Why aren’t society’s laws against sexual misconduct enough already? Is this university implying that society’s laws are deficient? If so, what are they doing to have appropriate laws put into place? Nothing? I thought so.
As far as I’m concerned, if there’s no objection made to sex (assuming capability to do so), that’s an unambiguous consent to sex.
“All righty then. If you’ll just get your signature notarized on these forms and get them back to me, I’ll have my attorneys review them and we’ll be set!”
Is everything best controlled by laws?
Do you think it’s laws against cannibalism that prevents most of us from eating each other? I don’t. I think it’s a social more against cannibalism that’s so strong that it’s taboo. The very notion that we might *accidentally *eat human flesh - even if the person it came from isn’t killed, or even hurt all that much, or even consenting - raises revulsion and retching. An accidental fingertip in a smoothie is going to shut a restaurant down.
I want rape to be as gross as cannibalism, and as rare. Not by laws, but by shifting cultural viewpoint.
The other thing we beat to death last time was the idea that if a girl is so screwed up that she is the type of person to say no to sex when she really wants it, why in the hell would you want any sort of relationship with her. She’s nuts. She probably says yes when she means no too - like “are you on the pill” - and when you share a child with this crazy passive aggressive bitch, you’ll have a lot of regrets.
Also guys, note that this isn’t LAW. Iowa is not passing new LAWS regarding affirmative consent. This does not change the LAW. The truth is that even with policies and education around affirmative consent, rape prosecution is going to continue to happen in date rape pretty much like it always has. He said, she said, and if she didn’t come away with bruises from trying to physically fight you off and get herself straight to the emergency room and/or the police and document everything - your life will be hell, but the chances are good you’ll walk away.
No, I’m pretty obviously not saying that. Nobody had said they didn’t believe survey respondents when they were asked what they thought the elements of sexual assault were, so, you know. Who would I have been talking to.
If you want to make a case that actually those people know they’re breaking the law, and are willing to admit that they’re doing the things that they know break the law, but draw the line at actually saying “this breaks the law,” I’m all ears.
That was my point exactly. Clearly there was consent and enjoyment had by all, but if I’d have taken that initial “no” at face value, I’d have stopped and nothing would have happened.
I guess I’m a little irked by the “Blurred lines” thread; in a sense, what I’m talking about here is one of those blurred lines; she did say no, but it was also clear that it was more of a “hold up for a second” no, and not a “NO!” kind of thing. But there was no dialogue about it, and I’ll admit it was kind of unclear to me if I should have/could have kept going. But I did, and everything worked out well for both of us.
The communication is often unclear, and one person’s meek “hold up a sec” no, is another person’s “I don’t want to be raped” no. It’s not like we all have standardized signage or signals like railroads and highways.
Which part was your point exactly? I mean, I understand that you’re saying sometimes the lines of communication aren’t clear. Maybe I misinterpreted the question in your first post. What the university’s policy is saying is that there’s no reason for the communication not to always be clear. The point of affirmative consent is that the line isn’t blurry anymore. You seem to be saying you think it’s OK for one person to “go ahead” when it isn’t clear they should. I think we all understand that the way it generally works is that people go ahead all the time when it isn’t clear. The university’s policy is that its students shouldn’t.
I’m going to guess that you don’t need proof that Iowa’s petitioned the legislature to change society’s laws regarding skateboards, in-line skates, and rollerskates before you’ll accept that there’s a legitimate purpose for that university policy.
So, in this situation, are your own words broken? You can’t say “are you ready from more” or “are we going to fast - do you just want to do this tonight?” or “is something wrong” or “is THIS ok?” You are incapable of getting clarification on whether what a woman wants is a chance to catch her breath or not to get raped? And if you are incapable of that - do you deserve to ever get laid?
In addition to what Dangerosa says…so what? Nothing would have happened. Do men have no self-control? If she says ‘no’, then stop. If she wants you to continue, she’ll find a way, and if she doesn’t, or doesn’t find a way, and you don’t have sex, OH WELL. It’s not the end of the world.
Maybe women need to learn that their ‘no’ is always respected, and maybe they won’t play as many games. Cause that’s what you’re saying - women play games, so you guys can’t really be sure what they mean. But if you always took them at their word, every time, if the games didn’t work, maybe they wouldn’t be played anymore.
Lawyers recommend having a pre-coital agreement signed.
No, my point was that it’s often very unclear, and at least in the other thread, there’s a lot of vitriol about a guy being persistent in trying to get with the woman, calling it rapey and a lot of other stuff.
What I’m saying is that persistence sometimes pays off, in that it clarifies the signals- if she means no, she’ll tell you again, and if not, then things will work out.
That’s why I got frustrated in the other thread- there was a bunch of smoking bullshit and mirrors about how people may be too meek to say no a second time, etc… and it frustrated me because it just makes the waters even more murky about how the game is played.
It’s not overthinking anything. In the other thread, you supported a policy that it was rape to wake up your significant other to sex. When it was pointed out that most of us do this and it would make us all sex offenders, your reply was basically, “Don’t worry, you won’t be prosecuted.”
I have a problem with laws that make my behavior felonious, but I get an non-binding exemption, so long as my significant other doesn’t try to get back at me for something.
My question: Why would you want to make something a very serious felony, but at the same time not enforce it?
This Iowa policy is the same. If two college students are dating for a year and the girlfriend wakes up the boyfriend with a blowjob, she is guilty of rape under the policy. That’s wrong. If you think it’s a good policy, then you should want it enforced.
Although it’s completely irrelevant to this thread, as I pointed out four billion times in the thread it was relevant in, an affirmative consent standard is the solution to this wake-up-blowjob sword of Damocles problem you’re currently experiencing, jtgain. An affirmative consent standard would make consent to sex while asleep effective. “You can wake me up with a blowjob” is a freely and affirmatively communicated willingness to participate in particular sexual activity or behavior. Which is what the policy requires.
Welcome to the team! Our long national nightmare is over, and somebody’s mouth is on our national wang.
But stopping ALSO works: if by no she meant “Not yet, I am not aroused enough to move on”, then she will clarify that as well when you stop. And by stopping you avoid any chance of a tragic misunderstanding.
Right now we have fathers teaching sons “Look, if when you slip a hand in her pants, she says “No”, go back to kissing and fondling for a while, and then try again. Maybe she will have changed her mind–and unless she says an unambiguous no that second time, you can assume it’s a yes”.
What would be better is if fathers would teach sons “If you slip a hand in her pants and she says no, back off. Keep kissing if you want, or stop entirely. Don’t put your hand down her pants until you get an unambiguous signal, like she asks you to, or she takes your hand and puts in where she wants it.”
Why would it be so bad for that to be the policy? What is LOST if that is the policy?
If I was going to school at the University of Iowa, I’d get consent in writing before having sex. Heck verbal consent is only worth the paper it’s written on.
Better yet, I’d go to school elsewhere. I’m sure that any school which would go overboard on this issue would probably be over the top on various other issues.
Exactly as should happen.
If she looks befuddled and asks why you suddenly stopped, you say “because you said no.” If she gets pissed and storms out - well, tough, guess no nookie for you from this particular person. But at least you haven’t crossed your signals. Not getting laid on a random night is not the end of the world.
ETA: But this has been done before and at length, I guess there is no reason to keep beating this jar of glue.
It’s very common for women (and men too, but not to nearly the same extent) to say one thing and mean another - and expect other people to understand what they really mean - even in non-sexual situations. Whole books have been written about this.
In regards to sex specifically, it probably relates to the idea many women have that men should instigate sex. A lot of women have a full blown rape fantasy, and even among those who don’t some have this idea of being “taken” (probably relating to the idea that their attraction is so irresistable that the guy can’t help himself, but I digress).
Or, alternatively, to the cultural double standard that treats women who are too sexually willing as “sluts”, which could lead women to want to structure the situation (in their own minds) as the guy pushing the encounter.
Whatever. Bottom line is that it happens and with women who are far from “nuts”.
I don’t know. I mean, affirmative consent is the standard for lots of things already, and you probably don’t find it that onerous in most cases. If I want to drive a girl’s car, I can’t do that without affirmative consent, either. I can’t pick up her keys while she’s sitting in the kitchen the night I meet her and walk into the driveway and drive to Vegas, and then when the police catch me say “she saw me pick that shit up” and expect that to help me any. They’re going to want to know if I had her permission, or if I didn’t. And I can’t just take a girl’s car for the weekend and then later say “I’ve driven this thing like five times before!” They still want to know did I have consent, or did I just take it. And the fact that affirmative consent is the standard there doesn’t mean that in the actual real world, every time I’ve ever driven a girl’s car I felt like I needed a contract written up to do it; it just means, you know, you don’t take the car unless you’re sure. The only difference is our perception of when we deserve sex vs. when we deserve the right to take somebody’s shit.
All this policy really boils down to is: if you want to have sex, but you feel like a dumbass saying “I want to fuck you,” then only sleep with people who give unambiguous signals about wanting to sleep with you. If you want to sleep with people who aren’t yet giving you unambiguous signals, then say “I want to fuck you” and get a yes. As a group, what we gain is that most sexual assault stops happening. What we lose is mostly up to us: either we have blurred-line sex less often or we feel like a dumbass more often. Or maybe both. That doesn’t seem over the top to me.
Agreed, and it’s an important point. I think we still have a choice what we do about that, though; we can’t abdicate responsibility for what we do just because sometimes signals are mixed or misleading.
Not even close, no. That’s what you believe that viewpoint means, and I said that was ludicrous.
Just as wrong.