You make a good point, but I don’t really think comparing sexual assault to theft or robbery is a good idea. I’ve had my wallet stolen several times and once was attacked by four guys who stole my phone. I didn’t report either the thefts or the robbery, and I certainly don’t think they were traumatic in anything like the same way a sexual assault would be.
I am really not trying to make a statement about trauma. Trauma is pretty subjective and personal and does not lend itself to comparison. I am talking about crime. I was mugged once and I called the cops–not because I cared about the (literal) $5, but out of a sense of social responsibility that if someone were mugging people in my apartment complex, it needed to be stopped. No one, from the 911 operator to the police who came out to my friends and family I told the story to ever questioned that calling the cops was an appropriate response. It was the first thing people asked when I told the story: “Did you call the cops?”. No one treats groping/grabbing/grinding like that. It’s just not seen as criminal.
Just to mention that “vomiting” doesn’t indicate a high level of intoxication to me. Alcohol makes me ill long before I’m unable to talk clearly. I begin to be ill after about four drinks (In fact I’ve never been unable to talk clearly).
Maybe. I don’t have any experience of such a high level of intoxication. Is it a fact or a wild guess?
I’m not sure how. Unless you’re actually asking for signed and notarized documents, I don’t see how it changes anything “I got affirmative consent” “No, he didn’t”. Now, what?
I support the affirmative-consent standard, especially in the sensible form thereof where it means proper communication between people as they go along. How does this feel like?, you good?, hey do that again, come over here, oh yeah, keep going, and their nonverbal equivalents. Clear ongoing communication, not having to read arcane “signals”. And getting flat-out-wasted on drink or drugs really does not make for a good experience to begin with, that’s nothing like splitting a bottle of wine or sharing one joint and feeling mellow but still being aware of yourself and your surroundings – as mentioned before, there is no “drunk defense”.
I am however concerned and have reservations with some institutions’ application of Title IX processes by which an administrative disciplinary action may be conducted with minimal or no recourse for a defense. IMO a disciplinary process does *not *have to require the standard of a criminal conviction, but it must allow for realistic defense and the possibility of exoneration; and the adjudicating officer/office should be impartial vis-a-vis the parties in the complaint, not weighed upfront in favor of the complainant.
The change in social attitude to drunk driving has been brought up, but there is a difference there in that when this transformation was happening the involvement of the criminal justice process was never excluded altogether. You could avoid jail by going to AA on first offense if there were no damages/victims, but BAC>0.08 = arrest, period; and if someone got hurt, that means criminal charges. One of the issues these days with the campus sexual assault thing is if the administrative process, with its lower standard, could be used to NOT have to deal with the criminal justice system, at all. Which is kind of an old-fashioned thing, come to think of it: “No, we don’t want you to go to jail; we just want you to go away.” Part of the problem is that there are many who argue that exoneration in the criminal process MUST result in mooting of all disciplinary complaints, and that’s just not necessarily so.
So, we’re indeed at a point where casual sex is heavily discouraged, not by reactionnary Christians, but by “progressive” leftists.
I can’t say I’m enthralled by this evolution. And I still think that a significant number of these people are in part motivated by the fact that they just don’t like casual sex. It doesn’t fit with their view of what sexuality and relationship should be, and as it is usual when it comes to sex, they’d very happy to have everybody else abandon their pervert ways to have only the kind of relationships they condone, and are perfectly happy with throwing hurdles in the way of “wrong” lifestyles.
What kind of sexual assault? What kind of non-sexual assault? With what kind of consequences?
An elderly lady in my neighborhood doesn’t leave any more her appartment (at all. the grocery store is by her door, and she now have them bringing her groceries to her appartment) after she was assaulted for a necklace. An ex’s aunt has been assaulted for her bag. She had the bad idea of trying to cling to it, and was kicked as a result. She has now limited movement in her arm.
Both are certainly more severe than being gropped in the subway. And how could you tell whether they are or not more severe than an actual rape, when the assault results in lasting physical or psychological trauma?
I actually didn’t call the cops, partly because I didn’t think they would find the culprits anyway, and partly because I felt like prison is a nasty place, and I didn’t really feel like I wanted to send the four youths to prison for the loss of a cell phone. Partly, I think, I felt like it was my fault for not being more aware of my surroundngs.
All I’ve suggested, here and elsewhere, is waiting till a few dates so you know the person a bit beter, and have some sense of what sex might mean to them and how they might react. That’s a far cry from what some conservative Christians might say, ‘wait until marriage’.
This reads like a textbook example of the reasoned used to encourage women not to report minor sexual assault–don’t ruin his life, it was partially your fault, it can’t be proven anyway. Are you trying to say that women should use those same considerations?
And even if it’s the case, it still remains true that we think of mugging someone as a crime. It may not always get reported, but it’s clearly criminal behavior. That’s really the only point I was making, but you keep responding with posts that don’t disagree with my actual premise but discuss the analogy. This confuses me.
I am arguing “Minor sexual assault is not viewed as a crime in the way that, say, mugging is”. You seem to be responding with “Well, mugging really isn’t a crime, either.” But you aren’t coming out and saying it. I am confused what your point is.
Psst. . . I did say:
It absolutely takes both.
It’s not about making convictions easier to obtain. It’s about redefining what’s wrong. Right now, it’s okay to have sex with someone who is utterly passive, maybe lying there crying softly and refusing to make eye contact, as long as they don’t say no. That shouldn’t be okay. That needs to be defined as wrong.
Consenting to
sex is something you can do moment by moment. It doesn’t require a working short-term memory, which is usually the first part of the brain to go. I would think that most of the people who are institutionalized for dementia would still be capable of consenting to sex, and of expressing their consent or lack thereof.
Unless someone watched tapes and saw that she wasn’t consenting, or appeared confused, I would think it likely that she did consent to sex with her husband. (But can’t testify to that now, due to her mental disability.) Of I were a juror in that case, she’d have to be really freaking out-of-it for me to vote to convict. If she just had trouble speaking or something, that would not be enough evidence. Especially if the person bringing the charges has a known ax to grind with the husband.
While I am certainly happy that the law now recognizes the possibility of maritial sex, I still think that within a marriage, there is reasonably an assumption that sexual contact can be initiated. And if your husband cups your breasts and you aren’t currently interested, the response is, “sorry, not now”, not, “stop that you creep!”
I bet that examination was more upsetting than the sex.
I don’t think that what you’re describing is considered okay currently, or even was considered okay during the last 30 years or so at least.
I believe you’re mistaken about what people in general feel is okay.
That’s what I was thinking. What you describe there is in no way OK, and I don’t think anybody would say it was.
I third that statement. Forcing yourself on a woman who is is passive, crying, and refusing to make eye contact sounds ilke rape to me.
But I doubt that comes close to describing what happened between the guy and his senile wife.
I too agree with clairobscur and dangermom, but I feel obliged to point out, in response to what you said, that the quoted statement from Manda JO said nothing about forcing oneself on the woman. If the sex was consensual, even if the consent was given halfheartedly, you can’t say it’s rape just because the woman isn’t enjoying it or actively participating in it.
There’s a distinction between what’s morally not OK and what’s legally prosecutable.
Here’s a bunch of people on this board who feel the onus is on the unwilling person to say “no”, not on the active person to be sure it’s a “yes”.
The OP of the thread is on the fence:
Right, and this is the gray area that affirmative consent standards are trying to address. I honestly cannot understand why this is controversial.
Of course it is. But this is exactly the kind of scenario that affirmative consent distinguishes, as opposed to absence-of-resistance. Those posters who argue that some expression of affirmative consent is unfairly burdensome or not necessary, are in fact arguing that this scenario should not be counted as rape, not real rape.
Crying and refusing to make eye contact are a way of saying “no”. Maybe not the best way, but it would take an extreme autistic or a complete idiot to fail to understand that.
Just as reaching out and pulling the other person towards you is a way of saying “yes”.