by the way, although I’ll consent to being tied up or blindfolded on occasion, I have never let my husband or anyone else gag me during sex. because if I’m gagged, I can no longer communicate that its gone wrong and we need to stop or that something is happening that I did not consent to.
If anyone wants to play those BDSM games, I’m not going to judge - but before you play those games, you need to have established the rules for those games and the safe word (or, if you gag, some other way to get out). I’m thinking that most of the time - unless you are hanging out in certain select clubs or making certain Craigslist dates - BDSM isn’t a first sexual encounter activity. If you haven’t had the safe word discussion or similar discussions about what will and won’t be ok, you probably aren’t actually playing BDSM games - you are probably “just” raping someone or risking doing so.
You already told Anaamika that you had already addressed her point, and then that nothing she said was responsive to yours.
I genuinely have no idea what you’re getting at here, but OK, so you’re accusing me of all kinds of weird shit, and somehow my pronouns are problems, and I’m just going to take that as a sign that there’s no point in continuing. You seem convinced that you’re making a distinction that hasn’t already been addressed, and it’s been addressed already by a number of people, which now includes me. Which is what “we” means.
I already did. It might be helpful if you… ah, fuck it.
That’s not how the laws are written. They are generally written to define rape/sexual assault as sexual activity against the will of a person.
As to why the policy is so teriible, it’s a poor policy because it prohibits normal activities. Most sexual encounters do not contain unambiguous actions or express consent. Typical sexual encounters rely on past relationships and/or intpreted behaviors. They aren’t “I am going to kiss you now, is that ok?”, “I’m going to touch you here, is that ok?”, etc.
The only part of Anaamika’s post that I quoted and objected to in what led to this exchange was:
And what I objected to here was the idea that her personalizing it and imagining herself being in such a situation is a valid approach, and this based on the fact that a man in that situation is in a different position than a woman in that situation.
What you and some other have said is “yeah, but a man still could and should get consent anyway”. Which may be fine, but doesn’t address whether a woman imagining herself in that situation is really imagining a comparable situation to a man.
When you quoted her words in support of your position that “it’s a perfectly reasonable and relevant statement about how men should act” you did not quote the part that I quoted and objected to, in favor selecting another couple of lines which I did not discuss.
I assume you mean post #39? That isn’t a difference between sexual activitiy and anything else, but between acts in which the other person is a participant and acts in which they are not. If you just take someone’s keys and they don’t know anything about it there’s obviously no implied consent. That’s why I picked a ride vs. kidnapping.
I meant post #15, where I talked about the same presumption that Manda JO referred to:
As for the rest, what I’m saying is that I (I won’t speak for anyone else) already know that you’re saying that men and women are different and that Anaamika can’t actually imagine what it would be like to be a dude. I read those words. I understand that you only quoted the beginning of her post. But the only topic of conversation here is the affirmative consent standard for sexual activity, and Anaamika’s only point in saying the things you quoted was that she was just about to say that she wouldn’t assault a person who had frozen up, because that would be awful behavior, which was relevant to the actual topic of conversation. We know how you responded to it.
Either the import of your response was that because men and women can’t imagine being each other, Anaamika’s point was misguided somehow, or your response had no import at all to the topic of conversation. In either case, a fair and topical response to your post was that the distinction you were drawing was itself irrelevant to the thing we’re actually talking about. Because it was. The only question is whether you know it’s irrelevant and have just been arguing about that distinction for sport, or whether you think that men and women being different actually means that we men can’t be held to the extremely low bar of agreeing with Anaamika’s statement.
But I wasn’t disputing what Manda said about consent for sex. I was disputing her statement that sex was “unlike practically anything else” in this regard. My understanding is that in other matters too, it would be assumed in similar circumstances that consent was given unless specified otherwise. (I say “similar circumstances” to exclude things like taking people’s things without their knowledge, where there’s no implied consent, or murdering them, where non-consent is logically assumed - very few people want to be murdered while many consent to sex.) That’s why I gave kidnapping as an example.
I’m not saying that she can’t. I saying that she didn’t. She visualized herself as a woman in that situation.
See above. Not can’t but at least understand the difference and start from there.
I don’t think it’s irrelevant to what the discussion has been about (more below), but even if it was, it was relevant to the post that it quoted. If you think it’s irrelevant to the discussion then you can ignore it.
As it happens, I think that men and women being different means that you need to appreciate that men are sometimes faced with more ambiguity than women and with the societal expectation that they be more proactive in the face of this ambiguity, and that standards which apply to them need to reflect that. This does not mean that anything goes, obviously, but it does mean that you need to consider that. And to the point at hand, you can’t assume that an approach which would work as a general rule for a woman would work as well as a general rule for a man, and therefore a woman cannot just picture herself in that circumstance and what she would do and then make some point that she “can’t even comprehend ever being in this situation”.
As far as I can tell, however many posts deep we are here, and however many different things you’ve argued with however many people about, it’s still true that the title of the thread is “The concept of affirmative consent for sexual encounters,” implicit subtitle: “is that a good idea,” and you haven’t actually expressed an opinion about that. You’ve debated a bunch of people who were saying that they think that an affirmative consent standard is doable and rational, and you’ve certainly given me an impression of what it is you think, but you keep saying “that isn’t my point; you’re missing my point” when people attempt to tie what you’re actually saying to the topic of the thread, which is the thing they were talking about after all. I keep opening this thread to see what people think about that, but instead what I find is a sort of crazy-ass charlotada routine where everything’s a moving target and possibly just for goofs.
I’m not trying to be a dick, but I genuinely can’t understand your purpose without imputing something like bad faith. I really don’t know why you keep referring back to this idea that it’s hard for a woman to imagine how a man feels. Whereas, like, I know how Inner Stickler feels about the topic at hand, and Manda JO, and Dangerosa. And I know you’re telling them they’re wrong about something. It’s as if we had a thread titled “Ice cream, cones or spoons: which” and you’re selectively quoting bits of pro-spoon people’s posts and telling them their shit is stupid, and then chiding people for assuming that you’re taking a pro-cone position, or any position at all.
All of which is me saying: which of the following is your position here?
I don’t care at all about whether an affirmative consent to sex standard is desirable and actually don’t even want to talk about that;
I think an affirmative consent standard is desirable and practical;
I think an affirmative consent standard is:
A. undesirable and impractical;
B. desirable but impractical;
C. undesirable though practical.
Ain’t no reason to talk about that other stuff otherwise.
But, if I am understanding Jimmy’s posts over this, the* consent is assumed* and the burden is on the person who wants to withdraw consent.
And seriously, “unambiguous actions” are not “Can I kiss you?” It’s having someone kiss you back, unbutton their own blouse, move your hand where they want it, moan “Oh, please!” How are these not part of “most sexual encounters”? Both people should be doing this. It’s part of normal sex. If one person just . . . stops participating . . .there should be a burden on the other person to stop as well. That’s the entirety of this policy.
Seems like these kinds of rules are aimed at gullible young men who will soon find themselves without any sexual partners whatsoever. Women loathe men who act that: “Can I though you here? Can I touch you there? Has your consent expired yet?”
Try any romance novel, or any erotic novel aimed women ever published, anywhere. This guy will not be in that book. The good news is most men eventually figure it out: if you want to be with women, you have to be the kind of man women want to be with. This social retard is not him.
But we don’t mind “does this feel good?” or “do you want to suck my cock?” Or “do you want to be on top?” To which I can say “um, well, since you asked” or “oh, yea!” Trust me, we really don’t mind being consulted.
If you are learning your romance techniques from erotic novels aimed at women, you probably don’t know that we get together and LAUGH at them. They are fantasy - often bad ones - and no more a reflection of what real women want from their lives then men suddenly wanting to be the central figure in a Tom Clancy novel in real life (because being shot at is really just so much FUN).
Think of it this way, maybe: the rules are aimed at guys who either don’t think about their partners or who can’t imagine any middle ground between getting definitive consent and asking for permission every 15 seconds.
Well, no, I’d don’t read a lot of them. I did read a few, though, and I even sort of liked The Flame and the Flower, from years ago. More recently I couldn’t get it up to read Shades of Grey, despite its popularity.
Anyway, my only point is that women - generally - dont want a guy who asks every ten seconds if what they’re doing is ok, and guy who buys into that bullshit is going to find himself a very loney guy.
I don’t buy the argument that women buy Shades of Grey, or other romances, in order to get to laugh at them. Yes, they’re fantasy. But fantasy is what you wish for (though you may realize it’s unrealistic.) It’s not comedy.
Right. It comes down to: Be Sure. Do Not Just Assume. And that does not require checklisting every four minutes.
It does require being able to figure a way to communicate “like it so far?”“doing good so far, let’s see what you got next” without stopping to run a checklist every four minutes. And a willingness to walk away if you can’t make heads or tails of what the other party wants.
And if the standard is fairly exercised it must be bilateral and bidirectional: yes it means one side has to wait until the other is good and ready and makes it clear, ***AND ***it also means the other side will need to make it clear when they’re good and ready. It does involve renouncing in many cases the “he must be the one who takes the active initiative” expectation and a lot of mind-gaming and posing that is often socially “expected” to be engaged in by both sides. And (I mentioned elsewhere) when it comes to verbalizing what one another wants, neither part should take offense at being asked, nor in receiving a frank answer. Maybe this will be a boon for those who are “oblivious to signals”.
Does it mean that the uncommunicative (by mental dullness, personal or social awkwardness, psychic damage or other dysfunction) of both genders may end up figuratively screwed and physically not? Maybe. But that’s a whole different matter altogether and can be addressed on its own merit.
To be fair that college’s policy, including its encouragement to report for possible legal action, seems a bit of a blunt instrument but hey, it gets people’s attention, doesn’t it? And you know what? I strongly suspect the majority of the hookups on campus do not involve a call and response acknowledgment to verify every step taken, but rather proceed by the normal flow of mutually-understood consented actions that most people engage in everywhere, policy or no policy.
(BTW regarding an earlier comment: in a court of law, if not counting on forensic or circumstantial evidence, since it is generally accepted the norm for human sex is consent and rape is the exception, and since the key element of the crime is that there was no valid consent given or it was not possible to give it, the burden of proof has to be on the latter.)
So, your position is people who enjoy reading Lord of the Rings really want to fight in the battle for Gondor. And face Nazgul? People who enjoyed reading Girl with the Dragon Tattoo want to be conned and sent to prison, want to deal with sexual abuse and murder? People who enjoyed The Avengers would be happy to see interdementional aliens bent on conquest invade and destroy New York. My fifteen year old daughter wants to be chosen for The Reaping?
I have to say you have an interesting take on the nature of Fantasy as it relates to reality.
By the way, I read a LOT of them - romance novels. I don’t read many of the ones with sex in them at all, since the part of the fantasy I’m interested in is the romance. But sometimes the ones I read have sex in them - many romance novels are pretty light on the sex.
I think I understand where you’re coming from and I appreciate your frustration from that vantage point, but I don’t share your perspective.
We are not members of a committee tasked with setting standards for sex consent. We are just a bunch of guys kicking things around on a MB. There’s no reason that every comment or argument has to be a part of a grander argument or position. If a guy says X and another guy disagrees with X, then that other guy can point this out.
A lot of issues are very complex. There can be multiple arguments made for or against either side. And there can be many gradients of positions within either “side” of the broader position. If someone makes a particular argument in favor of one side, and someone else feels that that particular argument is flawed, no harm in pointing out the flaws in that particular argument without staking a position WRT every other argument or even as to the broader issue. Or if someone adopts a position on one end of the spectrum, no harm in making objections to the extremity of that position without taking a firm stand on exactly where on the spectrum you feel things should fall. Some things are more clear than others.
From my vantage point, the bigger problem is attitudes such as yours (or at least which resemble yours). ISTM that many people approach discussions and debates with their sole focus on the ultimate answer, and the actual arguments in support of their position merely a means of arriving at their destination. Every argument in support of their position is assumed to be valid and to be fought for, and every counterargument is assumed to be invalid and fought against. And what makes it worse – at least for people like me – is that they assume that all others are using the same irrational approach as they are. So that anyone who objects to a specific argument is support of Cause X is assumed to be an opponent of Cause X, and further, to be an opponent of every argument in favor of Cause X and a supporter of every argument against Cause X.
[People with this mindset also have a tendency to speak of “we” when discussing their positions on the issues, because in their minds there are teams, and they are members of a monolithic Team X, opposed to the other monolithic Team Y.]
That’s one part of the issue. What makes it even worse is confusing the specific arguments with each other. Even if in theory I would agree that you could not make Argument A in favor of Cause X without also agreeing with Arguments B, C & D and so on, that doesn’t mean that Argument A is itself Argument B, C or D. So if you make Argument A, and others respond by treating it as if you’ve said Arguments B, C, or D, it can get frustrating even if you actually agree with Arguments B, C & D, let alone if you disagree with them.
I am not going to be pulled into this. I am not going to even ponder these alternatives closely enough to decide which if any I agree/disagree with, or whether I might have already taken a position WRT one or more of them.
I’ve said what I want to say about what I want to talk about. You want to discuss that, then fine, and if not then that’s fine too.
People don’t necessarily want the fantasies to actually happen IRL, but it’s a mistake to try to deny that the emotions are generally ones that they identify with.
But the important thing is women don’t want those fantasies to happen in real life. If they did, the emotions might be VERY different than the emotions they are having when its happening in a fantasy world. Well, unless maybe its Channing Tatum on a pirate ship - if that happens in real life maybe I wouldn’t mind.
In reality, most human beings, men and women, in real life don’t like the feeling of being out of control in a situation. They don’t like the feeling of being overpowered. They might enjoy the illusion of such things, but only when their intellectual brain is aware its an illusion. The emotions you have reading a book are emotions of illusion.
Do women want passion - sure, but we can have that with affirmative consent - with communication - which increases our control and comfort. Do women want to sometimes feel out of control - you bet - but most of us want it as part of an illusion - we want it with someone we trust not to cross our boundaries - who we know well enough to know that he (or she) knows what our boundaries are.
I suspect that the problem is people don’t want to "talk dirty"and the romantic language for sex feels hokey to men and the clinical language is pretty unsexy to almost everyone. And that leaves guys suddenly feeling uncomfortable. You don’t need to say “may I make sweet sweet love to you now” or “do you mind if I stroke your clitoris” - there are a tons of words you can use.
These are not unambiguous actions. Women can unbutton their own blouse because they feel pressured or are scared, for example. Unambiguous means that there is only one possible intrepretation. If another plausible intrepretation exists, then the action is not unambiguous. That’s a rather high bar to clear. Even something like having an orgasm isn’t unambiguous because some women have reported having orgasms when raped.
And again, consent is absolutely never assumed. Policies and laws are generally against sexual activity against someone’s will. For example, here’s Harvard’s:
Nothing in the policy presumes consent to an activity.
But people frequently like to play along with the illusions too, to an extent. And for others to do it too. Adds to the feeling. And this is where it can get confusing for other people.