circular arguments, perhaps
Submitted by F.O.D. on December 17 2000 02:25:17
In reply to Catch-22 ? submitted by 194 on December 16 2000 15:18:13
|
My initial point is that the problem with rape is not the sex, but rather the consent, as we were discussing below, or rather the lack of it. In other word, the real problem with rape is the violence of it, it's violating someone else's sense of self. I'm trying to understand what you're saying about the relationship between the seriousness of sex and legal rape. You're saying that if sex were not such a big deal, then rape wouldn't be rape since consent, presence or absence, wouldn't really matter. Just like the lack of consent in other human activities doesn't stop them being forced on people. Am I understanding you correctly? Why don't we explore this reasoning a little more. You're saying that there are reasons that lack of consent can be ignored in certain circumstances. Why is that? I mean, why can you ignore someone who is saying "no!" ? Is it because that activity, unlike sex, is not at all serious? I should hope not! I think it must be a very serious thing indeed to ignore someone who is saying "no". You better have good reasons for it. And indeed there are good reasons. A driver is not allowed to drive through red lights. A kid is not allowed to eat only chips and soft drinks. So if sex is such a serious thing, I suggest that you likewise better have very good reasons for ignoring someone who is saying "yes". Otherwise you are a hypocrite. Do you have good reason for reaming over someone else's will? What are those reasons? Fod |
Follow ups: