Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

[_Res Ipsa]

DT, I responded to what you said your questions was: "If a drunk woman can't give consent or make a decision, does that also mean she is not responsible if she drives and hits someone?" Do you now understand the difference between getting drunk and hurting someone and getting drunk and having someone hurt you?

[_Res Ipsa]

As to the laws in my state, here are the pertinent parts:

RCW 9A.44.050
Rape in the second degree.
(1) A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when, under circumstances not constituting rape in the first degree, the person engages in sexual intercourse with another person:

...

(b) When the victim is incapable of consent by reason of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated;

RCW 9A.44.010
Definitions.
As used in this chapter:

(4) "Mental incapacity" is that condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause.

Emphasis added.

[Guest]

(4) "Mental incapacity" is that condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause.

Okay, but sadly that is not a clear definition. Connecticutcriminallawyer basically defines "Mental incapacity" when intoxicated as, "If a person is drunk to the point of unconsciousness or to the point where he or she cannot physically or verbally refuse sexual contact, then anyone initiating sexual contact with this person may be prosecuted for sexual assault"
http://www.connecticutcriminallawyer.co ... y-consent/

Do you disagree with Feminist Jessica Valenti? She 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." If a drunk woman is capable of "enthusiastically saying yes", I don't see how she would be "mentally incapacitated".

Can you please answer my question, "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? "

Do you now understand the difference between getting drunk and hurting someone and getting drunk and having someone hurt you?

Yes, but I never said we should hurt drunk people. Of course I am 100% against rape, even if the person is drunk. However, it can get very complicated when the two persons are drunk.

Bytheway, in Strip Clubs the ladies aggressively take all the money away (including ATM money) from drunks, is that abuse?

[_honorentheos]

Hey DT,

Setting aside the legal question it sounds like you are trying find your moral compass now that you realize the one the Church gave you points to, "Pay tithing, go to the temple = you're a good person".

And that's something I can relate to in many ways.

I'm the father of a teenager who just started dating at the age of fifteen. Long before this point it really started dawning on me that my entire upbringing was useless in passing on lessons to help my daughter when it came to how I was taught about right and wrong. My approach has been to tackle it through honesty with her that, as her parents raised LDS, we don't have tried and tested things our parents passed on that we can rely on. So, we talk a lot about the "why" we think a certain thing matters and what that means for her decision making.

So, take this for what it's worth but here's the sex advice we worked out that you may or may not find could help guide you.

First, sex is emotionally powerful, and it can be used to build a relationship but it can destroy a person. Treat it as you would anything else that could be beneficial or destructive like fire, a gun, a car, etc. There is never a time you can't think about the consequences of an action when you should act anyway. You should know in advance what you intend to do with it before you do it, and don't get careless. If you are in a situation where you are unsure, treat it like a gun or fire. Someone who would shoot first, ask questions later is going to end up damaging someone else's and their own life eventually.

Second, don't do something that could have long term, negative consequences. Unprotected sex that could lead to pregnancy or disease is a not a good idea. For my daughter, we asked her to talk with my wife about birth control when she decided she was ready for sex. Until then, she isn't ready. If she can't be responsible enough to have that conversation, she isn't responsible enough for sex with another person.

Third, do no harm. Sex can be magical, it can be pleasurable, it can be silly, fun, serious, romantic, or perhaps mechanical and maybe boring to someone involved. But never something that hurts someone. If in doubt, ask the other person. If you should be in doubt, ask the other person. Look the person in the eyes. You'll know.

Reading your posts, I'd like to suggest that you also consider why it is you seem to be focusing on sex and not the relationship? If you have a relationship with someone that leads to physical intimacy you are far less likely to be accused falsely of rape than if you are engaging in dangerous one-night-stand behavior. Hook up culture can get you hurt which seems to be part of your concern about consent. It's a lot easier to know you are both safely giving consent to someone who will respect that if you aren't meeting for the purpose of damned.

Just because you left the Church in your heart and mind doesn't mean the world is crashing down around you. I get that it feels that way, and I really, really sympathize. Just know that you have the ability to figure things out and if you want to talk about it in those terms you'll find a lot of sympathetic people here who have walked that road. But please consider that the LDS church was wrong about it being true but also wrong that there is only one other path one can take. The opposite of being LDS isn't being a drunk, stoned sex addict. It isn't a good v. bad dichotomy. It's small world v. big world. You have the big world option. It's a lot to figure out, but it also means you have so, so many choices and the ability to create a life that is authentic to you and your potential.

To steal a phrase, it DOES get better. Just be careful.

And don't rape.

[_DoubtingThomas]

And don't rape.

LOL thanks. I won't.

[_Jersey Girl]

And we only live once.
Good luck.

Thanks for your words, but I think I am already screwed.

No, you aren't.

[_Res Ipsa]

(4) "Mental incapacity" is that condition existing at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause.

Okay, but sadly that is not a clear definition. Connecticutcriminallawyer basically defines "Mental incapacity" when intoxicated as, "If a person is drunk to the point of unconsciousness or to the point where he or she cannot physically or verbally refuse sexual contact, then anyone initiating sexual contact with this person may be prosecuted for sexual assault"
http://www.connecticutcriminallawyer.co ... y-consent/

You didn't quote the lawyer's definition of mental incapacity. His definition appears several lines below the text you quoted.

Mental incapacitation under this law means that the alleged victim, due to the influence of alcohol or drugs, is rendered temporarily incapable of judging or controlling his or her conduct.

Do you find this more or less clear than the Washington definition? If you don't find the definition of mental incapacity to be clear, then some good free advice would be "don't have sex with women who are falling-down drunk."

Do you disagree with Feminist Jessica Valenti? She 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." If a drunk woman is capable of "enthusiastically saying yes", I don't see how she would be "mentally incapacitated".

Do you have much experience with drunk people? You talk about this issue as if you don't. Do you understand that "drunk" isn't an on-off switch? It ranges from a little tipsy to falling down and incoherent. A person who is "drunk" isn't automatically mentally incapacitated. When we're talking about "mental incapacity," we're not talking about "throwing back a few." With respect to the quote, I think she's articulated a pretty good rule of thumb. As I understand the concept of "enthusiastic consent," a person who is mentally incapacitated under the law is not going to be able to enthusiastically consent.

Can you please answer my question, "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? "

Maybe if you gave me enough facts that would allow a cogent analysis of whether there had been consent, I could try to answer. Telling me that two people were drunk or "very drunk" doesn't cut it. And why in the world would you think that feeling "violated" the next day has anything to do with whether a rape occurred?

Look, for any line that you draw that separates legal from illegal conduct, you can create a set of facts that is very close to the line that is difficult to justify. What would you do with two guys that got falling down drunk and ended up beating the crap out of each other?

Do you now understand the difference between getting drunk and hurting someone and getting drunk and having someone hurt you?

Yes, but I never said we should hurt drunk people. Of course I am 100% against rape, even if the person is drunk. However, it can get very complicated when the two persons are drunk.

It only gets complicated if one is focussed on how much one can get away with. If one wants to go as close as one can to the line dividing rape from not rape and get away with it, it gets really complicated. If one approaches sex as something that should be genuinely consensual and with a desire to be sure that it is consensual, it's really not that complicated at all.

Bytheway, in Strip Clubs the ladies aggressively take all the money away (including ATM money) from drunks, is that abuse?

WTF? Seriously.

[_Res Ipsa]

Hey DT,

Setting aside the legal question it sounds like you are trying find your moral compass now that you realize the one the Church gave you points to, "Pay tithing, go to the temple = you're a good person".

And that's something I can relate to in many ways.

I'm the father of a teenager who just started dating at the age of fifteen. Long before this point it really started dawning on me that my entire upbringing was useless in passing on lessons to help my daughter when it came to how I was taught about right and wrong. My approach has been to tackle it through honesty with her that, as her parents raised LDS, we don't have tried and tested things our parents passed on that we can rely on. So, we talk a lot about the "why" we think a certain thing matters and what that means for her decision making.

So, take this for what it's worth but here's the sex advice we worked out that you may or may not find could help guide you.

First, sex is emotionally powerful, and it can be used to build a relationship but it can destroy a person. Treat it as you would anything else that could be beneficial or destructive like fire, a gun, a car, etc. There is never a time you can't think about the consequences of an action when you should act anyway. You should know in advance what you intend to do with it before you do it, and don't get careless. If you are in a situation where you are unsure, treat it like a gun or fire. Someone who would shoot first, ask questions later is going to end up damaging someone else's and their own life eventually.

Second, don't do something that could have long term, negative consequences. Unprotected sex that could lead to pregnancy or disease is a not a good idea. For my daughter, we asked her to talk with my wife about birth control when she decided she was ready for sex. Until then, she isn't ready. If she can't be responsible enough to have that conversation, she isn't responsible enough for sex with another person.

Third, do no harm. Sex can be magical, it can be pleasurable, it can be silly, fun, serious, romantic, or perhaps mechanical and maybe boring to someone involved. But never something that hurts someone. If in doubt, ask the other person. If you should be in doubt, ask the other person. Look the person in the eyes. You'll know.

Reading your posts, I'd like to suggest that you also consider why it is you seem to be focusing on sex and not the relationship? If you have a relationship with someone that leads to physical intimacy you are far less likely to be accused falsely of rape than if you are engaging in dangerous one-night-stand behavior. Hook up culture can get you hurt which seems to be part of your concern about consent. It's a lot easier to know you are both safely giving consent to someone who will respect that if you aren't meeting for the purpose of damned.

Just because you left the Church in your heart and mind doesn't mean the world is crashing down around you. I get that it feels that way, and I really, really sympathize. Just know that you have the ability to figure things out and if you want to talk about it in those terms you'll find a lot of sympathetic people here who have walked that road. But please consider that the LDS church was wrong about it being true but also wrong that there is only one other path one can take. The opposite of being LDS isn't being a drunk, stoned sex addict. It isn't a good v. bad dichotomy. It's small world v. big world. You have the big world option. It's a lot to figure out, but it also means you have so, so many choices and the ability to create a life that is authentic to you and your potential.

To steal a phrase, it DOES get better. Just be careful.

And don't rape.

Best piece of advice I've read in ages, Honor.

[_Res Ipsa]

Please listen to Chap. You may be a teenager but even teenagers can develop common sense. And do share your creepy how-to-plan-a-rape scenario with your girlfriend.

I am not a teenager and there is no how-to-plan-a-rape scenario because there is consent.
I agree it is wrong to have sex with a woman that passed-out, that is rape, and must be punished in some form.

I am a person that is done with assumptions because of the culture. Cultures create to many unnecessary morals, such as "no sex before marriage" or even affairs.

According to psychologist Dr. Darrel Ray there is nothing wrong with love affairs ("adultery") when they are necessary. There is also nothing wrong with swingers and open marriages.

but the culture thinks that swinger clubs are somehow evil. If I tell my girlfriend what I think about swinger clubs she would kill me.

Ah, OK. I missed this the first time through the thread. It explains quite a bit. Even though it's been decades, I still remember the confusion I went through after I discovered that my entire system of morals came from an organization that wasn't what it claimed to be. I was suddenly put in the position of having to think from the ground up about what kinds of behavior were moral and which weren't. It was confusing an disorienting.

I think it's good to completely rethink your system of moral values. But automatically rejecting morals just because they come from "culture" is just as misguided as automatically accepting morals just because they come from culture. Or from a church. Either way, you're letting someone or something else decide your morals for you. I'd suggest you'll end up at a better place if you take a look at each facet of these culturally derived morals, try to understand why they developed, and decide whether or not you want to keep them in your own moral code. Personally, I've found the old golden rule to be a pretty good foundation for a moral code. But you'll have to make your own choices.

Citing a single psychologist as authority for the proposition that there is nothing wrong with cheating on your spouse is just a bad as blindly relying on a church leader. You'll find a broad range of opinions by psychologists on these topics. Just one of the downsides -- what impact does pretending to be a faithful Mormon have on you when you really believe it's all bunk? Is living that way healthy for you, do you think? Well, that's cheating on your spouse in spades -- having to appear to be one thing (a faithful spouse) while being another. But that is something on the long list of moral issues that you can revisit -- just don't fool yourself that the opinion of a single psychologist is the absolute truth.

Swingers and open marriages are a different subject than affairs. Affairs involve dishonesty. I don't view have a blanket opinion as to whether swinging or open marriages are good or bad -- as long as all partners know the score, I don't think good and bad apply. However, I've read enough accounts of folks who thought an open marriage sounded great, but ended up emotionally scarred from the experience they had.

Whether you like it or not, you're going to have to make some decisions about how to treat your fellow humans that the church used to make for you. And you'll be responsible for the results of those decisions -- not some psychologist or feminist you read about. If you decide, for example, that it's necessary for you to cheat on your girlfriend, the consequences are on you -- not the church or the psychologist or the feminist or anyone else. In my experience, that makes taking a genuinely thoughtful approach to "morals."

Good luck.

[_Sanctorian]

DT, Here's something to think about as you are trying to navigate your new moral compass.

Removing a condom during sex - known as stealthing - transforms a consensual act into a non-consensual one.

https://www.yahoo.com/beauty/stealthing-inside-world-men-remove-100700967.html

Sex is a tricky topic and others have said, the most important aspect is making sure the other person is comfortable with what is going on. Sex happens to be a lot better when you know your partner is into it. If your partner is not comfortable prior or during, you should be cautious going further.

The good news is lots of women like sex and I'm sure you'll figure it out.