Affirmative consent required or you're a rapist

[the_antithesis]

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.

[Mermaid]

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.

I know you were, SGOS. Sometimes my sarcasm is a little over the top.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

The 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.

[Berati]

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!

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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.

[Berati]

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.

[Berati]

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.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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.

[Mermaid]

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.

[Berati]

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.

[Berati]

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.

[Mermaid]

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.

[The Skeletal Atheist]

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.



         

[Sargon The Grape]

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!][/spoiler]

[Aletheia]

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.