You don't need a college education, if you follow the 10,000 hour rule.

As someone who is a fan of the Enthusiastic Consent model, I think you're misrepresenting its goals. Specifically...

So this [idea of Enthusiastic Conset] has morphed into an "anything can be considered rape" model, where even getting an affirmative "yes" to each of these questions is not enough. The "yes" has to be truly enthusiastic to count. So telling a girl that you love her and want to have sex with her is rape - because you are exploiting your relationship. Have a couple of drinks together? Rape. Tell her "it's Ok, everybody does it?" Rape. Know somebody who lives in a society that is OK with casual sexual encounters? Ooops, that might be social conditioning - better not try to hook up. 'Cause that's rape.

The idea of Enthusiastic Consent is not to rewrite rape legislation out of whole cloth. Rather, it's to create a social movement where the healthy expectation is that sex should only occur between two people who enthusiastically consent to the activity. To use your example, saying "It's OK, everybody does it" isn't and shouldn't be rape. But I'd sure say it's an ethically questionable way to get someone in bed with you. Likewise for exploiting a relationship status, likewise for using somebodies social expectations of casual sexual encounters to pressure them into sex. Again, none of those situations are rape but they're all situations in which the consent of one party was not given enthusiastically.

And as a woman who really enjoys having sex, surrounded by friends - male and female - who also enjoy having sex, why would I want any of us to be having sex that wasn't consented to with enthusiasm!? Why would you ever want that for yourself, or your friends, or your children? There are enough things in my life that I'm only blase about, sex shouldn't be one of them. And so no, Enthusiastic Consent does not mean that the situations you list somehow are transformed into rape. It does mean that they're indicative of a society which sees little wrong with unenthusiastic sexual encounters, and argues that that's a problem.

As a final note, you scoff at the idea of asking "is it OK if I touch you here?" "Is it OK if I kiss you there?" You don't get to decide what level of consent your partner has offered. And if you don't ask, you can't know for sure.

Wait, I'm _also_ in Andersonville (and am a trans lesbian who is always looking for more queer geeks). Email me and lets grab coffee at Kopi? :)

You don't have any idea what you're talking about. Many industrial scale cattle, swine and chicken operations use subtherapeutic doses of antibiotics in feed as a growth enhancing technique. Over 70% of all antibiotics used in teh US are used in agriculture, and the vast majority of those are used in feed, and subtherapeutic doses are the problem. The ag CAFOs are where many of these bugs get a toehold.

Tyson chicken, Smithfield pork, all the big operators use antibiotics in feed. Look it up. http://www.alternet.org/health/145272/the_overuse_of_antibiotics_in_livestock_feed_is_killing_us

Of course, in many cases of rape, it is easy to define, which doesn't at all help understanding the cases where it is not as they are often all placed under the banner "rapists cause rape". Emotionally sensitive subjects like this are often easily decided before vigilance for the truth can be heard.

You raise a good point, and one I neglected to address: Claiming to be a victim does not, in fact, always mean you're actually a victim. Someone else on this thread gave the example of a woman drinking, giving explicit consent for sex, and then (when sober) rescinding that consent and calling it rape. In that, case, I'd agree that it's not, in fact, rape. (Whether or not the law would support my point of view.)

Now, I would suspect that the times where there isn't explicit consent vastly outweigh the times where there is rescinded consent, which is probably why the laws are weighted like that; in the favor of the one who is more likely to be the victim. But, unfortunately, I don't have any numbers to back that suspicion up, and statistical likelihood of rape is poor comfort to someone found guilty of a crime they (in my opinion) didn't commit.

Complicated issues, indeed...

Men are victimized by all violent crimes (except possibly rape, where men report lower rates by a factor of up to ten, but want to bet the reporting bias is huge?) at rates up to several times greater than women. A large part of the difference can be accounted for by differences in crime-avoidant behaviors. Women are taught a lot about how to avoid being a victim of violent crime. Men are not. And no one much cares.

I was skeptical of that claim, but it looks like you're mostly correct. For the lazy, women were 20 times more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted, but men were more than twice as likely to be victims of armed robbery, 2.5 times more likely for aggravated assault, and 1.2 times more likely for simple assault. I'd argue about the wording of "several times greater" but that seems like nitpicking when the general point is sound.

What I don't know that I agree with is the role crime-avoidant behavior plays in those numerical differences. I can't find any studies on the subject, but I'd love to see one. I agree, in general, that victim-avoidant behavior and the overwhelming likelihood the violent crime offender is male account for those differences, but I'm really not sure by how much.

And I don't think any of that changes my original point, that victim-blaming is a bad thing. (radtea, I don't think you were saying this, I just want to make myself clear.)

The question that lurks in all this, and will for centuries to come is, at what point and how, do we hold victims accountable for NOT taking those precautions and what consequences are acceptable. It's the hot stove scenario, at what point is the manufacturing responsible for someone touching a hot burner (safety measures) and at what point is the victim (circumvents said measures). Do they share responsibility? One or the other?

Well-said. I've started (and deleted) a number of counter-arguments to other points in your post, but it seems like you're willing to concede my general premise: the one ultimately responsible for wrongdoing is the one committing the wrong act, even if the victim did not take steps to lessen their desirability as a target. It does sound like we would argue to what extent those steps (or lack thereof) should be taken into account when thinking about or analyzing the victim, but that's a different discussion than what I felt Runnaway1956 was saying, which seemed to drift into victim-blaming. (I'd also say it's a more fruitful discussion, even though the difference between victim-blaming and judging someone for poor behavior is usually a matter of perspective.)

-Trillian

PS - Probably won't forget the difference between lessen and lesson anytime soon... ;)

Here is the problem. The law (in the U.S.) does not work that way. Case in point. In the State of Nevada, if a woman has had anything to drink at all (notice the law does not cover men, but that is a different story), has sex with someone, she can file rape charges up to 48 hours (can not remember, might be 24 hours) after and it is assumed that it is by definition rape because she is intoxicated and could not make an informed CHOICE even if she verbally and physically consented.

US law doesn't always work that way

First, I would argue that rape and sex offender laws throughout the country are - from my limited knowledge and exposure to them - pretty ridiculous and inconsistent. You provide a good example, where someone could - in completely good faith - done everything in their power to be assured of consent, but nevertheless be charged with rape for factors out of their control. That's pretty stupid, and I hope a judge would have the cool-headedness to allow that information to play a part in any verdict.

However, I don't think your example counters my original point: the ultimate responsibility for wrong-doing lies with the one who committed the wrong act. And I can provide an example where the law does work that way, as a law in Florida says that the clothing of the victim cannot be admitted as evidence in a rape trial. More to the point, clothing can't be shown as justification for rape.

And that's my point: making potentially poor choices (for example, wearing revealing clothing in a dangerous neighborhood) does not excuse rape. Making poor social choices at school does not excuse bullying.

-Trillian

It doesn't matter what the law is, and it doesn't matter whose fault it is when you are dead because the asshole in the stationwagon wasn't paying attention when she changes into the lane that you on the motorcycle were rightfully occupying.

Spot on, and I'm sorry if my post came off a little strong. If I'm beaten to death because I'm trans - something that has a higher chance of happening than I like to think about - it doesn't do me much good to posthumously be declared 'not at fault' for my death. At the same time, I think there is a difference between the individual level and the societal level of responsibility. That is, on an individual level, yes - most people can do things to reduce their chance of victimization in $SITUATION. But, on the level of social and cultural expectations, there's a danger of that attitude drifting toward victim-blaming, which is what I think Runnaway1956 was doing.

There is, in my opinion, a fine line between advocacy or individual empowerment on the one hand, and blaming people who are victims on the other.

::grin:: No argument here. I just wanted to note that I fit the demographics who might be expected to completely dismiss Runnaway1956's point. I hope I didn't come across as doing so, as taking steps to reduce one's victimization is something any sane individual should do. But I feel very strongly that there's a difference between promoting safer, stronger behavior in potential victims and blaming victims for their misfortune.