Wait, This Need To Be Taught?

[The Almighty Aardvark]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Fasckira]

Ricky sums it up for me:


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

 

[SadisticFire]

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

Just a thought.

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

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

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

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

 

[runic knight]

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

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

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

Quite the damn mess.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[QuicklyAcross]

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

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

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

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

 

[Something Amyss]

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

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

Ricky sums it up for me

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

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

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

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

 

[SadisticFire]

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

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

 

[R0guy]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it would be equally unacceptable and fallacious.

 

[Netrigan]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Netrigan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And it would be equally unacceptable and fallacious.

Okay, literal laugh out loud moment there.

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[SadisticFire]

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

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

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

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

 

[The Almighty Aardvark]

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

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

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

Quite the damn mess.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Netrigan]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[runic knight]

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

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

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

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

 

[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.