• Announcements

    • Robin

      Welcome!   03/05/2016

      Welcome, everyone, to the new 910CMX Community Forums. I'm still working on getting them running, so things may change.  If you're a 910 Comic creator and need your forum recreated, let me know and I'll get on it right away.  I'll do my best to make this new place as fun as the last one!
Sign in to follow this  
hkmaly

NP Monday, Apr 15, 2019

Recommended Posts

http://egscomics.com/egsnp/fantasywasteland-04

In some games, at least the enemies you manipulate are animal and/or monsters like undead, not anything capable of true thinking or possibly person.

... actually, in most games even people are not capable of true thinking :)

But yes, manipulating someone's mind doesn't sound nice ... until you start thinking about how that compares to killing them. I mean, you are not abusing your mind control powers to make them do something they might possibly consider worse than dead ... ehmmm ... not counting the "attacking each other" option I guess ...

Also, Jedi obviously don't see any problem with what they do with weak minds. And they are supposed to be good.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's a matter of perspective really, also extremely situational whether using mind manipulation can be considered good or bad, Magus in the main story for instance, manipulated emotions to make people do things, that can be considered bad since it put those people in dangerous situations, those people are willing to forgive him after considering his situation. He also used a calm spell on Ashley, it prevented her from acting in any way that could have made things dangerous for herself, Elliot and Ellen. On the flip side, a calm spell could be used to make someone unable to call for help or try to defend themselves if they were being robbed, or worse. So one should consider the how and why mind manipulation spells are used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "chill" spell also reminds me of Jerry's forced serenity spell seen in http://egscomics.com/comic/2010-07-07

While the morality of mind-control for de-escalating a confrontation may be a bit dubious, it is still the lesser evil compared to forcing them unconscious (or worse, incapacitating them through physical violence). Also note that Grace (and Jeremy) did not use the mind control as a means of compelling their targets to act, but rather as a means of stopping aggression before anybody got hurt even worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Scotty said:

It's a matter of perspective really, also extremely situational whether using mind manipulation can be considered good or bad, Magus in the main story for instance, manipulated emotions to make people do things, that can be considered bad since it put those people in dangerous situations, those people are willing to forgive him after considering his situation.

I think most of those manipulations were evaluated (by Elliot/Ellen) not as "good" but as "acceptable evil". But yes, matter of perspective etc.

17 minutes ago, Scotty said:

He also used a calm spell on Ashley, it prevented her from acting in any way that could have made things dangerous for herself, Elliot and Ellen. On the flip side, a calm spell could be used to make someone unable to call for help or try to defend themselves if they were being robbed, or worse.

Actually, specifically the kind of calm spell used on Ashley would probably make her kick the attacker to crotch. It prevented her from panic and made her evaluate the situation logically, and logically, she was not in urgent danger and there was no way for her to escape from moving car. When being robbed, she WOULD be in urgent danger and could actually escape.

24 minutes ago, ijuin said:

The "chill" spell also reminds me of Jerry's forced serenity spell seen in http://egscomics.com/comic/2010-07-07

While the morality of mind-control for de-escalating a confrontation may be a bit dubious, it is still the lesser evil compared to forcing them unconscious (or worse, incapacitating them through physical violence). Also note that Grace (and Jeremy) did not use the mind control as a means of compelling their targets to act, but rather as a means of stopping aggression before anybody got hurt even worse.

Even compelling to NOT act might be very evil in some situations. But yes, I would consider hard to argue how that could be more evil than ensuring the same result by physical violence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mind control?

If the person who was controlled does not realize they have been controlled, then they may disregard the whole incident.  There are plenty of times when a person might do something they normally wouldn't do.

But if the person who was controlled eventually does realize how they were enchanted, coerced, swindled, or tricked, then the previously controlled person can become extremely resentful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Pharaoh RutinTutin said:

Mind control?

If the person who was controlled does not realize they have been controlled, then they may disregard the whole incident.  There are plenty of times when a person might do something they normally wouldn't do.

But if the person who was controlled eventually does realize how they were enchanted, coerced, swindled, or tricked, then the previously controlled person can become extremely resentful.

Pretty sure that was Edward's reasoning for not telling Rhea and the other partygoers they had drank enchanted punch and stuff.

There is a problem though if a person under a mind control spell is made to do something like murder another person, if there were witnesses, it's highly likely the person who was controlled is going to find out what happened even if they don't remember. And if say, the person being mind controlled rapes someone, especially someone who knew the person like a friend or coworker, it's going to ruin any kind of relationship between them despite the fact that the person had no memory of doing such a thing and I don't see it realistically being easy for the friend or coworker to just be all "ah well since they were under a magic spell that made them do that to me, I guess I can forgive them".

It probably doesn't matter as much now in terms of secrecy, but prior to the magic "change" I gotta wonder how DGB would have handled a case where someone was mindcontrolled into raping a bunch of people, all evidence would point at that person but DGB wouldn't be able to tell everyone that the person was under the influence of a wizard and therefore couldn't be held responsible for their actions. DGB would probably have to do some sort of witness relocation deal.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Even compelling to NOT act might be very evil in some situations. But yes, I would consider hard to argue how that could be more evil than ensuring the same result by physical violence.

The mind is a very personal place, one that in real life no one else is ever truly let into. As such, messing with it in any way is a disturbing violation of that person.

The specific scenario you mention of someone temporarily preventing a person from acting (specifically through the use of a spell designed for that purpose, without ever "entering" or "reading" the mind) might not count as "mind rape", but depending on the exact details of the spell it could still count as "mental assault". And , while it might be better than preventing those actions through physical violence, even if the specific spell isn't bad enough to count as assault I'd say it's still worse than preventing those actions through physical restraint (assuming those restraints are unlikely to cause physical harm - which admittedly does depend on the restraints and situation in question).

If nothing else, even if in the end it was the most humane option out of those available, it still feels pretty creepy.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Scotty said:

Pretty sure that was Edward's reasoning for not telling Rhea and the other partygoers they had drank enchanted punch and stuff.

There was also high likehood they wouldn't BELIEVE it.

6 hours ago, Scotty said:

And if say, the person being mind controlled rapes someone, especially someone who knew the person like a friend or coworker, it's going to ruin any kind of relationship between them despite the fact that the person had no memory of doing such a thing and I don't see it realistically being easy for the friend or coworker to just be all "ah well since they were under a magic spell that made them do that to me, I guess I can forgive them".

That's assuming that the friend/coworker will only find out about the mind control later. In classical RPG scenarios, the mind control spell is short term, so they may SEE the person doing the mind control or have other reasons to suspect from start that the person being mind controlled is mind controlled.

Then there is the option of BOTH people being mind controlled to have sex. In which case it would really be much better if they never found out about it.

6 hours ago, Scotty said:

It probably doesn't matter as much now in terms of secrecy, but prior to the magic "change" I gotta wonder how DGB would have handled a case where someone was mindcontrolled into raping a bunch of people, all evidence would point at that person but DGB wouldn't be able to tell everyone that the person was under the influence of a wizard and therefore couldn't be held responsible for their actions. DGB would probably have to do some sort of witness relocation deal.

They probably had some program for relocating people specifically for cases where someone was targeted in way which basically made impossible for him to continue his previous life.

However, it's possible it never happened. I mean, seriously, WHY would someone mind control someone else to rape third person? Sure, people are weird so there probably was someone thinking about it but he might not have the magic. If someone has mind control magic and want to use it for sex, it would be either THEM raping someone and using mind control to hide it or forcing someone to "rape" them.

(Mindcontrolling someone to kill someone else makes more sense, but also it's easier to deal with.)

5 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

The mind is a very personal place, one that in real life no one else is ever truly let into. As such, messing with it in any way is a disturbing violation of that person.

The specific scenario you mention of someone temporarily preventing a person from acting (specifically through the use of a spell designed for that purpose, without ever "entering" or "reading" the mind) might not count as "mind rape", but depending on the exact details of the spell it could still count as "mental assault". And , while it might be better than preventing those actions through physical violence, even if the specific spell isn't bad enough to count as assault I'd say it's still worse than preventing those actions through physical restraint (assuming those restraints are unlikely to cause physical harm - which admittedly does depend on the restraints and situation in question).

Even restrains specifically made for not causing physical harm are rarely possible to use without causing physical harm first. Then it's question of how much harm versus how harming does the spell feels, and that would likely be EXTREMELY individual.

5 hours ago, ChronosCat said:

If nothing else, even if in the end it was the most humane option out of those available, it still feels pretty creepy.

Oh, definitely. That's why I was starting with "if you start thinking ...". Because, for some reason, killing DOESN'T feel creepy. And while some kind of injures do, there is big difference in how creepy something is compared to how serious harm it is. Extreme case of this is when people actually think that something which happened to them is worse than if they died. I find it very illogical, on the other hand, feelings not being logical isn't new or surprising.

Note that "personal stuff" is important even without mind reading or mind control being involved. Lot of people feel seriously hurt if someone they don't know reads their personal diary, see their naked photos or something like that, without any assault happening ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Oh, definitely. That's why I was starting with "if you start thinking ...". Because, for some reason, killing DOESN'T feel creepy. And while some kind of injures do, there is big difference in how creepy something is compared to how serious harm it is. Extreme case of this is when people actually think that something which happened to them is worse than if they died. I find it very illogical, on the other hand, feelings not being logical isn't new or surprising.

I think when it comes to killing, how it happens affects whether or not it's creepy. I don't find the idea of being killed in a war or a mugging creepy, but I do find the idea of poison or a murderous stalker creepy. Part of it might just be that if we hear about death in certain ways often enough it comes to feel normal; just an unpleasant fact of life that we have to put up with.

[CN: depression, suicidal thoughts]

 

As for some people considering some things worse than death, I don't know if you have specific examples in mind, but as someone who spent most of my life doubting that the good in my life was worth dealing with the bad, it makes perfect sense to me. If one considers one's situation unbearable, and can see no hope for it to improve, it seems only natural to me one might consider death preferable to life. Frankly, it's the point of view that death is always bad and should be avoided/prevented at all costs that has always puzzled me.

(This isn't directed at hkmaly, but after what I just said I feel the need to add: While wishing for death may be natural, under most circumstances seeking it out is unwise at best. So long as one is alive there's always a chance for things to improve, but death is permanent. There's also the fact that death always hurts the people who knew and cared for the deceased. Besides, unless you're immortal you just need to be patient and death will find you eventually.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:

I think when it comes to killing, how it happens affects whether or not it's creepy. I don't find the idea of being killed in a war or a mugging creepy, but I do find the idea of poison or a murderous stalker creepy.

Hmmm, yeah, there are kinds of dead which are creepy and just didn't occurred to me in context of RPG ...

55 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:

Part of it might just be that if we hear about death in certain ways often enough it comes to feel normal; just an unpleasant fact of life that we have to put up with.

That might be part of it, definitely.

55 minutes ago, ChronosCat said:

[CN: depression, suicidal thoughts]

  Hide contents

As for some people considering some things worse than death, I don't know if you have specific examples in mind, but as someone who spent most of my life doubting that the good in my life was worth dealing with the bad, it makes perfect sense to me. If one considers one's situation unbearable, and can see no hope for it to improve, it seems only natural to me one might consider death preferable to life. Frankly, it's the point of view that death is always bad and should be avoided/prevented at all costs that has always puzzled me.

(This isn't directed at hkmaly, but after what I just said I feel the need to add: While wishing for death may be natural, under most circumstances seeking it out is unwise at best. So long as one is alive there's always a chance for things to improve, but death is permanent. There's also the fact that death always hurts the people who knew and cared for the deceased. Besides, unless you're immortal you just need to be patient and death will find you eventually.)

  Hide contents
I would say that the bit about "always chance for things to improve" is the most important one.
Only situation where it makes sense to wish for death is when you lose hope that things may improve.
Which is entirely logical if the reason is medical - like, illness which is painful and will only be worse.
The illogical part is if something happened, it's over and it didn't left you with any permanent disability, and you still think it would be better to die. Why? Sure, it might've been bad, but it's already much better.

Damn this spoiler thing is hard to write.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hkmaly said:

However, it's possible it never happened. I mean, seriously, WHY would someone mind control someone else to rape third person? Sure, people are weird so there probably was someone thinking about it but he might not have the magic. If someone has mind control magic and want to use it for sex, it would be either THEM raping someone and using mind control to hide it or forcing someone to "rape" them.

In this case, the reason to control them isn't just for the sex, but for the control itself. Just like Not-Tengu liked to control completely his "flock", to someone like him, the idea of making someone do anything under his control, expecially something they normally would not do at all, would be a big turn on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Entropy said:
On 4/16/2019 at 10:09 PM, hkmaly said:

However, it's possible it never happened. I mean, seriously, WHY would someone mind control someone else to rape third person? Sure, people are weird so there probably was someone thinking about it but he might not have the magic. If someone has mind control magic and want to use it for sex, it would be either THEM raping someone and using mind control to hide it or forcing someone to "rape" them.

In this case, the reason to control them isn't just for the sex, but for the control itself. Just like Not-Tengu liked to control completely his "flock", to someone like him, the idea of making someone do anything under his control, expecially something they normally would not do at all, would be a big turn on.

As I said, while there may be people turned on by it, it could be sufficiently rare for none of them getting such magic.

Note that specifically Not-Tengu would never release control of his flock unless forced to. And while I can see him making his flock have sex with each other, it would be the "BOTH people being mind controlled to have sex" option AND they may not remember it.

Hmmm ... I must admit I now see the story of "Diane wasn't warned, so Nanase came down too late and the flock attacked her and started to rape her", but, well ...

1) The people are transformed, so Nanase wouldn't blame anyone of them anyway. Not that she knew them that well in first place.

2) It would be quite obvious they are not themselves even if they wouldn't look all like Nanase.

3) Sorry, I know that it's sexism, but I still find hard to imagine that sexy girl like Nanase trying to have sex with someone could result in as bad experience as rape usually is.

Note that otherwise, while Dan wouldn't be likely to ever make story like that, I think it would match Not-Tengu's personality. He did mentioned that Tedd wouldn't appeal to him. Although I think he would regret that if he would saw her like this or even this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hkmaly said:

Note that specifically Not-Tengu would never release control of his flock unless forced to. And while I can see him making his flock have sex with each other, it would be the "BOTH people being mind controlled to have sex" option AND they may not remember it.

There would be an issue if one or more of the women got pregnant from that and people start thinking that there was date rape. Both sides would probably claim the other drugged and raped them because neither would remember it but can't explain how it happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For Not-Tengu's flock's case, pregnancy would likely not be an issue between two flock members, given that Not-Tengu wants them all to be female.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, ijuin said:

For Not-Tengu's flock's case, pregnancy would likely not be an issue between two flock members, given that Not-Tengu wants them all to be female.

True.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Scotty said:
On 4/18/2019 at 0:56 AM, hkmaly said:

Note that specifically Not-Tengu would never release control of his flock unless forced to. And while I can see him making his flock have sex with each other, it would be the "BOTH people being mind controlled to have sex" option AND they may not remember it.

There would be an issue if one or more of the women got pregnant from that and people start thinking that there was date rape. Both sides would probably claim the other drugged and raped them because neither would remember it but can't explain how it happened.

... seriously? You mean in US it counts as date rape if two teenagers get so drunk neither remembers having sex?

18 hours ago, ijuin said:

For Not-Tengu's flock's case, pregnancy would likely not be an issue between two flock members, given that Not-Tengu wants them all to be female.

... but yes, the main issue with that would be this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:

... seriously? You mean in US it counts as date rape if two teenagers get so drunk neither remembers having sex?

Even in Canada there's the question of consent and a lot of cases being drunk is not valid consent, if one side was drunk and the other wasn't, there'd be no question the the person drunk was taken advantage of, but if both sides were drunk, who's at fault, who's the victim, if one side were to claim rape, the other side is now on the defensive and it's be difficult to prove otherwise because the act occurring is certain, but they'd have to prove they didn't go start drinking with the hopes of scoring with someone.

It's not like both side could get charged with raping each other, but examples like this one suggests that if two people are too drunk to keep their hands off each other, all it would take is for one of them to later, when they're sober, to be disturbed enough by what happened to claim rape and the other person would be up the creek without a paddle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 5:56 PM, hkmaly said:

Sorry, I know that it's sexism, but I still find hard to imagine that sexy girl like Nanase trying to have sex with someone could result in as bad experience as rape usually is.

Rape isn't about sex.  It's about control.  Being raped by a good-looking guy is *not* less evil than being raped by an ugly one.  It's having something done to you and being unable to stop it, losing control of your own body, having your choices taken away from you.

On 4/18/2019 at 11:42 PM, Scotty said:

Even in Canada there's the question of consent and a lot of cases being drunk is not valid consent, if one side was drunk and the other wasn't, there'd be no question the the person drunk was taken advantage of, but if both sides were drunk, who's at fault, who's the victim, if one side were to claim rape, the other side is now on the defensive and it's be difficult to prove otherwise because the act occurring is certain, but they'd have to prove they didn't go start drinking with the hopes of scoring with someone.

It's not like both side could get charged with raping each other, but examples like this one suggests that if two people are too drunk to keep their hands off each other, all it would take is for one of them to later, when they're sober, to be disturbed enough by what happened to claim rape and the other person would be up the creek without a paddle.

I would think one important factor would be if one of them got the other drunk with the intention of getting them to the point that they would do things they normally would not do.  Having grown up in a college town, there are a lot of girls who would go to a party just wanting to have fun, and a lot of guys who would go hoping to get a girl drunk enough that they could have sex with her.  It's not necessarily inherent to the individual people, it's a cultural indoctrination.  

If a person is not intending to have sex, but decides to have just a couple of beers, they may not be drunk enough to lose all inhibitions, but they may have lost enough control to make it easier to convince them to try a taste of a delicious fruity alcoholic drink, and to drink the rest of it once they've tasted it.  And that drink makes it easier to get them to take the next one.  Some people are expert at judging just when to stop feeding a victim drinks, and start caressing and kissing and turning their uncontrolled thoughts in another direction.  People observing from the outside are very bad at judging when someone is too drunk to consent.  And if the victim complains afterwards, the rapist can claim they were drunk, too, and it's nearly impossible to prove they weren't if enough time has passed that their blood alcohol would have dropped.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:
On 4/18/2019 at 0:56 AM, hkmaly said:

Sorry, I know that it's sexism, but I still find hard to imagine that sexy girl like Nanase trying to have sex with someone could result in as bad experience as rape usually is.

Rape isn't about sex.  It's about control.  Being raped by a good-looking guy is *not* less evil than being raped by an ugly one.  It's having something done to you and being unable to stop it, losing control of your own body, having your choices taken away from you.

That's assuming you are unable to stop it. But you have a point. Usually, there is the element of guys being physically stronger ... but it's true this may not be limited to guys, and we are talking about Nanase ...

3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Some people are expert at judging just when to stop feeding a victim drinks, and start caressing and kissing and turning their uncontrolled thoughts in another direction.

Some people, yes. There is definitely some skill required in 1) drinking enough to not look suspicious but still not too much to control your actions 2) getting partner drunk enough to not protest but not enough other people would see they're too drunk to be able to consent.

3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

People observing from the outside are very bad at judging when someone is too drunk to consent.

Maybe, but I still think it's unfair to assume every man has the mentioned level of skill.

3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Having grown up in a college town, there are a lot of girls who would go to a party just wanting to have fun, and a lot of guys who would go hoping to get a girl drunk enough that they could have sex with her.

If the strategy the guys will be using is randomly switching between drinking and checking if the girl next to them complains when they start kissing or caressing her, I don't think it can count as criminal intent. It's more like lottery.

And it's a lottery for those girls as well, because they apparently have no strategy to ensure to have fun and still not have sex. They just rely on luck. And there may be guys on the party which they would consider win even if they did have sex with them (although rarely all of them).

Obviously, there are colleges where the levels or risks are lower and where they are higher. However, unless you forbid all spontaneity (which tends to remove the fun as well ) by something like letting everyone before party (or at least while still sober) state who they don't mind to have sex with, there is no way to make a general written law fair to everyone. (It would also require list of attendees known in advance.)

(Damn ... with the social media getting more and more prevalent, I can totally see that in future people WILL make lists like that before party and that the designated drivers or other sober people would be checking those lists to prevent rapes and accusations of rapes.)

3 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

It's not necessarily inherent to the individual people, it's a cultural indoctrination.  

There is also cultural indoctrination saying that women can't be sincere in stating their sexual preference to not be called sluts or worse.

... actually, noone can be sincere in stating their sexual preference, but the part where straight men are peer-pressured into pretending to want more sex than they do is hardly as problematic as the part where straight women can't admit they go on party to have sex, not speaking about non-straight people.

There are probably lot of girls not wanting to have sex on party, but I don't believe it's true for all of them. At least not for all definitions of sex.

It's that or the alcohol is NOT reason they are unable to consent, it's that they are THAT stupid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Maybe, but I still think it's unfair to assume every man has the mentioned level of skill.

Which is why the rule should be, don't have sex with drunk people.  If you want to have sex, don't drink.  That way there is no question of whether you were too drunk to consent, or whether your partner was.  It's no different from the law which says you can't drive a car if you're drunk -- sure, maybe driving while drunk would be fun at the time, but the potential consequences aren't worth the risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:
32 minutes ago, hkmaly said:

Maybe, but I still think it's unfair to assume every man has the mentioned level of skill.

Which is why the rule should be, don't have sex with drunk people.  If you want to have sex, don't drink.  That way there is no question of whether you were too drunk to consent, or whether your partner was.  It's no different from the law which says you can't drive a car if you're drunk -- sure, maybe driving while drunk would be fun at the time, but the potential consequences aren't worth the risk.

It's worth the risk to lot of people. Even the driving while drunk.

Personally, I don't understand it, but I find hard to understand why people's idea of fun involves alcohol in general.

Remember, those people - especially the teenagers - really want to have fun and they are unlikely to follow ANY rules which sounds like they might lower the fun. And, lot of people need "liquid courage" before sex, or at least think they do.

Any law which only works when people follow it is bad. Law MUST deal with people NOT following it. And while putting all teenagers in jail may be appealing to some, I consider it bad idea: either jail will be so bad experience they will be affected for whole live ... or worse, it fail to be that bad and they will conclude breaking law is not that big problem.

So, having personal rule to not have sex with drunk people may be good idea, but having it as law is not.

Note that teenagers are hard to deal with in general. We are genetically programmed to be rebellious in certain ages. Thousands of years of experience suggests that you won't be able to get this out from majority of people. Channelling that rebelliousness into relationships sounds better than lot of alternatives, and after all, it IS the original reason why we are programmed that way. Between this and the medical fact of direct correlation between age and amount of birth defects, maybe we as society should change how we sees teenage pregnancies. I'm now talking about 17-19 years old having children, not 12-14. And maybe, if it gets more acceptable for teenagers to rebel by having sex, it will reduce the amount of alcohol, nicotine and other, illegal narcotics they rebel by consuming. (Or maybe I'm just optimists ...)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hkmaly said:
6 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Rape isn't about sex.  It's about control.  Being raped by a good-looking guy is *not* less evil than being raped by an ugly one.  It's having something done to you and being unable to stop it, losing control of your own body, having your choices taken away from you.

That's assuming you are unable to stop it. But you have a point. Usually, there is the element of guys being physically stronger ... but it's true this may not be limited to guys, and we are talking about Nanase ...

It's not just a question of physical strength, either. If one is blackmailed or otherwise coerced through non-physical means into having sex, it still counts as rape. (And of course there's situations where the person is in no state to make a decision about consent one way or another, but that's been touched on already in this conversation in relation to alcohol and mind-control.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

Any law which only works when people follow it is bad. Law MUST deal with people NOT following it. And while putting all teenagers in jail may be appealing to some, I consider it bad idea: either jail will be so bad experience they will be affected for whole live ... or worse, it fail to be that bad and they will conclude breaking law is not that big problem.

So, having personal rule to not have sex with drunk people may be good idea, but having it as law is not.

Should we apply the same logic to drunk driving?  Society did for decades -- "That's just how kids are, whatcha gonna do?"  Then, we decided that risking the lives and safety of others is NOT okay, and anyone who drives drunk is committing a serious crime.  And you know what?  Highway fatalities and automobile related fatalities went way down.  The vast majority of people quit doing the stupid, reckless behavior once they were told it was not okay anymore.  Teenagers included.

You seem to think that every teenager is an uncontrolled mass of hormones, but they're not.  They're intelligent human beings and the vast majority of them do NOT engage in highly risky behavior.  If half of teens have had sex by their 18th birthday, that means that half haven't, and of those that have, about three-quarters had sex with a steady partner or spouse, not a casual acquaintance or stranger.  Even by age 20, about one-quarter were still virgins.  It's also well-documented that young women who have had sex are far more likely to have done so with a much older partner, hardly a situation of equality and unpressured consent.

1 hour ago, hkmaly said:

the medical fact of direct correlation between age and amount of birth defects, maybe we as society should change how we sees teenage pregnancies. 

Bzzzt!  Teenage pregnancies are at high risk for low birth weight, premature labor, pre-eclampsia, not to mention lower education levels and poverty.  Worldwide, complications related to pregnancy are the most common cause of death among females 15 to 19 year old.  In the US, almost half of new cases of STIs are college age or younger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ChronosCat said:
3 hours ago, hkmaly said:
7 hours ago, CritterKeeper said:

Rape isn't about sex.  It's about control.  Being raped by a good-looking guy is *not* less evil than being raped by an ugly one.  It's having something done to you and being unable to stop it, losing control of your own body, having your choices taken away from you.

That's assuming you are unable to stop it. But you have a point. Usually, there is the element of guys being physically stronger ... but it's true this may not be limited to guys, and we are talking about Nanase ...

It's not just a question of physical strength, either. If one is blackmailed or otherwise coerced through non-physical means into having sex, it still counts as rape. (And of course there's situations where the person is in no state to make a decision about consent one way or another, but that's been touched on already in this conversation in relation to alcohol and mind-control.)

Yes, I didn't wanted to imply physical strength is only option. But if you reread the thread you will notice we started with specific scenario. Namely, that Nanase would be attacked by mind-controlled party attendees and the attack would have sexual dimension.

Which would make the situation quite complicated, although I still think NotTengu would be only one who should be accused of rape.

23 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

Should we apply the same logic to drunk driving?  Society did for decades -- "That's just how kids are, whatcha gonna do?"  Then, we decided that risking the lives and safety of others is NOT okay, and anyone who drives drunk is committing a serious crime.  And you know what?  Highway fatalities and automobile related fatalities went way down.  The vast majority of people quit doing the stupid, reckless behavior once they were told it was not okay anymore.  Teenagers included.

No, because in such cases the outcome could be death or serious injury of both the drunk driver and basically anyone else.

In cases of pregnancy, you can argue risking lives is also included, but it's just not the same.

(Also, still, while driving drunk is crime basically everywhere, there are still discussions about allowing small amount of alcohol.)

27 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

You seem to think that every teenager is an uncontrolled mass of hormones, but they're not.  They're intelligent human beings and the vast majority of them do NOT engage in highly risky behavior.  If half of teens have had sex by their 18th birthday, that means that half haven't, and of those that have, about three-quarters had sex with a steady partner or spouse, not a casual acquaintance or stranger.  Even by age 20, about one-quarter were still virgins.  It's also well-documented that young women who have had sex are far more likely to have done so with a much older partner, hardly a situation of equality and unpressured consent.

Sooo, the current situation is good and we don't need to change it? Oh, wait, you already answered that half of new cases of STIs are college age or younger, I consider that a "no".

In other words: we don't need to change laws for the teenagers who already DON'T engage in highly risky behavior. We need solution for the ones who DO, and preferably some other solution than locking them all in jail until they are no longer teenagers.

31 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:
Quote

the medical fact of direct correlation between age and amount of birth defects, maybe we as society should change how we sees teenage pregnancies. 

Bzzzt!  Teenage pregnancies are at high risk for low birth weight, premature labor, pre-eclampsia, not to mention lower education levels and poverty.  Worldwide, complications related to pregnancy are the most common cause of death among females 15 to 19 year old.  In the US, almost half of new cases of STIs are college age or younger.

Did anyone bothered to split that statistics by year or was there political pressure not to? Also, you can look at it from angle that females 15 to 19 years old are just so healthy nothing else is endangering them.

(Although it would be serious problem with my idea if the age teenagers are most rebellious might be BEFORE the ideal age for pregnancy, which seems quite likely ...)

The direct correlation between age and amount of birth defects starts definitely before age 30. Women who successfully remained virgins during education usually postpone the pregnancy well past that.

Also, especially in US, I think the major cause for high amount of STI is low sexual education, namely that teenagers are not being told enough about condoms. On the other hand, in context of alcohol use, I have some doubts that two drunk people are able to 1) remember to put condom on 2) actually do it correctly.

And regarding lower education levels and poverty, I think that's not caused by pregnancy but by how the society (and her parents) reacts to teenage mother.

... damn ... we are getting not just offtopic but dangerously so, don't we?

47 minutes ago, CritterKeeper said:

It's also well-documented that young women who have had sex are far more likely to have done so with a much older partner, hardly a situation of equality and unpressured consent.

That suggests the parties teenagers are visiting are not major part of the problem, no matter how drunk they get there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, hkmaly said:

No, because in such cases the outcome could be death or serious injury of both the drunk driver and basically anyone else.

So the only difference is that in rape, the victim is the only one whose life is put in danger?  Pregnancy and its complications, sexually transmitted disease, violence used to subdue, psychological trauma , societal isolation....not to mention the rapist's lawyers dragging her name through the mud trying to convince a jury that she was too slutty to believe it could possibly be rape....so you can add suicide to the list....  Gosh, I guess if the one committing the crime isn't also in danger, you're saying that makes it *less* serious?

Quote

(Also, still, while driving drunk is crime basically everywhere, there are still discussions about allowing small amount of alcohol.)

There are debates about what level of alcohol consumption equals impairment.  The more studies are done, the more effect is found from even small amounts of alcohol.  The criteria has gone from being able to walk straight, to lower and lower levels of alcohol in the blood, as we learn more about what is and isn't safe.  So, can we at least agree that if you're too drunk to drive a car safely, you're too impaired to consent to sex?

Quote

In other words: we don't need to change laws for the teenagers who already DON'T engage in highly risky behavior. We need solution for the ones who DO, and preferably some other solution than locking them all in jail until they are no longer teenagers.

Don't lock up the ones who engage in risky behavior and become victims, lock up the ones who commit the crimes against them.  It's no different from a man walking home drunk from a bar who gets mugged.  The fact that he was drunk doesn't make it okay to mug him.  The fact that a woman is drunk doesn't make it okay to rape her.  The mugger and rapist should both go to jail, whether they were themselves intoxicated when they committed the crimes or not.

Likewise, being young and rebellious is not an excuse to commit rape.  My point citing statistics of healthy behavior was that there are plenty of teens who manage to avoid committing rape, so trying to use youth as an excuse for it doesn't work any more than saying they should get a pass on mugging or burglary because "boys will be boys."

Quote

Did anyone bothered to split that statistics by year or was there political pressure not to? Also, you can look at it from angle that females 15 to 19 years old are just so healthy nothing else is endangering them.

You have a pretty skewed idea of how immortal young people aren't.  Or maybe of how dangerous pregnancy can be.

Quote

(Although it would be serious problem with my idea if the age teenagers are most rebellious might be BEFORE the ideal age for pregnancy, which seems quite likely ...)

Yes, teen pregnancy starts as young as ten years old, and peaks at 18-19, ages at which they are still prone to medical complications, as well as social and emotional ones.  (I say peaks because it drops off at 20-24, not technically a teen anymore but still in the college age group we were discussing.)

Quote

The direct correlation between age and amount of birth defects starts definitely before age 30. Women who successfully remained virgins during education usually postpone the pregnancy well past that.

Not necessarily.  Waiting until college graduation is usually age 22, assuming four years of undergrad and no skipped grades.  I graduated vet school at 25.  (And one of my classmates went into labor with one baby during finals our first year, and was due any minute with her second at our graduation ceremony, not exactly relevant but not exactly not, either. ;-)

Quote

Also, especially in US, I think the major cause for high amount of STI is low sexual education, namely that teenagers are not being told enough about condoms. On the other hand, in context of alcohol use, I have some doubts that two drunk people are able to 1) remember to put condom on 2) actually do it correctly.

I agree that we need a lot more education, preferably about all different forms of birth control and disease prevention.  Discussing issues like emotional commitment and risks, variations of attraction and expression, safe sex and safewords, etc. would be great, too, while we're at it.  And, being too drunk to operate a condom is another sign of being too drunk to give consent.

Quote

And regarding lower education levels and poverty, I think that's not caused by pregnancy but by how the society (and her parents) reacts to teenage mother.

There are practical reasons.  Any new parent will tell you having a baby is exhausting, physically and emotionally.  Unless they go to a high school with a nursery, child care often forces kids to drop out.  Except, of course, the rich ones, who would traditionally be sent on a Grand Tour of Europe until the embarrassing situation was resolved and the baby safely adopted out, at which point they'd return to school and try to pretend they'd had a grand adventure.  Meanwhile, the poor girl's family either kicks her out or drains their meager college fund paying for diapers and onesies instead of tuition, and the girl ends up having to get a job to support herself and her offspring instead of going back to school once that might be possible.  Lower education level plus extra expenses equals lower income and less savings, equals worse poverty.

Quote

That suggests the parties teenagers are visiting are not major part of the problem, no matter how drunk they get there.

It is if that's where the young girls meet the older guys.  Inexperienced high schoolers being invited to a college party where there's handsome older college boys and booze, and possibly some guys who are out of college, the young girls feel flattered, like they're being seen as grown-ups and desirable, even if they are naive and only pictured kissing those older men, not going any farther.  And, again, one drink leads to lowered judgement leads to more drinks, until they're too drunk to consent but prime targets for those who don't care about such things.

Quote

... damn ... we are getting not just offtopic but dangerously so, don't we?

Eh, it's kind of nice to see an intelligent, ernest discussion of an important topic, especially as the boards seemed a bit slow lately.  :-)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this