(PG- 13) Steubenville, Round IV: NAP vs Personal Repsonsibility

[pp0rker]

One of the consequences is that you may wake up the next morning to regret what you did. You made have contracted an STD. That doesn't make you a "victim."

Yes it does. When anyone engages in sex it is an exchange based on good faith like any other. If one person has an STD, they have a moral obligation to disclose their condition. If the person doesn't know but passes on a STD, they are still responsible - just not intentional.

 

[jmdrake]

The point of this thread I thought is to debate NAP vs personal responsibility. The context as I understand it is the woman was drunk. If she's not drunk and consents, then she consents. No harm, no foul. There is no debate if someone can provide their informed express consent.

If you're going to question when someone can be considered of sound mind, that can only be determined in the courtroom. Every person has different tolerances to alcohol, etc. The point here is have the men taking precautions against the accusation of rape. I think they should have. That's would have been responsible. The legal system is a threat to everyone. We all have a responsibility to mitigate that risk.

There are people who are drunk that the law says "consent" to all sorts of things such as searches or giving a blood sample or whatever. I see no reasonable reason to carve out this one area and say "If you are drunk then it is impossible for you to have consented." I don't mind it being determined in the courtroom. But the rule you are proposing simply isn't a good one.

 

[pp0rker]

I'd say you just made presence case for him. If you have unprotected sex in the 21st century that's implied consent to catching whatever may be floating around.

I don't agree.

Well that's a different standard than "intoxicated." It's one thing if someone is under a mind control drug. It's another if their inhibitions and faculties have been reduced by drugs or alcohol.

No it isn't. Either someone is able to make clear decisions or they aren't. If they aren't, they are not able to give their consent. It's b/w. What isn't b/w is at what point a person is not of sound mind and that can only be determined in the courtroom because everyone is different.

 

[pp0rker]

There are people who are drunk that the law says "consent" to all sorts of things such as searches or giving a blood sample or whatever. I see no reasonable reason to carve out this one area and say "If you are drunk then it is impossible for you to have consented." I don't mind it being determined in the courtroom.

My responses are based on my own value system - not what the law does currently. There are many injustices committed in the legal system and it needs radical reform.

But the rule you are proposing simply isn't a good one.

Agree to disagree then.

 

[dannno]

That works both ways. Maybe you could charge her with rape... What if she consents to sex and has an STD? Has she committed an act of sexual violence against you? I say she has. Better safe than sorry.

Nope, it is my responsibility to have her tested if I'm that concerned about her having STDs. Even if I ask her and she says no, if I get one, what if she didn't even know she had one? Some STD's are a-symptomatic in some people so you really aren't doing yourself any favors by making the assumption that a person with an STD is going to tell you.

Yeah, he should be able to. "Of sound mind" is the standard and only by trial can the standard be defined.

So you want to take away people's liberty to get drunk and have sex?? Fuck that shit. Good luck getting other people on board. People should have the liberty to get drunk and have sex with strangers, if the other person agrees they shouldn't have to face rape charges.

 

[jmdrake]

I don't agree.



No it isn't. Either someone is able to make clear decisions or they aren't. If they aren't, they are not able to give their consent. It's b/w. What isn't b/w is at what point a person is not of sound mind and that can only be determined in the courtroom because everyone is different.

There are legally different degrees of decision making. Someone who's too drunk to drive might not be considered too drunk to consent to a contract. Also it seems there's no level of intoxication that makes you too drunk to consent to a search. So consent is what the government wants to pretend it is on any given day. But if were talking about NAP as opposed to the government it still isn't b/w. There is no magic "level." It's not simply that every person is different but also that different mental activities require varying levels of mental capacity.

 

[dannno]

Yes it does. When anyone engages in sex it is an exchange based on good faith like any other. If one person has an STD, they have a moral obligation to disclose their condition. If the person doesn't know but passes on a STD, they are still responsible - just not intentional.

Wow, does the concept of "personal responsibility" COMPLETELY escape you?? If you contract an STD it is your fault for having sex with somebody who had an STD. As I said before, if you're that concerned then have them tested and don't have sex with them until you get the results back.

 

[dannno]

No it isn't. Either someone is able to make clear decisions or they aren't. If they aren't, they are not able to give their consent. It's b/w. What isn't b/w is at what point a person is not of sound mind and that can only be determined in the courtroom because everyone is different.

...And your argument COMPLETELY falls apart when BOTH consenting parties are drunk. I guess they "raped" each other??

Fucking bullshit. Take some god damn personal responsibility and don't drink if it causes you to make bad decisions. I make decisions just fine when I'm drunk, for the most part, and if I make a bad decision then it is MY FAULT.

 

[pp0rker]

Wow, does the concept of "personal responsibility" COMPLETELY escape you?? If you contract an STD it is your fault for having sex with somebody who had an STD. As I said before, if you're that concerned then have them tested and don't have sex with them until you get the results back.

What if the person lied? Then you're saying everyone should take a blood test before having sex... I'm not.

 

[pp0rker]

...And your argument COMPLETELY falls apart when BOTH consenting parties are drunk. I guess they "raped" each other??

Fucking bullshit. Take some god damn personal responsibility and don't drink if it causes you to make bad decisions. I make decisions just fine when I'm drunk, for the most part, and if I make a bad decision then it is MY FAULT.

Not replying to you anymore. I intend to respect the rules on the thread and post in a civil manner.

 

[dannno]

What if the person lied? Then you're saying everyone should take a blood test before having sex... I'm not.

How do you know they lied? Maybe they are a-symptomatic or maybe they took medicine and thought they cured it or maybe they haven't gotten any symptoms yet.. Even IF they lied, again, if you're that concerned, maybe don't have sex with somebody who is going to lie to you about that stuff. You can be as careful as you want to be.

 

[pp0rker]

There are legally different degrees of decision making. Someone who's too drunk to drive might not be considered too drunk to consent to a contract. Also it seems there's no level of intoxication that makes you too drunk to consent to a search. So consent is what the government wants to pretend it is on any given day. But if were talking about NAP as opposed to the government it still isn't b/w. There is no magic "level." It's not simply that every person is different but also that different mental activities require varying levels of mental capacity.

At the end of the day, only the jury is in a position to rule on a person soundness of mind. Impairment can be caused by many factors, not just alcohol. And alcohol affect everyone differently. Since there is a risk though that sexual activity could result in charges of rape or other serious accusations, I think anyone engaging in sex with anyone other than their spouse had better take precautions to protect him or herself. That would be acting responsibly.

 

[dannno]

Not replying to you anymore. I intend to respect the rules on the thread and post in a civil manner.

Fine with me, I just wanted to point out how ludicrous and completely unrealistic your views are. Nobody will ever support anything that anti-liberty when it comes to sex.

 

[CaptUSA]

...And your argument COMPLETELY falls apart when BOTH consenting parties are drunk. I guess they "raped" each other??

Fucking bullshit. Take some god damn personal responsibility and don't drink if it causes you to make bad decisions. I make decisions just fine when I'm drunk, for the most part, and if I make a bad decision then it is MY FAULT.

So much for the PG-13 thread??? I'm glad you don't make decisions to violate someone's liberty when you're drunk. This is the difference between someone making a bad decision and causing no damage to another, and someone making a bad decision that did.

 

[dannno]

So much for the PG-13 thread??? I'm glad you don't make decisions to violate someone's liberty when you're drunk. This is the difference between someone making a bad decision and causing no damage to another, and someone making a bad decision that did.

I'm sorry, but millions of people go out every Fri/Sat night, spend a bunch of money going to clubs and bars with the intention of drinking AND having sex, both male and female, and this guy wants to take away people's liberty to be able to consent to sex while they are drunk?! Sorry for the swearing, but that's just one of the most insane things I've heard in my life.

 

[Shane Harris]

I think I find myself most in agreement with Dannno.

 

[jmdrake]

At the end of the day, only the jury is in a position to rule on a person soundness of mind. Impairment can be caused by many factors, not just alcohol. And alcohol affect everyone differently. Since there is a risk though that sexual activity could result in charges of rape or other serious accusations, I think anyone engaging in sex with anyone other than their spouse had better take precautions to protect him or herself. That would be acting responsibly.

I totally agree with most of what you've said above especially the part I have in bold. However, considering the ongoing trend to treat marital rape the same as stranger rape, nobody's ever totally safe.

 

[pp0rker]

I'm sorry, but millions of people go out every Fri/Sat night, spend a bunch of money going to clubs and bars with the intention of drinking AND having sex, both male and female, and this guy wants to take away people's liberty to be able to consent to sex while they are drunk?! Sorry for the swearing, but that's just one of the most insane things I've heard in my life.

That's not true. You don't understand what I'm saying.

If you can be civil, I'll help you to understand. If you're just going to be an ass, I'll do something better with my time.

 

[jmdrake]

Food for thought. If the girl in question had managed to call a cab before passing out and had been safely given a ride home, would that have been a valid contract?

 

[pp0rker]

I totally agree with most of what you've said above especially the part I have in bold. However, considering the ongoing trend to treat marital rape the same as stranger rape, nobody's ever totally safe.

Right, but that's the difference between what we should have with our legal system and what we do have. Rape is possible in marriage but by being married both individuals have given consent to sexual activity. It should be much harder to prove rape in a marriage.