Feminists are “Angry, Militant, Man-Hating Lesbians”

[laughing dog]

From the years in this forum, I think such an opinion could be formed from someone listening to the wind blow.

In any event, what does that have to do with fringe feminists drowning out reasonable feminists?

I don't know what it is you are challenging, ld.

Are you challenging the notion that fringe feminists with unreasonable views exist? Or are you challenging the notion that their views drown out more reasonable views?

Obviously the latter.

 

[Arctish]

My understanding of the issue is that affirmative consent was codified so that even stupid people would understand that "s/he didn't say no" isn't good enough.

 

[bigfield]

The standard of affirmative consent, as it was codified by California and as it is advocated by various articles I just-this-moment read on Feministing, is pretty damned reasonable.

Are 'consent' and 'affirmative consent' identical? If they are, the entire theatre around 'affirmative consent' is a ridiculous, pointless, stupendous waste of time.

If 'consent' and 'affirmative consent' are different, that means that when two people have sex, there might be consent but not affirmative consent. What does this mean? Is it rape if there's no affirmative consent? Isn't consent the only thing that is sufficient and necessary for sexual relations? If not, why not?

Affirmative consent precludes cases where someone consents to sex, but is in a state that the person having sex with them cannot reliably tell that they consent. The oft-used example is an intoxicated person who does not show much responsiveness.

Put another way: if the person having sex with you is unable to discern whether or not you consent to sex then they should assume that you don't consent. It's affirmative consent in the sense that a simple failure to resist or decline sex should not qualify as sex.

Of course, most people don't need to be told to do that because they already use the affirmative consent standard, but a minority of people apparently do. If it weren't for that minority, advocating for affirmative consent would indeed be a waste of time.

 

[Metaphor]

Are 'consent' and 'affirmative consent' identical? If they are, the entire theatre around 'affirmative consent' is a ridiculous, pointless, stupendous waste of time.

If 'consent' and 'affirmative consent' are different, that means that when two people have sex, there might be consent but not affirmative consent. What does this mean? Is it rape if there's no affirmative consent? Isn't consent the only thing that is sufficient and necessary for sexual relations? If not, why not?

Affirmative consent precludes cases where someone consents to sex, but is in a state that the person having sex with them cannot reliably tell that they consent. The oft-used example is an intoxicated person who does not show much responsiveness.

Put another way: if the person having sex with you is unable to discern whether or not you consent to sex then they should assume that you don't consent. It's affirmative consent in the sense that a simple failure to resist or decline sex should not qualify as sex.

Of course, most people don't need to be told to do that because they already use the affirmative consent standard, but a minority of people apparently do. If it weren't for that minority, advocating for affirmative consent would indeed be a waste of time.

So 'affirmative consent' is the same thing as 'consent'. If you have consent you have affirmative consent.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't know what it is you are challenging, ld.

Are you challenging the notion that fringe feminists with unreasonable views exist? Or are you challenging the notion that their views drown out more reasonable views?

Obviously the latter.

I have already given you an example.

 

[Derec]

My understanding of the issue is that affirmative consent was codified so that even stupid people would understand that "s/he didn't say no" isn't good enough.

Perhaps that was the initial intent, but it reality such rules, especially when they require affirmative consent be given "every step of the way", declare much perfectly consensual sex as non-consensual by fiat.
It is also a problem that these rules are applied unevenly with men expected to solicit consent "every step of the way" but women aren't, or declare a male guilty and female a victim even if both parties were equally drunk.

 

[Derec]

Affirmative consent precludes cases where someone consents to sex, but is in a state that the person having sex with them cannot reliably tell that they consent. The oft-used example is an intoxicated person who does not show much responsiveness.

No, that is not it. If a person "does not show much responsiveness" that would be seen as non-consensual even before these new feminist rules.

Take a case that happened here at UGA a few years ago. A male student was expelled because the female was deemed unable to consent due to drunkenness even though she was able to post text messages to him both before and after the encounter and was able to ambulate unaided.
Or take the cases to Occidental or Amherst where a mutually drunken hookup resulted in the male getting expelled. In the Amherst case the male was significantly drunker than the female and yet he was still deemed the guilty one solely because of his gender.

 

[fromderinside]

Take a case that happened here at UGA a few years ago. A male student was expelled because the female was deemed unable to consent due to drunkenness even though she was able to post text messages to him both before and after the encounter and was able to ambulate unaided.
Or take the cases to Occidental or Amherst where a mutually drunken hookup resulted in the male getting expelled. In the Amherst case the male was significantly drunker than the female and yet he was still deemed the guilty one solely because of his gender.

False rationale. Its the responsibility of the one who can do damage (cause pregnancy) to another to avoid doing that unless one is most certain the recipient is OK with becoming pregnant. Consenting to sex in the moment is the trap set by nature. Rational people, aren't we all, avoid such traps.

 

[Derec]

False rationale. Its the responsibility of the one who can do damage (cause pregnancy) to another to avoid doing that unless one is most certain the recipient is OK with becoming pregnant. Consenting to sex in the moment is the trap set by nature. Rational people, aren't we all, avoid such traps.

That is sexist bullshit, but par for the course for the kind of man-hating feminists this thread is about.

 

[prideandfall]

False rationale. Its the responsibility of the one who can do damage (cause pregnancy) to another to avoid doing that unless one is most certain the recipient is OK with becoming pregnant. Consenting to sex in the moment is the trap set by nature. Rational people, aren't we all, avoid such traps.

That is sexist bullshit, but par for the course for the kind of man-hating feminists this thread is about.

that women are the ones who get pregnant and not men is sexist bullshit?

 

[Derec]

that women are the ones who get pregnant and not men is sexist bullshit?

It is sexist bullshit to say, like fromderinside did, that this biological difference justifies unequal treatment of men and women when it comes to sex and consent.

 

[prideandfall]

that women are the ones who get pregnant and not men is sexist bullshit?

It is sexist bullshit to say, like fromderinside did, that this biological difference justifies unequal treatment of men and women when it comes to sex and consent.

how so?
that women shoulder a significant (to such an extent that is quite nearly "all") of the risk for detrimental consequences from sex is an indisputable fact, so i don't see how suggesting that a higher standard of affirmation that ensures agreement to engage in such an unevenly risky act is entirely unreasonable... at least insofar as it could be said that it certainly takes it outside of being "sexist bullshit", which implies a level of irrational gender-based discrimination.

so i guess the question is: are you trying to deny that women have an enormously higher risk level associated with sex? or are you trying to say that their enormously higher risk level is irrelevant drivel that can't justify suggesting a higher standard when it comes to female affirmation towards sex?

 

[prideandfall]

So 'affirmative consent' is the same thing as 'consent'. If you have consent you have affirmative consent.

no, it isn't - at least not in the US, where most of the stories that you obsess over are coming from.

let me break it down for you very simply:
in a lot of geographic areas in the US, "consent" is considered to be "did not actively say no" - in other words, consent is assumed unless explicitly denied (and even then for a lot of men that's iffy).
so, the idea here is to confront and combat the culture that assumes a lack of denial is positive consent, hence the need to introduce the concept of affirmative consent... which is not just some arbitrary measure that a cabal of feminists pulled out of their asses in order to assault men, but rather a very specific formulation attempting to combat a very specific cultural issue that can't be resolved by just going "hey, stop doing that."

I have already given you an example.

yes, but it's a completely invalid one, so that hardly counts.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Here's the question he asked you: "What reasonable positions in feminism have been drowned out by fringe 3rd-wage feminists?"

Perhaps you could be specific so a reader can objectively test your claim.

I have done so above.

Where?

 

[Underseer]

I have done so above.

Where?

The typical tactic is to point to some extreme view within feminism, then paint all of feminism with a broad brush. While rational people do not accept this as valid logic, rightists have been trained to accept this type of argument as valid.

 

[KeepTalking]

Where?

The typical tactic is to point to some extreme view within feminism, then paint all of feminism with a broad brush. While rational people do not accept this as valid logic, rightists have been trained to accept this type of argument as valid.

Considering Metaphor was asked to do exactly that (provide an example of and extreme view within feminism), this is hardly a fair critique.

 

[Metaphor]

no, it isn't - at least not in the US, where most of the stories that you obsess over are coming from.

let me break it down for you very simply:
in a lot of geographic areas in the US, "consent" is considered to be "did not actively say no" - in other words, consent is assumed unless explicitly denied (and even then for a lot of men that's iffy).

So, in California, before the 'affirmative consent' laws, the legislation about sexual assault said that 'did not actively say no' = 'consent'? I very much doubt that it did.

If the problem was that juries did not understand what 'consent' means, then juries should be instructed on what it means.

so, the idea here is to confront and combat the culture that assumes a lack of denial is positive consent, hence the need to introduce the concept of affirmative consent... which is not just some arbitrary measure that a cabal of feminists pulled out of their asses in order to assault men, but rather a very specific formulation attempting to combat a very specific cultural issue that can't be resolved by just going "hey, stop doing that."

To be honest, I find it a little strange for people to claim some rapists don't know when they're raping.

 

[Metaphor]

Where?

The typical tactic is to point to some extreme view within feminism, then paint all of feminism with a broad brush. While rational people do not accept this as valid logic, rightists have been trained to accept this type of argument as valid.

Since I specifically and very carefully talked about 'reasonable feminists' and 'fringe feminists' (or rather, reasonable feminist positions and fringe feminist positions), this seems like an astonishingly dishonest accusation.

 

[Metaphor]

I have done so above.

Where?

I said the affirmative consent standard is a bizarre fringe feminist viewpoint.

The only thing that matters is consent. If you mistakenly think that 'not saying no' means you have consent, then you need to be educated on that, but that does not mean that everyone's a fucking idiot who does not understand how to get consent.

Feminists used to be against the State policing people's consensual sexual lives. Apparently fringe feminists are not against it.

 

[prideandfall]

So, in California, before the 'affirmative consent' laws, the legislation about sexual assault said that 'did not actively say no' = 'consent'? I very much doubt that it did.

so, what part of the word "culture" did you not understand?
and laws tend to be a reflection of either prevailing cultural attitudes, or specific attempts to fight against a prevailing cultural attitude... so i still don't see how this point has any merit.

To be honest, I find it a little strange for people to claim some rapists don't know when they're raping.

i'd likely go past some and say most.
like most things in life, the movie and TV representation of a skeevy man lurking in the shadows of an alley waiting to jump a woman who wanders too close is complete bullshit, but that's how most people think of rape.

 

[prideandfall]

I said the affirmative consent standard is a bizarre fringe feminist viewpoint.

and you are demonstrably wrong in that assertion, so it's moot.

The only thing that matters is consent. If you mistakenly think that 'not saying no' means you have consent, then you need to be educated on that, but that does not mean that everyone's a fucking idiot who does not understand how to get consent.

if enough people are fucking idiots that assumed consent is a big enough problem, then pushing the idea of affirmative consent would be an attempt at... wait for it... educating them on that.

Feminists used to be against the State policing people's consensual sexual lives. Apparently fringe feminists are not against it.

see, this is why people here say you're an ideologically right-wing sexist, because you're either A. being intentionally obtuse and refusing to recognize the reality of what affirmative consent means and is trying to address, or B. you're too stupid to understand the difference - both of which are patently ideologically right conditions.