3 ms·

If we go by that definition then everytime your partner is horny and you're not, but you have sex with them regardless you're "sexually assaulted". As you didn'

If we go by that definition then everytime your partner is horny and you're not, but you have sex with them regardless you're "sexually assaulted". As you didn't really want to participate.

claudiawerner 7y ago
That's rubbish; you may not be in the mood, but you still consent to it - wanting to do something isn't the same as being horny. The point isn't about being horny, it's if you want to do it - being aroused is a factor you're introducing.
- BigJ1211 7y ago
  My point was that your partner can be pushy enough that you participate even though you didn't really want to. I.e. they are horny/want to have sex, you don't, yet you still have sex. By the definition above that is sexual assault. If you don't communicate that you don't want to have sex it becomes a really murky topic, as you didn't give verbal nor non-verbal consent. But you also didn't give verbal nor nnon-verbal disconsent. This could be something you regret afterwards, but I don't think you can attribute that to malintent (or rape/sexual assault) on your sexual partner's side. So removing the condom mid-act would be sexual assault, a broken condom wouldn't be. But the partner consented to sex with a condom. Or in case a woman says she's on birthcontrol (or has a spiral) and it later turns out that was false, then you also didn't consent to that. So basically my second point is that it takes a lot of language to define what is and what isn't sexual assault or rape. Condensing it down would be harmful to victims and people accused.
happytoexplain 7y ago
True, but I think the parent's absolutism is closer to reality than your absolutism. I.e. it's essentially a pointless semantic argument - "didn't really want to" doesn't have enough context to decide in either direction.
- BigJ1211 7y ago
  I agree with you there, my point was that his definition is highly fallible and easily abused. And I was attempting to point that out with an example. It might seem pointlessly semantic, but I think it's important with issues such as sexual assault and rape. Especially considering the people on either side of this likely have their lives ruined.
ceejayoz 7y ago
No. "Eh, whatever" and "no, not without a condom" aren't the same thing.
- BigJ1211 7y ago
  My point was that it isn't a good definition, I'm not implying anything regarding the assange case.

If we go by that definition then everytime your partner is horny and you're not, but you have sex with them regardless you're "sexually assaulted". As you didn't really want to participate.

claudiawerner 7y ago

That's rubbish; you may not be in the mood, but you still consent to it - wanting to do something isn't the same as being horny. The point isn't about being horny, it's if you want to do it - being aroused is a factor you're introducing.

BigJ1211 7y ago
My point was that your partner can be pushy enough that you participate even though you didn't really want to. I.e. they are horny/want to have sex, you don't, yet you still have sex. By the definition above that is sexual assault. If you don't communicate that you don't want to have sex it becomes a really murky topic, as you didn't give verbal nor non-verbal consent. But you also didn't give verbal nor nnon-verbal disconsent. This could be something you regret afterwards, but I don't think you can attribute that to malintent (or rape/sexual assault) on your sexual partner's side. So removing the condom mid-act would be sexual assault, a broken condom wouldn't be. But the partner consented to sex with a condom. Or in case a woman says she's on birthcontrol (or has a spiral) and it later turns out that was false, then you also didn't consent to that. So basically my second point is that it takes a lot of language to define what is and what isn't sexual assault or rape. Condensing it down would be harmful to victims and people accused.

happytoexplain 7y ago

True, but I think the parent's absolutism is closer to reality than your absolutism. I.e. it's essentially a pointless semantic argument - "didn't really want to" doesn't have enough context to decide in either direction.

BigJ1211 7y ago
I agree with you there, my point was that his definition is highly fallible and easily abused. And I was attempting to point that out with an example. It might seem pointlessly semantic, but I think it's important with issues such as sexual assault and rape. Especially considering the people on either side of this likely have their lives ruined.

ceejayoz 7y ago

No. "Eh, whatever" and "no, not without a condom" aren't the same thing.

BigJ1211 7y ago
My point was that it isn't a good definition, I'm not implying anything regarding the assange case.