LoneStar
New member
Then leave his as it stands.
You deserve this!
- Thread starter elohiym
- Start date
- Status
Are you of posting age?
Seriously ... if a person is too intoxicated to consent, it's rape ... that includes wives ...
LoneStar
New member
Yes ma'am, it is. Ignorance of the law is no excuse.
Two points:
1. I think that the point Ok_Dozer is making is that his wife's ability to consent was, for all practical intents and purposes, still sufficiently intact; however, the DOJ definition is so stringent so as to preclude consent in that case. I'm sure that married couples get intoxicated (to some extent or other) and commit the marital act all the time. It's probably not that uncommon, nor is there anything wrong with committing the marital act under those conditions. The intoxication, depending on the degree, may be morally problematic, but I don't think that the marital act being done in those circumstances is.
2. I don't think that your statement is true. Let us suppose that the wife was passed out. I don't think that we can assume that she was unwilling. She may have expressed her consent prior to drinking. For example: "I want to get drunk, pass out, and then commit the marital act."
1PeaceMaker
New member
What complicates the situation is he claims she raped him and the DOJ definition requires penetration. So if he's representing the law accurately is a big "if."
This topic deserves it's own thread.
lain:
Who DOES that?
Seriously, you are reaching way too far while trying to defend your position.
LoneStar
New member
okdoser is a creep. Why would a man even post such things about his wife on the internet?What complicates the situation is he claims she raped him and the DOJ definition requires penetration. So if he's representing the law accurately is a big "if."
This topic deserves it's own thread.
1PeaceMaker
New member
Someone who really hates the marital bed?
I mean ... can you imagine the conversation.
"Hon, don't take this personally ... it's not that I don't love you, but you are a repulsive toad. Allow me to get drunk, pass out unconscious and then you may have me!".
:shocked:
For the very reason you just specified ...
OR ... because like an unruly child who misbehaves, bad attention is better than none at all.
You have to consider the source. In all of my time on TOL (since 2007), to my knowledge, there has never been such an eruption of rape threads in which rape victims we painted as the villains. He does this for the sole purpose of causing derision and division among the members.
Yes, it is low ... though what is worse is that it is accepted and even applauded by those with the same lack of empathy and morals.
Different strokes for different folks, man. I'm just saying: if such an arrangement were made, I don't think that it's rape. Personally, I think that this "consent" talk is just silly. We should go with the classic definition of rape as "forcibly having sex with someone against his or her will."
We can, of course, nuance what "forcibly" means and what "against his or her will" means, and much of that will depend upon context.
But I think this is evident: what I have described above is not rape. Again, let us suppose that both partners are very intoxicated, but still able, in a very vague and obscure way, to "agree to" and engage in the marital act. I don't think that's rape.
Suppose that one of the spouses is very intoxicated, etc., but the other one is perfectly sober: depending on the circumstances, it just seems obvious to me that it's not rape.
Again, let us suppose that the wife not only is asleep, but has been rendered unconscious by sleeping medication (let us suppose that she takes sleeping medication every night), but there is a general understanding that she does not require of her husband that she be awake if he so wishes to commit a marital act. Presupposing no other relevant considerations? This particular case, even if he didn't ask prior to her taking the medication and passing out, is not rape, at least, I don't think that it is.
As a general rule, I'm inclined to rule out as "rape" any occurrence in which, the wife being informed of the activities the following morning, the wife is totally "cool" with what went down.
I think that Ok_Dozer is basically approaching this. What he's saying is this: if the DOJ definition is right, then a whole lot of very common place, ordinary encounters between married persons are, by that definition, rape.
That means that the DOJ definition of rape is too broad.
It's not acceptable, as should have been evident when I said earlier that rape is never "deserved" in sense 1 (i.e., owed in justice). That said, we don't live in a perfect world. It's not the case that everyone is a perfectly decent human being. In point of fact, some people actually are out to get you, and it's incumbent upon you to take reasonable steps to keep yourself safe.
To which you can stamp your foot and say "It's not fair; I shouldn't have to worry about that; people should just behave themselves" (meanwhile, of course, the criminals won't give even half a fig about your protestations, and would love nothing more than you and women like you to act as though they didn't exist)...or you could actually take reasonable steps to prevent yourself from being victimized.
If you don't do the latter, you are acting foolishly. It's really that simple. :idunno:
"Deserve" in the sense of "could I reasonably have foreseen or expected it, and nonetheless did nothing to avoid it"? I don't know. Statistically speaking? What do you think?
Was the CD lying in plain sight? As a general rule:
1. Keep the doors locked.
2. Keep all valuables out of plain sight, i.e., such that it isn't visible from the windows.
Fact is, most car burglaries are crimes of opportunity. You don't want to get burglarized? Then keep the shiny things out of view.
Right ... because THAT is so likely to happen.
Without consent means "NO" OR not able to give consent. So yes, that IS forcing sex on an unwilling/unable participant.
Agrees to means consent.
In the same way that shaving their head as they sleep would not be intrusive and mentally abusive. Forcing sex on someone who is incapable of responding or even aware of what is going on IS rape.
So you believe a wife that is totally *cool with what went down* should be the standard for all wives?
As you know, I don't and won't consider anything he has to say about rape as being relevant. He made his disdain for women crystal clear on several threads in which he droned on about women being deserving of rape. Save yourself some time and don't bother using his words as an example if you are conversing with me.
That really depends upon the concrete circumstances of the particular couple. Again: different strokes for different folks.
You are misunderstanding me. A reasonable standard should be: "Would the wife be cool with this?" If the answer is "yes," then, for that husband and wife, I generally don't think it's rape.
Rusha: since a new page started, in the event that you missed this from the last page:
It's not acceptable, as should have been evident when I said earlier that rape is never "deserved" in sense 1 (i.e., owed in justice). That said, we don't live in a perfect world. It's not the case that everyone is a perfectly decent human being. In point of fact, some people actually are out to get you, and it's incumbent upon you to take reasonable steps to keep yourself safe.
To which you can stamp your foot and say "It's not fair; I shouldn't have to worry about that; people should just behave themselves" (meanwhile, of course, the criminals won't give even half a fig about your protestations, and would love nothing more than you and women like you to act as though they didn't exist)...or you could actually take reasonable steps to prevent yourself from being victimized.
If you don't do the latter, you are acting foolishly (and, to that extent, shame on you). It's really that simple. :idunno:
"Deserve" in the sense of "could I reasonably have foreseen or expected it, and nonetheless did nothing to avoid it"? I don't know. Statistically speaking? What do you think?
Was the CD lying in plain sight? As a general rule:
1. Keep the doors locked.
2. Keep all valuables out of plain sight, i.e., such that it isn't visible from the windows.
Fact is, most car burglaries are crimes of opportunity. You don't want to get burglarized? Then keep the shiny things out of view.
It's not acceptable, as should have been evident when I said earlier that rape is never "deserved" in sense 1 (i.e., owed in justice). That said, we don't live in a perfect world. It's not the case that everyone is a perfectly decent human being. In point of fact, some people actually are out to get you, and it's incumbent upon you to take reasonable steps to keep yourself safe.
To which you can stamp your foot and say "It's not fair; I shouldn't have to worry about that; people should just behave themselves" (meanwhile, of course, the criminals won't give even half a fig about your protestations, and would love nothing more than you and women like you to act as though they didn't exist)...or you could actually take reasonable steps to prevent yourself from being victimized.
If you don't do the latter, you are acting foolishly (and, to that extent, shame on you). It's really that simple. :idunno:
"Deserve" in the sense of "could I reasonably have foreseen or expected it, and nonetheless did nothing to avoid it"? I don't know. Statistically speaking? What do you think?
Was the CD lying in plain sight? As a general rule:
1. Keep the doors locked.
2. Keep all valuables out of plain sight, i.e., such that it isn't visible from the windows.
Fact is, most car burglaries are crimes of opportunity. You don't want to get burglarized? Then keep the shiny things out of view.
1PeaceMaker
New member
I was covering 2, poetic justice.
I prefer that example over rape, and it's also on topic. :idunno:
And it was supposed to illustrate the hole in your logic.
Still apples to oranges. How about she's planning to arrange for another woman to be raped, but in spiking the drink of her victim she accidentally drinks the one she meant for her prey? If the event was sold out and she got what she was planning, it would be a little more poetic, surely.
It still isn't justice to rape a rapist. But at least you get some irony there.
Well then you would lose the poetry.
Self protection doesn't solve rape, it just means someone else will be the weaker prey. That said, we all have the right to defend ourselves and be safe.
It just shifts the problem to another car owner.
It doesn't stop the robbers from robbing, it's just serving self-interest.
Foolishness isn't a crime. Rape is. Big difference.
I would strongly advise that someone clean that neighborhood up. :up:
Yes. This is partly what makes this conversation so confusing and so long lasting between the different people on TOL. "Deserve," as I have pointed out, means a whole lot of different things depending on the context, and there is a tendency to get confused about the meaning of the word.
I didn't make the claim that a woman who goes to a frat party and leaves her drink unattended deserves rape in the sense of poetic justice. All that I mean is that she reasonably should have seen it as a possibility and taken steps to avoid it (e.g., by refusing to go to frat parties, by making sure she watches her drink like a hawk at all times and by traveling in packs).
Lest we become further confused over terms, we may distinguish the three senses of deserve as follows:
Sense 1: "it was owed to him in justice; it was something which was rightly due to him, and all of the circumstances wherein he received it were right and fair. He got the appropriate thing at the appropriate time from the appropriate person for the appropriate reasons, etc."
The way that sense 1 is colloquially expressed: "Justice was done."
Sense 2: "This was the sort of thing that this person deserved given that he or she is such and such a kind of person and has done such and such a kind of thing, regardless of whether the circumstances in which he or she received it were right, fair and just."
The way in which sense 2 is colloquially expressed: "Serves her right: she had it coming!"
You keep insisting on the "poetic" part, but I don't think that this is really the necessary or important part. All that is necessary is that we are able to see the thing done as in some sense like a punishment or reward for the person's good or bad deeds.
If a serial rapist gets torn apart by a pack of wolves, there is no "irony" in this, but nobody would dispute that in some sense he "deserved" such a fate for his crimes.
Sense 3: "This is the sort of thing which this person reasonably should have foreseen as a result of his course of action, and it is foolish of him to have expected a different result."
The way in which sense 3 is colloquially expressed: "She should have known better."
So let us briefly summarized:
Sense 1: Justice was done.
Sense 2: Serves her right.
Sense 3: She should have known better.
In the case of the unobservant party goer, I'm not saying 1 or 2. I'm simply saying: "She should have known better."
I'm afraid I don't know the details of the case.
Again, I don't know the details of the case, but I will say this:
Don't make your waiter angry. He might spit in your food. Just saying.
It's really not. There's a broad sense in which we can say that the adulteress "deserved" what happened to her that night, insofar as she was intent on evil doing, and she herself suffered evil doing.
That works too, and I think you see my point. It's not just for the woman in question to be raped. But there is a strong sense in which "she had it coming" or "deserved" what happened.
And you are foolish if you don't, and, to that extent, shame on you if you don't.
That's all I'm saying. :idunno:
That's just it. I'm not saying that the rape victim is a criminal. I'm simply saying that, depending upon the circumstances, she may have acted foolishly.
Bad things happen to foolish people. :idunno:
I completely agree. But unless and until then, lay off the perfume. You don't? Then shame on you. :idunno:
- Status