Thanks, Jimmy. That was a great discussion of the various options.
Except there’s nothing about an affirmative consent standard which requires a contract to be signed.
You are of course clearly wrong, but I don’t expect you to admit that, or even discuss it.
My post is my cite. Or, anyone familiar with your history.
She recanted. She stated that she specifically set out to create the circumstances to use against him in a custody case. She should be brought up on charges.
So I can consent to:
“Knock me unconscious, slice me open, and shove silicon bags under my tits”
but I can’t consent to:
“Choke me to unconsciousness and then shove a dildo up my ass”.
Seems a bit odd to me.
Certainly not. I’ve heard hyperbolic arguments of the sort, is all. I probably shouldn’t have glossed over it like that.
This is not true.
I agree with this statement, but it’s irrelevant to the discussion in this thread, as no-one was raped.
This is utter nonsense.
It may be odd, and Dio’s dogmatism isn’t helping the presentation, but it’s basically true because of the way the law views sexual consent. If I decide to stick a knife in a stranger, I’d need to show they affirmatively consented to me sticking the knife in them (huge oversimplification here). To stick my cock in them I just need to demonstrate they didn’t say no. I can’t defend my self from a stabbing charge by saying the person didn’t tell me to stop.
Sorry - pet rant of mine. Mention affirmative consent and everyone immediately thinks of Antioch College. While ignoring of course that Antioch’s policy in this area is massively popular with the students there.
This may be true by the law, but surely prior affirmative consent should be considered better than the fact that they simply didn’t say no.
I didn’t see in the ruling that she gave any prior consent (before being choked out) to having a dildo rammed up her ass.
I didn’t ask if it was, I asked why it wasn’t.
Why is it possible that I can give prior consent to being rendered unconscious and having dentists pull my teeth, or doctors open me up and remove bits of me, etc, whilst I’m under?
-if at the same time, it’s not considered possible for a woman to give prior consent to being rendered unconscious, then sexually interfered with whilst unconscious?
It seems like exactly the same level and principle of consent to me.
Some people like having dildoes up their butt. Just like some people like asphyxiation. Heck, I hear some men like to have sex with other men.
You are clearly saying that sex is somehow different from every other thing in existence. We have wills, we have power of attorney. We have out-paitent surgery. We constantly have the idea of consent being given ahead of time to cover when you happen to be unconscious for whatever reason.
Sex is not special in this regard. Consent is consent.
And that stuff about people with a certain fetish being mentally unstable–please read the third sentence of my first paragraph for why I find that remarkably offensive. Here’s a hint: some people still claim there is a such thing as Same-Sex Attraction Disorder.
Because it doesn’t meet any legal definition of assault.
Where is it shown that she gave consent to be ass-fucked with a dildo whilke unconscious?
Irrelevant to my point. I didn’t say she didn’t like it, I said I didn’t see where the ruling said said she’d given consent for it.
Based on the record it’s unclear. The relevant bits of the initial trial are quoted, and she hadn’t explicitly given permission for the anal dildo sex, but the couple had discussed the possibility of doing that, and she gave contradictory testimony as to whether they had done so in the past. So you’d rapidly get into murky discussions about whether a reasonable person would think she had consented, or what degree of specificity is required in consent.
Because rape victims along with other crime victims are never threatened, intimidated, or worry when their family and friends are likewise threatened. And sometimes these guys do carry out those threats.
Just because you’ve done something with a spouse in the past doesn’t imply that you have all time permission to do it anytime you want when they’re unconscious.
It sounds like this victim did not give consent to be ass raped while she was choked out, so all the analogies to surgery are even more specious and off point.
Did I miss the part where surgery is regularly performed on unwilling women by force on streets and in homes all across America? Because that’s the only any allusion to surgery would be appropriate. Is surgery the basis for marriage? Is surgery used to shame women? Is surgery used to prop up mens’ egos?
For those who think that choking a woman unconscious is some kind of normal, healthy foreplay, what if she dies (a real possibility)? Has the strangler committed a crime, or are satisfied if he just says she wanted it?
Involuntariy manslaughter would be my guess. But that isn’t really relevant to the discussion of her ability to grant consent prior to loss of consciousness.