El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Not only is Arnie not the Terminator, but cheerleaders probably don't typically 'do anything to make the team'.
Zulu wrote: » Whats truly amazing is starting from a point where sex=rape and working back from there - which is where all this non-sense is coming from. Daft.
Zulu wrote: Whats truly amazing is starting from a point where sex=rape and working back from there - which is where all this non-sense is coming from.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Sex without consent can easily be rape though. That should be self evident.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » It's nothing to fo with what I'm saying but you'd like me to, what? Defend it? I won't. It was a false accusation and luckily there was video evidence. It has nothing to do with consent. Unless it's to agree with the poster that wants to chalk all the gray area consent cases up to regret sex and learning experience?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » That clears that up then. It was a false accusation not a consent case.
py2006 wrote: » My hyperbolic statement above was more to highlight the ludicrousness of verbal consent passion killer (rape culture nonsense).
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Sex=rape? Not anything to do with what I've said.
py2006 wrote: And do you think people here need you to inform us of that?
Zulu wrote: of course it is, why else do you suggest the requirement for the verbalisation of consent before, and during sexual relations?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Before and during? Who said that? I said there is a need to actually gain consent. Not to keep asking for consent or whatever way you'd like to caricature it.
Special Circumstances wrote: What would the best interval be to confirm continued consent? 30s?
Special Circumstances wrote: But if consent can be rescinded at any stage, shouldn't BOTH (or ALL, I guess) parties be sure at all stages that consent is still valid? "Not saying NO" doesn't mean "yes" does it?
givyjoe wrote: Your 'logic' is baffling, honestly. How did you end up with such ludicrous and unrealistic views about how normal, healthy sexual liaisons happen?
neonsofa wrote: I acknowledged it once- just like consent I don't have to repeat it each and every time. It was acknowledged by both of us. I didn't say it's reliable between two people who just met. We don't all see things in black and white and just like you have finally admitted, there are times where context comes into play and it doesnt need to be verbalised. This is the case with everything, including sexual relationship between two people. It is the context of the interactions leading up to sex that is important. Just like consent isn't implied purely due to the relationship itself, it is the agreement and the context and the mutual understanding between the two people. That is my point. It is not black and white, there are nuances to it and verbal consent is not always required- you may think that is only applicable to a narrow subset of people (those in relationships) but other people can understand that context is everything and that is the only point I was making. That it is the context that is important not the relationship status- long term/casual/ONS.
neonsofa wrote: You're being deliberately obtuse about an example of non verbal communication. As a survivor of rape myself I'm well aware of the "stakes", it was an example of how people's gestures and body language can communicate things without them having to explicitly state what they mean, just how someone can consent non verbally in very obvious ways. If it is not obvious the person can ask. It doesn't need to be asked every single time.
deaddonkey15 wrote: But the same twisted logic that you are putting forward that would require an explicit consent to sex before it occurs also applies to continued consent throughout the act itself. Why would it be safe to assume consent to continue sex an hour or two into the act?
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » ...
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Because it's the same act that was consented to. Consent was given so why keep asking for it over again? I don'ton't get your point
deaddonkey15 wrote: My point is, just because consent was given initially why do you think it's safe to assume that the consent is still valid an hour or two later? What if one of the parties wants to stop, by your logic isn't it just as wrong for the second person to assume that they have consent to continue with sex as it is to assume that they have consent to have sex in the first place?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Ah here. If you actually gain consent then you know where you are - in a position to express you position on consent. Assuming consent through a combination of body language and mind reading is the dangerous ground as consent was never actually gained to begin with. Just some ethereal notion that you both agree to the same thing. Even though it was never expressed.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » "The context leading up to it". That's a half step away from "the southeast asking for it wearing that skimpy outfit. What did she think was going to happen?"
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » And what happens when 2 people's opinions differ on what has been consented to? 2 people's have different interpretations of the same event all the time (not to mention with drink/drugs involved). What do you call it when 2 people have a different opinion of what was consented to and one person considers themselves to have been raped? 'regret sex' like another poster calls it?
deaddonkey15 wrote: And if we're talking about hook ups or sex in relationships why wouldn't both parties be in a position to express their position on consent in the first place?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » It works out fine most of the time. The rest of the time iPod potential rape. Some posters don't see it as a problem, but I do think it's a problem.
neonsofa wrote: Again being deliberately obtuse and insulting to boot. Nice. Context leading up to it does not mean "she danced and took a drink from him so that is consent cause she kinda owes him". If they are in bed together having kissed and touched and gave verbal clues as to how much they are enjoying things and she is guiding his erect penis, that is context leading up to the act.
neonsofa wrote: I call it a grey area. Which exists in all aspects of life. I'm talking about when it is abundantly clear, when it is not required to explicitly ask. As is the case the majority of the time.
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » You want to use the context leading up to sex as consent, so how are you going to define the boundaries of the context? Body language ect. presumably? If you consider "she danced and took a drink from him so that is consent" and the other person doesn't consider that consent, then where do you other stand. The body language and context has left you both with different interpretations and now what happens? Who's to say what could take as consent in that context??
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » If a friend came to you after having an experience like that said they consider themselves to have been raped. Would you tell them they weren't raped, they just experienced a grey area so nothing to worry about?
El_Duderino 09 wrote: » Absolutely no doubt it works out fine the majority of the time. No dispute there. What about the rest of the time? Pretty consequential events wouldn't you agree?
neonsofa wrote: Nobody is saying it's not a problem. Posters are acknowledging that there are grey areas and consent does need to be established but people are saying that this does not always mean that the person has to explicitly verbalise their consent every single time they have sex. It all depends on context. Going back to the couple in a relationship, it is absurd to expect them to discuss sex every single time. Consent still needs to be given but it does not need to be stated explicitly. People are allowing the same judgement in other cases too. That it depends on the context and sometimes consent can actually be very clearly given without the two people having a conversation about it. If you can't understand that this is all (most) people are saying then I honestly feel you just don't want to understand what people are saying here.
neonsofa wrote: That's not the body language and context we are discussing and either you know this and are deliberately ignoring that or you don't realise this, in which case you're never going to because I've made multiple posts about the type of scenario I am referring to and I cannot get any more graphic for you.
neonsofa wrote: An experience like the above you have given, that has nothing to do with the scenarios I have been outlining to you on this thread? Which is not the grey area I was referring to. And I never said a grey area was "nothing to worry about" either.
neonsofa wrote: Hence the responsibility to ask when it is not abundantly clear. When it is there is no need to ask.
