No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[RavenSky]

First of all, no one is "criminalizing ordinary behavior". Assuming that "no means yes" and that "she's just being coy" is not "ordinary behavior". All the policies under discussion do is to clarify what IS "ordinary behavior".

Well you must be criminalising someone's idea of ordinary behaviour, or else why would it need to be clarified? The example that was given was too people getting drunk and sleeping with each other, which is certainly quite common. And saying that there is never any need to covince someone to sleep with you suggests that the behaviour that is being criminalised is very normal indeed..

Having sex with 5-year olds and sheep is someone's idea of "ordinary behavior" too. Should we eliminate laws against that too?

What is being clarified is what constitutes actual consent. If you* are doing it wrong, it isn't and shouldn't be considered "ordinary" and yes, the policy is directed at you*. Moreover, there is nothing in the policy that says you can't "convince" someone to sleep with you, but if your version of "convincing" is actually "pressuring" or "coercing" then this policy is necessary for you.

* general "you" not "you"=Togo

 

[Bronzeage]

It's not a misogynistic rant, it's just replying to your misandrism.

Can a man file a complaint, or not?

In principle yes, but nobody would take it seriously if they were both drunk. On the other hand, if both are drunk, have sex, and the female regrets the consensual sex the following day (or year) the male, and only the male, gets expelled even though they both did the same thing.
If they both did the same thing, they should both face the same consequences, or none at all. What's misogynistic about that?

If a man can file a complaint and nobody take it seriously, then your claim that there is no gender neutrality is proven wrong. Women have been filing complaints which were not taken seriously for a very long time. Congratulations, Derec. Your desire to see gender equality has been achieved.

 

[thebeave]

I've often wondered about how this iconic photo from the end of WWII is viewed in today's context about sexual assault. If this happened today, would the guy be arrested? How can it be that mainstream magazines and newspapers continue to publish (and celebrate) a picture of a known "sexual assault"?

TRIGGER WARNING! Picture of Sexual Assault!

For those who don't know the history of this picture, the guy was drunk and had never met the woman before:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2187071/Times-Square-Sailor-nurse-kissing-iconic-WWII-photograph-reunited.html

In future rememberances of WWI, should we ban this photo?

Tell you what

The next sexual, pseudo sexual, or really friendly encounter that happens on VJ day...

No one will say a word about it.

So, are you implying that sexual assault is OK if its a major celebratory event? Is this in the criminal code somewhere? How about during a Superbowl celebration? If the SF 49'ers win the SB, can I get drunk and kiss girls and grab their ass and everyone will just wink, look the other way and, as you say, not say a word about it?

 

[laughing dog]

Tell you what

The next sexual, pseudo sexual, or really friendly encounter that happens on VJ day...

No one will say a word about it.

So, are you implying that sexual assault is OK if its a major celebratory event? Is this in the criminal code somewhere? How about during a Superbowl celebration? If the SF 49'ers win the SB, can I get drunk and kiss girls and grab their ass and everyone will just wink, look the other way and, as you say, not say a word about it?

The answer is that times and attitudes have changed since WWII, so your example is not applicable. However, I think that is so obvious that no one would have persisted with such an apparently inane example without some subtler point. Would you please spell that out for those of us who are not on the same wave length as you?

 

[Togo]

Well you must be criminalising someone's idea of ordinary behaviour, or else why would it need to be clarified? The example that was given was too people getting drunk and sleeping with each other, which is certainly quite common. And saying that there is never any need to covince someone to sleep with you suggests that the behaviour that is being criminalised is very normal indeed..

Having sex with 5-year olds and sheep is someone's idea of "ordinary behaviour" too. Should we eliminate laws against that too?

Please tell me you're not trying to equate drunk sex with bestiality, and that you actually intend to answer the example given?

What is being clarified is what constitutes actual consent.

No, what constitutes consent is what is being redefined, and having additional penalties attached to it. That's a problem when it starts covering previously acceptable behaviour, such as having sex while drunk, where the difficulties aren't so obvious.

Moreover, there is nothing in the policy that says you can't "convince" someone to sleep with you,

Ok, so why are you disagreeing me then? My post was disagreeing with someone who claimed that the policy banned exactly that.

 

[RavenSky]

Having sex with 5-year olds and sheep is someone's idea of "ordinary behaviour" too. Should we eliminate laws against that too?

Please tell me you're not trying to equate drunk sex with bestiality, and that you actually intend to answer the example given?

I really intend to equate NON-CONSENSUAL sex with pedophilia and bestiality (both also NON-CONSENSUAL). Just because there are people who consider NON-CONSENSUAL sex to be "ordinary" does not mean society in general should.

What is being clarified is what constitutes actual consent.

No, what constitutes consent is what is being redefined, and having additional penalties attached to it. That's a problem when it starts covering previously acceptable behaviour, such as having sex while drunk, where the difficulties aren't so obvious.

nothing is being redefined, and you have not demonstrated that it is.

Or are you suggesting that what was done to the high school student by the football players was "ordinary" and perfectly fine?

 

[Togo]

Please tell me you're not trying to equate drunk sex with bestiality, and that you actually intend to answer the example given?

I really intend to equate NON-CONSENSUAL sex with pedophilia and bestiality (both also NON-CONSENSUAL). Just because there are people who consider NON-CONSENSUAL sex to be "ordinary" does not mean society in general should.

That's great, but the example given was two drunk people having sex with each other. Drunk people can't meaningfully give consent, right? So is that two people raping each other, even if they both had a great time and decide to do it again the following night? Or is this issue a bit more complicated than you're trying to make out it is?

All of the policies quoted have been relatively lengthy texts. You're saying that it's a simple matter and no confusion is possible. Those two don't square with each other.

What is being clarified is what constitutes actual consent.

No, what constitutes consent is what is being redefined, and having additional penalties attached to it. That's a problem when it starts covering previously acceptable behaviour, such as having sex while drunk, where the difficulties aren't so obvious.

nothing is being redefined, and you have not demonstrated that it is.

So why do we need a policy at all? If it's all common sense, and nothing is being redefined, then all we need to do is enforce the current law and everything is fine.

Or are you suggesting that what was done to the high school student by the football players was "ordinary" and perfectly fine?

I doubt it. I don't know which of the many, many such incidents you're talking about though.

 

[Playball40]

So, are you implying that sexual assault is OK if its a major celebratory event? Is this in the criminal code somewhere? How about during a Superbowl celebration? If the SF 49'ers win the SB, can I get drunk and kiss girls and grab their ass and everyone will just wink, look the other way and, as you say, not say a word about it?

The answer is that times and attitudes have changed since WWII, so your example is not applicable. However, I think that is so obvious that no one would have persisted with such an apparently inane example without some subtler point. Would you please spell that out for those of us who are not on the same wave length as you?

I never looked too much at that picture because I always assumed the people knew each other. Looking at it now, however, her body language does NOT seem to approve much. Look at her hand. It's clenched and certainly not reaching out to the guy. Interesting.

 

[RavenSky]

I really intend to equate NON-CONSENSUAL sex with pedophilia and bestiality (both also NON-CONSENSUAL). Just because there are people who consider NON-CONSENSUAL sex to be "ordinary" does not mean society in general should.

That's great, but the example given was two drunk people having sex with each other. Drunk people can't meaningfully give consent, right? So is that two people raping each other, even if they both had a great time and decide to do it again the following night? Or is this issue a bit more complicated than you're trying to make out it is?

All of the policies quoted have been relatively lengthy texts. You're saying that it's a simple matter and no confusion is possible. Those two don't square with each other.

for someone who whines about people making these discussions all personal, you sure do that an awful lot

If you can find any post of mine ever saying it is a simple matter with no possibility of confusion, you go right ahead and post it WITH links back to the full source.

In the meantime, I will suggest that you re-read an earlier post of mine wherein I discussed at length what I see as the difference between "drunk" (& unable to consent) and having had a couple of drinks but still able to consent. If you draw the line somewhere else, then it is on you to say so and back it up like I did.

I will also suggest that you re-read my multiple posts wherein I've stated that while two very drunk people may not be able to consent under the policy, if neither of them reports the incident then there isn't going to be an investigation.

What is being clarified is what constitutes actual consent.

No, what constitutes consent is what is being redefined, and having additional penalties attached to it. That's a problem when it starts covering previously acceptable behaviour, such as having sex while drunk, where the difficulties aren't so obvious.

nothing is being redefined, and you have not demonstrated that it is.

So why do we need a policy at all? If it's all common sense, and nothing is being redefined, then all we need to do is enforce the current law and everything is fine.

Because some people keep insisting that "no means yes" and the belief that "she's just being coy" means they can ignore the "no" and that consent can't be withdrawn and that falling down drunk people in a black-out state can still consent.

Are you suggesting that we should eliminate all laws/policies that most people view as common sense?

Or are you suggesting that what was done to the high school student by the football players was "ordinary" and perfectly fine?

I doubt it. I don't know which of the many, many such incidents you're talking about though.

Steubenville: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steubenville_High_School_rape_case

There were far too many people, including a few on this board, who declared emphatically that this was not a sexual assault, and that the girl somehow consented. It is because of people like that we need such policies.

And if that causes some people to err on the side of caution, so what?

 

[RavenSky]

The answer is that times and attitudes have changed since WWII, so your example is not applicable. However, I think that is so obvious that no one would have persisted with such an apparently inane example without some subtler point. Would you please spell that out for those of us who are not on the same wave length as you?

I never looked too much at that picture because I always assumed the people knew each other. Looking at it now, however, her body language does NOT seem to approve much. Look at her hand. It's clenched and certainly not reaching out to the guy. Interesting.

I always assumed they were a couple, too. I certainly won't be looking at the photo in the same way anymore either.

Per the article, the woman does say she was grabbed without warning, and it doesn't sound like she liked it very much. Had that happened today, and had she filed a complaint, she might have had a case - especially given the photographic evidence.

Given the context though - the ending of the war - I doubt most people would have reported such a kiss as an assault. Given the context, it sounds like the woman in the photo realized why he did what he did and let it pass. An actual rapist, of course, would not have ended it with the kiss and then going back to his date.

At the same time, I think the photo is a perfect example of why by-stander comments aren't worth much. Look at how many people simply assumed (me included) that they were a couple and she had consented. Look how wrong we were.

 

[Rhea]

No, what constitutes consent is what is being redefined, and having additional penalties attached to it. That's a problem when it starts covering previously acceptable behaviour, such as having sex while drunk, where the difficulties aren't so obvious.

It used to be that being married meant permanent ongoing consent unabated by any temporary withdrawal of consent. In other words, it used to be not possible to rape your spouse because the law said you were entitled to their body any time.

What constitutes consent in a marriage has been redefined. "Redefined" to acknowledge that the consent of the wife actually matters. So really, it's not the consent that is redefined, it's the consequences for failing to have it.

This "redefinition" is similar. While it used to be considered just fine and dandy to have sex with people too drunk to object, we are now acknowledging that it was actually never really okay, and redefining the consequences of doing it. It used to be there was no consequence for having sex with someone who did not give consent if drunk was involved. Now there are consequences to doing that.

The consent is not what has been redefined, the consequences are.

If two people have drunken sex, EACH is at high risk for facing consequences if one of them complains. They've done something very very risky. They've driven drunk, in a way. They might sober up and find out they had a wreck. Or, they might sober up and find out they got home safely. Sure is risky if you are doing this with someone you don't know! Like getting drunk and choosing an unfamiliar street with lots of traffic.

The risk goes down if you know the person well, because you each know much more about each other and can better predict reactions. But the people who complain about these consequences really aren't the long term people, they're the first or second-timers, the early-in-the relationshippers. The ones who don't actually have a good handle on whether they have mutual consent. And they keep arguing that engaging in risky behavior should not be risky. They don't like the redefinition of consequences for when you take a risk and have a wreck.

 

[thebeave]

Well, like it or not, its now officially the law in California. Jerry Brown signed it yesterday. It will be interesting to watch and see how this plays out over the next few years:

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Affirmed-consent-bill-signed-by-Brown-5787198.php

 

[Derec]

If a man can file a complaint and nobody take it seriously, then your claim that there is no gender neutrality is proven wrong. Women have been filing complaints which were not taken seriously for a very long time. Congratulations, Derec. Your desire to see gender equality has been achieved.

On the contrary, women's complaints are taken seriously even when there is no evidence for their veracity. Vassar, UGA, UNC as far as colleges. Duke, Brian Banks etc. for criminal justice system are just some of many examples.

- - - Updated - - -

Well, like it or not, its now officially the law in California. Jerry Brown signed it yesterday.

I did not expect anything different from Governor Moonbeam.

 

[Sabine Grant]

Tell you what

The next sexual, pseudo sexual, or really friendly encounter that happens on VJ day...

No one will say a word about it.

So, are you implying that sexual assault is OK if its a major celebratory event? Is this in the criminal code somewhere? How about during a Superbowl celebration? If the SF 49'ers win the SB, can I get drunk and kiss girls and grab their ass and everyone will just wink, look the other way and, as you say, not say a word about it?

In my country, French museums with exhibits related to the Liberation of Paris often display photos of French babes who grabbed and kissed a GI, GIs part of the troops entering Paris in August 1944 led by the division Leclerc. I am not aware of visitors to those Museums (whether French or foreign origin) contemplating those pics with a frown indicating their interpreting such elan of celebration as a series of sexual assaults. I am also rather certain that most people would not attempt to equate the sentiments experienced when your nation is liberated from a foreign occupation to a football team winning the Super Bowl.

I am not so surprised though that you would attempt to draw such analogy between the sentiments experienced by Americans at the announcement of the end of WW2 and a football team winning the Super Bowl. I suppose you would expect me, as a French citizen, of a generation old enough to have received the testimonies of relatives and family members who survived 4 years of German occupation, to draw an analogy between what those folks experienced in August 1944 in the heart of Paris and France winning the soccer world cup! Well, there is no possible analogy to be drawn.

But, please go on trivializing with ridiculous analogies what millions of Americans experienced at the end of WW2. While I will not trivialize what the hundreds of thousands of Parisians experienced at the sight of the troops announcing the liberation of my country.

 

[RavenSky]

On the contrary, women's complaints are taken seriously even when there is no evidence for their veracity. Vassar, UGA, UNC as far as colleges. Duke, Brian Banks etc. for criminal justice system are just some of many examples.

Just curious, do you also keep a spreadsheet of the many many many many cases where female students' complaints of sexual assault are NOT taken seriously? A bunch of them testified in California as part of the state discussion about the bill. Do you have them on the other side of this ledger you are keeping?

 

[Derec]

I really intend to equate NON-CONSENSUAL sex with pedophilia and bestiality (both also NON-CONSENSUAL).

No you are redefining consensual sex as non-consensual because it doesn't conform to the increasing array of boxes to be checked off.
It's really erecting a "fence around consent", similar to the "fence around Torah" approach among orthodox Jews. I.e. Torah only prohibits seething a baby goat in its mother milk while halakhic tradition prohibits consumption of any meat and dairy together. Same with radical feminist approach to consent.

 

[Derec]

Just curious, do you also keep a spreadsheet of the many many many many cases where female students' complaints of sexual assault are NOT taken seriously? A bunch of them testified in California as part of the state discussion about the bill. Do you have them on the other side of this ledger you are keeping?

What is the evidence in those cases? Is there any indication that these complaints should have been taken seriously?
I know I have heard of the case of a chick in Columbia I think who is walking around campus dragging her mattress everywhere she goes (martyr complex, a combo of "take up your bed and walk" and Jesus dragging his cross to Golgotha perhaps) but of course, engaging in such stunts (for course credit no less) isn't evidence that she was really assaulted.

 

[Derec]

Moreover, there is nothing in the policy that says you can't "convince" someone to sleep with you, but if your version of "convincing" is actually "pressuring" or "coercing" then this policy is necessary for you.

Given how broad the feminist definition of "coerce" and "pressure" is, there isn't much meaningful room for seduction or convincing here. Ms. Magazine in their infamous study used threats of breakup to count any subsequent sex as "rape". Certainly breaking up because of unsatisfactory sex life is legitimate for both genders.
The radical feminist "thinker" Robin Morgan even says that any sex not initiated by a woman is "rape". I see these campus policies moving dangerously in that direction.

 

[RavenSky]

I really intend to equate NON-CONSENSUAL sex with pedophilia and bestiality (both also NON-CONSENSUAL).

No you are redefining consensual sex as non-consensual because it doesn't conform to the increasing array of boxes to be checked off.

Wrong Derec.

I am referring to NON-CONSENSUAL sex that doesn't conform to the victim having actually consented.

 

[Derec]

I am referring to NON-CONSENSUAL sex that doesn't conform to the victim having actually consented.

Bullshit.
Do you for example agree with Ms. Magazine (source of the oft cited by deeply flawed "one in four" number) that if a man says that he will break up with a woman if they don't have sex and she voluntarily has sex with him that this constitutes "rape"?
What about when both parties have been drinking? Why is the male a "rapist" and the female a "victim" when they both did exactly the same thing?