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.
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
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.
Is it possible that felony charges are not the best means of addressing this delicate problem?
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
Schrodinger on
+1
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
Do you have a link to the statute? I don't see it in the OP or the article.
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
I mean hey, who ever heard of humans being different? Some people love talking and sex, some people love dirty talking, asking, probing, etc. Some people hate it. My girlfriend is pretty chatty but she doesn't talk and doesn't like me to talk during or around sex. Monk like silence, except... you know, not exactly like monks.
I'm not trying to tell people it's wrong to talk. But I am saying that couching verbal communication as a must, or as the "right way" to have sex is short sighted and honestly pretty self centered. So you like it. Who cares? Ever think about all the ways you are different from others? Consider that what works for you does not work for others.
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
That's great that this has worked for you in your encounters.
This may not work or be comfortable for all partners in all encounters, particularly new partners.
Perhaps you should have /sarcasm a little earlier, for reduced goosery.
+4
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
Harry Dresden, however, who is a person current;y posting in this thread, has more or less said that ongoing explicit verbal communication ought to be part of our understanding of healthy sexuality (and its lack part of our understanding of rape? -that the second does not follow from the first even when granted is what I was pointing out).
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
So what situation is currently legal that affirmative consent criminalizes?
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
Indeed it's messy. You can talk about sex when you're not in the middle of it. Then when you are spontaneous you know what to do to please your partner next time. Relationships are messy too, it's still important to communicate in them. Messiness isn't an excuse to ignore the fact that the messiness can be unpleasant or even turn into a crime when you don't know what legal and ethic boundaries your partner has.
It is kinda crazy that "You have to have sex this way or else its rape" is somehow a position that's being taken here of all places.
I mean "well if you just fuck the proper way everything will work out fine" is unironically being put forth as not problematic literally the first day of Gay Pride week the week after gay marriage was legitimized in every state.
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
So what situation is currently legal that affirmative consent criminalizes?
Nothing? It doesn't suddenly make any current behavior against the law?
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
So what situation is currently legal that affirmative consent criminalizes?
Ok, what the accused think (or would reasonably think) is all that matters law wise.
Right now it's basically didn't think no and this changes it to thought yes.
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
So what situation is currently legal that affirmative consent criminalizes?
Ok, what the accused think (or would reasonably think) is all that matters law wise.
Right now it's basically didn't think no and this changes it to thought yes.
No, right now the standard is based on external behavior. You're saying that affirmative consent moves it entirely into the subjective state of the sexual partners?
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
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?
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.
Then you... list those indications? In detail, if need be.
This sounds quite different from your earlier posts, where it seemed like there weren't any indications.
It is kinda crazy that "You have to have sex this way or else its rape" is somehow a position that's being taken here of all places.
I mean "well if you just fuck the proper way everything will work out fine" is unironically being put forth as not problematic literally the first day of Gay Pride week the week after gay marriage was legitimized in every state.
"You have to care about what your partner wants" is not particularly crazy at all, actually.
Let me tell you how many of my early sexual encounters involved me inviting someone to my apartment to watch a movie or whatever without realizing that the guy thought that meant I wanted sex, despite my previous statements about not wanting to have sex. (most of them. It was most of them)
Cambiata on
"If you divide the whole world into just enemies and friends, you'll end up destroying everything" --Nausicaa of the Valley of Wind
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
Harry Dresden, however, who is a person current;y posting in this thread, has more or less said that ongoing explicit verbal communication ought to be part of our understanding of healthy sexuality (and its lack part of our understanding of rape? -that the second does not follow from the first even when granted is what I was pointing out).
It can, not that it will. It's safer overall, since everyone knows where they stand. It's not the only method, that includes having a relationship, building trust, studying body language, and trying to not accidentally hurt another person legally or emotionally. There are various ways to understand someone, speaking is merely the fastest and easiest method to get the information you need.
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
So what situation is currently legal that affirmative consent criminalizes?
Nothing? It doesn't suddenly make any current behavior against the law?
It is a change in the law; by definition it has to change what is criminal. On the face of it, affirmative consent laws (via changing the definition of consent) change what can qualify as sexual assault by making initiating sexual contact into a legal grey area.
If it truly changes nothing, then why introduce the law? Changing the culture and the prosecution system surrounding assault are wonderful ideas that do not require legal changes, so why introduce a law that clearly adds ambiguity to the current system simply to attempt to shift cultural attitudes?
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.
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Your point is that we shouldn't assume that non-talkers like to talk.
So the alternative is to assume that the people who like to talk are non-talkers?
How exactly do you know which group someone belongs to if they never say anything?
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
There's an interesting reverse double standard here.
Big intimidating dude is alone with a girl 1/3 his size. He's very aggressive and very drunk, and keeps pawing away at her.
In this scenario, we demand that the girl clearly express that she's uncomfortable and to tell him no and to fight back in this scenario, even though she's legitimately scared for her own safety and she's worried that rejection will result in physical retaliation. By refusing to say no, we assume it's consensual.
OTOH, we do not expect the guy to actually make sure that the girl is okay with being there. Because dammit, not everyone likes to talk!
We're supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because it's sexy. And forcing them to talk might make things slightly less for about ten seconds before you move on and proceed as normal.
But we're not supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because they're scared. And forcing them to talk might result in physical violence and a much more violent rape compared to what would have happened if they said nothing at all.
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
Indeed it's messy. You can talk about sex when you're not in the middle of it. Then when you are spontaneous you know what to do to please your partner next time. Relationships are messy too, it's still important to communicate in them. Messiness isn't an excuse to ignore the fact that the messiness can be unpleasant or even turn into a crime when you don't know what legal and ethic boundaries your partner has.
Of course previous conversations still can't be the basis for assuming consent to an act /now/, and I'd assume this is particularly true under an affirmative consent model.
Just because I've previously told you I like the finger in the butt doesn't mean you have any sort of permission to go for that at this moment. You'd still need to ask again. Especially since I can't think of any nonverbal way to start that isn't assault if you're wrong.
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
So what situation is currently legal that affirmative consent criminalizes?
Ok, what the accused think (or would reasonably think) is all that matters law wise.
Right now it's basically didn't think no and this changes it to thought yes.
No, right now the standard is based on external behavior. You're saying that affirmative consent moves it entirely into the subjective state of the sexual partners?
Counterintuitive I know but you have to prove that accused knew what they were doing. That they have a "guilty mind"
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
So what situation is currently legal that affirmative consent criminalizes?
Nothing? It doesn't suddenly make any current behavior against the law?
It is a change in the law; by definition it has to change what is criminal. On the face of it, affirmative consent laws (via changing the definition of consent) change what can qualify as sexual assault by making initiating sexual contact into a legal grey area.
If it truly changes nothing, then why introduce the law? Changing the culture and the prosecution system surrounding assault are wonderful ideas that do not require legal changes, so why introduce a law that clearly adds ambiguity to the current system simply to attempt to shift cultural attitudes?
I'm not a lawyer mind you, but it changes the burden of the law away from the victim and more on the accuser, it doesn't at any point change what becomes of a sexual assault. Again as someone said earlier, because you touch someone before you get their affirmative consent it doesn't mean they'll scream bloody murder and have you arrested, nor will big brother arrest you for the thought violation. After an actual sexual assault it makes it in theory easier on the victim to claim an assault.
Again not a lawyer but your idea on laws is an interesting if flawed perspective.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
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.
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Your point is that we shouldn't assume that non-talkers like to talk.
So the alternative is to assume that the people who like to talk are non-talkers?
How exactly do you know which group someone belongs to if they never say anything?
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
There's an interesting reverse double standard here.
Big intimidating dude is alone with a girl 1/3 his size. He's very aggressive and very drunk, and keeps pawing away at her.
In this scenario, we demand that the girl clearly express that she's uncomfortable and to tell him no and to fight back in this scenario, even though she's legitimately scared for her own safety and she's worried that rejection will result in physical retaliation. By refusing to say no, we assume it's consensual.
OTOH, we do not expect the guy to actually make sure that the girl is okay with being there. Because dammit, not everyone likes to talk!
We're supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because it's sexy. And forcing them to talk might make things slightly less for about ten seconds before you move on and proceed as normal.
But we're not supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because they're scared. And forcing them to talk might result in physical violence and a much more violent rape compared to what would have happened if they said nothing at all.
Why is that?
Really? To my knowledge few jurisdictions require this. Simply saying no is enough for it to be rape.
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
Indeed it's messy. You can talk about sex when you're not in the middle of it. Then when you are spontaneous you know what to do to please your partner next time. Relationships are messy too, it's still important to communicate in them. Messiness isn't an excuse to ignore the fact that the messiness can be unpleasant or even turn into a crime when you don't know what legal and ethic boundaries your partner has.
Of course previous conversations still can't be the basis for assuming consent to an act /now/, and I'd assume this is particularly true under an affirmative consent model.
Just because I've previously told you I like the finger in the butt doesn't mean you have any sort of permission to go for that at this moment. You'd still need to ask again. Especially since I can't think of any nonverbal way to start that isn't assault if you're wrong.
Sure. It's also important to pay attention to their behavior and have an idea what they like with sex so you don't do it to someone you're guessing likes it. They might, but if they don't...
0
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
Indeed it's messy. You can talk about sex when you're not in the middle of it. Then when you are spontaneous you know what to do to please your partner next time. Relationships are messy too, it's still important to communicate in them. Messiness isn't an excuse to ignore the fact that the messiness can be unpleasant or even turn into a crime when you don't know what legal and ethic boundaries your partner has.
Of course previous conversations still can't be the basis for assuming consent to an act /now/, and I'd assume this is particularly true under an affirmative consent model.
Just because I've previously told you I like the finger in the butt doesn't mean you have any sort of permission to go for that at this moment. You'd still need to ask again. Especially since I can't think of any nonverbal way to start that isn't assault if you're wrong.
But sticking fingers in butts doesn't summon lawyers like some anal magic lamp.
(I assume this is going for the crazy ex argument who decides to screw you over at some future date but I dunno the answer to that and have to head out.)
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.
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Your point is that we shouldn't assume that non-talkers like to talk.
So the alternative is to assume that the people who like to talk are non-talkers?
How exactly do you know which group someone belongs to if they never say anything?
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
There's an interesting reverse double standard here.
Big intimidating dude is alone with a girl 1/3 his size. He's very aggressive and very drunk, and keeps pawing away at her.
In this scenario, we demand that the girl clearly express that she's uncomfortable and to tell him no and to fight back in this scenario, even though she's legitimately scared for her own safety and she's worried that rejection will result in physical retaliation. By refusing to say no, we assume it's consensual.
OTOH, we do not expect the guy to actually make sure that the girl is okay with being there. Because dammit, not everyone likes to talk!
We're supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because it's sexy. And forcing them to talk might make things slightly less for about ten seconds before you move on and proceed as normal.
But we're not supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because they're scared. And forcing them to talk might result in physical violence and a much more violent rape compared to what would have happened if they said nothing at all.
Why is that?
Because being large and male does not make you a violent rapist?
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
So what situation is currently legal that affirmative consent criminalizes?
Ok, what the accused think (or would reasonably think) is all that matters law wise.
Right now it's basically didn't think no and this changes it to thought yes.
No, right now the standard is based on external behavior. You're saying that affirmative consent moves it entirely into the subjective state of the sexual partners?
Counterintuitive I know but you have to prove that accused knew what they were doing. That they have a "guilty mind"
In general, however, the accused does not have to prove whether or not the accuser was having fun. Because it's impossible.
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
Indeed it's messy. You can talk about sex when you're not in the middle of it. Then when you are spontaneous you know what to do to please your partner next time. Relationships are messy too, it's still important to communicate in them. Messiness isn't an excuse to ignore the fact that the messiness can be unpleasant or even turn into a crime when you don't know what legal and ethic boundaries your partner has.
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm acknowledging that different people approach sex in different ways. I object to the implications that keep getting pushed in this thread, that people must communicate in certain ways or they are not doing it right. The furthest I can see anyone reasonably taking it is, "In my experience this has worked well for me and it may be something that could be useful in this sort of circumstance." Fine, but that's not what's been said and that's not how the unsolicited advice has been couched.
In the end, I think anyone who has been with multiple partners should understand how different it can work from person to person. I remember when I was younger, I still cringe at the times I literally talked myself out of sex, learning the hard way that sometimes you just need to shut up and feel the spirit move. Other times I'm sure I've missed out on a lot by not communicating as much as I might have.
What I have learned is that different people react different, and require different strokes (as it were). Whatever your good intentions, trying to shoehorn people into your narrow method of sexual communication is a misguided endeavor because your advice is not one-size-fit-all and it doesn't build from some unshakable moral foundation.
Really? To my knowledge few jurisdictions require this. Simply saying no is enough for it to be rape.
Rape vicitms are often held to a standard of "What did you do to resists/you don't show signs of fighting back, you wanted it not a rape!"
I mean in the not so recent past a woman asked a rapist to put a condom before he assaulted her and I swear a court upheld that meant it wasn't rape.
You wouldn't be talking about this case where the guy got 40 years, right?
Edit: Legal defenses use ridiculous ploys. If it's an indictment of the current criminal justice system, it's an indictment of it being adversarial at all.
I don't care in the slightest about people who want less communication in their relationships when one of the biggest problems relationships face is a lack of communication.
I don't care in the slightest about people who want less communication in their relationships when one of the biggest problems relationships face is a lack of communication.
It is a change in the law; by definition it has to change what is criminal.
So can you point to the actual excerpt of the law you disagree with?
If it truly changes nothing, then why introduce the law?
In order to remove a loophole within the current law.
Under current law, situations where the victim in question didn't want to participate could still count as consent. Under the new law, it doesn't.
It's the same reason why we introduced spousal rape laws. Spousal rape has always been a form of rape, and it's always been a bad thing. Just because you marry someone doesn't give you ownership or entitlement over their body. But under the old law, spousal rape didn't count. And under the new law, now it does.
That doesn't mean that spousal rape laws reversed the burden of proof, removed the presumption of innocence, etc. It simply closed a loophole for legitimate victims.
Changing the culture and the prosecution system surrounding assault are wonderful ideas that do not require legal changes, so why introduce a law that clearly adds ambiguity to the current system simply to attempt to shift cultural attitudes?
Really? To my knowledge few jurisdictions require this. Simply saying no is enough for it to be rape.
Rape vicitms are often held to a standard of "What did you do to resists/you don't show signs of fighting back, you wanted it not a rape!"
I mean in the not so recent past a woman asked a rapist to put a condom before he assaulted her and I swear a court upheld that meant it wasn't rape.
You wouldn't be talking about this case where the guy got 40 years, right?
Edit: Legal defenses use ridiculous ploys. If it's an indictment of the current criminal justice system, it's an indictment of it being adversarial at all.
I doubt many dudes robbing a person with a gun in their hand accuse the victim of donating to this guys specific charity. If you can't see that a rapist with a knife trying to claim it was a consent issue is not an example of how awful rape cases are in general we're going to talk past each other on everything.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Still she requested he use a condom and he tried to argue that was consent! MERICA!
Ha was just about to post the links on that before your edit. So as of /twenty/ years ago that argument was a failure.
Also, rape victims today are not held to that standard nearly as often, and the momentum is away from it. Though yes, unfortunately conviction is tougher without evidence of physical struggle. But that's no longer necessarily a personal judgment of the victim, at least not among the mainstream.
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.
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Your point is that we shouldn't assume that non-talkers like to talk.
So the alternative is to assume that the people who like to talk are non-talkers?
How exactly do you know which group someone belongs to if they never say anything?
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
There's an interesting reverse double standard here.
Big intimidating dude is alone with a girl 1/3 his size. He's very aggressive and very drunk, and keeps pawing away at her.
In this scenario, we demand that the girl clearly express that she's uncomfortable and to tell him no and to fight back in this scenario, even though she's legitimately scared for her own safety and she's worried that rejection will result in physical retaliation. By refusing to say no, we assume it's consensual.
OTOH, we do not expect the guy to actually make sure that the girl is okay with being there. Because dammit, not everyone likes to talk!
We're supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because it's sexy. And forcing them to talk might make things slightly less for about ten seconds before you move on and proceed as normal.
But we're not supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because they're scared. And forcing them to talk might result in physical violence and a much more violent rape compared to what would have happened if they said nothing at all.
Why is that?
Because being large and male does not make you a violent rapist?
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.
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
So what situation is currently legal that affirmative consent criminalizes?
Ok, what the accused think (or would reasonably think) is all that matters law wise.
Right now it's basically didn't think no and this changes it to thought yes.
No, right now the standard is based on external behavior. You're saying that affirmative consent moves it entirely into the subjective state of the sexual partners?
Counterintuitive I know but you have to prove that accused knew what they were doing. That they have a "guilty mind"
In general, however, the accused does not have to prove whether or not the accuser was having fun. Because it's impossible.
So the up shot of stuff like this is that say someone who has sex with someone else who is black out drunk would have a harder time claiming that they honestly didn't know they couldn't consent.
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
I mean hey, who ever heard of humans being different? Some people love talking and sex, some people love dirty talking, asking, probing, etc. Some people hate it. My girlfriend is pretty chatty but she doesn't talk and doesn't like me to talk during or around sex. Monk like silence, except... you know, not exactly like monks.
I'm not trying to tell people it's wrong to talk. But I am saying that couching verbal communication as a must, or as the "right way" to have sex is short sighted and honestly pretty self centered. So you like it. Who cares? Ever think about all the ways you are different from others? Consider that what works for you does not work for others.
Alright, fair enough. Our culture stigmatizes good old fashioned talking somewhat, and the vast majority of relationship issues are the result of a lack of communication, so I was erring on the side of more talk being generally beneficial.
People can totally be made uncomfortable by sex talk, but I bet your girlfriend told you that explicitly at some point
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.
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.
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Your point is that we shouldn't assume that non-talkers like to talk.
So the alternative is to assume that the people who like to talk are non-talkers?
How exactly do you know which group someone belongs to if they never say anything?
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
There's an interesting reverse double standard here.
Big intimidating dude is alone with a girl 1/3 his size. He's very aggressive and very drunk, and keeps pawing away at her.
In this scenario, we demand that the girl clearly express that she's uncomfortable and to tell him no and to fight back in this scenario, even though she's legitimately scared for her own safety and she's worried that rejection will result in physical retaliation. By refusing to say no, we assume it's consensual.
OTOH, we do not expect the guy to actually make sure that the girl is okay with being there. Because dammit, not everyone likes to talk!
We're supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because it's sexy. And forcing them to talk might make things slightly less for about ten seconds before you move on and proceed as normal.
But we're not supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because they're scared. And forcing them to talk might result in physical violence and a much more violent rape compared to what would have happened if they said nothing at all.
Why is that?
Please stop being so dismissive of other people's sexual preferences and the way that they engage in sexual activity. This is not the case at all for many people. Everyone does not have the same preferences that you do. Instead of 10 seconds of awkwardness followed by proceeding as normal, you could wind up with no sex at all from a person who was otherwise into you because now you came across as timid and lacking in confidence and that is a turn off for them. This is equally valid to the view you are expressing. Neither approach should be lesser in the eyes of the law.
I don't care in the slightest about people who want less communication in their relationships when one of the biggest problems relationships face is a lack of communication.
Deal with it.
Or I'll put you in prison!
I'm referring to the whole "But what about the people who find open communication a turn off?"
Sucks to be those people I guess. Society is changing. And I'd consider in this instance for the better.
I don't care in the slightest about people who want less communication in their relationships when one of the biggest problems relationships face is a lack of communication.
Deal with it.
Or I'll put you in prison!
Again, show us where the law says this.
Seriously, type affirmative consent law on google. It's roughly a page long. If you can find several hours to be on this thread, then why can't you spend 10 minutes to read the bill and cite the portion you dislike?
Heck, maybe people aren't citing the law because they haven't typed "affirmative consent law" in google. So to make it even easier for you, here's a link:
Please stop being so dismissive of other people's sexual preferences and the way that they engage in sexual activity. This is not the case at all for many people. Everyone does not have the same preferences that you do. Instead of 10 seconds of awkwardness followed by proceeding as normal, you could wind up with no sex at all from a person who was otherwise into you because now you came across as timid and lacking in confidence and that is a turn off for them. This is equally valid to the view you are expressing. Neither approach should be lesser in the eyes of the law.
And how exactly will you know that unless you ask first?
Do you simply assume that women want to be taken by force without their permission unless they tell you otherwise?
Posts
Look at the quote I responded to (and note it is not the first of its sort in this thread). It posits that verbal communication is a must, that we should "just fucking talk" to our partners, that those who find explicit talking a turnoff are wrong. Human sexuality is not simple. Some people enjoy talking, others couldn't care, others find it ridiculously silly and a big turn off. Some people love spontaneity, others love the confidence of one partner or the other making a move, there's a ton variables here.
Saying that people should just "get over it" and talk is silly. Not everyone works that way, not everyone wants to work that way. If that messes with our discussion on consent, well, that's messy humanity for you messing up our clean theories again.
Is it possible that felony charges are not the best means of addressing this delicate problem?
Common misconception:
The Affirmative Consent law does not "classify rape."
Nor does it require "continuous communication."
I mean hey, who ever heard of humans being different? Some people love talking and sex, some people love dirty talking, asking, probing, etc. Some people hate it. My girlfriend is pretty chatty but she doesn't talk and doesn't like me to talk during or around sex. Monk like silence, except... you know, not exactly like monks.
I'm not trying to tell people it's wrong to talk. But I am saying that couching verbal communication as a must, or as the "right way" to have sex is short sighted and honestly pretty self centered. So you like it. Who cares? Ever think about all the ways you are different from others? Consider that what works for you does not work for others.
That's great that this has worked for you in your encounters.
This may not work or be comfortable for all partners in all encounters, particularly new partners.
Perhaps you should have /sarcasm a little earlier, for reduced goosery.
Harry Dresden, however, who is a person current;y posting in this thread, has more or less said that ongoing explicit verbal communication ought to be part of our understanding of healthy sexuality (and its lack part of our understanding of rape? -that the second does not follow from the first even when granted is what I was pointing out).
So what situation is currently legal that affirmative consent criminalizes?
Indeed it's messy. You can talk about sex when you're not in the middle of it. Then when you are spontaneous you know what to do to please your partner next time. Relationships are messy too, it's still important to communicate in them. Messiness isn't an excuse to ignore the fact that the messiness can be unpleasant or even turn into a crime when you don't know what legal and ethic boundaries your partner has.
I mean "well if you just fuck the proper way everything will work out fine" is unironically being put forth as not problematic literally the first day of Gay Pride week the week after gay marriage was legitimized in every state.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Nothing? It doesn't suddenly make any current behavior against the law?
pleasepaypreacher.net
Ok, what the accused think (or would reasonably think) is all that matters law wise.
Right now it's basically didn't think no and this changes it to thought yes.
No, right now the standard is based on external behavior. You're saying that affirmative consent moves it entirely into the subjective state of the sexual partners?
This sounds quite different from your earlier posts, where it seemed like there weren't any indications.
"You have to care about what your partner wants" is not particularly crazy at all, actually.
Let me tell you how many of my early sexual encounters involved me inviting someone to my apartment to watch a movie or whatever without realizing that the guy thought that meant I wanted sex, despite my previous statements about not wanting to have sex. (most of them. It was most of them)
It can, not that it will. It's safer overall, since everyone knows where they stand. It's not the only method, that includes having a relationship, building trust, studying body language, and trying to not accidentally hurt another person legally or emotionally. There are various ways to understand someone, speaking is merely the fastest and easiest method to get the information you need.
It is a change in the law; by definition it has to change what is criminal. On the face of it, affirmative consent laws (via changing the definition of consent) change what can qualify as sexual assault by making initiating sexual contact into a legal grey area.
If it truly changes nothing, then why introduce the law? Changing the culture and the prosecution system surrounding assault are wonderful ideas that do not require legal changes, so why introduce a law that clearly adds ambiguity to the current system simply to attempt to shift cultural attitudes?
Your point is that we shouldn't assume that non-talkers like to talk.
So the alternative is to assume that the people who like to talk are non-talkers?
How exactly do you know which group someone belongs to if they never say anything?
There's an interesting reverse double standard here.
Big intimidating dude is alone with a girl 1/3 his size. He's very aggressive and very drunk, and keeps pawing away at her.
In this scenario, we demand that the girl clearly express that she's uncomfortable and to tell him no and to fight back in this scenario, even though she's legitimately scared for her own safety and she's worried that rejection will result in physical retaliation. By refusing to say no, we assume it's consensual.
OTOH, we do not expect the guy to actually make sure that the girl is okay with being there. Because dammit, not everyone likes to talk!
We're supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because it's sexy. And forcing them to talk might make things slightly less for about ten seconds before you move on and proceed as normal.
But we're not supposed to sympathize with the people who are silent because they're scared. And forcing them to talk might result in physical violence and a much more violent rape compared to what would have happened if they said nothing at all.
Why is that?
Of course previous conversations still can't be the basis for assuming consent to an act /now/, and I'd assume this is particularly true under an affirmative consent model.
Just because I've previously told you I like the finger in the butt doesn't mean you have any sort of permission to go for that at this moment. You'd still need to ask again. Especially since I can't think of any nonverbal way to start that isn't assault if you're wrong.
Counterintuitive I know but you have to prove that accused knew what they were doing. That they have a "guilty mind"
I'm not a lawyer mind you, but it changes the burden of the law away from the victim and more on the accuser, it doesn't at any point change what becomes of a sexual assault. Again as someone said earlier, because you touch someone before you get their affirmative consent it doesn't mean they'll scream bloody murder and have you arrested, nor will big brother arrest you for the thought violation. After an actual sexual assault it makes it in theory easier on the victim to claim an assault.
Again not a lawyer but your idea on laws is an interesting if flawed perspective.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Really? To my knowledge few jurisdictions require this. Simply saying no is enough for it to be rape.
Sure. It's also important to pay attention to their behavior and have an idea what they like with sex so you don't do it to someone you're guessing likes it. They might, but if they don't...
(I assume this is going for the crazy ex argument who decides to screw you over at some future date but I dunno the answer to that and have to head out.)
Because being large and male does not make you a violent rapist?
In general, however, the accused does not have to prove whether or not the accuser was having fun. Because it's impossible.
Rape vicitms are often held to a standard of "What did you do to resists/you don't show signs of fighting back, you wanted it not a rape!"
I mean in the not so recent past a woman asked a rapist to put a condom before he assaulted her and I swear a court upheld that meant it wasn't rape.
Edit thank god it was just a defense ploy he was actually convicted.
http://articles.latimes.com/1993-05-14/news/mn-35226_1_condom
Still she requested he use a condom and he tried to argue that was consent! MERICA!
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm not ignoring anything, I'm acknowledging that different people approach sex in different ways. I object to the implications that keep getting pushed in this thread, that people must communicate in certain ways or they are not doing it right. The furthest I can see anyone reasonably taking it is, "In my experience this has worked well for me and it may be something that could be useful in this sort of circumstance." Fine, but that's not what's been said and that's not how the unsolicited advice has been couched.
In the end, I think anyone who has been with multiple partners should understand how different it can work from person to person. I remember when I was younger, I still cringe at the times I literally talked myself out of sex, learning the hard way that sometimes you just need to shut up and feel the spirit move. Other times I'm sure I've missed out on a lot by not communicating as much as I might have.
What I have learned is that different people react different, and require different strokes (as it were). Whatever your good intentions, trying to shoehorn people into your narrow method of sexual communication is a misguided endeavor because your advice is not one-size-fit-all and it doesn't build from some unshakable moral foundation.
You wouldn't be talking about this case where the guy got 40 years, right?
Edit: Legal defenses use ridiculous ploys. If it's an indictment of the current criminal justice system, it's an indictment of it being adversarial at all.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Deal with it.
Or I'll put you in prison!
So can you point to the actual excerpt of the law you disagree with?
In order to remove a loophole within the current law.
Under current law, situations where the victim in question didn't want to participate could still count as consent. Under the new law, it doesn't.
It's the same reason why we introduced spousal rape laws. Spousal rape has always been a form of rape, and it's always been a bad thing. Just because you marry someone doesn't give you ownership or entitlement over their body. But under the old law, spousal rape didn't count. And under the new law, now it does.
That doesn't mean that spousal rape laws reversed the burden of proof, removed the presumption of innocence, etc. It simply closed a loophole for legitimate victims.
How does affirmation add ambiguity?
I doubt many dudes robbing a person with a gun in their hand accuse the victim of donating to this guys specific charity. If you can't see that a rapist with a knife trying to claim it was a consent issue is not an example of how awful rape cases are in general we're going to talk past each other on everything.
pleasepaypreacher.net
Ha was just about to post the links on that before your edit. So as of /twenty/ years ago that argument was a failure.
Also, rape victims today are not held to that standard nearly as often, and the momentum is away from it. Though yes, unfortunately conviction is tougher without evidence of physical struggle. But that's no longer necessarily a personal judgment of the victim, at least not among the mainstream.
What having fun got to do with it?
http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Guilty+mind
So the up shot of stuff like this is that say someone who has sex with someone else who is black out drunk would have a harder time claiming that they honestly didn't know they couldn't consent.
Alright, fair enough. Our culture stigmatizes good old fashioned talking somewhat, and the vast majority of relationship issues are the result of a lack of communication, so I was erring on the side of more talk being generally beneficial.
People can totally be made uncomfortable by sex talk, but I bet your girlfriend told you that explicitly at some point
Please stop being so dismissive of other people's sexual preferences and the way that they engage in sexual activity. This is not the case at all for many people. Everyone does not have the same preferences that you do. Instead of 10 seconds of awkwardness followed by proceeding as normal, you could wind up with no sex at all from a person who was otherwise into you because now you came across as timid and lacking in confidence and that is a turn off for them. This is equally valid to the view you are expressing. Neither approach should be lesser in the eyes of the law.
I'm referring to the whole "But what about the people who find open communication a turn off?"
Sucks to be those people I guess. Society is changing. And I'd consider in this instance for the better.
Again, show us where the law says this.
Seriously, type affirmative consent law on google. It's roughly a page long. If you can find several hours to be on this thread, then why can't you spend 10 minutes to read the bill and cite the portion you dislike?
Heck, maybe people aren't citing the law because they haven't typed "affirmative consent law" in google. So to make it even easier for you, here's a link:
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
And how exactly will you know that unless you ask first?
Do you simply assume that women want to be taken by force without their permission unless they tell you otherwise?