I agree that such a thing is rude, morally wrong, and needs to be addressed. But it’s not a lack of consent, and it is not something that needs a policy or a legal solution. If you don’t want to give consent, then don’t give consent.
Let’s say I have a pain in the ass cousin who won’t take “no” for an answer about coming over to my house. I tell him I’m busy, I’m tired, etc. trying to be polite, but he keeps pushing and tells me he will only stay for a little while. Being a timid little mouse, I finally give in and let him come over.
Is he guilty of trespass?
Now, of course rape is more serious than that, but it creates circular logic. It’s not rape if she consents, even under (legal, non-physical) persuasion. Once the word “no” is uttered is persuasion not acceptable? If not, when is it acceptable? Can I ask again later that day? That week? That month? Next year? Ever?
If a woman doesn’t want to have sex, but agrees anyways, then that’s her fault if she regrets it later. (Again, I’m talking legally or under a school policy where discipline can be given; not morally). How should we address this other than the general rule to tell people to stand up for themselves?
Since you’re opposed to this policy, maybe you can start a new PR campaign. “Don’t rape - it’s rude!” To put it another way, jtgain, I think you’d do better in these discussions if you stopped comparing rape to minor inconveniences or misunderstandings.
All that’s been proposed is that we switch the standard to “She must say yes” instead of “She must not say no”. Currently, a girl who is lying there, stiff as a board, tears running down her face, moaning "It hurts it hurts it hurts’ falls into the “agrees anyways” category because she hasn’t said the magic word “no”. As a society, we’ve decided that’s not rape. That’s appalling and we need a sea change to where we acknowledge that it IS rape.
To me, this is very similar to the way marital rape was seen as an oxymoron for centuries. That had to be changed, and both attitudes and laws had to change to reflect our new understanding. The same is true now: it’s not enough to start a public awareness campaign that says “Not sure she wants it? You should probably stop. It’s not rape, but it’s rude”.
The linked policy defines not having affirmative consent as sexual assault and encourages those assaulted to contact the police. Sexual assault carries all of those punishments.
For those interested hereis a transcript of previous generation’s efforts to grapple with these issues.
Well, that’s what I’m saying! I don’t understand why you can’t, and other men can’t, start calling women on this. If we’re too passive to tell you unambiguously that we want you, think with your big head and not your small head and walk away. If we want you, we’ll find a way to chase you.
Even when I was a shy 20 YO and it’d been beaten into my head that sex was BAD I still found a way to tell my then-boyfriend when I wanted sex. We’ll find a way. We’re horny, too.
Anyway this is my last post in this thread. Thanks!
None of this addresses the point I was making which is that you can’t imagine yourself in that situation as a woman and exatrapolate to what a man in that situation could or should do. Which is what you were doing in the post that I disputed.
But more important - to me, at least - is that you should not assume that because you were interested in “personalizing this” that everyone else is doing the same. I’ve not made any comments relating to my own personal history or situation, and nothing that I’ve said should be interpreted along those lines.
Aw, c’mon baby! Why you being no fun? Don’t you like us? Come on, just sit here a little bit with me, we don’t gotta do no more debating, I promise. That’s right, isn’t this nice? You know you like it. You know you want it. Argumentum this ad populum, baby.
That’s not true. What you describe is rape. There’s no magic surrounding the word “no”, and someone crying and moaning it hurts clearly is not consenting to the activity.
So say the actions are X, Y, and Z. If someone could plausibly say I did X, Y, and Z because I was scared/pressured/intimidated, not because I wanted to. Or if they can say yeah, X, Y, and Z meant I wanted to fool around, but not have sex. Or anything else, then X, Y, and Z are not unambiguous actions. That’s a very high bar to clear, and only the most extreme actions are going to clear that bar.
Now, now - maybe this is all part of her rape fantasy. Maybe she likes being abused. I mean, how can you be SURE that this isn’t what she wants and miss out on giving you both a great experience. After all, people are into weird shit, and who are you to judge? And maybe she isn’t in tears over the sex thing, maybe her dog just died and sex is giving her a needed release and its actually a public service on your part.
Whether we can extrapolate our imaginations isn’t really relevant. Men can communicate (“is this good?” or “Do you want to _____?” or even “It’d be awesome if you _____ed my ____, will you?”) rather than assume (“she seemed to want it”) or ignore (“the first no is a soft no, when she says no a second time that’s when she means it”) or coerce (keep asking and asking and asking - while ignoring, assuming and not communicating - until she finally says yes). Women can do likewise. Nothing about the psychological or physiological makeup of either sex changes that.
The point is, if the woman you’re attempting to have sex with isn’t communicating, then you, as a man, are entirely capable of doing so. That you make a choice not to communicate and move to assuming, ignoring or coercing (or some combination) based on some idea that women are passive and play games and don’t know what they want is why these consent codes become an issue - that non-communicative method of behavior leads to misunderstandings about consent and consequently, rape.
Open your mouths and talk. It’s not hard. If your partner won’t, then you have to. If neither of you can talk about what you want to do (or not do) then you’re not ready to have sex with one another.
It might not be relevant to you but it was relevant to the specific post I was responding to. What isn’t really relevant, therefore, is the rest of your post.
(It does not appear that you’ve understood what’s being discussed altogether. Nobody is forcing you to comment on any of this, but if you want to, it might be helpful if you read the exchange from the beginning, and try to get the context.)
That’s not my understanding of the law: the whole point of what we are talking about is that sexual activity, unlike practically anything else, assumes consent unless and until it is withdrawn. It has to be explicitly withdrawn. All this university’s policy does is shift that to “consent must be explicitly given”. Why is that so terrible?
Disagreeing with you isn’t the same as not understanding the context. It’s obvious what you’re saying, I promise you; they aren’t missing it.
The point, as tumbleddown actually explicitly said, is that both men and women can do these things. There’s nothing about me as a man that makes Anaamika’s statement – this one:
– alien or incomprehensible to me. Switch the genders and it’s a perfectly reasonable and relevant statement about how men should act. The problem people are having with this men are from Mars shit isn’t that they’re ignoring that it’s your point; it’s that we’re rejecting it because it’s preposterous in this context. “Oh, men can’t be asked not to assault women the same way women might not be expected to assault men.”
Who is “they”? I was talking to one person, who missed the context.
You can disagree about whether you can extrapolate or not. But you can’t say it’s irrelevant, because that’s exactly what Anaamika was explicitly doing*, in the post I responded to. Therefore my response addressing whether she could or could not exatrapolate from imagining herself in that situation was relevant to her having done exactly that.
Therefore someone who claimed that this issue was irrelevant was missing the context.
Which again, is not the same thing as someone disagreeing about whether she could extrapolate from her imagination, which is what you seem to be doing.
*Interesting that you failed to quote Annamika’s opening lines in which she made that clear – and which by odd coincidence is the only part that I myself quoted and addressed. Hmm …
Is this a royal “we” or have you been appointed some sort of group spokesman?
Either way, technically these things are possible. In fact, they’re practically possible. But there’s still a difference in how people will tend to act based on varying situations and societal expectations, and it’s unreasonable to say “I can’t imagine why you would do X in Situation A when I would do Y in Situation B”.
You want to argue that men should do it anyway, that’s another argument. But you can’t make the case based on what a woman would do in a superficially similar situation, since in reality it’s not the same situation or dynamic.
As I said earlier, “an analogous comparison would be a woman advising a man to sit back and wait for women to ask him out on dates instead of taking the initiative himself because “that’s what I do and it works for me”. Which – again - is not to say it’s not technically possible for a man to do that, or that a woman can never give such advice, but rather that she can’t extrapolate that from her own situation, which is fundamentally different.
Perhaps a lawyer can comment on this, but this is not my understanding. AFAIK there is no difference between sexual activity and anything else in this regard.
If 2 people go for a car ride you don’t assume kidnapping until you explicitly show consent. And so on.