Consensual Sex and the definition of Rape

[On Guard for Thee]

For me personally, I need to be confident that she is as enthusiastic as am I, otherwise it's maybe just not the right time, or the right person. We all know the old cliche about "not tonight honey, I have a headache". Fair enough, we've all had headaches. Take an aspirin and call me in the morning.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yeah? Or maybe its the predator who should be stuck with the rape charge instead of the victim, regardless of gender?

And that has hapenned.

[Bonam]

And that has hapenned.

And rightfully so. But I was speaking to jacee's disturbing position that men who are the victims of female predators should have just had a "little more caution, discretion and class", when obviously the same statement would be completely unacceptable with the genders reversed.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Bonam

[On Guard for Thee]

And rightfully so. But I was speaking to jacee's disturbing position that men who are the victims of female predators should have just had a "little more caution, discretion and class", when obviously the same statement would be completely unacceptable with the genders reversed.

I am aware of at least some of those cases were a woman ends up in someones bed she is not supposed to be in, possibly due to various forms of toxification and then to try to alleviate the situation, cries rape. That should be dealt with every bit as severly as rape, because it's equally as heinous, IMO. I would guess that this is an evolutionary thing based on the concept that up to the relatively recent past the abundance of rape cases showed men to be the culprits. And I don't find that particularly hard to fathom.

[jacee]

Yeah? Or maybe its the predator who should be stuck with the rape charge instead of the victim, regardless of gender?

Absolutely.

I guess the context here is women sexual predators who then charge rape. I have no idea how much of an issue that is, and I doubt many women get their kicks out of going to court.

Women predators tend to be more the move in and make your life hell for sex type. I think. I don't really know. I bow to the experience of men on that.

[jacee]

And rightfully so. But I was speaking to jacee's disturbing position that men who are the victims of female predators should have just had a "little more caution, discretion and class", when obviously the same statement would be completely unacceptable with the genders reversed.

It refers to picking up the drunkest woman to increase your chances of getting laid.

It's predatory and risky to intentionally choose women too drunk to consent. I should think that's obvious.

[Black Dog]

Not when your definition is based on amount of "enthusiasm". Not when your definition allows a woman to argue that yes does not mean yes. It creates nothing but a huge grey area. I am OK with the "no means no" definition. If a woman is not willing to communicate her lack of desire by clearly stating "No" then she should have no grounds for a sexual assault claim.

"No means no" is all well and good, but the default be "don't have sex with someone unless they clearly communicate that yes, they would like to have sex." As opposed to your default which would take silence for consent.

And how many women consent to sex and later feel guilty about it? Does it make any sense to give these women the ability to lay a rape charge after the fact?

There's nothing stopping them from doing so now.

To bring up my first point: why do you think that it is too much to demand clear communication from women?

Where did I say that?

Why do you thing the onus should be put entirely on men to demand that the woman communicate clearly?

I definitely didn't say that.

Is saying "NO" too hard the meek little victimized women that seem to inhabit your universe? Is that the problem? That despite rhetoric, are you really a huge sexist that thinks women need to be protected from nasty men?

I have no idea who you're directing this to because it certainly has no relation to anything I've said on this subject.

[TimG]

"No means no" is all well and good, but the default be "don't have sex with someone unless they clearly communicate that yes, they would like to have sex." As opposed to your default which would take silence for consent.

First, this is not just about silence. This is about allowing women to actually say yes and then claim rape because the yes was not enthusiastic enough. If you do not have a problem with this then your are truly twisted.

Second, you are the one insisting that partners should communicate and non-verbal cues are prone to misinterpretation. Seems to me that the best rule should be for the partner that sees that their non-verbal cues are being misinterpreted to follow them up with a clearly stated "no".

i.e. the only person who knows what the woman wants is the woman. if she does not like the way things are going the onus should be on her to communicate that clearly. why should the onus be on the man to demand that she communicate clearly before proceeding? Can you honestly say that you have never had sex without insisting that the woman enthusiastically say yes before proceeding? If you have you are guilty of rape under these ridiculous criteria.

I have no idea who you're directing this to because it certainly has no relation to anything I've said on this subject.

That is what your opinions sound like to me. You are taking the position that women are too weak to say "no" and need laws to protect them from themselves. Edited March 3, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

First, this is not just about silence.

You said: "If a woman is not willing to communicate her lack of desire by clearly stating "No" then she should have no grounds for a sexual assault claim." Which explicitly puts the onus on the woman to say no (and if for some reason she doesn't say no, even if she doesn't want to have sex, well, according to you that's a free space on someone's Rape Bingo card). Not saying no is not the same thing as saying yes.

This is about allowing women to actually say yes and then claim rape because the yes was not enthusiastic enough. If you do not have a problem with this then your are truly twisted.

That's Margaret Wente's interpretation. I don't put much stock in her read of things.

Second, you are the one insisting that partners should communicate and non-verbal cues are prone to misinterpretation. Seems to me that the best rule should be for the partner that sees that their non-verbal cues are being misinterpreted to follow them up with a clearly stated "no".

In a perfect world, sure. The real world doesn't work like that.

i.e. the only person who knows what the woman wants is the woman. if she does not like the way things are going the onus should be on her to communicate that clearly. why should the onus be on the man to demand that she communicate clearly before proceeding?

The onus to ensure that sex is consensual is on both participants. If a woman doesn't say no, the man should ensure she said yes.

Can you honestly say that you have never had sex without insisting that the woman enthusiastically say yes before proceeding? If you have you are guilty of rape under these ridiculous criteria.

I've never had sex where consent wasn't explicitly given, no.

That is what your opinions sound like to me. You are taking the position that women are too weak to say "no" and need laws to protect them from themselves.

That is your interpretation which has no connection with the reality.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Black Dog

[TimG]

Which explicitly puts the onus on the woman to say no (and if for some reason she doesn't say no, even if she doesn't want to have sex, well, according to you that's a free space on someone's Rape Bingo card). Not saying no is not the same thing as saying yes.

So what? At a certain point people have to take responsibility for looking after themselves. If they are in a situation they don't like then saying "no" is easy to do.

That's Margaret Wente's interpretation. I don't put much stock in her read of things.

Typical. You are expressing an opinion without bothering to determine the facts:

http://morethanyes.ca/

This is what Wente and others are objecting too. So I will say it again:

This is about allowing women to actually say yes and then claim rape because the yes was not enthusiastic enough. If you do not have a problem with this then you are truly twisted.

I've never had sex where consent wasn't explicitly given, no.

That is not what I asked. I asked if you have had sex where you did not insist that the women enthusiastically say yes? Don't change the question to fit what you would rather answer. Edited March 3, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

So what? At a certain point people have to take responsibility for looking after themselves. If they are in a situation they don't like then saying "no" is easy to do.

Again, not how it always works in the real world.

Is asking for a clear yes really so difficult that it's worth raping someone over?

Typical. You are expressing an opinion without bothering to determine the facts:[/background][/size]

http://morethanyes.ca/

This is what Wente and others are objecting too. So I will say it again: This is about allowing women to actually say yes and then claim rape because the yes was not enthusiastic enough. If you do not have a problem with this then you are truly twisted.

Nothing in that link says anything about allowing someone to claim rape because the yes was not enthusiastic enough. That's simple hyperbole on your and Wente's part.

Gotta say, feels pretty weird to be called twisted by someone who thinks its okay to have sex with someone when they don't say no (regardless of whether they want to or not).

Because I did more research on this than just following one link, here's some background for context:

“Everyone is very familiar with no means no, and that’s a great message. But we need to make sure that conversations about consent are conversations – they can’t be reduced to two or three letter words,” said Allison Sparling, campaign coordinator for Students Nova Scotia, a campus coalition that created the campaign.

The ads were created in response to a report on sexual violence commissioned by Students Nova Scotia and prepared by Martell Consulting Services.

“The major thing the report found – that we all kind of knew ahead of time – was that people didn’t understand what consent was in an everyday way,” said Sparling. “Students hear about asking, but they don’t know what it means. If two people are sitting around a dorm room drinking a beer, can you kiss someone? Do you have to ask?”

That is not what I asked. I asked if you have had sex where you did not insist that the women enthusiastically say yes? Don't change the question to fit what you would rather answer.

I guess you don't understand what "explicitly given" means.

[TimG]

Is asking for a clear yes really so difficult that it's worth raping someone over?

Is asking someone to clearly say no if they do not want to continue too much ask?

Nothing in that link says anything about allowing someone to claim rape because the yes was not enthusiastic enough.

Look at the URL name! "MORETHANYES.CA". They are advocating that yes is not enough which implies its rape even if the woman says yes. There is no other rational interpretation. You are being deliberately obtuse because you don't want to admit you were wrong.

I guess you don't understand what "explicitly given" means.

Yes I do and "explicitly given" does not mean "enthusiastic". Why do you think that "explicitly given" means "enthusiastic"?

Can't you see that is it no longer enough to have consent "explicitly given". Under these new rules consent must be "enthusiastic".

Edited March 3, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Is asking someone to clearly say no if they do not want to continue too much ask?tic"?

It's fine to expect someone to say no. If they don't though, that's not a free pass (if you think it is, well, wow. Gross). The Criminal Code, btw, agrees with me on where the onus lies.

273.2. Meaning of “consent”

Where belief in consent not a defence

273.2 It is not a defence to a charge under section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge, where

(a) the accused’s belief arose from the accused’s

(i) self-induced intoxication, or

(ii) recklessness or wilful blindness; or

(b ) the accused did not take reasonable steps, in the circumstances known to the accused at the time, to ascertain that the complainant was consenting.

Look at the URL name! "MORETHANYES.CA". They are advocating that yes is not enough which implies its rape even if the woman says yes. There is no other rational interpretation. You are being deliberately obtuse because you don't want to admit you were wrong.

Point is, simply saying "yes" is not necessarily the be all and end all of consent. It's a more complicated discussion than that.

Yes I do and "explicitly given" does not mean "enthusiastic". Why do you think that "explicitly given" means "enthusiastic"?

Because IMO "enthusiastic" is a stupid word to use, that's where I part company from this campaign. Explicit means stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt; unambiguous. And that's what we're actually talking about here.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Black Dog

[Black Dog]

Something was bugging me more than usual about this Wente piece and I think I figured it out.

It starts here:

So here’s the $10 question. Can a woman consent to sex when she’s been drinking? Universities have decided that the answer is no. “We heard that students don’t understand that it is illegal to have sex with someone who is drunk because they can’t give consent,” says the Saint Mary’s task force report. Although that sentence is crafted to be gender-neutral, its warning is directed at men. It means that drunken sex is tantamount to rape.
...
But the truth is that a great deal of alcoholic sex basically involves “stuff I wouldn’t have done if I was sober.” Once upon a time, a young adult woman might regard such an encounter as an unfortunate learning experience and move on. Today, she’s told it’s a devastating trauma that’s not her fault.

She's pretty glib here about the role of alcohol in blurring the lines between consent and assault.

Now consider this as a counterpoint:

Here’s some common-sense advice for young women who want to avoid the perils of “rape culture” on campus and in high schools.

Don’t get drunk.

Don’t binge-drink to the point where you pass out – especially if you’re with a bunch of men who are drinking too. If you drink until you’re falling down, you’re risking more than a hangover. According to one study, more than 80 per cent of campus sexual assaults involve alcohol – often on both sides.
...
Alcohol disinhibits both men and women. It impairs their judgment, sometimes ruinously, and makes it harder for people to get out of situations they’d rather not be in (especially if they’re borderline unconscious). Drunken men in groups often behave worse than drunken men on their own, because they’re full of bravado and egg each other on. Alcohol is also commonly used by predators to facilitate sexual assault.

These facts were true when I was young, and they’re still true today. Young women (and young men) who don’t know or ignore them are likely to find out the hard way.
...
The simplest way to reduce sexual assault on campus is not to attack rape culture – it’s to attack booze culture. And the message we should be giving young women is: You don’t have to be a victim.

Sounds pretty reasonable? That's Wente again, just a few months ago, warning girls away from the demon rum as it increases their chances of being sexually assaulted.

Seems to be a bit of a contradiction here. If alcohol leads women into a minefield of sexual assault (says 2013 Wente), then perhaps there's more to a lot of drunk sex than regret (as Wente seems to believe in 2014)?

Conclusion: Wente is a fatuous assclown.

[TimG]

Because IMO "enthusiastic" is a stupid word to use, that's where I part company from this campaign.

Ok - so you now understand why people are annoyed by this campaign.

Now that we agree that the campaign has too far the question is how to meet this criteria which I do not necessarily disagree with:

Explicit means stated clearly and in detail, leaving no room for confusion or doubt; unambiguous.

I would say the best thing is for a woman to say "no" explicitly. If she says yes then that is unambiguous consent. Silence will depend on body language. If the body language makes it clear that sex is not desired then it is rape. If the body language is contradictory then it is unreasonable to expect anyone to interpret it correctly - i.e. her partner could see it as explicit consent because he does not notice the mixed signals. She may feel she has been violated after the fact but it cannot be grounds for a rape charge. Edited March 3, 2014 by TimG

[Black Dog]

Ok - so you now understand why people are annoyed by this campaign.

Now that we agree that the campaign has too far the question is how to meet this criteria which I do not necessarily disagree with:

To be clear: I don't think the campaign is gone too far. So no: we don't agree.

I would say the best thing is for a woman to say "no" explicitly.

In a perfect world, sure.

If she says yes then that is unambiguous consent.

Not necessarily, no.

Silence will depend on body language. If the body language makes it clear that sex is not desired then it is rape. If the body language is contradictory then it is unreasonable to expect anyone to interpret it correctly - i.e. her partner could see it as explicit consent because he does not notice the mixed signals.

In which case, he or she should probably ask, hey? But no, you seem to be willing to let folks run the risk of raping someone to save them apparently gigantic inconvenience of actually asking potential partners if they really want to have sex.

She may feel she has been violated after the fact but it cannot be grounds for a rape charge.

Might want to check that Criminal Code section I excerpted above again.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Black Dog

[guyser]

And frankly, from my memories, most young guys really aren't all that good,

Hmm....not sure.....

[TimG]

In which case, he or she should probably ask, hey? But no, you seem to be willing to let folks run the risk of raping someone to save them apparently gigantic inconvenience of actually asking potential partners if they really want to have sex.

The point that you keep missing is the guy may not notice that the body language is ambiguous. Why are you expecting guys to be these incredible observant super beings that can detect and correctly interpret every signal? If the guy honestly misses the ambiguous signals how can they 'think to ask'? You are laying out criteria which, in practice, are impossible to meet.

On top of that you are are now claiming that a yes is not necessarily a yes which is the completely absurd proposition which you just disavowed. But if you accept the premise that a yes is not necessarily a yes a guy is left no option other than asking for a notarized contract from the woman before proceeding because a guy can never be sure he did not miss something. i.e. he may think consent is given but if saying yes and positive body language is not enough evidence then a written contract is the only option to avoid a rape charge (except celibacy of course).

Edited March 3, 2014 by TimG

[guyser]

if someone slips drugs in their drink that is a rape for that reason.

Same as driving drunk one is charged with murder....right?

Just curious you being a Jon Lovitz type lawyer and all.

[Argus]

It refers to picking up the drunkest woman to increase your chances of getting laid.

It's predatory and risky to intentionally choose women too drunk to consent. I should think that's obvious.

And irrelevant to the discussion at hand. No one has suggested that a drunk woman is fair game -- although I have to express my disagreement with the apparent willingness of so many to say she bares no blame for getting herself drunk in the first place. In my view, that infantalizes women by saying that men who get drunk are responsible for what happens after but women who get drunk have no responsibility. WTH?

And in any event, I was most taken with the absurdity of the claim that absent 'enthusiastic and continuous' consent - which evidently has to be verbal -- , an act of sex is rape by default.

And by the way, there seems to be no need for any sort of consent, much less repeated and continuous ,on the part of the male. That's because it's obvious men always want sex, just as it's obvious women don't really want sex at all.

Enthusiastic consent? What exactly does that even mean? Yes doesn't mean yes unless it's screamed out loud? Nor does it mean yes if she jumps on the guy and starts making out with him? It's ridiculous and totally unrealistic.

[Argus]

In which case, he or she should probably ask, hey? But no, you seem to be willing to let folks run the risk of raping someone to save them apparently gigantic inconvenience of actually asking potential partners if they really want to have sex.

This also, of course, infantalizes all women by taking the tone feminists do - which is that women are by nature terrified of any man they're with, including boyfriends, husbands and dates, and won't have the courage to say no or to push him away. Women just can't be that assertive. It's... unnatural!

Of course, that's understandable since if they dared to refuse they'd most likely be severely beaten, right?

I mean, this is the background tone of the whole demand for "enthusiastic and continuous consent"

[Black Dog]

The point that you keep missing is the guy may not notice that the body language is ambiguous. Why are you expecting guys to be these incredible observant super beings that can detect and correctly interpret every signal? If the guy honestly misses the ambiguous signals how can they 'think to ask'? You are laying out criteria which, in practice, are impossible to meet.

My point is they shouldn't be relying on potentially ambiguous body language for their cues. They should ask. Always.

On top of that you are are now claiming that a yes is not necessarily a yes which is the completely absurd proposition which you just disavowed.

I have no idea what this means. But if you think all "yeses" are equal, you don't know much about the world.

But if you accept the premise that a yes is not necessarily a yes a guy is left no option other than asking for a notarized contract from the woman before proceeding because a guy can never be sure he did not miss something. i.e. he may think consent is given but if saying yes and positive body language is not enough evidence then a written contract is the only option to avoid a rape charge (except celibacy of course).

Yup. Notarized form or rape. Those are the only options.

At this point I'm completely fascinated by your inability to acknowledge or understand that simply asking one's potential partner (asking, not wheedling or begging or pressuring) if they're good to proceed and checking in with them is a simple and easy way to ensure everyone is on the same page. It's as if you think talking to your partner prior to sexual contact is some onerous task that's completely unreasonable to ask men to even consider. Add in the default setting for you of "if you don't know if she wants to have sex and she hasn't told you no, fuck her anyway, just to be on the safe side." and I'm starting to wonder.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Black Dog

[WestCoastRunner]

And by the way, there seems to be no need for any sort of consent, much less repeated and continuous ,on the part of the male. That's because it's obvious men always want sex, just as it's obvious women don't really want sex at all.

This is just too funny to comment on!

[WestCoastRunner]

This also, of course, infantalizes all women by taking the tone feminists do - which is that women are by nature terrified of any man they're with, including boyfriends, husbands and dates, and won't have the courage to say no or to push him away. Women just can't be that assertive. It's... unnatural!

Are you absolutely sure this is the tone feminists take? Where are the stats to prove that?

[Black Dog]

This also, of course, infantalizes all women by taking the tone feminists do - which is that women are by nature terrified of any man they're with, including boyfriends, husbands and dates, and won't have the courage to say no or to push him away. Women just can't be that assertive. It's... unnatural!

Of course, that's understandable since if they dared to refuse they'd most likely be severely beaten, right?

I mean, this is the background tone of the whole demand for "enthusiastic and continuous consent"

Yeah asking men and women to take equal responsibility for communicating their sexual desires/needs is infantilizing to women. Did you and Wente drop the same bad acid back in the '60s or something?

I'll explain it simply so when you recover from your flashback you can have it all laid out in front of you:

• Women should say no if they don't want sex with someone.
• But on planet earth, sometimes people (men and women) might not be comfortable doing so for a variety of reasons! And that's ok!
• A person who wants to have sex with another person should ask them if they want to have sex. Maybe more than once! It's not that difficult!
• If they don't say yes and aren't perfectly clear on that point, don't have sex with them!
• If they say no, don't have sex with them!
• If they don't say anything because they are passed out, don't have sex with them!

I know these concepts are crazy and complicated. Given time, I trust you can work through them.

Edited March 3, 2014 by Black Dog