Is affirmative consent meant to be expressly verbal?
No.
Ok.
Than I guess i am very confused as to how it is supposed to work.
Do you regularly engage in sex where you're uncertain of whether your partner is willing?
I'm guessing not. So think of all the ways you judge consent.
No. But there are all sorts of things which are not sex, for which would be considered sexual assault, were they performed, which would be prosecutable under these types of laws.
The problem, as it stands, is that our current social norms do not mesh well with this type of law. Not only is it the norm that one gender initiates intimate relationships, but its the norm for the other gender to be, more or less, entirely passive until that point. There is very little explicit indication of interest. Rather interest is indicated by engineering time away from peers or other such activities.
In short, if a guy says "lets go to my place and have some coffee" then he isn't asking for coffee, he is asking for sex, and vice versa. But this has no amount of affirmative consent. Its the same he said she said think "I asked if she wanted to come up for coffee, she said yes, i thought that meant sex". The first action, which under these laws, will always either be potentially a sexual assault depending on the reaction of the potential victim. "She looked like she wanted it" isn't a defense against an affirmative consent law. That or we're going to have to start asking for sex directly, which is a bigger leap than it sounds, to universally change our culture.
Prior to now we had set up an assumed consent "no means no" structure to try to reconcile the fact that assaults and rapes were occurring at high rates with the fact that the social norms were to not ever explicitly request or ask for sex. This clearly isn't ideal since there will be times when social pressure or fear will prevent the victim from speaking up. And of course because some amount of assault is likely to have happened before they say no anyway. In these terms affirmative consent is clearly the proper law, given we can choose our social norms.
But as it stands we've got the disconnect because we can't change our social norms and because we're actively fighting against them.
Well put. That's mostly what I see, which is that affirmative consent is wildly incompatible with current social norms. Those norms, particularly gender roles in courtship, aren't anything I'm fond of and I'd love to see them change. But until they do, all you're doing is creating a lot of potentially prosecutable actions based on how normal intimate encounters actually happen in the real world.
Is affirmative consent meant to be expressly verbal?
No.
Ok.
Than I guess i am very confused as to how it is supposed to work.
Do you regularly engage in sex where you're uncertain of whether your partner is willing?
I'm guessing not. So think of all the ways you judge consent.
Is whatever the standard is now that a person must expressly say no for it to be wrong?
Because otherwise I don't understand what the effect of change would be.
So, basically.
You know how some times when you're trying to get your foreplay working, and the girl just sort of kinda goes numb and lets you do whatever you want without actively resisting but not doing anything in response to encourage you to keep progressing?
that's now illegal, unless you have a conversation about it being kinda a kink and something that she actually enjoys first.
Is affirmative consent meant to be expressly verbal?
No.
Ok.
Than I guess i am very confused as to how it is supposed to work.
Do you regularly engage in sex where you're uncertain of whether your partner is willing?
I'm guessing not. So think of all the ways you judge consent.
Is whatever the standard is now that a person must expressly say no for it to be wrong?
Because otherwise I don't understand what the effect of change would be.
So, basically.
You know how some times when you're trying to get your foreplay working, and the girl just sort of kinda goes numb and lets you do whatever you want without actively resisting but not doing anything in response to encourage you to keep progressing?
that's now illegal, unless you have a conversation about it being kinda a kink and something that she actually enjoys first.
In fairness, that's a good time to check if everything's cool anyway. At the same time, by that point you may have already committed assault, and even if your partner gives a nod you are still in a legally risky area...because every future movement could be assault.
It essentially turns what would otherwise be an awkward or meh sexual encounter into a crime, with the only protection being that most people would never pursue it.
Is affirmative consent meant to be expressly verbal?
No.
Ok.
Than I guess i am very confused as to how it is supposed to work.
Do you regularly engage in sex where you're uncertain of whether your partner is willing?
I'm guessing not. So think of all the ways you judge consent.
Is whatever the standard is now that a person must expressly say no for it to be wrong?
Because otherwise I don't understand what the effect of change would be.
So, basically.
You know how some times when you're trying to get your foreplay working, and the girl just sort of kinda goes numb and lets you do whatever you want without actively resisting but not doing anything in response to encourage you to keep progressing?
that's now illegal, unless you have a conversation about it being kinda a kink and something that she actually enjoys first.
In fairness, that's a good time to check if everything's cool anyway. At the same time, by that point you may have already committed assault, and even if your partner gives a nod you are still in a legally risky area...because every future movement could be assault.
It essentially turns what would otherwise be an awkward or meh sexual encounter into a crime, with the only protection being that most people would never pursue it.
Which is why it's one of those "be careful, be attentive, be aware" kind of things. The kind of situation adults should work to recognize and understand for their own betterment and the well being of their peers.
But it is not the sort of situation where we want criminal accusations getting tossed around.
The problem, as it stands, is that our current social norms do not mesh well with this type of law. Not only is it the norm that one gender initiates intimate relationships, but its the norm for the other gender to be, more or less, entirely passive until that point. There is very little explicit indication of interest. Rather interest is indicated by engineering time away from peers or other such activities.
I have never found this to be true in my own life and it does not reflect the experiences of the people close to me to whom I've talked about this.
I recognize that the schema you describe here exists, but I don't think it is universal and I doubt that it is even dominant.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the script you describe is commonplace. In an affirmative consent framework, people can still do that... if they know that's what their partner wants.
In reality, rapists know exactly what they're doing. This is well established by the work of Nick Groth, Stephanie McWhorter, and David Lisak. They aren't confused about consent; rather they use ambiguity as an excuse to avoid punishment and opprobrium. They deliberately manipulate their victims into situations where they know they can claim implied consent - for example, inviting the victim to a "party" comprised entirely of his friends, who lead the target into a compromising situation and then separate, leaving the victim and his target alone together.
What affirmative consent laws do is make it harder for perpetrators to spread doubt about the victim's reported lack of consent. Uncorroborared excuses like "I thought she was okay with it" or "she was into it at the time but regretted it the next morning" are no longer hard stops for prosecutors. It is still possible for the rapist to use these defenses - for example, he could get his compatriots to lie about the behavior of the accuser immediately before they separated - but it becomes more difficult.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
+6
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I think we can all reasonably agree that shoplifting is quite unlike sexual assault and rape so, analogy between the two should be avoided.
Let us grant that rape and sexual assault is the only crime that we do interrogate the alleged victims with regard to their behaviour. What follows from that?
I do not agree that sexual crimes are sufficiently different from violent or property crimes to justify a difference in the way we treat a victim's statement of nonconsent.
What follows is that sexual assault is the only crime in which we can have solid forensic evidence that the accused committed the act in question, where the victim can adamantly say "I did not want this to happen," yet the perpretrator can be found innocent on the basis that he was unclear about the situation.
Among other things, this is what allows rapists to commit multiple rapes without ever facing conviction.
Well, unlike property people are animate and can produce intentional utterances and actions. Unlike shoplifting the relevant parties are theoretically present during the perpetration of the offence, while in the case of shop lifting, they are absent. The hardware store explicitly is arranged for the purposes of commerce and there's no expectation that the primary goods that they provide are freely available for the taking, so absconding with a cement mixer cannot be construed as within a range of uncertain behaviours, whereas sexual actions both consensual and non-consensual occur within private spaces for the most part and there are significant social factors that surround how such things proceed in addition to the fact that unlike say, one's nail gun, sharing sexual relations with a stranger or acquaintance is a relatively normal occurrence.
So, unless you wish to stake out and defend significant points of equivalence I am going to stick with my original assertion that comparisons with shoplifting are not illuminating.
Yes, sexual assault and rape is different to lots of other crimes in how it is treated because it is different in its nature, two adults participating in something that is or isn't illegal based entirely upon the mental states of the individuals involved in a situation where only the parties involved are witnesses (for the most part).
As for rates of conviction, that rather seems like an ideological question as to whether what does and does not consistute reasonable doubt, or, perhaps a brute fact about the nature of the crime.
Is affirmative consent meant to be expressly verbal?
No.
Ok.
Than I guess i am very confused as to how it is supposed to work.
Do you regularly engage in sex where you're uncertain of whether your partner is willing?
I'm guessing not. So think of all the ways you judge consent.
Is whatever the standard is now that a person must expressly say no for it to be wrong?
Because otherwise I don't understand what the effect of change would be.
So, basically.
You know how some times when you're trying to get your foreplay working, and the girl just sort of kinda goes numb and lets you do whatever you want without actively resisting but not doing anything in response to encourage you to keep progressing?
that's now illegal, unless you have a conversation about it being kinda a kink and something that she actually enjoys first.
It's only illegal if the girl complains about it afterwards. If she's cool with it, then guess what? She probably won't complain.
If you aren't sure whether or not she's going to complain about it, then here's a surefire tip to help you out: Try asking first.
Most of the arguments against affirmative consent are based on this notion that the law magically enforces itself, and the girl can be totally into it, but you get charged with rape regardless because she didn't say the magic word and you didn't ask.
That's not how it works.
Now, there are some complaints of "But what if she's totally into it, but lies afterwards?" Guess what? If a girl is willing to lie about rape, then she can do that right now. The law doesn't make it easier or harder for either party to lie. The only time the law comes into effect is when both parties agree that the girl never affirmed consent, but person A says she didn't want to go through with it, and person B said A was totally into him.
In which case, I give more credence that person A knew what person A wanted better than person B knew what person A wanted. Which is the same standard we would set in any other property dispute.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Is affirmative consent meant to be expressly verbal?
No.
Ok.
Than I guess i am very confused as to how it is supposed to work.
Do you regularly engage in sex where you're uncertain of whether your partner is willing?
I'm guessing not. So think of all the ways you judge consent.
Is whatever the standard is now that a person must expressly say no for it to be wrong?
Because otherwise I don't understand what the effect of change would be.
So, basically.
You know how some times when you're trying to get your foreplay working, and the girl just sort of kinda goes numb and lets you do whatever you want without actively resisting but not doing anything in response to encourage you to keep progressing?
that's now illegal, unless you have a conversation about it being kinda a kink and something that she actually enjoys first.
There seems to be no reason why that should be criminalised.
Is affirmative consent meant to be expressly verbal?
No.
Ok.
Than I guess i am very confused as to how it is supposed to work.
Do you regularly engage in sex where you're uncertain of whether your partner is willing?
I'm guessing not. So think of all the ways you judge consent.
Is whatever the standard is now that a person must expressly say no for it to be wrong?
Because otherwise I don't understand what the effect of change would be.
So, basically.
You know how some times when you're trying to get your foreplay working, and the girl just sort of kinda goes numb and lets you do whatever you want without actively resisting but not doing anything in response to encourage you to keep progressing?
that's now illegal, unless you have a conversation about it being kinda a kink and something that she actually enjoys first.
It's only illegal if the girl complains about it afterwards. If she's cool with it, then guess what? She probably won't complain.
If you aren't sure whether or not she's going to complain about it, then here's a surefire tip to help you out: Try asking first.
Most of the arguments against affirmative consent are based on this notion that the law magically enforces itself, and the girl can be totally into it, but you get charged with rape regardless because she didn't say the magic word and you didn't ask.
That's not how it works.
Now, there are some complaints of "But what if she's totally into it, but lies afterwards?" Guess what? If a girl is willing to lie about rape, then she can do that right now. The law doesn't make it easier or harder for either party to lie. The only time the law comes into effect is when both parties agree that the girl never affirmed consent, but person A says she didn't want to go through with it, and person B said A was totally into him.
In which case, I give more credence that person A knew what person A wanted better than person B knew what person A wanted. Which is the same standard we would set in any other property dispute.
The law actually makes it fairly difficult to obtain a conviction if your partner chooses to lie, it has a change of heart. It also makes it very hard to convict the guilty, through the same mechanism.
It's nearly impossible to fix the latter without impacting the former.
Nobody has actually answered what affirmative consent is, which makes it very difficult to understand how it differs from current laws or how it improves the "he said she said" nature of many crimes.
Is affirmative consent meant to be expressly verbal?
No.
Ok.
Than I guess i am very confused as to how it is supposed to work.
Do you regularly engage in sex where you're uncertain of whether your partner is willing?
I'm guessing not. So think of all the ways you judge consent.
Is whatever the standard is now that a person must expressly say no for it to be wrong?
Because otherwise I don't understand what the effect of change would be.
So, basically.
You know how some times when you're trying to get your foreplay working, and the girl just sort of kinda goes numb and lets you do whatever you want without actively resisting but not doing anything in response to encourage you to keep progressing?
that's now illegal, unless you have a conversation about it being kinda a kink and something that she actually enjoys first.
There seems to be no reason why that should be criminalised.
Well, unlike property people are animate and can produce intentional utterances and actions.
And that's a catch-22 situation that assumes you already feel safe and comfortable to voice your objection in the first place.
Funny enough: Victims of sexual assault often don't feel safe and comfortable during the sexual assault!
If you're not sure whether the girl in question feels safe, there's a simple solution:
Try asking.
Convenience store clerks are taught to give into people who try to rob them. Even if a clerk tells an armed gun man, "Take whatever you want, it's yours," it wouldn't be considered consensual.
So why would we consider it consensual if the clerk says nothing at all?
Is affirmative consent meant to be expressly verbal?
No.
Ok.
Than I guess i am very confused as to how it is supposed to work.
Do you regularly engage in sex where you're uncertain of whether your partner is willing?
I'm guessing not. So think of all the ways you judge consent.
Is whatever the standard is now that a person must expressly say no for it to be wrong?
Because otherwise I don't understand what the effect of change would be.
So, basically.
You know how some times when you're trying to get your foreplay working, and the girl just sort of kinda goes numb and lets you do whatever you want without actively resisting but not doing anything in response to encourage you to keep progressing?
that's now illegal, unless you have a conversation about it being kinda a kink and something that she actually enjoys first.
There seems to be no reason why that should be criminalised.
I do applaud you for your laying of a trap.
trap?
"No, that never happens to me" -> See, it doesn't affect you, so no need to argue against it.
Vs
"Wait, that happened in college" -> Congratulations, you are a rapist and/or bad at sex.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
Nobody has actually answered what affirmative consent is, which makes it very difficult to understand how it differs from current laws or how it improves the "he said she said" nature of many crimes.
Affirmative consent isn’t based on the idea that every sexual encounter is a rigid contract between two parties. No one is suggesting that college students need to run through a checklist before unbuttoning each other’s shirts. Instead, it’s more about broadly reorienting about how we approach sex in the first place.
The current societal script on sex assumes that passivity and silence — essentially, the “lack of a no” — means it’s okay to proceed. That’s on top of the fact that male sexuality has been socially defined as aggressive, something that can result in men feeling entitled to sex, while women have been taught that sex is something that simply happens to them rather than something they’re an active participant in. It’s not hard to imagine how couples end up in ambiguous situations where one partner is not exactly comfortable with going forward, but also not exactly comfortable saying no.
Under an affirmative consent standard, on the other hand, both partners are required to pay more attention to whether they’re feeling enthusiastic about the sexual experience they’re having. There aren’t any assumptions about where the sexual encounter is going or whether both people are already on the same page. At its very basic level, this is the opposite of killing the mood — it’s about making sure the person with whom you’re about to have sex is excited about having sex with you.
Making sure someone else is enthusiastic about what you’re doing with them requires you to consider their wants and needs, think about how to bring them pleasure, and ultimately approach sex like a partnership instead of a means to your own end.
It’s admittedly somewhat of a departure from the way our society often approaches sex; recent studies have found that most college students feel uncomfortable voicing their desires during sexual encounters, and there’s a gender imbalance in whose pleasure is prioritized. But the emphasis on getting consent isn’t an effort to turn everyone into rapists. It’s just about encouraging better communication across the board.
“Consent isn’t a question. It’s a state,” feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman, who wrote a book on enthusiastic consent, explained in a blog post back in 2010. “If, instead of lovers, the two of you were synchronized swimmers, consent would be the water. It’s not enough to jump in, get wet and climb out — if you want to swim, you have to be in the water continually. And if you want to have sex, you have to be continually in a state of enthusiastic consent with your partner.”
The people who are worried about affirmative consent standards are typically preoccupied about the people who may be penalized for failing to ask questions every step of the way. What if a college student starts passionately kissing his girlfriend without getting her permission first? What if a couple enjoys explicitly consensual foreplay and then moves on to intercourse without a verbal agreement beforehand?
But those hypothetical situations aren’t necessarily breaches of an affirmative consent standard. If both partners were enthusiastic about the sexual encounter, there will be no reason for anyone to report a rape later. So if college students are worried about protecting themselves from being penalized, it’s not hard — all they have to do is stick to engaging in physical contact with people who are clearly receptive to it at the time. That doesn’t include girls who are passed out drunk, but it probably does include most couples in long term relationships, who are used to communicating their needs to each other. There are certainly some gray areas in sexual encounters, and it’s sexually active young adults’ responsibility to figure out how to navigate them effectively.
Nobody has actually answered what affirmative consent is, which makes it very difficult to understand how it differs from current laws or how it improves the "he said she said" nature of many crimes.
Under many current laws (varies between jurisdictions) sex and sex acts are held to a "no means no" standard. As long as the other person is able to express objection (not incapacitated) and does not do so, that is considered consent.
Affirmative consent requires unambiguous acceptance, either verbal or through clear nonverbal cues.
Most positive sexual encounters will feature this anyway, but when dealing with a partner who is awkward or less responsive, it can get dicey. Plus as mentioned at present gender norms often require one partner to simply initiate some forms of touching...asking, hesitating, etc can actually have negative implications or be considered awkward or inappropriate.
I think affirmative consent as a concept can definitely lead to some healthier sexual norms. Im unconvinced that society as-is is prepared to bake that into law.
I'm also skeptical that the current "no means no" standard really does much to legally enable rapists; anybody willing to abuse the current standard to get away with the act (and I agree they do) will abuse the new standard as well. You can't get away from the fact that most* sex acts occur in isolation, without witnesses other than the participants.
* - This is an assumption, I don't have data to back it up and I apologize if it's inaccurate.
+2
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Well, unlike property people are animate and can produce intentional utterances and actions.
And that's a catch-22 situation that assumes you already feel safe and comfortable to voice your objection in the first place.
Funny enough: Victims of sexual assault often don't feel safe and comfortable during the sexual assault!
I don't follow your logic.
If you're not sure whether the girl in question feels safe, there's a simple solution:
Try asking.
Thank you for that. Please, tell me more of this "girl" and "asking". This is for a friend. (I think you're being a silly goose here)
But seriously, if you ask and the victim still didn't feel comfortable to voice their objection?
Convenience store clerks are taught to give into people who try to rob them. Even if a clerk tells an armed gun man, "Take whatever you want, it's yours," it wouldn't be considered consensual.
So why would we consider it consensual if the clerk says nothing at all?
Once again, we are not remotely within a realm of analogy and it is not an enlightening rhetorical endeavour. However, even worse than the shoplifting analogy no one is taught not to voice their objection to sexual assault as a matter of course.
EDIT: Oh, and this is all the result of you responding to an out of context bit of the reasons that rape is not like shoplifting. Which is frankly bizarre.
Nobody has actually answered what affirmative consent is, which makes it very difficult to understand how it differs from current laws or how it improves the "he said she said" nature of many crimes.
Under many current laws (varies between jurisdictions) sex and sex acts are held to a "no means no" standard. As long as the other person is able to express objection (not incapacitated) and does not do so, that is considered consent.
Affirmative consent requires unambiguous acceptance, either verbal or through clear nonverbal cues.
Most positive sexual encounters will feature this anyway, but when dealing with a partner who is awkward or less responsive, it can get dicey. Plus as mentioned at present gender norms often require one partner to simply initiate some forms of touching...asking, hesitating, etc can actually have negative implications or be considered awkward or inappropriate.
I think affirmative consent as a concept can definitely lead to some healthier sexual norms. Im unconvinced that society as-is is prepared to bake that into law.
I'm also skeptical that the current "no means no" standard really does much to legally enable rapists; anybody willing to abuse the current standard to get away with the act (and I agree they do) will abuse the new standard as well. You can't get away from the fact that most* sex acts occur in isolation, without witnesses other than the participants.
* - This is an assumption, I don't have data to back it up and I apologize if it's inaccurate.
They would be less able to abuse the standard though.
If this is not true, then affirmative consent would be identical to the current situation, rendering the objections confounding and illogical.
A major part of the problem with this approach is people say things like "Well no woman would do that" regarding rape allegations. But we fazctually knmow some do invent such allegations.
Rape is a terrible crime. But its not worse than child molestation and there were many false convictions in the 80s and 90s based on (effectively) lower standards of proof. The severity of the crime shouldn't change the burden of proof. Murder involves a crime at least as severe and it doesn't involve preponderance of evidence.
This is especially true when there is a great deal of pressure to side with the accuser. The "mattress case" as a cause celeb is solely because the university didn't find in her favor - but neither did law enforcement despite her claims otherwise. And the evidence does not seem to support her allegations. The actual facts become secondary to declare oneself super duper anti rape culture.
Nobody has actually answered what affirmative consent is, which makes it very difficult to understand how it differs from current laws or how it improves the "he said she said" nature of many crimes.
Affirmative consent isn’t based on the idea that every sexual encounter is a rigid contract between two parties. No one is suggesting that college students need to run through a checklist before unbuttoning each other’s shirts. Instead, it’s more about broadly reorienting about how we approach sex in the first place.
The current societal script on sex assumes that passivity and silence — essentially, the “lack of a no” — means it’s okay to proceed. That’s on top of the fact that male sexuality has been socially defined as aggressive, something that can result in men feeling entitled to sex, while women have been taught that sex is something that simply happens to them rather than something they’re an active participant in. It’s not hard to imagine how couples end up in ambiguous situations where one partner is not exactly comfortable with going forward, but also not exactly comfortable saying no.
Under an affirmative consent standard, on the other hand, both partners are required to pay more attention to whether they’re feeling enthusiastic about the sexual experience they’re having. There aren’t any assumptions about where the sexual encounter is going or whether both people are already on the same page. At its very basic level, this is the opposite of killing the mood — it’s about making sure the person with whom you’re about to have sex is excited about having sex with you.
Making sure someone else is enthusiastic about what you’re doing with them requires you to consider their wants and needs, think about how to bring them pleasure, and ultimately approach sex like a partnership instead of a means to your own end.
It’s admittedly somewhat of a departure from the way our society often approaches sex; recent studies have found that most college students feel uncomfortable voicing their desires during sexual encounters, and there’s a gender imbalance in whose pleasure is prioritized. But the emphasis on getting consent isn’t an effort to turn everyone into rapists. It’s just about encouraging better communication across the board.
“Consent isn’t a question. It’s a state,” feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman, who wrote a book on enthusiastic consent, explained in a blog post back in 2010. “If, instead of lovers, the two of you were synchronized swimmers, consent would be the water. It’s not enough to jump in, get wet and climb out — if you want to swim, you have to be in the water continually. And if you want to have sex, you have to be continually in a state of enthusiastic consent with your partner.”
The people who are worried about affirmative consent standards are typically preoccupied about the people who may be penalized for failing to ask questions every step of the way. What if a college student starts passionately kissing his girlfriend without getting her permission first? What if a couple enjoys explicitly consensual foreplay and then moves on to intercourse without a verbal agreement beforehand?
But those hypothetical situations aren’t necessarily breaches of an affirmative consent standard. If both partners were enthusiastic about the sexual encounter, there will be no reason for anyone to report a rape later. So if college students are worried about protecting themselves from being penalized, it’s not hard — all they have to do is stick to engaging in physical contact with people who are clearly receptive to it at the time. That doesn’t include girls who are passed out drunk, but it probably does include most couples in long term relationships, who are used to communicating their needs to each other. There are certainly some gray areas in sexual encounters, and it’s sexually active young adults’ responsibility to figure out how to navigate them effectively.
I'll admit to some skimming I'm there, but but the last paragraph is adorable.
"I mean clearly passed out girls are off limits, and if you're in a relationship it's /probably/ okay, oh hell you'll figure it out..."
Unsaid: "If you fuck it up, you're expelled."
Again, I think affirmative consent is a healthy standard for partners to work from. At the same time, what we're basically doing here is criminalizing (or levying official sanction against, in the case of colleges) shitty sex.
+7
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Nobody has actually answered what affirmative consent is, which makes it very difficult to understand how it differs from current laws or how it improves the "he said she said" nature of many crimes.
Affirmative consent isn’t based on the idea that every sexual encounter is a rigid contract between two parties. No one is suggesting that college students need to run through a checklist before unbuttoning each other’s shirts. Instead, it’s more about broadly reorienting about how we approach sex in the first place.
The current societal script on sex assumes that passivity and silence — essentially, the “lack of a no” — means it’s okay to proceed. That’s on top of the fact that male sexuality has been socially defined as aggressive, something that can result in men feeling entitled to sex, while women have been taught that sex is something that simply happens to them rather than something they’re an active participant in. It’s not hard to imagine how couples end up in ambiguous situations where one partner is not exactly comfortable with going forward, but also not exactly comfortable saying no.
Under an affirmative consent standard, on the other hand, both partners are required to pay more attention to whether they’re feeling enthusiastic about the sexual experience they’re having. There aren’t any assumptions about where the sexual encounter is going or whether both people are already on the same page. At its very basic level, this is the opposite of killing the mood — it’s about making sure the person with whom you’re about to have sex is excited about having sex with you.
Making sure someone else is enthusiastic about what you’re doing with them requires you to consider their wants and needs, think about how to bring them pleasure, and ultimately approach sex like a partnership instead of a means to your own end.
It’s admittedly somewhat of a departure from the way our society often approaches sex; recent studies have found that most college students feel uncomfortable voicing their desires during sexual encounters, and there’s a gender imbalance in whose pleasure is prioritized. But the emphasis on getting consent isn’t an effort to turn everyone into rapists. It’s just about encouraging better communication across the board.
“Consent isn’t a question. It’s a state,” feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman, who wrote a book on enthusiastic consent, explained in a blog post back in 2010. “If, instead of lovers, the two of you were synchronized swimmers, consent would be the water. It’s not enough to jump in, get wet and climb out — if you want to swim, you have to be in the water continually. And if you want to have sex, you have to be continually in a state of enthusiastic consent with your partner.”
The people who are worried about affirmative consent standards are typically preoccupied about the people who may be penalized for failing to ask questions every step of the way. What if a college student starts passionately kissing his girlfriend without getting her permission first? What if a couple enjoys explicitly consensual foreplay and then moves on to intercourse without a verbal agreement beforehand?
But those hypothetical situations aren’t necessarily breaches of an affirmative consent standard. If both partners were enthusiastic about the sexual encounter, there will be no reason for anyone to report a rape later. So if college students are worried about protecting themselves from being penalized, it’s not hard — all they have to do is stick to engaging in physical contact with people who are clearly receptive to it at the time. That doesn’t include girls who are passed out drunk, but it probably does include most couples in long term relationships, who are used to communicating their needs to each other. There are certainly some gray areas in sexual encounters, and it’s sexually active young adults’ responsibility to figure out how to navigate them effectively.
Which is not remotely an explanation of how it differs from the laws currently on the books, specifically around how non-verbal consent can be gathered.
Nobody has actually answered what affirmative consent is, which makes it very difficult to understand how it differs from current laws or how it improves the "he said she said" nature of many crimes.
Affirmative consent isn’t based on the idea that every sexual encounter is a rigid contract between two parties. No one is suggesting that college students need to run through a checklist before unbuttoning each other’s shirts. Instead, it’s more about broadly reorienting about how we approach sex in the first place.
The current societal script on sex assumes that passivity and silence — essentially, the “lack of a no” — means it’s okay to proceed. That’s on top of the fact that male sexuality has been socially defined as aggressive, something that can result in men feeling entitled to sex, while women have been taught that sex is something that simply happens to them rather than something they’re an active participant in. It’s not hard to imagine how couples end up in ambiguous situations where one partner is not exactly comfortable with going forward, but also not exactly comfortable saying no.
Under an affirmative consent standard, on the other hand, both partners are required to pay more attention to whether they’re feeling enthusiastic about the sexual experience they’re having. There aren’t any assumptions about where the sexual encounter is going or whether both people are already on the same page. At its very basic level, this is the opposite of killing the mood — it’s about making sure the person with whom you’re about to have sex is excited about having sex with you.
Making sure someone else is enthusiastic about what you’re doing with them requires you to consider their wants and needs, think about how to bring them pleasure, and ultimately approach sex like a partnership instead of a means to your own end.
It’s admittedly somewhat of a departure from the way our society often approaches sex; recent studies have found that most college students feel uncomfortable voicing their desires during sexual encounters, and there’s a gender imbalance in whose pleasure is prioritized. But the emphasis on getting consent isn’t an effort to turn everyone into rapists. It’s just about encouraging better communication across the board.
“Consent isn’t a question. It’s a state,” feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman, who wrote a book on enthusiastic consent, explained in a blog post back in 2010. “If, instead of lovers, the two of you were synchronized swimmers, consent would be the water. It’s not enough to jump in, get wet and climb out — if you want to swim, you have to be in the water continually. And if you want to have sex, you have to be continually in a state of enthusiastic consent with your partner.”
The people who are worried about affirmative consent standards are typically preoccupied about the people who may be penalized for failing to ask questions every step of the way. What if a college student starts passionately kissing his girlfriend without getting her permission first? What if a couple enjoys explicitly consensual foreplay and then moves on to intercourse without a verbal agreement beforehand?
But those hypothetical situations aren’t necessarily breaches of an affirmative consent standard. If both partners were enthusiastic about the sexual encounter, there will be no reason for anyone to report a rape later. So if college students are worried about protecting themselves from being penalized, it’s not hard — all they have to do is stick to engaging in physical contact with people who are clearly receptive to it at the time. That doesn’t include girls who are passed out drunk, but it probably does include most couples in long term relationships, who are used to communicating their needs to each other. There are certainly some gray areas in sexual encounters, and it’s sexually active young adults’ responsibility to figure out how to navigate them effectively.
I read this, but it was unhelpful because it didn't actually explain any specifics about affirmative consent besides "it is not a contract and isn't 'no means no.'"
I'm aware that "no means no" is the standard but the legal implementation of this seems dicey and there is no clear line given to separate passively "taking it" and affirmatively consenting via positive reaction.
It is also unclear if affirmative consent needs to be given before every action, and how defensible e.g. "I misread the mood" would be if nonverbal consent is ok.
To ask a question out of ignorance: what is affirmative consent?
Does it have to be verbal?
No. The law simply says it must be affirmative, conscious, and voluntary.
It does not say it must be verbal.
Does it need to be given before beginning a sexual act?
Technically, I don't believe it does.
Does it need to be explicit or can it be implied?
It must be affirmative. Which means that it's implied, you have to explain what she said or did to imply it.
You cannot get away with simply, "Well, she never said no."
Can it be revoked mid-act, and what is the legality of actions taken immediately after? Does revoking consent need to be explicit or implied?
Consent can be revoked at any time, but revocation is not retroactive.
So instead of saying "she never said no" someone may say "she agrees by saying/signaling x/y". And this accomplishes what exactly?
Beyond that, I don't think I'm wrong in saying many sexual encounters just kinda happen, initiated by a kiss or touch that is accepted and returned. I don't see that kind of thing fitting into an affirmative framework and I'm wary trying to work around that.
0
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
To ask a question out of ignorance: what is affirmative consent?
Does it have to be verbal?
No. The law simply says it must be affirmative, conscious, and voluntary.
It does not say it must be verbal.
Does it need to be given before beginning a sexual act?
Technically, I don't believe it does.
Does it need to be explicit or can it be implied?
It must be affirmative. Which means that it's implied, you have to explain what she said or did to imply it.
You cannot get away with simply, "Well, she never said no."
Can it be revoked mid-act, and what is the legality of actions taken immediately after? Does revoking consent need to be explicit or implied?
Consent can be revoked at any time, but revocation is not retroactive.
So instead of saying "she never said no" someone may say "she agrees by saying/signaling x/y". And this accomplishes what exactly?
Beyond that, I don't think I'm wrong in saying many sexual encounters just kinda happen, initiated by a kiss or touch that is accepted and returned. I don't see that kind of thing fitting into an affirmative framework and I'm wary trying to work around that.
The latter is one of the significant challenges mounted by zakkiel. The initial, non-verbal, methods of indicating interest would ostensibly be criminalised if someone misreads the mood - i.e. running a hand up another's leg or some such would be sexual assault on the first instance, whereas under a no-means-no standard it would be assault only if the unwelcome touching continued.
+1
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
What is so difficult about communicating with your partner?
Can I touch you here
Is this ok
Do you want to keep going
Do you want to stop
Continuing if and only if you get an actual positive response
This is not some bizarre legalistic imposition on your sex life, this is basic human decency you should be acting with regardless of what the letter of the law says.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Nobody has actually answered what affirmative consent is, which makes it very difficult to understand how it differs from current laws or how it improves the "he said she said" nature of many crimes.
Affirmative consent isn’t based on the idea that every sexual encounter is a rigid contract between two parties. No one is suggesting that college students need to run through a checklist before unbuttoning each other’s shirts. Instead, it’s more about broadly reorienting about how we approach sex in the first place.
The current societal script on sex assumes that passivity and silence — essentially, the “lack of a no” — means it’s okay to proceed. That’s on top of the fact that male sexuality has been socially defined as aggressive, something that can result in men feeling entitled to sex, while women have been taught that sex is something that simply happens to them rather than something they’re an active participant in. It’s not hard to imagine how couples end up in ambiguous situations where one partner is not exactly comfortable with going forward, but also not exactly comfortable saying no.
Under an affirmative consent standard, on the other hand, both partners are required to pay more attention to whether they’re feeling enthusiastic about the sexual experience they’re having. There aren’t any assumptions about where the sexual encounter is going or whether both people are already on the same page. At its very basic level, this is the opposite of killing the mood — it’s about making sure the person with whom you’re about to have sex is excited about having sex with you.
Making sure someone else is enthusiastic about what you’re doing with them requires you to consider their wants and needs, think about how to bring them pleasure, and ultimately approach sex like a partnership instead of a means to your own end.
It’s admittedly somewhat of a departure from the way our society often approaches sex; recent studies have found that most college students feel uncomfortable voicing their desires during sexual encounters, and there’s a gender imbalance in whose pleasure is prioritized. But the emphasis on getting consent isn’t an effort to turn everyone into rapists. It’s just about encouraging better communication across the board.
“Consent isn’t a question. It’s a state,” feminist writer Jaclyn Friedman, who wrote a book on enthusiastic consent, explained in a blog post back in 2010. “If, instead of lovers, the two of you were synchronized swimmers, consent would be the water. It’s not enough to jump in, get wet and climb out — if you want to swim, you have to be in the water continually. And if you want to have sex, you have to be continually in a state of enthusiastic consent with your partner.”
The people who are worried about affirmative consent standards are typically preoccupied about the people who may be penalized for failing to ask questions every step of the way. What if a college student starts passionately kissing his girlfriend without getting her permission first? What if a couple enjoys explicitly consensual foreplay and then moves on to intercourse without a verbal agreement beforehand?
But those hypothetical situations aren’t necessarily breaches of an affirmative consent standard. If both partners were enthusiastic about the sexual encounter, there will be no reason for anyone to report a rape later. So if college students are worried about protecting themselves from being penalized, it’s not hard — all they have to do is stick to engaging in physical contact with people who are clearly receptive to it at the time. That doesn’t include girls who are passed out drunk, but it probably does include most couples in long term relationships, who are used to communicating their needs to each other. There are certainly some gray areas in sexual encounters, and it’s sexually active young adults’ responsibility to figure out how to navigate them effectively.
I read this, but it was unhelpful because it didn't actually explain any specifics about affirmative consent besides "it is not a contract and isn't 'no means no.'"
I'm aware that "no means no" is the standard but the legal implementation of this seems dicey and there is no clear line given to separate passively "taking it" and affirmatively consenting via positive reaction.
It is also unclear if affirmative consent needs to be given before every action, and how defensible e.g. "I misread the mood" would be if nonverbal consent is ok.[/quote]
If the non verbal cues aren't clear to you, that's normal. Lots of guys are bad with non verbal cues. And the law takes this into account.
You're trying to ask people on the internet to define consent for you. And it's hard for us to cover every single nuance of every situation.
Fortunately, there's no need for that. Here's a novel solution:
What is so difficult about communicating with your partner?
Can I touch you here
Is this ok
Do you want to keep going
Do you want to stop
Continuing if and only if you get an actual positive response
This is not some bizarre legalistic imposition on your sex life, this is basic human decency you should be acting with regardless of what the letter of the law says.
I've made out with people at parties and I would be pretty confident that "can I make out with you" would have a lower success rate than just making out with them.
I understand that shitty sex is bad and you should be consensual and caring with your partners, but it also isn't bizarre to just sort of have sexual encounters happen.
I ate an engineer
+4
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I'm playing the world's tiniest violin over some hypothetical "lower success rate."
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I'm playing the world's tiniest violin over some hypothetical "lower success rate."
Let me rephrase then: asking a girl to male out with me at a party based on social cues could make them feel uncomfortable even when actually making out with them does not. People are weird.
What is so difficult about communicating with your partner?
Can I touch you here
Is this ok
Do you want to keep going
Do you want to stop
Continuing if and only if you get an actual positive response
This is not some bizarre legalistic imposition on your sex life, this is basic human decency you should be acting with regardless of what the letter of the law says.
The fact that this is not necessarily the cultural norm? It works great if the other person expects it, less so if not.
For instance, I've never in my life asked before kissing a girl. None have been taken aback by it, so I suspect this is the norm.
+4
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
I think there should be a moratorium on giving definitions of consent that couch it in direct advice as to behaviour, as it reads pretty goosey.
By which I mean "Try asking" and other such stuff.
What is so difficult about communicating with your partner?
Can I touch you here
Is this ok
Do you want to keep going
Do you want to stop
Continuing if and only if you get an actual positive response
This is not some bizarre legalistic imposition on your sex life, this is basic human decency you should be acting with regardless of what the letter of the law says.
Thanks for speaking for me, my girlfriend, and everyone everywhere and telling us how we should have sex. Verbal communication is not a universal fact with sex. For some it is a mood killer, for others it is simply not how they communicate when intimate. It's more than a little goosey to tell everyone that this is how they should communicate or you're not a decent human being.
I think there should be a moratorium on giving definitions of consent that couch it in direct advice as to behaviour, as it reads pretty goosey.
By which I mean "Try asking" and other such stuff.
"Try asking" is also really shitty as a response when I'm trying to figure out the definition. It changes the focus of the discussion from how consent should be defined to an attack that implies I don't know how to receive consent or understand social cues. And as much as I'd love a full discussion of my social skills, that isn't the topic at hand.
I ate an engineer
+4
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
From what I can tell the whole idea behind affirmative consent is to change that cultural norm so that people don't feel like they have to "guess" what the other person is thinking. They can just ask.
I fail to see what is "goosey" about pointing this out.
The OP and many in this thread seem to be panicking over some imagined paradigm shift that will suddenly make them into sexual predators, or the ever popular hypothetical "what if she changes her mind a week later" boogeyman.
I find that line of thinking utterly ridiculous and needlessly paranoid.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
From what I can tell the whole idea behind affirmative consent is to change that cultural norm so that people don't feel like they have to "guess" what the other person is thinking. They can just ask.
I fail to see what is "goosey" about pointing this out.
The OP and many in this thread seem to be panicking over some imagined paradigm shift that will suddenly make them into sexual predators, or the ever popular hypothetical "what if she changes her mind a week later" boogeyman.
I find that line of thinking utterly ridiculous and needlessly paranoid.
That has nothing to do with anything I've said, and being a goose about the fact I asked about nonverbal consent is not making it easier to understand how the lines change with this new paradigm.
I understand you can just ask. I understand that asking is, in many situations, a wonderful idea. So instead of treating my like a boogeyman who is scared i can no longer get away with serial assault, please meet me halfway by legitimately engaging me and helping me understand what you envision affirmative consent to mean with nonverbal consent, or in situations where asking explicitly is (culturally) not an amazing option compared to reading social cues.
E: to explicitly answer your question, responding to forumers by assuming they hold a hyperbolic position, and unsubtly attacking them with "just ask" is goosey, even if you believe a paradigm shift to verbally asking consent being the norm is a good thing.
milski on
I ate an engineer
+5
Options
Apothe0sisHave you ever questioned the nature of your reality?Registered Userregular
Let's remake social norms!
...by changing the legal definitions of sexual assault and rape
...starting in college campuses
...where problematic applications have been identified
I don't think it's as innocuous in its implementation or as paranoid in the scepticism as claimed.
There are also fairly fundamental questions as to the philosophy of crime and conviction at play.
And my own bugaboos of arguments by analogy and incomplete arguments.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Ok.
I'd define nonverbal consent as including but not limited to
Initiation of activities
Active (not passive) participation in activities
Escalation of activities
Nodding, Smiling, Expressing enthusiasm
Undressing oneself or ones partner
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I'm playing the world's tiniest violin over some hypothetical "lower success rate."
Let me rephrase then: asking a girl to male out with me at a party based on social cues could make them feel uncomfortable even when actually making out with them does not. People are weird.
Worst case scenario for the guy: Doesn't get to have sex with a girl who was kind of on the fence about it.
What is so difficult about communicating with your partner?
Can I touch you here
Is this ok
Do you want to keep going
Do you want to stop
Continuing if and only if you get an actual positive response
This is not some bizarre legalistic imposition on your sex life, this is basic human decency you should be acting with regardless of what the letter of the law says.
Thanks for speaking for me, my girlfriend, and everyone everywhere and telling us how we should have sex. Verbal communication is not a universal fact with sex. For some it is a mood killer, for others it is simply not how they communicate when intimate. It's more than a little goosey to tell everyone that this is how they should communicate or you're not a decent human being.
Did your girlfriend press charges on you?
Once again, you seem to be under the impression that the law enforces itself.
If your girlfriend never explicitly gives consent and you don't ask, then it's not like some lawyer magically appears in your room and charges you with rape.
Also, I seriously doubt that your girlfriend has never given you any indications at any point in the relationship that would qualify as affirmative consent under the law.
Are you telling me that she has never said or done anything to that would qualify as affirmative consent under the law? She just lays there completely still without saying anything anything the entire time?
Posts
Well put. That's mostly what I see, which is that affirmative consent is wildly incompatible with current social norms. Those norms, particularly gender roles in courtship, aren't anything I'm fond of and I'd love to see them change. But until they do, all you're doing is creating a lot of potentially prosecutable actions based on how normal intimate encounters actually happen in the real world.
So, basically.
You know how some times when you're trying to get your foreplay working, and the girl just sort of kinda goes numb and lets you do whatever you want without actively resisting but not doing anything in response to encourage you to keep progressing?
that's now illegal, unless you have a conversation about it being kinda a kink and something that she actually enjoys first.
In fairness, that's a good time to check if everything's cool anyway. At the same time, by that point you may have already committed assault, and even if your partner gives a nod you are still in a legally risky area...because every future movement could be assault.
It essentially turns what would otherwise be an awkward or meh sexual encounter into a crime, with the only protection being that most people would never pursue it.
Which is why it's one of those "be careful, be attentive, be aware" kind of things. The kind of situation adults should work to recognize and understand for their own betterment and the well being of their peers.
But it is not the sort of situation where we want criminal accusations getting tossed around.
I have never found this to be true in my own life and it does not reflect the experiences of the people close to me to whom I've talked about this.
I recognize that the schema you describe here exists, but I don't think it is universal and I doubt that it is even dominant.
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the script you describe is commonplace. In an affirmative consent framework, people can still do that... if they know that's what their partner wants.
In reality, rapists know exactly what they're doing. This is well established by the work of Nick Groth, Stephanie McWhorter, and David Lisak. They aren't confused about consent; rather they use ambiguity as an excuse to avoid punishment and opprobrium. They deliberately manipulate their victims into situations where they know they can claim implied consent - for example, inviting the victim to a "party" comprised entirely of his friends, who lead the target into a compromising situation and then separate, leaving the victim and his target alone together.
What affirmative consent laws do is make it harder for perpetrators to spread doubt about the victim's reported lack of consent. Uncorroborared excuses like "I thought she was okay with it" or "she was into it at the time but regretted it the next morning" are no longer hard stops for prosecutors. It is still possible for the rapist to use these defenses - for example, he could get his compatriots to lie about the behavior of the accuser immediately before they separated - but it becomes more difficult.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Well, unlike property people are animate and can produce intentional utterances and actions. Unlike shoplifting the relevant parties are theoretically present during the perpetration of the offence, while in the case of shop lifting, they are absent. The hardware store explicitly is arranged for the purposes of commerce and there's no expectation that the primary goods that they provide are freely available for the taking, so absconding with a cement mixer cannot be construed as within a range of uncertain behaviours, whereas sexual actions both consensual and non-consensual occur within private spaces for the most part and there are significant social factors that surround how such things proceed in addition to the fact that unlike say, one's nail gun, sharing sexual relations with a stranger or acquaintance is a relatively normal occurrence.
So, unless you wish to stake out and defend significant points of equivalence I am going to stick with my original assertion that comparisons with shoplifting are not illuminating.
Yes, sexual assault and rape is different to lots of other crimes in how it is treated because it is different in its nature, two adults participating in something that is or isn't illegal based entirely upon the mental states of the individuals involved in a situation where only the parties involved are witnesses (for the most part).
As for rates of conviction, that rather seems like an ideological question as to whether what does and does not consistute reasonable doubt, or, perhaps a brute fact about the nature of the crime.
It's only illegal if the girl complains about it afterwards. If she's cool with it, then guess what? She probably won't complain.
If you aren't sure whether or not she's going to complain about it, then here's a surefire tip to help you out: Try asking first.
Most of the arguments against affirmative consent are based on this notion that the law magically enforces itself, and the girl can be totally into it, but you get charged with rape regardless because she didn't say the magic word and you didn't ask.
That's not how it works.
Now, there are some complaints of "But what if she's totally into it, but lies afterwards?" Guess what? If a girl is willing to lie about rape, then she can do that right now. The law doesn't make it easier or harder for either party to lie. The only time the law comes into effect is when both parties agree that the girl never affirmed consent, but person A says she didn't want to go through with it, and person B said A was totally into him.
In which case, I give more credence that person A knew what person A wanted better than person B knew what person A wanted. Which is the same standard we would set in any other property dispute.
There seems to be no reason why that should be criminalised.
I do applaud you for your laying of a trap.
The law actually makes it fairly difficult to obtain a conviction if your partner chooses to lie, it has a change of heart. It also makes it very hard to convict the guilty, through the same mechanism.
It's nearly impossible to fix the latter without impacting the former.
trap?
And that's a catch-22 situation that assumes you already feel safe and comfortable to voice your objection in the first place.
Funny enough: Victims of sexual assault often don't feel safe and comfortable during the sexual assault!
If you're not sure whether the girl in question feels safe, there's a simple solution:
Try asking.
Convenience store clerks are taught to give into people who try to rob them. Even if a clerk tells an armed gun man, "Take whatever you want, it's yours," it wouldn't be considered consensual.
So why would we consider it consensual if the clerk says nothing at all?
No. The law simply says it must be affirmative, conscious, and voluntary.
It does not say it must be verbal.
Technically, I don't believe it does.
It must be affirmative. Which means that it's implied, you have to explain what she said or did to imply it.
You cannot get away with simply, "Well, she never said no."
Consent can be revoked at any time, but revocation is not retroactive.
"No, that never happens to me" -> See, it doesn't affect you, so no need to argue against it.
Vs
"Wait, that happened in college" -> Congratulations, you are a rapist and/or bad at sex.
From the first Google result I got:
Under many current laws (varies between jurisdictions) sex and sex acts are held to a "no means no" standard. As long as the other person is able to express objection (not incapacitated) and does not do so, that is considered consent.
Affirmative consent requires unambiguous acceptance, either verbal or through clear nonverbal cues.
Most positive sexual encounters will feature this anyway, but when dealing with a partner who is awkward or less responsive, it can get dicey. Plus as mentioned at present gender norms often require one partner to simply initiate some forms of touching...asking, hesitating, etc can actually have negative implications or be considered awkward or inappropriate.
I think affirmative consent as a concept can definitely lead to some healthier sexual norms. Im unconvinced that society as-is is prepared to bake that into law.
I'm also skeptical that the current "no means no" standard really does much to legally enable rapists; anybody willing to abuse the current standard to get away with the act (and I agree they do) will abuse the new standard as well. You can't get away from the fact that most* sex acts occur in isolation, without witnesses other than the participants.
* - This is an assumption, I don't have data to back it up and I apologize if it's inaccurate.
I don't follow your logic.
Thank you for that. Please, tell me more of this "girl" and "asking". This is for a friend. (I think you're being a silly goose here)
But seriously, if you ask and the victim still didn't feel comfortable to voice their objection?
Once again, we are not remotely within a realm of analogy and it is not an enlightening rhetorical endeavour. However, even worse than the shoplifting analogy no one is taught not to voice their objection to sexual assault as a matter of course.
EDIT: Oh, and this is all the result of you responding to an out of context bit of the reasons that rape is not like shoplifting. Which is frankly bizarre.
They would be less able to abuse the standard though.
If this is not true, then affirmative consent would be identical to the current situation, rendering the objections confounding and illogical.
Rape is a terrible crime. But its not worse than child molestation and there were many false convictions in the 80s and 90s based on (effectively) lower standards of proof. The severity of the crime shouldn't change the burden of proof. Murder involves a crime at least as severe and it doesn't involve preponderance of evidence.
This is especially true when there is a great deal of pressure to side with the accuser. The "mattress case" as a cause celeb is solely because the university didn't find in her favor - but neither did law enforcement despite her claims otherwise. And the evidence does not seem to support her allegations. The actual facts become secondary to declare oneself super duper anti rape culture.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
I'll admit to some skimming I'm there, but but the last paragraph is adorable.
"I mean clearly passed out girls are off limits, and if you're in a relationship it's /probably/ okay, oh hell you'll figure it out..."
Unsaid: "If you fuck it up, you're expelled."
Again, I think affirmative consent is a healthy standard for partners to work from. At the same time, what we're basically doing here is criminalizing (or levying official sanction against, in the case of colleges) shitty sex.
Which is not remotely an explanation of how it differs from the laws currently on the books, specifically around how non-verbal consent can be gathered.
EDIT: mcdermott did that.
I read this, but it was unhelpful because it didn't actually explain any specifics about affirmative consent besides "it is not a contract and isn't 'no means no.'"
I'm aware that "no means no" is the standard but the legal implementation of this seems dicey and there is no clear line given to separate passively "taking it" and affirmatively consenting via positive reaction.
It is also unclear if affirmative consent needs to be given before every action, and how defensible e.g. "I misread the mood" would be if nonverbal consent is ok.
So instead of saying "she never said no" someone may say "she agrees by saying/signaling x/y". And this accomplishes what exactly?
Beyond that, I don't think I'm wrong in saying many sexual encounters just kinda happen, initiated by a kiss or touch that is accepted and returned. I don't see that kind of thing fitting into an affirmative framework and I'm wary trying to work around that.
The latter is one of the significant challenges mounted by zakkiel. The initial, non-verbal, methods of indicating interest would ostensibly be criminalised if someone misreads the mood - i.e. running a hand up another's leg or some such would be sexual assault on the first instance, whereas under a no-means-no standard it would be assault only if the unwelcome touching continued.
Can I touch you here
Is this ok
Do you want to keep going
Do you want to stop
Continuing if and only if you get an actual positive response
This is not some bizarre legalistic imposition on your sex life, this is basic human decency you should be acting with regardless of what the letter of the law says.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I read this, but it was unhelpful because it didn't actually explain any specifics about affirmative consent besides "it is not a contract and isn't 'no means no.'"
I'm aware that "no means no" is the standard but the legal implementation of this seems dicey and there is no clear line given to separate passively "taking it" and affirmatively consenting via positive reaction.
It is also unclear if affirmative consent needs to be given before every action, and how defensible e.g. "I misread the mood" would be if nonverbal consent is ok.[/quote]
If the non verbal cues aren't clear to you, that's normal. Lots of guys are bad with non verbal cues. And the law takes this into account.
You're trying to ask people on the internet to define consent for you. And it's hard for us to cover every single nuance of every situation.
Fortunately, there's no need for that. Here's a novel solution:
Try asking the girl.
I've made out with people at parties and I would be pretty confident that "can I make out with you" would have a lower success rate than just making out with them.
I understand that shitty sex is bad and you should be consensual and caring with your partners, but it also isn't bizarre to just sort of have sexual encounters happen.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Let me rephrase then: asking a girl to male out with me at a party based on social cues could make them feel uncomfortable even when actually making out with them does not. People are weird.
The fact that this is not necessarily the cultural norm? It works great if the other person expects it, less so if not.
For instance, I've never in my life asked before kissing a girl. None have been taken aback by it, so I suspect this is the norm.
By which I mean "Try asking" and other such stuff.
Thanks for speaking for me, my girlfriend, and everyone everywhere and telling us how we should have sex. Verbal communication is not a universal fact with sex. For some it is a mood killer, for others it is simply not how they communicate when intimate. It's more than a little goosey to tell everyone that this is how they should communicate or you're not a decent human being.
"Try asking" is also really shitty as a response when I'm trying to figure out the definition. It changes the focus of the discussion from how consent should be defined to an attack that implies I don't know how to receive consent or understand social cues. And as much as I'd love a full discussion of my social skills, that isn't the topic at hand.
I fail to see what is "goosey" about pointing this out.
The OP and many in this thread seem to be panicking over some imagined paradigm shift that will suddenly make them into sexual predators, or the ever popular hypothetical "what if she changes her mind a week later" boogeyman.
I find that line of thinking utterly ridiculous and needlessly paranoid.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
That has nothing to do with anything I've said, and being a goose about the fact I asked about nonverbal consent is not making it easier to understand how the lines change with this new paradigm.
I understand you can just ask. I understand that asking is, in many situations, a wonderful idea. So instead of treating my like a boogeyman who is scared i can no longer get away with serial assault, please meet me halfway by legitimately engaging me and helping me understand what you envision affirmative consent to mean with nonverbal consent, or in situations where asking explicitly is (culturally) not an amazing option compared to reading social cues.
E: to explicitly answer your question, responding to forumers by assuming they hold a hyperbolic position, and unsubtly attacking them with "just ask" is goosey, even if you believe a paradigm shift to verbally asking consent being the norm is a good thing.
...starting in college campuses
...where problematic applications have been identified
I don't think it's as innocuous in its implementation or as paranoid in the scepticism as claimed.
There are also fairly fundamental questions as to the philosophy of crime and conviction at play.
And my own bugaboos of arguments by analogy and incomplete arguments.
I'd define nonverbal consent as including but not limited to
Initiation of activities
Active (not passive) participation in activities
Escalation of activities
Nodding, Smiling, Expressing enthusiasm
Undressing oneself or ones partner
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Worst case scenario for the guy: Doesn't get to have sex with a girl who was kind of on the fence about it.
Worst case scenario for the girl: Getting raped.
Which one seems like the bigger concern to you?
Did your girlfriend press charges on you?
Once again, you seem to be under the impression that the law enforces itself.
If your girlfriend never explicitly gives consent and you don't ask, then it's not like some lawyer magically appears in your room and charges you with rape.
Also, I seriously doubt that your girlfriend has never given you any indications at any point in the relationship that would qualify as affirmative consent under the law.
Are you telling me that she has never said or done anything to that would qualify as affirmative consent under the law? She just lays there completely still without saying anything anything the entire time?
So the be clear, it is your position that this is not a real thing that has happened to real people?
EDIT: Since that's what "hypothetical boogeyman" implies.