.
Acknowledgements
Use of PokéCommunity Assets
vB Optimise by DragonByte Technologies Ltd © 2023.