Sfdebris.net

So I guess we just better not ever pass any laws or have any ethical standards, because someone might take them to ridiculous extremes...

This is the very definition of a slippery slope fallacy, as well.

And, I mean, as far as I can tell, your argument more or less boils down to "Its too much of a burden to make sure someone consents, because it might be awkward and ruin the moment." In other words, you'd rather risk molesting a woman than risk having an awkward conversation.

You have to be pretty darn stupid to molest someone while flirting. This entire line of thinking is just beyond broken. You are accusing people of straw-maning, yet you present a binary choice between being a rapist and asking for everything, record it on tape and sign the form 3 times for every step. You know full well that this is stupid. Obviously sometimes messages can be mixed or mistaken, but it's a far cry between what you propose and constant rape everywhere.

Agent Vinod wrote:

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: Try to imagine how you would feel if we were both, say, watching a movie or dining at a cafe. We're laughing at a shared joke, and I decide to slide my hand down your pants because asking to see if I was getting the right signals would "ruin the mood".

I am a male i doubt it would register the same way as if i was a women. I cannot answer.

Answer the question.

I confess I have no idea how people are supposed to have an intimate moment while stopping for affirmative consent at every step - girls in my day would have laughed you out of the car if you tried that. But hey, children are supposed to confuse their elders. Have at it, you crazy kids you.

the root of the problem i think vinod is trying to argue ( i must admit i can't understand his gammer structure half the time) is that verbal agreements do not hold up in a court of law anymore and body language is entirely subjective leading to the inevitable conclusion of society requiring all sexual contact between parties be documented and notarized.

Look there ought to be a compromise between this:



and this



Treating the choice as binary is just stupid.

It is fair to establish some reasonable, basic, standards for consent.

It is also fair to expect that basic standards for consent be higher for a complete frelling stranger than, say, your lawfully wedded husband or girlfriend of three years.

It is also true that anyone has the right to say "no".

Unconcious people cannot give consent.

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote:

Agent Vinod wrote:

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: Try to imagine how you would feel if we were both, say, watching a movie or dining at a cafe. We're laughing at a shared joke, and I decide to slide my hand down your pants because asking to see if I was getting the right signals would "ruin the mood".

I am a male i doubt it would register the same way as if i was a women. I cannot answer.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote:

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote:

Agent Vinod wrote:

Fuzzy Necromancer wrote: Try to imagine how you would feel if we were both, say, watching a movie or dining at a cafe. We're laughing at a shared joke, and I decide to slide my hand down your pants because asking to see if I was getting the right signals would "ruin the mood".

I am a male i doubt it would register the same way as if i was a women. I cannot answer.

Answer the question.

Answer the question.

I am not going to do hormon therapy to get closer to answering it percisely.

The Romulan Republic wrote:So I guess we just better not ever pass any laws or have any ethical standards, because someone might take them to ridiculous extremes...

This is the very definition of a slippery slope fallacy, as well.

And, I mean, as far as I can tell, your argument more or less boils down to "Its too much of a burden to make sure someone consents, because it might be awkward and ruin the moment." In other words, you'd rather risk molesting a woman than risk having an awkward conversation.

It did not alway prove to be a fallacy.

What is the guarantee that even after the awkward conversation the woman cannot change her mind during it...
Making the man a molester for x seconds.

Anyone, man or woman, has a right to say "I want to stop now" part-way through. That's a big part of consent. A woman saying "yes" does not grant you an irrevocable pass to her body, as I hope you realize.

Also, someone having the right to stop part-way through is not the same as "she can decide retroactively that she doesn't consent, and make the man a rapist." That's a ridiculous straw man. It just means that if she (or he, though you assume that it will always be a woman "unfairly" entrapping a man) decides she wants to stop, then it stops.

In short, your argument is founded on a presumption of entitlement towards womens' bodies, backed up by paranoia.

You're worried about being accused of sexual assault? I've got a simple solution: Don't commit sexual assault. Which means, in brief: don't do anything sexual with someone unless you are absolutely sure that they consent to it. If you've followed that rule, you should be fine, because the female gender isn't actually a bunch of "feminazis" out to persecute and entrap men with false rape allegations. I think that they mostly just want the right to control their own bodies and lives and be treated with respect, like any other person.