|
Hi Condi, >> Strawman, I have delayed responding until now, as I wanted to be certain of my
>> feelings on this. You ask me to point out who on this forum suggested otherwise
>> - that the fact that something is a sex object does not give you the right to
>> f##k them. Why did you happily use the word 'fuck' in your
previous post, but write "f##k" above? Sorry to argue trivialities, but it does hint that you are conflicted on this issue. >> Well, you did not use those specific words, but I think it is reasonable to
>> interpret your words in this way. You words were in the context of a discussion
>> about date rape, and you said that women gyrating on the dance floor want
>> sexual "attention", which you then equate with them wanting to be
>> objectified. Indeed, you mock women by characterising their position as: >> >> "I want men to look at me twirling around admiring me in my little
>> >> mini-skirt and boob-tube, but I don't want them to regard me as a sexual
>> >> object." >> Then you said "Say this a few times - it's actually quite funny." >> Well, it is not funny and you are wrong - I want be be noticed and regarded as
>> a person with sexual attributes, but not as a sex OBJECT. Condi, I refuse to argue definitions, maybe you
could let me know what your definition of "sex object" is? >> In failing to make
>> this distinction, it seems to me that you fail to distinguish between seeking
>> attention - ie a desire to be noticed and regarded - and seeking to be
>> exploited. If you did raise the sex object point as a partial excuse for date
>> rape, then why did you introduce this point into the discussion? Lets recap the argument here Condi wrote: >> You seem to assume that advertising for attention is advertising
>> for sex. Then Strawman replied: >> I think that it's advertising for sexual attention. Yes I think it is advertising for sex - with the right partner (the
self-made-multi-millionaire concert-pianist airline-pilot war-hero rock-star
man-of-steel with the Lamborghini). Such women go to a great deal of trouble to
make themselves sexually attractive - maybe they shouldn't be surprised when
they attract the attention of men whom they don't find attractive themselves. Condi, you also said: >> .. of course when [one] gyrates on the dance floor one is interested in
>> attracting male attention. But wanting attention is not the same thing as
>> wanting sex. You are using obviously sexual means to draw attention to yourself - please
don't complain if there are men who are watching who would like to have sex
with you. And no - this is not a 'partial' excuse for rape, or any kind of excuse for
rape. Rape is still rape. But I have to agree with Yobbo here in that people
get drunk knowing alcohol removes their inhibitions (including inhibitions
about having sex with 'new acquaintances'), and if you get drunk and agree to
sex, then maybe you shouldn't complain about it afterwards. Condi, I'm not trying to piss you off - I enjoy your contributions to this
forum (having a chick calling herself 'Condi' on a libertarian forum is pretty
cool for a start :). But I disagree with you on this point. My own experiences
with these issues (when I was younger and more stupid), and the many anecdotes
from men who have been threatened with rape charges have made me quite cynical. Your own statement: >> I have had non-consensual sex in the sense that I did not, or cannot remember,
>> consenting and did not want to have sex with the male involved. Is a prime example of what I mean. Maybe you didn't want to have sex with the
male involved when you were sober. But what about when you were
drunk? Beer-goggles work for women too. Just to clarify what I mean:
- If someone passes out drunk, and someone else has sex with them it's
rape. (This happened to one of my (male) friends by the way - don't assume that it's
only women who are victims here, but maybe that is a discussion for another time).
- If someone knowingly and willingly takes a drug which simply removes their
inhibitions and then agrees to sex, they have given consent. Just because their
inhibitions are gone doesn't mean that the consent is no longer 'informed
consent'. It's perfectly informed - they just don't feel inhibited about it.
The difficulty arises because in the latter case alcohol has the added effect
that it impairs judgement in other ways, and there probably is a point where
the consent could no longer be considered 'informed'. That is where the
difficult gray area comes from. But before I put someone in goal, I would want
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Your claim that it was 'non-consensual sex in the sense that I did not, or
cannot remember, consenting and did not want to have sex with the male
involved sets alarm bells wringing. If am ever on a consent-rape jury with
that as the complainant's testimony, the defendent is going to walk - no matter
how long I have to sit in that jury room.
| 
