Randwolf:
What label would you prefer? Rational, at least on this subject, certainly doesn't cut it.
What have I said that is irrational? That's just another attempt to dismiss me with a label. Not unlike angrybellsprout's pathetic cries of "straw man", actually.
Then debate my suggested topic: "That sex without consent is always rape."
James, calm down. This has been covered. No one is debating this!
Kadark's position is that in some cases nonconsensual sex is just fine. Do you agree? What do you get from his posts? You know, sex with a prostitute is fine under any circumstances, a wife owes her husband sex whether she wants it or not, etc.
What? You want to debate whether sex is OK when two adults explicitly and implicity consent to it? Alright, bring it on, I'm your huckleberry.
You may have missed the post where I suggested we debate the conditions under which consent might or might not be implied. Read back.
I believe that sex between two consenting adults is permissable, OK, alright, acceptable, etc. If one of those adults happens to have consumed alcohol, I do not presume to take away their sovereignity over their own body, apparently you do.
Apparently you think I do. This is something we could debate, as I suggested earlier, but it would require a different topic statement.
I have followed your posts here on SF for a long time James, and I have never seen you act like this. Get real, find any post of mine that says, explicity or implicitly, that I endorse nonconsensual sex, or apologize. Now.
When you initially posted in this thread that you agreed that sex without consent is always rape, I said "Fine. I have no issue with you." Read back, if you've forgotten. For some reason, you chose to continue to post, as if we still have a disagreement. You could have simply bowed out of this challenge at the point where you agreed with me.
Now, it seems to me that we
do potentially have some areas of disagreement about the possibility of rape in an atmosphere where consent is implied but not explicit. To tell you the truth, I'm not sure about that; it's something I'd need to explore further with you. But that has nothing to do with the proposed topic of debate in this thread. I'd really rather dismiss the easy targets, like Kadark and ABS, first, with their nonsense that you can't rape a prostitute, and such. But I'm willing to consider a more nuanced debate as a separate issue, as I've said.
I'm sorry if I appear to have landed on you from a great height. I let a lot of things slip by on sciforums without comment, but in this case I had some free time and decided to prod some people to see how committed they actually were to their point of view. You have been caught up in the net on this occasion. There's nothing personal in it, by the way. I hold no grudge against you, and I hope the same can be said in reverse. It should be possible to debate contentious issues in a civilised way. That is one reason why I set up the Formal Debates forum in the first place.
