Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (74254)	9/10/2003 11:43:42 AM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

There is a huge gap between rape and what you recommended. You diminish the discussion by that. You wrote: "Making sure one has consent seems to be the most basic of judicious actions. Men should be having sex with their wives. Failing that, their fiancees. Failing that, at least with women they know well enough to be sure they are mentally stable and with enough character not to be talking out of school or making demands afterwards and the like" The question seems to boil down to whether it is the man's job to make sure that he has consent before proceeding, placing an affirmative duty on the male, or whether it is the female's duty to make clear the absence of consent, placing the affirmative duty on the female. That is, if things between a man and woman who have no sexual history to go on start getting "hot and heavy," does the man have an affirmative obligation to ask "are you sure you want to have intercourse," or does he have the right to proceed on a basis of implied consent unless and until the woman makes clear that she doesn't want intercourse? You seem to imply the latter, along with implying that the man has also to be sufficently good psychologist to be able to evaluate whether the woman is mentally stable enough to consent, and presumably (you didn't say this, but I infer it from your approach) giving her enough of an alcohol evaluation to make sure that she is sober enough to give fully informed consent. Which basic position do you take -- that the man has to be sure of fully informed consent before proceeding? Or that the woman has the responsibility of stating the absence of consent if that is her choice, and that the man is obligated to accept that decision unless and until by suasion he can change nonconsent into fully informed consent? IMO, the latter position is a reasonable balancing of civilization and biological imperative; the former is less so.