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.
You're confusing mens rea - in the mind of the perpetrator - with the mind of the victim. AFAIK, there are no crimes that currently depend solely on the attitude of the victim, divorced from external behavior.
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.
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.
Do we really need to start googling ludicrous defense strategies? I guarantee I can find some just as ridiculous.
Account not recoverable. So long.
0
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
I feel like maybe some people are trying to say because a thing is a sexual preference, it somehow carries more weight than the preference would in other circumstances.
But how many people would be on the side of no talking if we were discussing other parts of the relationship? As an example, "my spouse and I never discussed finances at all, because it makes us both uncomfortable. Now that we're getting divorced I found out that I have to pay him alimony, but that's not fair! It's punishing me because I'm not a talker!"
"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.
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?
My point is that this one-size-fit-all sexual advice being pushed in the thread is silly because it's not one-size-fit-all. And don't go to crazy extremes on me about people "never talking", I never went anywhere near that. All I've put forward is that not everyone works the same way and we should understand that when we start talking about how everyone should communicate.
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?
I don't even know where to begin with that mess. All I have put forward is that we don't get to tell people how they must communicate in their personal sexual lives. People get to handle that how they want to handle it, full stop. I find it really creepy you guys want to get involved with that and dictate how it is "correct" for people to communicate.
As to your big intimidating dude example, that's what i meant about the messy part. Human sex lives are messy and complicated, and they make our consent debate difficult because nothing works logically and easily. The answer to this is not to try to shape and dictate everyone's sex lives and habits to better fit your model of consent. It's to fit your model of consent around the messy, unpredictable storm that is the human sexual experience.
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.
Convenient.
Compared to getting sexually assaulted because someone thought they just needed to be assertive? Yeah it is.
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:
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.
I didn't say they can't do it, that's the riskier alternative and it's much easier to fuck up under those conditions. And the worst part is the fucking up has been going on for who knows how long because people don't know boundaries, and don't know the difference between groping and sexual assault. This is a thing that happens. Myself and others in this thread have been plain that sometimes nuance is involved and this isn't a one size fits all solution, it is messy. This helps it not be so messy as it has to be.
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.
Which is valuable learning experience for relationships. Now you know what not to do in those situations. But the subject here is greater then that with intimidate contact, which in society has put girls at a disadvantage.
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.
Someone whose thing was being taken by force, and she's mad that he didn't. And he's like man what WHAT did you think I was just going to try rape on the off chance it was your thing, what the hell?
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?
Under the current framework you proceed cautiously and stop if told to.
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.
No one has an issue with society encouraging sexual communication. Lots of people take issue with criminalizing those who don't follow what you believe are ideal sex practices.
Account not recoverable. So long.
+7
Options
CambiataCommander ShepardThe likes of which even GAWD has never seenRegistered Userregular
Someone whose thing was being taken by force, and she's mad that he didn't. And he's like man what WHAT did you think I was just going to try rape on the off chance it was your thing, what the hell?
Yep, Louis CK. It's a great bit.
Part of what makes it a great bit is that it's not about him complaining that he didn't get laid because he cared about consent.
"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.
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.
You're confusing mens rea - in the mind of the perpetrator - with the mind of the victim. AFAIK, there are no crimes that currently depend solely on the attitude of the victim, divorced from external behavior.
Exactly, again this changes no means no to yes means yes. But the up shot is that it is harder to honestly mistake a yes than a no (through intoxication or fear or whatever)
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.
No one has an issue with society encouraging sexual communication. Lots of people take issue with criminalizing those who don't follow what you believe are ideal sex practices.
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.
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.
You're confusing mens rea - in the mind of the perpetrator - with the mind of the victim. AFAIK, there are no crimes that currently depend solely on the attitude of the victim, divorced from external behavior.
Exactly, again this changes no means no to yes means yes. But the up shot is that it is harder to honestly mistake a yes than a no (through intoxication or fear or whatever)
No it doesn't, because as frequently said in this very thread, a verbal yes is not required. But of course no particular nonverbal behavior qualifies as consent to sex either. No means no is clear and unambiguous: if someone says no or stop, you must stop. Affirmative consent means that your outer behavior is not consent. Consent is no longer an action, but a purely subjective state of mind removed from legal scrutiny.
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?
a-goosing-gain. When we talk about what the law entails it keeps coming down to "you have to have verbal consent because relying on non-verbal consent puts the inititor in a position to potentially rape"
And then when we fucking ask you to explain how this non-verbal consent structure works you mothergoosing tell us use verbal consent!
Non-verbal consent is something like puckering your lips and leaning in when someone puckers their lips and leans in. Mind, this is consent to kissing, not to sex.
The whole notion of someone just walking up and shoving their mouth on to yours with no reason to believe you are consenting is desiring to be assaulted.
There are also people who want to be kidnapped by a sexy stranger without their foreknowledge and etc etc, that doesn't mean it should be legal.
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?
Dude.
DUDE.
DUDE.
I have literally presented a scenario of, "Girl is having sex with a guy who she doesn't want to have sex with, because she is genuinely scared for her life that he will hurt her if she doesn't."
And your reply is... what? That not all men are violent, and she should just be wiling to gamble her personal safety on the assumption that this one will handle rejection just swell?
There are essentially three questions implied in my post:
1) Can we agree that the above scenario is bad?
2) If we agree that the above scenario is bad, how do we prevents scenarios like that from happening?
3) If prevention is the goal, who is responsible for stopping it?
Because currently we're placing all of the responsibility on the girl, who has expressed zero sexual interest so far and fearful of her rejection safety.
We do not place any responsibility on the guy, who's been pawing away at her all night and is fearful of "killing the mood" and not getting laid.
I think for me the line from Ronin rings true "if you have a doubt there is no doubt." If you are afraid you'll be committing a sexual assault with your action, then don't do it?
Perhaps its me, perhaps its my incredibly sheltered geeky masturbatory life style, but I've never slept with someone I didn't well and good know I had the consent of.
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?
Because being large and male does not make you a violent rapist?
Dude.
DUDE.
DUDE.
I have literally presented a scenario of, "Girl is having sex with a guy who she doesn't want to have sex with, because she is genuinely scared for her life that he will hurt her if she doesn't."
And your reply is... what? That not all men are violent, and she should just be wiling to gamble her personal safety on the assumption that this one will handle rejection just swell?
There are essentially three questions implied in my post:
1) Can we agree that the above scenario is bad?
2) If we agree that the above scenario is bad, how do we prevents scenarios like that from happening?
3) If prevention is the goal, who is responsible for stopping it?
Because currently we're placing all of the responsibility on the girl, who has expressed zero sexual interest so far and fearful of her rejection safety.
We do not place any responsibility on the guy, who's been pawing away at her all night and is fearful of "killing the mood" and not getting laid.
1) Yes
2) No. No law can prevent someone who is alone with someone else from being afraid for their life. If the man really is the sort of guy who wouldn't care about the lengthy prison sentence he would get for beating this woman, then the only law that can prevent this situation is one requiring chaperones for all women. If he isn't that sort of person, a simple "stop" will do it.
3) Moot, given 2. However, if she's that afraid of that man, and he says, "So you're cool with this babe," why would you think she wouldn't say yes?
There are many times when people, especially women, may be in situations where they are afraid of others. We can criminalize the behavior that realizes that fear, but we can't eliminate that fear.
Non-verbal consent is something like puckering your lips and leaning in when someone puckers their lips and leans in. Mind, this is consent to kissing, not to sex.
The whole notion of someone just walking up and shoving their mouth on to yours with no reason to believe you are consenting is desiring to be assaulted.
There are also people who want to be kidnapped by a sexy stranger without their foreknowledge and etc etc, that doesn't mean it should be legal.
Sure. But a-goosing-gain. This leaves no room for any continuation because the non-verbal consent is ambiguous as to whether its the prior act or the future act!
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:
If you can find several hours to be on this thread, surely you can read the OP.
I did.
The OP quotes a bunch of critics whining about what they think the law will do.
It never actually quotes what text from the law itself on what the law actually does.
In a memo that has now been signed by about 70 institute members and advisers, including Judge Gertner, readers have been asked to consider the following scenario: “Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a).”... The hypothetical crime cobbles together two of the draft’s key concepts.
You notice how they post the section of the law, but not the actual text, or even the name of the law for us to google and read ourselves.
As the authors of the model law explain: “Any kind of contact may qualify. There are no limits on either the body part touched or the manner in which it is touched.” So if Person B neither invites nor rebukes a sexual advance, then anything that happens afterward is illegal.
First of all, huge difference between quoting the authors of the model (who aren't named or cited) vs. the actual law.
Secondly, there's a huge difference between saying that something "may qualify" vs. "anything that happens is illegal." That's terrible logic that should get you a failing score on the LSAT. I mean, holy fuck that's just bad.
It's basically the difference between writing "Married men are not exempt from rape law" vs. "All married men are guilty of rape, starting now."
Schrodinger on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
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?
Someone said this earlier (I think it was Frankie) but as a young, timid man I totally talked myself out of sex multiple times. If you think a girl wants you to kiss her and the moment feels right, you kiss her, imo. Saying "Can I kiss you?" has not worked out for me in the past. And sometimes things later worked out with the same girl when I was more confident.
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?
Someone said this earlier (I think it was Frankie) but as a young, timid man I totally talked myself out of sex multiple times. If you think a girl wants you to kiss her and the moment feels right, you kiss her, imo. Saying "Can I kiss you?" has not worked out for me in the past. And sometimes things later worked out with the same girl when I was more confident.
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.
You're confusing mens rea - in the mind of the perpetrator - with the mind of the victim. AFAIK, there are no crimes that currently depend solely on the attitude of the victim, divorced from external behavior.
Exactly, again this changes no means no to yes means yes. But the up shot is that it is harder to honestly mistake a yes than a no (through intoxication or fear or whatever)
No it doesn't, because as frequently said in this very thread, a verbal yes is not required. But of course no particular nonverbal behavior qualifies as consent to sex either. No means no is clear and unambiguous: if someone says no or stop, you must stop. Affirmative consent means that your outer behavior is not consent. Consent is no longer an action, but a purely subjective state of mind removed from legal scrutiny.
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?
Someone said this earlier (I think it was Frankie) but as a young, timid man I totally talked myself out of sex multiple times. If you think a girl wants you to kiss her and the moment feels right, you kiss her, imo. Saying "Can I kiss you?" has not worked out for me in the past. And sometimes things later worked out with the same girl when I was more confident.
Oh you don't have sex with someone who equates respect with weakness. How horrible.
+8
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
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?
Someone said this earlier (I think it was Frankie) but as a young, timid man I totally talked myself out of sex multiple times. If you think a girl wants you to kiss her and the moment feels right, you kiss her, imo. Saying "Can I kiss you?" has not worked out for me in the past. And sometimes things later worked out with the same girl when I was more confident.
And hey if she didn't want that kiss
Well
Shouldn't have been looking so kissable?
Are you seriously proposing that if you think the time is right for a kiss, you should say "Can I kiss you?" first?
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:
If you can find several hours to be on this thread, surely you can read the OP.
I did.
The OP quotes a bunch of critics whining about what they think the law will do.
It never actually quotes what text from the law itself on what the law actually does.
In a memo that has now been signed by about 70 institute members and advisers, including Judge Gertner, readers have been asked to consider the following scenario: “Person A and Person B are on a date and walking down the street. Person A, feeling romantically and sexually attracted, timidly reaches out to hold B’s hand and feels a thrill as their hands touch. Person B does nothing, but six months later files a criminal complaint. Person A is guilty of ‘Criminal Sexual Contact’ under proposed Section 213.6(3)(a).”... The hypothetical crime cobbles together two of the draft’s key concepts.
You notice how they post the section of the law, but not the actual text, or even the name of the law for us to google and read ourselves.
As the authors of the model law explain: “Any kind of contact may qualify. There are no limits on either the body part touched or the manner in which it is touched.” So if Person B neither invites nor rebukes a sexual advance, then anything that happens afterward is illegal.
First of all, huge difference between quoting the authors of the model (who aren't named or cited) vs. the actual law.
Secondly, there's a huge difference between saying that something "may qualify" vs. "anything that happens is illegal." That's terrible logic that should get you a failing score on the LSAT. I mean, holy fuck that's just bad.
It's basically the difference between writing "Married men are not exempt from rape law" vs. "All married men are guilty of rape, starting now."
I'm afraid that I, lacking a law degree, have to trust members of the American Legal Institute to be competent readers of laws. Much as I would love to play internet lawyer with you and together parse the proposed statute like I just got my degree from the Law School of Wikipedia, that the kind of thing that leads to people saying stuff like "Depraved-heart murder isn't second degree murder."
And your reply is... what? That not all men are violent, and she should just be wiling to gamble her personal safety on the assumption that this one will handle rejection just swell?
No. His reply is that "because i have the potential to scare a person by my physical stature by this law any action even if supposed non-verbal(or verbal) consent occurs, is potentially rape because the victim can feel threatened regardless of her actions"
Your response of 'well don't rape' isn't particularly helpful just like your responses of "well use verbal communication" to "how does the non-verbal communication part of this law work given current social norms" is unhelpful.
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).
Well its hard to suggest that having social norms in that manner would be bad. I think it would be unequivocally a good thing really.
But that doesn't mean that social norms are there, or that we can change them by changing the law in this manner, or that changing the law in this manner would be a good thing given that social norms aren't there.
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?
Someone said this earlier (I think it was Frankie) but as a young, timid man I totally talked myself out of sex multiple times. If you think a girl wants you to kiss her and the moment feels right, you kiss her, imo. Saying "Can I kiss you?" has not worked out for me in the past. And sometimes things later worked out with the same girl when I was more confident.
And hey if she didn't want that kiss
Well
Shouldn't have been looking so kissable?
Are you seriously proposing that if you think the time is right for a kiss, you should say "Can I kiss you?" first?
If it's your first date? Yes.
And you didn't answer my question. What about the people who don't want the kiss but the other person "felt the moment was right"?
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.
You're confusing mens rea - in the mind of the perpetrator - with the mind of the victim. AFAIK, there are no crimes that currently depend solely on the attitude of the victim, divorced from external behavior.
Exactly, again this changes no means no to yes means yes. But the up shot is that it is harder to honestly mistake a yes than a no (through intoxication or fear or whatever)
No it doesn't, because as frequently said in this very thread, a verbal yes is not required. But of course no particular nonverbal behavior qualifies as consent to sex either. No means no is clear and unambiguous: if someone says no or stop, you must stop. Affirmative consent means that your outer behavior is not consent. Consent is no longer an action, but a purely subjective state of mind removed from legal scrutiny.
In what sense is this removed from scrutiny?
"Your Honor, actually she did consent because she _______"? Kissed you? Took off her clothes? Got in bed? Fellated you? None of these things is consent to sex.
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?
Someone said this earlier (I think it was Frankie) but as a young, timid man I totally talked myself out of sex multiple times. If you think a girl wants you to kiss her and the moment feels right, you kiss her, imo. Saying "Can I kiss you?" has not worked out for me in the past. And sometimes things later worked out with the same girl when I was more confident.
And hey if she didn't want that kiss
Well
Shouldn't have been looking so kissable?
Are you seriously proposing that if you think the time is right for a kiss, you should say "Can I kiss you?" first?
If it's your first date? Yes.
And you didn't answer my question. What about the people who don't want the kiss but the other person "felt the moment was right"?
Ahh, so we're back to "just change all social norms with this one simple trick sociologists hate"
edit: What you're describing is essentially the problem. Proponents of this law are saying that this situation, given current social norms, its entirely unambiguous. And that is not necessarily true. Right? One person feels the moment is right, kisses them, missjudges what they thought was acceptance. That makes said kiss a sexual assault. That is probably not how the law should be written (especially on a preponderance of evidence standard!).
Goumindong on
+9
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
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?
Someone said this earlier (I think it was Frankie) but as a young, timid man I totally talked myself out of sex multiple times. If you think a girl wants you to kiss her and the moment feels right, you kiss her, imo. Saying "Can I kiss you?" has not worked out for me in the past. And sometimes things later worked out with the same girl when I was more confident.
And hey if she didn't want that kiss
Well
Shouldn't have been looking so kissable?
Are you seriously proposing that if you think the time is right for a kiss, you should say "Can I kiss you?" first?
If it's your first date? Yes.
And you didn't answer my question. What about the people who don't want the kiss but the other person "felt the moment was right"?
They can reject the kiss and go on with their lives. People on dates or in what seem like romantic situations misread them and make a small advance like that all the time. As long as the man accepts her rejection and does not push it, I don't see the big deal. Certainly should not be rape. It's a kiss.
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?
Someone said this earlier (I think it was Frankie) but as a young, timid man I totally talked myself out of sex multiple times. If you think a girl wants you to kiss her and the moment feels right, you kiss her, imo. Saying "Can I kiss you?" has not worked out for me in the past. And sometimes things later worked out with the same girl when I was more confident.
And hey if she didn't want that kiss
Well
Shouldn't have been looking so kissable?
Are you seriously proposing that if you think the time is right for a kiss, you should say "Can I kiss you?" first?
If it's your first date? Yes.
And you didn't answer my question. What about the people who don't want the kiss but the other person "felt the moment was right"?
Ahh, so we're back to "just change all social norms with this one simple trick sociologists hate"
Fortunately I never said changing society was easy or quick.
Posts
You're confusing mens rea - in the mind of the perpetrator - with the mind of the victim. AFAIK, there are no crimes that currently depend solely on the attitude of the victim, divorced from external behavior.
...not seeing the downside here.
Convenient.
Do we really need to start googling ludicrous defense strategies? I guarantee I can find some just as ridiculous.
But how many people would be on the side of no talking if we were discussing other parts of the relationship? As an example, "my spouse and I never discussed finances at all, because it makes us both uncomfortable. Now that we're getting divorced I found out that I have to pay him alimony, but that's not fair! It's punishing me because I'm not a talker!"
My point is that this one-size-fit-all sexual advice being pushed in the thread is silly because it's not one-size-fit-all. And don't go to crazy extremes on me about people "never talking", I never went anywhere near that. All I've put forward is that not everyone works the same way and we should understand that when we start talking about how everyone should communicate.
I don't even know where to begin with that mess. All I have put forward is that we don't get to tell people how they must communicate in their personal sexual lives. People get to handle that how they want to handle it, full stop. I find it really creepy you guys want to get involved with that and dictate how it is "correct" for people to communicate.
As to your big intimidating dude example, that's what i meant about the messy part. Human sex lives are messy and complicated, and they make our consent debate difficult because nothing works logically and easily. The answer to this is not to try to shape and dictate everyone's sex lives and habits to better fit your model of consent. It's to fit your model of consent around the messy, unpredictable storm that is the human sexual experience.
Compared to getting sexually assaulted because someone thought they just needed to be assertive? Yeah it is.
If you can find several hours to be on this thread, surely you can read the OP.
I didn't say they can't do it, that's the riskier alternative and it's much easier to fuck up under those conditions. And the worst part is the fucking up has been going on for who knows how long because people don't know boundaries, and don't know the difference between groping and sexual assault. This is a thing that happens. Myself and others in this thread have been plain that sometimes nuance is involved and this isn't a one size fits all solution, it is messy. This helps it not be so messy as it has to be.
Which is valuable learning experience for relationships. Now you know what not to do in those situations. But the subject here is greater then that with intimidate contact, which in society has put girls at a disadvantage.
And yours does?
Someone whose thing was being taken by force, and she's mad that he didn't. And he's like man what WHAT did you think I was just going to try rape on the off chance it was your thing, what the hell?
Under the current framework you proceed cautiously and stop if told to.
Seems to work more often than not.
No one has an issue with society encouraging sexual communication. Lots of people take issue with criminalizing those who don't follow what you believe are ideal sex practices.
Yep, Louis CK. It's a great bit.
Part of what makes it a great bit is that it's not about him complaining that he didn't get laid because he cared about consent.
This answers the question I asked a couple of pages ago, so thanks for that
Exactly, again this changes no means no to yes means yes. But the up shot is that it is harder to honestly mistake a yes than a no (through intoxication or fear or whatever)
Yes means Fuck Me
No means Fuck you
pleasepaypreacher.net
But I have no problem saying it's unacceptable behavior that should be discouraged.
No it doesn't, because as frequently said in this very thread, a verbal yes is not required. But of course no particular nonverbal behavior qualifies as consent to sex either. No means no is clear and unambiguous: if someone says no or stop, you must stop. Affirmative consent means that your outer behavior is not consent. Consent is no longer an action, but a purely subjective state of mind removed from legal scrutiny.
a-goosing-gain. When we talk about what the law entails it keeps coming down to "you have to have verbal consent because relying on non-verbal consent puts the inititor in a position to potentially rape"
And then when we fucking ask you to explain how this non-verbal consent structure works you mothergoosing tell us use verbal consent!
The whole notion of someone just walking up and shoving their mouth on to yours with no reason to believe you are consenting is desiring to be assaulted.
There are also people who want to be kidnapped by a sexy stranger without their foreknowledge and etc etc, that doesn't mean it should be legal.
Dude.
DUDE.
DUDE.
I have literally presented a scenario of, "Girl is having sex with a guy who she doesn't want to have sex with, because she is genuinely scared for her life that he will hurt her if she doesn't."
And your reply is... what? That not all men are violent, and she should just be wiling to gamble her personal safety on the assumption that this one will handle rejection just swell?
There are essentially three questions implied in my post:
1) Can we agree that the above scenario is bad?
2) If we agree that the above scenario is bad, how do we prevents scenarios like that from happening?
3) If prevention is the goal, who is responsible for stopping it?
Because currently we're placing all of the responsibility on the girl, who has expressed zero sexual interest so far and fearful of her rejection safety.
We do not place any responsibility on the guy, who's been pawing away at her all night and is fearful of "killing the mood" and not getting laid.
Perhaps its me, perhaps its my incredibly sheltered geeky masturbatory life style, but I've never slept with someone I didn't well and good know I had the consent of.
pleasepaypreacher.net
And I'm not even American.
Oh 'rape threads in D&D'. It has been a while.
1) Yes
2) No. No law can prevent someone who is alone with someone else from being afraid for their life. If the man really is the sort of guy who wouldn't care about the lengthy prison sentence he would get for beating this woman, then the only law that can prevent this situation is one requiring chaperones for all women. If he isn't that sort of person, a simple "stop" will do it.
3) Moot, given 2. However, if she's that afraid of that man, and he says, "So you're cool with this babe," why would you think she wouldn't say yes?
There are many times when people, especially women, may be in situations where they are afraid of others. We can criminalize the behavior that realizes that fear, but we can't eliminate that fear.
Sure. But a-goosing-gain. This leaves no room for any continuation because the non-verbal consent is ambiguous as to whether its the prior act or the future act!
I did.
The OP quotes a bunch of critics whining about what they think the law will do.
It never actually quotes what text from the law itself on what the law actually does.
You notice how they post the section of the law, but not the actual text, or even the name of the law for us to google and read ourselves.
First of all, huge difference between quoting the authors of the model (who aren't named or cited) vs. the actual law.
Secondly, there's a huge difference between saying that something "may qualify" vs. "anything that happens is illegal." That's terrible logic that should get you a failing score on the LSAT. I mean, holy fuck that's just bad.
It's basically the difference between writing "Married men are not exempt from rape law" vs. "All married men are guilty of rape, starting now."
Someone said this earlier (I think it was Frankie) but as a young, timid man I totally talked myself out of sex multiple times. If you think a girl wants you to kiss her and the moment feels right, you kiss her, imo. Saying "Can I kiss you?" has not worked out for me in the past. And sometimes things later worked out with the same girl when I was more confident.
And hey if she didn't want that kiss
Well
Shouldn't have been looking so kissable?
Oh you don't have sex with someone who equates respect with weakness. How horrible.
Are you seriously proposing that if you think the time is right for a kiss, you should say "Can I kiss you?" first?
I'm afraid that I, lacking a law degree, have to trust members of the American Legal Institute to be competent readers of laws. Much as I would love to play internet lawyer with you and together parse the proposed statute like I just got my degree from the Law School of Wikipedia, that the kind of thing that leads to people saying stuff like "Depraved-heart murder isn't second degree murder."
No. His reply is that "because i have the potential to scare a person by my physical stature by this law any action even if supposed non-verbal(or verbal) consent occurs, is potentially rape because the victim can feel threatened regardless of her actions"
Your response of 'well don't rape' isn't particularly helpful just like your responses of "well use verbal communication" to "how does the non-verbal communication part of this law work given current social norms" is unhelpful.
Well its hard to suggest that having social norms in that manner would be bad. I think it would be unequivocally a good thing really.
But that doesn't mean that social norms are there, or that we can change them by changing the law in this manner, or that changing the law in this manner would be a good thing given that social norms aren't there.
If it's your first date? Yes.
And you didn't answer my question. What about the people who don't want the kiss but the other person "felt the moment was right"?
"Your Honor, actually she did consent because she _______"? Kissed you? Took off her clothes? Got in bed? Fellated you? None of these things is consent to sex.
Ahh, so we're back to "just change all social norms with this one simple trick sociologists hate"
edit: What you're describing is essentially the problem. Proponents of this law are saying that this situation, given current social norms, its entirely unambiguous. And that is not necessarily true. Right? One person feels the moment is right, kisses them, missjudges what they thought was acceptance. That makes said kiss a sexual assault. That is probably not how the law should be written (especially on a preponderance of evidence standard!).
They can reject the kiss and go on with their lives. People on dates or in what seem like romantic situations misread them and make a small advance like that all the time. As long as the man accepts her rejection and does not push it, I don't see the big deal. Certainly should not be rape. It's a kiss.
Fortunately I never said changing society was easy or quick.