Absent, possibly, some wacky campus codes, affirmative consent policies absolutely recognize pulling someone to you as “affirmative consent”. It doesn’t have to be verbal. But right now, the law, as I understand it, demands that consent be explicitly denied. And there are lots of people who believe that is right and proper–that absent an explict threat, it’s on the non-willing partner to **unambiguously **say no, not the willing partner to be sure of a yes. That is the only thing affirmative consent policies are seeking to change.
Are you fucking kidding me? Do you actually reside in the real world? Theft is by far the most underreported crime as well as the most unsolved. I don’t think you have any experience with dealing with actual police forces, because unless your wallet was taken in manner that the perpetrator could be identified (say you could describe him, or their was CCTV) police don’t go for cases like that at all, Sexual assault like groping? Police will move the ends of the earth to find the guy.
The problem is that it always comes down to one person’s word against another’s, absent any witnesses or video. No kind of policy change will fix that. The end result is that some innocent people will be falsely accused and some rape victims will never get justice.
Changing the words on some college administrator’s stack of paperwork is just epic navel gazing and/or bullshit PR. I agree we need to promote a culture of consent. Consent (aka “enthusiasm” or “desire”) is sexy. But I think we’ve taken this about as far as we can on the legal/admin side, and people need to work on changing the culture.
(And I think it goes without saying that of course drunk people, mentally ill people, senile people, and the otherwise handicapped can consent just like the rest of us. They’re not dead. This is probably where the “Victorian” accusation comes from. “Please let us save you from your own poor choices. You shouldn’t choose that, therefore you can’t choose that.” Et cetera.)
[QUOTE=Manda JO]
But right now, the law, as I understand it, demands that consent be explicitly denied
[/QUOTE]
You understand wrong, Rape is a crime of basic intent, Meaning that for the mental element to be fulfilled, the accused must either have known or had reason to suspect that consent was not given. That is a question of fact, not law. Requiring an affirmative consent standard will not change that , except the question to be decided will move from “did the accused reasonably and or honestly believe consent was given” did the actions of the victim constitute affirmative consent? As any rational individual can see, affirmative consent raises its own issues.
So, is a man too insensitive or indifferent to notice that consent was not given, not a rapist, in your view?
In this very thread, someone described getting groped as “annoying”. People often do not consider it a crime at all.
That was me.
So let me be clear – you’re saying that you would call the police over some jerk in a bar copping a feel?
No, but I am saying that it’s fucked up that I wouldn’t.
I’m a 45-year-old feminist and a realist. There is a difference between “is” and “should”. We’ve been focusing on “should” for at least two generations, and* it’s not working*. So now what? How do we make young horny entitled guys not act like young horny entitled guys?
There are plenty of short-term reasons, not necessarily related to the nature of a crime, that an individual victim might choose to not report a criminal act to police. The more important long-term cultural measure is simply whether the act is widely regarded as a crime. Nobody would dispute that a lifted wallet reflects a criminal theft; people do dispute the criminal quality of minor (or sometimes not-minor) sexual assaults.
I can get behidn that.
See, I hate paperwork, and there would be paperwork of some sort. And then someone would want to talk about my feelings about the incident, and blah blah blah.
I went to university in the 80s. Someone grabbing a body part is pretty low on the assault totem pole. Yeah, it’s fucked up to think that way, but it is reality as it exists today. If I’m fondled somewhere I go these days, it’ll be the bookstore, the workplace, or the grocery store. Places you can definitely call the cops and file an assault charge. But I think the viewpoint of the same fondling in a boozy party or bar would be totally different.
Which, come to think of it, is also fucked up.
See, I wouldn’t report it because I would assume I would be the object of mockery for reporting something like that, that I’d be seen as a “Princess and the Pea” type figure who was having a gross over-reaction for something that was so trivial. In fact, when you said “So let me be clear – you’re saying that you would call the police over some jerk in a bar copping a feel?”, I assumed that was your implicit accusation.
I might not call to report petty theft, either, but I wouldn’t doubt that it was a crime.
You know, I’ve been groped at bars, and it wasn’t a big deal. Just assholes being assholes.
I was also groped on a dark, empty street while I lay there helpless after being seriously injured in a motorcycle accident, completely unable to run away or seek help- or even to squirm away from his touch. Got a couple years of flashbacks from that one.
Dismissing “groping” by bringing up a situation where there is little fear or risk is a nasty way of glossing over the times when it is a very real, very scary, and very traumatic thing. It’s not “not a big deal.” It’s a violation of someone’s body, and a violation of someone’s right to go about life without being attacked.
Can’t it be a big deal in bars, too? Of course it’s not all equally traumatic. Not all RAPE is equally traumatic. But it’s all a fucking crime.
Yes, of course.
He bragged about it on his Facebook page.
They have been for a long time. My daughter just got the UU high school sexuality course - you know what they were taught by some of the most progressive people on the planet - know your partner. Not “be married to your partner” not “your partner must be the opposite gender as you” - just “know them.” Bothering to know people you engage in sex with takes care of a LOT of potential problems.
Would you loan your car to a stranger? Why would you loan your body out to one?
:rolleyes:
My view is irrelevant. The law says that if he has reason to believe or should have believed that consent was absent, then its rape.
I greatly appreciate your legal knowledge here, AK84, since I’m not a lawyer. Just a point of clarification, though, what country’s legal code are you referring to?
And this is where “active consent” laws kick in. Without them, an insensitive person might just assume that it’s okay since the other party didn’t actively object. That insensitive person might not notice the other party pulling away, etc. But active consent puts a heavy burden on the insensitive person to have a positive reason to believe consent was actively given.
My guess is that “active consent” laws have zero impact on people who are good at reading other people and who prefer not to sexually assault other people. Which is probably a large fraction of the population, when you think about it.