Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #51  
Old 10-15-2017, 03:46 PM
Knowed Out Knowed Out is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 10,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I have little doubt it would make some rapists "more angry and frustrated in general", but it seems very unlikely to me that that would result in anything close to as much violence as compared to all the sexual violence the 'rule' would prevent.
I don't see how. The main purpose of sexual aggression is to establish dominance over the victim. If the aggressor doesn't get horny, he uses fists instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post

The 'rule' can read intentions and consent and wouldn't allow this. There'd be no way for a would-be victim to "provoke" feelings of nausea under this rule.
I thought the rule suppressed violence? There's no violent intent on the part of the accuser, and if you were to expand the rule to include any sort of harmful intent, you'd have a lot of cases to clarify. No one solid rule can cover all bases.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post

That's possible. Though the rule could be crafted such that even that would be prevented.
Again, this isn't sounding like a fast and simple rule. The more repercussions you try to cover, the more provisions you have to add. Plus, humans will be asking why you're not extending the same rule to the rest of the animal kingdom. There's rape among non-humans too.

Last edited by Knowed Out; 10-15-2017 at 03:47 PM.
Advertisements  
  #52  
Old 10-15-2017, 04:46 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
I don't see how. The main purpose of sexual aggression is to establish dominance over the victim. If the aggressor doesn't get horny, he uses fists instead.
That's not how I understand it. Rapists want to rape -- they don't want general or vague assertions of dominance -- they want rape. Some of them might react violently, but every single one? Especially when victims would then have a clear chance to escape (while the attacker is incapacitated by nausea)? I seriously doubt that would result in more violence. But if you feel differently, fine -- it's not like I can prove it either way.

Quote:
I thought the rule suppressed violence? There's no violent intent on the part of the accuser, and if you were to expand the rule to include any sort of harmful intent, you'd have a lot of cases to clarify. No one solid rule can cover all bases.

Again, this isn't sounding like a fast and simple rule. The more repercussions you try to cover, the more provisions you have to add. Plus, humans will be asking why you're not extending the same rule to the rest of the animal kingdom. There's rape among non-humans too.
One relatively simple rule can cover all bases -- any time someone acts in a sexual or intimate way which is not desired (and thus not consented to) by the other party (anything from trying to kiss to grabbing a boob to jumping out from the bushes and grabbing to rape), they will experience nausea, which will continue until the would-be assaulter/attacker/groper/rapist stops trying to assault/attack/grope/rape. Even if they think the victim wants it. Consent is much more important than intent, but intent will matter in the very rare cases in which someone might be grabbed for their own safety (like to avoid a car).

So if you're on a date and you kiss (not lean in for a kiss and stop to make sure they want a kiss, but actually kiss regardless of the actions and desires of the other party), and your date doesn't want to kiss, you'll feel some nausea. If you grab their private parts without their consent, you'll feel nausea. And so on. It makes the rule a tiny bit more complicated, but I'll add a sliding scale such that the worst nausea goes with rape, and lesser nausea for lesser violations of consent.

Violating someone's consent with regards to sex and intimacy will literally be impossible due to this rule.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-15-2017 at 04:48 PM.
  #53  
Old 10-15-2017, 04:50 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,197
Play this argument out a little bit.

Let's suppose that your divine power isn't totally supernatural, and it works by making a change in the genetic code of men, so they feel debilitating nausea.

Generations pass, and you the divine being have long ago gotten bored and left. Random mutations break this mechanism in some men.

Those men, able to rape without consequences, use it so they have more children than men who are not able to do it.

A few more generations pass. Someone who is a descendant of a man who only got his mother pregnant from a rape, commits a rape himself.

But now we have genetic screening and can actually show why the defendant committed the crime. He was predisposed to it from birth.

Do we punish him? If we punish him, do we torture him? Try to treat him? Kill him? Should we feel sympathy?

The fucked up thing is, if published numbers on the prevalence of rape are remotely accurate (1/3 of women get raped eventually, half of all men admit they would do it if there were no chance of getting caught), that's basically the world we live in. It is entirely possible that men are genetically predisposed to commit rapes (and murders and other serious crimes) from birth, and they don't really "choose" in the kind of "free will" sense we implicitly assume. It could be the difference between a man who commits the crime and who doesn't might just be environment.

Last edited by SamuelA; 10-15-2017 at 04:53 PM.
  #54  
Old 10-15-2017, 08:43 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Play this argument out a little bit.

Let's suppose that your divine power isn't totally supernatural, and it works by making a change in the genetic code of men, so they feel debilitating nausea.

Generations pass, and you the divine being have long ago gotten bored and left. Random mutations break this mechanism in some men.

Those men, able to rape without consequences, use it so they have more children than men who are not able to do it.

A few more generations pass. Someone who is a descendant of a man who only got his mother pregnant from a rape, commits a rape himself.

But now we have genetic screening and can actually show why the defendant committed the crime. He was predisposed to it from birth.

Do we punish him? If we punish him, do we torture him? Try to treat him? Kill him? Should we feel sympathy?

The fucked up thing is, if published numbers on the prevalence of rape are remotely accurate (1/3 of women get raped eventually, half of all men admit they would do it if there were no chance of getting caught), that's basically the world we live in. It is entirely possible that men are genetically predisposed to commit rapes (and murders and other serious crimes) from birth, and they don't really "choose" in the kind of "free will" sense we implicitly assume. It could be the difference between a man who commits the crime and who doesn't might just be environment.
I think this is a different discussion. But for a quick answer, even if genetics could possibly play a role, that's no defense, IMO. Someone who has a desire to rape can still decide not to rape. At best, that might be a mitigating factor, but people still have control over whether they attack and rape someone else or not, whatever their desires.
  #55  
Old 10-15-2017, 11:40 PM
SamuelA SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,197
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I think this is a different discussion. But for a quick answer, even if genetics could possibly play a role, that's no defense, IMO. Someone who has a desire to rape can still decide not to rape. At best, that might be a mitigating factor, but people still have control over whether they attack and rape someone else or not, whatever their desires.
Unfortunately, the best evidence says that the brain simply follows the laws of physics. If you are born with the wrong genes, and you are exposed to the wrong environment, then under some stimuli, you will commit a crime. There is no actual evidence to suggest free will even exists.
  #56  
Old 10-16-2017, 02:29 AM
Delicious Delicious is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 46
Does 'the rule' consider consent invalid if one or both parties have been drinking?

If so, I imagine one consequence would be a huge reduction in birth rate and possible bankruptcy of most breweries
  #57  
Old 10-16-2017, 04:18 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicious View Post
Does 'the rule' consider consent invalid if one or both parties have been drinking?

If so, I imagine one consequence would be a huge reduction in birth rate and possible bankruptcy of most breweries
No, consent still applies to those who drink.
  #58  
Old 10-16-2017, 04:19 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Unfortunately, the best evidence says that the brain simply follows the laws of physics. If you are born with the wrong genes, and you are exposed to the wrong environment, then under some stimuli, you will commit a crime. There is no actual evidence to suggest free will even exists.
Okay. Whether true or not, this doesn't change the hypothetical.
  #59  
Old 10-16-2017, 05:55 AM
Delicious Delicious is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 46
How would the rule handle a situation where a couple are having sex then one of them decides it's a bad idea and wants to stop? Does the other partner immediately start vomiting? Do they have to be told first?

Also, how about people using positions of power to 'convince' someone to sleep with them? The underling would consent but only under some duress/promise of reward.

The rule could result in lower employment for hotties since bosses would want to avoid any temptation to slap a butt.

Also, people with stomach bugs may get mistaken for sexual predators and get beaten up.
  #60  
Old 10-16-2017, 06:35 AM
Delicious Delicious is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 46
Also, would you get sick if you murdered someone then had sex with their still warm corpse?
  #61  
Old 10-16-2017, 07:39 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Delicious View Post
How would the rule handle a situation where a couple are having sex then one of them decides it's a bad idea and wants to stop? Does the other partner immediately start vomiting? Do they have to be told first?
Once consent no longer exists in either partner's mind, the other partner would start to feel nausea (I haven't said anything about vomit). That would put an end to the violation of consent, since continuing would be impossible under the nausea. And the nausea would go away when they stopped (but would come again if one party tried to restart again without the other party's consent).

Quote:
Also, how about people using positions of power to 'convince' someone to sleep with them? The underling would consent but only under some duress/promise of reward.
There can't be consent if there is duress (i.e. "do this or your fired"), and thus the would-be assaulter would feel nausea once he started to violate the consent (i.e. reaching for the underling, even if he/she just said "yes" due to the threat). As for promise of reward, I don't think that takes away consent -- someone can consent for a variety of reasons aside from intimate desire, including transactional reasons (i.e. for profit or a reward).

Quote:
The rule could result in lower employment for hotties since bosses would want to avoid any temptation to slap a butt.
I'm not sure how -- this doesn't increase the chances of any consequences aside from nausea, which could be managed simply by not doing those actions. This rule would/should result in far fewer instances of workplace sexual assault allegations (and thus fewer lawsuit expenses and executive firings), since would-be assaulters (including gropers and butt slappers) would be unable to assault.

Quote:
Also, people with stomach bugs may get mistaken for sexual predators and get beaten up.
I suppose that's possible, but there's not exactly a way to pick out who has a stomach bug when looking at a crowd of strangers. People who are mildly nauseous look like anyone else; people who are severely nauseous usually stay in bed or in the bathroom until it passes.
  #62  
Old 10-16-2017, 08:20 AM
SamuelA SamuelA is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 1,197
You know, this would completely change dating strategies. Inadvertently, in this hypothetical, you've finally given men what they've wanted for thousands of years - a clear signal. Want to know if a girl's into you? Use this mechanism as feedback. I assume something marginal...maybe barely brushing her with your fingers somewhere on the border (her back or something) would only give you slight nausea if she's not into it, right?
  #63  
Old 10-16-2017, 08:35 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
You know, this would completely change dating strategies. Inadvertently, in this hypothetical, you've finally given men what they've wanted for thousands of years - a clear signal. Want to know if a girl's into you? Use this mechanism as feedback. I assume something marginal...maybe barely brushing her with your fingers somewhere on the border (her back or something) would only give you slight nausea if she's not into it, right?
Yes, your assumption is pretty close to my thoughts -- more severe violations of consent would be more debilitating, and less severe violations would be less debilitating.
  #64  
Old 10-16-2017, 08:54 AM
Thudlow Boink Thudlow Boink is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Lincoln, IL
Posts: 23,850
And no nausea = consent. Hey, I could safely go around making moves on every woman I see, and I'd automatically know whether they'd welcome my advances.
  #65  
Old 10-16-2017, 09:50 AM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is online now
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 52,790
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thudlow Boink View Post
And no nausea = consent. Hey, I could safely go around making moves on every woman I see, and I'd automatically know whether they'd welcome my advances.
....by which time you will be too sick to "advance".
  #66  
Old 10-16-2017, 10:08 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,734
As far as the original question, your 'wish' doesn't fit your own conditions IMO. What you propose isn't making a single change by a one-shot power. What you're doing clearly requires ongoing intervention by some sort of intelligence that interprets situations and determines what is and isn't consent by a very complicated and culturally-specific set of standards. So you're not just doing what I would consider a 'single, one-off change' like making everyone's skin blue, but instead appointing a deity (or host of angels or fraction of divine attention or whatever) to abjudicate a rather complex set of circumstances that requires seeing inside of people's minds.

A really basic flaw with the wish is that it doesn't impair anyone who has a fetish for nausea, which I'm pretty sure is an actual thing (there are definitely people with fetishes for vomit). It seems that a likely result of the wish is that people who are inclined to assault also develop a fetish for the feeling of nausea, and then are actually encouraged to rape by the thing you've wished for. Your obvious response to that is 'well it keeps people from liking the nausea', but that highlights that this really isn't a one-off change but instead is ongoing divine intervention, and that your initial 'wish' needs to be a multi-page contract with lots of special cases, not a simple statement easily made on the fly (which doesn't really qualify as a 'single change' to me). I also think you've vastly underestimating just how weird human sexuality can get, and think that 'well, god will just figure out what's going on and stop it' is really a cop-out when examining how people would respond in a major change to how sex works.

Having a divine being that enforces morality during time on earth violates the tenants of most major religions. Interfering with people's free will is pretty questionable on its own, but that's one of those fundamental religious questions and isn't specific to this. What is interesting is how this affects the judgement of people in the afterlife - how does someone who would have raped another person get judged if they were stopped by Holy Nausea? It seems unfair to judge them as 'good, they didn't do a bad thing' when they would have done it without the hand of god in their belly, but at the same time it also seems unfair to cast them down for something that they didn't actually do.

Also, the specifics that you've included in the wish are very morally questionable to me. For example, why did you pick a prohibition on sexual assault and not one against torture, general assault, murder, slavery, or any other ill? For example, it seems to me that your system for determining if something is a reward, threat, coercion, or inducement would be of incredible value in handling labor relations and would deeply affect the fundamental morality of society. Why are you effectively making the decision 'I would rather die than be raped' for people (if someone gives me the option of 'fuck me now or die' I have an option now, under your system they would just kill me)? Why are you 'hiring' permanent watchers to look over every sexual situation and inflict Holy Acid Reflux instead of removing the desire in the first place?

And if think this is moral for you to do, is it moral for someone from a different cultural background to make the wish? If person wishing worked off of something as familiar to us as US or Western European law in the 1980s, then once you're married you won't get nauseous sexing your partner no matter how much they object (consent was not required for married sex in the US and Western Europe until the mid-90s), you won't be having anything but PIV sex without crippling nausea (sodomy laws hung around until 2004), won't be having sex outside of marriage (some adultery and cohabitation laws are still around today). If the person was in progressive Sweden, then your 'prostitution is OK' clause falls apart, as Swedish law considers prostitution inherently coercive. And that's not even getting into what would happen if hardcore fundamentalists started setting up their system.

Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
There can't be consent if there is duress (i.e. "do this or your fired"), and thus the would-be assaulter would feel nausea once he started to violate the consent (i.e. reaching for the underling, even if he/she just said "yes" due to the threat). As for promise of reward, I don't think that takes away consent -- someone can consent for a variety of reasons aside from intimate desire, including transactional reasons (i.e. for profit or a reward).
There are a bunch of questions that I think show that the answer to this is not as simple as you're making out that I've listed below, but I'd like to open with one specific one from my personal experience that I think shows the torture your wish will inflict on people in an abusive relationship. Let's say that I'm in a badly broken relationship, where my partner will routinely yell at my for hours a day over the course of a week in case of a dispute. (You can also up the emotional abuse to physical abuse in the example if it makes a difference, in the actual case it wasn't physical). One day my partner approaches me for sex, and I don't strongly object but don't really want to, but know that if I say 'no' they will get angry and I will spend the next week in another hellish argument, so I say 'yes'. Will my partner get nauseous or not? If they do, and this repeats a few times, and my subconscious realizes that having reservations like that gets punishment so suppresses them, will the divine judgement eventually let me avoid the week-long arguments, or will it force me into them even though I believe I'm willingly having sex? Also I'm also still in love with this partner and still want to have sex in times that aren't stressed, so will that work, or will one or both of us get nauseous even though we both want sex at the time?

It doesn't seem like there isn't an answer to sex in an abusive relationship that isn't either 'inexplicable nausea all the time, even though both people want to be together' or 'allows coercion' anywhere in there. And it seems like, if your divinity intervenes at all, whatever it does will make life worse for the victim, at least in the short term.

Going to the more general case, would "I will marry you and take you away from your miserable life on this dirt farm if you sex me up/bear the royal heir/etc, and if you back out you're going back to the squalor" qualify as duress or reward? How about "I will only hire you if...", is the offer of a job a reward or the refusal to hire a threat? What if the conditions have both, 'I'll give you a sack of gold if you bang me, but throw you to the wolves if you won't'? OK, but what if the threat is minor 'I'll give you a sack of gold if you bang me, or not invite you to my birthday party if you don't'? What about someone working as a prostitute but only doing it because they will starve without the money - will they then starve because any potential John gets sick due to the duress they didn't know was there? What if it's just an implied threat but no explicit threat? What if the victim feels that there is a threat, but the 'aggressor' doesn't actually intend any threat and has no intention of carrying one out? What if the victim is insane and imagines a threat that has no bearing on reality, or has a cultural bias towards seeing a threat (like the traditional view of black men in the US)?

The above answer says that it's a simple, uncontroversial thing, but I don't think that 'is there coercion?' is as easy as you think, especially if 'but it's OK if there's a reward' is tacked on.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuelA View Post
Let's suppose that your divine power isn't totally supernatural, and it works by making a change in the genetic code of men, so they feel debilitating nausea.
Rape isn't just something that men do, it just seems that way because a lot of studies of rape and sexual assault defined their terms in a way that mostly or completely excluded female on male sexual assault until VERY recently (the FBI's crime survey only counted FOM starting in 2013). Here's a good article on the topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...edator/503492/
  #67  
Old 10-16-2017, 10:45 AM
Delicious Delicious is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 46
Since the OP title says it's a moral question: How morally culpable would iiandyiiii be for all subsequent human suffering after wasting his omnipotent power on mildly punishing some creeps?

Starving Cancer-Ridden child : "Thanks Andy! I can go to my excruciating, unjust death with a smile on my face, now that I know unwanted butt grabbing will be accompanied by queasiness" ##cough cough##
  #68  
Old 10-16-2017, 11:39 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,708
I chose nausea because the goal is to prevent sexual assaults, not to punish would-be assaulters. Nausea is physically debilitating -- AFAIU, sexual assault would be physically impossible if someone is experiencing severe nausea. If that's not true, then nausea is the wrong condition to use -- feel free to substitute whatever physical condition would actually, with certainty, render sexual assault impossible (partial paralysis, gradual black out, general weakness, etc.). And I chose sexual assault because (as I explained before), unlike pretty much every other potential violation of bodily autonomy and consent (punching someone, killing someone, etc.), there is literally never a reasonable or morally acceptable time to sexually assault someone.

Last edited by iiandyiiii; 10-16-2017 at 11:44 AM.
  #69  
Old 10-16-2017, 01:29 PM
Pantastic Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
I chose nausea because the goal is to prevent sexual assaults, not to punish would-be assaulters. Nausea is physically debilitating -- AFAIU, sexual assault would be physically impossible if someone is experiencing severe nausea. If that's not true, then nausea is the wrong condition to use -- feel free to substitute whatever physical condition would actually, with certainty, render sexual assault impossible (partial paralysis, gradual black out, general weakness, etc.).
This makes even less sense. Why pick any particular physical condition, especially one that isn't completely debilitating, instead of just stopping the attack in the first place? And I'm not sure that there IS any condition that actually makes sexual assault physically impossible - you can tell your victim 'follow these directions to do stuff to yourself on video or I'll kill you', then lay in bed until they're done even if complete paralysis takes over your own body. Or order the victim to do stuff to you even while you're suffering 'general weakness', it's not like it takes a lot of strength or muscle movement to lay back while recieving oral sex. The vast majority of sexual assaults are done using social pressure, threats of later retribution, or sex

Quote:
And I chose sexual assault because (as I explained before), unlike pretty much every other potential violation of bodily autonomy and consent (punching someone, killing someone, etc.), there is literally never a reasonable or morally acceptable time to sexually assault someone.
There is never a reasonable or morally acceptable time to murder someone either, as murder is by definition unsanctioned killing - if it's justified to kill someone, it's (by the original definition) not murder. The trick is that if you use a term that means 'only bad X', there is literally never a reasonable time to do what the term says, but that's not particularly meaningful since it's really a tautology.

As even you have said, there are reasonable and morally acceptable times to perform things that some people consider sexual assault. For example, you said that having sex for money is non-coercive, and hence not assault, but the morality behind Sweden's laws disagree with you, so you're saying that a particular form of sexual assault is justified. You argue that 'underage' sex counts as sexual assault, but that one varies all over the place - some states consider a person under 18 unable to consent to sex with an older person, most of Europe and the US 16, some 14, and some as low as 12 with marriage. Some have a different age of consent for same sex sexual activity, and a lot of US states used to ban any interracial sexual activity. A number of medical procedures that involve the genitals or anus are considered sexual assault in some areas or by some people.

I don't think the basic hypothetical is well though-out - it seems like you thought it was a simple change, but it's actually extremely complicated and involves a lot more subjectivity than what the OP implies.
  #70  
Old 10-16-2017, 02:02 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
This makes even less sense. Why pick any particular physical condition, especially one that isn't completely debilitating, instead of just stopping the attack in the first place? And I'm not sure that there IS any condition that actually makes sexual assault physically impossible - you can tell your victim 'follow these directions to do stuff to yourself on video or I'll kill you', then lay in bed until they're done even if complete paralysis takes over your own body. Or order the victim to do stuff to you even while you're suffering 'general weakness', it's not like it takes a lot of strength or muscle movement to lay back while recieving oral sex. The vast majority of sexual assaults are done using social pressure, threats of later retribution, or sex
In such cases, the nausea would overwhelm the speaker before he could finish speaking, since the words themselves would coercive and violate consent.

But these are good and challenging questions for my hypothetical.

Quote:
There is never a reasonable or morally acceptable time to murder someone either, as murder is by definition unsanctioned killing - if it's justified to kill someone, it's (by the original definition) not murder. The trick is that if you use a term that means 'only bad X', there is literally never a reasonable time to do what the term says, but that's not particularly meaningful since it's really a tautology.

As even you have said, there are reasonable and morally acceptable times to perform things that some people consider sexual assault. For example, you said that having sex for money is non-coercive, and hence not assault, but the morality behind Sweden's laws disagree with you, so you're saying that a particular form of sexual assault is justified. You argue that 'underage' sex counts as sexual assault, but that one varies all over the place - some states consider a person under 18 unable to consent to sex with an older person, most of Europe and the US 16, some 14, and some as low as 12 with marriage. Some have a different age of consent for same sex sexual activity, and a lot of US states used to ban any interracial sexual activity. A number of medical procedures that involve the genitals or anus are considered sexual assault in some areas or by some people.

I don't think the basic hypothetical is well though-out - it seems like you thought it was a simple change, but it's actually extremely complicated and involves a lot more subjectivity than what the OP implies.
I think you're overstating it, but you've asked some good questions and brought up some good points for what I've intended as an intellectual exercise, so thank you for taking part.
  #71  
Old 10-16-2017, 03:00 PM
Knowed Out Knowed Out is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: North Kakkalakee
Posts: 10,593
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
That's not how I understand it. Rapists want to rape -- they don't want general or vague assertions of dominance -- they want rape. Some of them might react violently, but every single one? Especially when victims would then have a clear chance to escape (while the attacker is incapacitated by nausea)? I seriously doubt that would result in more violence. But if you feel differently, fine -- it's not like I can prove it either way.
If you're this ambivalent about violent intentions, you're not going to have a clear cut case of who deserves nausea. Plus, even if the victim gets away when the attacker is overcome with nausea, that could produce a desire to hunt the victim down and pay her back using violence, which would have little to do with sexual desire.

Nothing will prevent "blame the victim" opinions. If the sexual predator is likely to rape, he's also likely to blame his nausea on the victim who gave him his sexual urges and seek revenge.

Plus, if you are this benevolent deity who wants to prevent sexual aggression, why aren't you extending the same preventive measures to non-sexual crimes?
  #72  
Old 10-16-2017, 04:26 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 26,708
Quote:
Originally Posted by Knowed Out View Post
If you're this ambivalent about violent intentions, you're not going to have a clear cut case of who deserves nausea. Plus, even if the victim gets away when the attacker is overcome with nausea, that could produce a desire to hunt the victim down and pay her back using violence, which would have little to do with sexual desire.

Nothing will prevent "blame the victim" opinions. If the sexual predator is likely to rape, he's also likely to blame his nausea on the victim who gave him his sexual urges and seek revenge.
I think this is a possibility, this just seems like it would be far less common than the current ubiquitousness of sexual assault and rape.

Quote:
Plus, if you are this benevolent deity who wants to prevent sexual aggression, why aren't you extending the same preventive measures to non-sexual crimes?
That's not what I wanted to discuss.
  #73  
Old 10-17-2017, 02:15 AM
Delicious Delicious is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 46
What if there's a creep pilot who always grabs his copilot's boobs 'for good luck' when landing... he's landing just as the rule comes into effect, crashes and hundreds die.

Are their deaths worth it? Do you hand yourself in to the authorities as you're responsible for the crash?
  #74  
Old 10-17-2017, 03:56 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,622
There's not really a flaw to the OP's suggestion; it's similar to saying "What if we could perfectly police sexual assault"?

It's only a problem for those who believe that the "solution" to the problem of evil, is free will. But there are many problems with that line of reasoning, the fact that we humans try to prevent crime (and therefore impinge on this magical free will) being just one of them.
  #75  
Old 10-17-2017, 04:04 AM
MrDibble MrDibble is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Cape Town, South Africa &
Posts: 21,210
Quote:
Originally Posted by iiandyiiii View Post
What downsides to this rule can people think of? Would any downsides be worse than the positives?
Only downside I can see is that you didn't make it applicable to all instances of humans intentionally doing violence/intending violence to humans (including pushing launch buttons, laying indiscriminate landmines, attempting to trick someone else into doing violence or programming drones to kill), not just sexual violence.

Also, I'd make it splitting headaches and waves of physical weakness, up to full-on passing out if the attempt persists, not nausea, but that's me. So idly thinking of ramming your car into that guy who cut you off is going to give you a nagging pain, reaching for a pistol to rob someone is gonna give you a splitting migraine, and you'll pass out way before you could actually pull a trigger on a human.

Otherwise, I approve wholeheartedly of you future career as an interventionist God.

Last edited by MrDibble; 10-17-2017 at 04:09 AM.
  #76  
Old 10-17-2017, 10:35 AM
Derleth Derleth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Missoula, Montana, USA
Posts: 19,705
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
Rape isn't just something that men do, it just seems that way because a lot of studies of rape and sexual assault defined their terms in a way that mostly or completely excluded female on male sexual assault until VERY recently (the FBI's crime survey only counted FOM starting in 2013). Here's a good article on the topic: https://www.theatlantic.com/science/...edator/503492/
And this is probably another spanner in the works: The reluctance to acknowledge that women can rape/sexually assault.

If this happened, and women began to get sick, it would be parsed as something which "just happens" to women, sometimes, even though they're not doing anything wrong. It might be acknowledged that it stops men from raping, but I doubt it will be taken the same way for women.
  #77  
Old Today, 08:37 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
There's not really a flaw to the OP's suggestion; it's similar to saying "What if we could perfectly police sexual assault"?
There is a huge flaw with that, because it implies that there is a perfect definition of sexual assault, when what contiutes sexual assault has lots of grey, lots of cultural dependence

The 'strange dude corners woman in the alleyway and physically forces her to have sex with him' situation is easy, sure. But what about marital rape? It wasn't even outlawed in the US or Western Europe until the 1990s. What about women raping men? Wasn't even considered possible by the FBI statistics until 2013. What about statutory rape, is the cutoff 21? 18? 16? 14? 12? Does marriage make a difference?
Does age gap? What about two drunk people who both want to have sex but are too drunk to consent? And that's without getting into coercion, especially implied coercion, for example does the Angel of Nausea 'protect' a woman from selling sex if she will starve without it? (Also whether selling sex is actually sexual assault in the first place, since some cultures believe all sex work is inherently coercive and thus a form of assault).

And no one managed to say what would 'perfectly police' this real life situation:
Quote:
Let's say that I'm in a badly broken relationship, where my partner will routinely yell at my for hours a day over the course of a week in case of a dispute. (You can also up the emotional abuse to physical abuse in the example if it makes a difference, in the actual case it wasn't physical). One day my partner approaches me for sex, and I don't strongly object but don't really want to, but know that if I say 'no' they will get angry and I will spend the next week in another hellish argument, so I say 'yes'. Will my partner get nauseous or not? If they do, and this repeats a few times, and my subconscious realizes that having reservations like that gets punishment so suppresses them, will the divine judgement eventually let me avoid the week-long arguments, or will it force me into them even though I believe I'm willingly having sex? Also I'm also still in love with this partner and still want to have sex in times that aren't stressed, so will that work, or will one or both of us get nauseous even though we both want sex at the time?
Also, another real-life situation that doesn't lend itself to easy analysis:
Take a couple that regularly has sex. One partner takes a new medicine that makes them super horny and uninhibited, other partner comes home, drugged partner initiates sex, they have a wild night, then the next day drugged partner doesn't remember anything and realizes it was the drug that affected them. They weren't averse to having sex, but also weren't actually able to consent, but the other partner had no way to know that. Does anyone get divine nausea in this situation?
  #78  
Old Today, 09:28 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
There is a huge flaw with that, because it implies that there is a perfect definition of sexual assault, when what contiutes sexual assault has lots of grey, lots of cultural dependence
I disagree, as I think that's conflating two different things: Yes, how we define sexual assault is somewhat arbitrary as there's a big gray area. However, you can still hypothetically perfectly police whatever line you set.

And I think there's no need to take the OP seriously in a legal sense. ISTM it's asking a moral and philosophical question, touching on the problem of evil. It's like if we have a thread about philosophy of self and we ask about who has legal ownership of your property if you use a star trek transporter, or if life insurance needs to pay out...they're valid questions I guess but not really what the discussion is about.
  #79  
Old Today, 10:11 AM
Pantastic Pantastic is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 2,734
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mijin View Post
I disagree, as I think that's conflating two different things: Yes, how we define sexual assault is somewhat arbitrary as there's a big gray area. However, you can still hypothetically perfectly police whatever line you set.
You can set an arbitrary line and police it, but then you're just policing an arbitrary line and not sexual assault. And I do not think that setting an arbitrary line and using divine power to enforce it is moral; there should be some basis for the line, not just something purely arbitrary. I mean, what if the postulate was the same, but the person considered all same-sex sexual activity sexual assault because it's all wrong so there's no way to consent to it - are you going to say 'oh, you're just conflating two different things' if I object to preventing all gay sex with divine nausea?

And I'll note, again, no one has answered how the divine nausea works in the all-to-real but messed up situation I postulated. It's easy to say 'well, god can sort it out' but that's just a cop-out.

Quote:
And I think there's no need to take the OP seriously in a legal sense.
The only mention of legalities that I have made has been to show that the idea of what is sexual assault (or what is moral sexual contact, or however you phrase it out) varies a lot. The fact that it was legal to rape your spouse in the US until the mid-90s indicates that some people morally considered marriage to constitute consent to sex. The fact that Sweeden considers all prostitution to be sexual assault shows that some people morally consider all sex for money to be coercive. The fact that a number of US states consider consentual BDSM to be assault indicates that not everyone agrees with the idea of 'whatever two adults agree to do is OK'.

Quote:
ISTM it's asking a moral and philosophical question, touching on the problem of evil. It's like if we have a thread about philosophy of self and we ask about who has legal ownership of your property if you use a star trek transporter, or if life insurance needs to pay out...they're valid questions I guess but not really what the discussion is about.
It's like if we have a thread about philosophy of self and we point out that there are laws about what constitutes the self that show that people don't agree with your personal at-this-moment, in-this-culture definition of the self, or with using divine power to enforce it across all peoples, times, and cultures.
  #80  
Old Today, 10:56 AM
Mijin Mijin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 7,622
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pantastic View Post
You can set an arbitrary line and police it, but then you're just policing an arbitrary line and not sexual assault.
No, you're policing sexual assault as your society (or divine power) has chosen to define it.
Since there is no "Platonic ideal" sexual assault form, it's up to us to decide what the word means, what the concept is.

Quote:
And I do not think that setting an arbitrary line and using divine power to enforce it is moral; there should be some basis for the line, not just something purely arbitrary.
When I said arbitrary I don't mean we just throw a dart in some random place.
I mean the line could be anywhere but of course there should be some moral basis for where we set the line. All laws are like this, sexual assault is no exception.

Quote:
It's like if we have a thread about philosophy of self and we point out that there are laws about what constitutes the self that show that people don't agree with your personal at-this-moment, in-this-culture definition of the self, or with using divine power to enforce it across all peoples, times, and cultures.
Yeah...that analogy might work, depending on what is meant by "laws about what constitutes the self".
But anyway, my point was that WRT this thread, the OP seems to be implying a free will type question, which is a different kind of issue to the one you're discussing. That's all I'm saying.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:18 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2017 Sun-Times Media, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017