Not that there are laws regarding consent, but how those apply. And the answer is a great many of the people who stand to be most impacted by them, given their personal habits. Young guys into college age.
We need to let every potentially sexually active male understand the ramifications of assuming, the impact of intoxication, etc. on judgement and consent and the life altering consequences of getting that wrong.
You're speaking with me. I'm not "Y'all". I have particular points, arguments and authority. Until you can manage that you're just a loud kid.
Actually, no. Many young men simply aren't knowledgeable about it, especially as consent relates to impairment.
Well, none of those are rape, but you don't get to decide what impact any of those has for someone else. You aren't qualified in any sense to make that call.
You need a semblance of rationality.
They'll be much more likely to go through things like that if people like you make the rules. Fortunately, you don't.
We're talking about sexual assault, so stop moving the goal posts. Men aren't nearly as likely to be raped in their lifetime. A woman has a 1 in 5 chance of being raped during her lifetime. 1 in 33 men will experience an attempted or completed sexual assault in theirs. (Rainn.org)
Education isn't obsession. And ignorance is no longer an excuse.
Another goal post move by Cruc. Everyone knows what rape is, but a good number of people have wrong ideas about what consent is and can find themselves in life altering trouble without clarification.
Only the profoundly ignorant and hostile find knowledge threatening or emasculating.
Qualified? No, you confuse liberty with grasp. Rather, you're free to do so. You're free to have a conversation with your toaster, too.
So far so good.
Rules and laws are like trespass signs. They mostly keep people from making uninformed errors and set the stage for punishment regarding the rest.
No it hasn't, though the figure on men is low, depending on your source. Here's another 1 in 5 from the Justice Department: 1 in 5 college age women will be sexually assaulted. (link) A lot of that ties into drinking/partying and error relating to consent, which is why so many colleges are instituting awareness campaigns.
Again, the point was rape. Men are much more likely to be assaulted. They're also much more likely to assault, as they are much more likely to rape. Neither of those have much to do with consent.
Sexual assault isn't a mystery or a subjective litmus established by any particular offended individual. It's an operation of law.
Demonstrating, again, that you never let complete ignorance of a subject slow you down.
You ride unicorns through the woods crying, "The feminists are coming! The feminists are coming!"
Complete nonsense resting on the back of a turtle.
Those sentences underscore your problem in every meaningful sense: a demonstrable lack of education.
So it's a good thing I haven't once championed that cause. The law, on the other hand, establishes consent. And given the admission within your statement that human beings can and will tend to define through their lens of experience and bias else, the law is a better foundation for a shared understanding.
No, only the worst impulses that arise from it. The ones that lead to a violation of someone else's rights.
Rather, women and men are free to embrace any identity that suits them and emphasize whatever they feel is inherently valuable about it, subject to the caveat of interfering with another's rights.
Only to the criminal.
Animals kill one another without courts, take from one another whatever they desire and are capable of taking. That your idea of a social order too?
Knowledge isn't a superficial abstract. Neither is the law.
No. I'd call rape and assault criminal. Those acts, by definition, work a harm to right and liberty.
That's mostly what you're doing, being angry at people who are attempting to keep you from doing harm, though your analogy fails on the whole by only considering the impulse of the actor and not the crowd of people walking under the bridge.
Objectively, demonstrably untrue. And that's part of your problem. If someone won't accept fact and examineable methodology and data there are only two reasons for it: they're ignorant of how to utilize rational methodology or they understand its impact on their bias and reject it as a means to preserve their part. Neither will impress or convince anyone who values reason.
And rape is rape, with assault a lesser included offense within the legal charge.
Supra, to some extent. Or, the law recognizes that all crimes are not equal. All violations of right are not equal. Rape is objectively worse than getting a punch on the snook, by way of. And you know this, even if your position forces you to attempt to deny it. Given a choice by a violent, angry individual capable of enforcing it, between being raped by him or taking a solid, painful punch to the jaw, you would by no means be indifferent or ambiguous about it.
Well, that was lazy of you. Just drop a link and wave.
lain:
Well, that was lazy of you. Just drop a link and wave.
Where to begin...the statement I made wasn't that 1 in 5 college women have been raped. So the article isn't applicable at the outset. My posit, with link in support and not in lieu, was particular and had you bothered to move from that posit to that link you would have encountered this opening line:
One in five female undergraduates have experienced some kind of sexual assault while in college,according to a new study of students at nine institutions released Wednesday by the Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Additionally, my statistic was one published in January of 2016. Your link was to an article written in 2014.
So I hope all that waving was your effort to fan away the odor associated with your response that wasn't much of one.
Nope. The facts are there in the report, linked both in the article and in my snippet.
Present facts and he notes that the internet, of all places, can provide someone willing to swear that cigarettes don't have a thing to do with cancer and the DOJ is just wildly mistaken.
To the contrary, I was wrong to spend most of the time I've spent on the subject with you when the facts had already been set out sufficient to establish the point by both reason and authority. Completely my fault for giving you a forum for your continuing bouts of misinformation and hostility mongering. In my defense, you're funny and it really was a slow day about the joint.
Misogynist creates a fantasy scenario to condemn women at large.
And his assumptive, powdered wig falls off.
Too narrow. You make exactly the same post to everyone, regardless of what they post...you probably respond like this when a waitress asks if you want more coffee.
Well, as long as you keep your head where it is no ol feminist will ever be able to squeeze one in there on you.
lain:You have to come up with more than the one way for that one to work.
lain:
Brand new day/same ol winner.
Pretending you have facts/events you can't reproduce/link to: fantasy.
If the people wearing them just decided the Mrs. can't vote.
If a profane pronoun is used instead of her name or job title.
So you're saying your misogyny began with an elementary school English teacher?
Bad poetry Yahtzee!