University of Ottawa "naked pub crawl"

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by wookster

None of this discussion matters anyway as now that this event has been made public, it will be as good as dead, at least as far at it being associated with the university.

Three cheers for the regressives!

[Sainters7]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Man, I never get invited to the fun parties. Actually that's not true. I get invited to fun parties, just not the fun sex parties.

Haha reminds me of the "Flipadelphia" Sunny episode when Charlie & Mac visit the dorm to challenge them, and stumble upon the greatest party ever full of gorgeous women and neon body painting. "This is what college is like?!? I feel like I got boned big-time!"

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by troutman

Can consent be provided while under the impairment of alcohol/drugs, or extreme peer pressure and undue influence?

Isn't that what a signed and notarized waiver completed for each individual is for?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Reaper

Isn't that what a signed and notarized waiver completed for each individual is for?

I think it unlikely such a thing would hold up against a person stating they withdrew consent. Though it might shift the burden as it comes to my-word-vs-your-word .

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

IANAL, of course, but I think it unlikely such a thing would hold up against a person stating they withdrew consent.

See, that's why I asked. I anal as well but I'm not familiar with these sex parties.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by rubecube

You missed a great opportunity to make a "pulling out" joke.

I thought saying "your eyes are wide shut" would be too clever.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Damn, glad this happened when I wasn't paying attention... anyway, I agree with Cliff. The problem with saying "we're worried about what's consensual" is... well, yeah, everyone worth listening to agrees that non-consensual sexual activity is assault. The thing is, if you define consent narrowly down to the point where you basically have to sign a waiver, there's a lot less fun to be had in this arena. Social pressure doesn't vitiate agency, it certainly doesn't remove the ability to make a conscious decision to do, or not do something.

And yeah, there is a clear regressive-left strain of people who will oppose this, founded ostensibly on the best of intentions - protecting those perceived as vulnerable. But it's a zero sum game, because the other people who want to participate in this stuff should be able to do so without any fear of reprisal and can't be held accountable for the internal conflict of those who might be on the fence.

[GGG]

The risk to the students association in permitting to go on in their facilities or be put on by one of their associations is higher than the benefits to the student groups brought by this event so the university or its student associations shouldn't be involved.

The judging and the judges giving out points puts them in a power relationship over the person. To me it's similar to the PUA version of consent.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The thing is, if you define consent narrowly down to the point where you basically have to sign a waiver, there's a lot less fun to be had in this arena. Social pressure doesn't vitiate agency, it certainly doesn't remove the ability to make a conscious decision to do, or not do something.

And yeah, there is a clear regressive-left strain of people who will oppose this, founded ostensibly on the best of intentions - protecting those perceived as vulnerable. But it's a zero sum game, because the other people who want to participate in this stuff should be able to do so without any fear of reprisal and can't be held accountable for the internal conflict of those who might be on the fence.

Please show me where anyone is making either of these arguments. Being concerned that people are practicing consent isn't the same as wanting to quash these activities. The far-left's PLUR and Sex+ stances/campaigns directly contradicts the positions you and Cliff have attributed to them, which kind of makes it look like neither of you really know or have researched what you're arguing against.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The thing is, if you define consent narrowly down to the point where you basically have to sign a waiver

I've seen this a couple times in this thread, iirc, and signing a waiver over consent doesn't matter, since I can sign the waiver, set the pen down, and immediately revoke my consent. A waiver isn't a contract, and consent isn't bound by it.

[jonesy]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

I've seen this a couple times in this thread, iirc, and signing a waiver over consent doesn't matter, since I can sign the waiver, set the pen down, and immediately revoke my consent. A waiver isn't a contract, and consent isn't bound by it.

I don't get this. You can sign a form saying one thing, then verbally go against that, with no evidence and it revokes the paper? So what value is signing anything, you can just say you revoked it later.
Is this the same for any signed contract, just verbally revoke it at any time?

[Resolute 14]

Obviously it is not for any signed contract. But a "waiver" of consent is not a contract.

[btimbit]

Man, I should have went to university

[peter12]

Neo-Puritanism.

[OffsideSpecialist]

Originally Posted by btimbit

Man, I should have went to university

Nah. I went to UOttawa, and I never got invited to any wild sex parties

[stampsx2]

Naked pub crawl. Can we get this moved to the losing faith in humanity thread? People are so proud of how civilized and advanced we are. Far from it.

[Clarkey]

This site represents a uniquely ironic mix of libertarianism and completely prudish, politically sensitive bs.

[JohnnyB]

Genuine question: Why is it that when someone subject to social pressures goes along with fraud, commits an act of violence or participates in some other crime they are judged as individually responsible, but when someone subject to social pressure gets involved in sexual activity they are considered a victim?

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by JohnnyB

Genuine question: Why is it that when someone subject to social pressures goes along with fraud, commits an act of violence or participates in some other crime they are judged as individually responsible, but when someone subject to social pressure gets involved in sexual activity they are considered a victim?

It's not really one or the other. Someone can be individually responsible and a victim of peer or environmental pressure at the same time. Again, I'm less likely to think that way if someone is in their mid-20s but we know that teenagers are extra susceptible to peer pressure.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It's not really one or the other. Someone can be individually responsible and a victim of peer or environmental pressure at the same time. Again, I'm less likely to think that way if someone is in their mid-20s but we know that teenagers are extra susceptible to peer pressure.

Doesn't matter. People need to be responsible for their own actions and be allowed to "make mistakes".

Being peer pressured into doing something shouldn't vitiate consent. That's asinine.

We can find something morally repugnant without it being illegal.