HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
Anyways, the porn industry is circling its wagons around the actresses who've made accusations about James Deen. Looks like the guy is getting the boot.
To which I say: good. Fuck that guy, and his stupid creepy smile.
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
The OP is about consent tho along with an example for talking about. The H/A thread is just another one.
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
Guy is constantly wanting to get physical, she says no. Eventually, guy forces a kiss physically.
Then guy constantly says they should have sex. After forcing a kiss physically that she didn't consent to.
So basically there's an element of fear here. Fear that if she continues to say no, he's going to force it anyway. By forcing the unwanted kiss the guy showed his hand, showed that he was more than willing to force her to do sexual things that she doesn't consent to.
So she consents under duress.
Which is rape.
Bolded is where the speculation and made up stuff begins. There's no element of fear in the H/A example. They remain together despite meeting "while travelling", which of course we know nothing about w/r/t circumstance. Are they on a buss? Are they staying the same hostel? If there is fear, why are they still together when they are independently traveling with their own finances??? She could literally just stop traveling with him. Done.
H/A thread's OP says her "willpower broke", which implies she was resisting the desire to say yes the whole time.
There is no number of requests for sex after which sex is rape. There can be no assumption of fear and coercion when:
1) We don't know how or why these two people are still together after the "forced kiss", much less why they are together for several hours. We do know they came together independently and we must presume that she can leave independently as well, as there's no mention of anything to the contrary.
2) Woman in question clearly implies that she desired sex but was resisting out of obligation, until she gave in.
3) Woman in question considers herself to have consented.
It seems possible to consent to sex even after someone escalates physical contact that you initiate in a way you don't want, especially after many hours have passed with no restraint or intimidation. We cannot assume that she was afraid because she was a woman or for any other reason, especially given that we know very few facts about the travel situation except that they met during the trip (which demonstrates that they can travel independently and counts as a mark strongly against coercion or restraint or intimidation) and that we know she considered her resistance to the advances of someone she found attractive a matter of willpower resisting desire rather than resisting outside force.
Guy in question is a silly goose, and maaaaaybe guilty of a misdemeanor assault but we can't invalidate consent because we don't like the person asking for it or even because they committed a nonviolent crime several hours earlier. This is exactly the sort of thing that muddies the waters between rape and regret and does a disservice to victims.
Holy crap, there's some stuff to unpack here.
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
Consent given under duress/coercion isn't valid consent. Sex without valid consent is rape.
This is a thread about consent. What is it, how does it work, and, possibly most importantly, how does it not work? This isn't a thread for speculation about a single specific situation. As I said in an earlier post, it's not on us, to pass judgement on this situation, to decide what actually happened. That's not our responsibility--heck, that's not our place. We can absolutely talk about the broader concepts that situation deals with, though. That'd be a much more productive conversation anyway, because we can avoid all that speculation, which is, on the whole, something that is definitely worth avoiding.
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
On it's own? No.
If combined with other pressures (intimidation being one)? Potentially or likely.
How one would be able to do it in a vacuum without any other pressures is beyond me however.
Death of Rats on
No I don't.
0
UnbrokenEvaHIGH ON THE WIREBUT I WON'T TRIP ITRegistered Userregular
Why can't asking someone for sex be as simple as asking if they want to play cards?
Because for too many people, making sure they don't miss an opportunity for sex is a higher priority than making sure their potential partner actually wants to have sex.
In my mind, the only thing in this particular situation that would make this rape vs not rape is if she herself felt she couldn't say no. Once the guy assaulted her for the kiss none of the rest of it matters.
Was she intimidated? Felt like she couldn't leave? Wanted to stay? Drunk and not able to drive?
I don't know. But I'm not going to assume that she was perfectly able to leave whatever situation they were in. Maybe my language was a little too black and white for you, but with the situation that was laid out there's as much of a chance she was raped vs it being consensual. And the only thing that decides that is if she felt she couldn't say no.
It's the most important point, and it is unaddressed in the thread. With what we have, there's no way to know whether she felt unable to refuse and we're left trying to draw inferences. It doesn't seem like she felt unable to refuse though. It just seems like projection to think otherwise.
Hell, we're making a lot of assumptions about things here. She could be a 6'2" 250lb roller derby player and him a 5'4" 110lb asthmatic with a limp.
We simply don't know, and I think it's disturbing that folks are willing, in the absence of even the barest of strong information to guide us and with several tidbits that weigh against, to discard a woman's belief about what she did and instead declare it a rape.
There's believing the victim, and then there's creating a victim.
I guess my question to you is are you saying that hands down it wasn't rape? I mean, I'm not trying to say that the girl was definitely raped. But the situation that was presented doesn't make it clear at all that it was consensual. Only that consent was given after an assault was committed to force her to kiss him. I'm fine with saying we simply don't have enough information to say one way or another. I'm not fine with saying we have enough information to make it likely this wasn't a rape.
yeah that seems like a fair middle ground, though again, I am very uncomfortable ignoring the opinion of the person in question. But yeah, "not enough information" I can get behind. Before I saw that Tube locked the thread, I was going to request more info before offering any advice! So I feel like my instincts run in that direction already.
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
The OP is about consent tho along with an example for talking about. The H/A thread is just another one.
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
Guy is constantly wanting to get physical, she says no. Eventually, guy forces a kiss physically.
Then guy constantly says they should have sex. After forcing a kiss physically that she didn't consent to.
So basically there's an element of fear here. Fear that if she continues to say no, he's going to force it anyway. By forcing the unwanted kiss the guy showed his hand, showed that he was more than willing to force her to do sexual things that she doesn't consent to.
So she consents under duress.
Which is rape.
Bolded is where the speculation and made up stuff begins. There's no element of fear in the H/A example. They remain together despite meeting "while travelling", which of course we know nothing about w/r/t circumstance. Are they on a buss? Are they staying the same hostel? If there is fear, why are they still together when they are independently traveling with their own finances??? She could literally just stop traveling with him. Done.
H/A thread's OP says her "willpower broke", which implies she was resisting the desire to say yes the whole time.
There is no number of requests for sex after which sex is rape. There can be no assumption of fear and coercion when:
1) We don't know how or why these two people are still together after the "forced kiss", much less why they are together for several hours. We do know they came together independently and we must presume that she can leave independently as well, as there's no mention of anything to the contrary.
2) Woman in question clearly implies that she desired sex but was resisting out of obligation, until she gave in.
3) Woman in question considers herself to have consented.
It seems possible to consent to sex even after someone escalates physical contact that you initiate in a way you don't want, especially after many hours have passed with no restraint or intimidation. We cannot assume that she was afraid because she was a woman or for any other reason, especially given that we know very few facts about the travel situation except that they met during the trip (which demonstrates that they can travel independently and counts as a mark strongly against coercion or restraint or intimidation) and that we know she considered her resistance to the advances of someone she found attractive a matter of willpower resisting desire rather than resisting outside force.
Guy in question is a silly goose, and maaaaaybe guilty of a misdemeanor assault but we can't invalidate consent because we don't like the person asking for it or even because they committed a nonviolent crime several hours earlier. This is exactly the sort of thing that muddies the waters between rape and regret and does a disservice to victims.
Holy crap, there's some stuff to unpack here.
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
I notice you omitted the part where I said that, while we could argue the semantics of that specific term, it's missing the more important point that no matter what you call it, it's not okay. I don't see what value there is in deciding the degree of inappropriateness.
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
The OP is about consent tho along with an example for talking about. The H/A thread is just another one.
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
Guy is constantly wanting to get physical, she says no. Eventually, guy forces a kiss physically.
Then guy constantly says they should have sex. After forcing a kiss physically that she didn't consent to.
So basically there's an element of fear here. Fear that if she continues to say no, he's going to force it anyway. By forcing the unwanted kiss the guy showed his hand, showed that he was more than willing to force her to do sexual things that she doesn't consent to.
So she consents under duress.
Which is rape.
Bolded is where the speculation and made up stuff begins. There's no element of fear in the H/A example. They remain together despite meeting "while travelling", which of course we know nothing about w/r/t circumstance. Are they on a buss? Are they staying the same hostel? If there is fear, why are they still together when they are independently traveling with their own finances??? She could literally just stop traveling with him. Done.
H/A thread's OP says her "willpower broke", which implies she was resisting the desire to say yes the whole time.
There is no number of requests for sex after which sex is rape. There can be no assumption of fear and coercion when:
1) We don't know how or why these two people are still together after the "forced kiss", much less why they are together for several hours. We do know they came together independently and we must presume that she can leave independently as well, as there's no mention of anything to the contrary.
2) Woman in question clearly implies that she desired sex but was resisting out of obligation, until she gave in.
3) Woman in question considers herself to have consented.
It seems possible to consent to sex even after someone escalates physical contact that you initiate in a way you don't want, especially after many hours have passed with no restraint or intimidation. We cannot assume that she was afraid because she was a woman or for any other reason, especially given that we know very few facts about the travel situation except that they met during the trip (which demonstrates that they can travel independently and counts as a mark strongly against coercion or restraint or intimidation) and that we know she considered her resistance to the advances of someone she found attractive a matter of willpower resisting desire rather than resisting outside force.
Guy in question is a silly goose, and maaaaaybe guilty of a misdemeanor assault but we can't invalidate consent because we don't like the person asking for it or even because they committed a nonviolent crime several hours earlier. This is exactly the sort of thing that muddies the waters between rape and regret and does a disservice to victims.
Holy crap, there's some stuff to unpack here.
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
I notice you omitted the part where I said that, while we could argue the semantics of that specific term, it's missing the more important point that no matter what you call it, it's not okay. I don't see what value there is in deciding the degree of inappropriateness.
I feel like there's a lot of value in discussing whether eventual consent is rape, in a thread about consent.
This is a thread about consent. What is it, how does it work, and, possibly most importantly, how does it not work? This isn't a thread for speculation about a single specific situation. As I said in an earlier post, it's not on us, to pass judgement on this situation, to decide what actually happened. That's not our responsibility--heck, that's not our place. We can absolutely talk about the broader concepts that situation deals with, though. That'd be a much more productive conversation anyway, because we can avoid all that speculation, which is, on the whole, something that is definitely worth avoiding.
Yes I agree with this. Picking apart the specific details seems like it will mostly lead to people sniping at each other, as people are limited to their own interpretations of the events that have only been detailed by a single third party.
At a minimum it is a good case for the importance of "enthusiastic consent" rather than just "consent"
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
The OP is about consent tho along with an example for talking about. The H/A thread is just another one.
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
Guy is constantly wanting to get physical, she says no. Eventually, guy forces a kiss physically.
Then guy constantly says they should have sex. After forcing a kiss physically that she didn't consent to.
So basically there's an element of fear here. Fear that if she continues to say no, he's going to force it anyway. By forcing the unwanted kiss the guy showed his hand, showed that he was more than willing to force her to do sexual things that she doesn't consent to.
So she consents under duress.
Which is rape.
Bolded is where the speculation and made up stuff begins. There's no element of fear in the H/A example. They remain together despite meeting "while travelling", which of course we know nothing about w/r/t circumstance. Are they on a buss? Are they staying the same hostel? If there is fear, why are they still together when they are independently traveling with their own finances??? She could literally just stop traveling with him. Done.
H/A thread's OP says her "willpower broke", which implies she was resisting the desire to say yes the whole time.
There is no number of requests for sex after which sex is rape. There can be no assumption of fear and coercion when:
1) We don't know how or why these two people are still together after the "forced kiss", much less why they are together for several hours. We do know they came together independently and we must presume that she can leave independently as well, as there's no mention of anything to the contrary.
2) Woman in question clearly implies that she desired sex but was resisting out of obligation, until she gave in.
3) Woman in question considers herself to have consented.
It seems possible to consent to sex even after someone escalates physical contact that you initiate in a way you don't want, especially after many hours have passed with no restraint or intimidation. We cannot assume that she was afraid because she was a woman or for any other reason, especially given that we know very few facts about the travel situation except that they met during the trip (which demonstrates that they can travel independently and counts as a mark strongly against coercion or restraint or intimidation) and that we know she considered her resistance to the advances of someone she found attractive a matter of willpower resisting desire rather than resisting outside force.
Guy in question is a silly goose, and maaaaaybe guilty of a misdemeanor assault but we can't invalidate consent because we don't like the person asking for it or even because they committed a nonviolent crime several hours earlier. This is exactly the sort of thing that muddies the waters between rape and regret and does a disservice to victims.
Holy crap, there's some stuff to unpack here.
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
I notice you omitted the part where I said that, while we could argue the semantics of that specific term, it's missing the more important point that no matter what you call it, it's not okay. I don't see what value there is in deciding the degree of inappropriateness.
I feel like there's a lot of value in discussing whether eventual consent is rape, in a thread about consent.
If someone asks me to go to the mall, and I say no, cool. If they keep hassling me for the entire morning, and eventually we go to the mall together, with them driving and me just sulking in the seat and staying quiet and just dealing with it because fuck this guy god fucking dammit, and then we shop for twenty minutes and he drops me off at my place and leaves, was that a consensual trip to the mall? Should he have respected my desire to not go to the mall in the first place? Did he violate my boundaries by forcing the issue of lets go to the mall? Yes.
Now let's change the scene to something a lot more personal and important than going to the mall, like having sex. Do you get how that's fucking skeevy and unpleasant and not actually consent? How enthusiastic consent is absolutely critical to avoid a violation of one party?
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
The OP is about consent tho along with an example for talking about. The H/A thread is just another one.
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
Guy is constantly wanting to get physical, she says no. Eventually, guy forces a kiss physically.
Then guy constantly says they should have sex. After forcing a kiss physically that she didn't consent to.
So basically there's an element of fear here. Fear that if she continues to say no, he's going to force it anyway. By forcing the unwanted kiss the guy showed his hand, showed that he was more than willing to force her to do sexual things that she doesn't consent to.
So she consents under duress.
Which is rape.
Bolded is where the speculation and made up stuff begins. There's no element of fear in the H/A example. They remain together despite meeting "while travelling", which of course we know nothing about w/r/t circumstance. Are they on a buss? Are they staying the same hostel? If there is fear, why are they still together when they are independently traveling with their own finances??? She could literally just stop traveling with him. Done.
H/A thread's OP says her "willpower broke", which implies she was resisting the desire to say yes the whole time.
There is no number of requests for sex after which sex is rape. There can be no assumption of fear and coercion when:
1) We don't know how or why these two people are still together after the "forced kiss", much less why they are together for several hours. We do know they came together independently and we must presume that she can leave independently as well, as there's no mention of anything to the contrary.
2) Woman in question clearly implies that she desired sex but was resisting out of obligation, until she gave in.
3) Woman in question considers herself to have consented.
It seems possible to consent to sex even after someone escalates physical contact that you initiate in a way you don't want, especially after many hours have passed with no restraint or intimidation. We cannot assume that she was afraid because she was a woman or for any other reason, especially given that we know very few facts about the travel situation except that they met during the trip (which demonstrates that they can travel independently and counts as a mark strongly against coercion or restraint or intimidation) and that we know she considered her resistance to the advances of someone she found attractive a matter of willpower resisting desire rather than resisting outside force.
Guy in question is a silly goose, and maaaaaybe guilty of a misdemeanor assault but we can't invalidate consent because we don't like the person asking for it or even because they committed a nonviolent crime several hours earlier. This is exactly the sort of thing that muddies the waters between rape and regret and does a disservice to victims.
Holy crap, there's some stuff to unpack here.
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
I notice you omitted the part where I said that, while we could argue the semantics of that specific term, it's missing the more important point that no matter what you call it, it's not okay. I don't see what value there is in deciding the degree of inappropriateness.
I feel like there's a lot of value in discussing whether eventual consent is rape, in a thread about consent.
I think there's a lot of variables behind that one that could push it to either side of the rape line
Right here in this thread we've had multiple examples given to justify it to either side
I also don't think that the strict term rape is necessary to make something, y'know, terrible
+5
CorporateLogoThe toilet knowshow I feelRegistered Userregular
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
On it's own? No.
If combined with other pressures (intimidation being one)? Potentially or likely.
How one would be able to do it in a vacuum without any other pressures is beyond me however.
I largely agree with you. Do the pressures only tilt toward a possible yes, in your mind?
I guess I can imagine some plausible situations where consent after repeated requests, even spanning a long stretch of time, don't add up to anything more than standard consent. I even think that some ultimatums don't invalidate consent, e.g. "if we don't start having a lot more sex, this relationship is over".
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
On it's own? No.
If combined with other pressures (intimidation being one)? Potentially or likely.
How one would be able to do it in a vacuum without any other pressures is beyond me however.
I largely agree with you. Do the pressures only tilt toward a possible yes, in your mind?
I guess I can imagine some plausible situations where consent after repeated requests, even spanning a long stretch of time, don't add up to anything more than standard consent. I even think that some ultimatums don't invalidate consent, e.g. "if we don't start having a lot more sex, this relationship is over".
Yeah, that's just a form of emotional abuse/manipulation. Which is coercion, coerced consent is not valid. Like what the fuck, man?
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
The OP is about consent tho along with an example for talking about. The H/A thread is just another one.
Just because a person was led to saying 'yes' or 'ok' through coercion, manipulation, or threat, does not mean that they bear responsibility for what happened to them. In a situation described in the thread, a person isn't choosing to have sex, they're choosing whether they want to be physically assaulted and raped, or just raped. It isn't much of a choice.
Reading the thread you linked, your description bears no relationship to it.
I really probably shouldn't continue the discussion about another thread in another forum, but here I go anyway.
Dude physically restrained her and forced himself on her, for 'just' a kiss. He continued to harass her for several hours until she 'consented' under duress, and the stress, or some other factor involved, was significant enough to cause memory loss. Those are the facts posted in the thread. In what way is that consent anything other than forced and unenthusiastic?
Since it was a travel situation, it's also possible/likely that she didn't have a way to easily remove herself from the situation. There are actions she probably could have taken to avoid the situation in the first place, but that's getting into weird victim blaming territory, as well as wild speculation.
You have liberally added your own interpretation and called it fact. We shouldn't argue this here though, so let's step aside so we can discuss the OP instead.
Guy is constantly wanting to get physical, she says no. Eventually, guy forces a kiss physically.
Then guy constantly says they should have sex. After forcing a kiss physically that she didn't consent to.
So basically there's an element of fear here. Fear that if she continues to say no, he's going to force it anyway. By forcing the unwanted kiss the guy showed his hand, showed that he was more than willing to force her to do sexual things that she doesn't consent to.
So she consents under duress.
Which is rape.
Bolded is where the speculation and made up stuff begins. There's no element of fear in the H/A example. They remain together despite meeting "while travelling", which of course we know nothing about w/r/t circumstance. Are they on a buss? Are they staying the same hostel? If there is fear, why are they still together when they are independently traveling with their own finances??? She could literally just stop traveling with him. Done.
H/A thread's OP says her "willpower broke", which implies she was resisting the desire to say yes the whole time.
There is no number of requests for sex after which sex is rape. There can be no assumption of fear and coercion when:
1) We don't know how or why these two people are still together after the "forced kiss", much less why they are together for several hours. We do know they came together independently and we must presume that she can leave independently as well, as there's no mention of anything to the contrary.
2) Woman in question clearly implies that she desired sex but was resisting out of obligation, until she gave in.
3) Woman in question considers herself to have consented.
It seems possible to consent to sex even after someone escalates physical contact that you initiate in a way you don't want, especially after many hours have passed with no restraint or intimidation. We cannot assume that she was afraid because she was a woman or for any other reason, especially given that we know very few facts about the travel situation except that they met during the trip (which demonstrates that they can travel independently and counts as a mark strongly against coercion or restraint or intimidation) and that we know she considered her resistance to the advances of someone she found attractive a matter of willpower resisting desire rather than resisting outside force.
Guy in question is a silly goose, and maaaaaybe guilty of a misdemeanor assault but we can't invalidate consent because we don't like the person asking for it or even because they committed a nonviolent crime several hours earlier. This is exactly the sort of thing that muddies the waters between rape and regret and does a disservice to victims.
Holy crap, there's some stuff to unpack here.
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
I notice you omitted the part where I said that, while we could argue the semantics of that specific term, it's missing the more important point that no matter what you call it, it's not okay. I don't see what value there is in deciding the degree of inappropriateness.
I feel like there's a lot of value in discussing whether eventual consent is rape, in a thread about consent.
If someone asks me to go to the mall, and I say no, cool. If they keep hassling me for the entire morning, and eventually we go to the mall together, with them driving and me just sulking in the seat and staying quiet and just dealing with it because fuck this guy god fucking dammit, and then we shop for twenty minutes and he drops me off at my place and leaves, was that a consensual trip to the mall? Should he have respected my desire to not go to the mall in the first place? Did he violate my boundaries by forcing the issue of lets go to the mall? Yes.
Now let's change the scene to something a lot more personal and important than going to the mall, like having sex. Do you get how that's fucking skeevy and unpleasant and not actually consent? How enthusiastic consent is absolutely critical to avoid a violation of one party?
Was it consensual? yes
Should he have respected you instead? Absolutely
Did he violate your boundaries? possibly.
Do I get how it's skeevy and unpleasant? Absolutely!
Do I get how it's not actually consent? No.
How enthusiastic consent is absolutely critical to avoid a violation? It depends what is being violated - you're mixing terms to much for me to answer clearly. .
By "in a vacuum" I mean that's the only thing that has ever happened. The question being repeated is the only thing. There's no society or chance of intimidation because of physical size or social factors. There's no relationship between the two people. There's no way the answer being no could harm the person.
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
On it's own? No.
If combined with other pressures (intimidation being one)? Potentially or likely.
How one would be able to do it in a vacuum without any other pressures is beyond me however.
I largely agree with you. Do the pressures only tilt toward a possible yes, in your mind?
I guess I can imagine some plausible situations where consent after repeated requests, even spanning a long stretch of time, don't add up to anything more than standard consent. I even think that some ultimatums don't invalidate consent, e.g. "if we don't start having a lot more sex, this relationship is over".
Yeah, that's just a form of emotional abuse/manipulation. Which is coercion, coerced consent is not valid. Like what the fuck, man?
Yeah, here's the thing, spool
If you really wanted to bring up an inactive sex life as a deal breaker in a relationship, you'd say something along the lines of, "Hey, I'm looking for more out of the physical aspect of this relationship. Can we talk about it?"
Not, "I will leave you unless you have sex with me more often."
The former is how you properly communicate with a partner you respect. The latter is using emotional manipulation to get something you want. Can you seriously not see the difference?
Stilts on
+20
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
It is not consent because its not as simple as going shopping. Its because there are real fears for people who are being pressurised that they may not be able to remove their self from the situation and have to remain there, that the pressure will never stop and increase, that the person doing the pressuring will get angry and force themselves upon you out of anger. The person being pressured does not want to have sex with the person pressuring, but they feel they have no choice the escape the situation, they are doing what they must to survive.
I feel like there's a lot of value in discussing whether eventual consent is rape, in a thread about consent.
(Snipped the rest because that quote tree was getting unwieldly)
Can I ask why? If continuing to badger someone about having sex after they say "no" is wrong, then why does it matter if them eventually "consenting" can be defined as "rape" or not? Rape isn't the line between okay and not okay. To put it another way, it doesn't matter to you or me whether something is murder 1 or manslaughter because the important part shouldn't be how bad the act was. The important part should be that a person is dead.
The thing about consent is that as soon as it's not there, that needs to be the end of it. Semantic arguments about how much of a violation it is aren't productive because there's no amount of crossing the line that's okay. There's also no crossing the line, then circling back. When the line is crossed, that's it, a bad thing has been done and you can't take a bad thing back.
And I don't think that's how anyone else in this thread considers it
There's definitely a bit more to the idea of consent than simply agreeing
I completely agree. Consent is as simple as one person making sure the other person wants to do something before it happens. Anything that makes that answer more likely a yes is potentially something that invalidates the consent.
Was it consensual? yes
Should he have respected you instead? Absolutely
Did he violate your boundaries? possibly.
Do I get how it's skeevy and unpleasant? Absolutely!
Do I get how it's not actually consent? No.
How enthusiastic consent is absolutely critical to avoid a violation? It depends what is being violated - you're mixing terms to much for me to answer clearly. .
edit: clarity on my part
Uh
Question for you
What violations do you feel wouldn't count as rape?
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
On it's own? No.
If combined with other pressures (intimidation being one)? Potentially or likely.
How one would be able to do it in a vacuum without any other pressures is beyond me however.
I largely agree with you. Do the pressures only tilt toward a possible yes, in your mind?
I guess I can imagine some plausible situations where consent after repeated requests, even spanning a long stretch of time, don't add up to anything more than standard consent. I even think that some ultimatums don't invalidate consent, e.g. "if we don't start having a lot more sex, this relationship is over".
Yeah, that's just a form of emotional abuse/manipulation. Which is coercion, coerced consent is not valid. Like what the fuck, man?
Why is it emotional abuse or manipulation? It's a clearly stated situation - x doesn't want to be in the relationship without a lot of sex as a component. If y doesn't want that kind of relationship, then x will leave. That seems entirely reasonable as a way to clarify that the physical aspect of the relationship isn't compatible and if that bridge can't be crossed, it's over.
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
On it's own? No.
If combined with other pressures (intimidation being one)? Potentially or likely.
How one would be able to do it in a vacuum without any other pressures is beyond me however.
I largely agree with you. Do the pressures only tilt toward a possible yes, in your mind?
I guess I can imagine some plausible situations where consent after repeated requests, even spanning a long stretch of time, don't add up to anything more than standard consent. I even think that some ultimatums don't invalidate consent, e.g. "if we don't start having a lot more sex, this relationship is over".
Yeah, that's just a form of emotional abuse/manipulation. Which is coercion, coerced consent is not valid. Like what the fuck, man?
Why is it emotional abuse or manipulation? It's a clearly stated situation - x doesn't want to be in the relationship without a lot of sex as a component. If y doesn't want that kind of relationship, then x will leave. That seems entirely reasonable as a way to clarify that the physical aspect of the relationship isn't compatible and if that bridge can't be crossed, it's over.
Please scroll up the thread to my post to see why phrasing something that way is fucked up.
One thing that really muddies the waters on conversations about consent v. enthusiastic consent is, I firmly believe, profoundly shitty media. Like, the crux of a solid 90% of rom-coms (that I'm familiar with, at any rate) feature "Pestering somebody until they say yes is the most romantic thing in the world." So that pestering isn't seen as coercion, or as badgering, but as "persistence."
It can be really hard to deprogram that.
+48
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
On it's own? No.
If combined with other pressures (intimidation being one)? Potentially or likely.
How one would be able to do it in a vacuum without any other pressures is beyond me however.
I largely agree with you. Do the pressures only tilt toward a possible yes, in your mind?
I guess I can imagine some plausible situations where consent after repeated requests, even spanning a long stretch of time, don't add up to anything more than standard consent. I even think that some ultimatums don't invalidate consent, e.g. "if we don't start having a lot more sex, this relationship is over".
Yeah, that's just a form of emotional abuse/manipulation. Which is coercion, coerced consent is not valid. Like what the fuck, man?
Why is it emotional abuse or manipulation? It's a clearly stated situation - x doesn't want to be in the relationship without a lot of sex as a component. If y doesn't want that kind of relationship, then x will leave. That seems entirely reasonable as a way to clarify that the physical aspect of the relationship isn't compatible and if that bridge can't be crossed, it's over.
It is turning an interpersonal relationship into a business transaction
It is saying I have something you want (a relationship, in whatever terms it is defined)
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
On it's own? No.
If combined with other pressures (intimidation being one)? Potentially or likely.
How one would be able to do it in a vacuum without any other pressures is beyond me however.
I largely agree with you. Do the pressures only tilt toward a possible yes, in your mind?
I guess I can imagine some plausible situations where consent after repeated requests, even spanning a long stretch of time, don't add up to anything more than standard consent. I even think that some ultimatums don't invalidate consent, e.g. "if we don't start having a lot more sex, this relationship is over".
Yeah, that's just a form of emotional abuse/manipulation. Which is coercion, coerced consent is not valid. Like what the fuck, man?
Yeah, here's the thing, spool
If you really wanted to bring up an inactive sex life as a deal breaker in a relationship, you'd say something along the lines of, "Hey, I'm looking for more out of the physical aspect of this relationship. Can we talk about it?"
Not, "I will leave you unless you have sex with me more often."
The former is how you properly communicate with a partner you respect. The latter is using emotional manipulation to get something you want. Can you seriously not see the difference?
I absolutely agree that the open-ended approach is likely to be more effective and definitely is more healthy. I'd counsel doing it, for certain. I don't think it renders the more blunt framing emotionally manipulative though.
Why is it emotional abuse or manipulation? It's a clearly stated situation - x doesn't want to be in the relationship without a lot of sex as a component. If y doesn't want that kind of relationship, then x will leave. That seems entirely reasonable as a way to clarify that the physical aspect of the relationship isn't compatible and if that bridge can't be crossed, it's over.
It is not that clear cut. Often people can't leave because they are in love, and that makes people want to stay and hope a relationship improves/changes, it is incredibly difficult to leave a relationship where you are strongly emotionally involved. There may be emotional support which they cannot cope without, or financial, or children involved.
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
On it's own? No.
If combined with other pressures (intimidation being one)? Potentially or likely.
How one would be able to do it in a vacuum without any other pressures is beyond me however.
I largely agree with you. Do the pressures only tilt toward a possible yes, in your mind?
I guess I can imagine some plausible situations where consent after repeated requests, even spanning a long stretch of time, don't add up to anything more than standard consent. I even think that some ultimatums don't invalidate consent, e.g. "if we don't start having a lot more sex, this relationship is over".
Yeah, that's just a form of emotional abuse/manipulation. Which is coercion, coerced consent is not valid. Like what the fuck, man?
Why is it emotional abuse or manipulation? It's a clearly stated situation - x doesn't want to be in the relationship without a lot of sex as a component. If y doesn't want that kind of relationship, then x will leave. That seems entirely reasonable as a way to clarify that the physical aspect of the relationship isn't compatible and if that bridge can't be crossed, it's over.
Because instead of being a decent person and going "my partner doesn't want to have sex as often as I do and I'm unhappy, we either need to talk about this or I need to end it" that person decides an ultimatum is in order in order to force the other person to choose one or the other. The person wanting more sex could just choose to leave instead of making it an option for the other to do something they don't want to do or have them leave.
If someone says "no" that should be the end of it. Continuing to badger them until they give in is not okay, and getting a "yes" after a dozen "no's" does not absolve that person or retroactively make their persistence okay.
Let's talk about this!
Badgering someone for sex until they give in is definitely a dick move ( :rotate: ) and it remains bad regardless of whether you finally get a yes. But do you think that's rape?
I do not.
On it's own? No.
If combined with other pressures (intimidation being one)? Potentially or likely.
How one would be able to do it in a vacuum without any other pressures is beyond me however.
I largely agree with you. Do the pressures only tilt toward a possible yes, in your mind?
I guess I can imagine some plausible situations where consent after repeated requests, even spanning a long stretch of time, don't add up to anything more than standard consent. I even think that some ultimatums don't invalidate consent, e.g. "if we don't start having a lot more sex, this relationship is over".
Yeah, that's just a form of emotional abuse/manipulation. Which is coercion, coerced consent is not valid. Like what the fuck, man?
Why is it emotional abuse or manipulation? It's a clearly stated situation - x doesn't want to be in the relationship without a lot of sex as a component. If y doesn't want that kind of relationship, then x will leave. That seems entirely reasonable as a way to clarify that the physical aspect of the relationship isn't compatible and if that bridge can't be crossed, it's over.
Because people aren't cold logical machines that process information that way. A relationship is a complex psychological and emotional thing and saying "I will end it if you don't give me this thing" is essentially holding it hostage. Most people have very strong and not-entirely-conscious connections to their relationships and will not react entirely logically to the idea of it ending. Basically, whether you intend to or not, making an ultimatum like that leverages a person's emotional connection to you as a "bargaining chip" towards getting something and that's not a healthy way to interact with people.
+5
StraightziHere we may reign secure, and in my choice,To reign is worth ambition though in HellRegistered Userregular
One thing that really muddies the waters on conversations about consent v. enthusiastic consent is, I firmly believe, profoundly shitty media. Like, the crux of a solid 90% of rom-coms (that I'm familiar with, at any rate) feature "Pestering somebody until they say yes is the most romantic thing in the world." So that pestering isn't seen as coercion, or as badgering, but as "persistence."
It can be really hard to deprogram that.
Yeah, absolutely
And I think there's different forms of that pestering
Like, I'm not gonna call 90% of romantic comedies about rape (it's probably more like 30%)
But that's largely because of the framing
And you do not get to control your own framing when you are in real life situations
Was it consensual? yes
Should he have respected you instead? Absolutely
Did he violate your boundaries? possibly.
Do I get how it's skeevy and unpleasant? Absolutely!
Do I get how it's not actually consent? No.
How enthusiastic consent is absolutely critical to avoid a violation? It depends what is being violated - you're mixing terms to much for me to answer clearly. .
edit: clarity on my part
Uh
Question for you
What violations do you feel wouldn't count as rape?
violation of standards? of self-respect? of previously agreed promises? Clarity is important.
Posts
To which I say: good. Fuck that guy, and his stupid creepy smile.
Consent given under duress/coercion isn't valid consent. Sex without valid consent is rape.
I gave it a shot once. Perfectly willing to move on!
On it's own? No.
If combined with other pressures (intimidation being one)? Potentially or likely.
How one would be able to do it in a vacuum without any other pressures is beyond me however.
Because for too many people, making sure they don't miss an opportunity for sex is a higher priority than making sure their potential partner actually wants to have sex.
yeah that seems like a fair middle ground, though again, I am very uncomfortable ignoring the opinion of the person in question. But yeah, "not enough information" I can get behind. Before I saw that Tube locked the thread, I was going to request more info before offering any advice! So I feel like my instincts run in that direction already.
I notice you omitted the part where I said that, while we could argue the semantics of that specific term, it's missing the more important point that no matter what you call it, it's not okay. I don't see what value there is in deciding the degree of inappropriateness.
I feel like there's a lot of value in discussing whether eventual consent is rape, in a thread about consent.
Yes I agree with this. Picking apart the specific details seems like it will mostly lead to people sniping at each other, as people are limited to their own interpretations of the events that have only been detailed by a single third party.
At a minimum it is a good case for the importance of "enthusiastic consent" rather than just "consent"
PSN: Robo_Wizard1
Which is to say: ick. No.
If someone asks me to go to the mall, and I say no, cool. If they keep hassling me for the entire morning, and eventually we go to the mall together, with them driving and me just sulking in the seat and staying quiet and just dealing with it because fuck this guy god fucking dammit, and then we shop for twenty minutes and he drops me off at my place and leaves, was that a consensual trip to the mall? Should he have respected my desire to not go to the mall in the first place? Did he violate my boundaries by forcing the issue of lets go to the mall? Yes.
Now let's change the scene to something a lot more personal and important than going to the mall, like having sex. Do you get how that's fucking skeevy and unpleasant and not actually consent? How enthusiastic consent is absolutely critical to avoid a violation of one party?
Although, seriously, kids, don't badger people for something that should be fun for all involved.
Third hand: What do you call it when you masturbate but you don't want to?
I think there's a lot of variables behind that one that could push it to either side of the rape line
Right here in this thread we've had multiple examples given to justify it to either side
I also don't think that the strict term rape is necessary to make something, y'know, terrible
I largely agree with you. Do the pressures only tilt toward a possible yes, in your mind?
I guess I can imagine some plausible situations where consent after repeated requests, even spanning a long stretch of time, don't add up to anything more than standard consent. I even think that some ultimatums don't invalidate consent, e.g. "if we don't start having a lot more sex, this relationship is over".
Yes
It's rape
Like, if part of my strategy for getting sex is to keep asking for it until the person gives in?
That definitely does not seem consensual to me.
Yeah, that's just a form of emotional abuse/manipulation. Which is coercion, coerced consent is not valid. Like what the fuck, man?
Even if the other person consents to something, it should be very clear if they are actually into it
If you keep going after getting an unenthusiastic response then at best, you're a complete dillhole; at worst, you're about to really hurt someone
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
Was it consensual? yes
Should he have respected you instead? Absolutely
Did he violate your boundaries? possibly.
Do I get how it's skeevy and unpleasant? Absolutely!
Do I get how it's not actually consent? No.
How enthusiastic consent is absolutely critical to avoid a violation? It depends what is being violated - you're mixing terms to much for me to answer clearly. .
edit: clarity on my part
Uh-oh I accidentally deleted my signature. Uh-oh!!
By "in a vacuum" I mean that's the only thing that has ever happened. The question being repeated is the only thing. There's no society or chance of intimidation because of physical size or social factors. There's no relationship between the two people. There's no way the answer being no could harm the person.
Which is an impossible scenario.
Yeah, here's the thing, spool
If you really wanted to bring up an inactive sex life as a deal breaker in a relationship, you'd say something along the lines of, "Hey, I'm looking for more out of the physical aspect of this relationship. Can we talk about it?"
Not, "I will leave you unless you have sex with me more often."
The former is how you properly communicate with a partner you respect. The latter is using emotional manipulation to get something you want. Can you seriously not see the difference?
Well, just saying yes, essentially
And I don't think that's how anyone else in this thread considers it
There's definitely a bit more to the idea of consent than simply agreeing
(Snipped the rest because that quote tree was getting unwieldly)
Can I ask why? If continuing to badger someone about having sex after they say "no" is wrong, then why does it matter if them eventually "consenting" can be defined as "rape" or not? Rape isn't the line between okay and not okay. To put it another way, it doesn't matter to you or me whether something is murder 1 or manslaughter because the important part shouldn't be how bad the act was. The important part should be that a person is dead.
The thing about consent is that as soon as it's not there, that needs to be the end of it. Semantic arguments about how much of a violation it is aren't productive because there's no amount of crossing the line that's okay. There's also no crossing the line, then circling back. When the line is crossed, that's it, a bad thing has been done and you can't take a bad thing back.
I completely agree. Consent is as simple as one person making sure the other person wants to do something before it happens. Anything that makes that answer more likely a yes is potentially something that invalidates the consent.
Uh
Question for you
What violations do you feel wouldn't count as rape?
Why is it emotional abuse or manipulation? It's a clearly stated situation - x doesn't want to be in the relationship without a lot of sex as a component. If y doesn't want that kind of relationship, then x will leave. That seems entirely reasonable as a way to clarify that the physical aspect of the relationship isn't compatible and if that bridge can't be crossed, it's over.
Please scroll up the thread to my post to see why phrasing something that way is fucked up.
It can be really hard to deprogram that.
It is turning an interpersonal relationship into a business transaction
It is saying I have something you want (a relationship, in whatever terms it is defined)
And you have something I want (sex)
And fuckin' bartering
That is gross and manipulative as fuck
I absolutely agree that the open-ended approach is likely to be more effective and definitely is more healthy. I'd counsel doing it, for certain. I don't think it renders the more blunt framing emotionally manipulative though.
It is not that clear cut. Often people can't leave because they are in love, and that makes people want to stay and hope a relationship improves/changes, it is incredibly difficult to leave a relationship where you are strongly emotionally involved. There may be emotional support which they cannot cope without, or financial, or children involved.
Because instead of being a decent person and going "my partner doesn't want to have sex as often as I do and I'm unhappy, we either need to talk about this or I need to end it" that person decides an ultimatum is in order in order to force the other person to choose one or the other. The person wanting more sex could just choose to leave instead of making it an option for the other to do something they don't want to do or have them leave.
Because people aren't cold logical machines that process information that way. A relationship is a complex psychological and emotional thing and saying "I will end it if you don't give me this thing" is essentially holding it hostage. Most people have very strong and not-entirely-conscious connections to their relationships and will not react entirely logically to the idea of it ending. Basically, whether you intend to or not, making an ultimatum like that leverages a person's emotional connection to you as a "bargaining chip" towards getting something and that's not a healthy way to interact with people.
Yeah, absolutely
And I think there's different forms of that pestering
Like, I'm not gonna call 90% of romantic comedies about rape (it's probably more like 30%)
But that's largely because of the framing
And you do not get to control your own framing when you are in real life situations
violation of standards? of self-respect? of previously agreed promises? Clarity is important.