I Pit Split_p_j

[Ann_Hedonia]

@kanicbird

@puzzlegal

I’m very very comfortable saying that anyone who has sex with a person too impaired to consent (or to say “no”) has committed rape.

People are usually afraid of rabbit holes, they are dark and mysterious places for the uninitiated. But let’s put our fears aside and confidently go down this rabbit hole together.

A couple in a sexual relationship who are also somewhat into the drinking/drug culture and it is not uncommon for one of them to stay sober to make sure the other does not fall into any bad situation if there is any question. Sexually they try to fill the others fantasies and are very comfortable with each other. Not only is it common for them to engage in sex every night, but it is expressed as a desire to by both of them, frequently will do so while impaired and even when one is and the other is not. This goes both ways, the duty of looking out for each other is shared, and sex is still desired by both and a bit of a fantasy of both to have sex while incoherent with their partner. It happens frequently and never one is there an expression of anything but satisfaction with their sex life.

According to your statement one would have to conclude you would consider this multiple counts of rape against both, but I see a very lucky and blessed couple with perhaps a drug problem, no sexual crime was committed here.

So I ask you, is it rape, or is your hard line really fuzzy?

That’s some wild-assed hypothetical you’ve got going there. I’ve been part of the drinking/ drug culture, and I’ve known lots of people that were part of the drinking/drug culture and I’ve never heard of the dynamic you described. In fact, getting inebriated when your partner deliberately stays stone-cold sober would be weird, unless there’s some sort of designated driver thing (and most hard drinking / drug culture people aren’t even that responsible).
And having sex with a comatose person isn’t fun for anyone but a rapist.

I may sound like an old lady, but don’t kids these days know how to fuck anymore? It’s all about consent, your partner should be continually consenting with their hands, with their mouth, they should be whispering consent in your ear, if not screaming it. If your partner isn’t actively responding to the experience you should stop and find out why, not because you’re worried about your freaking legal liability, but because you want them to enjoy it. It’s not enough just to get consent before you start, because moods can shift fast, especially late at night, especially when alcohol and/or drugs are involved. Just learn to be a considerate lover and you won’t have any consent issues.

Maybe somewhere out there, couples exist that play some game where one of them gets passed out drunk while their partner fucks them. I did read an anecdote once where a women realized she had sex with her husband after taking an Ambien, and although she didn’t remember it, it was the best sex of his life. And for some reason, probably having to do with incompatible sex drives, they made a thing of doing that.

I would say if you are in a relationship like this, you better trust your partner enough to know they would never press charges against you, cause you’re taking a risk.

[Darren_Garrison]

@BigT

I recently found out that my (now former) church told my friend who was sexually molested at said church that she needed to consider things from their perspective. They go out of their way to act like they’re doing to do something about it, but then don’t.

Wow, that’s really suprising. No, wait–“suprising” isn’t what I mean–“absolutely normal SOP for churches everywhere” is what I mean.

[Yookeroo]

@Ann_Hedonia

If your partner isn’t actively responding to the experience you should stop and find out why, not because you’re worried about your freaking legal liability, but because you want them to enjoy it. It’s not enough just to get consent before you start, because moods can shift fast, especially late at night, especially when alcohol and/or drugs are involved. Just learn to be a considerate lover and you won’t have any consent issues.

Right? Such common sense. If your partner stops responding, why wouldn’t you want to stop immediately to find out what’s going on? Any hesitancy by your partner should mean immediate brakes. I don’t know that you need explicit verbal consent if you just pay attention to your partner’s response. And if he or she isn’t responding, that should be a mood killer right there. Why would you want to continue? Unless you’re a rapist.

[Superdude]

For what it’s worth, implied consent is a real thing in America, though it’s mostly used in medical situations. It specifically does not apply in any sexual scenario.

[puzzlegal]

Oh, that may be where i picked up the language. I took a wilderness first aid course a couple of years ago, in which they explicitly discussed implied consent. If you come upon a conscious accident victim, it’s important to check for their consent before doing anything, including touching them, no matter how seriously injured they appear to be. But if they are unconscious you can rely on the legal principal of implied consent and attempt to help them.

It’s apparently a somewhat common problem in wilderness first aid that people suffering from hypothermia tend to be very confused and often don’t consent to aid as a result. The instructor suggested following behind them and rendering aid if/when they pass out. On the way home, we discussed the morality of that.

I suppose the more common, non-wilderness, social implication of “implied consent” is that if someone passes out from drinking at a party, it’s legally okay to move them to a safe place, and to a position where if they vomit they won’t asphyxiate.

The instructor also had advice on how to avoid being creepy if you need to physically examine a victim. (Tell them what you are about to do and why, use your “practical” hands, pay attention to their reactions, especially if you cause any pain, and check again for consent…)

The basic idea that you need consent, and can’t just grab a stranger who appears to be in distress was pretty central to the course.

Anyway, if that’s how the word fell into my brain, i used it wrong above. I probably should have said something like “ongoing consent”. Long term partners do usually have an understanding of how and when it’s okay to touch each other sexually, and often that’s much broader than what would be okay outside of an ongoing relationship. Some couples are okay initiating sexy-times when the other one is asleep, for instance. That would never be okay with a stranger, but can be okay in a relationship where the parties have previously indicated that they like it. Obviously, if your partner rolls away muttering that they are tired, consent has been withdrawn for the night.

[Guest-starring_Id]

If someone can explain that Split_p_j isn’t a Starving Artist sock, I’m all ears. Sure, maybe not as screedy as SA, but other than that…

[Ed_Zotti]

@Miller

I’ve had a chance to review the thread, and consider the posts in question. While I share a strong visceral reaction to one of the viewpoints being offered here, I’m not seeing an actual rules violation. The posts in question appear to be sincerely held, and made in an attempt to defend a (largely indefensible) position.

I am sympathetic to the idea that the position in question is something that should be disallowed generally on the board, but that’s not something I can decide unilaterally. I’ve opened up a discussion with the other mods on the subject, but that’s going to take time. While that’s going on, I’m reopening this thread.

The SDMB staff has reviewed this thread, which was flagged by many posters, and discussed it at length. We agree with Miller that the view expressed by split_p_j , namely that anyone who becomes drunk thereby consents to rape, is indefensible and repugnant. We’re also obliged to say that (a) it isn’t against our rules as currently stated, but (b) it should be. It’ll take us a while to formulate a new rule in precise language, but the gist will be this: if you express yourself in a way that we consider to be beyond the pale of civil discussion, whether in style or substance, we’ll warn you to knock it off, specifying what it is we want you to stop, on penalty of losing your posting privileges. This rule applies in all forums including the Pit.

This rule goes into effect now. Accordingly, split_p_j, you’re hereby warned to make no further posts on this board suggesting that a person who becomes inebriated thereby consents to, or is deserving of, assault or other crime. This is a ludicrous and offensive notion. Any further comments along these lines will result in revocation of your posting privileges, as will any attempt to argue with us or otherwise prolong this absurd controversy.

This warning is directed at split_p_j , but anyone else making a similar argument will get a similar warning and face similar consequences.

We’re not attempting to suppress discussion of sensitive topics, such as what constitutes consent to sex, nor are we trying to enforce particular opinions. We can’t anticipate everything we’d consider to be too crazy even for the Pit and don’t expect to maintain a list of proscribed views. We’ll provide the offending party with a warning before taking any further action.

A more formal statement of this rule will be provided in due time. Thanks for your cooperation.

[Monty]

@puzzlegal

and to a position where if they vomit they won’t asphyxiate.

When I was in the Army, the current slang for that was “inebriated leaning rest”. That slang made it very easy for us to remember how–and when–to put someone in the correct postion.

[Mundane_Super_Hero]

@split_p_j

I’m not a rape denialist as you put it, but some proof is nice.

“So, how do you take your rape, split_p_j…? One lump or two…?” /s

[Ann_Hedonia]

I’m just wondering who split his PJ’s, and if he was drunk at the time.

[Mundane_Super_Hero]

( I always picture you as Anne Hathaway delivering a round-kick. Nice! )

[Morgyn]

Huh. I thought the p_j referred to peanut butter and jelly.

Shows what I know.

[Skywatcher]

He’s said that the handle refers to

Split PJ Bass - Revel Custom Pickups

[DrDeth]

Ed, this is great, but putting this in the middle of a long Pit thread means very few will read it. This needs to be pinned and in ATMB, otherwise it is a bit unfair to hold posters to a standard they do not know about.

But I like the idea. Thanks.

[Skywatcher]

@DrDeth

This needs to be pinned and in ATMB, otherwise it is a bit unfair to hold posters to a standard they do not know about.

@Ed_Zotti

A more formal statement of this rule will be provided in due time.

One presumes that will go in ATMB.

[Sunny_Daze]

@Morgyn

Huh. I thought the p_j referred to peanut butter and jelly.

Me too. Always thought it was weird that the “b” was missing.

[Slash1972]

@Ann_Hedonia

It’s all about consent, your partner should be continually consenting with their hands, with their mouth, they should be whispering consent in your ear, if not screaming it. If your partner isn’t actively responding to the experience you should stop and find out why, not because you’re worried about your freaking legal liability, but because you want them to enjoy it. It’s not enough just to get consent before you start, because moods can shift fast, especially late at night, especially when alcohol and/or drugs are involved. Just learn to be a considerate lover and you won’t have any consent issues.

I know this is an old topic, but just wanted to let you know that I think this post was awesome. Thank you.

[iiandyiiii]

Resurrecting this thread because split is spreading ridiculousness in the Biden VP thread. Just as a reminder for anyone paying attention, split likes Candace Owens, opposes BLM, disbelieves the 9/11 WTC attacks, and believes Bill Cosby is innocent, among many other totally ridiculous things. He’s a crank.

[crowmanyclouds]

@iiandyiiii

He’s a crank.

That’s a word for him.

[Atamasama]

I can’t believe I completely forgot about this thread.

I went through and reread it, and I was all over this. And I forgot it existed because it was 2 1/2 years ago. Fucking A. How did I forget.

Damn, I forgot Split_p_j was the conspiracy theorist truther rape apologist who contradicts his own statements between posts. Total fucking wackjob. And here my amnesiac dumb ass was being all cordial when he spouts bullshit he made up in P&E minutes ago. Fuck me all being nice for no reason.