I've worked at a law firm for five years. In absolutely every state in the U.S., you need to acquire consent for sexual activity (by law). Some states accept nonverbal consent, some do not. I do not have a list on hand of the breakdown.
Yes, a person needs to acquire consent for sexual activity (and for many other activities, as well). I am not arguing that point. Instead, in this thread, I am discussing what should constitute legal consent.
Working in a law firm does not help, unless you do have a list on hand of the breakdown. Is there a chance you might be able to locate one?
From the information given to us by the writers of this episode, Bay's actions and words indicate her consent to Tank. From what we see, Bay's drunkenness is not at a level where she cannot consent.
If society ever enacts laws that state someone in Bay's condition is unable to consent to sex, then our society will suffer more than it does with the laws as they are now. In both versions, Bay enunciates her words. She speaks in complete sentences. She does not seem confused. She has not lost control of her bodily functions. She is not sleeping or unconscious. Bay's judgement may be impaired, but that's a risk Bay willingly chose to take when she drank alcohol.
A person getting behind the wheel of a car has made every decision to get there. A person who is complacent in sexual activity has not made every decision to get there; another person is having sex with them. I can't believe you are that thick that you do not understand the difference between someone being unable to say no vs. someone who picks up a set of keys and drives off. Again, baffling.
I don't want to call you thick. Personal insults seem rude. But I do disagree with you.
Bay is not unconscious. She is speaking clearly, in complete sentences. She is an active participant in what is happening. She is not some dead fish. She even invites Tank to lie with her in the bed and snuggles closer to him of her own volition.
I do believe situations exist where a person is so drunk that he or she cannot speak. I would support a law that states a person cannot give legal consent, if he or she is unable to formulate sentences. That's not Bay's situation, though.
You've very clearly misread what I've said. YOU can have doubts about whether or not YOU want to have sex. If you have doubts about if you've received consent or doubts about whether the other person is in their right mind to give consent; then you shouldn't have sex. I'm not sure how you misunderstood what I was saying, but whatever.
I can explain how I misunderstood what you were saying. What you are saying has nothing to do with the situation we are discussing, so I didn't understand what you meant.
Tank had no doubts about whether or not he received consent. Tank had no doubts about whether or not Bay was in her right mind to give consent. Tank knew that Bay had given him consent, and he knew that she was in her right mind to do it.
From everything the writers showed to us, I know Bay gave Tank consent and was in her right mind to do it, too.
I would never suggest someone blindly follow the law. If a law is immoral, you should speak out/act out against it (By the by, complaining on IMDB is not 'fighting against the law'. You sound like a facebook warrior). These are not immoral and tyrannical laws; they are all about consent. It doesn't take away rights from the drinking individual - they can still consent to things they do with their own body. It prevents others from taking advantage of them and their possessions. Basic contracts signed while in an altered mind are not valid, but sex with an altered mind is OK in your book? Very messed up.
You seem defensive. There's no need for a personal attack.
I am not sure what a "facebook warrior" might be, but I am involved in politics in the real world, not through social media.
Some contracts signed under the influence of alcohol are still legally binding. As with most things in life, it depends on the circumstances. If the person became intoxicated involuntarily, then he or she is more likely to be excused from any obligation. If the person chose to become intoxicated, then the answer depends on whether the other person had reason to believe he or she was legally incapacitated, at the time of the signing.
Defining the term "legally incapacitated" is a complicated matter. It's even more difficult to identify those who are legally incapacitated. There is no brightly colored line to divide the ones who are incapable of making decisions from the ones who are not.
It is wrong to take away a person's right to drink alcohol and consent to sex. If the person is conscious and an active participant, if the person is in control of bodily functions, if the person can formulate sentences, then it is wrong to say that person cannot consent to sex.
Women are raped by men and women. Men are raped by men and women. These are facts. I've repeatedly included men in my statement because I understand that all of these things occur and they are all equally bad.
Yes, I agree with all of the above statements. I understood you to be stating that in your previous post, and I believe you understand that I agree with you on these points.
I volunteer with rape victims having been sexually assaulted twice myself (neither time had I consumed any mind altering substances, since I'm sure that would be your assumption). I work with child victims, as I was assaulted by an adult male while I was walking home from school at 12 years of age. Many of the children I've worked with have been boys assaulted by older female figures in their lives. It is no less heartbreaking or disturbing, and I don't just stand around while it happens.
I'm not sure what to say to what you have shared, but I want to say something helpful.
I respect you for serving as a mentor to young people. Thank you for that.
I serve as a mentor to young people, too. I would prefer not to share anything about my personal experiences, but my heart hurts as I read about your experiences. I wish I could do something.
So basically, f you and your assumptions. I don't just complain on IMDB, I go out and work to change the laws so more assaults on men are recognized and accepted as sexual assault/rape in the court of law. From what you've said on here, it's clear that you do not understand how much further the law has to go to recognize rape against men. So spare me your 'changes' bullsh*t. You aren't doing anything except complaining. Congrats.
I'm just now reading this section. I had not yet read it, when I made my proceeding comments.
This section stings, because your language is harsh. I am going to try not to take it personally, though. Your emotion is understandable. This topic is sensitive.
I don't just complain on IMDB. I am involved in changing laws. I am working to protect people's rights, too.
We may be at cross-purposes, but we both care. We are both involved. That's a positive. Our active involvement is better than the people who read these posts and feel offended by one of our points of view, yet do nothing.
You honestly just sound like someone who wants rape to be legal.
No, I don't want rape to be legal. Rape is a serious crime. It should be treated as such. I don't want rape to be watered down to include what happened between Bay and Tank. You and I both want to protect people. Our only disagreement is about the best way to get there.
Oh, she can't even stand up, but she said yes and she chose to have another drink, so it's cool! You are the reason why we needed these laws in the first place. Most adults understand that a drunk individual is not capable of making rational decisions. They know to save sex for another night. They know that sex is not that important, but it is a BIG DEAL when you do not consent. All of these things seem to go over your head, and that is why we need these laws.
Nothing goes over my head. I see and hear your argument. I internalize it. I process it. I comprehend it. I can even see your motivation behind it, and it's noble.
But it is also misguided. Why can't you see that?
No one benefits, least of all women, from the law stating that an intoxicated person cannot legally consent to sex.
I won't be responding again; I only responded to call you out on your obvious bs 'changes' and 'fighting the law' and the fact that you completely misread something I said. You are a blip, the dying breed. Maybe in 50 years time, we won't need these laws because people like you won't exist. That is my hope. Until then, please try not to rape anyone. It really messes with lives.
Actually, I am not a blip, nor a dying breed.
In life, the pendulum swings back and forth. I've been on this earth long enough to see it.
We've been on a swing to the left lately, and that's good. I'm a liberal at heart. But I can also tell when things are swinging too far to the left, and that is what's happening now.
We cannot have laws that state a person must verbally utter the words, "Yes, I want to have sex with you," before having sex. The government does not need to be in our bedrooms dictating our intimate speech.
And we cannot have laws that state a person can utter the words, "Yes, I want to have sex with you," but if he or she has ingested enough alcohol to have poor judgement, then it is still considered rape.
I fully support any law that says it is rape to have sex with someone unconscious.
I fully support any law that says it is rape to have sex with someone so drunk that he or she cannot speak in complete sentences.
I fully support any law that says it is rape to have sex with someone so drunk that he or she is urinating, defecating, or vomiting all over himself or herself.
I agree with the opinions expressed in the following editorial. The person explains why these new sexual consent laws will not work and why people like me will not be a dying breed in asserting their harm:
http://theweek.com/articles/443335/big-problem-californias-new-sexual-consent-lawFeminists seem downright gleeful in arguing that California's newly minted "yes means yes" law will not only make sex safer on American campuses, but also better. But that's as credible as telling little boys that masturbation will lead to blindness. To the extent that the law works, it will actually ruin both good men and good sex.
California, the first state to implement this law, will require colleges that want to keep their state funding intact to deploy the "affirmative consent" standard when adjudicating sexual assault cases. This means that campus authorities will have to establish whether the partners obtained "affirmative, conscious, and voluntary" agreement. Although non-verbal consent is allowed, verbal is better. And it has to be obtained at every stage — touching, kissing, and foreplay — not just initially.
The obvious problem with the law — which many other states are considering as well — is that it assumes that sexual assault, already a crime under multiple laws, is the result of miscommunication. The assumption is that somehow one partner (and let's be honest, it is overwhelmingly the one with a Y chromosome) didn't ask or realize that the other wasn't into it. But the fact is: Most assaulters know exactly what they are doing. The vast majority of campus rapes are committed by a small minority of repeat offenders who give not a damn about what the woman wants. And if they can threaten violence, they can also lie about obtaining consent. So how will the law change anything?
Feminists argue that the new standard means that campus authorities will now have to grill the accused about whether and how he obtained consent — rather than the victim to prove that she refused — mitigating the trauma of investigations and encouraging more women to come forward. This is true. But by changing the assumption from "presumed innocent" to "presumed guilty," this new standard will inevitably snag some guys who earnestly meant no harm. Over time, of course, an industry of lawyers will emerge to coach the accused on how to game the law and get away.
Supporters have also launched an aggressive "consent is sexy" campaign to pre-empt the kind of comedic lampooning that was unleashed by Saturday Night Live and Dave Chappelle the last time this standard was proposed. It's sexy, they claim, to ask your partner if they'd like it "if I bit your neck" or "spanked your bottom." Think Progress' Tara Culp-Ressler, a consent evangelist, insists that far from killing the mood, making sure your partner is as excited as you are about certain moves and positions will enhance the sexual experience.
Sometimes. Still, such claims are based on a rather simplistic understanding of human sexuality that is out of touch with the lived experience of most people.
The truth is that, except in the first flush of infatuation, both partners are rarely equally excited. At any given moment, one person wants sex more passionately than the other. What's more, whether due to nurture or nature, there is usually a difference in tempo between men and women, with women generally requiring more "convincing." And someone who requires convincing is not yet in a position to offer "affirmative" much less "enthusiastic" consent. That doesn't mean that the final experience is unsatisfying — but it does mean that initially one has to be coaxed out of one's comfort zone. Affirmative consent would criminalize that.
The reality is that much of sex is not consensual — but it is also not non-consensual. It resides in a gray area in between, where sexual experimentation and discovery happen. Sex is inherently dangerous. There will be misadventures when these experiments sometimes go wrong. Looking back, it can be hard to assign blame by ascertaining whether both partners genuinely consented. Indeed, trying to shoehorn sex into a strict, yes-and-no consent framework in an attempt to make it risk free can't help but destroy it.
The sexual revolution liberated women from the shackles of modesty, allowing them to explore their sexuality. It won't help their sexual actualization now to enchain their partners in ill-advised lines that limit the moves they can make.
reply
share