3 ms·

It's not vague. Consent is an enthusiastic and unambiguous yes. Was there an enthusiastic and unambiguous yes? You have consent. Was there not an enthusiastic a

It's not vague. Consent is an enthusiastic and unambiguous yes. Was there an enthusiastic and unambiguous yes? You have consent. Was there not an enthusiastic and unambiguous yes? You do not have consent.

eloff 5y ago
I think we can agree on that. I'm not arguing about what consent is, I'm arguing about whether you bear responsibility for what happens to you if you put yourself in a vulnerable position, give consent without being of sound mind, and then regret it later. I think 1) that's pretty dumb to put yourself in that situation, and 2) you do have partial responsibility for what happened.
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  Sure, but do you believe that's what's described here? I don't see anything that suggests that consent was ever given.
  - eloff 5y ago
    I'm pretty sure I wrote that I don't know what the facts are here and that I'm inclined to side with her. I'm asking about this situation in general, not about her specific case.
throwaway0a5e 5y ago
>enthusiastic and unambiguous <rolls eyes> By redefining consent you've just redefined rape to include some large percentage of people in stable relationships. If everyone's a rapist nobody is.
- Pfhreak 5y ago
  If you are having sex and your partner isn't unambiguously interested, you need to ask yourself some questions. Also, people in stable relationships can have non consensual sex. It was legal to rape your wife until like the 90s in parts of the states.
  - throwaway0a5e 5y ago
    People have agency. They're allowed to choose, of their own free will, to do things they aren't 100% on board with. That includes sex. Blowing your husband because it wastes less of your time then him trying to woo you or popping a Viagra because your wife is hitting the bong and you know what she's gonna want next aren't ideal but they're facts of some peoples lives. There's no way you can honestly allege those sorts of things are rape. So how do you justify your redefinition of consent?
    - Pfhreak 5y ago
      Those folks who are not interested can say, "Nah." and if their partner presses the issue that's definitely problematic. A signal of "I'm not interested" should be the end of discussion, there are plenty of tools for folks whose partners aren't in the mood. That said, there are many folks who aren't enthusiastic about the act itself, but have enthusiasm for the outcome. Many asexual folks I know, for instance, are enthusiastic that they can do something that makes their partners happy, even while not particularly enjoying the act. You are interpreting my definition in only the narrowest possible lens.

eloff 5y ago

I think we can agree on that. I'm not arguing about what consent is, I'm arguing about whether you bear responsibility for what happens to you if you put yourself in a vulnerable position, give consent without being of sound mind, and then regret it later. I think 1) that's pretty dumb to put yourself in that situation, and 2) you do have partial responsibility for what happened.

Pfhreak 5y ago
Sure, but do you believe that's what's described here? I don't see anything that suggests that consent was ever given.
- eloff 5y ago
  I'm pretty sure I wrote that I don't know what the facts are here and that I'm inclined to side with her. I'm asking about this situation in general, not about her specific case.

throwaway0a5e 5y ago

>enthusiastic and unambiguous <rolls eyes> By redefining consent you've just redefined rape to include some large percentage of people in stable relationships. If everyone's a rapist nobody is.

Pfhreak 5y ago
If you are having sex and your partner isn't unambiguously interested, you need to ask yourself some questions. Also, people in stable relationships can have non consensual sex. It was legal to rape your wife until like the 90s in parts of the states.
- throwaway0a5e 5y ago
  People have agency. They're allowed to choose, of their own free will, to do things they aren't 100% on board with. That includes sex. Blowing your husband because it wastes less of your time then him trying to woo you or popping a Viagra because your wife is hitting the bong and you know what she's gonna want next aren't ideal but they're facts of some peoples lives. There's no way you can honestly allege those sorts of things are rape. So how do you justify your redefinition of consent?
  - Pfhreak 5y ago
    Those folks who are not interested can say, "Nah." and if their partner presses the issue that's definitely problematic. A signal of "I'm not interested" should be the end of discussion, there are plenty of tools for folks whose partners aren't in the mood. That said, there are many folks who aren't enthusiastic about the act itself, but have enthusiasm for the outcome. Many asexual folks I know, for instance, are enthusiastic that they can do something that makes their partners happy, even while not particularly enjoying the act. You are interpreting my definition in only the narrowest possible lens.