# consent



## NobodySpecial

There was a thread a while back in which people asserted that consent can be confusing. I like this!

This woman just explained consent with the most perfect metaphor : The Loop


----------



## 2ntnuf

Nope, not enough to fall within the law. That law changed to include more than just some idiot that does anything to a drunk woman. He's(whoever) got to be an idiot to even want sex with a woman who is passed out. Yuk. Too much like necrophilia for me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

You did not read the parts about changing of minds while the tea was being brewed, etc? Or about wanting tea one day but not the next? :scratchhead:

The law was never only about passed out people. But to answer your question, there are apparently people who like to have sex with passed out people. Cuz it happens.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

I read it... the whole tea analogy.. Oh I agree... common sense really.. 

BUT .. when you're dealing with a lustful narcissist who is expecting to get laid .. ..I wouldn't be holding onto common sense if I went back to a man's place, even a little drunk -with him in the mood..hormones raging...

I just don't think that's wise.... especially if he is a stranger....which I assume these are casual encounters.


----------



## Racer

Not a great analogy... if I remember the law well enough, to put it in her analogy. You can go ahead and make her tea on the off-chance she'll say "Ya, I really want that tea."... but sometimes, they take the cup anyway, drink the tea. The excuses roll out: She/he drank the vile stuff just to be polite and because she/he didn't want to look like an arse, or disappoint you, or lose her job, or be abandoned in a bad neighborhood, or xxx ... (all the various reasons they might be coerced into sex). But it was unwanted and at the time, they were too worried about ramifications if they rejected that tea you really want seem to want to give them. 

The law is about waiting for that "F**k ya I want tea!" or not even making it at all 'in hopes that...'. Not quite as simple as she wants it to be.

Passed out is just a very tiny part. They have to say it, or it is rape.


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> There was a thread a while back in which people asserted that consent can be confusing. I like this!
> 
> This woman just explained consent with the most perfect metaphor : The Loop


Yes it's not very confusing. Don't make anyone drink the tea. Even if they asked for it and changed their mind. Of course there's the sticking point where someone wants the tea and feels guilty about it when other's know about it. Sometimes it's easy to say they didn't want that tea later on.


----------



## MEM2020

NS,

That's a good metaphor. 

That said, I've seen numerous cases in the media of late that disturb me. Obviously I make no claims as to how common this is statistically, I'll just say that each story made me cringe in different ways. 

They all follow a similar theme:
- He forced me to drink tea once or twice 
- At the time I told no one
- I then voluntarily went to his house/dorm/apartment many, many times for more tea, over a period of a (month/months/years)
- And/or after the incident I sent him numerous texts/emails telling him I wanted him to serve me more tea.

Eventually we broke up (in almost every case it's the guy doing the breaking up). 

I've now reported the first incident to the police/university and they aren't doing anything. I can't understand why he isn't being prosecuted. 

I'm going to create a thread with links as I've read at least a half dozen extreme examples of this type behavior. 






NobodySpecial said:


> There was a thread a while back in which people asserted that consent can be confusing. I like this!
> 
> This woman just explained consent with the most perfect metaphor : The Loop


----------



## Mr. Nail

Tea is consent? So what this says is that sex is no more important than hot water and dried leaves? All I can say is that If I brew up a pot of tea, and my guest takes one sip and then claims that she hates tea, never wanted tea, and that my particular brand of tea makes her want to vomit, then my guest will be lucky to be offered a luke warm glass of spit next time she thinks she wants tea.

Consent laws are very similar to harassment laws. Whatever she says.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> Yes it's not very confusing. Don't make anyone drink the tea. Even if they asked for it and changed their mind. Of course there's the sticking point where someone wants the tea and feels guilty about it when other's know about it. Sometimes it's easy to say they didn't want that tea later on.


AFAIC they should be prosecuted, of course. BUt this a thread about consent. NOt about false allegations.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Do I recall correctly that there is some measure of expectation that threads should stay on topic? If so, I would request that to happen here. I would request anyone who would like to discuss false allegations please start their own thread.


----------



## Thundarr

Thundarr said:


> Yes it's not very confusing. Don't make anyone drink the tea. Even if they asked for it and changed their mind. Of course there's the sticking point where someone wants the tea and feels guilty about it when other's know about it. Sometimes it's easy to say they didn't want that tea later on.
> 
> 
> 
> NobodySpecial said:
> 
> 
> 
> AFAIC they should be prosecuted, of course. BUt this a thread about consent. NOt about false allegations.
Click to expand...




NobodySpecial said:


> Do I recall correctly that there is some measure of expectation that threads should stay on topic? If so, I would request that to happen here. I would request anyone who would like to discuss false allegations please start their own thread.


I honestly expected you to see my comment as agreement that this is a good metaphor for the concept of consent but you didn't seem to notice that. Good luck with this thread.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> I honestly expected you to see my comment as agreement that this is a good metaphor for the concept of consent but you didn't seem to notice that. Good luck with this thread.


I did! And appreciate it. And this thread is just to boring. No one cares. Sniff. 

It is an important thing for me right now. I have a teenage boy and a preteen girl. It weighs.


----------



## MEM2020

Link below is to the best collegiate policy I've seen on this topic.


Sex, Alcohol and Clear Consent





NobodySpecial said:


> Do I recall correctly that there is some measure of expectation that threads should stay on topic? If so, I would request that to happen here. I would request anyone who would like to discuss false allegations please start their own thread.


----------



## Mr. Nail

NobodySpecial said:


> It is an important thing for me right now. I have a teenage boy and a preteen girl. It weighs.


As I tried to say, don't use this analogy to try to teach this concept to your teenagers. Sex is not tea. Sex is way more important than that. The tea analogy trivializes the subject of sex. You do not want your teens thinking that sex is as unimportant as your choice of beverage. You do not want them thinking that sexual rejection is as painless as wasting a cup of tea. see?

Teach your son to be cautious. Teach your daughter to be honest.
MN


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> As I tried to say, don't use this analogy to try to teach this concept to your teenagers. Sex is not tea. Sex is way more important than that. The tea analogy trivializes the subject of sex. You do not want your teens thinking that sex is as unimportant as your choice of beverage. You do not want them thinking that sexual rejection is as painless as wasting a cup of tea. see?
> 
> Teach your son to be cautious. Teach your daughter to be honest.
> MN


Let me ask you something, since you brought it up. What is sexual rejection?

For the record. I think that they should both be cautious. And honest. And really freaking smart.


----------



## Thundarr

Mr. Nail said:


> As I tried to say, don't use this analogy to try to teach this concept to your teenagers. Sex is not tea. Sex is way more important than that. The tea analogy trivializes the subject of sex. You do not want your teens thinking that sex is as unimportant as your choice of beverage. You do not want them thinking that sexual rejection is as painless as wasting a cup of tea. see?
> 
> Teach your son to be cautious. Teach your daughter to be honest.
> MN


If someone is confused about the meaning of consent then the metaphor was spot on but I think you're pointing out that tea is trivial so maybe the metaphor would make sex sound trivial as well. But really consent isn't very confusing like I've seen suggested in other articles and threads.


----------



## Mr. Nail

Sexual rejection in this context is not simply declining an advance. it is accepting an advance and then removing consent. I am not saying that this is bad, or should not be done. I'm fine with stopping a mistake as soon as you realize it is a mistake. I just want to point out that there are consequences to actions. 

In the analogy Person A offered Tea. Person B accepted tea in good faith. Person B stopped accepting tea. Now here is the branching. Person B could say, oh I thought I would like that but it isn't for me right now. Or person B for whatever reason could say Oh Why did you give me tea I hate tea and your tea is vile. Both are rejection, one would be less painful than the other. One is more honest than the other. One may be necessary to stop A from pouring more tea. But in the end Person B should accept that person A is not likely to offer more tea without some healing.
MN


----------



## NobodySpecial

Thundarr said:


> If someone is confused about the meaning of consent then the metaphor was spot on but I think you're pointing out that tea is trivial so maybe the metaphor would make sex sound trivial as well.


That never occurred to me. i was not thinking of triviality at all. I was thinking of hearing things like

You said yes before. I've personally heard this. This means that I need to say yes for what... ever?
You didn't say no with a giant punch to the face. That's the same as yes, right?

And really, I have never personally been in a position to be incapacitated to the point that I could not say no. But I know people who have. Smart? No. Safe? No. Consent? Hell, hell, hell, NO. I knew a guy in hs who actually said that to me. She was passed out. She did not say no.

Go for Hell YES! More fun that way.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> Sexual rejection in this context is not simply declining an advance. it is accepting an advance and then removing consent. I am not saying that this is bad, or should not be done. I'm fine with stopping a mistake as soon as you realize it is a mistake. I just want to point out that there are consequences to actions.


Of course. I agree with you completely. Would that we can communicate this to our young people.



> In the analogy Person A offered Tea. Person B accepted tea in good faith. Person B stopped accepting tea. Now here is the branching. Person B could say, oh I thought I would like that but it isn't for me right now.


Which is fine.


> Or person B for whatever reason could say Oh Why did you give me tea I hate tea and your tea is vile. Both are rejection, one would be less painful than the other.


So this is one for my son, I guess. No it is not rejection. You don't get what you are not owed. No one owes you the opportunity to see them drink the tea.


> One is more honest than the other. One may be necessary to stop A from pouring more tea. But in the end Person B should accept that person A is not likely to offer more tea without some healing.
> MN


Heal on. More power to you. But that does not answer the question. What is sexual rejection? What are you owed that you can be actually rejected?


----------



## Mr. Nail

NobodySpecial said:


> But that does not answer the question. What is sexual rejection? What are you owed that you can be actually rejected?


I feel we are progressing. So I'm continuing. Here is where tea breaks down. You do not nave to be owed something to be rejected.

Let's open some new analogies. You and 7 other people apply for a job. The employer Evaluates the applicants and hires the person he feels will fit best in his organization. Six people were rejected. Some of those people may feel that they deserved the job more than the hired person. They may even feel that the employer owed them the job. But the truth is there was no ownership of the job until the offer was made. All six were rejected, all six were disappointed and hurt. Some of them chose to believe that they were owed the job, this magnified their hurt.

Now the very next day the successful applicant quits their job (gives Notice) buys clothing appropriate for the new job and invests time and money into training suggested by the new employer. But at the end of that day the new employer calls and withdraws the employment offer. Now we have a person who was owed something, and they receive damage from the rejection. Because of the greater commitment the pain of the rejection is greater. 

But all seven applicants were rejected. One was owed, some thought they were owed, some were in no way owed. All of them decided not to buy from the employer for some time in the future.

Now the amount of commitment, sharing of non sexual intimacies, Time spent together, and many other factors will affect how a person will feel when they are rejected. It is better to be smarter, more honest, and more cautious in how you use these coins.
MN


----------



## 2ntnuf

This is the way I understand it. I read the whole thing. I just disagree that it's that simple. 



> - The Affirmative Consent Standard states that the person who initiates sexual contact must receive a VERBAL YES (affirmative consent) from the other person before engaging in any sexual activity -- and that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual encounter.
> 
> - The Affirmative Consent Standard makes it clear that it is the responsibility of the person who initiates sexual contact to make sure they have the VERBAL CONSENT of the other person -- instead of the current situation, where people put assume it's the responsibility of the woman to "say no" -- instead, the Affirmative Consent Standard says it's the man's responsibility to "get a verbal yes."
> 
> - The Affirmative Consent Standard reduces ambiguity in sexual situations, by making it clear that the initiator of sexual contact must receive a "verbal yes" from the other person.
> 
> - Currently, many men assume if a woman "does not say no" then that means "yes" or interpret "silence/saying nothing" as a "yes" -- this ambiguity can lead to rape/sexual assault.
> 
> - Under the Affirmative Consent Standard, silence is NOT a "yes."
> 
> - Under the Affirmative Consent Standard, the absence of a no is NOT a "yes."
> 
> - Under the Affirmative Consent Standard, the only "yes" is a "yes."
> 
> - Under the Affirmative Consent Standard, a drunk woman cannot consent to sex, because her judgment is incapacitated by alcohol.
> 
> ______________
> 
> The Affirmative Consent Standard & Rape / Sexual Assault Education -  SGV-NOW Project


In my opinion, it's one person's word against another's, unless it's recorded throughout. I know that's not very romantic. It's how I understand it, if one wants to strictly obey the law.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
For awake, non-drugged, non-drunk, sane adults, I think consent is simple. Its is sometimes violated and there is no question that that violation is wrong and presumably criminal. 

If the possible assailant is awake, non-drugged etc, then I think consent is still very clear - the assailant can make a reasonable judgement of whether or not the other person is consenting.

If the victim is awake, etc, then again consent is clear. The assailant may be under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or insanity, but they are still responsible for their actions.

The really difficult case is when both the assailant and victim are substantially impaired.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I say, if you would like a chance to have sex, don't drink. That's just a part of this, though. This covers all sexual contact whether alcohol, drugs or whatever are involved or not. One part of the link I posted above states:



> - The Affirmative Consent Standard states that the person who initiates sexual contact must receive a VERBAL YES (affirmative consent) from the other person before engaging in any sexual activity -- and that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual encounter.
> 
> http://sgvnowproject.weebly.com/the...standard--rape--sexual-assault-education.html


Again, no alcohol needs to be involved for these conditions to take place. Consent is a must before and at each step along the way. Only a sober person can give consent. I don't carry a breathaliser that will record individual readings and store them. If this link is true, and a do not doubt it, in the least, you better read up on laws about verbal recordings, because it's one person's word against another's. Talk to a lawyer to know if recordings are admissable evidence when you make them yourself. If they are not, who knows? Take your chances and hope you don't insult her too much. You could be up on rape and abuse charges, married or dating. 

Is that extreme? Yes, but it is possible. You have to look at worst case scenario or you could be blind-sided and ignorance of the law is not a defense. Sorry for my intensity, but it truly is serious.


Edit: You can be charged with rape, up to 30 years after the occurrence according to this site, depending on the state. 



> Nationwide, 34 states and Washington, DC, have statutes of limitations on filing rape or sexual-assault charges, ranging from 3 to 30 years.
> 
> 
> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/11/rape-statutes-of-limitation-maps-table


----------



## Thundarr

NobodySpecial said:


> And really, I have never personally been in a position to be incapacitated to the point that I could not say no. But I know people who have. Smart? No. Safe? No. Consent? Hell, hell, hell, NO. I knew a guy in hs who actually said that to me. She was passed out. She did not say no.


The guy who told you that was a criminal. He and those like him are the reason women are not safe and the reason consent has to be spelled out even though most of us understand it fine and the reason laws are being tightened up. So when us guys are angry at hearing about abuse of a predator law, we should remember that guys like him set the stage.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thundarr currently my favorite poster (again).


----------



## ConanHub

Thundarr said:


> The guy who told you that was a criminal. He and those like him are the reason women are not safe and the reason consent has to be spelled out even though most of us understand it fine and the reason laws are being tightened up. So when us guys are angry at hearing about abuse of a predator law, we should remember that guys like him set the stage.


Guys like that are fun to play with. Unfortunately I usually break my "toys".
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Thundarr

Faithful Wife said:


> Thundarr currently my favorite poster (again).


Aww shucks .


----------



## Lone Shadow

I don't have much to add, other than my personal view point and my own standards. 

Drunk sex is not happening. Doesn't matter if it's her, me, or both, it's not happening.

Also, if she makes any kind of comment or action that could be deemed as synonymous with "no," it's a full stop regardless of when it occurs. Even if it's with an established partner, during some type of role playing with a safe word. Yes, there's a safe word, but if you're paying attention to your partner as you should be, that change in body language from consenting to not would generally be all the safe word you need.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> I feel we are progressing. So I'm continuing. Here is where tea breaks down. You do not nave to be owed something to be rejected.
> 
> Let's open some new analogies. You and 7 other people apply for a job. The employer Evaluates the applicants and hires the person he feels will fit best in his organization. Six people were rejected. Some of those people may feel that they deserved the job more than the hired person. They may even feel that the employer owed them the job. But the truth is there was no ownership of the job until the offer was made. All six were rejected, all six were disappointed and hurt. *Some of them chose to believe that they were owed the job, this magnified their hurt.*


So this is pretty important. If a person does not get to see another person drink the tea, and that HURTS them, the hurt is on THEM. Not on the person who did not drink the tea. This is SO important because it puts responsibility where it belongs. By having this attitude (which is a good and healthy attitude whether we are talking about tea, sex or job applications) the issue is that much clearer.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
YES exactly. 

Its not just the consent issue - though of course that is enough. Why on earth would I want to have sex with someone who wouldn't want me if they were sober? It would be humiliating. Better to just hire a hooker. And passed out???? See the other thread on fleshlights - seems better in all possible ways. 

I wouldn't insist on cold stone sober, just no more alcohol than to be relaxed. 




2ntnuf said:


> I say, if you would like a chance to have sex, don't drink. That's just a part of this, though. This covers all sexual contact whether alcohol, drugs or whatever are involved or not. One part of the link I posted above states:
> 
> snip


----------



## WandaJ

MEM11363 said:


> NS,
> 
> That's a good metaphor.
> 
> That said, I've seen numerous cases in the media of late that disturb me. Obviously I make no claims as to how common this is statistically, I'll just say that each story made me cringe in different ways.
> 
> They all follow a similar theme:
> - He forced me to drink tea once or twice
> - At the time I told no one
> - I then voluntarily went to his house/dorm/apartment many, many times for more tea, over a period of a (month/months/years)
> - And/or after the incident I sent him numerous texts/emails telling him I wanted him to serve me more tea.
> 
> Eventually we broke up (in almost every case it's the guy doing the breaking up).
> 
> I've now reported the first incident to the police/university and they aren't doing anything. I can't understand why he isn't being prosecuted.
> 
> I'm going to create a thread with links as I've read at least a half dozen extreme examples of this type behavior.


Opposite of all hype about those scenarios, it does not really happen that often. Not more often than false burglery reports, and we still treat burglery reports seriously. 

The truth there is much more unreported rapes than good boys accused of rape.


----------



## NobodySpecial

WandaJ said:


> Opposite of all hype about those scenarios, it does not really happen that often. Not more often than false burglery reports, and we still treat burglery reports seriously.
> 
> The truth there is much more unreported rapes than good boys accused of rape.


I find it disheartening the frequency with which false allegation, or gee who would want to do this kind of conversations are used to change the conversational focus. Who doesn't know about consent? The high school and college kids who are DOING these things don't. Whose kids are these kids? Who is raising kids who think that sex is something you get off of a girl rather than something you share... Someone is.


----------



## 2ntnuf

NobodySpecial said:


> I find it disheartening the frequency with which false allegation, or gee who would want to do this kind of conversations are used to change the conversational focus. Who doesn't know about consent? The high school and college kids who are DOING these things don't. Whose kids are these kids? Who is raising kids who think that sex is something you get off of a girl rather than something you share... Someone is.


The initiator must receive consent throughout. That means when touching, next kissing, next oral, next pentration, next ejaculation, or whatever order. If you do not receive provable consent, it is rape. It doesn't matter if there was consent because it must be able to be proven. It doesn't matter what she tells you, or even if she seems open while she is answering. It must be proven by evidence or if for some unknown reason it goes to court, the initiator will lose with verbal consent and no credible witnesses. It isn't picking on anyone. It's the law and the way it works. Do we need laws? Yes. With laws come responsibilities that must be heeded. If one innocent person goes to jail, that's one too many. 

I've heard some language in the past that seems like taking and giving. It wasn't sharing language, but the couple, when I asked them each while separated from each other, stated their sex was satisfactorily shared. They were close in age to me and I was in my late teens. You may think it was creepy to ask, but it's about as creepy as getting consent at each step according to the above law. We were friends and I had no desire to have sex with the young woman, and she knew as did her boyfriend. I was dating exclusively at the time. It was open, as I have been here at TAM. Maybe more. Unless someone gets into an intimate, not sexaul, but a conversation with enough trust that the two can expose their deepest thougths freely(intimately), it's tough to know exactly what folks of any age actually believe. Many don't know that what they are saying is taken to mean something other than what they meant and they don't know how to express themselves in a manner the audience understands. It's easy to point fingers when communicating.


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> The initiator must receive consent throughout. That means when touching, next kissing, next oral, next pentration, next ejaculation, or whatever order. If you do not receive provable consent, it is rape.


Do you have ANY case precedent for this?


Sigh.


----------



## MEM2020

NS,

I apologize for the earlier thread jack. 

There are two parts to this conversation - with children. 

How to treat others when you are:
1. The initiator of sexual activity 
And
2. The recipient of sexual attention 

The focus for (1) is decency, fairness and restraint. 

The focus for (2) is safety, situational awareness and a solid understanding of risk factors.










NobodySpecial said:


> I find it disheartening the frequency with which false allegation, or gee who would want to do this kind of conversations are used to change the conversational focus. Who doesn't know about consent? The high school and college kids who are DOING these things don't. Whose kids are these kids? Who is raising kids who think that sex is something you get off of a girl rather than something you share... Someone is.


----------



## NobodySpecial

MEM11363 said:


> NS,
> 
> I apologize for the earlier thread jack.
> 
> There are two parts to this conversation - with children.
> 
> How to treat others when you are:
> 1. The initiator of sexual activity
> And
> 2. The recipient of sexual attention
> 
> The focus for (1) is decency, fairness and restraint.


And the law is important to. They cannot think the absence of a No means an unreserved yes. But for boys, also their OWN safety. Cuz let's face it, false accusations DO occur. 


> The focus for (2) is safety, situational awareness and a solid understanding of risk factors.


And the dispelling of the attitude that sex is good and right for boys but not for girls.[/QUOTE]


----------



## 2ntnuf

NobodySpecial said:


> Do you have ANY case precedent for this?
> 
> 
> Sigh.


Do I really need to prove to you that verbal consent without a credible witness is inadmissible in court? Better yet, since you don't believe the laws, tell me what is wrong with them that they can't be used in a court of law. 

Asking for consent at each step is no problem. If she wants you, she will give consent. Otherwise, it's rape. What we thought was romantic, in many instances is rape.


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> Do I really need to prove to you that verbal consent without a credible witness is inadmissible in court?


First of all, in our criminal justice system, it is actually the prosecution who has to present evidence. This is why so few rape cases are successfully prosecuted. Without struggle evidence, it is hard to prove.

But what I was responding to was your absurd claim that each new action requires a new verbal consent.


----------



## 2ntnuf

NobodySpecial said:


> First of all, in our criminal justice system, it is actually the prosecution who has to present evidence. This is why so few rape cases are successfully prosecuted. Without struggle evidence, it is hard to prove.
> 
> But what I was responding to was your absurd claim that each new action requires a new verbal consent.


Absurd? It comes directly from that website. I didn't make it up. I only copied and pasted it. You or anyone can click on the link and find it. It is not my claim. 

If it's absurd, have the laws changed. It's obvious you didn't even click on the link and read. Please do so and you will find "my" claims.


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> Absurd? It comes directly from that website. I didn't make it up. I only copied and pasted it. You or anyone can click on the link and find it. It is not my claim.
> 
> If it's absurd, have the laws changed. It's obvious you didn't even click on the link and read. Please do so and you will find "my" claims.


I cannot find where you posted a link.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Found it.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Alrighty. I asked for case precedent. I get


This website is a project of the National Organization for Women, San Gabriel Valley Chapter (CA)


----------



## Mr. Nail

NobodySpecial said:


> If a person does not get to see another person drink the tea, and that HURTS them, the hurt is on THEM. Not on the person who did not drink the tea. This is SO important because it puts responsibility where it belongs.


And another step back. That was one of three cases. You continue to resist the idea that the refuser can possibly bear any responsibility for hurt experienced by the refused. First you denied that refusal could exist, and now you want the requester to bear all of the responsibility. 

Now this is fine before a relationship exists. Two people meet in a social setting and on the first day or even on the first date. One person makes an offer. The other refuses. In that limited case the requester caries all the risk, all the responsibility, that is true because at that point the other person is not participating.

As soon as a real two way relationship exists then both parties are participating, both are investing, both are taking risks, and then both have responsibility for hurts borne by the other. When one party claims freedom from that kind of responsibility, the relationship ends. 

Now when hurt occurs, there will be consequences whether the responsibility is real, imagined, right or wrong. There is no freedom from consequences. There is no right to be offered another cup of tea. Or to bring the point I'm trying to make to real terms, only a foolish person would believe that after bringing a person step by step to the very door of intimacy and then saying no by saying "can't we just cuddle?", at that point only a foolish person would expect the other person to accept that offer. Even a person in a legally binding married relationship is much more likely to take a cold shower and a long walk. 

The concept that because the refused person was the first to ask for intimacy, that they bear the responsibility for everything that happens there after ignores the real fact that by accepting any offer the refuser has in fact made a return offer of intimacy. They have become partners in the event. 

No risk free intimacy.
MN


----------



## Mr. Nail

There is a certain very vocal group that believes that every sexual interaction is rape.


----------



## MEM2020

I'm confused. 

Affirmative consent is not part of the criminal code in any state. 

It is a 'code of conduct' being proposed / implemented at some colleges in the US. If you violate that code of conduct, you risk disciplinary action up to and including expulsion. But that is totally separate from criminal prosecution. 






2ntnuf said:


> Absurd? It comes directly from that website. I didn't make it up. I only copied and pasted it. You or anyone can click on the link and find it. It is not my claim.
> 
> If it's absurd, have the laws changed. It's obvious you didn't even click on the link and read. Please do so and you will find "my" claims.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> And another step back. That was one of three cases. You continue to resist the idea that the refuser can possibly bear any responsibility for hurt experienced by the refused. First you denied that refusal could exist, and now you want the requester to bear all of the responsibility.


YES. I absolutely deny that where tea and employment are concerned the person who did not chose to partner with or employ someone has no responsibility for the reaction of the seeker. 



> Now this is fine before a relationship exists. Two people meet in a social setting and on the first day or even on the first date. One person makes an offer. The other refuses. In that limited case the requester caries all the risk, all the responsibility, that is true because at that point the other person is not participating.
> 
> As soon as a real two way relationship exists then both parties are participating, both are investing, both are taking risks, and then both have responsibility for hurts borne by the other. When one party claims freedom from that kind of responsibility, the relationship ends.
> 
> Now when hurt occurs, there will be consequences whether the responsibility is real, imagined, right or wrong. There is no freedom from consequences. There is no right to be offered another cup of tea. Or to bring the point I'm trying to make to real terms, only a foolish person would believe that after bringing a person step by step to the very door of intimacy and then saying no by saying "can't we just cuddle?", at that point only a foolish person would expect the other person to accept that offer. Even a person in a legally binding married relationship is much more likely to take a cold shower and a long walk.
> 
> The concept that because the refused person was the first to ask for intimacy, that they bear the responsibility for everything that happens there after ignores the real fact that by accepting any offer the refuser has in fact made a return offer of intimacy. They have become partners in the event.
> 
> No risk free intimacy.
> MN


You do know that the post was about rape. Right?


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> There is a certain very vocal group that believes that every sexual interaction is rape.


Good for them. Are we caring what this group is saying?


----------



## Mr. Nail

NobodySpecial said:


> YES. I absolutely deny that where tea and employment are concerned the person who did not chose to partner with or employ someone has no responsibility for the reaction of the seeker.
> 
> 
> You do know that the post was about rape. Right?


The title was Consent The question was this a good metaphor for this.

I'm outta here.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Mr. Nail said:


> The title was Consent The question was this a good metaphor for this.
> 
> I'm outta here.


The idea of even talking about consent in the context of a relationship makes exactly no sense to me.


----------



## Racer

NobodySpecial said:


> The idea of even talking about consent in the context of a relationship makes exactly no sense to me.


You lost me there. Take your son (or daughter). He starts dating a girl. He is young, not experienced, nervous as hell, and under a lot of peer pressure to 'not be a virgin'. His girlfriend, same deal. They are both nervous, don't know how to really talk about, both afraid of what it means and what others might think. They both have fantasized about this moment.

So, they do it. The last thing on either one's mind is 'did I ask the question and get a affirmative?'. Hell don't you remember being so nervous and seemingly having forgotten even some basic motor skills? 

All it takes is something bad happens just after; cop knocking on the window, another student snapping a picture and putting it up on social media, it was bad sex and that shame kicks in, mom finds out and freaks,... Whatever... Doesn't matter. 

What matters is if either one wants, or feels that bad about it, technically it was rape because *that question and a yes answer is the only valid form of consent*. 

How many BS's here in those first days after discovering their spouse's infidelity would savor the idea of being able to file a rape against the affair partner. How many WS's would try to make it 'not their fault' and throw the AP under that bus so they could be a victim in all this?

That is what scares me. Making there only be one way of legal consent without looking at the actions. Yes, rape is terrible and is a problem. People looking for a way out of trouble and willing to throw another person under the bus to avoid negative consequences is more common.

All you can do is pray your kids ask the question. That law scares me a lot at how badly it can be abused.

btw; note that it isn't specific to first time either. You could look at your sex life with your spouse. If you don't ask the question and get a yes, it's technically rape. Might be a nice tool if you plan on divorcing and want custody. Easier than pressing domestic violence charges...


----------



## NobodySpecial

Racer said:


> You lost me there. Take your son (or daughter). He starts dating a girl. He is young, not experienced, nervous as hell, and under a lot of peer pressure to 'not be a virgin'. His girlfriend, same deal. They are both nervous, don't know how to really talk about, both afraid of what it means and what others might think. They both have fantasized about this moment.


So I have spoken to my son about this. There were two different conversations over the past few months. In one we discussed peer pressure. In one of the conversations I asked about peer pressure around this issue. He said to the degree he is aware of what the other kids in his class are pressuring each other to do, he gets no pressure toward this sort of thing from his friends (this conversation included drugs, alcohol and sex. I know one of his friends smokes pot but does not advertise it as "cool" or anything), he thinks doing something due to peer pressure is dumb. What I know today is that he does not respond to peer pressure on other issues, so there is no reason to suspect he will. 

As to the too nervous to talk, I asked him about that about last month or so. His answer, if you are not ready to talk about sex, you are not ready to have sex.

Now you might say, wow how lucky you are to have such a together kid. But I do think that Dad and I get credit for these honest conversations about topics such as these.



> So, they do it. The last thing on either one's mind is 'did I ask the question and get a affirmative?'. Hell don't you remember being so nervous and seemingly having forgotten even some basic motor skills?
> 
> All it takes is something bad happens just after; cop knocking on the window, another student snapping a picture and putting it up on social media, it was bad sex and that shame kicks in, mom finds out and freaks,... Whatever... Doesn't matter.
> 
> What matters is if either one wants, or feels that bad about it, technically it was rape because *that question and a yes answer is the only valid form of consent*.


Yup. We talked about that too. I am not sure how prosecutable that is. But it sure is messy. He does not want that.

<snip>



> All you can do is pray your kids ask the question.


Oh hells no. I am not waiting for either of them to ask. I bring it up. 



> That law scares me a lot at how badly it can be abused.


The legal system did not throw due process out the window for rape charges that I have seen. The case still needs to be prosecuted in a court of law where a victim is assumed to be guilty until proven innocent. There are a lot of problems with our legal system. And where found, they should clearly be fixed.



> btw; note that it isn't specific to first time either. You could look at your sex life with your spouse. If you don't ask the question and get a yes, it's technically rape. Might be a nice tool if you plan on divorcing and want custody. Easier than pressing domestic violence charges...


So... in my world view, I would not be in that marriage. I mean that is looking at a problem and coming to some pretty weird conclusions. But the case precedent that I have seen in marriage cases the bar of consent is considerably higher.


----------



## MEM2020

NS,

I'll frame this just as I did when talking to my daughters. 

Often when a young man feels rejected - he feels hurt. And hurt often translates immediately to anger. The paths to rejection might be: 
- I only like you as a friend or 
- I like kissing you but am not going to do any more than that tonight or
- You flirted with him and then changed your mind without any apparent reason or warning 

If you perceive that a guy your with is angry over being rejected:
1. Don't show fear 
2. Don't throw gasoline on him by expressing contempt or laughing at him
3. Carefully, and quickly extract yourself from the situation 
4. If he attempts to guilt you into anything by claiming you led him on - don't debate it - just say you definitely did not intend to do that.
5. If you feel threatened in any way text me 911, if I'm out of town/on an airplane contact your mom

----------
NONE of this implies that the anger is justified, it is however common. 




NobodySpecial said:


> So I have spoken to my son about this. There were two different conversations over the past few months. In one we discussed peer pressure. In one of the conversations I asked about peer pressure around this issue. He said to the degree he is aware of what the other kids in his class are pressuring each other to do, he gets no pressure toward this sort of thing from his friends (this conversation included drugs, alcohol and sex. I know one of his friends smokes pot but does not advertise it as "cool" or anything), he thinks doing something due to peer pressure is dumb. What I know today is that he does not respond to peer pressure on other issues, so there is no reason to suspect he will.
> 
> As to the too nervous to talk, I asked him about that about last month or so. His answer, if you are not ready to talk about sex, you are not ready to have sex.
> 
> Now you might say, wow how lucky you are to have such a together kid. But I do think that Dad and I get credit for these honest conversations about topics such as these.
> 
> 
> Yup. We talked about that too. I am not sure how prosecutable that is. But it sure is messy. He does not want that.
> 
> <snip>
> 
> 
> Oh hells no. I am not waiting for either of them to ask. I bring it up.
> 
> 
> The legal system did not throw due process out the window for rape charges that I have seen. The case still needs to be prosecuted in a court of law where a victim is assumed to be guilty until proven innocent. There are a lot of problems with our legal system. And where found, they should clearly be fixed.
> 
> 
> 
> So... in my world view, I would not be in that marriage. I mean that is looking at a problem and coming to some pretty weird conclusions. But the case precedent that I have seen in marriage cases the bar of consent is considerably higher.


----------



## NobodySpecial

MEM11363 said:


> NS,
> 
> I'll frame this just as I did when talking to my daughters.
> 
> Often when a young man feels rejected - he feels hurt. And hurt often translates immediately to anger. The paths to rejection might be:
> - I only like you as a friend or
> - I like kissing you but am not going to do any more than that tonight or
> - You flirted with him and then changed your mind without any apparent reason or warning
> 
> If you perceive that a guy your with is angry over being rejected:
> 1. Don't show fear
> 2. Don't throw gasoline on him by expressing contempt or laughing at him
> 3. Carefully, and quickly extract yourself from the situation
> 4. If he attempts to guilt you into anything by claiming you led him on - don't debate it - just say you definitely did not intend to do that.
> 5. If you feel threatened in any way text me 911, if I'm out of town/on an airplane contact your mom
> 
> ----------
> NONE of this implies that the anger is justified, it is however common.


Huh. That gives me some pause for thought. As it relates to daughter advice, I think I will add that to my thinking. I think this is smart.

If you have only daughters then it makes sense that that is where your focus would be. The thing that makes me scratch my head is how unwilling people, not you, are about what to teach our sons about this age in which we live and this experience which they will be a part of.


----------



## MEM2020

My son is not aggressive by nature. 

Still - he knows that no means no and anything other than a clear YES means he ought to pause and ask: do you WANT to do this?






NobodySpecial said:


> Huh. That gives me some pause for thought. As it relates to daughter advice, I think I will add that to my thinking. I think this is smart.
> 
> If you have only daughters then it makes sense that that is where your focus would be. The thing that makes me scratch my head is how unwilling people, not you, are about what to teach our sons about this age in which we live and this experience which they will be a part of.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Racer said:


> You lost me there. Take your son (or daughter). He starts dating a girl. He is young, not experienced, nervous as hell, and under a lot of peer pressure to 'not be a virgin'. His girlfriend, same deal. They are both nervous, don't know how to really talk about, both afraid of what it means and what others might think. They both have fantasized about this moment.
> 
> So, they do it. The last thing on either one's mind is 'did I ask the question and get a affirmative?'. Hell don't you remember being so nervous and seemingly having forgotten even some basic motor skills?
> 
> All it takes is something bad happens just after; cop knocking on the window, another student snapping a picture and putting it up on social media, it was bad sex and that shame kicks in, mom finds out and freaks,... Whatever... Doesn't matter.
> 
> What matters is if either one wants, or feels that bad about it, technically it was rape because *that question and a yes answer is the only valid form of consent*.
> 
> How many BS's here in those first days after discovering their spouse's infidelity would savor the idea of being able to file a rape against the affair partner. How many WS's would try to make it 'not their fault' and throw the AP under that bus so they could be a victim in all this?
> 
> That is what scares me. Making there only be one way of legal consent without looking at the actions. Yes, rape is terrible and is a problem. People looking for a way out of trouble and willing to throw another person under the bus to avoid negative consequences is more common.
> 
> All you can do is pray your kids ask the question. That law scares me a lot at how badly it can be abused.
> 
> btw; note that it isn't specific to first time either. You could look at your sex life with your spouse. If you don't ask the question and get a yes, it's technically rape. Might be a nice tool if you plan on divorcing and want custody. Easier than pressing domestic violence charges...


There are all kinds of ways this can be abused. It wasn't well thought out, in my opinion. It seems knee-jerk. Okay, what I don't see in your post is an understanding that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual act, from asking to kiss, to asking to touch, to asking if okay to perform cunnilingus, to asking...whatever. Each step of the way is as important as the last. And, if any man here has not gotten cleaar consent from a LD wife or vice versa, it's rape. How would you prove it wasn't? With a clear yes? Take that to court and see if they will accept it as proof when she is crying and shaking. See if just your word, after years of being in a sexless marriage will be good enough to defend yourself. I find it naive to believe it would ever be enough. 

Edit: As far as blaming an AP, I think it's possible, but it's more likely that the spouse would want to blame the husband. I think you are assuming that the BS could turn his wife's interest back to him. That's pretty uncommon as evidenced her at TAM. It's more likely she would be convinced by the AP and others that she could use this tool to garner her interests in the divorce process. Either way, do you see how messed up this is? 

And, speaking of dating, forget it. In my opinion, RS is wrong. You don't know how much alcohol will push her over the legal limit, and the legal limit is the same for driving in your state. You would have to wait an hour after an ounce of alcohol before asking for sex It's a problem for sure, if you want to be covered for the next 30 years. And, you do know, where there is no statute of limitations, charges can be filed for the rest of your lives? ee.



> Quote:
> - The Affirmative Consent Standard states that the person who initiates sexual contact must receive a VERBAL YES (affirmative consent) from the other person before engaging in any sexual activity -- and that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual encounter.
> 
> http://sgvnowproject.weebly.com/the-...education.html





MEM11363 said:


> My son is not aggressive by nature.
> 
> Still - he knows that no means no and anything other than a clear YES means he ought to pause and ask: do you WANT to do this?


Does he know to do this at each step of the way? It's necessary. 



> Quote:
> - The Affirmative Consent Standard states that the person who initiates sexual contact must receive a VERBAL YES (affirmative consent) from the other person before engaging in any sexual activity -- and that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual encounter.
> 
> http://sgvnowproject.weebly.com/the-...education.html


And those who _think_ none of this will be admitted if there is a charge of rape are just kidding themselves, just like at the colleges or universities, it will help in convicting rapists. 

That's a good thing.

This thread was about consent. I posted what will be considered in a case of standards of consent and will be used to prove rape. Do you all disagree? 


Essentially, no one has answered how to get consent and avoid a situation where it's her word against his. That's getting consent that is most assuredly positive. I don't mean she's moaning and grabbing at you. I don't mean she's having an orgasm. How can you prove that to someone who wasn't there, like in a court of law. It will come up. Who has the answer? That is what is important for both participants. 

All of the fine treatment of a woman before you ever get to the point of asking for sex is the romance. It's important to teach how to treat a woman. I don't disagree with any of that. None of that is consent. It actually could be viewed as manipulation and maybe even abuse of someone who is not in full control of their emotions due to a divorce or some other traumatic accident like a death of a dear loved one. Is it stretching the point? Maybe, but it is very important if you don't want to go to prison to get consent in a proper manner, so that you can prove you have not raped anyone. How do you do that? Consent at each step along the way. Each step, that's able to be brought to court, if and when it comes up in proceedings, cause that's all you'll have to defend yourself.

And, any sicko that things rape is okay, is screwed up and needs more than consent. There will be physical evidence of rape besides dna. 


NS, please understand, I am not picking on you. I would like to understand the best way to get provable consent. I think it's dangerous to think that a yes is a yes, just as is stated in that site's findings. If a group that powerful makes a statement like this, all men must take notice and be ready, for the safety of their partner and themselves. Please offer advice as to how consent can be garnered that will also protect both actors in the sexual experience.


----------



## Racer

2ntnuf said:


> ... Okay, what I don't see in your post is an understanding that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual act, from asking to kiss, to asking to touch, to asking if okay to perform cunnilingus, to asking...whatever. Each step of the way is as important as the last. ....


Clipped, but agreed.

It's why consent is not 'easy to understand' some of the time. It's hard to know when you have to ask that question when their reactions and their own actions are no longer valid to make assumptions of consent.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I don't think most rape cases involve subtle mistakes in recognizing consent.

If a couple is passionately french-kissing and the man puts his hand inside the woman's shirt without asking, I don't think anyone is calling that rape - assuming he removes it if she tells him to stop.

OTOH if they are french kissing an he tears her cloths off and forces her to have sex despite her clear objections, then that is rape.

This doesn't need to be an exact science. I think the important test is whether a reasonable person would consider the next action to be a reasonable step from an activity that is already consenting.


----------



## MEM2020

2ntnuf,

Affirmative consent cannot be applied by wives or WS or the like. 

I like you. You make good points in general. 

You do however seem to have missed my earlier post. 

Affirmative consent is NOT part of the criminal code in any state. It is NOT federal law. 

It is a stringent standard that some colleges are adopting. It ONLY applies to students/teachers at those colleges and ONLY relates to their ability to discipline those folks which at MOST means expulsion. 






2ntnuf said:


> There are all kinds of ways this can be abused. It wasn't well thought out, in my opinion. It seems knee-jerk. Okay, what I don't see in your post is an understanding that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual act, from asking to kiss, to asking to touch, to asking if okay to perform cunnilingus, to asking...whatever. Each step of the way is as important as the last. And, if any man here has not gotten cleaar consent from a LD wife or vice versa, it's rape. How would you prove it wasn't? With a clear yes? Take that to court and see if they will accept it as proof when she is crying and shaking. See if just your word, after years of being in a sexless marriage will be good enough to defend yourself. I find it naive to believe it would ever be enough.
> 
> Edit: As far as blaming an AP, I think it's possible, but it's more likely that the spouse would want to blame the husband. I think you are assuming that the BS could turn his wife's interest back to him. That's pretty uncommon as evidenced her at TAM. It's more likely she would be convinced by the AP and others that she could use this tool to garner her interests in the divorce process. Either way, do you see how messed up this is?
> 
> And, speaking of dating, forget it. In my opinion, RS is wrong. You don't know how much alcohol will push her over the legal limit, and the legal limit is the same for driving in your state. You would have to wait an hour after an ounce of alcohol before asking for sex It's a problem for sure, if you want to be covered for the next 30 years. And, you do know, where there is no statute of limitations, charges can be filed for the rest of your lives? ee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he know to do this at each step of the way? It's necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> And those who _think_ none of this will be admitted if there is a charge of rape are just kidding themselves, just like at the colleges or universities, it will help in convicting rapists.
> 
> That's a good thing.
> 
> This thread was about consent. I posted what will be considered in a case of standards of consent and will be used to prove rape. Do you all disagree?
> 
> 
> Essentially, no one has answered how to get consent and avoid a situation where it's her word against his. That's getting consent that is most assuredly positive. I don't mean she's moaning and grabbing at you. I don't mean she's having an orgasm. How can you prove that to someone who wasn't there, like in a court of law. It will come up. Who has the answer? That is what is important for both participants.
> 
> All of the fine treatment of a woman before you ever get to the point of asking for sex is the romance. It's important to teach how to treat a woman. I don't disagree with any of that. None of that is consent. It actually could be viewed as manipulation and maybe even abuse of someone who is not in full control of their emotions due to a divorce or some other traumatic accident like a death of a dear loved one. Is it stretching the point? Maybe, but it is very important if you don't want to go to prison to get consent in a proper manner, so that you can prove you have not raped anyone. How do you do that? Consent at each step along the way. Each step, that's able to be brought to court, if and when it comes up in proceedings, cause that's all you'll have to defend yourself.
> 
> And, any sicko that things rape is okay, is screwed up and needs more than consent. There will be physical evidence of rape besides dna.
> 
> 
> NS, please understand, I am not picking on you. I would like to understand the best way to get provable consent. I think it's dangerous to think that a yes is a yes, just as is stated in that site's findings. If a group that powerful makes a statement like this, all men must take notice and be ready, for the safety of their partner and themselves. Please offer advice as to how consent can be garnered that will also protect both actors in the sexual experience.


----------



## 2ntnuf

MEM11363 said:


> 2ntnuf,
> 
> Affirmative consent cannot be applied by wives or WS or the like.
> 
> I like you. You make good points in general.
> 
> You do however seem to have missed my earlier post.
> 
> Affirmative consent is NOT part of the criminal code in any state. It is NOT federal law.
> 
> It is a stringent standard that some colleges are adopting. It ONLY applies to students/teachers at those colleges and ONLY relates to their ability to discipline those folks which at MOST means expulsion.


I didn't miss your post. Please explain why you don't need consent to have sex with someone, in what situations, and why consent does not apply to spouses. Please explain why, if two have had sex, and there is an issue with a complaint of rape to the police, you do not need consent. If you believe one does need consent, in fact both need consent, what would that look like so that it would be acceptable as defense in a court of law.


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> I didn't miss your post. Please explain why you don't need consent to have sex with someone, in what situations, and why consent does not apply to spouses. Please explain why, if two have had sex, and there is an issue with a complaint of rape to the police, you do not need consent. If you believe one does need consent, in fact both need consent, what would that look like so that it would be acceptable as defense in a court of law.


You posted a link to a website. That website described something called "Affirmative Consent". You have been referring to THAT description as the legal description of what consent is. It is not.


----------



## 2ntnuf

NobodySpecial said:


> You posted a link to a website. That website described something called "Affirmative Consent". You have been referring to THAT description as the legal description of what consent is. It is not.


I don't see a problem with that. The definition seems ambiguous. There is a standard assumption. I hate the word assumption. Therefore, would it be sensible to assume that the good folks at that site, who have historically been able to change laws important to the rights of women in all areas of the law, have at least a small amount of sway in court proceedings in a rape case? Have they ever been involved in the history of their organisation, with a rape case, even one? What was the impact of their presentations, if true. 

This isn't the best definition, but it is a first attempt. I will try to answer your question as best I can, as I find more.

consent legal definition of consent

Will you please attempt to answer my question(s)? I think I have been more than respectful and fair with you. 



> NS, please understand, I am not picking on you. I would like to understand the best way to get provable consent. I think it's dangerous to think that a yes is a yes, just as is stated in that site's findings. If a group that powerful makes a statement like this, all men must take notice and be ready, for the safety of their partner and themselves. Please offer advice as to how consent can be garnered that will also protect both actors in the sexual experience.


After all, isn't getting proper consent in a manner that doesn't make a person look like a jerk and lose the mood from the romantic part of the date important?


----------



## 2ntnuf

NS,

I honestly think the folks at that site were trying to help folks by defining what consent looks like. Here is another link to this issue. Please note the following quote from this new site.



> The exact definition of “rape,” “sexual assault,” “sexual abuse” and similar terms differs by state. The wording can get confusing, since states often use different words to mean the same thing or use the same words to describe different things. To see how your state legally defines these crimes, visit our RAINN State Law Database.
> 
> https://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape


I don't think either of these sites is bogus. I think they take this very seriously.




> For its Uniform Crime Reports, the FBI defines rape as:
> 
> Please note that this definition is rather graphic, which is inevitable when describing crimes this violent.
> “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim."
> 
> https://www.rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/was-it-rape


Well, just what does consent look like, since it is defined in confusing terms and differently in states? I think the first site I posted the link for, tries to answer that as best they can, in general. So, if consent is such a serious matter, what does it look like in a manner that the FBI considers to be acceptable and also, a court of law, a judge, and a jury?


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> I don't see a problem with that. The definition seems ambiguous. There is a standard assumption. I hate the word assumption. Therefore, would it be sensible to assume that the good folks at that site, who have historically been able to change laws important to the rights of women in all areas of the law, have at least a small amount of sway in court proceedings in a rape case?


So what you are saying is that because you find the legal definition ambiguous therefore you are going to assume a definition on a website you found despite the fact that it ISN'T the legal definition? 




> Will you please attempt to answer my question(s)? I think I have been more than respectful and fair with you.
> 
> 
> 
> After all, isn't getting proper consent in a manner that doesn't make a person look like a jerk and lose the mood from the romantic part of the date important?


Ask. Hey are you into this?


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> NS,
> 
> I honestly think the folks at that site were trying to help folks by defining what consent looks like. Here is another link to this issue. Please note the following quote from this new site.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think either of these sites is bogus. I think they take this very seriously.


No one is saying that they are bogus. Or that they are not serious. They just aren't the LAW as you keep claiming.


----------



## MEM2020

2ntnuf,


*If you wish to persuade, you need to show us actual criminal cases where the affirmative consent standard was applied. 
*

QUOTE=2ntnuf;12226801]I didn't miss your post. Please explain 
why you don't need consent to have sex with someone, in what situations, and why consent does not apply to spouses. Please explain why, if two have had sex, and there is an issue with a complaint of rape to the police, you do not need consent. If you believe one does need consent, in fact both need consent, what would that look like so that it would be acceptable as defense in a court of law.[/QUOTE]


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> Well, just what does consent look like, since it is defined in confusing terms and differently in states? I think the first site I posted the link for, tries to answer that as best they can, in general. So, if consent is such a serious matter, what does it look like in a manner that the FBI considers to be acceptable and also, a court of law, a judge, and a jury?


The jury decides that. That is what a jury is for based on the evidence. That is what courts are FOR.


----------



## NobodySpecial

MEM11363 said:


> My son is not aggressive by nature.
> 
> Still - he knows that no means no and anything other than a clear YES means he ought to pause and ask: do you WANT to do this?


For my son:

A Letter To My Son About Consent -


----------



## 2ntnuf

> No one is saying that they are bogus. Or that they are not serious. They just aren't the LAW as you keep claiming.
> Today 11:48 AM





NobodySpecial said:


> The idea of even talking about consent in the context of a relationship makes exactly no sense to me.





> Ask. Hey are you into this?


Is the verbal answer, "yes", proof enough for a person's assurance they cannot be convicted of rape? I posted the laws in a link. I won't read them to anyone. If it's important to someone, they will click on the link and read for themselves.



2ntnuf said:


> There are all kinds of ways this can be abused. It wasn't well thought out, in my opinion. It seems knee-jerk. Okay, what I don't see in your post is an understanding that consent must be ongoing throughout the sexual act, from asking to kiss, to asking to touch, to asking if okay to perform cunnilingus, to asking...whatever. Each step of the way is as important as the last. And, if any man here has not gotten cleaar consent from a LD wife or vice versa, it's rape. How would you prove it wasn't? With a clear yes? Take that to court and see if they will accept it as proof when she is crying and shaking. See if just your word, after years of being in a sexless marriage will be good enough to defend yourself. I find it naive to believe it would ever be enough.
> 
> Edit: As far as blaming an AP, I think it's possible, but it's more likely that the spouse would want to blame the husband. I think you are assuming that the BS could turn his wife's interest back to him. That's pretty uncommon as evidenced her at TAM. It's more likely she would be convinced by the AP and others that she could use this tool to garner her interests in the divorce process. Either way, do you see how messed up this is?
> 
> And, speaking of dating, forget it. In my opinion, RS is wrong. You don't know how much alcohol will push her over the legal limit, and the legal limit is the same for driving in your state. You would have to wait an hour after an ounce of alcohol before asking for sex It's a problem for sure, if you want to be covered for the next 30 years. And, you do know, where there is no statute of limitations, charges can be filed for the rest of your lives? ee.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Does he know to do this at each step of the way? It's necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> And those who _think_ none of this will be admitted if there is a charge of rape are just kidding themselves, just like at the colleges or universities, it will help in convicting rapists.
> 
> That's a good thing.
> 
> This thread was about consent. I posted what will be considered in a case of standards of consent and will be used to prove rape. Do you all disagree?
> 
> 
> Essentially, no one has answered how to get consent and avoid a situation where it's her word against his. That's getting consent that is most assuredly positive. I don't mean she's moaning and grabbing at you. I don't mean she's having an orgasm. How can you prove that to someone who wasn't there, like in a court of law. It will come up. Who has the answer? That is what is important for both participants.
> 
> All of the fine treatment of a woman before you ever get to the point of asking for sex is the romance. It's important to teach how to treat a woman. I don't disagree with any of that. None of that is consent. It actually could be viewed as manipulation and maybe even abuse of someone who is not in full control of their emotions due to a divorce or some other traumatic accident like a death of a dear loved one. Is it stretching the point? Maybe, but it is very important if you don't want to go to prison to get consent in a proper manner, so that you can prove you have not raped anyone. How do you do that? Consent at each step along the way. Each step, that's able to be brought to court, if and when it comes up in proceedings, cause that's all you'll have to defend yourself.
> 
> And, any sicko that things rape is okay, is screwed up and needs more than consent. There will be physical evidence of rape besides dna.
> 
> 
> NS, please understand, I am not picking on you. I would like to understand the best way to get provable consent. I think it's dangerous to think that a yes is a yes, just as is stated in that site's findings. If a group that powerful makes a statement like this, all men must take notice and be ready, for the safety of their partner and themselves. Please offer advice as to how consent can be garnered that will also protect both actors in the sexual experience.


Avoidance of the serious nature of this discussion is dangerous when citing references and links to consent. I've posted questions that have not been addressed. I have searched for and posted a link to definitions which support the first link and offer access to the actual laws, and which attempt to explain how to interpret those laws if you think you might have been raped. Any misinterpretation of my post that the first site was law should be quelled.


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> Is the verbal answer, "yes", proof enough for a person's assurance they cannot be convicted of rape? I posted the laws in a link. I won't read them to anyone. If it's important to someone, they will click on the link and read for themselves.


I suggest you think strongly about our criminal justice system here. You seem to think that this particular crime does not follow the same rules as other crimes. It does. In our criminal system, the accused is afforded a trial where s/he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is done in a court of law with a judge and a jury. All of this in the hopes of preventing someone from being falsely convicted.

Still sometimes people are falsely convicted of every type of crime. Or they thought what they did was not a crime and the jury disagreed with them. Can you be absolutely assured of not getting convicted of any crime? No. Why would you expect this to be any different?




> Avoidance of the serious nature of this discussion is dangerous when citing references and links to consent. I've posted questions that have not been addressed.


I thought I addressed all your questions. I am not intentionally avoiding anything.


----------



## Lionelhutz

NobodySpecial said:


> I suggest you think strongly about our criminal justice system here. You seem to think that this particular crime does not follow the same rules as other crimes. It does. In our criminal system, the accused is afforded a trial where s/he is presumed innocent until proven guilty. This is done in a court of law with a judge and a jury. All of this in the hopes of preventing someone from being falsely convicted.
> 
> Still sometimes people are falsely convicted of every type of crime. Or they thought what they did was not a crime and the jury disagreed with them. Can you be absolutely assured of not getting convicted of any crime? No. Why would you expect this to be any different?
> 
> 
> 
> I thought I addressed all your questions. I am not intentionally avoiding anything.



Except in cases of clear violence, injury and or witnesses, rape is very unlike most other serious crimes because consent is not tangible after the fact. There is no missing person or body in the morgue, there are no drugs in the lab, there is no missing money as prima facie evidence that some crime was committed before we turn to questions of the identify of the accused and intention. When you combine the special rules of evidence that applies in some jurisdictions that limit cross examination, it is a case that frequently is about little more that notoriously unreliable assessments of credibility and guesswork.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Some of these special rules are to protect the victim from blame questions. What were you wearing? Were you dancing provocatively? What is your past sexual history? None of those things are germane to consent to sex with that person. And I think those rules are great.

On the day that there are any special rules that permit the alleged victim's word over the alleged offender's word, I would clearly disagree with that rule. If there is case precedent for that, I would love someone to show me. Because that is something VERY germane to the conversation.

There was a young man in my history who went to JAIL because he DID NOT KNOW that the absence of a no was not consent. I mean, the guy was a sick head across the board. But he genuinely did not know that he was also acting illegally. That is not good.


----------



## Lionelhutz

NobodySpecial said:


> Some of these special rules are to protect the victim from blame questions. What were you wearing? Were you dancing provocatively? What is your past sexual history? None of those things are germane to consent to sex with that person. And I think those rules are great.
> 
> On the day that there are any special rules that permit the alleged victim's word over the alleged offender's word, I would clearly disagree with that rule. If there is case precedent for that, I would love someone to show me. Because that is something VERY germane to the conversation.
> 
> There was a young man in my history who went to JAIL because he DID NOT KNOW that the absence of a no was not consent. I mean, the guy was a sick head across the board. But he genuinely did not know that he was also acting illegally. That is not good.


A refusal to have sex or a lack of consent because of incapacity aren't the issues. The problem is when you have two apparently competent adults and nothing is said one way or the other or there is a dispute about what was said.

The limits on cross examination are certainly justified if the intention of the defense is purely to show that someone "dressed like that" or with such and such a sexual history is likely to consent. But the laws aren't the same in every jurisdiction and some go to absolutely ridiculous lengths such as precluding questions about past false allegations of rape or the sexual history between the parties. But what do you do in a case when she says "I said no" and he says she said yes or she said nothing at all? If there is no objective evidence one way or the other,do we proceed with a prosecution in that case? If the answer is yes, then we are fooling ourselves if we think there is any special way to decide who is lying or who is telling the truth beyond a reasonable doubt. All that is left is to look at circumstance.


----------



## MEM2020

Lionel,
I believe ALL jurisdictions allow disclosure of a prior sexual relationship between the victim / alledged victim and the accused. 

As for a history of false allegations - those are excluded - as is a history of prior rape convictions UNLESS their is a truly unique MO. Information that would provide more context cuts both ways. 




Lionelhutz said:


> A refusal to have sex or a lack of consent because of incapacity aren't the issues. The problem is when you have two apparently competent adults and nothing is said one way or the other or there is a dispute about what was said.
> 
> The limits on cross examination are certainly justified if the intention of the defense is purely to show that someone "dressed like that" or with such and such a sexual history is likely to consent. But the laws aren't the same in every jurisdiction and some go to absolutely ridiculous lengths such as precluding questions about past false allegations of rape or the sexual history between the parties. But what do you do in a case when she says "I said no" and he says she said yes or she said nothing at all? If there is no objective evidence one way or the other,do we proceed with a prosecution in that case? If the answer is yes, then we are fooling ourselves if we think there is any special way to decide who is lying or who is telling the truth beyond a reasonable doubt. All that is left is to look at circumstance.


----------



## Lionelhutz

MEM11363 said:


> Lionel,
> I believe ALL jurisdictions allow disclosure of a prior sexual relationship between the victim / alledged victim and the accused.
> 
> As for a history of false allegations - those are excluded - as is a history of prior rape convictions UNLESS their is a truly unique MO. Information that would provide more context cuts both ways.


All jurisdictions in the US currently allow past sexual history between the accused and Defendant into evidence, but there are those advocating to change that. 

https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/11816-excluding-evidence-of-specific-sexual-acts-between

The past criminal history of the accused is not put into evidence in general but depending on the case and jurisdiction there are a number of exceptions such as when the accused takes the stand and or relies on character evidence.

It is not an equivalency to say that past instances of lying by a witness on this very subject is irrelevant. When the Defence is one of consent and thus the entire case and only defence relies on the credibility of the witness. I can't see how it can be anything but directly relevant.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Lionelhutz said:


> All jurisdictions in the US currently allow past sexual history between the accused and Defendant into evidence, but there are those advocating to change that.
> 
> https://law.lclark.edu/live/files/11816-excluding-evidence-of-specific-sexual-acts-between
> 
> The past criminal history of the accused is not put into evidence in general but depending on the case and jurisdiction there are a number of exceptions such as when the accused takes the stand and or relies on character evidence.
> 
> It is not an equivalency to say that past instances of lying by a witness on this very subject is irrelevant. When the Defence is one of consent and thus the entire case and only defence relies on the credibility of the witness. I can't see how it can be anything but directly relevant.


In order for previous perjury to be admissible, the party would have to be convicted. That is one mighty difficult conviction to get.


----------



## Lionelhutz

NobodySpecial said:


> In order for previous perjury to be admissible, the party would have to be convicted. That is one mighty difficult conviction to get.


Especially in wrongful allegations of sexual assault since they are almost never prosecuted even in cases where the complainant admits to lying.


----------



## NobodySpecial

Lionelhutz said:


> Especially in wrongful allegations of sexual assault since they are almost never prosecuted even in cases where the complainant admits to lying.


Apparently the most common occurrence of perjury is in divorce cases.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
false accusations should be prosecuted - it is a very serious crime, on a par with sexual assault - considering that a sex crime conviction will pretty much destroy someone's life.

But - because of the (very reasonable) "beyond a reasonable doubt" rule, there will be many cases where you cannot prove that an assault took place, but you also cannot prove that the accusation was false because you cannot prove it didn't take place.


----------



## NobodySpecial

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> false accusations should be prosecuted - it is a very serious crime, on a par with sexual assault - considering that a sex crime conviction will pretty much destroy someone's life.
> 
> But - because of the (very reasonable) "beyond a reasonable doubt" rule, there will be many cases where you cannot prove that an assault took place, but you also cannot prove that the accusation was false because you cannot prove it didn't take place.


That is the down side to due process.


----------



## Lone Shadow

I believe the punishment for a false accusation of rape should be a severe as the act itself. A woman in England just recently was found guilty of falsely accusing 2 soldiers of raping her. Why? Because she didn't want to tell her boyfriend that she cheated on him. The judge gave her 18 months. That's it. She was trying to ruin 2 lives in order to keep her status quo, and she's only going to get 18 months for it.


----------



## Lionelhutz

I can understand proceedurally why false allegations aren't prosecuted even in cases of an admission by the complainant. The evidence is often tenious and the accused is normally just as happy to have the allegation go away. The threat of a criminal charge would make that less likely. 

A very close friend had this exact situaiton when a false allegation of sexual assault against his children was made by his wife. He went through a terrifying nightmare of a degrading investigation plus of course once the allegation is made for many people the lingering suspicion will remain forever. Those of us who knew his wife well knew it was almost certainly groundless, the police came to the same conclusion and then she openly admitted it because she wanted leverage in a custody fight. But no charges were laid and he just wanted it all to end, and get on with his life.


----------



## Lone Shadow

That is something I would never be able to let go of. She's going to openly admit that it was a false accusation? I'm going to fry her. Of course, I have my STBX in mind when I say this. She has made claims against me, but hasn't pushed for any charges to be brought against me. 

What would end up seriously helping me, should she eventually decide that she is going to accuse me and try to bring charges, is that she is openly hostile and abusive towards me. I have had 2 preliminary protective orders against her.


----------



## NobodySpecial

I would advocate the seriousness of a perjury conviction be commensurate to the original charge.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
One tricky bit though is that we don't want to discourage people from recanting a false accusation.


----------



## sisters359

Mr. Nail said:


> I feel we are progressing. So I'm continuing. Here is where tea breaks down. You do not nave to be owed something to be rejected.
> 
> Let's open some new analogies. You and 7 other people apply for a job. The employer Evaluates the applicants and hires the person he feels will fit best in his organization. Six people were rejected. Some of those people may feel that they deserved the job more than the hired person. They may even feel that the employer owed them the job. But the truth is there was no ownership of the job until the offer was made. All six were rejected, all six were disappointed and hurt. Some of them chose to believe that they were owed the job, this magnified their hurt.
> 
> Now the very next day the successful applicant quits their job (gives Notice) buys clothing appropriate for the new job and invests time and money into training suggested by the new employer. But at the end of that day the new employer calls and withdraws the employment offer. Now we have a person who was owed something, and they receive damage from the rejection. Because of the greater commitment the pain of the rejection is greater.
> 
> But all seven applicants were rejected. One was owed, some thought they were owed, some were in no way owed. All of them decided not to buy from the employer for some time in the future.
> 
> Now the amount of commitment, sharing of non sexual intimacies, Time spent together, and many other factors will affect how a person will feel when they are rejected. It is better to be smarter, more honest, and more cautious in how you use these coins.
> MN


This comes across as just a scary analogy--because a woman spent time with someone, he has a "right" to feel rejected, so she must take heed about how she makes said rejection? 

A man (or woman's) reaction to "rejection" is 100% their choice. The person doing the rejecting has no control over how the other will react, and it is absolutely futile to spend an ounce of energy worrying about it. 

It's like defending an abuser: "Well, if she had asked me to drive her to her mom's in a nicer way, I wouldn't have hit her!" Oh, yeah! I should have thought of that, because it is HOW I word my "rejection" that will determine how you feel--not your degree of self-confidence/sense of self-worth! (Sarcasm, if you didn't catch it)

Rejected? Get over it. Being rejected does not define you--it does not mean you are undesirable. It means the other person has their own feelings and those do not currently include a desire to be with/have sex with you at this time (or perhaps ever). "Rejection" is about the person doing the rejection, not about the person being rejected. 

If you are with a woman who doesn't want sex with you--rarely wants sex with you--never wants sex with you? Why sit around and feel bad about it? Get another woman; this one does not want you and there IS someone who will. 

I'm actually totally mystified why anyone would post about feeling rejected in a thread that is clearly about RAPE, but hey, whatevs. That's why it's ok for me to point out that the rejectee is 100% responsible for his (or her) own feelings. No one should have to worry about making their wishes known. Saying it nicely means the speaker may be nice, or may be fearful. But it has no connection to how the person hearing said news chooses to react--his/her reaction is his choice.


----------



## norajane

sisters359 said:


> *I'm actually totally mystified why anyone would post about feeling rejected in a thread that is clearly about RAPE,* but hey, whatevs. That's why it's ok for me to point out that the rejectee is 100% responsible for his (or her) own feelings. No one should have to worry about making their wishes known. Saying it nicely means the speaker may be nice, or may be fearful. But it has no connection to how the person hearing said news chooses to react--his/her reaction is his choice.


I agree with you. I'm not sure why we are talking about making sure to delicately reject someone for fear of hurting their feelings in a thread about rape and consent. Will a rapist be less likely to rape you if you are delicate with your rejection?


----------



## Lone Shadow

Who knows. Maybe if I reject her forcefully enough, she will be temporarily incapacitated by the emotional turmoil that she's now dealing with, and any thoughts she may have had about raping me have now gone out the window.

By not stopping to spare her feelings over the rejection, I have saved myself from becoming a rape victim.


----------



## MEM2020

This is where we part company when it comes to educating our kids. 

There are two completely separate components to this discussion:

Blame 
And
Contribution

True story: I'm waiting for a bus downtown (big metro area). It's the last bus and even though it's a decent area it is now mostly deserted. 

It was about 15 years ago and I'm sitting up against a building working on my laptop when two local fellows showed up. If a cop hadn't happened by I would have gotten beaten up and robbed. 

Would I have been to blame for that happening? No. I was just working while I waited for my bus. 

What was my contribution to that (near disastrous) outcome? I was flashng an expensive laptop on a dark deserted street maybe 10 blocks from a low income neighborhood. 

Never did that again. 

Blame and contribution are different. 

So how does this tie back to the current conversation? 

I've told both my daughters not to exploit situations where a guy wants them, and they don't want him. 

1. Because it's an abuse of power
2. It's bad karma








norajane said:


> I agree with you. I'm not sure why we are talking about making sure to delicately reject someone for fear of hurting their feelings in a thread about rape and consent. Will a rapist be less likely to rape you if you are delicate with your rejection?


----------



## NobodySpecial

MEM11363 said:


> This is where we part company when it comes to educating our kids.
> 
> There are two completely separate components to this discussion:
> 
> Blame
> And
> Contribution
> 
> True story: I'm waiting for a bus downtown (big metro area). It's the last bus and even though it's a decent area it is now mostly deserted.
> 
> It was about 15 years ago and I'm sitting up against a building working on my laptop when two local fellows showed up. If a cop hadn't happened by I would have gotten beaten up and robbed.
> 
> Would I have been to blame for that happening? No. I was just working while I waited for my bus.
> 
> What was my contribution to that (near disastrous) outcome? I was flashng an expensive laptop on a dark deserted street maybe 10 blocks from a low income neighborhood.
> 
> Never did that again.
> 
> Blame and contribution are different.


I agree 5,000%.



> So how does this tie back to the current conversation?
> 
> I've told both my daughters not to exploit situations where a guy wants them, and they don't want him.
> 
> 1. Because it's an abuse of power
> 2. It's bad karma


Absolutely. And how about this? It is just not nice.


----------



## norajane

MEM11363 said:


> This is where we part company when it comes to educating our kids.
> 
> There are two completely separate components to this discussion:
> 
> Blame
> And
> Contribution
> 
> True story: I'm waiting for a bus downtown (big metro area). It's the last bus and even though it's a decent area it is now mostly deserted.
> 
> It was about 15 years ago and I'm sitting up against a building working on my laptop when two local fellows showed up. If a cop hadn't happened by I would have gotten beaten up and robbed.
> 
> Would I have been to blame for that happening? No. I was just working while I waited for my bus.
> 
> What was my contribution to that (near disastrous) outcome? I was flashng an expensive laptop on a dark deserted street maybe 10 blocks from a low income neighborhood.
> 
> Never did that again.
> 
> Blame and contribution are different.
> 
> So how does this tie back to the current conversation?
> 
> *I've told both my daughters not to exploit situations where a guy wants them, and they don't want him. *
> 
> 1. Because it's an abuse of power
> 2. It's bad karma


I still don't understand. I don't know what you mean by exploiting situations where a guy wants to have sex with a woman but she doesn't want to have sex with him. 

I also don't see how that relates to making sure to let a rapist down gently and why that's being discussed.


----------



## Wolf1974

NobodySpecial said:


> I would advocate the seriousness of a perjury conviction be commensurate to the original charge.


Unforunately DAs won't do this for fear of victims not coming forward


----------



## NobodySpecial

norajane said:


> I still don't understand. I don't know what you mean by exploiting situations where a guy wants to have sex with a woman but she doesn't want to have sex with him.
> 
> I also don't see how that relates to making sure to let a rapist down gently and why that's being discussed.


There are a number of points of confusion that went on or are going on. The person who posted about feelings was talking about acquiring consent (like getting your wife to have sex with you) from your spouse. *I* thought the post was obviously about rape.

I think MEM is just continuing the conversation on educating your kids.


----------



## MEM2020

Nora,

Have you ever been close to a situation where a guy acts as if he truly likes a woman - when all he actually wants is sex? And after a short time he suddenly disappears? 

Or worse he claims to be interested in commitment / marriage / babies and suddenly splits when it's time to put up or shut up. 

Have you ever seen a woman lead a guy on when she knows he genuinely does like and desire her and she feels nothing for him? 

This stuff seems predatory to me. Not criminal, but predatory. 


QUOTE=norajane;12261170]I still don't understand. I don't know what you mean by exploiting situations where a guy wants to have sex with a woman but she doesn't want to have sex with him. 

I also don't see how that relates to making sure to let a rapist down gently and why that's being discussed.[/QUOTE]


----------



## 2ntnuf

Sorry NS, I had to take a few days off. I believed you were trying to tell men how to acquire consent for sex? You posted a link to an article that used a metaphor of tea? My thoughts were, there better be proof that you got consent, if you are a man and the initiator. I agree that there are proper ways to treat a woman, that will likely persuade her that you are a decent person and safe enough to have sex with and not be harmed while being respected. 

My posts were meant to bring attention to the fact that verbal consent alone, that a woman want's to and agrees to have sex with a man, is not really enough. In only California, as far as I have discerned, there must be consent throughout, by law. In most or all other states, there must be consent prior to sex, by law.

My thoughts were, what kind of consent, other than verbal, would hold up in a court of law, if there was a question. My thoughts were that a recording of her consenting would do the job of proving consent. 

I respect MEM's question and did look up a few cases. One case I read was from Maryland. There were other states, but they just weren't quite what I was hoping to find. 

Mostly, verbal consent really didn't come into question, the woman's word was taken and public actions prior to any sex were used to back up her contention that she never gave consent. No one was asked if they heard a clear response to a clear question. Now, they were not quite what I was looking for, but they did make enough of a point, when one is looking at prison time and being placed on the sex offender's list, to discuss a better way to have proof of consent.

While in some states it is not legal to record someone, I'd rather face that issue and have a recording of me asking and her answering, before I have sex with her, than to just get unrecorded and in most cases, verbal consent that has no witnesses. It's highly unusual for a couple to be out on a date or two or three, etc., and have him or her ask about sex after they leave wherever they are, loud enough that others hear the whole conversation. I would guess they really don't want it broadcasted, or so I've read many women don't want their past known and conjecture from there. 

I don't think this is out of line with consent. I do think it is important to treat her well or you won't have an opportunity to have sex. I think it's important to ask and some mistakes in the asking along with subsequent rejections will teach, but rejections weren't my concern. Getting consent that is normally not witnessed by anyone other than the two talking about sex, was what I was interested in discussing. I think it is the most important part of consent. 

If I didn't hear you consenting, and you come to me and tell me you were raped and have panties with the dna of your boyfriend, I'm going to take your side NS. I don't want to see anyone raped, and I'm going to assume in almost all cases, that you were raped. I'd rather not see an innocent person go to prison because he broke up with you the next day and you got so pissed, you claimed rape. Hey, you were drinking. You may have had too much. You were both of the age to consent and out dancing. You were tired. You were asked and consented. If I'm a judge or a jury, I'm taking your side. Many times, I will be right in assuming you were raped. We don't know if all women are like you and would never accuse someone out of the pain and embarrassment of rejection. No one knows just how crazy a partner is until it's too late. In the dating stage, both are taking chances. How is consent proven or how can it be? What is the best method? Buying flowers, treating her with respect and kindness, etc., etc., are a given.

I went back and read some of the posts. Interesting how differently some folks read what is posted and interpret it. It sort of proves my point.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

She wants the T.


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> Sorry NS, I had to take a few days off. I believed you were trying to tell men how to acquire consent for sex?


The link I posted was a response to the "confusion" sited online, indeed this very forum, and in my experience about how confusing consent is. The rest of this business was brought by you.

Your fixation on "getting" sex is yours and yours alone.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> She wants the T.


If I had any idea what you were saying here, I might be able to respond. Alas, I don't.


----------



## 2ntnuf

NobodySpecial said:


> The link I posted was a response to the "confusion" sited online, indeed this very forum, and in my experience about how confusing consent is. The rest of this business was brought by you.
> 
> Your fixation on "getting" sex is yours and yours alone.


That was way out of line NS. You are utterly confused. "Getting" sex has nothing to do with it. That's actually what your link is about. How to get consent with proper treatment of a partner. Mine was about getting clear and provable consent, which is the title of your thread and what you believe is confusion about..."Getting Consent".


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> That was way out of line NS. You are utterly confused. "Getting" sex has nothing to do with it. That's actually what your link is about. How to get consent with proper treatment of a partner. Mine was about getting clear and provable consent, which is the title of your thread and what you believe is confusion about..."Getting Consent".


"I agree that there are proper ways to treat a woman, that will likely *persuade *her that you are a decent person and safe enough to have sex with and not be harmed while being respected. "


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> That was way out of line NS. You are utterly confused. "Getting" sex has nothing to do with it. That's actually what your link is about. How to get consent with proper treatment of a partner.


No that was not the point of my post at all. The point of my post was to share a clever response to confusion that happens in very real life about what constitutes consent.



> Mine was about getting clear and provable consent, which is the title of your thread and what you believe is confusion about..."Getting Consent".


Having already explained the 101 of how our legal system works, I consider my work done.


----------



## 2ntnuf

NobodySpecial said:


> "I agree that there are proper ways to treat a woman, that will likely *persuade *her that you are a decent person and safe enough to have sex with and not be harmed while being respected. "


Thanks for agreeing with me.

What you are suggesting teaching is not consent. That's seduction. Numerous men's sites or self-help books will explain how to seduce a potential partner, whether marriage is included or not. None of them discuss how to get proven consent. If consent is the goal, isn't it vitally important to understand what provable consent is before attempting to teach how to persuade someone to agree to sexual intercourse? Silence means no. No means no. Only an affirmative and I say provable yes is acceptable. It is required in all states and in Cali. required throughout, at each step. How do you suggest that a verbal affirmative consent is enough, if the laws require an affirmative consent for sex to be legal? 

There is nothing inherently wrong with teaching new or more acceptable ways to seduce a woman. I think it's irresponsible to do so without including a discussion of what legal consent looks like and how to protect yourself from being in a situation where you have to prove either you consented or didn't, due to that consent being only verbal and only witnessed by the two who are intending to have sex. Obviously, if alcohol is involved, it's best to wait until neither is drinking.


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> If consent is the goal, isn't it vitally important to understand what provable consent is before attempting to teach how to *persuade *someone to agree to sexual intercourse?


I would say that legally, morally and in every other way, this attitude is completely bankrupt with this statement alone. Sex does not require persuasion. That is the very point. Did you read the open letter from mother to son?


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
there really are different issues:

1) What is legal

2) What is safe against prosecution 

3) What is morally right. 


To me, #3 means that both (or more  ) partners actively want sex and enjoy it. As long as I obey #3, I'll take my chances with #1 and #2.

It is possible to follow #1 and still be prosecuted since you can't prove you had consent. #2 is almost impossible to achieve if you have sex at all - your partner can always lie.


----------



## NobodySpecial

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> there really are different issues:
> 
> 1) What is legal
> 
> 2) What is safe against prosecution
> 
> 3) What is morally right.
> 
> 
> To me, #3 means that both (or more  ) partners actively want sex and enjoy it. As long as I obey #3, I'll take my chances with #1 and #2.
> 
> It is possible to follow #1 and still be prosecuted since you can't prove you had consent. #2 is almost impossible to achieve if you have sex at all - your partner can always lie.


You are a rock star.


----------



## 2ntnuf

NobodySpecial said:


> I would say that legally, morally and in every other way, you are completely bankrupt with this statement alone. Sex does not require persuasion. That is the very point. Did you read the open letter from mother to son?


Thank you. Do you have a history of verbal abuse or passive aggressive behavior when you are confronted with opposition to your personal opinions? Please try to refrain from attacking me personally. 

Would you suggest that the best way for a man to attempt to have sex with a woman he is attracted to would be to walk up to her and ask, or would you suggest he ask her out, get to know her with casual conversation, laughter, fun and look for her interest in him, then ask her if she'd like to have sex? If the second, that's seduction. If the first, good luck. Which example would feel less like bankruptcy to you? 

I suggest the second. That example of seduction or something like it has been posted here at TAM, and approved by most women. Seduction has been said to be a process. I agree. Even in marriage, there has to be consent that stands up in a court of law. 

You can change your personal understanding of words, but it helps others to be honest and open when you do.

Edit: Of course, legal sex is contingent upon the affirmative consent of the one asked and needs to continue throughout.


----------



## NobodySpecial

2ntnuf said:


> Please try to refrain from attacking me personally.


You are quite right. I fixed it.


----------



## richardsharpe

Good evening all
I think "seduction" may mean very different things to different people. It is "convincing" someone to want sex, but there is a huge range from:

Buying them flowers, taking them for carriage rides in central park, moonlit walks on deserted beaches, etc 

to

Getting them drunk, driving them to a remote location, then starting to fondle them - even if they are not actively restrained, you can make it very difficult for them to leave.


The first is fine, the second may not technically be rape, but it is getting close. (actually I don't know if it is legally rape to demand sex or put someone out of your car).


----------



## NobodySpecial

richardsharpe said:


> Good evening all
> I think "seduction" may mean very different things to different people. It is "convincing" someone to want sex, but there is a huge range from:
> 
> Buying them flowers, taking them for carriage rides in central park, moonlit walks on deserted beaches, etc
> 
> to
> 
> Getting them drunk, driving them to a remote location, then starting to fondle them - even if they are not actively restrained, you can make it very difficult for them to leave.
> 
> 
> The first is fine, the second may not technically be rape, but it is getting close. (actually I don't know if it is legally rape to demand sex or put someone out of your car).


It is not really the tactic that I find the problem really. It is the core attitude is sex that you get off someone, that you convince, weedle, cajole, or change opinion in order to achieve sex over her objection.


----------



## norajane

NobodySpecial said:


> It is not really the tactic that I find the problem really. It is the core attitude is sex that you get off someone, that you convince, weedle, cajole, or change opinion in order to achieve sex over her objection.


:iagree:

If you have to overcome objections the other person has, you shouldn't be having sex. Have sex with people who are totally into it and don't have objections in the first place.


----------



## NobodySpecial

norajane said:


> :iagree:
> 
> If you have to overcome objections the other person has, you shouldn't be having sex. Have sex with people who are totally into it and don't have objections in the first place.


And how do you know? You ASK.

"OMG, f*ck yes, I would f*cking LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!"


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> If I had any idea what you were saying here, I might be able to respond. Alas, I don't.


Joke. She wants the D?


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> Joke. She wants the D?


Oh. Where is the dope slap emoticon? I had to think HARD about that one.


----------



## Dad&Hubby

I don't want to step in the middle of this argument, because I see communication missing the mark substantially and what the two involved are saying are completely different issues.

On one hand you have someone talking about "provable consent"..which is a concern...look at the UofMichigan student Drew Sterret's case.

On the other hand, you have the attitude and moralstic view of consent...which should only be enthusiastic yes's. I somewhat agree with both of you...because you're both making different points. (I'm speaking of Nothing Special and 2ntnuf)

What I do want to address is the issue of "persuading" your partner being a morally bankrupt issue.

Sorry but in EVERY sexual endeavor that has 1 initiator (minus the rare moment when two people lock eyes and BOTH at the same moment, want sex) involves some level of persuasion.

When my wife is watching TV in bed, not thinking about sex with me, and I come in and start kissing her neck in just the right spot etc. and at first she says "maybe later" and I keep kissing and she then wraps her arms around me and pulls me in...well I just persuaded her.

I'd just be careful of throwing dispersions based on word choice when those words aren't really inaccurate.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

richardsharpe said:


> The first is fine, the second may not technically be rape, but it is getting close. (actually I don't know if it is legally rape to demand sex or put someone out of your car).


According to my reading of my state's rape statute, threatening someone with the old, "nobody rides for free" rejoinder would not be rape. If you threaten violence, it would be rape. If you threaten to withdraw your offer of a ride, it's not.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

norajane said:


> :iagree:
> 
> If you have to overcome objections the other person has, you shouldn't be having sex. Have sex with people who are totally into it and don't have objections in the first place.


Generally speaking, everyone starts with objections. That's why seduction is a thing. You don't go out with someone and just randomly jump out with "Wanna have sex?" There is a process to getting there that involves building attraction, trust, chemistry and tension - all of which are persuasive elements. Persuasion isn't remotely immoral, nor does it mean having unwanted sex. The entire point is that by the time sex is actually had, you want to have it.

The problem is only in the potential ambiguity of interpreting behavior as consent *in combination* with her unwillingness to correct misinterpretations. In the context of tea, it's a guy walking up with a cup of tea, raising it to her mouth while raising his eyebrows, and she opens her mouth. Does this mean she wants the tea? Or is she only opening her mouth?

Explicitly asking the question is great for tea. Asking for sex is not an equivalent. Sex is a complicated emotionally laden and culturally distorted subject, and a lot of women prefer not to have the decision exclusively placed on them anymore than they want a man to ask them where they want to eat, or "what do you want to do" on a date.

But we can even take this question of persuasion... or "pressure" really, a step further even, in that asking the question itself is pressuring. It'll be all of five minutes before women complain that "he asked me if I wanted to have sex and I was afraid that, if I said no, he wouldn't like me anymore", and still *feel* raped (unwanted sex). There are women who gave consent and STILL feel they were raped because they didn't actually want to have sex that they consented to.

What do we do with that? What it basically amounts to is that it is potentially a foul for a man to seek sex at all, because of delicate flowers that can't assert their will. From which we derive the sense that we are pushing standards that basically make it wrong to be assertively masculine... the concept that "it's now all but wrong to simply be male".

Want to put an end to questionable rape? While limited to heterosexual sex, the only way I can conceive would be to place the burden entirely on women. Require that women expressly ask for sex. Prohibit men from doing so, since it seems a woman can feel raped no matter how the man pursues it. And further, men don't seem to have an issue with pressure or asserting their will to have or not have sex. My money is that this would entirely eliminate rape ambiguity, with the by product that a hell of a lot less desired sex would be had too. Why? Because: "Will they think I'm easy or sl*tty if I ask for sex?" (said no man ever)

I recall so many discussions on this forum of male and female sexual desire being equal. Is it telling that there sure aren't a lot of questions of male consent?


----------



## razgor

Hmm, I wonder if I could make a lot of money with a "consent" app? Where the couple could both check they consent to sex!

IDK, just glad I am not dating right now. Seems like a mind field.

I was more under the impression, "No means No" is the standard. This whole consent process seems like a slippery slope. I mean is it rape if you are both making out naked and grinding with each other and it is inserted? There was no formal consent to the act. What happens if you were both intoxicated?


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

razgor said:


> I was more under the impression, "No means No" is the standard. This whole consent process seems like a slippery slope. I mean is it rape if you are both making out naked and grinding with each other and it is inserted? There was no formal consent to the act. What happens if you were both intoxicated?


"No means no" is the legal standard for the crime of rape in this country. Verbal or written consent isn't necessary. Intoxicated sex is fine, unless one person is so intoxicated that he/she is unable to understand what is happening, or consent to it (basically unconscious).

California has passed an affirmative consent law that turns that standard on its head, abandons due process for the accused, and makes it a civil offense for two students on college campuses to have sex without each person obtaining verbal consent for each step of the act. A significant minority want the affirmative consent standard and the lack of due process to apply to all criminal rape accusations. Thankfully, that has not yet happened.


----------



## razgor

BronzeTorpedo said:


> "No means no" is the legal standard for the crime of rape in this country. Verbal or written consent isn't necessary. Intoxicated sex is fine, unless one person is so intoxicated that he/she is unable to understand what is happening, or consent to it (basically unconscious).
> 
> California has passed an affirmative consent law that turns that standard on its head, abandons due process for the accused, and makes it a civil offense for two students on college campuses to have sex without each person obtaining verbal consent for each step of the act. A significant minority want the affirmative consent standard and the lack of due process to apply to all criminal rape accusations. Thankfully, that has not yet happened.


OK, spent a few minutes reading about it. This policy is puzzling. It is not even a verbal consent. Even non-verbal consent could mean yes. Such as a nod or smile. No ambiguity there!

Just seems like bad policy. I think a better course of action would be to teach our kids to say No and mean No! Rather then come up with bad rules.

Edit: We have had numerous pages in threads discussing communication problems between MARRIED men and women. Now, we somehow expect young adults to pick up subtle "clues" during sex. Just a bad idea.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

razgor said:


> Just seems like bad policy. I think a better course of action would be to teach our kids to say No and mean No! Rather then come up with bad rules.


Agreed. Unfortunately, the proponents of changing the legal definition of consent are having some success with slowly incorporating the change in a way that most people won't notice, or it won't seem like such a big deal.

In California, this only applies on college campuses and it's only (ha!) a civil offense. If the accused, who is frequently denied access to counsel and cross-examination of witnesses, and is held to a lower 51% preponderance of the evidence standard, is found (by a tribunal of SJW academics) to be guilty, or maybe guilty, of the offense, he is simply expelled from school. No big deal, right? All he needs is to find another school that isn't run by left-wing extremists who will allow a student who was expelled for sexual assault to transfer in, in defiance of the US Department of Education. Shouldn't be a problem!

Or, he could always flip burgers for a living. At least he can take comfort in knowing that he helped play a role in combating "rape culture."


----------



## NobodySpecial

Dad&Hubby said:


> I don't want to step in the middle of this argument, because I see communication missing the mark substantially and what the two involved are saying are completely different issues.
> 
> On one hand you have someone talking about "provable consent"..which is a concern...look at the UofMichigan student Drew Sterret's case.
> 
> On the other hand, you have the attitude and moralstic view of consent...which should only be enthusiastic yes's. I somewhat agree with both of you...because you're both making different points. (I'm speaking of Nothing Special and 2ntnuf)
> 
> What I do want to address is the issue of "persuading" your partner being a morally bankrupt issue.


Bear in mind that I am doing 2 things here

1. Continuing with the point of the original post which was about what people have SAID about consent and how obtaining it in the context of RAPE. 

2. Talking about sex in the context that I thought was obvious of people who don't know each other well. I apologize if that was not obvious.


Persuasion, in this context, means how do I "get her" to **** me even if she doesn't want to. Which leads to how do I THINK she is interested even though there is no outward sign. For my part, as I advise my son, you don't.


----------



## NobodySpecial

So I have no real comments about "seduction". I would not think of walking up to someone and thinking wanna go is "objection". I call what you guys are talking about getting to know each other and developing interest. Or.... crazy.... dating.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> Persuasion, in this context, means how do I "get her" to **** me even if she doesn't want to. Which leads to how do I THINK she is interested even though there is no outward sign. For my part, as I advise my son, you don't.


That interpretation is utterly bizarre to me and I can't imagine how anyone regards it as persuasion. Persuasions isn't getting someone to do something against their will. That is called force.

It's not "how do I get her to f*** me even if she doesnt' want to". Persuasion is: "how do I get her to want to f*** me."

A good salesman doesn't force you to buy something. He sells it. He persuades you to want to buy it.

Interpretation of want is the real issue that affirmative consent seeks to resolve, but it never will. Does the woman who expressly consents to sex, even though she is doing so only out of fear that if she does not she will lose the guy, actually want to have sex? Or is she still going to feel that she was pressured... dare say... raped?

Nothing changes.


----------



## NobodySpecial

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> That interpretation is utterly bizarre to me and not how anyone regards persuasion. Persuasions isn't getting someone to do something against their will. That is called force.
> 
> It's not "how do I get her to f*** me even if she doesnt' want to". Persuasion is: "how do I get her to want to f*** me."
> 
> A good salesman doesn't force you to buy something. He sells it. He persuades you to want to buy it.


I think that young men get choked on that difference. That has been my experience.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

NobodySpecial said:


> I think that young men get choked on that difference. That has been my experience.


I'm sorry for that experience. I've not known anyone to think that way.


----------



## Lionelhutz

NobodySpecial said:


> Bear in mind that I am doing 2 things here
> 
> 1. Continuing with the point of the original post which was about what people have SAID about consent and how obtaining it in the context of RAPE.
> 
> 2. Talking about sex in the context that I thought was obvious of people who don't know each other well. I apologize if that was not obvious.
> 
> 
> Persuasion, in this context, means how do I "get her" to **** me even if she doesn't want to. Which leads to how do I THINK she is interested even though there is no outward sign. For my part, as I advise my son, you don't.


The problem is confusing the two in the context of a discussion about rape because it produces so much heat and reaction in the discussion. 

Persuading, convincing, romancing, seducing someone to give you something who was initially reluctant or simply unsure is a world away from taking something after the person says no. It would be like sitting down with a group of sales people and explaining to them that they shouldn't be robbers and thieves. 

Something I would and do teach my son is a moral lesson about treating others with respect and honesty and not merely as tools for your own ends. But I would have been offended if I had received the letter from my mother and seen it as nothing more than a passive aggressive projection of her fears.


----------



## BronzeTorpedo

Lionelhutz said:


> Persuading, convincing, romancing, seducing someone to give you something who was initially reluctant or simply unsure is a world away from taking something after the person says no. It would be like sitting down with a group of sales people and explaining to them that they shouldn't be robbers and thieves.


This is a good point. The salesman analogy works much better than the tea analogy.


----------

