4 ms·

Without question, yes! That's the whole point.

by Steuard 10y ago

nailer 10y ago
So from talking to flirting? Flirting to lightly touching arm? Lightly touching arm to sitting closely? Sitting closely to staring into eyes? Staring to kissing? Kissing to hands on body? Each escalation of foreplay? I understand what you're saying, but I don't see the granularity as being clear at all. Nor have I ever seen anyone else pressure women into obtaining explicit consent at each escalation. You mention in another thread consent could be given non verbally. Non verbal cues are easily misunderstood - and we're taking about using this as a basis for determining guilt for a serious crime here.
- ZeroGravitas 10y ago
  If the person remains totally passive at each of these stages, or repeatedly says or does something not affirmative, like "I really need to go" or turning away from you, what do you think you should do next? Is this really that hard? The only way what you're saying isn't really creepy and odd, is if you have a version of affirmitive consent in mind, that doesn't correpsond to reality. edited to add: It's worth bearing in mind the history of this, were a person doing the above would be told that it didn't count, that they were expected to "fight off" their rapist, because that's what good victims would have done, and clearly they weren't a good enough victim because they just remained frozen in fear, or were nearly unconcious through drink or drugs. Both the potential victims and the potentially accussed are better of with this extra clarity, that silent, passive, borderline unconcious acceptance of what you are doing is not enough to avoid later accusations.
  - nailer 10y ago
    That's an excellent example. If a man is initially unsure about sex - he says he needs to go, but still stays - and a woman changes his mind and they have sex, do you consider her a rapist?
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      Did he want to have sex with her? Then she's in the clear. If not, then that's one more bit of evidence that could come up if he accuses her. Just like if I initially didn't want to lend you my car, and then you 'changed my mind' and I end up accusing you of theft for taking it. It makes it look bad for you if there's any evidence that I turned you down initially, so you really should be certain you actually have changed my mind before taking my car.
      - tremon 10y ago
        Did he want to have sex with her? Then she's in the clear And how are you going to prove that in court without a written (and preferably notarized) consent form? Should the form also enumerate the agreed-to acts and positions, for when one party only intends to go to third base? Should condom use be explicitly mentioned? if there's any evidence that I turned you down initially I'm not comfortable with that, because "playing hard to get" is a widely-used dating strategy.
    - Steuard 10y ago
      You've built the answer to your question into its premise: "a woman changes his mind", you said. So sure: she changed his mind, and thus the sex was consensual. No rape involved, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who would say otherwise. But some people seeing what you wrote might be imagining a more general situation. Rather than "a woman changes his mind and they have sex", they're instead picturing "a woman gets him to have sex anyway". And that has a lot more room for ambiguity. Maybe she did something to really turn him on and they wound up eagerly jumping each other (not rape). Maybe they had a heart to heart talk and he decided that even though he wasn't eager, this would be really special to her and he went with it (not rape). Maybe he kept trying to leave but she blocked the door and was physically threatening and he concluded the only way he could get away without injury was to let her take what she wanted (that's rape). Maybe she kept giving him alcohol until he wasn't able to process what was going on and got sexual once he was to that point (that's rape; given his initial refusal I'm definitely inclined to call it deliberate even if she was drinking too: this is a well-established serial rapist technique). Maybe she kept gradually pushing his boundaries and wearing him down, ignoring his clear lack of any positive reaction to what she was doing, and eventually escalated things to sex (borderline: I'd need more info to judge if it's rape, but she's definitely an asshole).
  - arkades 10y ago
    A moment ago the discussion was about requiring /affirmative/ consent at every escalation. But your example is "is the person giving moderately subtle-to-overt signs of non-consent." The example of "affirmative consent" I've been presented with generally include explicitly verbalizing requests for consent, so as to preclude things like reading body language, because... well, that's where things go awry.
    - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
      Affirmitive just means "yes", getting the other party to say it out loud helps if you're really that bad at body language and non-verbal communication but is not required. As someone else stated, if verbal consent was what was required, they'd call it "verbal consent" not "affirmative consent". Affirmative meaning, from a plain dictionary definition: "saying or showing that the answer is "yes" <He gave an affirmative answer.> ". Again, the history and context is people being raped who did not "fight back", and it was held against them, and people accused of rape who said in their own defence that they didn't think they were raping the person because they didn't do anything to stop them. That's not their responsibility, it's yours to get "affirmitive consent".
- Steuard 10y ago
  In answer to your initial questions, yes? To all of them? If you're sitting close to someone you're attracted to and you turn to stare into their eyes and they don't smile back or snuggle closer or lick their lips or do something to indicate that they appreciate the increased attention, it seems like a no-brainer that the right move at that point is to back off at least to the level of interaction that they last seemed happy about. If you're not sure about the signals you're getting, that's when you need to ask out loud. To put that another way, yes, many non-verbal cues are easily misunderstood. Many others aren't. (Most behaviors involving eager smiles and reciprocated action are unambiguously positive. Most behaviors involving uncomfortable frowns or attempts to reduce contact are unambiguously negative.) When there is ambiguity, you absolutely need to ask for clarification verbally before continuing what you're doing or escalating anything. That's especially common with a new partner: you'll probably learn each others' main cues pretty quickly, but nobody's going to complain about extra care to avoid misunderstandings under those circumstances.
  - nailer 10y ago
    > If you're sitting close to someone you're attracted to and you turn to stare into their eyes and they don't smile back or snuggle closer or lick their lips or do something That's afterwards. I was asking about the general explicit consent concept, which is one must ask explicitly before escalating.
    - Steuard 10y ago
      I feel like you're framing this as enormously more complicated than it needs to be. As I understand it, within the affirmative consent framework it is fine to move toward escalating as long as your partner has sufficient chance to signal their comfort before you actually cross any lines. In a lot of the essential cases, those lines are reasonably well-defined. So (e.g.) if you want to touch someone's bare skin under their clothes for the first time in a given encounter, signal that intention somehow and then pause a moment to catch their eye or to give them a chance to react. If their reaction isn't unambiguously positive, back off, and don't be the first one to signal that interest again without checking in verbally. (If their reaction is positive, cool.) In other cases, like many of your examples, the lines are fuzzy. Merely looking at someone briefly isn't any more intimate than "sitting close" (which we're assuming they've already signaled they're happy with), but eventually a long gaze might become pretty intense (pro or con). So as you approach that fuzzy border, it's your job to pay attention to their reaction. If they smile and gaze back, awesome, keep it up. (Hey, maybe they're gearing up to lean in and offer that kiss.) If they turn away or look annoyed, then of course you should ratchet back rather than maintaining your stare all the way to the creepy point. I feel silly spelling all of that out so explicitly! It seems like any person who's paying attention to whether their partner is having a good time would just automatically pick up on these reactions as a matter of course (and at that point only a real twit wouldn't adjust their own behavior accordingly). And when there's any uncertainty, yeah, you've got to touch base verbally. But in practice I think that's pretty rare. Honestly, based on my own limited experience in these situations, people who want a sexual encounter to progress are usually entirely unambiguous about that fact, with or without words. If they're not actively encouraging you (and you don't know them really well), why push it if they're not into it?

Without question, yes! That's the whole point.

by Steuard 10y ago

Without question, yes! That's the whole point.

So from talking to flirting? Flirting to lightly touching arm? Lightly touching arm to sitting closely? Sitting closely to staring into eyes? Staring to kissing? Kissing to hands on body? Each escalation of foreplay? I understand what you're saying, but I don't see the granularity as being clear at all. Nor have I ever seen anyone else pressure women into obtaining explicit consent at each escalation. You mention in another thread consent could be given non verbally. Non verbal cues are easily misunderstood - and we're taking about using this as a basis for determining guilt for a serious crime here.

ZeroGravitas 10y ago
If the person remains totally passive at each of these stages, or repeatedly says or does something not affirmative, like "I really need to go" or turning away from you, what do you think you should do next? Is this really that hard? The only way what you're saying isn't really creepy and odd, is if you have a version of affirmitive consent in mind, that doesn't correpsond to reality. edited to add: It's worth bearing in mind the history of this, were a person doing the above would be told that it didn't count, that they were expected to "fight off" their rapist, because that's what good victims would have done, and clearly they weren't a good enough victim because they just remained frozen in fear, or were nearly unconcious through drink or drugs. Both the potential victims and the potentially accussed are better of with this extra clarity, that silent, passive, borderline unconcious acceptance of what you are doing is not enough to avoid later accusations.
- nailer 10y ago
  That's an excellent example. If a man is initially unsure about sex - he says he needs to go, but still stays - and a woman changes his mind and they have sex, do you consider her a rapist?
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    Did he want to have sex with her? Then she's in the clear. If not, then that's one more bit of evidence that could come up if he accuses her. Just like if I initially didn't want to lend you my car, and then you 'changed my mind' and I end up accusing you of theft for taking it. It makes it look bad for you if there's any evidence that I turned you down initially, so you really should be certain you actually have changed my mind before taking my car.
    - tremon 10y ago
      Did he want to have sex with her? Then she's in the clear And how are you going to prove that in court without a written (and preferably notarized) consent form? Should the form also enumerate the agreed-to acts and positions, for when one party only intends to go to third base? Should condom use be explicitly mentioned? if there's any evidence that I turned you down initially I'm not comfortable with that, because "playing hard to get" is a widely-used dating strategy.
  - Steuard 10y ago
    You've built the answer to your question into its premise: "a woman changes his mind", you said. So sure: she changed his mind, and thus the sex was consensual. No rape involved, and I don't think I've ever met anyone who would say otherwise. But some people seeing what you wrote might be imagining a more general situation. Rather than "a woman changes his mind and they have sex", they're instead picturing "a woman gets him to have sex anyway". And that has a lot more room for ambiguity. Maybe she did something to really turn him on and they wound up eagerly jumping each other (not rape). Maybe they had a heart to heart talk and he decided that even though he wasn't eager, this would be really special to her and he went with it (not rape). Maybe he kept trying to leave but she blocked the door and was physically threatening and he concluded the only way he could get away without injury was to let her take what she wanted (that's rape). Maybe she kept giving him alcohol until he wasn't able to process what was going on and got sexual once he was to that point (that's rape; given his initial refusal I'm definitely inclined to call it deliberate even if she was drinking too: this is a well-established serial rapist technique). Maybe she kept gradually pushing his boundaries and wearing him down, ignoring his clear lack of any positive reaction to what she was doing, and eventually escalated things to sex (borderline: I'd need more info to judge if it's rape, but she's definitely an asshole).
- arkades 10y ago
  A moment ago the discussion was about requiring /affirmative/ consent at every escalation. But your example is "is the person giving moderately subtle-to-overt signs of non-consent." The example of "affirmative consent" I've been presented with generally include explicitly verbalizing requests for consent, so as to preclude things like reading body language, because... well, that's where things go awry.
  - ZeroGravitas 10y ago
    Affirmitive just means "yes", getting the other party to say it out loud helps if you're really that bad at body language and non-verbal communication but is not required. As someone else stated, if verbal consent was what was required, they'd call it "verbal consent" not "affirmative consent". Affirmative meaning, from a plain dictionary definition: "saying or showing that the answer is "yes" <He gave an affirmative answer.> ". Again, the history and context is people being raped who did not "fight back", and it was held against them, and people accused of rape who said in their own defence that they didn't think they were raping the person because they didn't do anything to stop them. That's not their responsibility, it's yours to get "affirmitive consent".
Steuard 10y ago
In answer to your initial questions, yes? To all of them? If you're sitting close to someone you're attracted to and you turn to stare into their eyes and they don't smile back or snuggle closer or lick their lips or do something to indicate that they appreciate the increased attention, it seems like a no-brainer that the right move at that point is to back off at least to the level of interaction that they last seemed happy about. If you're not sure about the signals you're getting, that's when you need to ask out loud. To put that another way, yes, many non-verbal cues are easily misunderstood. Many others aren't. (Most behaviors involving eager smiles and reciprocated action are unambiguously positive. Most behaviors involving uncomfortable frowns or attempts to reduce contact are unambiguously negative.) When there is ambiguity, you absolutely need to ask for clarification verbally before continuing what you're doing or escalating anything. That's especially common with a new partner: you'll probably learn each others' main cues pretty quickly, but nobody's going to complain about extra care to avoid misunderstandings under those circumstances.
- nailer 10y ago
  > If you're sitting close to someone you're attracted to and you turn to stare into their eyes and they don't smile back or snuggle closer or lick their lips or do something That's afterwards. I was asking about the general explicit consent concept, which is one must ask explicitly before escalating.
  - Steuard 10y ago
    I feel like you're framing this as enormously more complicated than it needs to be. As I understand it, within the affirmative consent framework it is fine to move toward escalating as long as your partner has sufficient chance to signal their comfort before you actually cross any lines. In a lot of the essential cases, those lines are reasonably well-defined. So (e.g.) if you want to touch someone's bare skin under their clothes for the first time in a given encounter, signal that intention somehow and then pause a moment to catch their eye or to give them a chance to react. If their reaction isn't unambiguously positive, back off, and don't be the first one to signal that interest again without checking in verbally. (If their reaction is positive, cool.) In other cases, like many of your examples, the lines are fuzzy. Merely looking at someone briefly isn't any more intimate than "sitting close" (which we're assuming they've already signaled they're happy with), but eventually a long gaze might become pretty intense (pro or con). So as you approach that fuzzy border, it's your job to pay attention to their reaction. If they smile and gaze back, awesome, keep it up. (Hey, maybe they're gearing up to lean in and offer that kiss.) If they turn away or look annoyed, then of course you should ratchet back rather than maintaining your stare all the way to the creepy point. I feel silly spelling all of that out so explicitly! It seems like any person who's paying attention to whether their partner is having a good time would just automatically pick up on these reactions as a matter of course (and at that point only a real twit wouldn't adjust their own behavior accordingly). And when there's any uncertainty, yeah, you've got to touch base verbally. But in practice I think that's pretty rare. Honestly, based on my own limited experience in these situations, people who want a sexual encounter to progress are usually entirely unambiguous about that fact, with or without words. If they're not actively encouraging you (and you don't know them really well), why push it if they're not into it?