Ok, here's what's making news up in the Great White North.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/11/25/ndp-harassment-allegations-massimo-pacetti_n_6216184.html
http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/11/28/pacettis-incident-with-ndp-mp-could-be-a-misunderstanding-not-an-assault-former-colleague-says/
I'll just summarize for my American friends,
A female NDP party politician has accused a male Liberal party counterpart of having "sex without explicit consent,†. What she explained this meant was that even though she never said "no", she never said "yes" either.
Here's what she says happened:
They have been playing in a mixed sports league together for about 1.5 years and know each other well. The teams often go out for drinks afterwards.
Later in the evening he invited her back to his hotel room for drinks (past midnight I believe) She said that once she was in his room it became clear that he wanted something more. She said she froze.
She also says that she went to washroom and when she came back out she sat on the bed and gave him a condom, so I guess she didn't "freeze" all that much.
She said that she had been sexually assaulted as a teenager and that's why she "froze" even though it seems quite clear that she could have chosen the exit door instead of the bathroom door or perhaps not given him a condom.
They then had sex but as noted, she never explicitly said "yes" but she does admit that she did not say "no" either.
For his part, he of course denies any wrongdoing and says he thought it was totally consensual. Also, he is a married man if that makes any difference to you. He has been publicly named and suspended from his position pending an investigation. She remains anonymous.
So, is he a rapist as many here have been calling him?
I bring this up because there is a "yes means yes" campaign going on in the USA. So this is not just a Canadian issue. California has enacted a law that forces the state's colleges to adopt a policy of "affirmative consent"
So, what are your feelings? Is there such a thing as unspoken language? Is "affirmative consent" how lawyers have sex? Is it the death of passion? Or is it necessary to protect women?
I think it is problematic because in many cases it is necessary to protect women... but at the same time it is something that could be exploited.
So yes, that was very vague answer.
I think that a reasonable person could interpret her coming back, sitting (next to him?) on the bed and giving him a condom as consent.
Wait! She didn't explicitly rip his clothes off and force him to get a hard on then tie him to a telephone pole and rape him on video so its obvious he's guilty of something.. :think:
Quote from: Berati on December 02, 2014, 08:10:19 PM
So, is he a rapist as many here have been calling him?
Based on the presented evidence, rapist no, adulterer yes.
Not. Fucking. Guilty.
I've had less affirmation than that before moving forward! Jfc, this can't be right!
Handing him a condom in my view constitutes acceptance on her part. Guilt afterwards is not rape.
Quote from: Shiranu on December 02, 2014, 08:16:07 PM
I think it is problematic because in many cases it is necessary to protect women...
Apart from the fact that laws requiring affirmative consent would never prevent someone intent on assault or rape, my issue with this kind of law is that it treats women like children. It's telling society that women are fragile and sensitive and are incapable of speaking to a man as one adult to another.
I know that sexual assault is a problem and I have no issue with harsher treatment of offenders, and an easier process of convicting them that does not involve victimizing the victim... but we also want women to be strong and empowered. How is that possible if we make laws that say women don't have to stand up for themselves and tell a man "No!" when he does something, anything that they don't like? It may be good intentions but I see long term harm from treating adult women like children.
In general I only hand someone a condom on two very distinct occasions:
1: they're going on a date and I want them to be safe.
2: I'm about to bottom, I WANT to bottom, and I fully understand that I'm about to have a man's penis inside of me.
This isn't fucking hard. When you hand someone a condom and then have sex with them it's consent. Have I had sex and then regretted it afterwards? Yes. Did I call it rape? Fuck no.
I'd say that letting a guy put his penis into you without being forced is a pretty clear "yes" signal.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 02, 2014, 11:46:44 PM
This isn't fucking hard. When you hand someone a condom and then have sex with them it's consent.
I do not agree with this.
This particular case is muddy, which opens the door for all sorts of speculation. But there are lots of cases where a victim asks the rapist to wear a condom. There are also cases where consent is given and then it changes.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 03, 2014, 06:31:14 AM
I do not agree with this.
This particular case is muddy, which opens the door for all sorts of speculation. But there are lots of cases where a victim asks the rapist to wear a condom. There are also cases where consent is given and then it changes.
By her own testimony she went to the washroom, came back, sat on the bed, and gave him a condom and then proceeded to have sex with him. I fucking hate those who blame the victim, but to any reasonable person being handed a condom in such a situation implies consent. If she didn't want yo have sex she could have exited the room, said no, not hand him the condom, anything to indicate that she didn't want it at that moment.
As per consent being rescinded, yes that would be rape if he continued. I don't see anything in her testimony that indicates that she rescinded consent.
She is not a victim, she is a person who had sex and then regretted it. I realize rape is a sensitive issue, but her own testimony damns her. She's doing a disservice to actual rape victims.
Next time I have sex I'll get them to sign a consent form and have a notary public watch to make sure nothing rapy for goes on...kinky.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 03, 2014, 06:31:14 AM
This particular case is muddy, which opens the door for all sorts of speculation.
What is muddy about it? The man has not made any statements so there is no one contradicting her testimony.
IMO it comes down to "affirmative consent". All the talk about her handing him the condom avoids the discussion I was hoping to have on the necessity of having affirmative consent as a legal principal as has already been passed in California.
QuoteBut there are lots of cases where a victim asks the rapist to wear a condom. There are also cases where consent is given and then it changes.
I completely agree. BUt "no means no" takes care of these situations by still making it clear that those cases are clearly sexual assault. I think if the women were incapacitated in some way, then you would dispense with having to actually indicate "no" but I believe there is already legal precedent in those situations.
In the past, men had used the defence that since the women came back to his room with him, whatever happened next was consensual. This is pure BS and "no means no" as a legal principal is meant to clarify this.
I don't know what requiring affirmative consent does other than bring a lot of confusion to the real problem of sexual assault. Affirmative consent is what muddies the waters IMO.
I guess that the bottom line with sex is to know the person you're having sex with and don't proceed if there's any question at all if there is as to intent. I can think of several occasions in the past when I could have been called a rapist if it comes down to 'well maybe' and several when we were both drunk on our asses. If merely talking a woman into having sex constitutes rape I can't think of a hell of a lot of men not guilty of rape.
Going back to his hotel room was her first mistake, coming out of the bathroom and handing him a condom was her second, if she had any doubts she should have done neither.
Quote from: stromboli on December 02, 2014, 11:13:26 PM
Handing him a condom in my view constitutes acceptance on her part. Guilt afterwards is not rape.
Agree, not guilty.
Quote from: Berati on December 03, 2014, 08:53:11 AM
What is muddy about it? The man has not made any statements so there is no one contradicting her testimony.
IMO it comes down to "affirmative consent". All the talk about her handing him the condom avoids the discussion I was hoping to have on the necessity of having affirmative consent as a legal principal as has already been passed in California.
I completely agree. BUt "no means no" takes care of these situations by still making it clear that those cases are clearly sexual assault. I think if the women were incapacitated in some way, then you would dispense with having to actually indicate "no" but I believe there is already legal precedent in those situations.
In the past, men had used the defence that since the women came back to his room with him, whatever happened next was consensual. This is pure BS and "no means no" as a legal principal is meant to clarify this.
I don't know what requiring affirmative consent does other than bring a lot of confusion to the real problem of sexual assault. Affirmative consent is what muddies the waters IMO.
This quote about affirmative consent is talking about information provided during a student orientation lecture at UC Berkley.
QuoteInstead of waiting for your partner to say "no," speakers onstage told students, you should seek an explicit "yes." It could come in the form of a smile, a nod or a verbal yes, as long as it's unambiguous, "enthusiastic" and ongoing.
My problem with that is unambiguous, "enthusiastic" and ongoing can be subjective. In the case of the OP handing the guy a condom could easily be understood by the guy as consent without some other clues that sex is unwanted. If a situation is going somewhere a person does not want it to go, then at some point that person has the responsibility to tell other individuals involved they do not wish to participate.
I've been accused of mental rape just for looking at a woman. She was probably technically right, but..... :trunksthing: :silenced:
Son the consensus is that it's better off to stay at home and whack off than to try sleep with a person
Tentacle porn never hurt nobody, yo' know wut I'm sayin'.
I fail to see how this can overcome a "he-said, she-said" scenario, particularly where a man says that she never said "no" (or yes for that matter). It is understandable that something needs to be done to help those who may be forced or exploited for sexual gratification, but this affirmative consent seems to be at odds with how people actually initiate courtship (if you want to call it that), insinuate the desire for sex, and imply their consent.
It seems more intuitive to try to construct laws around our behaviors, especially in matters of sex, rather than have it run counter. I see a lot of hapless men going to jail for simple mistakes, and I see a lot of women eager to use an unfair advantage. This isn't to say there won't be men with horrid intentions or true victims in need of the law's protection, but this particular piece of legislation seems too broad and will hurt a lot of innocent people in the process.
Good Grief! This is scraping the bottom of absurd.
Makes me glad I'm old and married, but I do have a son.
Quote from: Aletheia on December 04, 2014, 04:18:40 AM
this affirmative consent seems to be at odds with how people actually initiate courtship (if you want to call it that), insinuate the desire for sex, and imply their consent.
Quote from: Jmpty on December 04, 2014, 08:25:26 AM
Makes me glad I'm old and married, but I do have a son.
I’ve been married over 25 years and now it’s all affirmative consent. “Hey, you feel like messing around?â€
When we first met, it was all breathless necking and groping and fucking without a word being said.
I didn't realize it at the time, but I accidently raped my girlfriend.
When I was young it was assumed that when a women or girl said no she meant yes. I think this law is good, because it prevents man from using date rape drugs, or raping an unconscious women, or girl, that has drank too much, from getting away with raping her. I'm not talking about her being drunk and more willing, but that is a fuzzy issue, that isn't if she says yes, YES, Oh my God, "YES"!
Why do I get the feeling that sex will eventually have laws applied to it that are suspiciously similar to the laws applied to the buying/selling process?
"....according to section 2 paragraph 3 of the Caveat Emptor Coitus..."
or
"....according to section 1 paragraph 5 of the Caveat Venditor Coitus..."
Bloody hell, the law will make prostitutes of us all once sexual acts are reduced to mere transactions.
perhaps after she brought out the 4th condom she might have said no.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 03, 2014, 06:57:02 AM
She's doing a disservice to actual rape victims.
I do not know about the details of this case other than what's in this thread, so I can't comment. But I do agree with this sentiment very much if she is lying.
What's next? "I know I said 'yes', but I meant 'no', so therefore he raped me"?
Quote from: Mermaid on December 04, 2014, 02:10:54 PM
I do not know about the details of this case other than what's in this thread, so I can't comment. But I do agree with this sentiment very much if she is lying.
I don't think she is lying yet I still think she (or rather requiring affirmative consent) is doing a disservice to actual rape victims.
No one is even offering a conflicting testimony. She is telling the truth in that she never told him "stop" or "no" or "i don't want to", or that she was not prevented from just leaving leaving the room if she chose to, but she also never said "yes" or "I want to do this" either. This fact alone is enough (In many peoples minds) to make him guilty of rape. That is a step too far for me. Rape is far more serious that this and therefore she is doing a disservice to actual rape victims who were forced to do something completely against their wills.
All that should be asked of her is to express her will in any way she choses.
In cases like this, is there even a legal process for "I misunderstood her intent due to her complete lack of saying anything or expressing in the negative her desire to not want to participate?"
Seriously, what do you do in a situation where you think she enjoyed herself only to find out she didn't? I mean it is understandable that a person shouldn't be forced to do something they don't want to do, but what about situations where a person is given zero clues that the other person doesn't approve and mixed signals that they do?
If a woman does not want to have sex, she should say so. It's not too much to ask.
Quote from: Aletheia on December 04, 2014, 11:31:43 PM
In cases like this, is there even a legal process for "I misunderstood her intent due to her complete lack of saying anything or expressing in the negative her desire to not want to participate?"
I think the only legal process would be to introduce "accidental" or "unintentional" rape, both of which are oxymorons IMO. Rape is about intent. Rapists know they are acting against someones will, that's what makes it rape.
Quote from: Berati on December 03, 2014, 08:53:11 AM
All the talk about her handing him the condom avoids the discussion I was hoping to have on the necessity of having affirmative consent as a legal principal as has already been passed in California.
Here's the problem with affirmative consent, it solves nothing and this case illustrates exactly why. If a woman can stay in the room without being physically restrained and offer the use of a condom and still call the encounter rape, then there is nothing that would prevent the woman from granting affirmative consent and still calling the encounter rape.
Quote from: Berati on December 05, 2014, 11:55:10 AM
I think the only legal process would be to introduce "accidental" or "unintentional" rape, both of which are oxymorons IMO. Rape is about intent. Rapists know they are acting against someones will, that's what makes it rape.
Yes, a rapist knows they are acting against someone's will. However, a guy who is honestly under the impression that the sex is consensual and the woman acts as though it were consensual is not a rapist. Rather, he is unknowingly acting against someone's will. He is uninformed about the situation because he is receiving signals in the affirmative to continue and none to the contrary. In short, the man has only the words, body language, and actions of the woman to go by. If all of these appear to be in agreement to the affirmative, then how is he to know that they are contrary to what the woman is actually thinking and feeling? A scenario like this quite literally implies that the man should know what the woman is thinking. Yet, he only has the messages the woman displays outwardly to go by.
When a person kills another person, we usually call that murder. Yet, when a person unintentionally kills another person, that is often called manslaughter. One had intent and the other did not.
When a person has sex with a person who does not approve of the act, that is called rape. Yet, what is it when a person has sex with a person who does not approve and did not realize it? One had intent and the other did not.
Just like with the murder/manslaughter, the intent is the defining factor between whether the death of a person was an evil act or a tragic one, rape and unknowingly having sex with someone against their wishes has the distinguishing feature of intent. I suspect that such a scenario needs to be treated differently than rape.
I wish I knew how it should be handled without discrediting the severity of rape or being misapplied to let genuine rapists walk free. I also wish I knew a solution to such a sticky situation which would keep a truly unknowing and innocent person from being labeled a rapist.
Quote from: Aletheia on December 06, 2014, 04:12:06 AM
a guy who is honestly under the impression that the sex is consensual and the woman acts as though it were consensual is not a rapist. Rather, he is unknowingly acting against someone's will. He is uninformed about the situation because he is receiving signals in the affirmative to continue and none to the contrary.
If I understand it correctly, according to my Ex, it is the obligation of the male to divine the needs of the female through various processes, including mystical channels, if necessary. He is to understand her desires, stated or unstated. Apparently, this is not hard to do and women will sometimes inform their partners with, "If you don't know what's wrong, I'm certainly not going to tell you." This is intended to reassure the male that he is an idiot and incapable of simple understanding.
There are other advantages to not letting her partner know what she is thinking. She can change your mind later and claim whatever she wants to fit whatever agenda she has at that time.
Whatever laws are passed in relation to the issue at hand, women must lobby to insure that men remain confused and off balance.
Quote from: SGOS on December 06, 2014, 08:56:01 AM
There are other advantages to not letting her partner know what she is thinking. She can change your mind later and claim whatever she wants to fit whatever agenda she has at that time.
Whatever laws are passed in relation to the issue at hand, women must lobby to insure that men remain confused and off balance.
Yeah, cause women are all conniving and are out to trap men at any corner. That's just the way we are wired.
This kind of shit is enough to make me swear off sex.
I fully expect my ex-wife to bring up rape charges because she changed her mind about the consent given over a thirteen year marriage.
Know what? I'll file charges against her. I didn't really want to have sex with her in the first place. Amazing it lasted thirteen fucking years.
We are overstating the incidence of false rape accusations, and this muddies the waters of the real problem at hand. I am not sure I've formulated all of my thoughts on the topic yet, but this yes means yes consent law contributes to this muddying, I believe.
This smacks of the overstatement of welfare fraud as a platform for opposing government assistance.
The law is murky in all kinds of ways from rape all the way to Wall Street and seems to be written to the advantage only for those with enough money to hire the right law firm to parse out the little details and to twist the public perception to their favor. What the implication is is that if you have enough cash it's always consensual and if not you damned well better know when to have sex and when not to and it works both ways because for women it means that the rich kid can rape without really needing consent and you'll need an army of lawyers to prosecute, but it could be fairly simple to have your broke lover locked up if he farts in bed..
It's all about the money in the court room, not intent or lack of.
QuoteThis smacks of the overstatement of welfare fraud as a platform for opposing government assistance.
Bingo! Give the little lady a cookie..
You're probably right on mark there Mermaid and it comes right back to the money.
And after you're done smacking the shit out of me for that comment I happen to agree with you. :lol:
How about the recent one where the female teacher raped a student? Did he say yes? I know she did.
Quote from: Solitary on December 06, 2014, 10:16:31 AM
How about the recent one where the female teacher raped a student? Did he say yes? I know she did.
Age of consent.. Whole different issue and not as murky unless the teacher is also under the age of consent..
Quote from: Mermaid on December 06, 2014, 09:01:08 AM
Yeah, cause women are all conniving and are out to trap men at any corner. That's just the way we are wired.
I was making a joke. I think very few women are actually like that most of the time. This issue is more like some half baked thought that ordinarily would not make it to the light of day. It's probably something someone blurted out before they had their morning coffee, and a few people picked up on it and thought it was a good idea. So now we are having a field day whacking at it.
The idea is wrought with so many flaws and pitfalls, I have a hard time approaching it without coming up with absurd comments.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 06, 2014, 09:16:04 AM
We are overstating the incidence of false rape accusations, and this muddies the waters of the real problem at hand.
That is because we will fundamentally only be able to see one side of this issue because we are all fundamentally only on one side of this issue. It's kind of like the abortion issue. If men could get pregnant too, there would be no controversy.
The problem here is rape is defined as when someone (a woman) is forced to have unwanted sexual intercourse and the definition of "forced" is in question.
In the scenario that started this thread, the woman felt forced (or claimed such) but she made no external indication to the man that she really didn't want to have sex. In fact, she made indications that she did. She made claims to having been sexually abused previously to explain her behavior. So, what should we do?
Well, this is a legal matter and if I've learned anything about the law it's that it cannot read fucking people's minds. It seems to me that women always want you to read their fucking minds when it comes to relationship shit, but I am fundamentally on one side of that issue, too.
The law can't read this woman's mind, so it is just plain ridiculous for her to expect a legal rape charge to stick because she made no external indication that she didn't want to have intercourse.
Don't like that?
Tough shit.
What do you want?
No sex unless a binding contract for consensual sexual intercourse has been signed and notarized? What would keep someone from being forced to sign such a document?
Going back to the original scenario, this woman has issue and needs to seek help. The end. Human interaction is complex stuff and when someone..., let's say "sheepishly" enters into an activity they don't wish to engage, they have problems that need to be addressed. This does not require a redefinition of the law for what does or does not constitutes consent. That's stupid. That's blaming someone else for your own poor behavior.
As a footnote, I want to remind you the law cannot read minds. This goes for the man, too. The article said they had gotten to know each other fairly well. Maybe he found out about her abuse and figured she'd be easy to manipulate into sex.
Maybe, but how do you prove that without the ability to read minds?
How do you prove that the woman who just handed you a condom in your motel room does not want to have sex?
The law is a useful tool, but it only works when things are cut and dried.
What good would come of making explicit consent a requirement? Outside of people who really should be in therapy anyway.
QuoteI was making a joke. I think very few women are actually like that most of the time. This issue is more like some half baked thought that ordinarily would not make it to the light of day. It's probably something someone blurted out before they had their morning coffee, and a few people picked up on it and thought it was a good idea. So now we are having a field day whacking at it.
The idea is wrought with so many flaws and pitfalls, I have a hard time approaching it without coming up with absurd comments.
I know you were, SGOS. Sometimes my sarcasm is a little over the top.
QuoteThe law is a useful tool, but it only works when things are cut and dried.
If that were the case we wouldn't have 9 old fuckers sitting on the SCOTUS INTERPRETING the law. The law is not and never has been just cut and dried and if it was we wouldn't have judges and juries.
Quote from: Aletheia on December 06, 2014, 04:12:06 AM
I wish I knew how it should be handled without discrediting the severity of rape or being misapplied to let genuine rapists walk free. I also wish I knew a solution to such a sticky situation which would keep a truly unknowing and innocent person from being labeled a rapist.
NO means NO!
Quote from: Berati on December 06, 2014, 11:30:35 AM
NO means NO!
No means no is an oversimplification of terms in many cases because in many cases in private it's one person's word against the other and 'no' is not always spoken or even implied and it becomes a circle jerk of he said she said with no clear winner.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 06, 2014, 09:16:04 AM
We are overstating the incidence of false rape accusations, and this muddies the waters of the real problem at hand. I am not sure I've formulated all of my thoughts on the topic yet, but this yes means yes consent law contributes to this muddying, I believe.
This smacks of the overstatement of welfare fraud as a platform for opposing government assistance.
When has anyone in this thread overstated the incidence of false rape accusations?
We are discussing one case as well as the ongoing introduction of such laws/guidelines. Just discussing this does not constitute overstatement.
I agree that yes means yes contributes to confusion and that it is this confusion that will bring harm to the larger issue.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on December 06, 2014, 11:46:54 AM
No means no is an oversimplification of terms in many cases because in many cases in private it's one person's word against the other and 'no' is not always spoken or even implied and it becomes a circle jerk of he said she said with no clear winner.
That changes nothing. One persons word against another is what it comes down to no matter how you handle it.
No means no has already clarified many instances, such as agreeing to go somewhere with a man does not itself constitute agreement to sex.
Don't let the quest for a perfect solution become the enemy of a good solution.
No means no sounds to much like lecturing children about the extra cookie. Your argument changes nothing either.
Nobody is making the case that rape is good nor that it should be excused. No means no is like telling a driver stop means stop.
Quote from: Berati on December 06, 2014, 11:48:38 AM
When has anyone in this thread overstated the incidence of false rape accusations?
We are discussing one case as well as the ongoing introduction of such laws/guidelines. Just discussing this does not constitute overstatement.
I agree that yes means yes contributes to confusion and that it is this confusion that will bring harm to the larger issue.
I am talking in more general terms, not implying that it's happening in this thread.
Quote from: AllPurposeAtheist on December 06, 2014, 02:28:17 PM
No means no sounds to much like lecturing children about the extra cookie. Your argument changes nothing either.
Nobody is making the case that rape is good nor that it should be excused. No means no is like telling a driver stop means stop.
I can clearly remember a time when there was general consensus that a woman going back to a mans hotel room late at night was enough to exonerate the man from whatever happened next. "She should have known better" was the mantra. Many women believed this as well.
The No means No campaign has changed the public perception for the better and now, you only have a few dinosaurs who believe that nonsense. It brought clarity whereas affirmative consent brings nothing but confusion IMO.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 06, 2014, 02:56:59 PM
I am talking in more general terms, not implying that it's happening in this thread.
I can see that. There are "mens groups" who act like they're the real victims of sexual assault.
Today, everyone wants to be the victim. There is now a certain type of cachet around being a victim so many want in, victim or not.
Quote from: Berati on December 06, 2014, 04:30:52 PM
I can see that. There are "mens groups" who act like they're the real victims of sexual assault.
Today, everyone wants to be the victim. There is now a certain type of cachet around being a victim so many want in, victim or not.
For some reason, too many people are threatened by the notion that they are not entitled to rape women.
Consent for Sex Form:
Today's Date:
Name: Age:
Condom: Yes/No
Position (check one or more):
Missionary
Doggy
Cowgirl/Cowboy
Reverse Cowgirl/Cowboy
Anal:
Oral (please specify)
Other (please explain in detail, use a separate sheet if necessary):
Expected Duration of Intimate Contact:
Additional Comments:
Signature:
Initials:
Notary Public's Signature:
Copy of Birth Certificate:
I, the undersigned, do hereby consent to the sexual activities described in this document(s). I, the undersigned, have been notified of my right to rescind consent at any time by requesting FORM 1120034-A (Rescinding Of Sexual Consent).
Signature:
Today's Date:
Kinky.
Quote from: The Skeletal Atheist on December 08, 2014, 12:43:28 AM
Consent for Sex Form:
Today's Date:
Name: Age:
Condom: Yes/No
Position (check one or more):
Missionary
Doggy
Cowgirl/Cowboy
Reverse Cowgirl/Cowboy
Anal:
Oral (please specify)
Other (please explain in detail, use a separate sheet if necessary):
Expected Duration of Intimate Contact:
Additional Comments:
Signature:
Initials:
Notary Public's Signature:
Copy of Birth Certificate:
I, the undersigned, do hereby consent to the sexual activities described in this document(s). I, the undersigned, have been notified of my right to rescind consent at any time by requesting FORM 1120034-A (Rescinding Of Sexual Consent).
Signature:
Today's Date:
And somewhere, someone is looking at this thinking, "Hey, that actually looks like a good idea!"
[spoiler=Jesus Fucking Christ!](http://i.imgur.com/rfsehFT.png)[/spoiler]
Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on December 08, 2014, 01:50:57 AM
And somewhere, someone is looking at this thinking, "Hey, that actually looks like a good idea!"
In high school, one of my friends used to have potential sexual partners sign a contract before sex basically absolving him of paternity rights in the event she ended up pregnant. Somehow, I doubt he'd be opposed to the idea of a sexual contract like this.
from my stand point if a man has to ask me the answer will be no. Because at that point I'll come to the conclusion that you are an idiot.
In all my life no one has ever had to ask me if it was ok. We always just kind of thrown our selves at each other in all my sexual experiences. I never once felt raped even if I regretted it.
If you give no indication that you don't want sex and the opposite hand the guy a condom you are not being raped. It seems pretty clear to me.
I hate women who do this kind of shit. It ruins it for the women who were actually raped. It sounds like a woman who felt guilty afterward and doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions to me.
Quote from: doorknob on December 08, 2014, 10:37:53 PM
It sounds like a woman who felt guilty afterward and doesn't want to take responsibility for her actions to me.
(http://cdn.vectorstock.com/i/composite/02,87/hammer-and-nail-vector-130287.jpg)
Quote from: Mermaid on December 06, 2014, 05:15:53 PMFor some reason, too many people are threatened by the notion that they are not entitled to rape women.
I don't think that's what's going on here, but comments like that are very useful to raise the hysteria level in this thread.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on December 09, 2014, 11:31:27 AM
I don't think that's what's going on here, but comments like that are very useful to raise the hysteria level in this thread.
I'd have to agree. Despite having the misfortune of losing a few years of my life to someone who did feel they were entitled to do things against my will, the vast majority of males (in America, at least) I've encountered, heard about from friends and family, read about in the news, and interpreted from sociological data implies that men, more often than not, would rather have consensual sex with their partners. If men were apt to use their physical superiority against women, then domestic violence and rape would be the norm for men and laws against rape would be nonexistent in our society.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 06, 2014, 05:15:53 PM
For some reason, too many people are threatened by the notion that they are not entitled to rape women.
If the problem of rape is to ever hope to be solved, then it will be necessary to approach the situation with a fair and balanced view. Situations like the OP, where a woman is saying she was raped because she didn't agree with the sex she consented to defers her responsibility to any person hapless enough to have not read her mind. Considering that most of us initiate sex without actually saying that we are, and that most people who want sex are carefully looking for subtle signs in the affirmative, it isn't really possible to separate guilt for poor sexual choices from implied rape based on the person's thoughts which were contrary to their actions at the time.
Situations in which the person repeatedly expresses their desire not to have sex with said individual and the person forces them to have sex anyway unmistakably fall into the category of rape. People who actually do this to other people are a very small portion of the population.
Situations where the person cannot give consent to have sex, whether due to being under age, intoxicated, unconscious, or debilitated in some other manner, and a person has sex with them anyway, this too unmistakably falls into the category of rape. Potential victims in this category are known to be off limits by the general public and only in cases of mistaken identity (such as a 17 year old posing as 18), would a person accidentally have sex with them. Only a tiny fraction of the population would knowingly have sex with these individuals.
It is my personal opinion that the issue of rape will continue to be a problem so long as men and women cannot work together to resolve it. If the laws we choose for ourselves can remove the option for women of less than admirable qualities to falsely accuse a man of rape and these laws can remove the tendency of some men in political power to try to marginalizing the traumatic effect rape has on not only the victim, but the trust between the genders society-wise, then we should see a greater understanding between the two genders. This is not an issue that only be solved by women and nor is it an issue that can only be solved by men. Failure to share in the empathy and the burden from both sides of the issue will only retard any and all efforts.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on December 09, 2014, 11:31:27 AM
I don't think that's what's going on here, but comments like that are very useful to raise the hysteria level in this thread.
I have made the mistake of commenting in general and not sticking to the topic of the thread. That being said, "hysteria"? Really?
Quote from: Aletheia on December 08, 2014, 08:14:37 PM
In high school, one of my friends used to have potential sexual partners sign a contract before sex basically absolving him of paternity rights in the event she ended up pregnant. Somehow, I doubt he'd be opposed to the idea of a sexual contract like this.
I live in contract law and that contract wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. It's not the mother you own the duty of care to in a paternity suite, it's the child...and he/she didn't sign the contract.
Quote from: Mermaid on December 09, 2014, 07:58:31 PMI have made the mistake of commenting in general and not sticking to the topic of the thread. That being said, "hysteria"? Really?
Yeah, I'm sure that was just a general comment. Nothing more. And you could have made that comment in any thread at all, and it would have been equally fitting, sure. I expect to see that comment in a thread about creationists criticizing the big bang theory soon.
Quote from: Berati on December 09, 2014, 08:15:50 PM
I live in contract law and that contract wouldn't be worth the paper it's written on. It's not the mother you own the duty of care to in a paternity suite, it's the child...and he/she didn't sign the contract.
Agreed. This was in back in high school, when teenagers still thought they had original ideas. I remember at the time having my doubts, but it was never my concern.
Quote from: Jason_Harvestdancer on December 09, 2014, 09:01:00 PM
Yeah, I'm sure that was just a general comment. Nothing more. And you could have made that comment in any thread at all, and it would have been equally fitting, sure. I expect to see that comment in a thread about creationists criticizing the big bang theory soon.
sorry, what?
Um. Ok.