Consent

I know there is this movement to get people to always verbally ask for permission before progressing physical intimacy, but just as many people feel that this isn't what they personally want as a norm. I'm not talking about the aggressor either, some people enjoy someone taking the lead in that way and are prepared to withdraw consent of they don't wish to continue.

I caught myself watching ' millionaire matchmaker' recently and a guy they set up did he asked before he kissed the woman he went out with and from what I understand, they did kiss. The matchmakers felt this was a mistake and the date wasn't as successful as a result.

Not that I think that's an authority on consent culture or anything but it's just proof that people don't want that explicit verbal consent thing as a norm.
 
Any time you start a sexual relationship with a new person, it's a good idea to first have some conversations about the gamut of expectations and desires. Condoms or bareback? Tests up to date? How do you like to be approached? Giver or receiver?

I would say that as far as consent is concerned, if that's something someone is concerned about, they can bring it up during the preliminaries. "Do you want me to ask explicit permission every time we fuck, or is it ok to assume that if you're undoing my belt, you probably want me to fuck your brains out?" or "I'm not always in the mood but sometimes I'm afraid to say so. I would appreciate it if you would ask me for permission every time we have sex." If you can't be mature enough to have those conversations with someone, you shouldn't be putting yourself in a situation where sex is a reasonable expectation, like making out with half your clothes off.

Frankly, the "nothing means no" default is ridiculous. Women need to learn that if they don't want to have sex, they have the power to get up and walk away, or use their words to express their wishes. If someone is doing things you don't like, then stop them. You're not a powerless rag doll. Sure, saying "no" doesn't have to be the word "no," it can be "I'd rather not" or "let's wait" or "your breathe reeks." But c'mon, sticking your tongue down someone's throat and humping them through their jeans sends a pretty clear message, and if that's not the message you're intending to send, then you'd better send an even clearer message by explicitly expressing your denial.

Obviously I'm referring to date-rape scenarios where there was a reasonable misunderstanding on the part of the initiator. If you try to stop someone and they physically force you, that's a whole other can of worms.
 
Last edited:
I totally agree with you, SC, every word. However, people with our stance are often labeled as rape apologists and said to be ignorant to the fact that women are conditioned to give up the goods (which can look like enthusiastic consent) and therefore, their actions are not to be relied on as an indicator of consent.
 
I think it's a complex issue. I mostly agree with SC, but I think there are also cases where one person is very aggressive and enthusiastic and the other is shocked and so doesn't say no right away, and then has this feeling that it's "too late" to say no.

I think people need to be told that it's never too late to say no, and from both sides. That is, "say no whenever you're uncomfortable" but also "stop whenever someone says no or otherwise is showing that they don't want it to keep going"(like pushing you away or facial expressions).

I don't think it's fair to call someone a rapist if, from their point of view, their partner was enthusiastically partaking. But just laying there doesn't imply consent either. Because someone didn't have the confidence to assert themselves doesn't mean it's "their fault" if the other party just went along and never bothered to look at the signs that it wasn't consensual.

I think permission before every kiss and time having sex isn't really something I require. But if someone kissed me out of the blue I would definitely be pissed off. And depending on the circumstances, I can imagine someone starting to undress me causing me to freeze and panic. Saying "no" means trusting that the person will stop if you do, rather than beating you up, and it might be hard to trust such a thing from someone who just started fondling/undressing you out of the blue.

So I think there is a range. I definitely agree that a discussion beforehand, like SC suggests, is a good thing. However, saying that if you're not able to have that discussion, you're not mature enough to have sex does nothing to help with the fact that some people don't have the discussion yet still have sex. Nothing is stopping them from that.

Maybe people should be taught about that first discussion early on so that they're more likely to have it. I have to say that if having such a talk "breaks the magic" or whatever, chances are having sex with that person was a bad idea in the first place, so no harm done. Sure, some dates might go better if people act without talking, but that's only because they don't get a chance to realise they're not compatible. You don't want a date to go well only because you don't know better. The later you realise you were not compatible, the more time you've both wasted.
 
You know, I think another major factor is that sex is such a "big deal" in our culture.

I mean really, sex is not so different from dry humping or a boring conversation. Not really. It's just an interaction between humans. But in our culture, it's been turned into such a big thing. Just the phrasing of "give up the goods" strongly suggests that it's a commodity to be exchanged.

But honestly, I've had sex before when I wasn't really that into it, but I didn't "not want it" enough to say no, and for me it just wasn't a big deal. I've also endured painfully boring conversations that were far, far more cumbersome and unenjoyable. But because sex is SEX and boring conversation is just "something you have to do sometimes," people would be more likely to say I was raped for the sex stuff and just being polite for the conversation.

There are cultures where sex is so normalized and common that people do it without all this overanalysis and deep philosophical discussion. Even if they aren't that into it and they just do it to be polite, nobody blinks an eye, the girl doesn't go off feeling used and abused, and it's just not a big deal. So really, date rape is only "possible" because our culture has made sex into such a big deal.

If a woman has sex with her boyfriend to shut him up, it's "date rape." If a woman watches a baseball game to shut her boyfriend up, she's just being a good girlfriend. Personally, I'd rather endure 10 minutes of bad sex than 3 hours of bad sports.
 
Not to be perv but ... good point? :eek:
 
I think the word rape is a lot like the word cheating.
I see rape as taking advantage of and forcing me into any form of intimacy that I have said I am not interested in. Not necessarily sex.
Much like cheating is breaking an agreement or ducking out of a responsibility. Not necessarily about sex.
 
Seems reasonable ...
 
As long as we understand that many things that could count as rape under that definition are not illegal.

I've heard the argument that people who have lied to someone and consent for sex was based on this false information should be liable for rape charges. That means if someone who is married went out and hooked up with a person by lying about their marital status, they'd be a rapist. It also could mean the poly people who would hook up with someone without explicitely confirming their marital status could be a rapist if the person strongly felt their omission was pivotal in the giving of consent.

I do not support the idea of people being able withdraw consent in this way. I'm not saying the married person isn't a jerk, but that isn't rape.
This idea of rape being anything that forces or manipulating someone into a level of intimacy they are uncomfortable with isn't that far removed from supporting the withdrawal of consent for sex after the fact. That's why I think it's extremely important that anyone using the word "rape" in any context that isn't explicitely the illegal act of having sex with someone against their will should be concise about this distinction both in their minds and in their actions. Ie don't make a police report or join a rape survivors group because someone was a bit over familiar.
 
Makes sense.

Frankly, I don't support the idea of being able to withdraw consent after the fact, at all. He didn't call you back like he said he was going to? Well that's sad, but it's not rape. You were totally into it, but then he came and got up before you had yours? Shitty deal. Not rape.

In other words, you should know when you're being raped, while it's happening. It's not that hard to figure out "hey, something's happening to me right now, and I don't like it. I want this to stop." If you let it go and then you feel bad afterwards because you wish you would have stopped it, that's on you.

It's a problem of education, teaching women (and men for that matter) that they own their bodies and they control what happens to them, at every moment. You never "have to" give up the goods, no matter how many Margaritas he's bought you, no matter how far you've let it go before you change your mind. Teach women to have self-esteem and the date rape problem pretty much takes care of itself.

I think there are also cases where one person is very aggressive and enthusiastic and the other is shocked and so doesn't say no right away, and then has this feeling that it's "too late" to say no

I was thinking about it this morning. Seems to me that even if the aggressor did take a second to ask "do you mind if I continue?" that someone who's so shocked and already feels it's too late to say no, is likely going to say "go ahead." If anything, the simple act of asking might make the person appear less aggressive and therefore even more likely to get explicit consent. So where does that leave us?
 
I think in the cases where it isn't legally considered rape, the words "violated" and "violation" work best. While they can be a synonym of rape, they're also broader.

I personally think that while there isn't a crime if there is no victim, there can be a victim without a criminal. It's definitely the case in, say, accidents. A hurricane destroys your house? You're a victim, there is no culprit. No human culprit, at least.

In that way, I think someone can be violated without a person being a conscious violator. Some cases of learning things after the fact can count. For instance, it would be traumatic to learn that someone who had sex with is actually a close biological relative. Or that they are a murderer. Or a variety of other things, including them being married.
I believe feeling violated is a very reasonable reaction to that kind of thing. However it's possible the other party did not want or plan it in any way. Even if they do, the violation isn't rape. It's the lying that surrounded the consensual sex.

So I also believe it's possible to be raped without the person who had sex with you being a rapist. To me, being a rapist implies consent and malevolence. In some cases, the person did not realise or know. I don't believe it's fair to claim the victim was not raped. However I don't believe it's fair to condemn the other person and call them a rapist, either. The most obvious case would be two people who both get drunk or high and have sex, both of them waking up to feel a range of negative emotions, including feeling raped. However they're not two rapists, they're just both victims there.

The problem then becomes the fact that when people feel bad, they like having someone to blame for it, they think it will help them move on. Sometimes though nobody did anything wrong and people still feel bad. It happens.

Frankly, I don't support the idea of being able to withdraw consent after the fact, at all.

I agree. It seems very important to me that consent may be withdrawn at any time during the act, but not after the fact. And if consent is withdrawn during the act, there is only rape if the other person keeps doing. The sex until then was consensual.


I was thinking about it this morning. Seems to me that even if the aggressor did take a second to ask "do you mind if I continue?" that someone who's so shocked and already feels it's too late to say no, is likely going to say "go ahead." If anything, the simple act of asking might make the person appear less aggressive and therefore even more likely to get explicit consent. So where does that leave us?

I'm definitely in support of teaching people (especially women, who seem to need it more on average) that they can say no, that it's a valid choice and that they do have a choice. I believe it's not the whole picture though. In the case you're talking about, there is little to do as it's already happened. The person asking mid-way is at least asking.
Personally, I think that conning someone out of sex is similar to other conning. If you call people and get them to give you their credit card numbers and you steal their identity, they're being foolish to fall into your traps, and there is a certain amount of responsibility on your part. That doesn't mean they were right to begin with. Just that they were taking advantage of you because you're vulnerable to that kind of scam.

And unfortunately, I think there are people who work the same way. They pick vulnerable partners they feel won't stand up for themselves and say no, so that they have sex with them and can feel like they're not rapists, in the same way the person who got your credit card number isn't a thief who stole your card.

I think there should be a huge focus on owning your body in sex education. How you can always say no, at any time, but also how you should respect someone's "no". Because I think a big reason why some people don't dare say no is that they don't feel it will help, and it could put them in a more dangerous situation if it upsets the other person and they get violent.

So yeah, pretty much work on both sides there. I know I can say no, but I also know not to start having sex with someone I find attractive out of the blue. There is also definitely an amount of body language that should be telling. If you're having sex with someone who looks horrified and isn't moving, and it's not part of your roleplay, they might not be asking you to stop, but seriously, if you don't realise something might be wrong there is a problem with you.
But if you're going "oh, yes" and enthusiastically participating in the sex act, and you actually really, really don't want to do it, there is a problem with you, too. And even if you decided to call it rape because of how shitty it makes you feel, the only person who raped you in that case is yourself.
 
I think that credit card fraud example is a demonstration of how victims of other crimes could argue that they are affected by so called victim blaming.

I don't know about everywhere else, but there are plenty of campaigns and plenty of advice given in this country about how to avoid being a victim of credit card fraud yet I don't know if any movement which claims this is victim blaming and protests in order to get the focus shifted onto the perpetrators.

Advice given to people, particularly women, on how to avoid being a victim of rape, however, is viewed as victim blaming. It's weird.
 
Is there a clean, clear line that can be drawn between "rape" and "not rape," or is there a gray area?
 
Is there a clean, clear line that can be drawn between "rape" and "not rape," or is there a gray area?

I think it's not clear cut. Many crimes, an outside observer would be able to tell. With rape, an outside observer isn't that useful. Could be consensual BDSM play, and look like rape. Could be rape, and look consensual because you didn't see the part where one person threatened the other. I think we wouldn't be having these kinds of discussions is there wasn't a gray area.
 
I think in the cases where it isn't legally considered rape, the words "violated" and "violation" work best.

I personally think that while there isn't a crime if there is no victim, there can be a victim without a criminal.

In that way, I think someone can be violated without a person being a conscious violator.

I think that makes a lot of sense. I like it.

I don't know about everywhere else, but there are plenty of campaigns and plenty of advice given in this country about how to avoid being a victim of credit card fraud yet I don't know if any movement which claims this is victim blaming and protests in order to get the focus shifted onto the perpetrators.

To me, the important factor is when the "advice" happens. "Stay with friends and avoid the sketchy part of town" is education. "Well of course you got raped. You were outside after dark in a short skirt. What did you expect?" is victim blaming.

In other words, making it sound like the rapist had "every excuse" to rape someone is victim blaming. There's a huge difference between telling people how to minimize their chances of getting raped, and telling people that they basically deserved to get raped because they didn't minimize their chances.

Also, the blame in credit card fraud is already focused on the perps. Cops don't generally respond to little old ladies by telling them it's their fault they got their identity stolen. And despite that, usually it's the victim who has to pick up the pieces, unless they have kick ass ID theft insurance. Frankly, I would be in favour of a justice system that allows rape victims to find their own justice. Anyone got a sharp dull, rusty knife handy?
 
Last edited:
In proportion to how little mercy a perpetrator shows his victim, that's how little mercy the perpetrator deserves to receive. Yet to put that principle into righteous practice, we need a justice system that deals out 100% accurate verdicts.
 
Back
Top