Tayschren wrote: » But your examples don't relate to the OPs topic.
Tayschren wrote: » The girl who got blotto and performed a sex act in a room full of people bears responsibility for the outcome( being filmed by other drunk loosers)
Tayschren wrote: » and any shame she feels. Blaming the arsehole who filmed it doesn't change the fact she did it, nobody forced her.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » Never said it did, hence the second part of my sentence.
Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: » While a woman is not responsible for what happens to her while she is drunk
Deleted User wrote: » Why even need the "in front of others" there? My partners consent to have sex with me. Does that mean I can hide a camera somewhere in the room and film it? And then distribute it? Or do you see that consent to have sex with me does not mean they consented to have me video it? .
The President of Namibia wrote: » If you're so depraved that you get drunk and blow random strangers at a party then you deserve to be slut shamed.
sbsquarepants wrote: » The in front of others part, is very important.
[Deleted User] wrote: » I have sex with my partner that does not mean she has consented to have it videoed. And she would be horrifically offended to find out I did it without her knowledge. If I invite someone to come watch us have sex - which is actually a fantasy for quite a lot of people - again I at no point have consented to have that person video it. That is a separate thing to give or withhold consent for. Why the above two paragraphs should change if I change that to 2 people - 10 people - 100 people I do not know. The premise holds regardless of the quantity of people involved. Forget sex even. If I am in a room with someone and we for some reason need to get changed - I can either go and do it elsewhere in private or I can say something like "You might if I get changed here in front of you quickly to save time". If you consent - and I have consented to do it - that does not mean at any point that I have said "Oh and when I get to the point of full nudity - feel free to pull out your phone and take snaps!". I am seeing the recording onto a media of a sexual event as being an event that itself requires consent. Consent to one is not in any way consent to the other. In pretty much any context.
Deleted User wrote: » Not acceptable and inappropriate to _you_ you mean? I certainly have no issue with it nor can I think of anyone I know who might. I think it is socially acceptable to consent to sex with whomever you want. Be that one person or a room full of people. Be it direct sexual interaction or indirect through their presence. So when you label it as inappropriate - I do not think it is. With the caveat that - - I absolutely agree with this part. I think witnessing a sexual act is itself a sexual act and hence should be consented to. There is nothing inappropriate with engaging in sexual acts in front of other people. At all. Even a little bit. But they must accept / consent to that. Of course though I doubt in most situations that people _suddenly_ drop their underwear and start shoving things into other things. There is some level of build up and so forth during which I am sure people can up and leave when they see where it is going. But sure - ideally explicit consent should be sought! You are right on the money there. That my common sense reaches a different conclusions to yours - does not mean I have not employed mine. Unfortunatley "common sense" tends to be what people won't (or can't) argue to be true so the phrase "common sense" is their attempt to make it the default. But I repeat - assuming the consent of all involved - there is nothing "not okay" about almost _any_ sexual act done in _any_ context with _any_ number of people present. If it is not ok _for you_ that is entirely fine! Do not do it or watch it. But it not being ok for you is a much different thing that it not being ok at all. No. My parents brought me up to respect the will and rights of others. And to be myself in a way that combines being moral to others but not needlessly pandering to the judgements of others who simply like / want different things to me. So my parents would not at all care if I engaged in a 10-way sex orgy including a spanish midget and a russian contortionist infront of an audience of 100 people if it was A) what everyone involved wanted No one was hurt or harmed by the event and C) I respected the rights and well being of everyone else while pursuing my own pleasures. And that is the exact same world view I would pass on to my own current son (3) and daughter (7) over their current and future development. That is a big "if" there. I was not discussing that aspect of it all. But I can assure you that "informed consent" (of which a minor is not capable) is the core foundational axiom upon which _all_ my sexual morality is based. So you can rest assured that any aspect of this - or other cases - that involve a minor will fall under that. I was solely commenting on the aspects I have thus far mentioned directly - in a general sense - and not limited to this one event of which - lets face it - we know very little other than the OPs description without link. Note however you have used your analogy to move from a sexual event in the room of a house (say) to an action engaged in "in public". So I am not sure this is a fair or relevant analogy at all. its not against any law but its still shameful isnt it? Not because its hurting anyone or any consent issues or any law issues but simply because its something thst society deemed inappropriate and we have to take that as it is
Deleted User wrote: » It's probably not when you're noshing noodle in a room full of people.
server down wrote: » As for videoing, if I am invited to an orgy and I videoed some public act within that setting then it is a violation of privacy. If some couple start getting it on on the Dart on the 8:15 from Howth, I think videoing and uploading wouldnt be any kind of violation. A house party is a grey area.
server down wrote: » lots of words there but there is no way to assume the consent of all onlookers unless they were all asked
[Deleted User] wrote: » Well if nothing else this thread - as fun as it already is - is a chance for me to learn all new euphemisms for oral sex that I had not heard before I think we could extend the analogy to other sexual acts too though. Someone is performing oral sex in a room with others there - should they be expected to perform it on the next person who walks up and profers their genitals. Or while performing oral sex should it be "ok" if someone walks up behind them and inserts their hands into their underwear to play around? I guess the hang up point for me is that consent is limited. Consent to one act that normally requires consent is not consent to another act that normally requires consent.
Deleted User wrote: » They relate to the general point I am making about consent. .
Deleted User wrote: » "don't presume this is a private setting" for anyone getting intimate
Tayschren wrote: » Having an agenda (you) and posting on a topic (me) are different things altogether.
Tayschren wrote: » you are trying to introduce narrative not pertaining to the topic
Deleted User wrote: » I have sex with my partner that does not mean she has consented to have it videoed. And she would be horrifically offended to find out I did it without her knowledge. If I invite someone to come watch us have sex - which is actually a fantasy for quite a lot of people - again I at no point have consented to have that person video it. That is a separate thing to give or withhold consent for. Why the above two paragraphs should change if I change that to 2 people - 10 people - 100 people I do not know. The premise holds regardless of the quantity of people involved. Forget sex even. If I am in a room with someone and we for some reason need to get changed - I can either go and do it elsewhere in private or I can say something like "You might if I get changed here in front of you quickly to save time". If you consent - and I have consented to do it - that does not mean at any point that I have said "Oh and when I get to the point of full nudity - feel free to pull out your phone and take snaps!". I am seeing the recording onto a media of a sexual event as being an event that itself requires consent. Consent to one is not in any way consent to the other. In pretty much any context.
wakka12 wrote: » Not really, its a private premises. The guy who uploaded it is at fault Dont really feel sorry for the girl tbh. Everyone seems to give a lot of leeway when its anything related to drunk girls and sexual things. If I punch somebody while drunk, in a house party or wherever, I wouldnt expect anybody to feel bad for me if it was uploaded online. You need to be responsible for your actions whether youre drunk or not. The girl ****ed up, the person who filmed it and uploaded it also ****ed up. Girl is a victim but she also brought a lot of **** upon herself, so I think it negates any feeling of sympathy for her. But the guy who uploaded should still be punished
sbsquarepants wrote: » Not the same thing at all. If you invite someone to watch, you do just that
sbsquarepants wrote: » You have forgone any right to privacy by streaking / having sex in a public place
sbsquarepants wrote: » There was zero attempt to be private here
sbsquarepants wrote: » What happens to her, no (but common sense should still apply in my opinion) But what she does herself - she's still fully responsible for. Try arguing that you have no personal responsibility on the grounds of intoxication in front of a judge if you're caught drink driving. "I didn't know what I was doing your honour, sure I was hammered, it's not my fault!" If legally you are held to be competent enough to decide whether you should drive or not, why would you not be competent enough to decide whether or not to have sex, either with someone or in front of them?
MrPudding wrote: » So here is a question for anyone that thinks a drunk girl is responsible for anything that someone does to them. Assuming you believe that having sex with a woman that is suffering from a fever and is delirious and incapable of giving consent would be rape, can you explain what it is about having sex with a woman that is too drunk to consent that makes it not rape? Fever or drunk you are having sex with someone that has not consented.
Deleted User wrote: » Forget sex - I do not think people in a private place should be videoing anything without consent. If I invite you and a group of others to dinner for example and half way through the conversation you plonk a camera on a tripod on the table and start videoing the whole event - I think you have crossed a line by not asking first. ?
Deleted User wrote: » Do not pardon the puns though! We need them Robust debate but with unending good humor and not taking it that seriously is always good. Unfortunately the more robust and "into it" you get in the sport of debate - the more people mistakenly thing you are getting worked up and serious about it ?
Deleted User wrote: » As above though there would be also zero attempt to be private eating my dinner in front of you at the table had I invited you to dinner. It would still be _very_ odd to suddenly produce a camera without consent or comment and simply start videoing everyone there going at their meal. Why should that oddness be any different in the context of a sexual act rather than a gastronomic one?
MrPudding wrote: » This is almost a good point, but it has a couple of problems. First, you can't really compare potentially committing a criminal offence to potentially being the victim of a criminal offence. They are not legally, or ethically, equivalent. I am sure that in Ireland intoxication can be considered in mitigation for sentencing, though not for guilt. Obviously not for drink driving, which is probably not aa good example for you as it is effectively a strict liability offence, it is the fact that you did the thing that matters, what you were thinking at the time is irrelevant.
I think most people will agree that in certain circumstances a person is not capable of consenting to something. That might be because they have a fever and are delirious, or they have been involuntarily drugged, or are otherwise unconscious. In those circumstances, where the person is incapable of giving consent, would anyone argue that a person having sex with them was raping them? The same applies to someone that is drunk, the only difference being, it is quite possible they have put themselves into that position voluntarily. So here is a question for anyone that thinks a drunk girl is responsible for anything that someone does to them. Assuming you believe that having sex with a woman that is suffering from a fever and is delirious and incapable of giving consent would be rape, can you explain what it is about having sex with a woman that is too drunk to consent that makes it not rape? Fever or drunk you are having sex with someone that has not consented. MrP
arayess wrote: » i'#d like to pose a question. i can fully understand how you can be too drunk to consent to sex as you can be a passive and unconscious etc..and taken advantage of. . but surely giving a bj would require you to take the active role...to me the notion of not consenting due to drunkenness would impossible. any takers?
sbsquarepants wrote: » Jaysus, surely it is common sense to say if you go out and get hammered and then blow some fella in front of a room full of people - you kind of are the architect of your own misery. It's not like this was some hidden camera thing. You got drunk, you done something you now regret, we've all been there - it's just unfortunate now, with the technology available to every tom, dick and harry, that you can't scratch your arse without some fúcker uploading it to the internet. Whatever this was - it certainly is not sexual assault. Whatever you do in public, you can't really complain about the public seeing. If you don't want a video of you sucking cock appearing on the internet, don't suck cock in front a room full of strangers with cameras in their hands. Do we really need to tell people this shít!
lazybones32 wrote: » On breakingnews.ie last wednesday (9d ago), they had an article on sexual harrassment in the workplace. The solicitor who was giving the interview said that if telling a sex-related joke makes a person uncomfortable, then that is entering the realm of sexual harrassment.
lazybones32 wrote: » So sexual harrassment is defined by the individual interpretation? A woman, feeling body-confident, attractive and feeling good about herself and life hears a sex joke and finds it funny. Same woman on a bad day hears the same joke but this time it is harrassment. We can make laws that are based on feelings that change and personal taste.
anewme wrote: » I am sorry but I am not sure where this is related to the original topic. I am the only woman on a team with 15 men. I would deem it unacceptable for people to be cracking sexual jokes. Its unprofessional. It would use make me uncomfortabke. . These ppl are not my friends, they are work colleagues. The body confident or not confident comment is a load of crap. Sexual comments in a workplace are a no no.
...And Justice wrote: » My sister in law tried to whack me off, pulling and ripping at my jeans after a party one night, I fobbed it off as her being drunk..no hassle, do I go the whole hog now? #metoo? She tried to rape me? Will I report her or Is this just a male hatred thing for feminists?
anewme wrote: » What on earth has this got to do with sexual comments in the workplace?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b605825002726fa398519aca553ff0db.svg)
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/v2/b1a8522b26abe4367117071263a70671.svg)
