BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Son Of Barbannoy

 
  

Page: 1 ... 2324252627(28)2930313233... 42

 
 
Jack Fear
04:42 / 20.03.08
Ease off, cowboy. It's obviously a very touchy subject, and one that's very unpleasant to think about, no matter which side of the issue you're on. Defensiveness and antagonism towards your interlocutors do not point the way forward through this thing. Reflection, study, and self-examination do.

I would suggest that the time and energy you're currently spending in mounting your defense might be better spent in absorbing and engaging with the questions and arguments being raised around the issue of consent. I'd suggest a from-the-top reread of "Theorizing Consent" and long look at "Rape vs Rejection."

And then, maybe, with cool heads and new perspectives, we can try again, yeah?
 
 
HCE
04:44 / 20.03.08
Can you be a little more Conscious and a little less Fungoid?
 
 
*
04:49 / 20.03.08
Can you really not see how this topic is distressing for very good reasons?

Let us begin this post with two truths:
1) I do not know if you merit being called names, but I have not done so and will endeavor in good faith not to do so, although I came awfully close in a post that is now rightfully gone.
2) None of this is about what you personally may or may not have done anywhere but on Barbelith, but a lot of it is about what really does in real life happen, not on Barbelith, and how your conduct on Barbelith reflects and affects that.

A 3rd truth: The following may be triggering for people who have been affected by rape.

I am angry. I am not entirely angry at you, FoC, although I certainly feel justified in being angry at anyone who thinks it's normal and fine to consciously use alcohol to change the mind of anyone who is not willing to have sex with them while sober. I am really fucking pissed off at people who raped my friends with the use of alcohol, and at people who taught those people that if s/he's drunk, no and yes are the same thing really. I am fucking pissed off at a system that taught friends of mine that if they are raped when they've had some alcohol it's not really rape. I am really fucking pissed off at people who think that getting someone who has already said no shitfaced and then having sex with them when they're not totally in their right mind is okay. I'm really PISSED OFF at people who think it's okay to get someone who's drunk and has already said no to trust them to take them home safely and then fuck them once they're there, and laugh about it the next day with their friends. I'm PISSED OFF that other young gay men think that if they tell a guy when sober no anal without a condom, and then they get drunk together and the guy sure enough fucks them up the ass with no condom, that it's okay because these things just happen. I'm pissed off at you because you don't seem to see how your hypotheticals and justification and equivocation emerge from and support this nastiness. And I'm fucking pissed off that I have to hear this shit in a space I used to trust at least to challenge this kind of thinking. And you know what? Normalizing the use of alcohol to convince people into sex INCREASES the likelihood of rape, charges of rape, and rape prosecutions, because it supports a culture where women are not supposed to state directly what they want and don't want. And I'm pissed off at you for doing that. I don't expect you to defend yourself from my anger; just let it be what it is.

Ex is doing a very classically good job of being reasonable, of treating your propositions on their merits, in the abstract, which is as it should be. And I'm fucking pissed off at myself that I can't do the same. Once I would have. Sentimentity or one of my other, younger, sparkle-eyed selves would have taken your hand and sat down with you and had a reasoned discussion about consent when drunk, the possibility of measuring drunkenness qualitatively and quantitatively, how and when it could be equally applied no matter the genders of the participants, and how and when it has a lot to do with power between men and women and how that's by no means equal. And also how sometimes two people are drunk and both do something that they regret, and that's not called rape, it's called a mistake. And sometimes two people get drunk out of their heads and fuck and there are rainbows and fireworks and the sweet sweet love fairy comes down out of the moon and blesses them with sparkles from the magic love wand and they get married and live happily ever after, which would surely never have happened without, hem, a little bit of social lubrication, would it? Except that the number of times that two people meet over a few too many shots and wake up happily ever after DOESN'T JUSTIFY the pain even one person has had to go through of waking up and trying to figure out what happened, and if they said no loud enough or kicked hard enough or if they were laughing from nerves and if they were does that somehow make it their fault.

I'm not calling you a rapist. I didn't even call you a fucking shithead. In my initial post above, I alluded to the fact that I was angry enough to type that people who get other people, who may not be willing to have sex with them, drunk, in order to make them willing to have sex, are likely to be fucking shitheads even if they turn out not to be rapists. I deleted that post within seconds of posting it because it turns out I do have some standards for myself and respect for the remains of Barbelith after all. Or perhaps because I can't stand publicly being this angry.

The only reason I can't just leave this whole topic well enough alone is that I feel obligated to say something, because I feel as if there aren't enough people left willing to challenge you and engage with you in various ways that might, unlike this screed, actually be constructive.
 
 
*
04:50 / 20.03.08
Crosspost with Jack Fear; Jack, I'm now taking your very good advice.
 
 
Jack Fear
04:57 / 20.03.08
Okay, then. Break out into your small groups now, and let's meet back in the conference room for progress reports; Jenkins, get coffee and sandwiches sent up—we might be here a while. Oh, and we'll need a whiteboard in Dietz's office.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
07:23 / 20.03.08
Jack,

I'm quite happy to engage in a civil way, but I think if you go back to both your own posts and id's on this thread. Ask yourself whether this should have been brought to Barbannoy in the first place given that the premise, that I was somehow sanctioning rape, is, frankly, incorrect. It's a pretty serious charge and one I take exception to. I don't have to quote your post, you should be able to see it for yourself. If they aren't "defensive and antagonistic" I'm not quite sure what qualifies as such. It's also a bit hard to see how I have been any more antagonistic in my responses, but hey, that's interpretation for ya.....

OK lets slow it down and break it down.

I think we are confusing the issue a little here.

id,

The instances you cite are clearly rape. You have every right to be pissed off and anyone with half a brain or a heart would be too. But it is extremely difficult to relate them to anything I've written. Nor do I see how I've ever written anything even approaching an equivocation.

Just try and go back to my posts in the other thread and you'll see that I NEVER advocated changing someone's mind. Never. Yet you keep saying this! This is where the problem lies. What I said was taking someone to bar (or wherever) having a few drinks, perhaps becoming "legally" drunk, and then engaging in fully consensual sex. As I've said time and again, under the proposed laws, that consent could have been withdrawn after the fact. Which would have made it rape because legally that consent could never have been given due to drunkenness.

"Sentimentity or one of my other, younger, sparkle-eyed selves would have taken your hand and sat down with you and had a reasoned discussion about consent when drunk, the possibility of measuring drunkenness qualitatively and quantitatively, how and when it could be equally applied no matter the genders of the participants, and how and when it has a lot to do with power between men and women and how that's by no means equal."

So why are you flaming me for attempting to raise the very issues that I should apparently be sat down like a child and be lectured upon? It honestly seems that you got about two paragraphs into my first post and came straight to Barbannoy.

Nor is it fair to say that I shouldn't defend myself from your anger. Not only because the anger you feel against me isn't justified (for the reasons above), but because I actually support your anger about the cases you cite. But again, they're very, very, very different to the quite specific case I put forward.

I don't want to diminish the very legitimate anger you feel at rape. But two people having consensual sex is not, nor should it ever be, rape.
 
 
This Sunday
07:54 / 20.03.08
I NEVER advocated changing someone's mind.

Um, dude?

After getting them to drink in order to "loosen" them up, you state that you may also have been guilty of trying to "persuade" women to sleep with me (trust me it takes some work)!

That's advocating changing someone's mind, and really, if someone doesn't want to have sex with you so much that it takes drink after drink and "some work" to "persuade" them, how is that not... If you were to posit the same MO for a military recruitment, the sale of a perhaps subpar item you wanted to offload at your price and not theirs, or any number of similar set-ups, would you not find the perpetrator to be a cheat, a thief, and an asshole? And we have terms for people who steal or coerce their way to sex.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
08:45 / 20.03.08
No it's not the same.

If there has never been a proposition how can you change someone's mind?

Go to the thread and have a look. It's all been explained there. Time and again I have stated the instance where two people get drunk together and have consensual sex. It's very specific.
 
 
Papess
09:22 / 20.03.08
This needs to be stated again:

And you know what? Normalizing the use of alcohol to convince people into sex INCREASES the likelihood of rape, charges of rape, and rape prosecutions, because it supports a culture where women are not supposed to state directly what they want and don't want. And I'm pissed off at you for doing that. I don't expect you to defend yourself from my anger; just let it be what it is.

Thank you, Id, for that.

This whole subject is much too painful for me. Coming from an alcoholic background where saying no to the alcohol was harder than saying no to sex, but unfortunately leads to being unable to say no to the sex. Add to that my male friends at the time who told me "[I] should know better..." Because, you know, that is just how guys are. What the fuck is wrong with me, right?

Oh right, I am sick. I am an alcoholic. Or you can read that like my ex male friends (who were supposed to be my friends), the bar staff (who sometimes were those friends!), amd the authorities read it: I am a stupid, fucking, drunk whore.

So, I can tell you Fungus, from my own cute little anecdotes, and actual experience (rather than hypothetical situation) that there are complications and devastation on the other end of that oh-so-normal-and-innocent "loosening up", which you really, really don't comprehend. Apparently.

I don't want to diminish the very legitimate anger you feel at rape. But two people having consensual sex is not, nor should it ever be, rape.

What exactly is so consenual about having sex with someone who needs to be "loosened up" with alcohol? Actually, maybe that makes it very clear about how to make determinations in these situations: If someone doesn't want to have sex with you before consumption of alcohol, then true consent is not given. Ethically, it is just that simple. Legally and socially we will have to work on. Legally there needs to be evidence which can be proven in a court of law that the drunken person would have never engaged in sex acts without the alcohol. And socially, we would all have to change the stigmatization of those "stupid, drunk whores" who are just throwing themselves at men and demanding, (with proverbial guns to their heads), that they must have sex with them while they are still inebbriated - poor, helpless man can't do much about that, hmm? The drunk whore should know better! You can't expect a man to control himself like that!

Time and again I have stated the instance where two people get drunk together and have consensual sex

No, you have outlined something else entirely. You are just stuck on it as consent.

No one is debating about two people having drinks together, then having consentual sex! You read the thread over again.

Bloody hell.

Now, I will leave this alone before I get really, really angry.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
09:32 / 20.03.08
Right. So no drunk person can ever give consent then? When a drunk man says to a drunk woman "would you like to have sex" and she says "Yes, lets go home!", that is in fact not consent, and therefore rape?

"No one is debating about two people having drinks together, then having consensual sex! You read the thread over again."

I keep hearing this point. But the effect of the law would have made this rape. This is what my argument is. You can introduce all of the emotive language you like, but this is the issue, and he one I have stuck to from the beginning.
 
 
Papess
09:49 / 20.03.08
No, FoC. You have stated several times about using alcohol to change someone's min and to "loosen" someone up, or other language such as that. Now you are backtracking instead of just admitting you are wrong and getting a clue about why you have upset people.

But I see you are less than understanding or compassionate, so I won't expect anything more of you.

I'll try not to drink around you, just in case.


Oh hell, I am probably just bitter that I have never been asked my hand in marraige by one of those guys who I wouldn't have had sex with had I not been drunk.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
10:20 / 20.03.08
Papess,

If you could please point out where I've said "change someone's mind", even once, I'll happily apologise. Several times? No. Although you might take exception to the term "loosen up" (and in hindsight I acknowledge it may not have been the best term to use) I used it to illustrate that there might be a situation where you are "courting" someone. This has happened to me on occasion. That's not to say I was seeking to take advantage of someone, I have just found it to be easier to broach the subject once I've had a few drinks, and I've found others feel the same. You could take an absolutist view of this but surely not every man who ever took a woman to the bar, knowing that their relationship was at a point where they'd probably both like to have sex, is a predator? The effect of the law would have made that so.

Papess, I do feel for your situation, but understand that I am arguing a point of law that pertains to the issue of consent. I'm not arguing, nor have I ever argued, that taking advantage of drunk women is acceptable.
 
 
Jawsus-son Starship
10:30 / 20.03.08
I wouldn't be engaged, I wouldn't have a child on the way, I wouldn't be who I am today if I hadn't got smashed a few years ago and slept with an equally smashed girl. Setting out to get someone drunk just so you can fuck them when they can't say no is rape. Everyone can agree to that, FoC isn't advocating it. But it isn't the same thing as getting drunk and having sex; the anacdotes (for want of a better word) I've read here all contain the same piece of information - a man uses alchol to sleep with a woman who otherwise wouldn't have consensual sex with him. Everyone can agree to that, FoC isn't advocating it. Its when we get to the "All drunk sex is by it's nature not consensual sex" that I get troubled. As FoC says, I hope my fiance never reads this thread, it'd be awful for her to find out I too am a rapist.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:29 / 20.03.08
Now, chaps. I know it's always quite a nasty feeling when something that you have done which has previously received the protection of the law appears in danger of no longer receiving the protection of the law, and that this sort of thing should be firmly located over with the bad people who aren't you, but don't let that turn you into a fool. Well, unless it's too late for you, in which case don't let that induce you to type, Mathlete.

You could take an absolutist view of this but surely not every man who ever took a woman to the bar, knowing that their relationship was at a point where they'd probably both like to have sex, is a predator? The effect of the law would have made that so.

No it wouldn't. If both parties would like to have sex, it doesn't seem very likely that the woman would then retroactively argue that she had not in fact wanted to have sex. Unless women are liars.

Now, it's a shame that some chaps don't have enough confidence in their desirability to try to propose the act of physical love without getting a few drinks into themselves and the woman with whom they to share a beautiful flower, or doubt their performance so much as to be concerned that it might be so awful that the other party might rather endure a grueling, humiliating and emotionally ruinous legal process rather than admit to having wanted to have spent the night with them, but buck up! I'm sure that in their own way everyone is very beautiful.

If, on the other hand, one does live in fear of such, perhaps it would be better to change one's behaviour rather than seek to maintain the legal protection of one's behaviour? It worked for South Africa, and it could work for you.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
11:43 / 20.03.08
Haus,

It might not seem "likely" that a woman might lie, but.... well... often the truth is stranger than fiction! Personally I don't find the prospect of a meteorite striking my house to be very likely, but according to my house insurance, if it happens, I'm not covered.

I don't think that anyone has said that "Women are liars", (I certainly haven't) but are you sure that there are no women who lie?
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
11:59 / 20.03.08
Oh, of course. It has been reported as having happened once in my living memory in the UK, even - a student was acquitted of the deed having been accused by a woman with whom he had spent the night. As an index of all the sex that has been had in the UK, though, I think the odds may be around meteorite level.

As such, I am a little surprised - a little - to see the fear of women lying being so great that one should legislate to anticipate and prevent it having any force in law. We've had a similar position before, relating to women habitually telling lies in court about spousal abuse in order to secure custody of their children. That didn't go down brilliantly, either.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
12:19 / 20.03.08
Haus,

The current fact of women being less than eager to pursue such a case (vexatious or otherwise) may be the difficulty of actually establishing a case. Can you say for sure things wouldn't change if, as I mention in the "SBR: Let's Theorize Consent" thread that, vexatious claims would not be pursued for all manner of reasons?

Introducing faulty law is counter to the Western system of law, no matter how unlikely the outcome.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:23 / 20.03.08
I understand, peter the Fungus.

You want it one way.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:23 / 20.03.08
You want it to be one way.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:23 / 20.03.08
But it's the other way.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:24 / 20.03.08
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:43 / 20.03.08
Oh, Fungus. Bless you. So, you think that the only thing that is stopping women from constantly thinking (to quote myself) as they lie next to an unfortunate one-night stand, Gosh. I feel humiliated. What better way to avenge myself for this feeling of humiliation than to seek to set in motion a course of events in which, in front of a gallery of witnesses and the press, I am called to answer intrusive questions about my sex life, the condition of my genitals, my drinking habits, the number of partners I have had, the number of one-night stands I have had and so on, as the defence seeks to portray me as a loose woman, as part of a judicial process that statistically, even were there good, convincing evidence of violence against me, I would be very likely to lose. That will certainly resolve any feelings of humiliation I may currently be suffering is that is is currently a bit too hard to start that humiliating, exhausting, emotionally grueling process off with a charge?

God bless you, newbie.
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:48 / 20.03.08
OH GOD MAKE IT STOPPPP
 
 
Less searchable M0rd4nt
12:49 / 20.03.08
F of C that is, not id or Haus.
 
 
Jack Fear
12:54 / 20.03.08
But I'm on your *side* - or, Why clever people can't be rapist
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
12:57 / 20.03.08
Good to know that peter the Fungus has graduated from "perfectly nice young man" to "clever person" in your eyes, Jack.

You utter, utter buster.
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:00 / 20.03.08
To say more - having already broken a vow and said too much -

A board that does not have anything resembling functional moderation or administration, that has been largely abandoned by the people who once strove to give it a set of values, and that seems to be inducing nervous breakdowns en masse in the people who remain (apart from the perenially deluded Cleopatras who maintain that EVERYTHINGS JUST FINE OKEY) - such a board cannot support a serious, sensitive or worthwhile discussion about sex and consent.

Especially not once it has let on and treated as a valid member of the community someone who holds strong racist views (let's not forget that Jack Fear declared him to be a "perfectly nice young fellow" even after that stuff about how good white Australians have been in sharing their land...). How surprising that he also holds strong sexist views as well! - even if he won't admit either.

Neither the critical mass nor the technical functionality exist to discourage peter the Fungus from continuing to vomit his bilge upon Barbelith. (Why should he stop, really? This is, after all, a place where the likes of Dead Megatron have long since been given a seat by the fire and accepted as beloved regulars.) Barbelith is toxic. It has gone bad like a rotten tooth.

Come away, come away.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
13:03 / 20.03.08
Well it seems that maturity doesn't exist for the conversation....

How about we stick to the argument at hand?
 
 
Jack Fear
13:06 / 20.03.08
Sorry, Final Message - the joke was perhaps a bit obscure.

Also, you're conveiently ignoring this.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
13:08 / 20.03.08
Uh-oh.

I'd really leave it now if I were you, FoC. You've brought HIM out of retirement. This won't end well. (Well, not that it exactly started brilliantly, but that's beside the point).
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:16 / 20.03.08
Jack: no it wasn't, and no I wasn't.

I'm not sure what made you take back your qualified support of the Fungus, but the only possible explanation I can see is that you had not previously read pretty much his opening shot on the board, "Why don't those ungrateful immigrants stop complaining (and gang-raping*)?" - but that's a bit weird given that it was linked to before your "perfectly nice young man" Nickism. I mean, what did you think the fuss was all about, pops? I guess you had other constructive things to do, like starting the Alex's Grandma banning thread as a public service, right?
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
13:16 / 20.03.08
*Presumably it would have been okay if... oh, nevermind.
 
 
Dead Megatron
13:34 / 20.03.08
Afer seeing Final Message's four post suite ending with picture, I was struck with a compulsion to say:

what the fuck just happened???
 
 
Jack Fear
13:47 / 20.03.08
@Final Message: Hey, I don't read every thread. And even if I did, God forbid I should jump down somebody's throat for a perceived offense based on previous history, right?

Anyway. Peter. Fungus. Cards on the table, yeah? Here's the deal.

I think you're wrong. And I think that, one some level, you know you're wrong.

But it's very upsetting to realize that you have been, for a long time, on the wrong side of an important issue—to realize that your attitudes are fundamentally fucked-up. It's traumatic to admit that, even to yourself.

Now, in that situation, you can plunge ahead fearlessly and do a thorough self-examination and re-evaluate your beliefs from the bottom up—a process that leaves you shaken, and feeling sick with guilt and misery for a long time, but in the end leaves you stronger, and smarter, and more whole.

Or you can try to avoid self-examination. You can try to justify your distorted attitudes by distorting the issue to fit them. And in so doing, you find yourself defending the indefensible—because it's the only way to let your guilty conscience off the hook.

I know which course of action I think you should take.
And I see which course of action you appear to be taking.

You have a choice. You can learn and grow and change, or you can stay the same and think that we're all assholes.

The only reason I'm trying to engage with you—instead of trying to KILL YOU WITH MY MIND FROM A DISTANCE, as Final Message has chosen to do—is because I (still!) think you have it in you to learn.

Prove me right, or prove me wrong.

This is me, being as honest as I'm ever gonna be.
 
 
Fungus of Consciousness
14:08 / 20.03.08
Jack,

I think the premise of the argument against me is incorrect. Namely, that I justify rape on the basis of drunkenness. So, with genuine respect, I won't change because I think that, by believing that, you're wrong. Surely that position is as valid as yours?

What part of the following is controversial?

Under the proposed laws, a situation could have arisen that saw two people get drunk together, have fully consensual sex (where the sex is expressly agreed to), and that consent could be withdraw after the fact. In fact, even where the consent is not withdrawn, by law it would have been a sexual assault due to the fact that ""consent cannot be said to have been lawfully obtained if at the time of that consent the victim was intoxicated by drugs or alcohol" and given that, under the law, a crime is considered to have happened regardless of whether it was reported.

Can someone please explain where there is even an implied justification of rape in the above passage?
 
  

Page: 1 ... 2324252627(28)2930313233... 42

 
  
Add Your Reply