barrelomonkeys wrote:Let me just add this about date rape. I used to be involved in a movement that dealt with "No means No" where the message needed to go out that women needed to speak up and communicate more fully what they desired with men in sexual relations.
Often women aren't very good at speaking up in situations and so much is lost through subtle gestures of communication. Date rape is tricky to blame anyone, as being a victim or a victimizer, if neither party was communicating outside of body gestures. Then there are times when a woman is incapacitated in some sense where she can't give consent. What if the male was incapacitated as well? Was he raped when they had intercourse? Or a woman acquiesces to constant proddings for sex -- is that rape? Some people do define that as date rape if she felt forced in any sense. What a mess!
slipping the guy a sleeping pill and some viagra in his burrito - yep - sounds romantic.
barrelomonkeys wrote:The LDS equate provocative dress with sin? Really? This baffles me. Why? It invites men to view women and their bodies as some form of sexual titillation?
The way I understood things is that there is equality here. Men who wear tank tops or go shirtless are being immodest and are as sinful for their immodesty as women are.
I was also raised not to blame the provatively dressed person for my thoughts, but to blame myself if I kept staring at her or thinking about it. Last I checked, no bishop bought the excuse that it was the woman's fault that one had bad thoughts from staring at a skin mag. No, the bishop always seemed to blame the drooling idiot who kept looking.
Sin, on the other hand, seems to be somewhat different. It is doing that which you have been told not to do. If we are told not to eat pork, then it is a sin to eat it. That doesn't mean there's something inherently wrong with eating pork. Conceivably things could change. Similarly, I think the standards for what is considered modest can and do change depending on circumstance and culture.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
I think it's fairly well known that strippers and prostitutes are attacked on a pretty regular basis. I think it's an easy way out to blame them for some action that another person took to strip their autonomy from them by violating them without their consent.
This should be more clear cut and punishable than date rape. For one, prostitution should be legal. In a business deal, the communications should be clear as to what is ok and what's not. But because it's illegal, the terms of the deal have to be implied and so on. Further, because it's illegal, it puts the victim already at a disadvantage. The lines in domestic abuse (or date/1 night stand) are far more blurry.
Lou Midgley 08/20/2020: "...meat wad," and "cockroach" are pithy descriptions of human beings used by gemli? They were not fashioned by Professor Peterson.
LM 11/23/2018: one can explain away the soul of human beings...as...a Meat Unit, to use Professor Peterson's clever derogatory description of gemli's ideology.
Gadianton wrote:The lines in domestic abuse (or date/1 night stand) are far more blurry.
Hey, if we're gonna focus on preventing sexual abuse, why not focus on getting people to marry each other before intercourse? It helps make the lines less blurry than with date/1 night stands.
If only marriage would prevent all domestic abuse.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Gadianton wrote:The lines in domestic abuse (or date/1 night stand) are far more blurry.
Hey, if we're gonna focus on preventing sexual abuse, why not focus on getting people to marry each other before intercourse? It helps make the lines less blurry than with date/1 night stands.
If only marriage would prevent all domestic abuse.
Asbestosman, are you under the impression that sexual assualt does not occur in a marriage? I think within a marriage it becomes even more blurred.
barrelomonkeys wrote:Asbestosman, are you under the impression that sexual assualt does not occur in a marriage?
No. I remember being shocked when I first heard that rape does occur within marriage. I understood why once it was expained. I can't, however, actually understand the mindset which gets into that situation. For me, once marriage happened all major decisions were joint. Besides, I never force someone to do something they don't want to.
I think within a marriage it becomes even more blurred.
I suppose it would. In general I wouldn't call it rape if an adult touched his/her spouse in the private areas without explicitly asking permission first. I would on ly consider it spousal rape if one were asked not to do that. I mean, sensual touching seems to be the default in marriage. When you're not married but just friends, I think you kind of need explicit permission first. I guess it's that most people seem to understand a sort of implied permission in marriage. Maybe it shouldn't be that way, but I certainly wasn't going to cry rape when my wife touches me without me explicitly saying she could.
Anyhow, yes more blurred.
That's General Leo. He could be my friend if he weren't my enemy. eritis sicut dii I support NCMO
Wow, I must have slept through that lesson. Well, I'm doomed.
It's interesting that necking and petting are also declared a violation of the commandments without any qualifiers. I've always suspected that foreplay was evil, but I could never quite put my finger on it.
"reason and religion are friends and allies" - Mitt Romney