 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| It's like a reverse #metoo. He's admitted it and without a shadow of a doubt he did it, but she didn't want the allegation aired and someone decided to anyway. |
|
|
|
 |
David 
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Resigning (and not lying or dragging the womans name through the mud) is probably the most (or only) honourable thing Foley has ever done. Lets hope NSW Labor can find a decent politician to replace him, if they have any.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
Yeah, that was covered in the Aged link I posted.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
thesoretoothsayer
Joined: 26 Apr 2017
|
| Post subject: | |
|
From https://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/274158/npr-neo-puritan-revival
| Quote: | Another was sanctioned after a girl brought him back to her room and initiated an encounter that included oral sex, but not a verbal yes beforehand, leading to a jaw-dropper of a soundbite from Stotland:
If you go in somebodys dorm room and she touches you, and places your penis in her mouth, she has not conveyed consent. |
|
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Good article. I feel like there's a lot to be said for affirmative consent, but that it causes problems when it's used as a way of determining culpability. The basic concept that men (for instance) should actually be checking in (verbally or otherwise) with their sexual partner before and during the act that they actually want to do this and are not upset or uncomfortable is, I think, just like a minimum standard of human decency (and will certainly lead to a lot fewer unpleasant sexual experiences and worse). Why wouldn't anyone want to promote that?
But the idea that a failure to do so or even any feeling of discomfort during or after the act makes one partner accountable for sexual assault is obviously hugely problematic, whether or not that partner faces any negative consequences. The very idea that we would have people walking around feeling that they have been raped or taken advantage of (with all the potential trauma and other baggage that comes with that) in cases of simple miscommunication is pretty depressing, really (and yes, I believe that things like classification of experience and social stigma can have a negative psychological impact that is independent of the nature and immediate context of the sexual experience itself).
I mean, at least we're talking about all of this right now. That's progress. A culture of respect, empathy and understanding of consent leads to a lot less "lying back and thinking of England", for a start. But we definitely have a long way to go, and I don't think the answer is stricter orthodoxies around correct and incorrect sexual experience. It's the puritanism that the article talks about that we need to lose. Stop putting sex on a double pedestal by pushing it in our faces on the one hand and making it taboo on the other. Start treating it as a normal, mundane part of life in the way we talk about it, represent it and participate in it. That's one way to reduce harmful sexual experience, I wager.
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
You don't think that basically negotiating a contract to have sex or not, apart from being a serious mood killer, also kills spontaneity?
Scenario:
2 people hook up on Tinder. They go out for something to eat and have a few drinks, then go back to one of their houses.
Both are over 0.05 but neither are shitfaced to the point of not being capable of expressing consent or otherwise. They sit on the couch and start to kiss which becomes more passionate and heated, leading to sex which both enthusiastically participate in.
We're operating on implied consent here, the sex was spontaneous, neither party gave any indication to the other, verbal or non-verbal, that there was a lack of consent.
Next morning both are feeling a bit dusty and a little uncomfortable, so they go their separate ways.
Later that day or the next, one of the parties starts to feel more and more uncomfortable with what happened as it was out of character, wasn't what they intended when they went on the date, and they start to blame the other party in their mind which grows and grows until they decide to go to the Police and make a complaint of rape.
Were they raped?
NB, the scenario is deliberately gender neutral
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
David
to wish impossible things
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: the edge of the deep green sea
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | You don't think that basically negotiating a contract to have sex or not, apart from being a serious mood killer, also kills spontaneity? |
Absolutely. Any contractualisation of sex is not only an unrealistic standard to live up to, but would indeed kill much of sexs spontaneity and intimacy, and its possible that some enthusiastic consent discourse crosses over into that area. But I feel thats also a common misconception and exaggeration of what a lot of consent advocates are actually suggesting. As I wrote, a common-sense interpretation of enthusiastic consent is just about checking in, reading cues and so on and no, that doesnt even entail necessarily saying a word to your partner. Its basically just about paying a bit of attention to them and their body language and so on every now and then, which, lets face it, some guys are not always great at. Thats not only a realistic and reasonable standard, its probably the minimum required to be sure that your partners not having a shit time (or, in the worst case scenario, not actually being raped).
Another thing I wrote above (and apologies if it got lost in my slightly wordy post) was that we should be promoting this higher standard of sexual ethics but not necessarily be tying culpability to it. What that means is that there is still a grey zone in-between good, healthy, 100% consensual sex (which were trying to promote) and actual rape and assault (which were trying to criminalise). What do we use that zone for? Its for partners to communicate their disappointment or discomfort, for individuals to learn from their mistakes and aspire to be better, for misunderstandings to be cleared up, and for a recognition that sometimes (like in that Aziz Ansari case) our interactions with other people arent as good as they could have been but dont necessarily cross the line into a realm that ought to be policed.
(The hypothetical you refer to above would most likely fit into that grey zone.)
_________________
"Every time we witness an injustice and do not act, we train our character to be passive in its presence." – Julian Assange |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
OK then, I think we are in agreement
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
watt price tully 
Joined: 15 May 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Another one
| Quote: | NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley has resigned as Labor leader but says the harassment allegations levelled against him by an ABC journalist are false.
Reading from a prepared statement late afternoon on Thursday, Mr Foley said he had already engaged lawyers and would now begin defamation proceedings in the Federal Court. |
A Labor pollie this time. Wonder if his presumption of guilt or innocence will play on party lines here?
Read more at https://www.businessinsider.com.au/nsw-labor-leader-luke-foley-abc-journalist-assault-2018-11#fsXligggzz7WXAbc.99 |
[/quote]
The issue here is the abuse of parliamentary privlge to make a polical point at the expence of the womans express comments for the matter to be kept confidential.
Foleyhas resigned and sho he should. He needs to defend himself as he says he will. However Elliott of the Libs needs to follow. Whether he is guilty or not who knows although she has a witness apparently.
Similar it seems to the Geoffrey Rush case: bith women woianted this not to proceed futher. Both let down by others.
_________________
“I even went as far as becoming a Southern Baptist until I realised they didn’t keep ‘em under long enough” Kinky Friedman |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
How about a litttle contract on the back of a condom packet? That could be a real money spinner idea!
But then youd need video evidence no one was coerced into signing!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | You don't think that basically negotiating a contract to have sex or not, apart from being a serious mood killer, also kills spontaneity? |
Absolutely. Any contractualisation of sex is not only an unrealistic standard to live up to, but would indeed kill much of sexs spontaneity and intimacy, and its possible that some enthusiastic consent discourse crosses over into that area. But I feel thats also a common misconception and exaggeration of what a lot of consent advocates are actually suggesting. As I wrote, a common-sense interpretation of enthusiastic consent is just about checking in, reading cues and so on and no, that doesnt even entail necessarily saying a word to your partner. ... |
Perhaps "spontaneity" is overrated. It'd also need to be very fragile spontaneity, if it could be killed off by the six seconds needed to check everything's fine.
| think positive wrote: | How about a litttle contract on the back of a condom packet? That could be a real money spinner idea!
... |
Reminds me how TV depictions nowadays conspicuously often have, near the start of the dalliance, one party ask the other, "Is this okay?" I don't think this happened in TV dialogue two or three decades ago. Five or six decades ago, of course, there weren't really such overt scenes on TV and film. |
|
|
|
|
K
Joined: 09 Sep 2011
|
| Post subject: | |
|
When #metoo meets defamation law, and a brutal political culture
https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/when-metoo-meets-defamation-law-and-a-brutal-political-culture-20181109-p50f3j.html
| Quote: | ...
Our defamation laws favour the plaintiff, says Barbara McDonald, a professor of law at the University of Sydney.
It is very easy to defame someone. It is very easy to say something that makes other people think less of someone.
The onus is then shifted to the defendant to defend that claim. Not only do you have to defend literally what you said, you also have to defend the imputation that the ordinary reader would draw from what you said.
...
Any public figure [in the US] who sues for defamation must prove his or her defamer made their statement with malice, which is quite a high legal bar, Professor McDonald says.
Which is why libel is virtually unknown in the United States and why people have been able to come out with #metoo stories.
McDonald also makes the point that defamation trials often backfire on the plaintiff, as witness testimony, text messages and legal pleadings, all air in court claims which can be reputationally damaging.
...
Karen OConnell, a senior lecturer of law at the University of Technology, and an expert in discrimination law, says defamation law is having a chilling effect on the public conversation.
... |
|
|
|
|
|
Wokko
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| K wrote: | [
Perhaps "spontaneity" is overrated. It'd also need to be very fragile spontaneity, if it could be killed off by the six seconds needed to check everything's fine. |
Guess it depends how freaky whatever you want to do is.  |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Hate to be a Male in this Day and Age
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
