However, I do not appreciate your attempt to turn a theoretical discussion into an emotion- and event-based one.
I think part of the point of this whole discussion is that it's really hard to seperate out the "theoretical" of discussions surrounding rape from the "emotion" or "event-based" discussions surrounding rape.
Rather, I see it as a series of open questions, among them these: - whether there are or can be such distinctions - whether it is good to have such distinctions - whether it is useful to have such distinctions - a question of who makes the distinctions, on what basis or grounds.
I think that you and lilairen may be running into the question of if there can be a distinction between theory, emotion, and event on some of these questions; I think you are each coming down on different sides of that question. I won't presume to answer the question of why you may be coming down on different sides or what on what grounds or basis you are distinguishing, because I don't know.
and that misunderstandings take two people, not one -- both (or more) participants in any sexual situation need to be made able to communicate before the fact.
This would be ideal, yes.
As I understand it, it's your understanding that both people need to communicate before the fact, and if that doesn't happen it's partially the fault of both people that the rape occurs for not communicating clearly. However, that doesn't address the point that I think lilairen is making, which applies to situations where people *can not* communicate clearly (panic attack, druggings, mentally disabled people, the very elderly or very young, people with severe mental health problems, those in institutons, etc.)?
I think your position leaves those people out because it's assuming that everyone has the ability--and associated responsibility--to give or withhold consent, but not everyone does at all, and of those that do have that ability, not every one of those people has it all the time.
If I've misrepresented your understanding in the above, please post here and let me know so I can come back and reconsider.
no subject
I think part of the point of this whole discussion is that it's really hard to seperate out the "theoretical" of discussions surrounding rape from the "emotion" or "event-based" discussions surrounding rape.
Rather, I see it as a series of open questions, among them these:
- whether there are or can be such distinctions
- whether it is good to have such distinctions
- whether it is useful to have such distinctions
- a question of who makes the distinctions, on what basis or grounds.
I think that you and lilairen may be running into the question of if there can be a distinction between theory, emotion, and event on some of these questions; I think you are each coming down on different sides of that question. I won't presume to answer the question of why you may be coming down on different sides or what on what grounds or basis you are distinguishing, because I don't know.
and that misunderstandings take two people, not one -- both (or more) participants in any sexual situation need to be made able to communicate before the fact.
This would be ideal, yes.
As I understand it, it's your understanding that both people need to communicate before the fact, and if that doesn't happen it's partially the fault of both people that the rape occurs for not communicating clearly. However, that doesn't address the point that I think lilairen is making, which applies to situations where people *can not* communicate clearly (panic attack, druggings, mentally disabled people, the very elderly or very young, people with severe mental health problems, those in institutons, etc.)?
I think your position leaves those people out because it's assuming that everyone has the ability--and associated responsibility--to give or withhold consent, but not everyone does at all, and of those that do have that ability, not every one of those people has it all the time.
If I've misrepresented your understanding in the above, please post here and let me know so I can come back and reconsider.