I think you’ll find that most people and the courts will disagree with you. Actions speak louder than words.
I am not confused.
You OTOH - quite a bit. What I and my wife do and how we communicate has to do with this circumstance and with
not at all.
In the case of a sexual interaction in progress guiding a partner’s hand to where it is desired is normal communication, not assault. The partner can respond to that communication in many ways - taking the guidance, ignoring the guidance, pushing the hand away, slapping the hand, doing something else with the hand (oh my), or using their words. It’s an ongoing communication process and not assault within that context.
Someone taking a penis in their mouth when asked to do so is difficult to read as giving a clear communication that they do want to consent to that activity at that time and for effective communication depending on “I know that my hand stopped moving at some points” to trump that willing ness to put penis in mouth in the communicating of no continued interest? I dunno. A mixed message at best. Maybe she remembered someone advising her to “use her words” and confused it as “use your mouth”?
I have not read anyone here claiming that Ansari was the Dream Date person in this particular interaction. He was, by reports of her telling, insensitive and overly insistent. The words “dick” and “creep” have been used by several allegedly “defending” him to describe the behaviors as described.
But boorish as he may been, he in no way forced or coerced her to take his penis into her mouth, her subjective “feeling pressured” aside. Again, I have great confidence that my 16 year old daughter understands how to say no to something that she does not want to do and has the ability to laugh at any guy who thinks he can “pressure” her into an activity she is not interested in. A 22 year old woman in Hollywood has not learned how to verbalize the word “no”? Something is wrong with that picture.
To my read the problem was not that she had a date with someone who would take no for an answer if only she said it out loud and not just thought it and thought that not moving her hands was enough to make it clear (and again, what she said no to was penile vaginal intercourse, not to oral and hand contact). It was that she and Ansari each imagined their date’s goal for the date being something very different than what the other did.
Bolding added in preview for emphasis.
…I apologize if I bought distress.
And what happened here is a complicated matter in all respects as well.
With all due respect: I stand by my analogy. I am not claiming any sort of authority. But it fits here.
It wouldn’t surprise me in the least if plenty of people disagree with me. But many people do. And in this particular ruling (I’m sure you can find opposing examples) the courts agree with me as well.
So what am I missing? Your cite states:
Voluntarily taking a penis in her mouth when asked to do so with no threats or force involved seems to affirmatively communicate by conduct (action) her agreement to engage in that sexual activity with Ansari.
By your logic, BB, a woman (and apparently ONLY a woman) could loudly say “Hell NO, I won’t get in your car!” then immediately get in the car; and later be able to file charges of kidnapping and false imprisonment against the driver because she clearly and “explicitly” said no, regardless of the fact that she then voluntarily entered the car.
We all, together, get to decide what “assault” means. We’re living in a moment in which the meaning of that term, in a sexual context, is in the middle of changing. We get to help decide how that process ends up for a while.
We should understand any violation of a person’s consent to be touched as assault. The reason we should do this is, it puts the onus on the prospective violator to be sure they are not victimizing someone. There will be hard cases, complicated cases, of course. In those hard cases, the person who may be attacking someone is the one we should want to have the onus of being careful. So we should define assault in a way which brings about that result.
If we understand violations of a person’s consent to be touched as assault only when that violation… ends poorly? I don’t know, I’m not sure exactly what you’re going for. But anyway, if we go in that kind of direction, then we put the onus on possible victims to be careful. There will be hard cases, complicated cases of cousre. And in those hard cases, on this kind of definition, it will be the one who may be victimized who will receive the onus of being careful.
Under both understandings of assault, it will be appropriate to speak with people who trust us about how they can wisely avoid being assaulted to the best of their ability.
But on the second scheme, once an assault has occurred, the victim will be put on trial in the public discourse in a way that will among other things frighten victims from coming forward.
On the first scheme, instead, once an assault has occurred, the perpetrator will be put on trial in the public discourse in a way that will among othe things frighten men from being forward.
If you’re afraid things will be taken too far, reember they’ll be taken too far in both cases. We should ask, would we rather go too far in scaring victims from coming forward, or would we rather go too far in scaring men from being forward with sexual advances?
We also should be careful to dstinguish between what is assault and what is conventionally called assault. Mixing this kind of thing up is how people get away with stuff. When I say doing CPR on a person without their consent is a case of assault that it would be unreasonable for the victim to complain about, I get strange looks, and I understand that, because conventionally we don’t call a thing like that assault. But it is an assault. It just happens to be one that it makes little sense to complain about. It’s important to understand that it is assault though. Think about this. Suppose I see a person dying, and I know CPR would save their life, but I also know they have signed a DNR or whatever it is that makes it where I know they do not consent to me doing CPR. I do CPR anyway. I’ve assaulted them, right? How is this case different from the first? Consent was not explicitly given in either case. But in the second, consent was explicitly withheld. In the first, consent was simply assumed in absence of explicit withholding of consent. If the second case is assault and the first is not, then things only count as assault if consent is explicitly withheld. That’s a dangerous road! Much better to understand assault differently than that–to understand that all touch without consent is assault, avoid the lazy rule of requiring explicit non-consent, and instead do the hard work of questioning ourselves about what we are doing before we do it, when that involves the prospect of–assault.
Cool, it doesn’t mean anything like you think it does because only a fringe minority believes it means what you said it means. That was the easiest debate ever to clear up on this board. Thanks.
Start a poll if you don’t believe me.
I don’t mean “decide” in the sense of “take a vote about what it already means,” I mean in the sense of “figure out what it should mean.”
I thought that should be clear from the remainder of my post, where I advocate for a certain meaning and give arguments for why that meaning should be settled on.
I should clarify I doubt any of the stuff described in the article rises to any legal definition of assault, and I don’t particularly think it should. (Possibly the very last thing, aggressively kissing her after she says “you guys are all the fucking same”, comes close, but it’s small potatoes int he scheme of things, sure.)
I’m talking about how we should conceive of assault in everyday discourse.
We should be emphasizing the way that without enthusiastic consent, the person doing the pushing should see themselves as treading in dangerous waters.
And I hate to be indecorous but voluntarily getting naked and sucking someone’s dick fits the average person*'s definition of “enthusiastic consent”.
*Unless you’re a social media SJW or a certain type of SDMB poster, it would seem
I can agree, I can grant that she showed enthusiastic consent at that point.
Does that surprise you?
A little bit, since you also called CPR “Assault”, which is one of the more unconventional takes I’ve seen on the boards (and that’s saying something).
A. What did he do that was creepy?
B. Who here has made a claim that she was guiltless? I would need to see a quotation or a citation of a post, as I do not think anything said here has explicitly or implicitly made her out to be guiltless.
…I’m not talking about “assault.” I was asking about consent.
But she consented to taking the penis in the mouth. No dispute from me or from Grace.
Was taking the penis in the mouth consent for anything else?
But she consented to taking the penis in the mouth. No dispute from me or from Grace.
Was taking the penis in the mouth consent for anything else?
Hoo-boy.
I’m happy you have a lot of confidence in your 16 year old daughter, and I have no doubt you are excellent parents, and that you have raising a fantastic young person.
I have no doubt that the 22 year old woman in Hollywood has learned how to verbalize the word “no.” She used the word several times after all. Maybe “saying no” just isn’t enough to protect you.
But she did say no. She did consent to some activities. But consenting to some activities is not consenting to all.
I haven’t disputed that in this case taking a penis in her mouth was consensual. It was suggested that the courts disagree with me on implied consent. I provided an example of a very high profile (Canadian) supreme court decision that did agree with me.
…am I one of those "certain types of SDMB poster?
I also agree there was consent at that point. And I’m about as “SJW” as you can get on these boards.
I’m not sure how you are connecting my advocating for an understanding of assault that includes all non-consensual touching (and admitting this includes life-saving CPR and then explaining why it nevertheless makes sense to go ahead and admit the possibility of assaults that shouldn’t be complained about*) with, on the other hand, my granting that enthusiastic consent may have been granted at the point you described.
I am not sure, in other words, how the first leads you to be surprised at the second. There was no enthusiastic consent given in the CPR case… so… I’m not seeing the conceptual connection leading to surprise here. In both cases, the conditional holds true that without enthusiastic consent, an assault has occurred.
*Again, because this is a hard concept one does well to hear in multiple ways: It’s basically a burden of proof thing. It shouldn’t be up to the one receiving the action to prove they don’t consent, it should be up to the one doing the action to prove there was consent. This is so that people will be more afraid to assault people, and less afraid to come forward when they are assaulted. Many things that have been assault all along have not conventionally been called assault. We are in a time, now, where we are starting to change what we call assault. It’s important we get this right–that we don’t fall back into conservativism, conventionalism or just old habits, and instead we think of the effects of our discourse and make a wise, informed decision on that basis.
…I haven’t claimed she was “guiltless”: but I both remain unconvinced that “guilt” is something that is applicable to her decision not to leave.
I tend to think her guilt or lack thereof is not an important thing to talk about in this context, and I’m skeptical of its applicability, but I do not positively believe her guiltless (nor do I positively believe her guilty). This is different from Chimera’s characterization of us as having declared her guiltless.
…no this isn’t my logic. And the courts would agree with me on this as well.