Wait, This Need To Be Taught?

[BubbleBurst]

So, schools have to teach kids how to be moral citizens as well as functional levels of knowledge in a variety of topics? Cause I could have sworn that the responsibility for raising the child into an upstanding member of society was sort of on the parent and to an extension the community there and that a school's purpose wasn't to be surrogate parents but rather, you know, a place of skill and practical learning and social interaction for peers of age groups.

Well... yes. I would argue that that's one of a school's many functions/purposes/goals. First of all, not everyone will or can get that from their parents, even in a perfect world, and there's no harm in it being reinforced even if they do. Second of all, aren't schools a pretty major part of the "society" that you think bears some responsibility, especially where the children they educate are concerned? Third of all, children in this country will spend, at minimum, something like 8 hours a day, 5 days a week, the majority of the year for at least 14 of the first 18 years in their life. School is where kids do a lot of their growing, of course schoolshave some responsibility in helping shape children morally and socially.

Call me crazy, but perhaps rather then trying the fruitless endeavour of tightening and tightening definitions to the point that there aren't loopholes left for people to try to excuse the selfish behavior, maybe we should concentrate on trying to find a way to raise people so they aren't the sort of selfish assholes seeking out such loopholes in the first place?

Like making certain that kids hear about it as they grow up? Possibly from a source of authority in their young lives? Maybe in some sort of educational setting...

Hell, everyone* knows rape is wrong both from a societal and, even if by nothing else but extension of societal, a moral view. Fucking unjustifiable. You don't need to teach that to anyone. Consent in various degrees of scenarios isn't any harder either, as even those that refuse to act in such a way can still recognize basic things such as other people's personhood. But ask people if it is ever ok to it someone in the face outside of self defense and you will still see group of people trying to find ways to justify it. As such I think the problem is one of a lack of understanding or just lack of caring about the ethical aspect of consent rather then the legal definition. Thus attempting to define it in more and more stringent definitions under the law isn't going to stop anything, just lead to more and more creative ways to get loopholes. It is missing the heart of the problem and actually making predators have to get better at being predators.

*exceptions noted for sociopaths and those with mental conditions that would impede such standard recognition

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...

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.

So, if I go out and decide to steal someone's wallet, because I see they're drunk and will be an easy target, that's on them?

 

[BubbleBurst]

Now, the societal conditioning (particularly in the USA) that men are supposed to "work" for sex, and the idea that if you work hard, you get what you want (which, in combination, logically results in 'I did the work, so I deserve the sex') isn't helping.

This.

Do X,Y and Z and women are supposed to have sex with you. If they don't you've been friendzoned (if they do, they're a slut, and if they complain, they're a *****...cannot remember who said that, but it's a good one).

But Hollywood promised me that, if I was good and was the hero of my story (and obviously, I am) I am owed a beautiful woman, dammit.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Now, the societal conditioning (particularly in the USA) that men are supposed to "work" for sex, and the idea that if you work hard, you get what you want (which, in combination, logically results in 'I did the work, so I deserve the sex') isn't helping.

This.

Do X,Y and Z and women are supposed to have sex with you. If they don't you've been friendzoned (if they do, they're a slut, and if they complain, they're a *****...cannot remember who said that, but it's a good one).

But Hollywood promised me that, if I was good and was the hero of my story (and obviously, I am) I am owed a beautiful woman, dammit.

Eh, you don't even have to be good. The villain just has to be worse so you look good by comparison, and people might not bring your own problems up at all.

 

[The Lunatic]

Kinda odd the article focuses so heavily on what women are taught and not the overall picture.

Lack of knowledge affects both genders.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

Right, so, when people go out drinking and get completely shit-faced, they should accept the responsibility of me strapping them into a trolley and pushing them down a really big hill into a pit full of grizzly bears.

Hey, I'm not in the wrong here. They chose to drink, so really, it's their fault their in the bear pit.

Or, here's a thing - maybe, *just* maybe, we should teach people not to take advantage of drunks? Crazy thought, I know, but just putting it out there.

So, if I go out and decide to steal someone's wallet, because I see they're drunk and will be an easy target, that's on them?

You guys seem to have ignored this part:

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.

My bold for emphasis.

I don't believe he's claiming that drunk people are responsible for violent or horrible shit being done TO them, but, rather, the decisions that they make while intoxicated. You don't "choose" to be rolled down into a pit of grizzlies or robbed while drunk.

You do, however, "choose" to get behind the wheel of a car...and are then liable for any negative outcomes from said decision.

 

[BubbleBurst]

snip

So, if I go out and decide to steal someone's wallet, because I see they're drunk and will be an easy target, that's on them?

You guys seem to have ignored this part:

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.

My bold for emphasis.

I don't believe he's claiming that drunk people are responsible for violent or horrible shit being done TO them, but, rather, the decisions that they make while intoxicated. You don't "choose" to be rolled down into a pit of grizzlies or robbed while drunk.

You do, however, "choose" to get behind the wheel of a car...and are then liable for any negative outcomes from said decision.

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.

 

[BubbleBurst]

*Double Post, Sorry*

 

[Tsun Tzu]

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 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 closer 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, thereby expressing 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?

Which is a decision you made on your own that could potentially harm or kill others. The fact is if you have sex with someone while too drunk to make an informed decision that is still also a thing being done TO you. Someone is taking advantage of your impaired state. Just like you can't give legal consent in terms of signing a contract when you are impaired because it is someone encouraging you to make a decision you may not have made when in full control and therefore taking advantage of your current state.

I also wish people would just stop and think how creepy they sound when they try and defend drunken consent. Almost like "Hey you chose to drink that makes you fair game." How does that not make people's skin crawl.

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.

Edit: In regards to impairment and contracts...since I glazed over and missed it at first.

http://smallbusiness.chron.com/laws-legal-contracts-mental-impairment-61128.html

A person who is using drugs or alcohol could be temporarily impaired. Signing a contract with a supplier while you're out drinking might be one such situation where this issue could arise. Legal website FindLaw emphasizes that being intoxicated is not typically a way to get out of a contract. There is an exception to this rule if the other person can prove you knew they were intoxicated and took advantage of them. For example, if you knew the supplier did not want to work with you and kept buying him drinks until he was drunk enough to sign, he might be able to get out of the contract.

Someone purposefully getting you drunk in order to get you to be more open to the idea of fucking them is, without a doubt, a really shitty thing to do...but, again, we're into context and what the circumstances of the events are...and, again, into what constitutes "too drunk." Even then, you're not guaranteed to no longer be responsible, in the contract sense anyway.

 

[BubbleBurst]

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 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.)

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.

 

[BarkBarker]

I think to a degree there is total bullshit in these people statements, what about observing your parents? What about questioning right and wrong, not trusting everything you are told like a sheep? If somebody told you you couldn't say no, you'd think that seemed fucking ridiculous, not by standard of sexual rejection or anything, but as a human being told they don't have a choice. Tell a kid they aren't allowed to say no and see what happens. Adverts on TV? They are now very clearly showing and telling you that non consensual sex is rape, this is however a rather recent development in the past couple of years so it isn't all that much help, but fuck me you ever look at ANY media? A human being knows how to identify something that doesn't look right, you see that woman saying she doesn't want to and the guy ignoring her refusal? Yeah, when I see someone ignoring refusal of an action it triggers something, I can sense that something isn't right with this situation, as a creature with will I'm fucking intelligent enough to know when will is being stomped out. We live in the age of information, if I am confused about shit I can go look online or even ask my goddamn parents. I don't care if you were brought up religiously, there are SO many different opinions on sexuality and the like that to put your fingers in your ears and ignore everything apart from what schools and mommy taught you, you are a goddamn stubborn fool.

Now on the other hand, sex education is just plain awful, they don't want to get too detailed and many people gather hat they can from what they see in media. However, the problem there is they only view a very small section of media, stupid rom-coms and teen movies are moronic about it, but in doing so they often highlight how stupid it is to the adults who possibly acted like that as teenagers, as little lampshading of how stupid you were. People who don't want their kids to be taught about sex or want to do it in the most unhelpful way possible are incredibly naive, we are over 7 BILLION humans on this planet, humans know sex and we love it. Why would anyone want a child to grow up in ignorance about something that can be very dangerous and harmful to them if they don't know all that they need to know? I didn't get thrown in the dark about touching hot irons, I got told straight to my face don't fucking touch it that shit will burn you. Sex education needs to come from someone who actually gives a shit, I was taught by someone who didn't seem to either be comfortable in their own sexuality or was really beating around the bush on the subject. I found out later in life of my own accord with the internet, but I went out of my way to know more and to know every angle that could exist, other ways of thinking, where those kind of thoughts come from. You know what I found? Assholes think they deserve sex, and that the opposite sex owes them something. You find correlation between what people say and the kind of people they are. Prude mother talking about how sex before marriage is evil? Oh okay, what is your reasoning?.....Yeah you a stupid cow, your reasons are filled with logical fallacies and you avoid criticism. People are generally not stupid, they can figure out things with a few pressing questions about what they see. While most of those comments come from people who heard crazy things about sex and relationships, I can almost guarantee you they all fond out their own definition of sex and relationships from the world at large, so maybe sex education doesn't need to be in depth, just a simple approach where kids can ask questions and find their own answers. Maybe it is necessary to make people question the ways of old and forge their own mindsets on everything? I'm not sure, there is a silver lining to the fallacies of sex education and it would need a far more in depth questioning and research.

 

[Lieju]

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?

 

[jklinders]

Sexual consent is a pretty murky thing legally. I'd say that the vast majority of the risks associated with unclear sexual consent (being drunk, changing your mind mid act, age, not being certain of where you stand) comes from the various and numerous nebulous risks associated with casual sex. If you are spending a lot of time hooking up with near strangers, then male or female you are going to run across people sooner or later who will fuck you up. Casual sex by definition is a high risk act. A woman in one of these hook ups could run across a violent psycho who will take what he wants. A man could easily be hit with a false accusation born of next morning regret.

Actually knowing your partner can go a long fucking way to resolving the more nebulous issues around consent. That's not just me being an old fashioned monogamist, just common sense.

Now for the rest. The whole boys will be boys sentiment is alive and fucking well even in supposedly enlightened parts of the world. A girl not too far from here was at a party, drank under age got drunk and was raped. Then slut shamed on the internet until she committed suicide last year. The boys posted this shit on fucking facebook, video and all they are known, and they fucking got off scot free because "boys will be boys" and "she should have known better than to get drunk."

FUCK THAT Even if she was of age, even if she agreed freely to the activity, she was still piss drunk and unable properly consent under those circumstances. Christ she was nearly or completely unconscious at the time. And it was on fucking video.

Parents are frequently ill equipped to teach the finer points of consent because frequently they don't understand the issues either. So someone has to do it. This is why it needs to happen somewhere.

Is it the schools job...? Not exclusively.

Should the parents be doing this? Absolutely.

Are all parents capable of this? Not on your life.

How do we fix this? Good question. Discuss.

 

[Flutterguy]

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

Alternatively, there are some cultures where men wholeheartedly believe women are lesser creatures, and thus should not be given sympathy.

 

[Something Amyss]

Trying to find it, but I remember a survey given to college students male and female that listed a bunch of situations, and then asked if forcing sex without consent in these situations was rape (the correct answer in each and every case was yes).

Depending on the situation, between 25 and 59% of the male respondents said no.

Is it the one that was from the 1970s but gets passed off as a recent study?

I'm not saying it's particularly good that that was the attitude in the 70s, but that was more than 30 years ago.

 

[Thaluikhain]

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.

 

[CpT_x_Killsteal]

I honestly think these people are just being willfully ignorant, or they've never exited whatever little bubble is is that prevents them from seeing the outside world, or hearing a court, or seeing an episode of Law and Order or CSI, or ever seeing a news report on a court case.

As someone mentioned it before, there are people who are well aware of rape and it's implications, but people like those from "TheRedPill", convince themselves otherwise through one fallacy ridden logic or another. The same reason people kill in cold blood, or justify murder in the name of one god or another.

Then again, maybe I'm wrong, and people really are just that stupid.

 

[chiggerwood]

Spoiler: How do we fix this?

Sexual consent is a pretty murky thing legally. I'd say that the vast majority of the risks associated with unclear sexual consent (being drunk, changing your mind mid act, age, not being certain of where you stand) comes from the various and numerous nebulous risks associated with casual sex. If you are spending a lot of time hooking up with near strangers, then male or female you are going to run across people sooner or later who will fuck you up. Casual sex by definition is a high risk act. A woman in one of these hook ups could run across a violent psycho who will take what he wants. A man could easily be hit with a false accusation born of next morning regret.

Actually knowing your partner can go a long fucking way to resolving the more nebulous issues around consent. That's not just me being an old fashioned monogamist, just common sense.

Now for the rest. The whole boys will be boys sentiment is alive and fucking well even in supposedly enlightened parts of the world. A girl not too far from here was at a party, drank under age got drunk and was raped. Then slut shamed on the internet until she committed suicide last year. The boys posted this shit on fucking facebook, video and all they are known, and they fucking got off scot free because "boys will be boys" and "she should have known better than to get drunk."

FUCK THAT Even if she was of age, even if she agreed freely to the activity, she was still piss drunk and unable properly consent under those circumstances. Christ she was nearly or completely unconscious at the time. And it was on fucking video.

Parents are frequently ill equipped to teach the finer points of consent because frequently they don't understand the issues either. So someone has to do it. This is why it needs to happen somewhere.

Is it the schools job...? Not exclusively.

Should the parents be doing this? Absolutely.

Are all parents capable of this? Not on your life.

How do we fix this? Good question. Discuss.

That's the question of the fucking century. I think what it is, is that we need to make sex less of a taboo. Make people more comfortable with the idea of sex, and open to the discussion of sex. I think society (in america at least) is a bit diseased when it come to their thinking of sex. We exalt it, then we demonize it. We denounce teen pregnancy, then we denounce proper sexual education that can prevent teen pregnancy. We cover our eyes when it's on TV, then we jack/jill off to it on the internet. We want it in our stories but we don't want it discussed.

It seems to be this horrible obsession with people either for or against. What needs to happen is we need to find an equilibrium and treat it in a neutral manner, as something that exist, neither good nor evil, not something to aspire to having, but not something to be completely avoided if you see what I'm saying. I think if we were to do that then we could actually get to a point where people are more able to articulate intelligent ideas about sex.

I'll end this with a quote that I think sums up my beliefs best:

"Sex is a bit like food , only even more exciting, and the only people who are obsessed with food are anorexics and the morbidly obese.? -Stephen Fry

 

[chiggerwood]

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:

Now while that sounds all well and good, it misses the fact that a person who is prone to the act of rape cannot be taught out of being a rapist. You can't just sit men down in a classroom and teach them not to rape. First off that'll just piss off the non-rapist in the groups, and cause them to feel like they're being ostracized. 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.