Do you imagine that mute people have no ability to communicate at all?
The video is good, but it kind of misses the really sticky point
Firstly, the no.
- All good, reasonable people agree that no means no.
- All good, reasonable people agree that intoxication, lack of consciousness, coercion are no-nos.
Secondly the clear, repeated yes.
All good, reasonable people agree that it means “go ahead”.
Thirdly, the unmentioned (and sticky) lack of no and the “assumed yes”.
If there is no coercion and there are clear heads (no alcohol, drugs) and every time it escalates there is no protestation, no even a hint of discomfort, never a “no”, “wait”, “can you stop?”.Let’s say I start slowly sliding my hand down into her pants and there is no “stop”, why would I think I’m doing something wrong?
What if she freezes up and doesn’t react? If she does, you should think you’re doing something wrong, because that’s a sign of shock and fear and not enjoyment.
I think the key phrase there is ‘not a hint of discomfort.’ Happy noises, happy wriggles, blissed out expression on face – yeah, that’s obviously someone who is into what you’re doing.
In the absence of those signals I would assume I was failing to provide pleasure, in which case I might ask, ''Are you okay?"
And my partner might say, ‘‘I’m not comfortable with this,’’ or they might say, ‘‘Rub me harder.’’
In a way it’s just an extension of the idea that your job having sex is in part to provide pleasure to your partner, not just take it all for yourself. I would feel unfulfilled in any sexual encounter if I did not think my partner was enjoying it – whether or not they felt they were being assaulted.
All of this confusion about consent is rather depressing.
And Mr. Limbaugh wonders why we crazy liberals place so much emphasis on its importance.
He is in the group that seriously does not understand the concept. He (and others) are puzzled, and sometimes angry about why they would need this “consent” concept before they do whatever they want to whatever woman they want.
Seriously. They don’t get it. They think that it’s just PC bullshit. They long for the times when a man just did what he wanted on a date. “She agreed to the date, therefore I get to do what I want to her.” This is normal for them. They are angry that things have changed.
Likewise, Trump supporters long for a time when they could get a decent job without having much damned schooling. They hate school, education and learning. But now, they need skills to get a decent job. This pisses them off. They long for the times when they could get an OK paying job with grade 10 or less education, just because they were “better” (read, whiter) than other candidates, or knew someone who would give them a nice job. It’s so unfair now that candidates are judged on their abilities.
If it were only one dude on the radio, I wouldn’t be too depressed about it. It’s becoming clear that this is an issue for far too many people.
Well, don’t get too depressed about the “shades of good” involved: All of the “no means no”, “yes means yes”, “only yes means yes”, and then the various varieties of “safe word” play are on the “good” end of the spectrum, and they’re legitimately confusing even to people who want to do the right thing and who understand the fundamental issues involved.
In short, sometimes confusion is just confusion, not an implied attack.
What IS depressing is that, apparently, giving soomeone a roofie and raping them in a back alley is the same as honestly misreading signals from an enthusiastic partner.They’re both sexual assault.
Not the same. But misreading signals and then continuing when your partner doesn’t want you to is rape, even if they’re just laying there rather than resisting.
If the partner is enthusiastic, I don’t understand how their signals could be misread. So I’m not sure what your argument is here.
Back when I was a kid, I read a lot of books about dating. One guide recommended a method called “two steps forward, one step back.” The idea was that you might escalate a bit, but then you’d pull back, to allow your partner to then push it back. They never explicitly mentioned consent in this, but did say it was a way to check interest in going further.
So I’ve always wondered if this could play a role in consent.
Oh, horseshit! You want to know how it used to be in reality? You go on a date. A makeout session ensues. You go for a little boob outside the blouse or top. It’s accepted or your hand is clamped down on by an arm or moved away with a hand. Assuming your attempt is not rebuffed, after a bit an attempt is made to open or raise the top. Same response or lack thereof. Then the bra, etc. Then the hand on the boob, etc. Same thing with a hand on the leg. If it’s rebuffed, things stop there. If not the hand goes a little higher. And so on and so on until whatever happens happens or whatever doesn’t happen doesn’t happen. And oftentimes whatever did happen was contingent on the number of dates the couple had had and how interested/compliant the girl or woman was. And also to be fair, multiple attempts were likely to made at the various steps along the way unless the girl made it obvious they weren’t welcome and wanted you to knock it off.
But - and this is an important but - the girl or woman was always in control, and barring those rare occasions when the guy was an out and out brute, that control was respected and accepted.
That was how it was supposed to work, perhaps. But sometimes the man didn’t take no for an answer, and until relatively recently, this wouldn’t be recognized as rape. And if the guy took no for an answer, but not until a solid minute of unwanted groping until the girl finally screams, that wouldn’t have been considered sexual assault until recently.
And that happened, quite a bit.
Bingo. And what Spice Weasel said too. If your partner is an enthusiastic participant in whatever degree of sexual interaction you’re having, then there’s nothing to misinterpret. But if at some point that enthusiasm disappears, it’s time to pull back and ask what’s going on.
Who would want to have sex with a partner who isn’t responding in a lively and positive way? Gotta admit, I can’t get my head around that.
Some people want that. That’s what Cosby wanted, obviously. And others just don’t care.
Phyllis Schlafly
“aren’t necessarily” is not the same thing as “aren’t”. The next sentence that you didn’t bold goes on to say that if both partners are enthusiastic she won’t have reason to report you, which seems to be saying that as a practical matter you won’t get in trouble, versus a legalistic argument.
It’s worth noting that your position has been that you can escalate to the next step without prior consent, since it’s impossible otherwise and that escalation counts as a question. Meanwhile, other people on your “side” in this discussion claim that not only is it possible to get prior consent for each step but that they personally do it.
So I think this position is not as monolithic as you might think.
It’s not that hard.
Imagine a wizard has cursed you, and if you have sex with a partner that does not want to have sex with you, your genitals immediately fall off.
If your partner was laying there still and silent, would you just go on ahead and have sex with them? Knowing that if you guess wrong it would be disastrous for you?
Of course not. If your partner wasn’t actively and enthusiastically participating, you’d take a step back to make sure she wants it. It may not be the most natural thing in the world, but it’d be better than your penis falling off, right?
If you can take that same basic precaution to protect your penis, surely you can also take it to protect your partner from being raped. It’s not hard to avoid “accidentally” raping someone. This isn’t an extraordinary ask.