So I have had very mixed feelings reading this thread, because it is hard to not feel like people who are critical of affirmative consent are, at best, being extremely callous towards accusers in favor of the accused. Which is likely not the case, and also having critical voices is important! But still, ~feelings~.
That said, I think we can all agree that if advances are not met with enthusiastic consent, it would be bad to continue, right?
In that sense, I think changing the standard such that the accused must at least claim (if not actually show; I'm not sure if a, what is it, affirmative defense is quite workable) that enthusiastic consent was given should be a good step. As Feral's pretty great post points out, a big chunk of the problem is that people manage to convince themselves that nothing was wrong, since the accuser didn't say no.
So while I don't know if it is legally viable to do more than simply changing the lie that needs to be told, it certainly seems like it could have a pretty large impact. Bad people will continue to be bad, but their support network will hopefully start unraveling.
I don't agree with this at all. I think there are plenty of girls who kind of breathlessly and silently go along with sexual advances (especially for early sexual encounters) and who won't get to the "enthusiastic consent" stage until later in a relationship when they are more comfortable. That mode of sexual interaction is not "wrong" and making it criminal just because it doesn't meet the idea of an ideal sexual encounter as determined by the author of a law or a tribunal seems incredibly condescending.
Based on later comments, I want to go back to this.
Was enthusiastic the problem, or is there no indication of any sort of consent before or during these scenarios?
Because if the latter, I would stand by my original statement that it would be bad to continue.
But that brings us back around to "normal sexual behaviors could now be rape." This makes sense in that the whole idea of affirmative consent is to place more responsibility on the person initiating sexual contact, but if it is not balanced correctly, it creates the possibility of things like the "reach your hard around your date's shoulders and feel her boob" risky to engage in. And unless we are willing to say that all women must be comfortable with enthusiastic/affirmative consent to sexual contact, what we are really doing is making it dangerous for a well meaning man to initiate sexual contact at all with girls who do not follow that model. Going back to something that was said earlier in the thread,
It's always been rape/sexual assault. You'll find many people on the internet have very strict ideas about what rape is and they're wrong. Intimacy is risky, this is why it's important to know how to judge another person's body language and be very careful if it looks like they're not into it anymore. What's changed is the public is more open to discuss matters like this rather than continuing on as if nothing bad happened.
"Can I kiss you now" is going to go over much worse with many women than just kissing them.
It's not worse for them, it's on men to choose wisely how they interpret their response. If you think a girl says yes but looks like she's uncomfortable - don't do it.
Asking the question alone would be a huge turn off to many women. It shows a lack of confidence. I probably would not be married to my wife if I had asked her permission to kiss her the first time.
Different strokes for different folks and all: I asked my wife for permission to kiss her the first time. To which she enthusiastically said, "yes!"
Yes, people differ in this regard. I think adopting a model that disfavors the preferences of some people is a mistake.
This doesn't seem to relate to the topic at hand except tangentially. It seems not a good set of statistics though.
There seems to be a great misunderstanding of what the law actually does.
Affirmative consent law doesn't define rape. It doesn't define the burden of proof. It doesn't suspend habeas corpus. It doesn't remove the presumption of innocence. It doesn't say "You have to believe everything the victim says, unless you have hard proof to the contrary."
Affirmative consent law simply defines consent, by saying consent must be affirmative, conscious, and voluntary. And by explaining that consent, once given, can be revoked (Meaning if a victim changes her mind and wants to stop, you should stop.)
Most people simply assume that the law destroys presumption of innocence, without citation, because they can't see any other reason for the law to exist. After all, non-consensual sex is already considered rape, right? And that would be nice if everyone had a clear understanding of what consent actually means.
Study suggests some men don’t know meaning of ‘rape’
A recent study from “Violence and Gender” found that nearly 32 percent of college male participants said they would “force a woman to [have] sexual intercourse.” When asked if they would “rape a woman,” that number dwindled to 14 percent... “Behaviorally descriptive survey items (i.e.,‘‘Have you ever coerced somebody to intercourse by holding them down?’’) versus labeling survey items (i.e., ‘‘Have you ever raped somebody?’’) will yield different responses, in that more men will admit to sexually coercive behaviors and more women will self-report victimization when behavioral descriptions are used instead of labels.”
And that gets us back to this question:
Even though the majority of the population agrees that rape is bad and non-consensual sex is bad, there's a cognitive dissonance where they don't recognize these actions as rape and non-consensual. They believe that "rape" is bad, but "holding a woman down and physically forcing yourself on her" is acceptable. Because they don't know what rape is. To them, a girl who lets you spend lots of money on her is the same thing as consent. Note that the numbers on that survey aren't simply high for male, but also for females, who've been indoctrinated to believe that this is okay.
The purpose of affirmative consent law is to clarify what we mean by consent. That's all it really does.
The implication of the law isn't, "You are automatically committing rape if you don't do X." Instead, the implication is that you could be committing rape without realizing it, and the only way to know for sure is by asking.
But that brings us back around to "normal sexual behaviors could now be rape." This makes sense in that the whole idea of affirmative consent is to place more responsibility on the person initiating sexual contact, but if it is not balanced correctly, it creates the possibility of things like the "reach your hard around your date's shoulders and feel her boob" risky to engage in. And unless we are willing to say that all women must be comfortable with enthusiastic/affirmative consent to sexual contact, what we are really doing is making it dangerous for a well meaning man to initiate sexual contact at all with girls who do not follow that model. Going back to something that was said earlier in the thread, "Can I kiss you now" is going to go over much worse with many women than just kissing them.
Would a reasonable person think that you had consent to kiss a person (like on a date)?
If yes don't worry about it.
I'd say no, and i consider myself a reasonable person.
Being on a date does not, in and of itself, mean consenting to anything, be it sex, kiss, hug or handholding.
But that brings us back around to "normal sexual behaviors could now be rape." This makes sense in that the whole idea of affirmative consent is to place more responsibility on the person initiating sexual contact, but if it is not balanced correctly, it creates the possibility of things like the "reach your hard around your date's shoulders and feel her boob" risky to engage in. And unless we are willing to say that all women must be comfortable with enthusiastic/affirmative consent to sexual contact, what we are really doing is making it dangerous for a well meaning man to initiate sexual contact at all with girls who do not follow that model. Going back to something that was said earlier in the thread,
It's always been rape/sexual assault. You'll find many people on the internet have very strict ideas about what rape is and they're wrong. Intimacy is risky, this is why it's important to know how to judge another person's body language and be very careful if it looks like they're not into it anymore. What's changed is the public is more open to discuss matters like this rather than continuing on as if nothing bad happened.
"Can I kiss you now" is going to go over much worse with many women than just kissing them.
It's not worse for them, it's on men to choose wisely how they interpret their response. If you think a girl says yes but looks like she's uncomfortable - don't do it.
Asking the question alone would be a huge turn off to many women. It shows a lack of confidence. I probably would not be married to my wife if I had asked her permission to kiss her the first time.
Different strokes for different folks and all: I asked my wife for permission to kiss her the first time. To which she enthusiastically said, "yes!"
Yes, people differ in this regard. I think adopting a model that disfavors the preferences of some people is a mistake.
That's the problem, this won't be the same standard for every women (or man) - this is why what we're discussing has the greater chances of communication between the two parties. Which is why it's important to read a person you're with properly and/or ask them point blank for permission (which reduces the risks considerably).
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
But that brings us back around to "normal sexual behaviors could now be rape." This makes sense in that the whole idea of affirmative consent is to place more responsibility on the person initiating sexual contact, but if it is not balanced correctly, it creates the possibility of things like the "reach your hard around your date's shoulders and feel her boob" risky to engage in. And unless we are willing to say that all women must be comfortable with enthusiastic/affirmative consent to sexual contact, what we are really doing is making it dangerous for a well meaning man to initiate sexual contact at all with girls who do not follow that model. Going back to something that was said earlier in the thread,
It's always been rape/sexual assault. You'll find many people on the internet have very strict ideas about what rape is and they're wrong. Intimacy is risky, this is why it's important to know how to judge another person's body language and be very careful if it looks like they're not into it anymore. What's changed is the public is more open to discuss matters like this rather than continuing on as if nothing bad happened.
"Can I kiss you now" is going to go over much worse with many women than just kissing them.
It's not worse for them, it's on men to choose wisely how they interpret their response. If you think a girl says yes but looks like she's uncomfortable - don't do it.
Asking the question alone would be a huge turn off to many women. It shows a lack of confidence. I probably would not be married to my wife if I had asked her permission to kiss her the first time.
Different strokes for different folks and all: I asked my wife for permission to kiss her the first time. To which she enthusiastically said, "yes!"
Yes, people differ in this regard. I think adopting a model that disfavors the preferences of some people is a mistake.
That's the problem, this won't be the same standard for every women (or man) - this is why what we're discussing has the greater chances of communication between the two parties. Which is why it's important to read a person you're with properly and/or ask them point blank for permission (which reduces the risks considerably).
You are saying something very general and abstract "read the person properly." How do you do that when you don't know them well? You no doubt think you are reading them properly all the time.
Asking point blank can be a huge turn off. Kill the mood entirely. This is why I think affirmative consent either had to just mean what we do now or to basically make it dangerous to pursue certain types of people who may be very interested in you.
Asking point blank can be a huge turn off. Kill the mood entirely. This is why I think affirmative consent either had to just mean what we do now or to basically make it dangerous to pursue certain types of people who may be very interested in you.
I find this language to be a bit problematic, specifically about "killing the mood". I was listening recently to some footage about Learning About Consent classes in colleges this year, and there's a disturbing number of men (I've only ever heard Freshmen men saying this, although it could be both sexes, certainly) having crazy ideas about consent ("If she says no, you keep going, otherwise it would 'kill the mood', right?") because of this so-called mood-killing.
I don't blame you for having this point of view, because this is most certainly a widespread cultural and learned thing rather than a natural behavior (both the idea that you can avoid consent if it would "kill the mood" for sex and that asking consent is a turn-off for either party). I feel that part of the change that needs to happen is changing the attitude that "the mood" is more important than each individual having control of their own body and the situation.
Romance is hard, and figuring out how to protect yourself is even harder.
You are saying something very general and abstract "read the person properly." How do you do that when you don't know them well? You no doubt think you are reading them properly all the time.
Get experience being around women, and dating girls. Know what signs to look for. Be around them before you go on a date to learn who they are. This is a skill, and a great one to have if you know what you're doing.
Asking point blank can be a huge turn off. Kill the mood entirely. This is why I think affirmative consent either had to just mean what we do now or to basically make it dangerous to pursue certain types of people who may be very interested in you.
It's the right path for this situation since it's harder to get results for girls who prefer men to "take them." That's the appeal. There is no second guessing. It not working for you is unfortunately a bad side effect, which I don't know how you'd fold into the affirmative consent theory. It works for you, great. That doesn't mean it can't have disastrous effects for women who'd prefer to be up front.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
So I have had very mixed feelings reading this thread, because it is hard to not feel like people who are critical of affirmative consent are, at best, being extremely callous towards accusers in favor of the accused. Which is likely not the case, and also having critical voices is important! But still, ~feelings~.
That said, I think we can all agree that if advances are not met with enthusiastic consent, it would be bad to continue, right?
In that sense, I think changing the standard such that the accused must at least claim (if not actually show; I'm not sure if a, what is it, affirmative defense is quite workable) that enthusiastic consent was given should be a good step. As Feral's pretty great post points out, a big chunk of the problem is that people manage to convince themselves that nothing was wrong, since the accuser didn't say no.
So while I don't know if it is legally viable to do more than simply changing the lie that needs to be told, it certainly seems like it could have a pretty large impact. Bad people will continue to be bad, but their support network will hopefully start unraveling.
I don't agree with this at all. I think there are plenty of girls who kind of breathlessly and silently go along with sexual advances (especially for early sexual encounters) and who won't get to the "enthusiastic consent" stage until later in a relationship when they are more comfortable. That mode of sexual interaction is not "wrong" and making it criminal just because it doesn't meet the idea of an ideal sexual encounter as determined by the author of a law or a tribunal seems incredibly condescending.
Based on later comments, I want to go back to this.
Was enthusiastic the problem, or is there no indication of any sort of consent before or during these scenarios?
Because if the latter, I would stand by my original statement that it would be bad to continue.
I think that there is definitely a class of women out there who prefer for a man to be more confident and initiate things, and going along with it and not pulling back is the form of consent. In situations like this, as long as the man will stop if asked, I don't think there is an issue. I think that "stop when asked" is a totally reasonable standard, and that having consent treated as revoked if the man does not stop is totally appropriate.
You are saying something very general and abstract "read the person properly." How do you do that when you don't know them well? You no doubt think you are reading them properly all the time.
Get experience being around women, and dating girls. Know what signs to look for. Be around them before you go on a date to learn who they are. This is a skill, and a great one to have if you know what you're doing.
Again though this is a "potentially commit sexual assault in order to not commit sexual assault" type of thing.
You are saying something very general and abstract "read the person properly." How do you do that when you don't know them well? You no doubt think you are reading them properly all the time.
Get experience being around women, and dating girls. Know what signs to look for. Be around them before you go on a date to learn who they are. This is a skill, and a great one to have if you know what you're doing.
Again though this is a "potentially commit sexual assault in order to not commit sexual assault" type of thing.
Hmm. True. That's why it shouldn't be used completely on its own, that's why asking for permission is the best method. With that each party knows where they stand before doing anything.
edit: While experience is great for learning body language in those circumstances it works better when the dialogue and permission is spoken openly so this isn't an either/or situation. It's good for the little details like if a girl is showing body language that she isn't interested (when they're just talking), bigger moves like kissing, groping without permission etc are inherently riskier going by body language alone. Asking for permission is always the better alternative.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
So I have had very mixed feelings reading this thread, because it is hard to not feel like people who are critical of affirmative consent are, at best, being extremely callous towards accusers in favor of the accused. Which is likely not the case, and also having critical voices is important! But still, ~feelings~.
That said, I think we can all agree that if advances are not met with enthusiastic consent, it would be bad to continue, right?
In that sense, I think changing the standard such that the accused must at least claim (if not actually show; I'm not sure if a, what is it, affirmative defense is quite workable) that enthusiastic consent was given should be a good step. As Feral's pretty great post points out, a big chunk of the problem is that people manage to convince themselves that nothing was wrong, since the accuser didn't say no.
So while I don't know if it is legally viable to do more than simply changing the lie that needs to be told, it certainly seems like it could have a pretty large impact. Bad people will continue to be bad, but their support network will hopefully start unraveling.
I don't agree with this at all. I think there are plenty of girls who kind of breathlessly and silently go along with sexual advances (especially for early sexual encounters) and who won't get to the "enthusiastic consent" stage until later in a relationship when they are more comfortable. That mode of sexual interaction is not "wrong" and making it criminal just because it doesn't meet the idea of an ideal sexual encounter as determined by the author of a law or a tribunal seems incredibly condescending.
Based on later comments, I want to go back to this.
Was enthusiastic the problem, or is there no indication of any sort of consent before or during these scenarios?
Because if the latter, I would stand by my original statement that it would be bad to continue.
I think that there is definitely a class of women out there who prefer for a man to be more confident and initiate things, and going along with it and not pulling back is the form of consent. In situations like this, as long as the man will stop if asked, I don't think there is an issue. I think that "stop when asked" is a totally reasonable standard, and that having consent treated as revoked if the man does not stop is totally appropriate.
Now you are being vague, tho, since "going along with it" can mean any number of things. Are they giving you any affirmative reason to make you believe you have their consent, rather than not expressing lack of consent?
I mean, sure, some people don't want to discernably give consent.
My response is to hope they find a way to satisfactorily communicate their desires.
Not to assume that someone who isn't giving consent is hoping I don't care.
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
But that brings us back around to "normal sexual behaviors could now be rape." This makes sense in that the whole idea of affirmative consent is to place more responsibility on the person initiating sexual contact, but if it is not balanced correctly, it creates the possibility of things like the "reach your hard around your date's shoulders and feel her boob" risky to engage in. And unless we are willing to say that all women must be comfortable with enthusiastic/affirmative consent to sexual contact, what we are really doing is making it dangerous for a well meaning man to initiate sexual contact at all with girls who do not follow that model. Going back to something that was said earlier in the thread,
It's always been rape/sexual assault. You'll find many people on the internet have very strict ideas about what rape is and they're wrong. Intimacy is risky, this is why it's important to know how to judge another person's body language and be very careful if it looks like they're not into it anymore. What's changed is the public is more open to discuss matters like this rather than continuing on as if nothing bad happened.
"Can I kiss you now" is going to go over much worse with many women than just kissing them.
It's not worse for them, it's on men to choose wisely how they interpret their response. If you think a girl says yes but looks like she's uncomfortable - don't do it.
Asking the question alone would be a huge turn off to many women. It shows a lack of confidence. I probably would not be married to my wife if I had asked her permission to kiss her the first time.
Different strokes for different folks and all: I asked my wife for permission to kiss her the first time. To which she enthusiastically said, "yes!"
Yes, people differ in this regard. I think adopting a model that disfavors the preferences of some people is a mistake.
That's the problem, this won't be the same standard for every women (or man) - this is why what we're discussing has the greater chances of communication between the two parties. Which is why it's important to read a person you're with properly and/or ask them point blank for permission (which reduces the risks considerably).
You are saying something very general and abstract "read the person properly." How do you do that when you don't know them well? You no doubt think you are reading them properly all the time.
Asking point blank can be a huge turn off. Kill the mood entirely. This is why I think affirmative consent either had to just mean what we do now or to basically make it dangerous to pursue certain types of people who may be very interested in you.
This doesn't seem to relate to the topic at hand except tangentially. It seems not a good set of statistics though.
There seems to be a great misunderstanding of what the law actually does.
Affirmative consent law doesn't define rape. It doesn't define the burden of proof. It doesn't suspend habeas corpus. It doesn't remove the presumption of innocence. It doesn't say "You have to believe everything the victim says, unless you have hard proof to the contrary."
Affirmative consent law simply defines consent, by saying consent must be affirmative, conscious, and voluntary. And by explaining that consent, once given, can be revoked (Meaning if a victim changes her mind and wants to stop, you should stop.)
Most people simply assume that the law destroys presumption of innocence, without citation, because they can't see any other reason for the law to exist. After all, non-consensual sex is already considered rape, right? And that would be nice if everyone had a clear understanding of what consent actually means.
Study suggests some men don’t know meaning of ‘rape’
A recent study from “Violence and Gender” found that nearly 32 percent of college male participants said they would “force a woman to [have] sexual intercourse.” When asked if they would “rape a woman,” that number dwindled to 14 percent... “Behaviorally descriptive survey items (i.e.,‘‘Have you ever coerced somebody to intercourse by holding them down?’’) versus labeling survey items (i.e., ‘‘Have you ever raped somebody?’’) will yield different responses, in that more men will admit to sexually coercive behaviors and more women will self-report victimization when behavioral descriptions are used instead of labels.”
And that gets us back to this question:
Even though the majority of the population agrees that rape is bad and non-consensual sex is bad, there's a cognitive dissonance where they don't recognize these actions as rape and non-consensual. They believe that "rape" is bad, but "holding a woman down and physically forcing yourself on her" is acceptable. Because they don't know what rape is. To them, a girl who lets you spend lots of money on her is the same thing as consent. Note that the numbers on that survey aren't simply high for male, but also for females, who've been indoctrinated to believe that this is okay.
The purpose of affirmative consent law is to clarify what we mean by consent. That's all it really does.
The implication of the law isn't, "You are automatically committing rape if you don't do X." Instead, the implication is that you could be committing rape without realizing it, and the only way to know for sure is by asking.
But that brings us back around to "normal sexual behaviors could now be rape." This makes sense in that the whole idea of affirmative consent is to place more responsibility on the person initiating sexual contact, but if it is not balanced correctly, it creates the possibility of things like the "reach your hard around your date's shoulders and feel her boob" risky to engage in. And unless we are willing to say that all women must be comfortable with enthusiastic/affirmative consent to sexual contact, what we are really doing is making it dangerous for a well meaning man to initiate sexual contact at all with girls who do not follow that model. Going back to something that was said earlier in the thread, "Can I kiss you now" is going to go over much worse with many women than just kissing them.
Would a reasonable person think that you had consent to kiss a person (like on a date)?
If yes don't worry about it.
I'd say no, and i consider myself a reasonable person.
Being on a date does not, in and of itself, mean consenting to anything, be it sex, kiss, hug or handholding.
Oh sure, but the point is there is no "danger" here.
Do you think that a reasonable person would think that the person leaning towards you on a date with their eyes closed is actively consenting to a kiss? If so you aren't breaking any laws because even if in their heart of hearts they don't it doesn't matter because all that matters is what you know.
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Fucking human nature, why can't people be rational about their sexual desires.
Hell I hear there's a whole group of people who are attracted to their own gender. Just fucking irrational troublemakers.
You are saying something very general and abstract "read the person properly." How do you do that when you don't know them well? You no doubt think you are reading them properly all the time.
Get experience being around women, and dating girls. Know what signs to look for. Be around them before you go on a date to learn who they are. This is a skill, and a great one to have if you know what you're doing.
Again though this is a "potentially commit sexual assault in order to not commit sexual assault" type of thing.
Hmm. True. That's why it shouldn't be used completely on its own, that's why asking for permission is the best method. With that each party knows where they stand before doing anything.
Sure. But so is "saying no" the best method, but people still don't do it.
This law will not magically change the social norms of the society we live in and until they change this type of law is placing mines where there should be mouse traps
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
You are saying something very general and abstract "read the person properly." How do you do that when you don't know them well? You no doubt think you are reading them properly all the time.
Get experience being around women, and dating girls. Know what signs to look for. Be around them before you go on a date to learn who they are. This is a skill, and a great one to have if you know what you're doing.
Again though this is a "potentially commit sexual assault in order to not commit sexual assault" type of thing.
Hmm. True. That's why it shouldn't be used completely on its own, that's why asking for permission is the best method. With that each party knows where they stand before doing anything.
Sure. But so is "saying no" the best method, but people still don't do it.
This law will not magically change the social norms of the society we live in and until they change this type of law is placing mines where there should be mouse traps
No, but it might help make it safer where social norms are changed long term. There is no magic bullet with this.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal.
Well then it's a good thing that the phrase "verbal" doesn't appear at any point in the affirmative consent law.
Why do people in this thread think they have a right to dictate what the law actually says without bothering to read it?
How hard is it for someone to just say, "Hey, here's a line from the law that bothers me, quoted verbatim."
Oh sure, but the point is there is no "danger" here.
Do you think that a reasonable person would think that the person leaning towards you on a date with their eyes closed is actively consenting to a kiss? If so you aren't breaking any laws because even if in their heart of hearts they don't it doesn't matter because all that matters is what you know.
Does the argument boil down to "I'm sure it will all work out"? I think if similar standards were being applied to give law enforcement or the courts a lower burden of proof to convict people due to a supposed "epidemic" or if noncriminal behavior was being criminalized using ambiguous language guaranteed to be applied unevenly in order to root out criminal behavior it would not be generally supported by liberals. And that would be doubly so if it impinged on people's sex lives.
But rape is evil and ugly and no one wants to have even the suggestion of being pro-rape. So everything else goes out of the window.
So I have had very mixed feelings reading this thread, because it is hard to not feel like people who are critical of affirmative consent are, at best, being extremely callous towards accusers in favor of the accused. Which is likely not the case, and also having critical voices is important! But still, ~feelings~.
That said, I think we can all agree that if advances are not met with enthusiastic consent, it would be bad to continue, right?
In that sense, I think changing the standard such that the accused must at least claim (if not actually show; I'm not sure if a, what is it, affirmative defense is quite workable) that enthusiastic consent was given should be a good step. As Feral's pretty great post points out, a big chunk of the problem is that people manage to convince themselves that nothing was wrong, since the accuser didn't say no.
So while I don't know if it is legally viable to do more than simply changing the lie that needs to be told, it certainly seems like it could have a pretty large impact. Bad people will continue to be bad, but their support network will hopefully start unraveling.
I don't agree with this at all. I think there are plenty of girls who kind of breathlessly and silently go along with sexual advances (especially for early sexual encounters) and who won't get to the "enthusiastic consent" stage until later in a relationship when they are more comfortable. That mode of sexual interaction is not "wrong" and making it criminal just because it doesn't meet the idea of an ideal sexual encounter as determined by the author of a law or a tribunal seems incredibly condescending.
Based on later comments, I want to go back to this.
Was enthusiastic the problem, or is there no indication of any sort of consent before or during these scenarios?
Because if the latter, I would stand by my original statement that it would be bad to continue.
I think that there is definitely a class of women out there who prefer for a man to be more confident and initiate things, and going along with it and not pulling back is the form of consent. In situations like this, as long as the man will stop if asked, I don't think there is an issue. I think that "stop when asked" is a totally reasonable standard, and that having consent treated as revoked if the man does not stop is totally appropriate.
Now you are being vague, tho, since "going along with it" can mean any number of things. Are they giving you any affirmative reason to make you believe you have their consent, rather than not expressing lack of consent?
I mean, sure, some people don't want to discernably give consent.
My response is to hope they find a way to satisfactorily communicate their desires.
Not to assume that someone who isn't giving consent is hoping I don't care.
Louis CK etc.
In my experience I would say that you definitely get consent, but its necessarily in in an overt "yes keep doing that thing." I have a hard time believing that describing the body language of a person you don't know very well in the middle of some sort of sexual interaction as a means of showing they consented when they are telling the court that they did not intend to consent is going to be very persuasive. Seems to shift the societal expectation for an acceptable sexual interaction to something like verbal consent or someone who is loud during sex. Hardly seems fair to people that are not that way by nature.
That said, it's been almost a decade since I was single, and even before that I was in a relationship for a while, so I'm thinking more of high school and early college interactions with girls who were not very sexually experienced (as I time when I was not either).
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
That is easy to say, but people are not rational about sex, and telling someone who is already uncomfortable talking about sex that they must talk about sex during sex or they are doing it wrong seems like it would just make people feel even more awkward about sex.
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
Verbal communication is the least risky alternative. It may not be how everyone does it, but it can't hurt.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
It's not that different.
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
Verbal communication is the least risky alternative. It may not be how everyone does it, but it can't hurt.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
It's not that different.
What we are saying is that it can hurt. Very much. You cannot just make someone who does not want to talk about sex talk about it. That is a terribly unfair expectation.
Oh sure, but the point is there is no "danger" here.
Do you think that a reasonable person would think that the person leaning towards you on a date with their eyes closed is actively consenting to a kiss? If so you aren't breaking any laws because even if in their heart of hearts they don't it doesn't matter because all that matters is what you know.
Does the argument boil down to "I'm sure it will all work out"? I think if similar standards were being applied to give law enforcement or the courts a lower burden of proof to convict people due to a supposed "epidemic" or if noncriminal behavior was being criminalized using ambiguous language guaranteed to be applied unevenly in order to root out criminal behavior it would not be generally supported by liberals. And that would be doubly so if it impinged on people's sex lives.
But rape is evil and ugly and no one wants to have even the suggestion of being pro-rape. So everything else goes out of the window.
Oh sure, but the point is there is no "danger" here.
Do you think that a reasonable person would think that the person leaning towards you on a date with their eyes closed is actively consenting to a kiss? If so you aren't breaking any laws because even if in their heart of hearts they don't it doesn't matter because all that matters is what you know.
Does the argument boil down to "I'm sure it will all work out"? I think if similar standards were being applied to give law enforcement or the courts a lower burden of proof to convict people due to a supposed "epidemic" or if noncriminal behavior was being criminalized using ambiguous language guaranteed to be applied unevenly in order to root out criminal behavior it would not be generally supported by liberals. And that would be doubly so if it impinged on people's sex lives.
But rape is evil and ugly and no one wants to have even the suggestion of being pro-rape. So everything else goes out of the window.
The argument boils down to the situation that space is worried about isn't illegal under this law.
0
Options
AstaerethIn the belly of the beastRegistered Userregular
What is with all this "killing the mood" business? Consent can be extremely sexy, it's the open expression and reciprocation of desire. You don't have to talk like a lawyer. Humans have been working out clever romantic ways to say voulez vous choucher avec moi for thousands of years.
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Masturbating gets old. This may work for some people, if they meet the right partner. Others will die alone if they take your advice.
Which is a small thing compared to being raped (or accidentally raping somebody), obviously. But sucks for the lonely cat lover.
I like the "spend time around them before the date to get to know them" advice as well, ignoring the many, many, many people for whom that is not an option. I met my girlfriend of a year online. We talked a bit, but I had no chance to feel out her nonverbal cues before our first date. Other people get set up, or ask somebody out they just met, or turn a first meeting into a date unexpectedly. So yeah, let's stop pretending that a broad array of social norms and romantic pairings don't exist and that (arguably) many or most don't really fit this model well.
mcdermott on
+6
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I mean, I could not say to my wife "want to have sex?" as a way of initiating sex even after we have been together almost 10 years. It is important for her that sex be spontaneous and talking about it is not spontaneous. People differ in this regard. Trying to impose one way of engaging in sex and making all others potentially criminal is both very dangerous and very unfair imo.
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
Verbal communication is the least risky alternative. It may not be how everyone does it, but it can't hurt.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
It's not that different.
What we are saying is that it can hurt. Very much. You cannot just make someone who does not want to talk about sex talk about it. That is a terribly unfair expectation.
If you can't talk to your partner about kissing them, how are you going to talk to them about having sex when you get to that stage? Communication is paramount to relationships.
+1
Options
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
I strongly agree.
I'd also like to echo an earlier post from mcdermott in this connection
But you add some back when you require "enthusiastic participation" particularly when it must be "ongoing and continuous." It's entirely possible to miss that somebody has become a less enthusiastic participant, depending on act and position. Granted, that may make you a shitty lover. But now it may make you a rapist as well.
Where as before requiring the desire to stop be affirmatively expressed was a much less ambiguous standard once you're in the act(s).
Edit: Or maybe I'm the only one who's had some less than stellar sex, including with longtime partners.
I'm sure that's possible.
Or perhaps the only one openly admitting it.
Even if we accept 'continuously communicate' as good sex advice, that's neither here nor there when it comes to how we classify rape. Uncomfortable, awkward, and unethusiastic sex isn't rape, any more than uncomfortable, awkward, and unenthusiastic hugs are battery.
+7
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
In my experience I would say that you definitely get consent, but its necessarily in in an overt "yes keep doing that thing." I have a hard time believing that describing the body language of a person you don't know very well in the middle of some sort of sexual interaction as a means of showing they consented when they are telling the court that they did not intend to consent is going to be very persuasive. Seems to shift the societal expectation for an acceptable sexual interaction to something like verbal consent or someone who is loud during sex. Hardly seems fair to people that are not that way by nature.
That said, it's been almost a decade since I was single, and even before that I was in a relationship for a while, so I'm thinking more of high school and early college interactions with girls who were not very sexually experienced (as I time when I was not either).
I have to say that I am really struggling to see a situation where one is confident that one has consent that ends in a courtroom (that doesn't involve outright deception).
If one is not confident that one has consent, then maybe... it's not necessary to have sex right then?
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
Verbal communication is the least risky alternative. It may not be how everyone does it, but it can't hurt.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
It's not that different.
What we are saying is that it can hurt. Very much. You cannot just make someone who does not want to talk about sex talk about it. That is a terribly unfair expectation.
Show us where the law requires this.
People aren't saying that all communication has to be verbal always.
They're saying that if communication is otherwise ambiguous or unclear, then verbal is the fastest and easiest solution.
The alternative to affirmative consent isn't non-verbal communication. It's a person who just lays there while saying and doing absolutely nothing and basically playing dead.
Which, sadly, far too many potential rapists have absolutely no problem with!
To be clear, before accusations get tossed around, I'm not implying anybody is entitled to sex. I own zero fedoras.
But telling somebody to completely ignore the most common social norms as dating advice is kind of a dick move. You're not setting them up for success, but rather putting them on a slow train to lonely town.
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
Hey, it's great that you don't need verbal communication to have good, consensual sex. But for a lot of other people, they have a hard time letting their partner know what really revs their motor or what turns them off - or worse, what things might trigger a panic attack due to past trauma. And a large part of that is because our society has made it really taboo for partners to just sit down and say "this is what I like/don't like" when it comes to sex. Which, in turn, winds up making sex a lot less enjoyable for those people - of both genders.
So, I don't see where you're being told that you're being shoehorned in anywhere.
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
I strongly agree.
I'd also like to echo an earlier post from mcdermott in this connection
But you add some back when you require "enthusiastic participation" particularly when it must be "ongoing and continuous." It's entirely possible to miss that somebody has become a less enthusiastic participant, depending on act and position. Granted, that may make you a shitty lover. But now it may make you a rapist as well.
Where as before requiring the desire to stop be affirmatively expressed was a much less ambiguous standard once you're in the act(s).
Edit: Or maybe I'm the only one who's had some less than stellar sex, including with longtime partners.
I'm sure that's possible.
Or perhaps the only one openly admitting it.
Even if we accept 'continuously communicate' as good sex advice, that's neither here nor there when it comes to how we classify rape. Uncomfortable, awkward, and unethusiastic sex isn't rape, any more than uncomfortable, awkward, and unenthusiastic hugs are battery.
Withdrawn consent
Finally, even if the alleged victim initially consented to and participated in sexual intercourse, s/he CAN later withdraw that consent...which MAY turn what began as an act of consensual intercourse, into rape.17
But this will only occur if the following three things are true:
The alleged victim communicates to the defendant that s/he objects to the intercourse that is occurring and attempts to stop the act,
The "victim" communicates this objection in a way that would convey lack of consent to a reasonable person, AND
The defendant forcibly continues the intercourse anyway.18
rockrnger on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
Verbal communication is the least risky alternative. It may not be how everyone does it, but it can't hurt.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
It's not that different.
What we are saying is that it can hurt. Very much. You cannot just make someone who does not want to talk about sex talk about it. That is a terribly unfair expectation.
If you can't talk to your partner about kissing them, how are you going to talk to them about having sex when you get to that stage? Communication is paramount to relationships.
Maybe you don't talk about having sex with them at all? You just let things progress and you end up having sex.
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
Verbal communication is the least risky alternative. It may not be how everyone does it, but it can't hurt.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
It's not that different.
What we are saying is that it can hurt. Very much. You cannot just make someone who does not want to talk about sex talk about it. That is a terribly unfair expectation.
If you can't talk to your partner about kissing them, how are you going to talk to them about having sex when you get to that stage? Communication is paramount to relationships.
Maybe you don't talk about having sex with them at all? You just let things progress and you end up having sex.
Again, talking isn't required by the law. It's not even mentioned in the law.
Can someone please, please, PLEASE just post specific excerpts of what the law actually does, rather than complaining because of of they think it does?
This idea that explicit communication is a "turn-off" really needs to go away. Just fuckin talk to your partner. If they find that unattractive, talk about that. If they find talking weird, keep talking. Quit silently walking in emotional minefields, ask the mines where they are.
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
Verbal communication is the least risky alternative. It may not be how everyone does it, but it can't hurt.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
It's not that different.
What we are saying is that it can hurt. Very much. You cannot just make someone who does not want to talk about sex talk about it. That is a terribly unfair expectation.
If you can't talk to your partner about kissing them, how are you going to talk to them about having sex when you get to that stage? Communication is paramount to relationships.
Maybe you don't talk about having sex with them at all? You just let things progress and you end up having sex.
I could never do that. There's so much to be learnt by communicating what we both want, what we don't like, compromises, boundaries. When parties openly discuss what they want then they don't have to guess. It's in the open.
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
In my experience I would say that you definitely get consent, but its necessarily in in an overt "yes keep doing that thing." I have a hard time believing that describing the body language of a person you don't know very well in the middle of some sort of sexual interaction as a means of showing they consented when they are telling the court that they did not intend to consent is going to be very persuasive. Seems to shift the societal expectation for an acceptable sexual interaction to something like verbal consent or someone who is loud during sex. Hardly seems fair to people that are not that way by nature.
That said, it's been almost a decade since I was single, and even before that I was in a relationship for a while, so I'm thinking more of high school and early college interactions with girls who were not very sexually experienced (as I time when I was not either).
I have to say that I am really struggling to see a situation where one is confident that one has consent that ends in a courtroom (that doesn't involve outright deception).
If one is not confident that one has consent, then maybe... it's not necessary to have sex right then?
Deception is the concern though. Its the person that gave every indication, as far as you could tell, that they were into what you were doing and then they change their mind and press charges and now you are forced to try and argue in front of a judge that the way a girl reacted in bed (in detail maybe) showed her affirmative consent, despite her direct verbal protests to the contrary in court. The question in my mind is why change the burden of proof at all here. It seems like the clear cases are clear cut under either standard and its only the edge cases that are really shifting, and they seem to shift towards potentially criminalizing some very main stream, common sexual behaviors.
+1
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Oh yes, every time I've said "I need your cock into my pussy", it's totally killed the mood and neither of us were interested after that. This is the reason I'm still a virgin at 37.
/sarcasm
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
Posts
Was enthusiastic the problem, or is there no indication of any sort of consent before or during these scenarios?
Because if the latter, I would stand by my original statement that it would be bad to continue.
Yes, people differ in this regard. I think adopting a model that disfavors the preferences of some people is a mistake.
I'd say no, and i consider myself a reasonable person.
Being on a date does not, in and of itself, mean consenting to anything, be it sex, kiss, hug or handholding.
That's the problem, this won't be the same standard for every women (or man) - this is why what we're discussing has the greater chances of communication between the two parties. Which is why it's important to read a person you're with properly and/or ask them point blank for permission (which reduces the risks considerably).
You are saying something very general and abstract "read the person properly." How do you do that when you don't know them well? You no doubt think you are reading them properly all the time.
Asking point blank can be a huge turn off. Kill the mood entirely. This is why I think affirmative consent either had to just mean what we do now or to basically make it dangerous to pursue certain types of people who may be very interested in you.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I don't blame you for having this point of view, because this is most certainly a widespread cultural and learned thing rather than a natural behavior (both the idea that you can avoid consent if it would "kill the mood" for sex and that asking consent is a turn-off for either party). I feel that part of the change that needs to happen is changing the attitude that "the mood" is more important than each individual having control of their own body and the situation.
Romance is hard, and figuring out how to protect yourself is even harder.
Get experience being around women, and dating girls. Know what signs to look for. Be around them before you go on a date to learn who they are. This is a skill, and a great one to have if you know what you're doing.
It's the right path for this situation since it's harder to get results for girls who prefer men to "take them." That's the appeal. There is no second guessing. It not working for you is unfortunately a bad side effect, which I don't know how you'd fold into the affirmative consent theory. It works for you, great. That doesn't mean it can't have disastrous effects for women who'd prefer to be up front.
I think that there is definitely a class of women out there who prefer for a man to be more confident and initiate things, and going along with it and not pulling back is the form of consent. In situations like this, as long as the man will stop if asked, I don't think there is an issue. I think that "stop when asked" is a totally reasonable standard, and that having consent treated as revoked if the man does not stop is totally appropriate.
Again though this is a "potentially commit sexual assault in order to not commit sexual assault" type of thing.
Hmm. True. That's why it shouldn't be used completely on its own, that's why asking for permission is the best method. With that each party knows where they stand before doing anything.
edit: While experience is great for learning body language in those circumstances it works better when the dialogue and permission is spoken openly so this isn't an either/or situation. It's good for the little details like if a girl is showing body language that she isn't interested (when they're just talking), bigger moves like kissing, groping without permission etc are inherently riskier going by body language alone. Asking for permission is always the better alternative.
I mean, sure, some people don't want to discernably give consent.
My response is to hope they find a way to satisfactorily communicate their desires.
Not to assume that someone who isn't giving consent is hoping I don't care.
Louis CK etc.
That's not what it means tho.
Oh sure, but the point is there is no "danger" here.
Do you think that a reasonable person would think that the person leaning towards you on a date with their eyes closed is actively consenting to a kiss? If so you aren't breaking any laws because even if in their heart of hearts they don't it doesn't matter because all that matters is what you know.
Fucking human nature, why can't people be rational about their sexual desires.
Hell I hear there's a whole group of people who are attracted to their own gender. Just fucking irrational troublemakers.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Sure. But so is "saying no" the best method, but people still don't do it.
This law will not magically change the social norms of the society we live in and until they change this type of law is placing mines where there should be mouse traps
Again, why do people in this thread think they have a right to tell others how to have sex? Verbal communication is not how everyone does it, it is not a requirement that to have healthy sex both partners or even one must be actively vocal. The sex advice column that keeps popping up in this thread is disingenuous, unwanted, and seems based around shoehorning people into very specific and narrow ways of consent and communication.
It's almost as if 6 billion people have different desires and different ways of communicating those desires.
No, but it might help make it safer where social norms are changed long term. There is no magic bullet with this.
Well then it's a good thing that the phrase "verbal" doesn't appear at any point in the affirmative consent law.
Why do people in this thread think they have a right to dictate what the law actually says without bothering to read it?
How hard is it for someone to just say, "Hey, here's a line from the law that bothers me, quoted verbatim."
Does the argument boil down to "I'm sure it will all work out"? I think if similar standards were being applied to give law enforcement or the courts a lower burden of proof to convict people due to a supposed "epidemic" or if noncriminal behavior was being criminalized using ambiguous language guaranteed to be applied unevenly in order to root out criminal behavior it would not be generally supported by liberals. And that would be doubly so if it impinged on people's sex lives.
But rape is evil and ugly and no one wants to have even the suggestion of being pro-rape. So everything else goes out of the window.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
In my experience I would say that you definitely get consent, but its necessarily in in an overt "yes keep doing that thing." I have a hard time believing that describing the body language of a person you don't know very well in the middle of some sort of sexual interaction as a means of showing they consented when they are telling the court that they did not intend to consent is going to be very persuasive. Seems to shift the societal expectation for an acceptable sexual interaction to something like verbal consent or someone who is loud during sex. Hardly seems fair to people that are not that way by nature.
That said, it's been almost a decade since I was single, and even before that I was in a relationship for a while, so I'm thinking more of high school and early college interactions with girls who were not very sexually experienced (as I time when I was not either).
That is easy to say, but people are not rational about sex, and telling someone who is already uncomfortable talking about sex that they must talk about sex during sex or they are doing it wrong seems like it would just make people feel even more awkward about sex.
Verbal communication is the least risky alternative. It may not be how everyone does it, but it can't hurt.
It's not that different.
What we are saying is that it can hurt. Very much. You cannot just make someone who does not want to talk about sex talk about it. That is a terribly unfair expectation.
The argument boils down to the situation that space is worried about isn't illegal under this law.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Masturbating gets old. This may work for some people, if they meet the right partner. Others will die alone if they take your advice.
Which is a small thing compared to being raped (or accidentally raping somebody), obviously. But sucks for the lonely cat lover.
I like the "spend time around them before the date to get to know them" advice as well, ignoring the many, many, many people for whom that is not an option. I met my girlfriend of a year online. We talked a bit, but I had no chance to feel out her nonverbal cues before our first date. Other people get set up, or ask somebody out they just met, or turn a first meeting into a date unexpectedly. So yeah, let's stop pretending that a broad array of social norms and romantic pairings don't exist and that (arguably) many or most don't really fit this model well.
If you can't talk to your partner about kissing them, how are you going to talk to them about having sex when you get to that stage? Communication is paramount to relationships.
I strongly agree.
I'd also like to echo an earlier post from mcdermott in this connection
Even if we accept 'continuously communicate' as good sex advice, that's neither here nor there when it comes to how we classify rape. Uncomfortable, awkward, and unethusiastic sex isn't rape, any more than uncomfortable, awkward, and unenthusiastic hugs are battery.
If one is not confident that one has consent, then maybe... it's not necessary to have sex right then?
Show us where the law requires this.
People aren't saying that all communication has to be verbal always.
They're saying that if communication is otherwise ambiguous or unclear, then verbal is the fastest and easiest solution.
The alternative to affirmative consent isn't non-verbal communication. It's a person who just lays there while saying and doing absolutely nothing and basically playing dead.
Which, sadly, far too many potential rapists have absolutely no problem with!
But telling somebody to completely ignore the most common social norms as dating advice is kind of a dick move. You're not setting them up for success, but rather putting them on a slow train to lonely town.
Hey, it's great that you don't need verbal communication to have good, consensual sex. But for a lot of other people, they have a hard time letting their partner know what really revs their motor or what turns them off - or worse, what things might trigger a panic attack due to past trauma. And a large part of that is because our society has made it really taboo for partners to just sit down and say "this is what I like/don't like" when it comes to sex. Which, in turn, winds up making sex a lot less enjoyable for those people - of both genders.
So, I don't see where you're being told that you're being shoehorned in anywhere.
Withdrawn consent
Finally, even if the alleged victim initially consented to and participated in sexual intercourse, s/he CAN later withdraw that consent...which MAY turn what began as an act of consensual intercourse, into rape.17
But this will only occur if the following three things are true:
The alleged victim communicates to the defendant that s/he objects to the intercourse that is occurring and attempts to stop the act,
The "victim" communicates this objection in a way that would convey lack of consent to a reasonable person, AND
The defendant forcibly continues the intercourse anyway.18
Maybe you don't talk about having sex with them at all? You just let things progress and you end up having sex.
Again, talking isn't required by the law. It's not even mentioned in the law.
Can someone please, please, PLEASE just post specific excerpts of what the law actually does, rather than complaining because of of they think it does?
I could never do that. There's so much to be learnt by communicating what we both want, what we don't like, compromises, boundaries. When parties openly discuss what they want then they don't have to guess. It's in the open.
Deception is the concern though. Its the person that gave every indication, as far as you could tell, that they were into what you were doing and then they change their mind and press charges and now you are forced to try and argue in front of a judge that the way a girl reacted in bed (in detail maybe) showed her affirmative consent, despite her direct verbal protests to the contrary in court. The question in my mind is why change the burden of proof at all here. It seems like the clear cases are clear cut under either standard and its only the edge cases that are really shifting, and they seem to shift towards potentially criminalizing some very main stream, common sexual behaviors.