musterion
Well-known member
The question is legit and reasonable. You could answer a question just this once.
On Consent
- Thread starter ok doser
- Start date
The question is legit and reasonable. You could answer a question just this once.
Whether one is given consent is not a licence to do wrong.
The civil law gives consent to murder babies.
Doesn't mean it's OK to go ahead and murder babies just because you have consent to do so.
Same for encouragement.
Whether another encourages you to do wrong, the responsibility to give in or resist is still upon you.
Neither consent or encouragement is an excuse for anyone to do wrong.
The civil law gives consent to murder babies.
Doesn't mean it's OK to go ahead and murder babies just because you have consent to do so.
Same for encouragement.
Whether another encourages you to do wrong, the responsibility to give in or resist is still upon you.
Neither consent or encouragement is an excuse for anyone to do wrong.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
whatchoo talkin' about willis? :freak:
women don't have any responsibility for their choices
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
yes, i figured we'd come to this
there's a reason i dint post this in the ECT forum, tam
obviously, what these dopey kids are doing is wrong
my interest is in the legal application of consent
PureX
Well-known member
And why should anyone care either way? If we weren't obsessed with the sexual habits of others, such silly questions wouldn't even be posed.
We humans make very bad decisions when we're inebriated. And we all know this. Which is why we should not take advantage of each other when in such a state, regardless of perceived assent. Wise, intelligent, and mature men don't have sex with inebriated women, because they understand this. College boys are not wise, intelligent, or mature, and so sadly they must be held to account when they behave badly, or they will never learn to become wise, intelligent, and mature men.
Instead, they'll end up like many of the overgrown male infants we see posting, here.
PureX
Well-known member
Excellent comment! It's not the place of the law to make us be 'good people'. That's our own responsibility. The law's purpose is simply to protect us from each other while allowing us the freedom to mind our own morality.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
If you are only interested in the civil law about it (for this particular argument, not that it is the only thing that concerns you), then take the same approach for homos, abortion, adultery.
All have legal consent per the civil law.
According to civil law, none have committed a wrongdoing and none should be punished for it.
It is also permissible to revoke consent.
A woman can consent to having sex with a stranger, and can revoke that consent at any time she feels uncomfortable due to the fact that she realizes the stranger's intentions went beyond what her intentions were.
The extent of his arousal makes no difference as to whether she has to go through with or not.
The decision is entirely hers to continue or not.
It doesn't any more than it respects any decisions made while not inebriated.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
yes, i am
tam said:
lots of things concern me, tam, including your bizarre behavior
tam said:
nope
if you want to, start another thread
my interest is on the current application of law when it comes to consent and inebriation
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
looks like you're having difficulty following along
in the case of consent while inebriated, the law (as currently written) appears to be that consent cannot be given while inebriated
denial of consent (aka consenting to refusal) is ok
my interest is in discussion the disparity
it occurred to me earlier, as i was walking across campus to get a coffee, that this is a case of the state infantilizing women, by removing from their control aspects of their sexuality, in certain conditions
If the state can remove your right to make certain specific choices (the choice to consent) while inebriated then is it just/logical/reasonable that the state holds one responsible for other choices made while inebriated (for example, driving drunk)?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
and if the "no" isn't respected and the unwanted behavior is continued?
is it acceptable to use force to back up the "no"?
theophilus
Well-known member
I would use deadly force. So one could accept the "no" or enjoy some hot lead center mass.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
so if i told my wife "no" and she kept grabbing at me and trying to arouse me, it would be ok for me to shoot her? :freak:
theophilus
Well-known member
Not if she's still buzzed from the bottle or two of wine she had before "other things."
(see your post #8)-
Re:
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
so it's ok for her to continue forcing her unwanted attentions on me if she's drunk
is it ok for me to continue forcing unwanted attention on her if i'm drunk?
Who told you that?
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
OK by civil law?
Is it against civil law to do so?