General 2012-13 Wrestling thread

Scersk '97
We should all fall on the side of reserving judgment, in my opinion, for ALL crimes, regardless of type or severity. "There but for the grace of God..." some people say...

Except it's not "There but for the grace of God..." when it comes to sexual assault. It's actually really easy not to sexually assault someone. Understand what (enthusiastic) consent is, and seek it each and every time you desire to fool around/have sex. And if "yes" turns to "no," or "I'm not sure" stop. And if that's too difficult for people to understand, there are plenty of resources out there to help explain the concept.

Jerseygirl

Scersk '97
We should all fall on the side of reserving judgment, in my opinion, for ALL crimes, regardless of type or severity. "There but for the grace of God..." some people say...

Except it's not "There but for the grace of God..." when it comes to sexual assault. It's actually really easy not to sexually assault someone. Understand what (enthusiastic) consent is, and seek it each and every time you desire to fool around/have sex. And if "yes" turns to "no," or "I'm not sure" stop. And if that's too difficult for people to understand, there are plenty of resources out there to help explain the concept.

Yeah, that's all well and good, but you know it's not that simple. All you've got to do is mix alcohol or some other mind-altering drug into the equation and everything becomes difficult to understand. Indeed, no matter how much you and I might prefer there not to be, there is a grey area here; that is, unless we're all going to abstain from alcohol when sex is in the offing, "disagreements"—scare quotes because it's a bad word for a touchy concept—might occur.

To my mind, it's shaky enough ground that I require, as you say, "enthusiastic consent" before proceeding further; indeed, I prefer the company of women who are, shall we say, very clear in their general modes of communication for this and many, many other reasons. But not all women are that way, and one does not always know who one is dealing with. (Of course, one of the ways to figure that out quickly is to strive for clarity on one's own part. In my experience, people who are wishy-washy about things don't mesh well with people who are direct.)

To stop rambling, I'll state that any crime, even sexual assault, can involve differing perspectives on a particular event, sometimes leading to different ethical or legal interpretations. Don't read this as "one person's rape is another's rough sex"—not what I meant. Rather, what we perceive always differs from what other humans perceive; thus, we each, after all, only experience the world via our own senses and filtered through our own minds. We are truly known only to ourselves. So, "but for the grace of God" have my interpretations of various activities generally lined up with those of my partners. Of course, I had a strong role in making sure of this, but one can never be sure when dealing with another human being.

(Indeed, scary thought: are we ever sure even with ourselves? Are our perceptions always clear? I think not.)

That's why, sadly, we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime. And it's why I prefer always to reserve judgment, whatever the crime. Because I don't have the hubris to think that I ever know the truth of anything.

Scersk '97

Jerseygirl

Scersk '97
We should all fall on the side of reserving judgment, in my opinion, for ALL crimes, regardless of type or severity. "There but for the grace of God..." some people say...

Except it's not "There but for the grace of God..." when it comes to sexual assault. It's actually really easy not to sexually assault someone. Understand what (enthusiastic) consent is, and seek it each and every time you desire to fool around/have sex. And if "yes" turns to "no," or "I'm not sure" stop. And if that's too difficult for people to understand, there are plenty of resources out there to help explain the concept.

Yeah, that's all well and good, but you know it's not that simple. All you've got to do is mix alcohol or some other mind-altering drug into the equation and everything becomes difficult to understand. Indeed, no matter how much you and I might prefer there not to be, there is a grey area here; that is, unless we're all going to abstain from alcohol when sex is in the offing, "disagreements"—scare quotes because it's a bad word for a touchy concept—might occur.

To my mind, it's shaky enough ground that I require, as you say, "enthusiastic consent" before proceeding further; indeed, I prefer the company of women who are, shall we say, very clear in their general modes of communication for this and many, many other reasons. But not all women are that way, and one does not always know who one is dealing with. (Of course, one of the ways to figure that out quickly is to strive for clarity on one's own part. In my experience, people who are wishy-washy about things don't mesh well with people who are direct.)

To stop rambling, I'll state that any crime, even sexual assault, can involve differing perspectives on a particular event, sometimes leading to different ethical or legal interpretations. Don't read this as "one person's rape is another's rough sex"—not what I meant. Rather, what we perceive always differs from what other humans perceive; thus, we each, after all, only experience the world via our own senses and filtered through our own minds. We are truly known only to ourselves. So, "but for the grace of God" have my interpretations of various activities generally lined up with those of my partners. Of course, I had a strong role in making sure of this, but one can never be sure when dealing with another human being.

(Indeed, scary thought: are we ever sure even with ourselves? Are our perceptions always clear? I think not.)

That's why, sadly, we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime. And it's why I prefer always to reserve judgment, whatever the crime. Because I don't have the hubris to think that I ever know the truth of anything.

And everyone else should require enthusiastic consent as well. That's what I'm getting at. The concept of enthusiastic consent should be a well-known, well understood concept that we teach each other. "Well, I guess..." etc. is not enthusiastic consent. Convincing, winning someone over, etc. is not enthusiastic consent. "Yes" is enthusiastic consent.

If we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, a lot of this gray area of which you speak would be eliminated, because women wouldn't need to worry about our reputations if we happily agreed to each sexual encounter in which we wanted to partake, instead of feeling like we had to go through the motions of being convinced to have sex in order to remain ladylike in disposition. Conversations around sex would become more honest and true consent would be easier to identify. But if we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, misogynists would lose a very important tool to keep us in our place.

ESPECIALLY sexual assault involves differing perspectives on a particular event (not that each perspective has equal validity). For example, there are plenty of people who think that if a woman is married, she can't be raped by her husband, because marriage is implicit consent (it's not where I live!).

Finally, it's not sad that we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime, it's awesome. I don't want to leave justice up to an unregulated mob. That's not to say there are no systemic issues that need to be addressed.

Jerseygirl
If we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, a lot of this gray area of which you speak would be eliminated, because women wouldn't need to worry about our reputations if we happily agreed to each sexual encounter in which we wanted to partake, instead of feeling like we had to go through the motions of being convinced to have sex in order to remain ladylike in disposition. Conversations around sex would become more honest and true consent would be easier to identify. But if we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, misogynists would lose a very important tool to keep us in our place.

Don't normally say it sincerely, but "right on!"

Jerseygirl
ESPECIALLY sexual assault involves differing perspectives on a particular event (not that each perspective has equal validity). For example, there are plenty of people who think that if a woman is married, she can't be raped by her husband, because marriage is implicit consent (it's not where I live!).

Well, every perspective has equal validity, i.e., I can't see through another person's eyes and experience his or her brain filter, so his or her perceptions are true and valid prima facie. But not every interpretation, based as interpretations should be on drawing together explanations for events that fit all the data involved, of those events has equal validity. Indeed, only after much work can we determine if a particular person's account of events is not presented truthfully. I mean, that's what courts are for, and it's hard work.

Jerseygirl
Finally, it's not sad that we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime, it's awesome. I don't want to leave justice up to an unregulated mob. That's not to say there are no systemic issues that need to be addressed.

Well, it's sad in the sense that we have to have them at all, that we don't live in a fantasy-unicorn land of truth, safety, and happiness. Sure, I'm very glad we have courts, just as I'm glad that there are hospitals and people who want to be doctors (surgery, ick!), but I find criminal law to be so depressing. Either way it turns out, lives are going to change, and often not for the better.

Jerseygirl

Scersk '97

Jerseygirl

Scersk '97
We should all fall on the side of reserving judgment, in my opinion, for ALL crimes, regardless of type or severity. "There but for the grace of God..." some people say...

Except it's not "There but for the grace of God..." when it comes to sexual assault. It's actually really easy not to sexually assault someone. Understand what (enthusiastic) consent is, and seek it each and every time you desire to fool around/have sex. And if "yes" turns to "no," or "I'm not sure" stop. And if that's too difficult for people to understand, there are plenty of resources out there to help explain the concept.

Yeah, that's all well and good, but you know it's not that simple. All you've got to do is mix alcohol or some other mind-altering drug into the equation and everything becomes difficult to understand. Indeed, no matter how much you and I might prefer there not to be, there is a grey area here; that is, unless we're all going to abstain from alcohol when sex is in the offing, "disagreements"—scare quotes because it's a bad word for a touchy concept—might occur.

To my mind, it's shaky enough ground that I require, as you say, "enthusiastic consent" before proceeding further; indeed, I prefer the company of women who are, shall we say, very clear in their general modes of communication for this and many, many other reasons. But not all women are that way, and one does not always know who one is dealing with. (Of course, one of the ways to figure that out quickly is to strive for clarity on one's own part. In my experience, people who are wishy-washy about things don't mesh well with people who are direct.)

To stop rambling, I'll state that any crime, even sexual assault, can involve differing perspectives on a particular event, sometimes leading to different ethical or legal interpretations. Don't read this as "one person's rape is another's rough sex"—not what I meant. Rather, what we perceive always differs from what other humans perceive; thus, we each, after all, only experience the world via our own senses and filtered through our own minds. We are truly known only to ourselves. So, "but for the grace of God" have my interpretations of various activities generally lined up with those of my partners. Of course, I had a strong role in making sure of this, but one can never be sure when dealing with another human being.

(Indeed, scary thought: are we ever sure even with ourselves? Are our perceptions always clear? I think not.)

That's why, sadly, we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime. And it's why I prefer always to reserve judgment, whatever the crime. Because I don't have the hubris to think that I ever know the truth of anything.

And everyone else should require enthusiastic consent as well. That's what I'm getting at. The concept of enthusiastic consent should be a well-known, well understood concept that we teach each other. "Well, I guess..." etc. is not enthusiastic consent. Convincing, winning someone over, etc. is not enthusiastic consent. "Yes" is enthusiastic consent.

If we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, a lot of this gray area of which you speak would be eliminated, because women wouldn't need to worry about our reputations if we happily agreed to each sexual encounter in which we wanted to partake, instead of feeling like we had to go through the motions of being convinced to have sex in order to remain ladylike in disposition. Conversations around sex would become more honest and true consent would be easier to identify. But if we stopped stigmatizing women's sexuality, misogynists would lose a very important tool to keep us in our place.

ESPECIALLY sexual assault involves differing perspectives on a particular event (not that each perspective has equal validity). For example, there are plenty of people who think that if a woman is married, she can't be raped by her husband, because marriage is implicit consent (it's not where I live!).

Finally, it's not sad that we have courts to decide if someone has committed a crime, it's awesome. I don't want to leave justice up to an unregulated mob. That's not to say there are no systemic issues that need to be addressed.

I can't see how this concept is so hard to understand. Anything but yes, let's go, is a no. Why any parent would want to instill anything other than that idea is hard for me to understand. Seeing what has happened with my daughter's generation, gives me some hope that it is changing, at least a little to the better.

Replace or extend the Cornell swim test to include a 100-question test, "Am I savvy enough to be allowed to graduate and vote?" Cornellians ought to be smart enough to figure out if arrest / traffic accident / parking ticket etcetera information is public especially if you invert the situation and think about what society would be like if police never had to release arrest information or maybe not even releasse the defendants. We'd be playing under Guantanamo rules.

Kyle Dake was the only USA winner vs Iran at the Rumble on the Rails

gonyr
Kyle Dake was the only USA winner vs Iran at the Rumble on the Rails

Highlights of Dake's match: