Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

The catch-all forum for general topics and debates. Minimal moderation. Rated PG to PG-13.
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

Post by _Lemmie »

DoubtingThomas wrote:
Lemmie wrote:"They should have known better?" It's pretty obvious where you are headed with this in the context of your rape definitions, so please don't. Read over the comments given to you earlier, there is a lot to think about as you are forming a post-Mormon moral code.


I do think the Casinos are abusers, especially if they give free alcohol, you agree with me?

No.
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

Post by _Res Ipsa »

DoubtingThomas wrote:Say two drunks have consensual sex, but forget everything next morning. Who would be the victim?

Res Ipsa wrote: There would be no victim. As you stipulated, the sex was consensual.

DoubtingThomas wrote:I am confused again, I thought drunks couldn't consent to sex, especially if they are drunk enough to "forget everything next morning".


Okay, so there are a few concepts that we have to keep distinct and can't substitute for one another. Let's start with "consent." I'm going to use the legal definition in my home state.

"Consent" means that at the time of the act of sexual intercourse or sexual contact there are actual words or conduct indicating freely given agreement to have sexual intercourse or sexual contact.


So, consent is a communication from one person to another that can take the form of words or conduct. If that communication occurred, the sex is "consensual." In your hypothetical, you stated that the sex was consensual. Note that it is the time of the act that counts. Consent expressed earlier, before the person became unconscious, doesn't count. And consent can always be withdrawn.

Capacity to consent is a separate issue. If I'm unconscious, I physically cannot consent. In my state, having sexual contact with such a person is rape. Note that it is the time of the act that counts. If I am, for whatever reason, unable to appreciate the consequences of my action, I mentally cannot consent. In Washington, having sexual contact with such a person is rape.

"Drunk" is an imprecise term that refers to intoxication as the result of alcohol consumption. Being drunk does not mean one lacks mental capacity to give consent. I've been drunk many times in my life. On maybe one of those occasions I was drunk to the point of lacking mental capacity. (That resulted in Señor Tequila and I going our separate way for close to 20 years....) You can drink enough to reach a point of lacking mental capacity to consent. You can drink enough to reach a point of lacking the physical capacity to consent. Heck, I've seen people that I thought were still pretty darn coherent pass out -- they appeared to lose physical capacity without ever losing mental capacity. At any rate, the point is that someone can consent to sex when they are drunk. That's why when you say two drunk people have consensual sex, my response is: no victim, no crime. In general, when you're thinking through the issues we're talking about, the term "drunk" really isn't helpful.

"Forgetting everything the next morning" is a separate issue. When we are talking about rape v. not rape, what counts is (1) whether the person had the physical and mental capacity to consent; and (2) whether consent was given. The ability of the participants to recall the consent is relevant only in terms of evidence. For example, suppose two people decide to get a little drunk, have sex, and video tape themselves. The tape shows that they do drink a fair amount, that they do appear to understand they are going to have sex, and that they both enthusiastically consent to it. However, one of them the next day can't recall either the sex or the consent at the time. There still was consent at the time, as shown by the tape. The absence of recollection does not change the fact that consent was actually given at the time. Absent a tape, the fact that one partner doesn't recall the consent is simply one fact to be considered when deciding whether consent actually occurred.

In law, we distinguish between "ultimate facts" and "evidential facts." The former is the factual issue that will determine the result of the case. The latter is the collection of facts we use to try and determine the ultimate facts. The ultimate facts are: did the parties consent and did they have the capacity to consent? What the parties recall are evidential facts.

Does that clear up my response?



Res Ipsa wrote:It almost sounds like you are viewing woman through the lens of the Eve myth -- that women are are out there just waiting to trick you into getting arrested for rape or taking your money. Is that part of what this whole conversation is about?




DoubtingThomas wrote:Of course not! I think women are generally more honest and kind than men. I myself trust women more. I am a gentlemen, that is why I have a girlfriend

I apologize if my question sounded insulting. Thanks for setting me straight.

DoubtingThomas wrote:You said we shouldn't take advantage of drunks, and I completely agree. I simply wanted to know your opinion. Forget strip clubs, let me change the example. In some Casinos they give free alcohol. Some drunks waste all their savings or lose everything in the Casinos. So, are drunks victims in that case? or they should have known better?


I think you are employing some very common Mormon stereotypes to a broad range of folks and trying to cram them into binary categories that don't really fit. Just for starters, are "people who should have known better" and "victims" really mutually exclusive categories? If so, why do you think that?

Maybe try starting from the proposition: under what circumstances, if any, is it moral to "take advantage" of a fellow human? You'd have to figure out what it means to "take advantage" of a fellow human, but you'd at least work your way up from some general notions of morality into specific cases. As an example, you could work through the question of vulnerability of the other person. Does it change things if they are old and senile. If they are are young children. If they are starving. If they are ill. If they are addicted to alcohol. If they are high. Does it change things if you are broke. If you're disabled. If you're rich. If you are the person's boss. I can't pretend that you'll develop some bright line rules to handle all cases. But thinking through the issues will, I think, give you some general sense of how to build a moral code.

In my opinion, life doesn't come packaged in neat little categories that can be arranged into formulas like "If X is Y, then Z." Life is complicated, and general rules that sound good in a vacuum tend to crack and crumble when faced with specific cases. I find it impossible to apply a single rule across many specific cases consistently. I think that's because being consistent requires two things: (1) treating things that are the same in a similar manner; and (2) treating things that are different in a different manner. And, any two cases are alike in some ways and are different in others.

All of that is a long-winded explanation for why I really don't have opinions of the questions you are asking. I don't believe you can neatly sort people into bins marked "victim" and "should have known better." And even if I could, the label on the bin wouldn't really tell me what to do in specific cases.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

Post by _Res Ipsa »

DoubtingThomas wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:I read a couple of articles on this subject by the good doctor and didn't see any claim that affairs were ever "necessary." Can you quote him actually saying that?


I don't have time to make a direct quote, but here is his podcast episode.
https://secularsexuality.dogmadebate.co ... els-story/

I agree affairs are not a good thing, but I feel in some cases affairs are better than abandoning your spouse, especially if your spouse needs you. What if your spouse is handicapped because of a brain stroke, or permanently in a Wheelchair. You just can't abandon him or her.


Why do you think this should be a unilateral decision on your part? If your spouse is in a wheelchair, why doesn't she get a say? Why can't you explain to your spouse that you want to change the terms of your marriage and give her the choice as to whether to agree to the changes or not. Why not give her the chance to say: I would rather not be your wife under those circumstances.
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_Res Ipsa
_Emeritus
Posts: 10274
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2012 11:37 pm

Re: Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

Post by _Res Ipsa »

DoubtingThomas wrote:No, I just want to know if you all have the same standard for different cases. That is all, nothing more. I stated many times we shouldn't take advantage of drunks. I do think the Casinos are abusers, especially if they give free alcohol, you agree with me?

Yes, there is a lot of think about, but I am still Mormon :(


The tough thing about different cases is that they are, well, different. So why would you expect the same standard to apply the same way to different cases? Kind of like trying to cram all different sizes of feet into the same sized shoe.

And what, in your opinion, qualifies someone or something as an "abuser?" It's tough for me, at least, to respond to your questions when you throw around vague but emotionally loaded terms. And if something is an "abuser," then what? If child-rapists and casinos are both abusers, what helpful information does the label give us?

I have a buddy that loves to play poker. He goes to Las Vegas once a year for a convention. When he's there, he loves to play poker. Is the Casino "abusing" him? He's not an alcoholic, but he is a social drinker. If the Casino comps him a drink, is it "abusing" him? (by the way, the Casinos don't just give the stuff away. You have to be spending at certain thresholds to be comped anything.)
​“The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the dedicated communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction, true and false, no longer exists.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism, 1951
_honorentheos
_Emeritus
Posts: 11104
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2010 5:17 am

Re: Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

Post by _honorentheos »

Res Ipsa wrote:In my opinion, life doesn't come packaged in neat little categories that can be arranged into formulas like "If X is Y, then Z." Life is complicated, and general rules that sound good in a vacuum tend to crack and crumble when faced with specific cases. I find it impossible to apply a single rule across many specific cases consistently. I think that's because being consistent requires two things: (1) treating things that are the same in a similar manner; and (2) treating things that are different in a different manner. And, any two cases are alike in some ways and are different in others.

Among so many great points, this really deserves to be considered for how unintuitive it can be for those raised LDS trying to find their way post-Mormonism. Very well stated, and so important to realize.
The world is always full of the sound of waves..but who knows the heart of the sea, a hundred feet down? Who knows it's depth?
~ Eiji Yoshikawa
_Tator
_Emeritus
Posts: 3088
Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:15 am

Re: Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

Post by _Tator »

DT I hope we are good with each other. I am sorry we got off on the wrong foot at the beginning of this thread. I was not understanding where you were going. I have only reentered your thread to make the comment that leaving the church or just getting comfortable in your own skin and how that works within or without the church is individual and can be a long and difficult journey. This thread is full of great advice for you and also for me and really lots of others.

I want to thank Jersey Girl, lemmie, Doc, Chap, IHAQ, honor, Santorian, Res Ipsa and many others for their great contributions to this thread.

My grandpa gave me some advice in my younger days at a time when I thought I knew everything, he said, "Anyone older than you knows more about being young than you know about being old." Strange thing to say but somehow that helped me to listen and learn and ultimately changed some things for the better in me.

I hope the best for you. And I am a grandpa now many times over. G'luck
a.k.a. Pokatator joined Oct 26, 2006 and permanently banned from MAD Nov 6, 2006
"Stop being such a damned coward and use your real name to own your position."
"That's what he gets for posting in his own name."
2 different threads same day 2 hours apart Yohoo Bat 12/1/2015
_Lemmie
_Emeritus
Posts: 10590
Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2015 7:25 pm

Re: Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

Post by _Lemmie »

honorentheos wrote:
Res Ipsa wrote:In my opinion, life doesn't come packaged in neat little categories that can be arranged into formulas like "If X is Y, then Z." Life is complicated, and general rules that sound good in a vacuum tend to crack and crumble when faced with specific cases. I find it impossible to apply a single rule across many specific cases consistently. I think that's because being consistent requires two things: (1) treating things that are the same in a similar manner; and (2) treating things that are different in a different manner. And, any two cases are alike in some ways and are different in others.

Among so many great points, this really deserves to be considered for how unintuitive it can be for those raised LDS trying to find their way post-Mormonism. Very well stated, and so important to realize.

I cannot agree with this more; "Unintuitive" is exactly correct. One of the turning points for me was when I heard about something, and then caught myself thinking, "What do we (i.e. the Mormon church) think about that?" The shock of catching myself having such a lack of individual thought or decision-making capacity was stunning. To then have to basically start from the ground up trying to figure out "What do I think about that?" was frequently nonintuitive, and very painfully so. It's a difficult process to counter that deeply inculcated, black and white thinking.
Tator wrote:My grandpa gave me some advice in my younger days at a time when I thought I knew everything, he said, "Anyone older than you knows more about being young than you know about being old." Strange thing to say but somehow that helped me to listen and learn and ultimately changed some things for the better in me.
What a great piece of advice, I predict my 17-year-old will hear that at least twice today. :cool: Tator's grandpa will be given full credit.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

Post by _Chap »

Here is some excellent advice from Joe Biden on this subject:

http://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-can ... k-its-rape

And he's right too about the fact that the more a guy boasts in front of other guys about what he did with a girl last weekend, the less likely is that he did anything but that was not purely manual (I am of course referring to operating controls on video consoles).
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
_Sanctorian
_Emeritus
Posts: 2441
Joined: Thu Oct 03, 2013 1:14 pm

Re: Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

Post by _Sanctorian »

It's funny you say that Chap. I have a friend that boasts about the hundreds of girls he's slept with. At first I use to believe some of his stories, but over time I've come to realize none of it is true. I finally called him out on it and he admitted most, if not all were fabricated or exaggerated.
I'm a Ziontologist. I self identify as such.
_Chap
_Emeritus
Posts: 14190
Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2007 10:23 am

Re: Question to Dehlin fans about "Rape in Mormon Culture"

Post by _Chap »

Sanctorian wrote:It's funny you say that Chap. I have a friend that boasts about the hundreds of girls he's slept with. At first I use to believe some of his stories, but over time I've come to realize none of it is true. I finally called him out on it and he admitted most, if not all were fabricated or exaggerated.


Ask yourself - have you ever boasted to other guys about the things that have really delighted you in your intimate relations with your preferred gender?

I never have. Why would I want to? That makes me very, very suspicious about those who do. Especially since they mostly seem to be the kind of guys that no woman I have known could possibly find worth a few minutes of her time and attention.
Zadok:
I did not have a faith crisis. I discovered that the Church was having a truth crisis.
Maksutov:
That's the problem with this supernatural stuff, it doesn't really solve anything. It's a placeholder for ignorance.
Post Reply