My point is precisely that quite a few other posters apparently took it for granted that they did know, because they instantly jumped to calling her behavior actual theft.
Men persistently pushing a date for more sex despite reluctance and refusals are given the benefit of the doubt about their awareness and intentions. Women teasingly and openly removing money from the wallet of a date are automatically presumed to be deliberate thieves.
I’m talking about Kimstu’s analogy only. It ends like this:
As you’re thinking what to do, she snatches the wallet itself out of your hand and takes the rest of the money out of it. “Thanks honey”, she giggles as she hands back your empty wallet, “you’re such a generous guy!” You still hope that maybe it’s all just a stupid joke, and certainly it would be hard to justify telling a cop that it amounts to literal robbery or some other criminal behavior. But the fact remains that she’s got your money and seems to have no intention of giving it back.
Does the guy know that she has no intention of giving it back? Does he ask for it? Does she or does she not refuse? We need to know if it’s a “stupid joke” or not. Sticking your dick in a woman’s mouth by surprise is never a stupid joke. And nothing like that happened. Analogy fail.
Goddammit I just got done talking about how the question of crime isn’t the issue, and really it isn’t the central issue here, but now I can’t help asking. Where do you see explicit consent in the scenario with Grace and Ansari, for all the acts described??
Are we to assume there was explicit consent (why?) or is it actually portrayed?
I’m not really concerned whether it was a crime or not, I extremely much doubt any legal proceedings are in the offing. But the question of what constitutes “explicit consent” and how we differ on that judgment and why is extremely important for far more than legal reasons.
I mean, it’s got some relevance to judging the nature of his character but I’m not particularly signalling that I care about it here. I mention it because another poster said something about it which appeared false to me.
Consent to what, exactly? After all, someone who consents to one sex act has not thereby automatically consented to another. You certainly wouldn’t accept the claim that because the guy in my story has consented to spend some of his money on his date, he’s implicitly consented to giving her the rest of it as well.
I read an article some time ago written by a former muslim who is now an atheism activist who runs in SJW circles. She was writing about her early life in America. She would get calls from her mom, and when she revealed to her mom that she sleeps with men outside of marriage, her mom just couldn’t get past the “logic” that if she slept with one man, she was giving all men permission to sleep with her at will.
This logic is nonsense of course but to the mom it seemed like the most natural, immediate, obvious inference in the world.
It is actual theft based on the information you provided. If you had made it clear that the money was given back instead of using non-verbal, and non-anything signals that she was going to give it back nobody would be calling it theft.
In what way? The men are assume to be aware that the date is reluctant and they intend to keep trying to get more sex. (more on this a little further on).
They are deliberate thieves if they don’t give the money back. Do you think the woman in your story clearly indicated through her non-verbal cues that were the direct opposite of the verbal cues she provided? What about the guy who grabs that woman’s purse and runs? Are we to assume he’s just pulling a prank and he’s going to bring it back to her? Would she call the police and say “Some guy grabbed my purse and ran away but I’m not sure it was theft because he might have been joking and he’ll bring it back”? And even if it was a joke and he brought it back do you consider that acceptable behavior?
Kimstu, your story failed, it doesn’t present an analogous situation. Don’t defend it, it was just a mistake. You can probably make your point more clearly.
Is this your point? Do you think that men have to be stopped from pursuing sex at the first indication of refusal? Do you think that causes serious harm to women and society must somehow stop such behavior?
What sex act did she not consent to? Are you now saying she was sexually assaulted?
I don’t think so. Because I didn’t say anything about whether the woman actually had any dishonest intention, versus genuinely believing that the guy was voluntarily giving her his money and just pretending to be reluctant about it.
IANAL but AFAIK the crime of theft requires an intention of deliberate dishonesty, i.e., purposely depriving somebody else of property against their will. If you honestly don’t think it’s against their will, you’re not committing theft.
Your objections just illustrate how we as a culture invoke this entrenched double standard. We automatically find it ridiculously incredible that any woman could honestly believe that just because a guy voluntarily spent some of his money on her, he intends to give her the rest of it.
While at the same time we readily accept that a man can honestly believe that because a woman voluntarily consented to some sex acts with him, she intends to consent to others.
And remember, the question I asked was not whether or not the woman in the story was actually committing theft. Even if she’s not, i.e., if she genuinely but mistakenly believes that you really want her to have your money, do you consider her behavior merely characteristic of a “below average date”? Or is it a different level of unacceptable?
Frylock, Kimstu, if you have points to make, and you may well have valuable points to make, you might have an easier time if you paused, thought through what you want to communicate and said it straightforwardly instead of contorting contrived analogies or idiosyncratic definitions. Unless you squirt ink for the same reasons squids do.
I don’t see how it can be clearer than this:
What sex acts did she consent to? How do you know?
And if a person walks up and points a gun at you and demands your wallet, how do you know it’s not just a nerf pistol, and he’s just having a bit of a joke?
Because, even in your story, there was a clear “no”. They guy said not to take his money, and to give it back.
This analogy breaks down to the story in question, as “grace” never said no to the act she consented to.
Are you trying to argue that “no” doesn’t mean “no”, now?
And how is she supposed to know that he doesn’t want her to steal his car, rob his apartment, and set his mother on fire?
That is because what she did is the exact definition of a crime. She took something that belonged to someone else without their consent. The lack of consent was clear when he told her no, and told her to give back what she took. The first snagging could be a joke and be forgiven, especially if she gave it back. The second, she had been given a clear no, and yet, acted anyway.
Your story was going better before the description of actual crimes. The idea of the date pressuring the guy into paying for things that he couldn’t really afford was analogous. He was consenting, non-enthusiastically.
But then you cross the line into actual violation of consent, with her stealing money out of his wallet, even after being given a very firm “no”.
Your analogy only works if you were trying to make the argument that when a woman says, “no”, they don’t really mean “no.”
In the Ansari situation, she said no, and he ceased for a bit, then continued without her (apparently, from the retelling) giving any indication that she wanted to resume.
Isn’t the analogous true in Kimstu’s scenario?
On Edit: Not exactly, but it’s a simple adjustment to the scenario. The first time she takes his money and he says give it back, she does (in the scenario as given, she does not), then later during the evening takes it again.
The difference in standard is not man vs woman but money transfer vs sexual contact. That’s why your analogy is shit. Sexual contact tends to be in people’s private lives which is typically informal and involves more ambiguous communication whereas money transfer tends to impersonal, formal and involves less ambiguous communication. People typically don’t go about having sexual contact in the same way they transfer money, you might wish for that to be the case but it’s never going to happen.
If you gave the example of a man who got money out of a woman’s purse after she invited him on a date, you’d get the same answer that it’s theft. In the same way, if a woman on a date took the initiative to start one type of sexual contact and the man responded to it, many people would think that it’s at least a clue that the man may consent to another type of sexual contact.
Let’ start at the beginning:
“He said something along the lines of, ‘How about you hop up and take a seat?’” Within moments, he was kissing her. “In a second, his hand was on my breast.” Then he was undressing her, then he undressed himself. She remembers feeling uncomfortable at how quickly things escalated.
Sexual assault or not? If not, paste the part where the assault is if you believe there was one instead of continuing to evade.
If I honestly think that you wanted to give me that microwave oven, then I can just take it, and not break any laws?
If she ignores his clear verbal statement that he doesn’t consent. That you find it credible that a woman would hear a very clear “no”, and yet think that he is consenting anyway says much more about your ideas of consent than a cultural double standard.
Did anyone at all make that claim? No.
Well, you described a date with a thief who steals your money against your clear consent. Not sure how to describe that. Yeah, well below average, and certainly a date with a larcenist is a different level of unacceptable.
Tell ya what, let’s retcon, and pretend that you didn’t go into the part where she is committing crimes, as your analogy breaks down when you are trying to compare that story to a story in which someone did not commit crimes. It is impossible to relate the two stories together, as they are nothing alike.
Stick with the pressuring to spend money on her part. Maybe even have her run up a bill at the bar or restaurant that was much much bigger than expected. That sort of thing is more analogous. It was your story, and that you chose to add criminal activity to the story that you made up is not really on those who pointed it out.
So, in that case, where the girl spends all my money with my non-enthusiastic consent, I feel a bit annoyed, it would be a below average date, and I would most likely not see her again. If we are not talking about your story, but the one in which money was spent, not stolen, then no, it would be wrong to call her a thief. It would be even more wrong to go on social media to call her a thief. It would be utterly irresponsible for myself and for a reporter to publish an article calling her a thief.
Well now, that’s what we call “stranger theft”, or “theft theft” (actually robbery rather than theft, but let that go for now).
Clearly different from the murky issue of so-called “date theft”, where a guy claims that even though he willingly spent some money on a woman—in fact, asked her as a favor to allow him to spend money on her—he didn’t actually intend to give her any more of his money.
Which, you know, might be true or it might not. Perhaps he was willing to give her his money and enjoy the playful pretense of reluctance, and then regretted his decision the next morning and decided to call it theft. He-said, she-said, really.
(Remember, for those having a little difficulty following along, I’m not in the least seriously advocating for the commission or condoning of any criminal acts. I’m just noting differences in the cultural “normalization” levels of different non-criminal acts.)
From the legal definition given above, there is not enough information here to determine whether it was a sexual assault. Do you think otherwise? Do you know it’s not a sexual assault?
Necessary? I feel like we generally strive for a higher tone.