Affirmative consent required or you're a rapist

[Berati]

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.

[Aletheia]

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?

[SGOS]

If a woman does not want to have sex, she should say so.  It's not too much to ask.

[Berati]

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.

[Johan]

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.

[Aletheia]

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.

[SGOS]

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.

[Mermaid]

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.

[the_antithesis]

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.

[Mermaid]

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.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

This 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.

[Solitary]

How about the recent one where the female teacher raped a student? Did he say yes? I know she did.

[AllPurposeAtheist]

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..

[SGOS]

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.