No Means Yes If You Know How To Spot It

[Togo]

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>

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?

A requirement for ongoing consent means that you have to stop if your partner is no longer consenting, say if they indicate they are uncomfortable or unhappy with what's going on. A requirement for consent in advance at each stage means that you have to stop if your partner communicates to you, unambiguously, that your permission for this stage of intimacy has been withdraw. So if you're giving someone oral sex, and they start to orgasm, they can hold you in place until they've finished, and that doesn't break the standard. Because you already consented, and you're going to have a job indicating an explicit withdrawl of that consent with your mouth full.

And the difference isn't a word game. Throughout this discussion you've consistently disagreed with my stance on the proposed standard while making reference to concepts that do not appear in the proposed standard. I'm more than happy to adopt on-going consent as a standard, but it isn't what was proposed.

 

[Jokodo]

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?

A requirement for ongoing consent means that you have to stop if your partner is no longer consenting, say if they indicate they are uncomfortable or unhappy with what's going on. A requirement for consent in advance at each stage means that you have to stop if your partner communicates to you, unambiguously, that your permission for this stage of intimacy has been withdraw. So if you're giving someone oral sex, and they start to orgasm, they can hold you in place until they've finished, and that doesn't break the standard. Because you already consented, and you're going to have a job indicating an explicit withdrawl of that consent with your mouth full.

I've lost track of which standard exactly you're talking about. Two examples of policies on consent that have repeatedly been upheld as particularly outrageous are Ohio State and University of California. Here's what they actually say. Could you be so kind as to point out which section says what you want it to say:

Consent is informed. Consent is an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision
by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.
Consent is voluntary. It must be given without coercion, force, threats, or intimidation.
Consent means positive cooperation in the act or expression of intent to engage in the
act pursuant to an exercise of free will.
Consent is revocable. Consent to some form of sexual activity does not imply consent
to other forms of sexual activity. Consent to sexual activity on one occasion is not
consent to engage in sexual activity on another occasion. A current or previous dating
or sexual relationship, by itself, is not sufficient to constitute consent. Even in the
context of a relationship, there must be mutual consent to engage in sexual activity.
Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any
time. Once consent is withdrawn, the sexual activity must stop immediately.
Consent cannot be given when a person is incapacitated. A person cannot consent if
s/he is unconscious or coming in and out of consciousness. A person cannot consent if
s/he is under the threat of violence, bodily injury or other forms of coercion. A person
cannot consent if his/her understanding of the act is affected by a physical or mental
impairment.
For purposes of this Policy, the age of consent is consistent with California Penal Code
Section 261.5.

http://ophd.berkeley.edu/sites/defa...ent and Sexual Violence Issuance Ltr (1).pdf

Sexual Violence : Consent
In many cases of sexual assault, the central issue is consent or the ability to give consent. Consent is when a person agrees or gives permission to another person to engage in certain sexual acts. Understanding consent is important for both parties.

What is consent?

Consent is a knowing and voluntary verbal or non-verbal agreement between both parties to participate in each and every sexual act.
Consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other or all forms of sexual activity.
Conduct will be considered "non-consensual" if no clear consent, verbal or non-verbal, is given.
A person has the right to change his or her mind at any time. In other words, consent can be withdrawn at any point, as long as he or she clearly informs the other party that he or she is withdrawing.
Taking drugs or consuming alcohol does not relieve the obligation to obtain consent.
Effective Consent

Effective consent can be given by words or actions so long as the words or actions create a mutual understanding between both parties regarding the conditions of the sexual activity--ask, "do both of us understand and agree regarding the who, what, where, when, why, and how this sexual activity will take place?"
When someone affirmatively demonstrates that (1) they do not want to have sex, (2) they want to stop any sort of the sexual acts, or (3) they do not want to go any further, the other party must stop completely. Continued pressure after that point can be coercive.
Consent in Relationships

Current or past sexual relationships or current or past dating relationships are not sufficient grounds to constitute consent.
Regardless of past experiences with other partners or your current partner, consent must be obtained.
Consent can never be assumed, even in the context of a relationship. You have the right to say "no" and you have the right to change your mind any time.
By law, a person cannot give consent, even when he or she might verbally say so, when:

The person is so intoxicated or unconscious due to alcohol or drugs
The person is physically or mentally disabled
The person was coerced due to force, threat of force, or deception or when the person was beaten, threatened, isolated, or intimidated.

http://studentconduct.osu.edu/page.asp?id=42

And the difference isn't a word game. Throughout this discussion you've consistently disagreed with my stance on the proposed standard while making reference to concepts that do not appear in the proposed standard. I'm more than happy to adopt on-going consent as a standard, but it isn't what was proposed.

I posted to examples of actual policies on consent. Point out specifically where you disagree with them or admit that you're attacking a strawman/just being contrarian for the sake of it. And then stop.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

getting consent is too much of a problem to prevent even a few rapes? So do tell, Loren... what is "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.

What "other" approach is there besides making sure you have their consent?

 

[RavenSky]

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.

. It was explicit. Emily herself said so, and she was the person involved. It was gained in advance. It was the FIRST stage. Emily didn't discuss what happened after that. I don't know Emily or her husband, but I'm willing to make a bet that neither of them did anything to the other without having consent first. Even long married couples, if they have a healthy relationship, are constantly verifying that the other person is enjoying every stage of "sexy time" because that is exactly what makes it sexy. Even long married couples do not spring something new on their partner without some sort of explicit communication to be sure it is consented to.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

A requirement for ongoing consent means that you have to stop if your partner is no longer consenting, say if they indicate they are uncomfortable or unhappy with what's going on.

And why would you continue on? If a woman is biting through your penis or you discover that there is a nail underneath you as a woman is on top, can she ignore your requests to stop and bite your penis off or drive that nail into your spine?

What is so difficult about his concept? If someone says stop or don't do that, you STOP.

A requirement for consent in advance at each stage means that you have to stop if your partner communicates to you, unambiguously, that your permission for this stage of intimacy has been withdraw.

Yes of course, why wouldn't it be? The words "stop it" mean "stop it". The difficulty of getting this concept across demonstrates the need for this policy. If you cannot figure out that if someone ask you to stop doing something you need to stop, this policy is needed. Do you remember what you were taught in kindergarten?

So if you're giving someone oral sex, and they start to orgasm, they can hold you in place until they've finished, and that doesn't break the standard. Because you already consented, and you're going to have a job indicating an explicit withdrawl of that consent with your mouth full.

I'm no expert in the fluid dynamics of semen, but am pretty sure that the effects do not freeze the vocal cords or prohibit speech. (There is also this thing called spitting.) And the words, "I am going to come", go a long way.

Pro Tip: communication during sex improves its enjoyment.

 

[RavenSky]

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?

No, I don't see any difference at all

So you fully acknowledge that consent needs to be "on-going". How does that differ from "at each stage"? In, fact, since you and Loren like to pretend the "at each stage" part is too onerous, changing the word to "on-going" should make it even worse in your opinions.

At each stage: Emily's husband says "sexy time" to which Emily replies "sexy" and follows him up the stairs. Once upstairs, he says "hey, I'd love to try XYZ, what do you think?"...

On-going: Emily's husband says "sexy time" to which Emily replies "sexy" and takes one step up the stairs. She then verifies, "still sexy time?" and he says "sexy". They each take one more step up the stairs, then he verifies "still sexy time?" & she replies in the affirmative....

No, I am not the one suggesting that "on-going consent" is really that absurd. I am just doing to this phrase what you and Loren have attempted to do to the phrase "at each stage" to show you how utterly ridiculous your objection really is.

"Gained in advance" - what do you suggest as an alternative? He fuck her up the ass, THEN ask permission? Of course mutual consent has to be in advance because afterwards isn't "consent".

 

[Nice Squirrel]

I've lost track of which standard exactly you're talking about. Two examples of policies on consent that have repeatedly been upheld as particularly outrageous are Ohio State and University of California. Here's what they actually say. Could you be so kind as to point out which section says what you want it to say:

Consent is informed. Consent is an affirmative, unambiguous, and conscious decision
by each participant to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity.
Consent is voluntary. It must be given without coercion, force, threats, or intimidation.
Consent means positive cooperation in the act or expression of intent to engage in the
act pursuant to an exercise of free will.
Consent is revocable. Consent to some form of sexual activity does not imply consent
to other forms of sexual activity. Consent to sexual activity on one occasion is not
consent to engage in sexual activity on another occasion. A current or previous dating
or sexual relationship, by itself, is not sufficient to constitute consent. Even in the
context of a relationship, there must be mutual consent to engage in sexual activity.
Consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual encounter and can be revoked at any
time. Once consent is withdrawn, the sexual activity must stop immediately.
Consent cannot be given when a person is incapacitated. A person cannot consent if
s/he is unconscious or coming in and out of consciousness. A person cannot consent if
s/he is under the threat of violence, bodily injury or other forms of coercion. A person
cannot consent if his/her understanding of the act is affected by a physical or mental
impairment.
For purposes of this Policy, the age of consent is consistent with California Penal Code
Section 261.5.

http://ophd.berkeley.edu/sites/defa...ent and Sexual Violence Issuance Ltr (1).pdf

Sexual Violence : Consent
In many cases of sexual assault, the central issue is consent or the ability to give consent. Consent is when a person agrees or gives permission to another person to engage in certain sexual acts. Understanding consent is important for both parties.

What is consent?

Consent is a knowing and voluntary verbal or non-verbal agreement between both parties to participate in each and every sexual act.
Consent to one form of sexual activity does not imply consent to other or all forms of sexual activity.
Conduct will be considered "non-consensual" if no clear consent, verbal or non-verbal, is given.
A person has the right to change his or her mind at any time. In other words, consent can be withdrawn at any point, as long as he or she clearly informs the other party that he or she is withdrawing.
Taking drugs or consuming alcohol does not relieve the obligation to obtain consent.
Effective Consent

Effective consent can be given by words or actions so long as the words or actions create a mutual understanding between both parties regarding the conditions of the sexual activity--ask, "do both of us understand and agree regarding the who, what, where, when, why, and how this sexual activity will take place?"
When someone affirmatively demonstrates that (1) they do not want to have sex, (2) they want to stop any sort of the sexual acts, or (3) they do not want to go any further, the other party must stop completely. Continued pressure after that point can be coercive.
Consent in Relationships

Current or past sexual relationships or current or past dating relationships are not sufficient grounds to constitute consent.
Regardless of past experiences with other partners or your current partner, consent must be obtained.
Consent can never be assumed, even in the context of a relationship. You have the right to say "no" and you have the right to change your mind any time.
By law, a person cannot give consent, even when he or she might verbally say so, when:

The person is so intoxicated or unconscious due to alcohol or drugs
The person is physically or mentally disabled
The person was coerced due to force, threat of force, or deception or when the person was beaten, threatened, isolated, or intimidated.

http://studentconduct.osu.edu/page.asp?id=42

And the difference isn't a word game. Throughout this discussion you've consistently disagreed with my stance on the proposed standard while making reference to concepts that do not appear in the proposed standard. I'm more than happy to adopt on-going consent as a standard, but it isn't what was proposed.

I posted to examples of actual policies on consent. Point out specifically where you disagree with them or admit that you're attacking a strawman/just being contrarian for the sake of it. And then stop.

I see nothing wrong or unusual with these standards. They are pretty self-evident and should be obvious to mature sexually active adults.

 

[RavenSky]

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.

you have clearly misunderstood a whole lot in this thread, especially since I've expressly said repeatedly that once they reached the bedroom it was my assumption that there was further communication between them as to what they intended to do next.

 

[RavenSky]

A requirement for ongoing consent means that you have to stop if your partner is no longer consenting, say if they indicate they are uncomfortable or unhappy with what's going on. A requirement for consent in advance at each stage means that you have to stop if your partner communicates to you, unambiguously, that your permission for this stage of intimacy has been withdraw. So if you're giving someone oral sex, and they start to orgasm, they can hold you in place until they've finished, and that doesn't break the standard. Because you already consented, and you're going to have a job indicating an explicit withdrawl of that consent with your mouth full.

If you think it is fact, you need to find the exact language in any of the policies/laws - with a link back to the original - that states explicit consent given in advance cannot be withdrawn. Prove it.

ETA: nevermind. Jokodo has done it for you. Ironically, the California one even specifically states that consent can be revoked, which completely disputes what you claimed above.

 

[Togo]

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?

A requirement for ongoing consent means that you have to stop if your partner is no longer consenting, say if they indicate they are uncomfortable or unhappy with what's going on. A requirement for consent in advance at each stage means that you have to stop if your partner communicates to you, unambiguously, that your permission for this stage of intimacy has been withdraw. So if you're giving someone oral sex, and they start to orgasm, they can hold you in place until they've finished, and that doesn't break the standard. Because you already consented, and you're going to have a job indicating an explicit withdrawl of that consent with your mouth full.

I've lost track of which standard exactly you're talking about.

Yes, I noticed. That doesn't seem to have stopped you condemning my opposition to it.

[Two examples of policies on consent that have repeatedly been upheld as particularly outrageous...

But not by me.

I was commenting on what was being discussed in the thread at the time, which was the extract of OSU policy posted in post 100 (EDIT post 103!). I commented because similar proposals were floated at my own university by the feminist movement there, and were fairly comprehensively shot down by said feminists on the grounds I've been describing - that they were likely to make matters worse, rather than better. Since I found that debate interesting, the reasoning persuasive, and because I've been involved in the aftermath of incidents involving such guidelines, I thought it an interesting topic for discussion.

If it turns out that that isn't the standard OSU actually uses, that's interesting, but doesn't really change anything I've said, since I'm interested in what does and doesn't make a good standard, not particularly in Ohio.

Several posters have responded to what I've said, in the spirit in which I said it. In such a highly charged topic, however, it is inevitable that some people will attempt to draw posters into familiar conflicts. That's the only reason I can think of why Rhea would accuse me of supporting rape, or you would accuse me of having dishonest motives, and attempting to build a straw man argument against... well I'm not sure.

...just being contrarian for the sake of it. And then stop.

I'm not sure what I've done to earn your wrath, or why you're so upset with me. I would suggest that you don't actually know what I'm talking about, which suggests your various accusations are out of place. Can I ask you to take a different approach?


To avoid doubt, my position is.

-If we do not take steps to reduce rape, it will continue at unacceptably high levels.
-There is a limited appetite for measures to reduce rape. Highly restrictive measures are likely to be ignored, and may even be counterproductive. Measures taken should thus aim for the maximum impact with minimum burden.

 

[Togo]

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.

you have clearly misunderstood a whole lot in this thread, especially since I've expressly said repeatedly that once they reached the bedroom it was my assumption that there was further communication between them as to what they intended to do next.

You have yes, but that doesn't make what was presented, and what was said, an example of explicit permission for a particular stage of intimacy, since as I've said before, the words presented were too vague. I have no particular beef with Emily's love life, but it's not an example of what I was talking about, and as such I'm not sure why it keeps getting referenced.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Is shyness a reason to continue physical contact after a woman has said no?

 

[RavenSky]

[Two examples of policies on consent that have repeatedly been upheld as particularly outrageous...

But not by me.

I was commenting on what was being discussed in the thread at the time, which was the extract of OSU policy posted in post 100.

Post 100??

Can we all just agree with Derec once and for all that the Vassar case was a horrible miscarriage of justice and be done with it? I think he keeps bringing it up because every time he does he gets some flippant response dismissing it that gives the impression that people agree with it.

Derec is obsessed with his hobby horse to the point of me wondering about his sanity, but the flippant responses he gets to some valid concerns he raises are equally troubling.

You make a good point. I am happy to explicitly concur. Caveat: I have never actually read up on this case, but _assuming_ the facts are as presented, it is indeed a horrible miscarriage of justice and should be condemned.

- - - Updated - - -

All crap pertaining to Derek's failed sex life aside, I'm far more disturbed by this because it criminalizes various rape fantasies. Yes. People fantasize about being raped, and about raping, with people they love. It also criminalizes all kinds of drunken or chemically altered experiences.

Derec is right about one thing: verbal consent is not the only consent, and for the same reason 'I love you' is a thing that many relationships need to have said explicitly, 'yes' and 'may I' are things that often times need to be not-said explicitly. It has nothing to do with gender or who is drunk, or who has power over whoeverms sexuality, and everything to do with the fact that just like being gay used to be a criminal sexuality, now having perfectly consensual rape roleplay is a criminal activity, making the lives of a lot of people, a lot of my FRIENDS, an impossibly huge liability if ever any of us wish to visit California.

Jarhyn, I think I get what you're talking about with this kind of preference, and I don't have any problem with it, I don't condemn or judge.

But what I do _not_ understand is how you can tell whether you are committing a rape or not. Given what you've described. Do you, or do you not, have some way of knowing FOR CERTAIN that you are not committing a rape against an unwilling person?

Because if you don't - you are at high risk of being an actual rapist, no different than the ones most of us revile and want to see removed from society.

 

[Togo]

But not by me.

I was commenting on what was being discussed in the thread at the time, which was the extract of OSU policy posted in post 100.

Post 100??

My apologies, post 103. I'll go back and edit the original.

I'm also going to stop replying for a few hours, and see if the thread calms down a bit.

 

[RavenSky]

you have clearly misunderstood a whole lot in this thread, especially since I've expressly said repeatedly that once they reached the bedroom it was my assumption that there was further communication between them as to what they intended to do next.

You have yes, but that doesn't make what was presented, and what was said, an example of explicit permission for a particular stage of intimacy, since as I've said before, the words presented were too vague.

I disagree and so does Emily.

I have no particular beef with Emily's love life, but it's not an example of what I was talking about, and as such I'm not sure why it keeps getting referenced.

Because you jumped all over my joking reply to Emily if you don't think her amusing aside has any bearing on the discussion of university sexual assault policies, you don't have to bring it up again

 

[RavenSky]

Post 100??

My apologies, post 103. I'll go back and edit the original.

I'm also going to stop replying for a few hours, and see if the thread calms down a bit.

In other words, you've talked yourself into a corner because the actual policies dont say at all what you claimed they said (example - disallowing revocation of consent) No problem, take all the time you need to calm down

 

[Jokodo]

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?

A requirement for ongoing consent means that you have to stop if your partner is no longer consenting, say if they indicate they are uncomfortable or unhappy with what's going on. A requirement for consent in advance at each stage means that you have to stop if your partner communicates to you, unambiguously, that your permission for this stage of intimacy has been withdraw. So if you're giving someone oral sex, and they start to orgasm, they can hold you in place until they've finished, and that doesn't break the standard. Because you already consented, and you're going to have a job indicating an explicit withdrawl of that consent with your mouth full.

I've lost track of which standard exactly you're talking about.

Yes, I noticed. That doesn't seem to have stopped you condemning my opposition to it.

I've repeatedly asked you to point out the exact wording you find objectionable, a request you repeatedly ignored. In the last post I replied to, you are on record claiming that a standard of consent at each stage implies "if you're giving someone oral sex, and they start to orgasm, they can hold you in place until they've finished, and that doesn't break the standard". Unless you have a very peculiar definition of "stages", that is simply not true. And neither what's posted in #103 nor anything else posted does that. I don't see what's wrong with saying that you seem to be attacking a strawman when nothing that has been posted deserves of the criticisms you are making - even when I've lost track of exactly what you're referring to.

[Two examples of policies on consent that have repeatedly been upheld as particularly outrageous...

But not by me.

I was commenting on what was being discussed in the thread at the time, which was the extract of OSU policy posted in post 100 (EDIT post 103!). I commented because similar proposals were floated at my own university by the feminist movement there, and were fairly comprehensively shot down by said feminists on the grounds I've been describing - that they were likely to make matters worse, rather than better.

Maybe it would help if you could quote the actual proposals that were floated at your university, and the actual arguments that were used to shoot them down - because your arguments don't work in shooting down any of the proposals that have been quoted, linked to, or referred in this thread.

Since I found that debate interesting, the reasoning persuasive, and because I've been involved in the aftermath of incidents involving such guidelines, I thought it an interesting topic for discussion.

People who are unable to communicate will be unable to communicate whatever the policy. But I'd still prefer to have a policy that errs on the side of preventing rape from one that errs on the side of preventing some people with serious communication problems from missing out on an opportunity for mutually enjoyable sexual experiences. If nothing else, because communication skills can be acquired (not saying that it's easy, and not my personal strong side either, but still), while you can't get unraped.

If it turns out that that isn't the standard OSU actually uses, that's interesting, but doesn't really change anything I've said, since I'm interested in what does and doesn't make a good standard, not particularly in Ohio.

Several posters have responded to what I've said, in the spirit in which I said it. In such a highly charged topic, however, it is inevitable that some people will attempt to draw posters into familiar conflicts. That's the only reason I can think of why Rhea would accuse me of supporting rape, or you would accuse me of having dishonest motives, and attempting to build a straw man argument against... well I'm not sure.

I'm not accusing you of having dishonest motives. I am accusing you of refusing to make clear exactly what you're objecting to after repeated requests. That is uncooperative behaviour in a discussion.

...just being contrarian for the sake of it. And then stop.

I'm not sure what I've done to earn your wrath, or why you're so upset with me. I would suggest that you don't actually know what I'm talking about, which suggests your various accusations are out of place. Can I ask you to take a different approach?


To avoid doubt, my position is.

-If we do not take steps to reduce rape, it will continue at unacceptably high levels.
-There is a limited appetite for measures to reduce rape. Highly restrictive measures are likely to be ignored, and may even be counterproductive. Measures taken should thus aim for the maximum impact with minimum burden.

The only thing that would leave is to explain, in detail, and referring to specific passages in the actual wordings of the policies we're discussing, why those are "likely to be ignored and may even be counterproductive". It's not the first time you've been asked to do that either.

So, below is post #103 in full, with an unsourced passage attributed to OSU but which mismatches what we find at studentconduct.osu.edu. You can start with that one and show how it negates the possibility to withdraw consent "within a stage", or show that it defines "stages" in such a way that this would even be a meaningful claim. Thank you for your cooperation.

Okay, wait a minute. According to OSU:

Consent Is...

A voluntary, sober, imaginative, enthusiastic, creative, wanted, informed, mutual, honest, and verbal agreement
An active agreement. The absence of "no" does not mean "yes"
Not coerced
A process, which must be asked for every step of the way. If you want to move to the next level of sexual intimacy, just ask!
Never implied and cannot be assumed, even in the context of a relationship. Just because you are in a relationship does not mean that you have permission to have sex with your partner.

When they say 'to the next level of intimacy' i think they're talking more about a couple that's been intimate above the waist wanting to move to full frontal nudity and attempting to reach the place where eternity knows no bounds. But as one of those 'I think we're ready' conversations, not a bedtime game of stoplight.

Is there any indication that by 'every step of the way' is for each instance of intimacy? That the university is requiring that i obtain verbal permission to switch from licking to sucking? Or from left to right? Or at each piece of clothing removed?

 

[fromderinside]

Togo, I don't understand your rationale for 'holding in place until orgasm is complete'? Isn't that use of force? Isn't force explicitly denied in the two university standards?

 

[Rhea]

Several posters have responded to what I've said, in the spirit in which I said it. In such a highly charged topic, however, it is inevitable that some people will attempt to draw posters into familiar conflicts. That's the only reason I can think of why Rhea would accuse me of supporting rape, or you would accuse me of having dishonest motives, and attempting to build a straw man argument against... well I'm not sure.

If you would like to link to where I accused you of supporting rape, I would happily explain what I was thinking when I said it. It's possible that I did think exactly that, since several posters on this thread lead me to conclude they are advocating that failing to punish rapes is better than stopping rapes, whenever there is a possibility that someone will not get the sex s/he thinks s/he deserves.

So link it and I will be happy to explain what I was thinking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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.

Her example covers all because she's giving a blanket consent to all the normal stages of their lovemaking and it's done before they even reach stage 1.