Against their will? No? Without their explicit permission? That's how many people have sex all the time.
if you do not have their explicit permission, it is against their will.
How? Two people want to have sex with each other, so their will is to have sex. They do not give explicit permission. Will=/explicit permission.
I really need you to explain why it is that will can
only exist if it is expressed explicitly, because that makes no sense to me.
Husband and wife have been married for 10 years, and often have sex in the morning. They wake up on a lazy sunday morning, and sleepily have sex. According to the regulations proposed, that's rape. Why? Because they have not gained explicit consent from each other.
yes, actually they do have explicit consent from each other,
Can you point to where this consent is explicitly given? Because it looks to me like they're just having sex because they think they both want to.
"both of whom want to have sex" - have they actually communicated/expressed that in some way to each other? If not, how do they know the other person also wants sex?
Implicit in their behaviour.
it had better be EXPLICIT in their behavior, else you are attempting to be a mind-reader.
No, I'm attempting to judge what they want from implicit clues, rather than explicit statement or demonstration.
Just guessing ---- Implicit cues ---- explicit statements
That's why the proposals refer to explicit permission, rather than implied or implicit permission.
"should nonetheless seek explicit consent from the other" - not "nonetheless". Either they have mutual explicit consent or they don't, but they should before proceeding.
"Which means they actually need to actually ask or confirm in some way, rather than merely sharing an understanding." - yes. Attempts at mutual mind-reading is not advisable.
The question is not whether it is advisable, the question whether it is assault.
if your mind reading is inaccurate and you failed to get explicit consent, then it is assault. The point of explicit consent is to minimize miscommunication that results in sexual assault.
I still do not understand how anyone views this as a bad thing.
Because they don't think it works in practice?
People are used to conducting their lives on the basis of implicit communication.
examples?
Please use one of the examples already provided.
He usually comes down the stairs from the shower, and waggles his twig and giggle-berries in my general direction while asking "Is it sexy time now?"
To which I usually reply "Oh baby! Sexy, sexy!" And promptly follow him up to the boudoir.
This is after 20+ years together.
Now that is explicit
No, it isn't. It's implicit, based on a mutual understanding. Exactly what the proposals ban as assault. That's the problem.
. No, it was explicit. By his actions and words he made it clear he wanted sex. By her words and actions, she made it clear she agreed. Could either of them have changed their minds once upstairs? Sure. That is why ONGOING consent is needed. But that exchange as described meets the very definition of "explicit"
No, it doesn't. This is point at which we disagree. You seem to think that anything that is blatant or obvious is explicit and thus covered by the rules. That all they really do is require people to be certain.
That's not what they say. Explicit permission for each stage of intimacy means that at each stage of intimacy you have to get explicit permission for that stage. Jiggling at someone is an obviously invitation to something, but it's not explicit what it is an invitation for. Someone is perfectly entitled to jiggle at someone to encourage them to them to kiss them, or to take their clothes off, or to have penetrative sex, or to invite them to a threesome with their sister. But the jiggle by itself is not an invitation to sex, it's just an invitation, and it's ambiguous what exactly it is an invitation for.
What the proposals do is take this kind of situation, and claim that it is rape. That's the problem.
What other meaning would you attribute to her husband waggling "his twig and giggle-berries in [her] general direction while asking "Is it sexy time now?""
Mutual masturbation? Oral sex? Naked wrestling? The point is not whether it is reasonable to attribute a meaning to the gesture, the point is that you are attributing a meaning, rather than it being explicit.
What other meaning would you attribute to her response: ""Oh baby! Sexy, sexy!" And promptly follow him up to the boudoir."
That could be anything from an invitation to make out to full sex. I'm not saying it's not fairly obvious, given the context. I'm saying it doesn't qualify under the proposed rules, because you're not explicitly seeking permission for each stage of intimacy. That's why the proposals are unworkable.
