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

[Metaphor]

so, what part of the word "culture" did you not understand?

The law was changed in California colleges to 'affirmative consent'.

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.

And what I think is that when somebody has sex with an unconscious body they know they don't have consent and they know they're raping somebody.

 

[Trausti]

Female feminists are more masculine than women who do not identify with, or promote, the ideology. So "angry," "militant," and "man-hating lesbians" may be apt. In some cases.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4158978/

 

[Metaphor]

see, this is why people here say you're an ideologically right-wing sexist,

You'll be able to demonstrate sexist things I've said then. Please feel free.

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.

I've been through this hundreds of times. Either consent is affirmative consent, or it isn't.

If it's the same thing, then the whole thing is a preposterous waste of time. Anyone who gets consent has gotten affirmative consent.

If it isn't the same thing, then it means that you can have consent to sex but not affirmative consent. Does having consent but not affirmative consent make you a rapist?

 

[prideandfall]

The law was changed in California colleges to 'affirmative consent'.

wrong.
https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
SB967:
This bill would require the governing boards of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, to adopt policies concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant.

And what I think is that when somebody has sex with an unconscious body they know they don't have consent and they know they're raping somebody.

which you are entitled to think, but i guarantee you that you are objectively and demonstrably wrong.

 

[prideandfall]

You'll be able to demonstrate sexist things I've said then. Please feel free.

quite frankly i've no interest in wasting my time pulling out sections of damn near every post you've ever made on this forum just to wait to read you dissembling each instance.
basically, it's this - and i'm not going to waste my time with it.

[YOUTUBE]http://youtu.be/18y6vteoaQY?t=1m36s[/YOUTUBE]

I've been through this hundreds of times.

yes, and every one of those hundreds of times, what you said on the subject has been both stupid in a general way, and objectively wrong.

Either consent is affirmative consent, or it isn't.
If it's the same thing, then the whole thing is a preposterous waste of time. Anyone who gets consent has gotten affirmative consent.

by a predication of your own argument, your every rationale is negated by the fact that 'affirmative consent' only exists as a way to educate and combat people who don't have any understanding of what 'consent' means.
the idea of affirmative consent wasn't just dreamed up by a bunch of uptight college students who decided that too many people were having consensual sex and something needed to be done about.
the entire concept came about because THOUSANDS of women across the US have gotten black-out shit faced and somebody fucked them while they were unconscious, because there is a cultural attitude in the US that "lack of dissent equals consent", and this exists both in social culture and in law enforcement - not as codified law, but as an attitude of sexually active men and of law enforcement officials when it comes to whether they put any effort into investigating, or if judicial officials will prosecute.

you keep saying "oh well if somebody doesn't know what consent means then they just need to be taught the difference" ... this is people trying to teach them the difference.

Does having consent but not affirmative consent make you a rapist?

does having the capacity to understand the linguistic nuance in a situation but refusing to acknowledge in order to maintain a position of being obstinate make you a fucking idiot?

 

[Metaphor]

WRONG.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201320140SB967
SB967:
This bill would require the governing boards of each community college district, the Trustees of the California State University, the Regents of the University of California, and the governing boards of independent postsecondary institutions, in order to receive state funds for student financial assistance, to adopt policies concerning sexual assault, domestic violence, dating violence, and stalking that include certain elements, including an affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by a complainant.

Oh, I see. So if the law only applies in certain situations, it's not a law. Gotcha.

which you are entitled to think, but i guarantee you that you are objectively and demonstrably wrong.

I'm sorry to have projected my own high standards of understanding of consent when I thought it was obvious that having sex with an unconscious body means you don't have consent.

 

[Metaphor]

quite frankly i've no interest in wasting my time pulling out sections of damn near every post you've ever made on this forum just to wait to read you dissembling each instance.

Yeah, so your answer is 'no', you can't point to any instances.

does having the capacity to understand the linguistic nuance in a situation but refusing to acknowledge in order to maintain a position of being obstinate make you a fucking idiot?

If you can't answer my question at least have the courtesy to admit it.

Are there any situations where it is possible to have consent but not affirmative consent?

Educate me by answering that question.

 

[prideandfall]

Oh, I see. So if the law only applies in certain situations, it's not a law. Gotcha.

what in the fuck are you even talking about?
a law was introduced that made receiving extra state funding dependent on following certain guidelines for campus policy regarding sexual assault, the entire point of which is to create a legal standard by which "well, she didn't say no" is no longer a viable defense against an accusation of sexual assault (which, prior to this law, it totally was).

this is what you said ver batim:
"The law was changed in California colleges to 'affirmative consent'."
no, it wasn't - 'the law' wasn't changed in colleges at all, and the law doesn't require any college to do anything directly.

I'm sorry to have projected my own high standards of understanding of consent when I thought it was obvious that having sex with an unconscious body means you don't have consent.

as well you should be, because projecting your own high standards of *anything* fundamentally fails to accept the physical reality in which we live, which is that most people are fucking idiots.

 

[prideandfall]

Yeah, so your answer is 'no', you can't point to any instances.

i can, but i choose not to because it's a waste of my time.
guess what - i'm not the only person here who recognizes you're an ideologically right-wing sexist, and it's not like a handful of us got together and started a cabal to slander you.
you know what i'd never suggest? that athena is a male south african with a sumo wrestling fetish... you know why? because athena has never done a god damn thing to even remotely suggest any of these characteristics.
we're not just pulling this out of our collective ass and then throwing baseless accusations at you - you seriously need to consider getting some shred of self awareness.

Are there any situations where it is possible to have consent but not affirmative consent?

Educate me by answering that question.

for the record, i think you're asking that question in a bullshit attempt to trap me, and it's so glaringly obvious it's honestly kind of pathetic. but i'll humor the spirit of discussion by giving you the benefit of the doubt that you're not going to end up replying to this by desperately trying to dissemble whether or not your personal interpretation of a word has any contextual value in a different country in a vastly different circumstance and very specific situation:

'to have consent but not affirmative consent' - in a rational, studied, meaningful way: no, there are no situations where the distinction should be needed.

HOWEVER, we're talking about situations with idiots who have an ingrained understanding that "lack of no means yes", and where "lack" includes basically any condition which they themselves did not bodily inflict - so IN CONTEXT of the behavior that the linguistic distinction was created to address, YES there are absolutely situations where consent and affirmative consent are completely different concepts.

 

[rousseau]

There's growing atheist resentment toward feminists? Where's the evidence of this? That's an honest question.. it's something that's never made it onto my radar.

I'd always assumed atheists, as a group, generally resent other groups which form opinions and ideology that are not objective. For at least a subset of feminists, this is definitely true, but I'd guess any other (ignorant) resentment towards feminists has more to do with the y chromosome, than God.

 

[Metaphor]

i can, but i choose not to because it's a waste of my time.

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

we're not just pulling this out of our collective ass and then throwing baseless accusations at you - you seriously need to consider getting some shred of self awareness.

I certainly cannot be made to be self aware if, when I am accused of saying sexist things, no instances of sexist things are enumerated. How can I learn what sexist things I'm saying if it is not pointed out when it happens? Evidently I'm not self aware enough to understand when I'm being sexist.

I know, I know. It isn't your job to educate me. It's just your job to hurl accusations and then refuse to furnish evidence.

for the record, i think you're asking that question in a bullshit attempt to trap me, and it's so glaringly obvious it's honestly kind of pathetic.

Trap? No; I want to understand the issue and work through it logically. And to understand the issue, I need to start at the beginning.

'to have consent but not affirmative consent' - in a rational, studied, meaningful way: no, there are no situations where the distinction should be needed.

I'm sorry, that is not the question I asked. I'm asking if it is possible, under any circumstances whatsoever, is it possible for a person to have consent to sex, but not affirmative consent?

HOWEVER, we're talking about situations with idiots who have an ingrained understanding that "lack of no means yes", and where "lack" includes basically any condition which they themselves did not bodily inflict - so IN CONTEXT of the behavior that the linguistic distinction was created to address, YES there are absolutely situations where consent and affirmative consent are completely different concepts.

I'm sorry, I still do not understand, so I'll phrase it a bit differently.

Imagine I get lucky tonight and I get some. Imagine that it is consensual sex. Could I have consensual sex in such a way that the consent is not 'affirmative consent', but is still consent? This is a yes or no question. I need you to answer this for me unambiguously before I can move the stasis of the argument.

 

[Trausti]

There's growing atheist resentment toward feminists? Where's the evidence of this? That's an honest question.. it's something that's never made it onto my radar.

I think it's part of a cultural realignment. Some on the Left have become so extreme that traditional liberals and atheists, those who believe in equality, have started calling them out.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljFlb-c[/YOUTUBE]

 

[rousseau]

There's growing atheist resentment toward feminists? Where's the evidence of this? That's an honest question.. it's something that's never made it onto my radar.

I think it's part of a cultural realignment. Some on the Left have become so extreme that traditional liberals and atheists, those who believe in equality, have started calling them out.

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M2KPeMcYsuc[/YOUTUBE]

[YOUTUBE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FWxAljFlb-c[/YOUTUBE]

Yea that sounds like what I was alluding to.

Any more I think moderate, rational points of view just don't occur that often in our species. The closest thing to it are people that just aren't ideological. In the cultural appropriation thread I alluded to a few years back when I spent quite a bit of time around liberal arts majors. They were some of the most educated people I knew, and even their thinking was full of logical fallacies.

That seems to be the nature of politics: two groups, neither of which know what they're talking about, yelling at each other. The question for me has always been: standing on the outside and looking at it, where does that leave me?

 

[prideandfall]

What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

let's just agree that whether or not i believe you post like a right-wing sexist is as irrelevant as whether or not you are in fact a right-wing sexist, stop this whole conversational derail, and move on.

Trap? No; I want to understand the issue and work through it logically. And to understand the issue, I need to start at the beginning.

i'll play along for now.

I'm sorry, that is not the question I asked.

yes it is the question you asked, because the answer is entirely dependent on how you define "consent" contextually.

I'm asking if it is possible, under any circumstances whatsoever, is it possible for a person to have consent to sex, but not affirmative consent?

if, such as you yourself have indicated that you are, you are a person who views both the definition of the word and the shape of the concept it represents as requiring definitive affirmation to even exist, then the clear answer is no as that would be redundant.
but as has been repeatedly stated and which you seem to either be intentionally ducking or just too dense to grasp, the entire point of delineating 'affirmative consent' as a separate entity is to combat the cultural zeitgeist which maintains that lack of dissent equals consent.

Imagine I get lucky tonight and I get some. Imagine that it is consensual sex. Could I have consensual sex in such a way that the consent is not 'affirmative consent', but is still consent?

again it depends entirely on how you're defining consent, and other particulars of the specific situation.

what is 'consent' to you, Metaphor? what would you consider 'consent' to be in the situation you presented?
for you, 'consent' might mean the woman verbally stating she's interested in having sex with you... maybe that's your personal of consent? i don't know, so i couldn't definitively answer the question.

however what i do know is that in the US there is a prevalent cultural mentality that believes "unless she says no, she's saying yes" is the default moral guideline with regards to sex, and that includes conditions in which a woman is not physically capable of saying no OR yes.
this attitude isn't just in young boys or college kids... it's ingrained in teachers, in parents, in cops, in elected officials, in senators and congressmen, in men and in women - and this attitude makes it nearly impossible for a woman who goes through a sexual assault to get any sort of redress or even contribute to the perpetrator being taught a moral lesson about the wrongness of their actions, because nobody will believe them or listen to them or support them due to the underlying belief that unless she specifically said no, she consented.

i also know that needing to advance the idea of "affirmative consent" is directly in response to the above and not just pulled out of a shoe and used to be vindictive, despite what the teeming mass of indolent men who ply sex out of women with alcohol want to admit to because of how it might infringe on their modus operandi.

This is a yes or no question. I need you to answer this for me unambiguously before I can move the stasis of the argument.

but it isn't a yes or no, at least not explicitly - because it could be yes or no depending on various conditions not present in your given example.

 

[Arctish]

Female feminists are more masculine than women who do not identify with, or promote, the ideology. So "angry," "militant," and "man-hating lesbians" may be apt. In some cases.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4158978/

View attachment 6047

That quote comes from Dworkin's book Mercy: A Novel. It is spoken by a fictitious character. So while it's undeniable that both the book's main character and Dworkin herself were angry abuse survivors who over time became angry militant feminists, it's dishonest to use that quote in that way.

If you want to know how Dworkin really felt about rape, try reading this: Letters from a War Zone .

Shout out to the guys: Dworkin was one of the first prominent American writers who not only acknowledged that men can be raped, she furiously denounced it, as you will soon see if you bother to read the material I linked.

 

[Metaphor]

let's just agree that whether or not i believe you post like a right-wing sexist is as irrelevant as whether or not you are in fact a right-wing sexist, stop this whole conversational derail, and move on.

I'll take this as the final acknowledgment that you can furnish no evidence that I've said sexist things, although you have unsubtly dialed back your claim to 'post like a right wing sexist'.

yes it is the question you asked, because the answer is entirely dependent on how you define "consent" contextually.

It's irrelevant how I define consent. Either there is consent in a sexual situation or there is not.

you are a person who views both the definition of the word and the shape of the concept it represents as requiring definitive affirmation to even exist, then the clear answer is no as that would be redundant.

No, I did not say that 'definitive affirmation' is required for consent to exist.

again it depends entirely on how you're defining consent, and other particulars of the specific situation.

No, it doesn't depend on how I've defined anything. I'm asking a question in the most straightforward way I know how and I can't get a straight answer.

what is 'consent' to you, Metaphor? what would you consider 'consent' to be in the situation you presented?
for you, 'consent' might mean the woman verbally stating she's interested in having sex with you... maybe that's your personal of consent? i don't know, so i couldn't definitively answer the question.

The particular situation is irrelevant. I am talking about the overlap between 'consent' and 'affirmative consent' as you understand the terms.

Is there any possible sexual situation where somebody can have consent but not have affirmative consent?

but it isn't a yes or no, at least not explicitly - because it could be yes or no depending on various conditions not present in your given example.

With your understanding of consent and your understanding of affirmative consent, is there any sexual situation possible where there is consent but not affirmative consent?

 

[prideandfall]

I'll take this as the final acknowledgment that you can furnish no evidence that I've said sexist things, although you have unsubtly dialed back your claim to 'post like a right wing sexist'.

good for you.

It's irrelevant how I define consent. Either there is consent in a sexual situation or there is not.

it's entirely relevant how you define consent - you and/or anyone else.

No, it doesn't depend on how I've defined anything. I'm asking a question in the most straightforward way I know how and I can't get a straight answer.

your failure to accept that the answer is circumstantial and doesn't have a straight yes or no answer for any given random context is not the fault of the answer.

The particular situation is irrelevant. I am talking about the overlap between 'consent' and 'affirmative consent' as you understand the terms.

but how i understand them isn't universal, because laws aren't made for me personally.

Is there any possible sexual situation where somebody can have consent but not have affirmative consent?[/B]

there are situations where somebody can understand to have consent, but not actually have it, thus by definition they would not have affirmative consent.

With your understanding of consent and your understanding of affirmative consent, is there any sexual situation possible where there is consent but not affirmative consent?

me personally? no, but that's due to several particulars of my own personal moral guiding principles.
for my understanding of the moral guiding principles of other people for whom this sort of concept and its attendant laws were initiated? the answer is yes.

 

[Metaphor]

it's entirely relevant how you define consent - you and/or anyone else.

It's entirely irrelevant. If I look at a cat and define it as a dog, it is not in fact a dog. I'm simply mistaken about it.

Consent is the same. Either you have it or you don't, and it's irrelevant to whether you have it if you were unreasonably mistaken about having it.

The people who have sex with unconscious bodies don't need affirmative consent. They need consent.

your failure to accept that the answer is circumstantial and doesn't have a straight yes or no answer for any given random context is not the fault of the answer.

Of course it's a straight yes or no answer, because 'consent' and 'affirmative consent' are things that exist in the world.

but how i understand them isn't universal, because laws aren't made for me personally.

Irrelevant. Either you have consent or you do not have it, and it has nothing to do with what you think personally.

there are situations where somebody can understand to have consent, but not actually have it, thus by definition they would not have affirmative consent.

In that exact situation, they don't have consent, let alone 'affirmative consent'. Being mistaken about having consent doesn't mean you have consent.

So is there any situation where somebody has consent (whether they know it or not) but not affirmative consent?

for my understanding of the moral guiding principles of other people for whom this sort of concept and its attendant laws were initiated? the answer is yes.

I think you have genuinely not understood a word I've said.

Either somebody can have consent (not just mistakenly imagine they have it, but actually have it) without having affirmative consent, or the two are actually the same thing.

 

[Arctish]

Either somebody can have consent (not just mistakenly imagine they have it, but actually have it) without having affirmative consent, or the two are actually the same thing.

The two are substantially the same thing. The difference is that without the modifier 'affirmative', consent might be, and in the past has been confused with absence of evidence of non-consent.

We put the word 'affirmative' in there so stupid people won't get confused. Smart people can figure out what consent is without the ginormous hint.

 

[bigfield]

So is there any situation where somebody has consent (whether they know it or not) but not affirmative consent?

Suppose you are having sex with an intoxicated person who is showing very little responsiveness, but actually consents to the sex. Their disposition is indistinguishable from a drunk person who doesn't consent to sex. Without reading their mind, you can't know that they consent since they are unable to affirm it, therefore you have their consent but not their affirmative consent.