DoubtingThomas wrote:If I tell my girlfriend what I think about swinger clubs she would kill me.
There's your answer to the OP. Society on a whole (and your girlfriend) thinks your position is wrong. Unless you can do a better job explaining the benefits to your position, I'd suggest you steer clear from discussing this topic with ANYONE because it currently makes you come across as a fringe member of societal standards.
Just very quick. Nobody gives a rat's about me because no one knows I don't believe anymore. I am suffering because there is probably no god and no celestial kingdom. After so many sacrifices I made for the LDS church my entire goddamn life, I think I may have some kind of emotional trauma.
But who cares. I am a guy, I have to have to balls to get over it somehow.
You should find a non LDS girlfriend. That will help a ton as you won't need to hide your true beliefs and you can be open and honest with someone.
This is one occasion where the ward would be right to conclude the doubter has a porn problem and/or wants to sin.
“When we are confronted with evidence that challenges our deeply held beliefs we are more likely to reframe the evidence than we are to alter our beliefs. We simply invent new reasons, new justifications, new explanations. Sometimes we ignore the evidence altogether.” (Mathew Syed 'Black Box Thinking')
I have a question wrote:This is one occasion where the ward would be right to conclude the doubter has a porn problem and/or wants to sin.
bull! Before having serious doubts I never watched porn. My desire to "sin" came after realizing that life is probably short, and my remaining young years will probably be gone forever.
So is there anything wrong with consensual sex? I am not sure why everyone here thinks consensual sex is rape.
Like I said
the vast majority of women that were drunk and had sex the night before don't feel raped. Regret is probably just a fundamentalist Christian and Mormon problem because of the purity before marriage teaching. I know because I am not from Utah, sex happens all the time after fun parties.
Sanctorian wrote:You should find a non LDS girlfriend. That will help a ton as you won't need to hide your true beliefs and you can be open and honest with someone.
I can't. I am stuck, and I can't be an open doubter.
Just very quick. Nobody gives a rat's about me because no one knows I don't believe anymore. I am suffering because there is probably no god and no celestial kingdom. After so many sacrifices I made for the LDS church my entire goddamn life, I think I may have some kind of emotional trauma.
But who cares. I am a guy, I have to have to balls to get over it somehow.
Welcome to the club, mang.
- Doc
In the face of madness, rationality has no power - Xiao Wang, US historiographer, 2287 AD.
Every record...falsified, every book rewritten...every statue...has been renamed or torn down, every date...altered...the process is continuing...minute by minute. History has stopped. Nothing exists except an endless present in which the Ideology is always right.
DoubtingThomas wrote:Before having serious doubts I never watched porn. My desire to "sin" came after realizing that life is probably short, and my remaining young years will probably be gone forever.
So is there anything wrong with consensual sex? I am not sure why everyone here thinks consensual sex is rape.
My dear young man,
I see that I have misjudged you. I sympathise with your situation, and wish you well. I understand why the kind of thing you are talking about keeps coming into your head.
But be of good cheer! The great majority of women really like having sex with men!!! And they really like it when men want to have sex with them!!!!!!!!
However, I suspect that you may need to escape from the Mormon environment to enjoy the normal sexuality which is your human right (if there are any such things).
Whatever you do, DO NOT GET MARRIED TO YOUR LDS GIRLFRIEND. Don't. Don't
Don't!
Find a job somewhere else, and seek psychotherapy to clear the Mormonism out of your head. You may find the church habit hard to give up: but leave the CoJCoLDS behind you, or it will eat up your life and leave you with only husks in return.
And we only live once.
Good luck.
Zadok: I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis. Maksutov: That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
By phrasing the issue as "shouldn't intoxicated people be responsible for all their actions," I think you are papering over a critical factual distinction. In the case of a bar fight or an automobile accident, the intoxicated person has caused bodily harm to others. Because the intoxication is voluntary, we don't allow intoxication as a defense when the result is harm to others.
The hypothetical drunk woman in your example hasn't harmed anyone. She didn't punch someone. She didn't blow through a stop sign and hit another car. She just got drunk. If I get drunk, I'm still responsible for the bodily harm I cause others. But if I get drunk, why does that give others a right to bodily harm me? In my opinion, you're seeing an inconsistency here only because of the way you've chosen to frame the issue.
All of us have a right to be free from harmful bodily touching unless we give our consent. Absent consent, sexual contact is harmful bodily touching. However, that still leaves us with what it means to consent.
We could take a bright line, magic words approach to consent: as soon as a person utters the magic words "I consent," they have consented. But consent is really a state of mind, and we can all think of easy examples where a person utters the magic words "I consent" in the context of sex when, in fact, they don't consent. The easiest one: I have a gun to the person's head and tell them to say "I consent" or I'll kill them. Another easy one: I get a three year old to say "I consent." Or how about the magic words being uttered only after the false statement "we don't need birth control -- I've had a vasectomy?"
So, a magic words approach isn't going to cut it. (That means you can put your tape recorder back in its drawer.) Legally, we recognize that there are classes of people who cannot give consent. If you've been around really drunk folks, it's pretty obvious that they can reach a point where they don't understand the consequences of what they are doing. It's very difficult to reasonably argue that a person who doesn't understand the consequences of an action can give actual consent. So, how do we approach consent in that context?
First, and we should really get this out of the way up front: legally, no one gives a crap about whether or not you get your rocks off. You have no legal (or moral) right to have sex with a person of your choosing. Second, you and your prospective shag both have the legal right not to have sexual contact without your actual consent. So, overall, if we have to make some close calls here, the benefit should be given to protecting the right not to have contact. That speaks in favor of placing the burden of proving consent on the person obtaining it. It also speaks in favor of placing the burden of determining whether the person is capable of giving consent on that person. You have the burden of making sure that hot looking young girl is 18 and not 15. Same with capacity.
Circling back, this is what your argument sounds like to me: A person who gets drunk should be responsible for hurting others in a car wreck. Therefore, it should be okay to rape a person who gets drunk.
“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”
― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
Res Ipsa wrote:So, a magic words approach isn't going to cut it. (That means you can put your tape recorder back in its drawer.) Legally, we recognize that there are classes of people who cannot give consent.
Do your state laws say that a drunk person can't consent to sex? or how drunk does a person have to be?
Res Ipsa wrote: The hypothetical drunk woman in your example hasn't harmed anyone.
Let's assume both (the man and the woman) are very drunk and have sex. The next morning what if the guy is the one that feels violated? or to make it worst, what if both feel violated? Who is the abuser in those cases? Who is the victim?
Honestly, it still doesn't make any sense. However, if it is again the law to have consensual sex with a drunk woman, please let me know, because I didn't know that. In all states? or just some?
Res Ipsa wrote: Therefore, it should be okay to rape a person who gets drunk.
Never said that, but please give me sources that a drunk person can't consent to sex.
Feminist Jessica Valenti wrote, "This lie – that anti-sexual assault advocates and feminists somehow believe any sex that involves drinking is rape – is an oft-repeated one, so let me set the record straight: yes, you can be drunk and have sex. What feminists tend to advocate for is enthusiastic consent - the belief that consent is the presence of a "yes", not just the absence of a "no". Throwing a few back doesn't mean you can't enthusiastically say yes to sex." You disagree?