No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[RavenSky]

Because this is far more about injustice than justice. The only "benefit" is the political gain of doing something about rape.

Loren, your comments above have to be the most irrational ridiculous set of statements I have ever read on this board... in any of its incarnations.

You seriously believe that an expectation of sex being mutually consensual is really a plot to punish men.

If sex isn't consensual it's already rape. This doesn't change that.

This clarifies for the ignorant, insensitive, or hormonally blinded what genuine consent looks like.

All it does it mandate kangaroo courts.

bullshit

 

[Togo]

That would indeed be a far better standard than the one that was proposed, which was gaining explicit permission before each stage of intimacy. If you want to shift your position to getting clearing unambiguous consent, then I'd be happy to support that.

. It is the same damned thing.

It really isn't. You've given a definition of explicit, fine, but that's not the standard. The standard is explicit permission, to be gained in advance, at each stage of intimacy.

 

[RavenSky]

. It is the same damned thing.

It really isn't. You've given a definition of explicit, fine, but that's not the standard. The standard is explicit permission, to be gained in advance, at each stage of intimacy.

Yes... and?

Are you suggesting that, hypothetically, it would be acceptable for the guy to get explicit permission in advance to have sexual vaginal intercourse; then to go ahead and flip her over and ram his cock up her ass withOUT explicit permission in advance for this different stage of intimacy? Because, you know, it is way too fucking much trouble to make sure he had explicit consent in advance to fuck her anally and, well, the explicit consent he did have should just cover anything and everything he might want to do to her.

Seriously, I still do not understand your objection because the alternative is simply not acceptable.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I still trying to wrap my head around why it is so difficult to ask, "Do you want to fuck?" in the heat of passion.

 

[Togo]

It really isn't. You've given a definition of explicit, fine, but that's not the standard. The standard is explicit permission, to be gained in advance, at each stage of intimacy.

Yes... and?

Are you suggesting that, hypothetically, it would be acceptable for the guy to get explicit permission in advance to have sexual vaginal intercourse; then to go ahead and flip her over and ram his cock up her ass withOUT explicit permission in advance for this different stage of intimacy?

No that's what you're suggesting with your example. Because 'sexy time' could mean almost anything.

I don't understand what the problem here is. The standard is explicit permission, to be gained in advance, at each stage of intimacy. Of the examples you given to show that this requirement is not onerous, none of them have included explicit permission, to be gained in advance, at each stage of intimacy. The example we are presently discussing, Emily's sexy time example (sorry Emily!) you keep claiming meets this standard, despite not including permission for anything, and not specifying a stage of intimacy at all. 'Sexy Time' could refer to anal sex, or it could not, and as you've pointed out consent to one doesn't include consent to the other.

This is an unworkable standard.

The problem with an unworkable standard is that people don't, in practice, follow it. Which means it doesn't help prevent rape. What it does do is stop people following codes of behaviour that do help prevent rape.

Seriously, I still do not understand your objection because the alternative is simply not acceptable.

Which alternative? Or are you pretending that the only alternative to this particular unworkable standard is to do nothing?

I still trying to wrap my head around why it is so difficult to ask, "Do you want to fuck?" in the heat of passion.

Well partly it's because shy people fuck too, and partly because you can't get to heat of passion without going through a few rounds of permission first. Holding hands, other physical touching, kissing, removing a few clothes, and touching areas normally covered by clothes.

 

[RavenSky]

Yes... and?

Are you suggesting that, hypothetically, it would be acceptable for the guy to get explicit permission in advance to have sexual vaginal intercourse; then to go ahead and flip her over and ram his cock up her ass withOUT explicit permission in advance for this different stage of intimacy?

No that's what you're suggesting with your example. Because 'sexy time' could mean almost anything.

you've still got everything bass-akwards and I doubt you will ever acknowledge that fact.

I don't understand what the problem here is. The standard is explicit permission, to be gained in advance, at each stage of intimacy.

exactly

Of the examples you given to show that this requirement is not onerous, none of them have included explicit permission, to be gained in advance, at each stage of intimacy.

First of all, I have not provided any examples of this, so you apparently have me confused with someone else.

The example we are presently discussing, Emily's sexy time example (sorry Emily!) you keep claiming meets this standard, despite not including permission for anything, and not specifying a stage of intimacy at all. 'Sexy Time' could refer to anal sex, or it could not, and as you've pointed out consent to one doesn't include consent to the other.

Emily herself said that the invitation and her consent was explicit and clear to the two of them. There is no law against using euphemisms as long as the two people involved understand the explicit meanings of the words or actions they choose to use.

Moreover, as has been stated repeatedly, and repeatedly ignore, Emily and her husband are not near or total strangers to each other. Since the policies we are discussing are for college campuses and those oh so important "hook-ups", then yes - the individuals involved will need to be more precise. No one has ever said otherwise.

This is an unworkable standard.

it is the ONLY standard that works, and I suspect it is exactly what you have practiced all of your life whether you wish to acknowledge it here or not.

The problem with an unworkable standard is that people don't, in practice, follow it. Which means it doesn't help prevent rape. What it does do is stop people following codes of behaviour that do help prevent rape.

Normal, rational, non-rapey people do, in fact, get explicit and on-going consent the vast majority of the time - particularly when they don't know the other person very well - whether they consciously realize it or not. As partners get to the point that they do know each other very well, like Emily and her husband, then perhaps the communication can be more implied and less expressed - but they will still be checking for consent if they care abut each other.

 

[Bronzeage]

This would be a rational thing to say, if you believed there are no unreported rapes. The point of laws which prescribe punishment for particular actions are intended to decrease the occurrence of the action, not simply increase the number of persons convicted of the crime.

Is it really that hard to understand?

Sure there are unreported rapes. This has nothing to do with that. Making it easier to ruin his life doesn't make her more willing to report. All it does it encourage revenge "reports".

- - - Updated - - -

The whole point of this is to increase the number of men punished, not about justice. It's the same problem as with anti-discrimination measures that are based on "results" rather than the situation.

Seriously? This is what you actually think they were planning? They went into a room and asked each other, "how can we increase the number of men being punished? We don't want justice - we want to punish men. How can we do that, people? Come on, ideas now!"


This is how your brain thinks?

Because this is far more about injustice than justice. The only "benefit" is the political gain of doing something about rape.

If there was a "Doesn't get it" Nobel Prize, this would be my nomination for 2014.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I still trying to wrap my head around why it is so difficult to ask, "Do you want to fuck?" in the heat of passion.

And so there's no possibility he fingered her against her will???

It's not just one stage, you need consent for everything you do. An obviously-trainee pollster that called this afternoon comes to mind--after virtually every answer she said "thank you for the prompt answer to the question". (No matter if I answered the question and the next one before she was done asking, or whether I thought about it for a bit before answering.) I had a hard time keeping a straight face.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The example we are presently discussing, Emily's sexy time example (sorry Emily!) you keep claiming meets this standard, despite not including permission for anything, and not specifying a stage of intimacy at all. 'Sexy Time' could refer to anal sex, or it could not, and as you've pointed out consent to one doesn't include consent to the other.

For her it's explicit permission for vaginal sex. That doesn't mean the very same words would be for a different couple.

This is an unworkable standard.

The problem with an unworkable standard is that people don't, in practice, follow it. Which means it doesn't help prevent rape. What it does do is stop people following codes of behaviour that do help prevent rape.

Even if they did follow it it wouldn't help much--a rapist isn't going to follow it and the number of cases we see where he thought she meant yes but she actually meant no but didn't resist is quite low. It's a big effort on a tiny sliver of the problem which will detract from attempting to solve the real problem.

Seriously, I still do not understand your objection because the alternative is simply not acceptable.

Which alternative? Or are you pretending that the only alternative to this particular unworkable standard is to do nothing?

Exactly. Rejecting one approach as bad doesn't mean I think all attempts to solve it are bad. It means I think the approach is bad.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure there are unreported rapes. This has nothing to do with that. Making it easier to ruin his life doesn't make her more willing to report. All it does it encourage revenge "reports".

- - - Updated - - -

The whole point of this is to increase the number of men punished, not about justice. It's the same problem as with anti-discrimination measures that are based on "results" rather than the situation.

Seriously? This is what you actually think they were planning? They went into a room and asked each other, "how can we increase the number of men being punished? We don't want justice - we want to punish men. How can we do that, people? Come on, ideas now!"


This is how your brain thinks?

Because this is far more about injustice than justice. The only "benefit" is the political gain of doing something about rape.

If there was a "Doesn't get it" Nobel Prize, this would be my nomination for 2014.

Yet some on here think I mostly definitely did get it.

 

[Jokodo]

This is an unworkable standard.

The problem with an unworkable standard is that people don't, in practice, follow it. Which means it doesn't help prevent rape. What it does do is stop people following codes of behaviour that do help prevent rape.

Even if they did follow it it wouldn't help much--a rapist isn't going to follow it and the number of cases we see where he thought she meant yes but she actually meant no but didn't resist is quite low. It's a big effort on a tiny sliver of the problem which will detract from attempting to solve the real problem.

That the number of cases you see is is irrelevant if true, and it's obvious enough that you should see why if you spent a minute thinking about it. This is exactly the kind of situations where many victims would feel guilty for bringing it on themselves and thus extremely unlikely to come forward - and you are propping up that mentality by defending the notion that the perpetrator did nothing wrong in such a situation. That doesn't make it less traumatising for the victims.

But let's assume that it really is the case that in most situation where "he thought she meant yes" without an unambiguous indication from her side are ones where she actually did mean yes and thus no harm done: That's still not an argument against such a rule, anymore than the fact that most situations in which a person takes the driver seat while drunk end without an accident is an argument against DUI laws. By going forward without unambiguous consent, or driving while drunk, you're taking an unnecessary risk and recklessly endangering others - even if you'll probably be lucky most of the time nonetheless.

In fact the rule is even less invasive that penalising DUI as such, and more comparable to laws that merely state that you'll be considered (partly) guilty if you're involved in an accident while drunk even if the other person clearly caused it. Because, false accusations aside (and yes, we can put them aside because someone who's willing to lie to ruin an another person's life can do so with or without such a rule, just like rapists can lie about what sort of consent they had with or without it), it will only become relevant when there was indeed a lack of will on the other person's side.

 

[Togo]

No that's what you're suggesting with your example. Because 'sexy time' could mean almost anything.

you've still got everything bass-akwards and I doubt you will ever acknowledge that fact.

Not without a reason to think so, no. I'll simply continue to oppose the standard.

The example we are presently discussing, Emily's sexy time example (sorry Emily!) you keep claiming meets this standard, despite not including permission for anything, and not specifying a stage of intimacy at all. 'Sexy Time' could refer to anal sex, or it could not, and as you've pointed out consent to one doesn't include consent to the other.

Emily herself said that the invitation and her consent was explicit and clear to the two of them. There is no law against using euphemisms as long as the two people involved understand the explicit meanings of the words or actions they choose to use.

Which is lovely, but largely beside the point. There are three parts to the standard:
1) explicit permission
2) Gained in advance
3) At each stage

Emily's examples covers 2, maybe, but not the rest. The fact that it is explicit does not make it explicit permission for a particular stage.

Moreover, as has been stated repeatedly, and repeatedly ignore, Emily and her husband are not near or total strangers to each other. Since the policies we are discussing are for college campuses and those oh so important "hook-ups", then yes - the individuals involved will need to be more precise. No one has ever said otherwise.

This is an unworkable standard.

it is the ONLY standard that works, and I suspect it is exactly what you have practiced all of your life whether you wish to acknowledge it here or not.

The problem with an unworkable standard is that people don't, in practice, follow it. Which means it doesn't help prevent rape. What it does do is stop people following codes of behaviour that do help prevent rape.

Normal, rational, non-rapey people do, in fact, get explicit and on-going consent the vast majority of the time - particularly when they don't know the other person very well - whether they consciously realize it or not. As partners get to the point that they do know each other very well, like Emily and her husband, then perhaps the communication can be more implied and less expressed - but they will still be checking for consent if they care abut each other.

 

[Jokodo]

you've still got everything bass-akwards and I doubt you will ever acknowledge that fact.

Not without a reason to think so, no. I'll simply continue to oppose the standard.

The example we are presently discussing, Emily's sexy time example (sorry Emily!) you keep claiming meets this standard, despite not including permission for anything, and not specifying a stage of intimacy at all. 'Sexy Time' could refer to anal sex, or it could not, and as you've pointed out consent to one doesn't include consent to the other.

Emily herself said that the invitation and her consent was explicit and clear to the two of them. There is no law against using euphemisms as long as the two people involved understand the explicit meanings of the words or actions they choose to use.

Which is lovely, but largely beside the point. There are three parts to the standard:
1) explicit permission
2) Gained in advance
3) At each stage

Emily's examples covers 2, maybe, but not the rest. The fact that it is explicit does not make it explicit permission for a particular stage.

Which part of her anecdote tells you that they don't communicate after that point? Indeed, it would be very strange, to say the very least, if they didn't.

 

[Togo]

No that's what you're suggesting with your example. Because 'sexy time' could mean almost anything.

you've still got everything bass-akwards and I doubt you will ever acknowledge that fact.

Not without a reason to think so, no. I'll simply continue to oppose the standard.

The example we are presently discussing, Emily's sexy time example (sorry Emily!) you keep claiming meets this standard, despite not including permission for anything, and not specifying a stage of intimacy at all. 'Sexy Time' could refer to anal sex, or it could not, and as you've pointed out consent to one doesn't include consent to the other.

Emily herself said that the invitation and her consent was explicit and clear to the two of them. There is no law against using euphemisms as long as the two people involved understand the explicit meanings of the words or actions they choose to use.

Which is lovely, but largely beside the point. There are three parts to the standard:
1) explicit permission
2) Gained in advance
3) At each stage

Emily's examples covers 2, maybe, but not the rest. The fact that it is explicit does not make it explicit permission for a particular stage.

Moreover, as has been stated repeatedly, and repeatedly ignore, Emily and her husband are not near or total strangers to each other. Since the policies we are discussing are for college campuses and those oh so important "hook-ups", then yes - the individuals involved will need to be more precise. No one has ever said otherwise.

So, irrelevant to this discussion then?

[

This is an unworkable standard.

it is the ONLY standard that works, and I suspect it is exactly what you have practiced all of your life whether you wish to acknowledge it here or not.

I believe that the number of people who follow this standard is extremely small. I don't believe you can even describe a couple following this rule that doesn't break down into farce.

[

The problem with an unworkable standard is that people don't, in practice, follow it. Which means it doesn't help prevent rape. What it does do is stop people following codes of behaviour that do help prevent rape.

Normal, rational, non-rapey people do, in fact, get explicit and on-going consent the vast majority of the time - particularly when they don't know the other person very well - whether they consciously realize it or not.

Of course they do, which makes it a far better standard that the one you're defending, which isn't on-going consent.

Emily standard:
1) On-going consent

Proposed Standard:
1) explicit permission
2) Gained in advance
3) At each stage

See how the two are, in fact, not the same at all?

 

[Togo]

Which is lovely, but largely beside the point. There are three parts to the standard:
1) explicit permission
2) Gained in advance
3) At each stage

Emily's examples covers 2, maybe, but not the rest. The fact that it is explicit does not make it explicit permission for a particular stage.

Which part of her anecdote tells you that they don't communicate after that point? Indeed, it would be very strange, to say the very least, if they didn't.

It doesn't. I'm just saying that the anecdote she presented doesn't meet the standard. They may or may not do other things off-screen which do meet the standard.

 

[Jokodo]

Of course they do, which makes it a far better standard that the one you're defending, which isn't on-going consent.

Emily standard:
1) On-going consent

Proposed Standard:
1) explicit permission
2) Gained in advance
3) At each stage

See how the two are, in fact, not the same at all?

What's the difference between the two? Specifically,

1) how do you know for sure you have consent if it hasen't been explicitly given?
2) how do you know at all that you have consent if you don't have it in advance?
3) what's the difference between "ongoing" and "at each stage"?

As far as I can tell, the 3-point paradigm is just spelling out explicitly what ongoing consent means. If you disagree, could you illustrate with a scenario that satisfies one but not the other?

 

[Jokodo]

Which part of her anecdote tells you that they don't communicate after that point? Indeed, it would be very strange, to say the very least, if they didn't.

It doesn't. I'm just saying that the anecdote she presented doesn't meet the standard. They may or may not do other things off-screen which do meet the standard.

It does meet the standard of gaining explicit consent beforehand before going up to the bedroom. That's the only action that was presented "on-screen", so, indeed, there was explicit consent in advance of any stage we know about. In other words, it very much meets the standard and you're just bullshitting at this point.

Plus, you keep ignoring that here we are talking about two people who know each other very well. That poorly translates to hook-ups between almost-strangers in the first place. That doesn't make it irrelevant, but it means that the people we are actually talking about need to be much more explicit about everything than them to avoid serious misunderstandings.

 

[Togo]

It doesn't. I'm just saying that the anecdote she presented doesn't meet the standard. They may or may not do other things off-screen which do meet the standard.

It does meet the standard of gaining explicit consent beforehand before going up to the bedroom. That's the only action that was presented "on-screen", so, indeed, there was explicit consent in advance of any stage we know about. In other words, it very much meets the standard and you're just bullshitting at this point.

I don't see how. The standard being discussed is not explicit consent, it's explicit consent for each stage, gained in advance. Which stage is the action on-screen referring to?

Plus, you keep ignoring that here we are talking about two people who know each other very well. That poorly translates to hook-ups between almost-strangers in the first place. That doesn't make it irrelevant, but it means that the people we are actually talking about need to be much more explicit about everything than them to avoid serious misunderstandings.

I'm not ignoring it, but I don't see how it helps. I'm arguing that the standard requires people to do far more than in the example. You appear to be saying the same.

The only potential point of disagreement is that you seem to be describing a different in the level of explicitness, while I'm arguing that the difference is one of kind - that what's needed is not just explicit consent to something vague , but explicit consent to a particular specified course of action. I'm not sure if that's an actual disagreement, or just the way you're describing it.

 

[Jokodo]

It does meet the standard of gaining explicit consent beforehand before going up to the bedroom. That's the only action that was presented "on-screen", so, indeed, there was explicit consent in advance of any stage we know about. In other words, it very much meets the standard and you're just bullshitting at this point.

I don't see how. The standard being discussed is not explicit consent, it's explicit consent for each stage, gained in advance. Which stage is the action on-screen referring to?

Going up to the boudoir together. And that's the only thing she told us there did, so there is indeed a one-to-one correspondence between "stages" and acts of seeking and gaining consent for them.

Plus, you keep ignoring that here we are talking about two people who know each other very well. That poorly translates to hook-ups between almost-strangers in the first place. That doesn't make it irrelevant, but it means that the people we are actually talking about need to be much more explicit about everything than them to avoid serious misunderstandings.

I'm not ignoring it, but I don't see how it helps. I'm arguing that the standard requires people to do far more than in the example. You appear to be saying the same.

No. The standard requires explicit consent for everything you do. In the example, there was explicit consent for going to the "boudoir" together, and that's what they did. I'm with you in assuming that other things happened once they were up there, but they were not presented to us. I'm not with you in assuming that no more communication happened, but that is an assumption that is required for your objection to make any sense.

The only potential point of disagreement is that you seem to be describing a different in the level of explicitness, while I'm arguing that the difference is one of kind - that what's needed is not just explicit consent to something vague , but explicit consent to a particular specified course of action. I'm not sure if that's an actual disagreement, or just the way you're describing it.

 

[Togo]

I don't see how. The standard being discussed is not explicit consent, it's explicit consent for each stage, gained in advance. Which stage is the action on-screen referring to?

Going up to the boudoir together.

Going to a room together isn't a stage of intimacy at all, that I'm aware of? The impression I got was that the example was being presented as consent to sex. Certainly that's what RavenSky seemed to be saying when she was arguing that it was obvious from the actions and the relationship what was being implied. If I've misunderstood, then you have my apologies, but then it still isn't a useful example.

Plus, you keep ignoring that here we are talking about two people who know each other very well. That poorly translates to hook-ups between almost-strangers in the first place. That doesn't make it irrelevant, but it means that the people we are actually talking about need to be much more explicit about everything than them to avoid serious misunderstandings.

I'm not ignoring it, but I don't see how it helps. I'm arguing that the standard requires people to do far more than in the example. You appear to be saying the same.

No. The standard requires explicit consent for everything you do.

No, actually it doesn't. It requires consent for each stage of doing things. Once you have permission for a particular stage, you can, according to the standard, pretty much ignore the requirement for explicit consent for everything in that stage. Another reason I'm not a fan of it, albiet a very minor reason.

 

[Jokodo]

Going up to the boudoir together.

Going to a room together isn't a stage of intimacy at all, that I'm aware of? The impression I got was that the example was being presented as consent to sex.<snip>

It was an illustration of what gaining consent at a particular stage could look like, and not a complete description of the entire act, and it only runs counter to the requirement of ongoing consent to be gained at every stage if you assume that that's the last bit of communication they're having. So, not for the first time, where did you get that idea from?

Plus, you keep ignoring that here we are talking about two people who know each other very well. That poorly translates to hook-ups between almost-strangers in the first place. That doesn't make it irrelevant, but it means that the people we are actually talking about need to be much more explicit about everything than them to avoid serious misunderstandings.

I'm not ignoring it, but I don't see how it helps. I'm arguing that the standard requires people to do far more than in the example. You appear to be saying the same.

No. The standard requires explicit consent for everything you do.

No, actually it doesn't. It requires consent for each stage of doing things.

This is not the first time you seem to be playing word games. If you aren't, can you provide a scenario where the two things actually differ?

Once you have permission for a particular stage, you can, according to the standard, pretty much ignore the requirement for explicit consent for everything in that stage.

Whatever that is even supposed to mean...