Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

[_DoubtingThomas]

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.

So we agree after all, sex should be okay when the person gives you "enthusiastically consent"

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.

Good points, Thanks. I will be very careful, and will never take advantage of a drunk woman. I don't drink or go to bars, so I probably have nothing to worry about anyway.

(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.

So I guess the key is "prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences". Unfortunately that is ambiguous.

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.

Say two drunks have consensual sex, but forget everything next morning. Who would be the victim? Or let's say only the guy had a blackout, would that make the woman a sexual abuser?

I now understand everything else you told me, and it makes sense, but when the two are drunk and conscious, I don't think the guy deserves all the blame, unless the guy forced her to have sex.

WTF? Seriously.

In strip clubs (at least some of them) the ladies use some aggressive and misleading tactics to take all the money away from them. A friend from work told me that two girls approached him for a dance. The girls told him the dance would include both of them because he was the first lucky guy to arrive. After the dance, they charged him double, so he was not really "lucky". He wasn't even drinking, I could imagine what they do to drunk guys. Would that be abuse?

[_DoubtingThomas]

Swingers and open marriages are a different subject than affairs. Affairs involve dishonesty.

Dr. Darrel Ray doesn't support affairs, except on special circumstances. He argues that in some marriages affairs may be necessary, for example when a woman has needs, but her husband is not good in bed, or doesn't have sex with her anymore. Another example, when a 65 year old husband doesn't get erections anymore, but her 40 year old wife needs sex, would it be best for her to abandon him?

There are some studies that conclude affairs can strengthen the primary relationship or the marriage.

[_Chap]

In strip clubs (at least some of them) the ladies use some aggressive and misleading tactics to take all the money away from them. A friend from work told me that two girls approached him for a dance. The girls told him the dance would include both of them because he was the first lucky guy to arrive. After the dance, they charged him double, so he was not really "lucky". He wasn't even drinking, I could imagine what they do to drunk guys. Would that be abuse?

The people who perform in the titillation trade are there solely to make money. They are not there to be nice.

If you go into a strip club, the implicit deal is basically:

Man: Hey, I have money and you need some! The only way you can have my money is if you show me your <name desired portion of female anatomy> and smile while you do it! YAY!!!! I am have SUCH power over you!!!

Woman: Uh-huh. Well, if you're so desperate that you need to pay to get to look at a woman's body, you must be dumb. So let's play a little game called 'Maybe you'll get what you want, but sure as hell I'm gonna make you pay for it, and pay more than you thought you ever wanted to'. And I'll bet you keep coming back for more ...

[_Res Ipsa]

Swingers and open marriages are a different subject than affairs. Affairs involve dishonesty.

Dr. Darrel Ray doesn't support affairs, except on special circumstances. He argues that in some marriages affairs may be necessary, for example when a woman has needs, but her husband is not good in bed, or doesn't have sex with her anymore. Another example, when a 65 year old husband doesn't get erections anymore, but her 40 year old wife needs sex, would it be best for her to abandon him?

There are some studies that conclude affairs can strengthen the primary relationship or the marriage.

I read a couple of articles on this subject by the good doctor and didn't see any claim that affairs were ever "necessary." Can you quote him actually saying that? Frankly, it's so obviously contrary to fact that it would be kind of shocking for a trained psychologist to say that. It is never "necessary" to change one of the central terms of your relationship with one's partner or spouse without telling them. It's a choice that one makes. And, among the examples you've given, there are a multitude of choices that could be made to address each of those situations. To describe these situations as making an affair necessary is to avoid taking responsibility for betraying and, likely, hurting, one's partner. I don't believe in the concept of "sin" but, in my opinion, avoiding the taking of responsibility for causing hurt and pain to a fellow human is as close to a "sin" as I can think of.

If I understand things correctly, your are currently in the position of pretending to be a faithful Mormon when, in fact, you aren't. You are literally living a lie. Tell me -- how does that feel? If you are like most folks, it's one of the worst feeling in the world. That feeling is cognitive dissonance -- the brain's reaction when one's actions diverge from one's thinking. In the last few weeks before I publicly broke with the LDS church, the cog dis was so bad I couldn't function. I literally couldn't get out of bed in the morning. (I was a missionary at the time, and having to tell people that I knew the LDS church was the one and only true church of God and that Joseph Smith was a prophet was soul crushing.)

Having an affair is the same thing: one is literally living a lie. The cog dis is no different. And the person one is lying to is the one person in the world that one should be able to trust. In my opinion, it's a horrible position to put oneself in.

Now, it is certainly true that one can find cases where people describe their marriage or partnership as better or stronger after one partner has an affair. But that by no means is evidence that having an affair was the most healthy means of getting from the pre-affair relationship to the post-affair relationship. Similarly, I'm certain one can find people whose marriage broke up after one partner had an affair and who are now in better relationships with other people than they were in with each other. But that doesn't mean that having an affair is a healthy means of getting out of a bad relationship and getting into a better one.

If you are honestly convinced that having an affair is sometimes "necessary" in a marriage or partnership, you might want to give some serious thought about whether a traditional marriage is something you want in life. Don't make a promise to be sexually faithful to a fellow human when your promise has undisclosed asterisks. At least, have a frank discussion with your prospective partner about how you feel about the fidelity portion of the whole marriage thing. Maybe she'll say "I totally agree. If you suck at sex, I'm totally going to find me some stud who can satisfy me and I'm not going to tell you." At least you'll both know where you stand.

[_Res Ipsa]

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.

So we agree after all, sex should be okay when the person gives you "enthusiastically consent"

As long as we have a common understanding of what "enthusiastically consent" means, yes.

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.

Good points, Thanks. I will be very careful, and will never take advantage of a drunk woman. I don't drink or go to bars, so I probably have nothing to worry about anyway.

They are good points, and I wish I'd made them. ;-) I think that was Honor.

(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.

So I guess the key is "prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences". Unfortunately that is ambiguous.

Gonna get technical, but it's really not ambiguous. It may be difficult to determine without effort, but not ambiguous. I asked before, not because I was trying to put you down, but because I'm trying to get a feeling for your circumstances: do you have much experience with drunk people? If you've spent much time around folks who are drunk to the point of mental incapacity, it's not that hard to tell that they don't really understand what they are saying or doing. If you approach the issue with concern for the other person, stopping to observe and engage with the other person, and ask yourself "does this person understand what she is saying or doing?" you won't have to worry.

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.

Say two drunks have consensual sex, but forget everything next morning. Who would be the victim?

There would be no victim. As you stipulated, the sex was consensual.

Or let's say only the guy had a blackout, would that make the woman a sexual abuser?

If you'd define "sexual abuser" for me, I'd have a better shot at giving an answer. Again, because you described the sex as "consensual," there was no crime and no one is a victim.

I think you are confusing the question of "Did a rape occur" with "Do we have sufficient evidence that a rape occurred?" When you say "the sex was consensual, that answers the first question. It doesn't answer the second.

I now understand everything else you told me, and it makes sense, but when the two are drunk and conscious, I don't think the guy deserves all the blame, unless the guy forced her to have sex.

If the two are drunk and conscious, and the sex was consensual, then there is no one to blame. If they somehow managed to have sex with neither of them giving consent, then they would be equally culpable. I think that's a very difficult scenario to construct with any level of plausibility.

In strip clubs (at least some of them) the ladies use some aggressive and misleading tactics to take all the money away from them. A friend from work told me that two girls approached him for a dance. The girls told him the dance would include both of them because he was the first lucky guy to arrive. After the dance, they charged him double, so he was not really "lucky". He wasn't even drinking, I could imagine what they do to drunk guys. Would that be abuse?

Define "abuse."

My WTF was in reaction to your jump from a discussion of what constitutes rape to a story you heard about a transaction over a dance in a strip club. And, on top of that, that you appear to want to apply the same term "abuse" to both situations. Why? If that label is important to you, why is that?

It almost sounds like you are viewing woman through the lens of the Eve myth -- that women are are out there just waiting to trick you into getting arrested for rape or taking your money. Is that part of what this whole conversation is about?

And, by any chance, are you doing some reading in the Reddit Red Pill Subreddit or similar MRA/PUA sections of the internet? Because, if you are, you're getting really bad advice in terms of having a healthy sexual relationship with your fellow humans.

[_DoubtingThomas]

Say two drunks have consensual sex, but forget everything next morning. Who would be the victim?

There would be no victim. As you stipulated, the sex was consensual.

I am confused again, I thought drunks couldn't consent to sex, especially if they are drunk enough to "forget everything next morning".

It almost sounds like you are viewing woman through the lens of the Eve myth -- that women are are out there just waiting to trick you into getting arrested for rape or taking your money. Is that part of what this whole conversation is about?

Of course not! I think women are generally more honest and kind than men. I myself trust women more. I am a gentlemen, that is why I have a girlfriend

You said we shouldn't take advantage of drunks, and I completely agree. I simply wanted to know your opinion. Forget strip clubs, let me change the example. In some Casinos they give free alcohol. Some drunks waste all their savings or lose everything in the Casinos. So, are drunks victims in that case? or they should have known better?

[_DoubtingThomas]

*

[_DoubtingThomas]

I read a couple of articles on this subject by the good doctor and didn't see any claim that affairs were ever "necessary." Can you quote him actually saying that?

I don't have time to make a direct quote, but here is his podcast episode.
https://secularsexuality.dogmadebate.co ... els-story/

I agree affairs are not a good thing, but I feel in some cases affairs are better than abandoning your spouse, especially if your spouse needs you. What if your spouse is handicapped because of a brain stroke, or permanently in a Wheelchair. You just can't abandon him or her.

[_Lemmie]

Forget strip clubs, let me change the example. In some Casinos they give free alcohol. Some drunks waste all their savings or lose everything in the Casinos. So, are drunks victims in that case? or they should have known better?

"They should have known better?" It's pretty obvious where you are headed with this in the context of your rape definitions, so please don't. Read over the comments given to you earlier, there is a lot to think about as you are forming a post-Mormon moral code.

[_DoubtingThomas]

"They should have known better?" It's pretty obvious where you are headed with this in the context of your rape definitions, so please don't. Read over the comments given to you earlier, there is a lot to think about as you are forming a post-Mormon moral code.

No, I just want to know if you all have the same standard for different cases. That is all, nothing more. I stated many times we shouldn't take advantage of drunks. I do think the Casinos are abusers, especially if they give free alcohol, you agree with me?

Yes, there is a lot of think about, but I am still Mormon :(