• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Non consentual sex is not rape

Is non concentual sex always rape

  • Yes, non concensual sex is always rape

    Votes: 47 79.7%
  • No, non concensual sex is not always rape

    Votes: 12 20.3%

  • Total voters
    59
Yet again, you refuse to answer questions about specifics. It's getting tiresome and irritating.

Answer the questions that have been posed to you multiple times.

Not one single person here is saying rape is okay. Not one.

The question completely revolves around what defines rape, and when.

As I see it, your definition of rape is when-ever someone says they've been raped.
Based on that, you'd gladly sentence anyone accused of rape to prison or even death without benefit of trial.
Automatically guilty of all charges. Period.

In your eyes any human that says they've been raped is telling the truth, and any human that says such a claim is not true is a lying feces filled scum of an animal and deserves no sympathy or even a day in court.

Stop avoiding any and all questions regarding your previous statements, and stop trying to deflect the conversation towards your absurd and asinine twists around what other people are trying to say.

Are you going to answer our questions or not?

If my wife and I are both drunk, and we have sex, who's the rapist and who's the victim of rape?
Who gets charged with what?

If I've been drunk and my wife hasn't, and we've had sex, did she rape me?
What charges should be levied against her?

Sometimes one of the most honest things a person can say is, "I don't know." My honesty offends you. You are looking for a true/false answer to an essay question--a futile effort.

Logic and reason alone must answer your questions, not casual dismissal of a serious problem enabled by our patriarchal culture.
 
Sometimes one of the most honest things a person can say is, "I don't know." My honesty offends you. You are looking for a true/false answer to an essay question--a futile effort.

Logic and reason alone must answer your questions, not casual dismissal of a serious problem enabled by our patriarchal culture.

So your answer is:

No - I'm not going to answer your questions or anyone else who challenges what I've posted.

I'm just going to make blind sweeping statements and judge what others post, but I'm not going to respond to questions.


Thanks - I'll stop wasting my time with you.
You might want to question why you've joined a debate forum though.
 
So your answer is:




Thanks - I'll stop wasting my time with you.
You might want to question why you've joined a debate forum though.

I accept your surrender.
 
Imagine all the things you would be able to get out of if the simple fact that you were drunk meant you couldn't be held accountable for your actions.

For one thing, you couldn't be charged with DUI.

You could cheat on your spouse then claim you were raped because for god damned sake you were drunk.
You weren't accountable for your actions.

The list could get pretty long here....

And imagine all the things that you could get away with if you could threaten a person with charging them with rape after they slept with you and you were drinking just a little bit.

This is not the same situation at all as drunk driving. As I stated in a previous post, who determines where drunk is legally when talking about either party in a rape accusation where one claims they were too drunk to consent? Do they have to provide a blood sample or urine sample or at least the certified results of a breathalyzer? What do you do if both were drunk? Who gets the responsibility for being the perpetrator and who gets to play the victim? Always the woman? Why?
 
16 pages and the fact remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape :shrug:
 
16 pages and the position remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape :shrug:

FIFY. The mutually-drunk dilemma aside, can you give me another example of when your position holds?
 
FIFY. The mutually-drunk dilemma aside, can you give me another example of when your position holds?

you fixed nothing my statement is a fact, lket me know when its not or when you can prove otherwise lol
 
FIFY. The mutually-drunk dilemma aside, can you give me another example of when your position holds?

The mutually drunk "dilemma" is the thing in question here. It is the issue since that is what the dean says was involved in the majority of the cases, if not all.
 
The mutually drunk "dilemma" is the thing in question here. It is the issue since that is what the dean says was involved in the majority of the cases, if not all.

I just reread the OP and did not see a single mention in the article of alcohol or inebriation. Instead, I saw allegations of a continued culture of letting rapists off with a slap on the wrist.
 
you fixed nothing my statement is a fact, lket me know when its not or when you can prove otherwise lol

That's not how it works. You reinforced each other. You did not convince me. I'm open to evidence, but the burden will be on you to change my mind.
 
I just reread the OP and did not see a single mention in the article of alcohol or inebriation. Instead, I saw allegations of a continued culture of letting rapists off with a slap on the wrist.

Then try looking outside the OP article for this info.

Yale promises more info on misconduct penalties - SFGate

"In many cases, the complainant and respondent come to altogether different understandings of what transpired," Salovey wrote. "In too many cases, excessive alcohol consumption blurs memory."

Pretty sure this was posted earlier in the thread as well. But it shows that there is more to the story. A lot more than what is being reported.

It is absolutely not fair to simply believe that just because someone claims sexual assault that the person they point the finger at is guilty.
 
1.)That's not how it works.
2.)You reinforced each other.
3.) You did not convince me. I'm open to evidence
4.) but the burden will be on you to change my mind.

1.)actually its exactly how it works lol
2.) i reinforced facts
3.) lol not my goal to convince you, convincing you is meaningless to the facts
4.) LMAO did you think this would actually work, there is no burden of proof related to YOU, facts have already been provide that prove my statement true :shrug:

so now your options are to believe or not believe the facts, either way nobody honest cares has your beliefs dont impact facts

if you disagree by all means though FACTUALLY prove the statement wrong, id LOVE to read it

ill repeat the facts again just in case you missed it

"16 pages and the fact remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape"
 
1.)actually its exactly how it works lol
2.) i reinforced facts
3.) lol not my goal to convince you, convincing you is meaningless to the facts
4.) LMAO did you think this would actually work, there is no burden of proof related to YOU, facts have already been provide that prove my statement true :shrug:

so now your options are to believe or not believe the facts, either way nobody honest cares has your beliefs dont impact facts

if you disagree by all means though FACTUALLY prove the statement wrong, id LOVE to read it

ill repeat the facts again just in case you missed it

"16 pages and the fact remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape"

Buddy, if you really believe this, then you have some serious misunderstandings as to how "burden of proof" works. Prove to me that there is no celestial teapot that is undetectable by telescopes orbiting the sun.

Furthermore, your attempt to pigeonhole this issue into one single matter--whether drunk sex is rape--misses the bigger picture, which is exactly what arguments that enable our culture of rape do.
 
Yep. Agree.

yep, as soon as one makes that statement in blanket form and suggests that ALL non-consensual sex is rap they are factually wrong.

Not a hard fact to understand but obviously some are struggling with easy concepts.
 
1.)Buddy, if you really believe this, then you have some serious misunderstandings as to how "burden of proof" works.
2.) Prove to me that there is no celestial teapot that is undetectable by telescopes orbiting the sun.

3.)Furthermore, your attempt to pigeonhole this issue into one single matter--whether drunk sex is rape--misses the bigger picture, which is exactly what arguments that enable our culture of rape do.

1.) facts >greater than your opinion

theres no burden of proof on me LMAO

2.) this example fails because facts have already been provided sorry you lose to facts again

3.) ????

please dont make stuff up because it further shows desperation, i haven't pigeon hold anything, i simple made a factually statement, i never addressed whether drunk sex is rape, sorry

my statement and facts still stand but the pages have increased.

"17 pages and the fact remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape"

let us know when this fact changes
 
Then try looking outside the OP article for this info.

Yale promises more info on misconduct penalties - SFGate



Pretty sure this was posted earlier in the thread as well. But it shows that there is more to the story. A lot more than what is being reported.

It is absolutely not fair to simply believe that just because someone claims sexual assault that the person they point the finger at is guilty.

Wait, I'm supposed to read up on follow-up news stories before taking the negative position in a debate? Yet those taking the affirmative position can just cite the original story and leave it at that? Wow, that's a new one. I didn't even know that was a tactic! That little ruse may come in handy for me.

But for the purposes of the rest of this post, I will overlook that. Here is what I read in the article:

The report, which covers sexual misconduct complaints against students and staff for the first half of the year, includes updates on four cases in which students are accused of having nonconsensual sex with female students. One student was suspended for two semesters, another was placed on probation and two others were given written reprimands, according to the report, which described two of the cases as involving nonconsensual acts during otherwise consensual sexual activity.

Four cases mentioned, already the "non-consensual sex" euphemism is used, zero mention of alcohol. Moving on...

Yale uses the term "nonconsensual sex" to describe a range of behaviors that fall within a broad definition of sexual misconduct, the statement said.

Ahhhhh. Finally someone alludes to a definition, and it gives me a reason to maybe, just maybe, rethink my position. All rape is sexual assault--or whatever the hell this "non-consensual sex" is--but not all sexual assault is rape. Now we just need to figure out what counts as "non-consensual sex."

"It is evident that Yale's report must be more descriptive about what is meant by 'nonconsensual sex' and more information should be made available to advise the community about the basis for penalties," Salovey wrote.

Yale's standard of consent is "extremely rigorous," requiring clean consent at every stage of a sexual encounter, Salovey said.

"In many cases, the complainant and respondent come to altogether different understandings of what transpired," Salovey wrote. "In too many cases, excessive alcohol consumption blurs memory."

Brodsky said the president is demonstrating a strong commitment to stopping sexual violence, but she said his statement also perpetuates a myth that consent is blurry.

Is the highlighted phrase The standard we are looking for? Or is that just one of the guidelines? Or just an abbreviated summary? And what counts as "clean consent"?

By the way, we have our first mention of alcohol. Notice it says "in too many cases," NOT "in all cases," implying that other factors are at work.

And that's it. Your claim that this dilemma is all about drunk sex is clearly false.
 
1.) facts >greater than your opinion

theres no burden of proof on me LMAO

2.) this example fails because facts have already been provided sorry you lose to facts again

3.) ????

please dont make stuff up because it further shows desperation, i haven't pigeon hold anything, i simple made a factually statement, i never addressed whether drunk sex is rape, sorry

my statement and facts still stand but the pages have increased.

"17 pages and the fact remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape"

let us know when this fact changes

Prove to me that there is no celestial teapot in orbit that is undetectable by telescopes, then we will talk.
 
Prove to me that there is no celestial teapot in orbit that is undetectable by telescopes, then we will talk.

LOL thats what i thought you got nothing

you lose to facts again, but please continue to be dishonest and make stuff up

"17 pages and the fact remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape"

let us know when this fact changes
 
LOL thats what i thought you got nothing

you lose to facts again, but please continue to be dishonest and make stuff up

"17 pages and the fact remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape"

let us know when this fact changes

Just as I thought, you do not understand the concept of burden of proof.

When you learn it, feel free to let me know.
 
Wait, I'm supposed to read up on follow-up news stories before taking the negative position in a debate? Yet those taking the affirmative position can just cite the original story and leave it at that? Wow, that's a new one. I didn't even know that was a tactic! That little ruse may come in handy for me.

But for the purposes of the rest of this post, I will overlook that. Here is what I read in the article:



Four cases mentioned, already the "non-consensual sex" euphemism is used, zero mention of alcohol. Moving on...



Ahhhhh. Finally someone alludes to a definition, and it gives me a reason to maybe, just maybe, rethink my position. All rape is sexual assault--or whatever the hell this "non-consensual sex" is--but not all sexual assault is rape. Now we just need to figure out what counts as "non-consensual sex."



Is the highlighted phrase The standard we are looking for? Or is that just one of the guidelines? Or just an abbreviated summary? And what counts as "clean consent"?

By the way, we have our first mention of alcohol. Notice it says "in too many cases," NOT "in all cases," implying that other factors are at work.

And that's it. Your claim that this dilemma is all about drunk sex is clearly false.

The majority of the cases appear to be alcohol related issues. There is also very possibly some that are simply not enough proof that there was no real consent. Maybe the girl accused the guy she was sleeping with of not getting her absolute consent one night but there isn't enough evidence or problems with her claim. Maybe there was a big breakup of the couple right before she makes the accusation and she claims it was because he "raped" her, and he claims it was something completely different and that they never had sex she didn't agree to. Who's telling the truth? How do you make that determination?
 
Just as I thought, you do not understand the concept of burden of proof.

When you learn it, feel free to let me know.

oh the irony
you lose again to facts, always fuunny when a person is so dishonest they deny facts
"17 pages and the fact remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape"

let us know when this fact changes
 
The majority of the cases appear to be alcohol related issues. There is also very possibly some that are simply not enough proof that there was no real consent. Maybe the girl accused the guy she was sleeping with of not getting her absolute consent one night but there isn't enough evidence or problems with her claim. Maybe there was a big breakup of the couple right before she makes the accusation and she claims it was because he "raped" her, and he claims it was something completely different and that they never had sex she didn't agree to. Who's telling the truth? How do you make that determination?

The overwhelming majority of reliable sources I have checked place the rate of false rape allegations somewhere in the nineties--as in, at least 90% of all rape accusations are true.

We need to deal with that 10% or less, whatever the number may be, but it in no way dismisses the problem of the other 90%. In either case, a life can be destroyed.
 
By the way. Those of you defending the claim "if persons A and B are unable of giving consent, yet have sex anyway, it is plausible that neither of them committed rape" need to realize that two drunk adults having sex is not the only scenario that meets these conditions. If an adult gets drunk then has sex with a child, neither of them is giving consent. Yet by the standard repeatedly and vehemently offered by many of you, it is entirely possible that that pedophile did not commit rape. So if you stand by your position that two drunk people having sex is not necessarily rape, then you must, for consistency's sake, assume the same about pedophilia.

"But this is different!" you say. How. How is it different. How is two people who are unable to give consent automatically rape in one circumstance and not in the other. Are you suggesting that there exist cases where not giving consent is insufficient to classify any sex at that time as rape? Or is it black-and-white, cut-and-dry, at least one person must have raped the other? Which is it?
 
By the way. Those of you defending the claim "if persons A and B are unable of giving consent, yet have sex anyway, it is plausible that neither of them committed rape" need to realize that two drunk adults having sex is not the only scenario that meets these conditions. If an adult gets drunk then has sex with a child, neither of them is giving consent. Yet by the standard repeatedly and vehemently offered by many of you, it is entirely possible that that pedophile did not commit rape. So if you stand by your position that two drunk people having sex is not necessarily rape, then you must, for consistency's sake, assume the same about pedophilia.

"But this is different!" you say. How. How is it different. How is two people who are unable to give consent automatically rape in one circumstance and not in the other. Are you suggesting that there exist cases where not giving consent is insufficient to classify any sex at that time as rape? Or is it black-and-white, cut-and-dry, at least one person must have raped the other? Which is it?

theres many things you dont know huh?

wow thats the worst and most failed analogy ever
one simple fact destoys it LMAO

by LAW when it comes to pedophilia minors cant give consent

try again

also before you go making more stuff up "i" im not defending anybody in the OP or ALL scenarios of non-consensual sex, just further pointing out the fact that its now 18 pages and the fact remains that not all non-consensual sex is rape

let us know when this changes
 
Back
Top Bottom