The ambiguities of consent

[Her]

This topic is going to involve a frank discussion of sexual assault, so be careful and be civil.

I think everyone here is well aware that no means no and that consent should be an inviolable right. If not, well, that's something I sincerely hope you come to understand. However, there are many nuances in the subject that are often hard to discuss because of the brutal nature of the subject. We need to evaluate the ambiguities of the topic in order to truly come to an understanding on the subject, in order to help those affected. I'm not going to play devil's advocate but I'll lay out a few starting points and see where you all go from there.

- In your eyes, what unequivocally defines consent? What blurs the lines for you?
- Can there be ambiguity of consent without a rape having taken place?
- Can a person genuinely believe they are acting within the confines of the law/social standards (re: consent) and yet still be violating a person's rights?
- Why do we assume an accuser is automatically lying?
- Should there ever be a statute of limitations on making rape allegations?

You're all welcome to post as you wish, these are just starting points that do not necessarily have to become the discussion. But I truly urge for restraint and understanding given the severity of the topic.

 

[Killua]

In your eyes, what unequivocally defines consent? What blurs the lines for you?
Consentimento is when both padrões agree in having sex, but sometimes one of them can be manipulated to accept it and the tricky thing is knowing when this happened
- Can there be ambiguity of consent without a rape having taken place?
No
- Can a person genuinely believe they are acting within the confines of the law/social standards (re: consent) and yet still be violating a person's rights?
Yes.
- Why do we assume an accuser is automatically lying?
We don't.
- Should there ever be a statute of limitations on making rape allegations?
No, every rapé allegation should be at least analyzed.

 

[Kanzler]

- In your eyes, what unequivocally defines consent? What blurs the lines for you?

When there are no take-backs. Once there's a withdrawal of consent, then it becomes immediately clear that consent may not have been given, so the lack of withdrawal of consent would be necessary for consent.

- Can there be ambiguity of consent without a rape having taken place?

I believe so. If that were false, then there could not be ambiguity of consent without a rape having taken place. Which suggests that when there's ambiguity of consent, there must be rape - in which case there wouldn't really be ambiguity of consent, now would there?

- Can a person genuinely believe they are acting within the confines of the law/social standards (re: consent) and yet still be violating a person's rights?

Absolutely. People can be genuinely mistaken for all sorts of things.

- Why do we assume an accuser is automatically lying?

I think the question is better phrased "why do we automatically assume an accuser is lying" and I don't believe that's the case. I think people tend to treat rape cases with scepticism until the facts present themselves. The initial position is one that does not support either side due to the lack of evidence and I don't think that's the same thing as assuming that one side is lying.

However, yes, there is an inherent bias against the accuser, even if it's not the outright assumption that the accuser is lying. But I don't believe that it's a product of a oppressive society. One of the most basic principles of our legal system is that innocents should not be punished. In a liberal society, we tend to believe that it is better to let ten guilty persons escape than let one innocent suffer. In a society where people are considered innocent until proven guilty, it is up to the plaintiff to demonstrate the defendant's guilt. So it should be for all matters of justice - including rape. It's not the most comfortable idea to have, but it's a necessary one.

- Should there ever be a statute of limitations on making rape allegations?

I believe the argument for a statute of limitations is that it expedites the legal process and old rape cases are unlikely to succeed anyways. But if the cases turn out to be weak, then they will resolve themselves regardless of a statute of limitations. And if a case is strong, then I don't think it's fair to have it disqualified. I may soon take up a legal education and be better informed to answer this question, but my answer so far is no.

 

[gimmepie]

- In your eyes, what unequivocally defines consent? What blurs the lines for you?
In my mind consent is straight up permission, it is allowing someone access to your body. I think where the lines are most blurred though, is in instances where one party says nothing and just lets things happen. Now to me, if you let me at it, I would assume consent. When you don't say anything though, no true consent has been given.

- Can there be ambiguity of consent without a rape having taken place?
I think so. In the situation I just described for example, you might not want it but if you don't tell me no and just take it, albeit unwillingly, there's ambiguity there. You never said no, but if you didn't want to participate then that's where the ambiguity lies.

I would suggest there can be ambiguity when sex is between drunk people or whenever coercion is a part of things.

- Can a person genuinely believe they are acting within the confines of the law/social standards (re: consent) and yet still be violating a person's rights?
Of course. It's quite easy to be ignorant of the law. People excel at being ignorant.

- Why do we assume an accuser is automatically lying?
We don't? In my experience it's more often that we automatically assume that the accused is an offender. I think that either situation is wrong though. All accusations should be met with some degree of skepticism without evidence however. I believe this skepticism to be an integral part of the right to a fair trial.

- Should there ever be a statute of limitations on making rape allegations?
Rape is probably the worst thing you could possibly do to a person and it is something you should be accountable for no matter how much time has passed.

 

[Fannie]

- In your eyes, what unequivocally defines consent? What blurs the lines for you?
Clearly indicting permission verbally or physically. This could be difficult because a victim could be too scared to act in a way that conveys they don't want to initiate sexual activity or they might not be the best communicator and instead act in a way that could be misinterpreted as consent.

- Can there be ambiguity of consent without a rape having taken place?
I think so. In trhe past I wasn't always the best communicator in the bedroom and didn't always appear to be into it when I really was. If there was an onlooker to my sexual experiences during these times they might seem questionable. What might have seemed like me really not being into it was a mixture of depression and nerves.

- Can a person genuinely believe they are acting within the confines of the law/social standards (re: consent) and yet still be violating a person's rights?
Yes. It's all about perception. If the victim acted in a way that conveyed consent to the accused. It's really hard because how to you police that? I think the only way would be a lie detector test. If the accused truly believes there was consent I don't think they should be prosecuted. Educating them about the topic and communication would be more beneficial. Being punished for something you weren't aware of doing would be horrid.

- Why do we assume an accuser is automatically lying?
Just because the subject matter is delicate doesn't mean an accuser's word should be taken as gold. Everyone is innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law. The truth is some accusers have been lying and the risk of ruining an innocant person's life is too great to assume everyone is a rapist just because one person has said so.

- Should there ever be a statute of limitations on making rape allegations?
Ony if the accused is deceased because that's a waste of time. They're not likely to re-offend and cannot be punished.

 

[Esper]

However, yes, there is an inherent bias against the accuser, even if it's not the outright assumption that the accuser is lying. But I don't believe that it's a product of a oppressive society. One of the most basic principles of our legal system is that innocents should not be punished. In a liberal society, we tend to believe that it is better to let ten guilty persons escape than let one innocent suffer. In a society where people are considered innocent until proven guilty, it is up to the plaintiff to demonstrate the defendant's guilt. So it should be for all matters of justice - including rape. It's not the most comfortable idea to have, but it's a necessary one.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying here, but I think there is also a strong sentiment among people to see the guilty punished. Our laws (ideally) reflect what you stated, that it's better to let the guilty go free than punish an innocent. People seem to be more ambivalent, I think.

The thing I see is that when someone makes an accusation of rape, we're forced into picking one person to be guilty. Either it's true and the accused should be punished, or the accuser is incorrect and should be punished for libel (or whatever). It's a little different from when the government questions/arrests/accuses/tries someone because if that person is let go or is found innocent in court then there's (usually) no recriminations against the legal system. We don't assume that police officers and lawyers should go to jail if they don't get a conviction. We give (again, usually) treat them as acting in good faith. I don't think people in general think that about someone who makes an accusation of rape, whether it's true or not.

 

[Kanzler]

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with what you're saying here, but I think there is also a strong sentiment among people to see the guilty punished. Our laws (ideally) reflect what you stated, that it's better to let the guilty go free than punish an innocent. People seem to be more ambivalent, I think.

What would you think of the person who claims it is preferable that ten innocents be punished lest one guilty person get away? I think all societies have a thirst for vengeance, but in our heart of hearts we understand that the punishing of innocents under the law is the greatest of crimes.

The thing I see is that when someone makes an accusation of rape, we're forced into picking one person to be guilty. Either it's true and the accused should be punished, or the accuser is incorrect and should be punished for libel (or whatever).

That isn't accurate. Guilt must be demonstrated for any crime. Even if the accused is found not guilty, if the accuser is not found guilty of libel, then they would not be punished for libel. If the accuser is not found guilty of perjury, then they would not be punished for perjury. It's not as if the decision of one case decides the decision of another. Every case is treated on its own. If there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then you find guilt. If there isn't, then you don't (or can't).

It's a little different from when the government questions/arrests/accuses/tries someone because if that person is let go or is found innocent in court then there's (usually) no recriminations against the legal system. We don't assume that police officers and lawyers should go to jail if they don't get a conviction. We give (again, usually) treat them as acting in good faith. I don't think people in general think that about someone who makes an accusation of rape, whether it's true or not.

So if someone makes an accusation of rape, and they have evidence to support it, and the accused is found guilty, people in general wouldn't treat the accuser as acting in good faith? I find that hard to believe.

 

[Esper]

What would you think of the person who claims it is preferable that ten innocents be punished lest one guilty person get away? I think all societies have a thirst for vengeance, but in our heart of hearts we understand that the punishing of innocents under the law is the greatest of crimes.

I think that person would be wrong. I also think it's better to keep innocent people from being punished, but I don't think we should be dumb about it. When someone accuses someone of rape I think it should be taken seriously. I don't mean that the accused should be immediately thrown in jail, but even if there is no evidence or proof, even if the accuser retracts their statement, I don't think they should be punished for making a false statement (for instance) since the issues surrounding this topic spread far beyond the bounds of the law.

That isn't accurate. Guilt must be demonstrated for any crime. Even if the accused is found not guilty, if the accuser is not found guilty of libel, then they would not be punished for libel. If the accuser is not found guilty of perjury, then they would not be punished for perjury. It's not as if the decision of one case decides the decision of another. Every case is treated on its own. If there's evidence beyond a reasonable doubt, then you find guilt. If there isn't, then you don't (or can't).

I don't mean guilty in a legal sense, but guilty in a social sense. As far as a lot of people are concerned (not me, but a lot of people) anyone who accuses someone of rape had better be right or they are an evil feminazi whose existence proves that rape allegations are all false.

Or for a less extreme example, you might have someone accuse their boss or coworker, but because of one thing or another can't prove to the satisfaction of the law that rape happened they recant and then get stigmatized in their workplace for "making things up". That kind of "guilty".

So if someone makes an accusation of rape, and they have evidence to support it, and the accused is found guilty, people in general wouldn't treat the accuser as acting in good faith? I find that hard to believe.

Law enforcement can detain/question/etc. someone without conviction-level proof. If it doesn't pan out (regardless of whether the person was guilty or not) there are usually no repercussions. A person can't get away with that when it comes to rape, at least not in the eyes of many people.

 

[Kanzler]

I think that person would be wrong. I also think it's better to keep innocent people from being punished, but I don't think we should be dumb about it. When someone accuses someone of rape I think it should be taken seriously. I don't mean that the accused should be immediately thrown in jail, but even if there is no evidence or proof, even if the accuser retracts their statement, I don't think they should be punished for making a false statement (for instance) since the issues surrounding this topic spread far beyond the bounds of the law.

If the accuser retracts their statement, they would only be punished if they were found guilty of committing perjury or slander or some other crime. Obviously, if they made very public statements that could be demonstrated to be false, or if they were found to have told falsehoods while under oath, then they should be punished along with anybody else who acted in that way. But retracting a statement is a separate issue from committing a "crime of speech", so to speak, and it is not necessarily related with committing a crime.

I don't mean guilty in a legal sense, but guilty in a social sense. As far as a lot of people are concerned (not me, but a lot of people) anyone who accuses someone of rape had better be right or they are an evil feminazi whose existence proves that rape allegations are all false.

If you falsely accuse someone of rape, you should be vilified. If you falsely accuse someone of any crime, then you should be looked down upon by society, I don't think that's something that should be controversial. Now, just because you couldn't get a conviction does not mean that your allegations are false, because it's all about whether or not you're able to demonstrate guilt which is a different matter from whether the allegations themselves are true or false.

I think it's foolish for someone to believe that all rape allegations are false and I can't understand why they'd do that because there's clear evidence to the contrary. I also think that the public should be better educated with regards to legal matters in general, but that's probably not realistic.

Or for a less extreme example, you might have someone accuse their boss or coworker, but because of one thing or another can't prove to the satisfaction of the law that rape happened they recant and then get stigmatized in their workplace for "making things up". That kind of "guilty".

It's a negative consequence, but it's not guilt and we should disentangle that. Sometimes in life you have a lose-lose situation. That's just how it is and there is no easy fix to that. If you have two friends who hate each other, and would hate you if you side with one of them, you'll inevitably lose at least one friend.

If you accuse someone of a very serious crime and cannot be vindicated, I don't think it's realistic to be able to maintain a working relationship with that person, and potentially that company. Putting aside the issue of rape for now, if I were to sue my boss and lose for whatever reason, I don't think it would be desirable for any party for me to continue to stay with that company.

I'm not sure of the reasoning behind recanting rape accusations. If you know your accusations are true, but couldn't have the court decide in your favour, I don't see why that would mean you should recant. If anything recanting only makes you look worse, and it's not being true to yourself, nor to truth either.

Law enforcement can detain/question/etc. someone without conviction-level proof. If it doesn't pan out (regardless of whether the person was guilty or not) there are usually no repercussions. A person can't get away with that when it comes to rape, at least not in the eyes of many people.

These are two different scenarios. If you're detained by the law, you would be the defendant in court. If you're making a rape accusation, then you would be the plaintiff. If you were accused of rape but could not be found guilty, then there probably wouldn't be any repercussions as in the first scenario (although I imagine people would be more wary of you anyways).

 

[Electricbluewolf]

I find this video best sums up consent.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gp6alIALDHA

The problem with the analogy of "the boy who cried wolf" with false rape cases is that the falsely accused, even months of being cleared of not raping, can be socially guilty. Death threats, social exclusion, work imbalance. False accusers should and are punished for accusing someone of rape (when they have not) as not only does it ruin a persons life, and their families, when it is discovered they have lied about it people take sexual attacks less seriously, or with more caution to the victim. The mixed message women get when reporting any sexual misconduct can be frustrating-my friend was walking through town after a few drinks with friends when she was attacked-the police praised her for reporting it but because she had been drinking she was treated with a bit of hostility.

- Can a person genuinely believe they are acting within the confines of the law/social standards (re: consent) and yet still be violating a person's rights?

The issue here is a person's rights are personal. Whilst we have Human Rights and the law to go through it criminally, personal feeling is different for person to person. What is acceptable to one person is not to another.

- Should there ever be a statute of limitations on making rape allegations?

Here in Britian we don't have a Statute of Limitations. Recently (in the last 4 years or so) we have had a huge uncovering of the famous childrens TV Presenter Jimmy Savillive for crimes that he committed in the 70s. Whilst there has been strong evidence against him (and he has been convicted even though he is dead) it has brought up the argument of should there be laws or regulations to limit the yers. The problem is the victim may be gagged publicly or privately and cannot tell their story, or is to traumatised to. As a victim of sexual assault it took me 10 years to tell one person as I was so ashamed of what had happened

This is an interesting to understand the UK system:

https://www.theopinionsite.org/should-britain-have-a-statute-of-limitations-on-sex-crimes/

 

[Sir Codin]

https://www.reddit.com/r/morbidquestions/comments/3iin48/what_should_someone_do_if_they_are_falsely/

The immediate big long response post is something everyone should read and the fact that things like this happen at the mere accusation is enough that I honestly can say with a straight face that I cannot in good conscience call the United States "a rape culture." This is fucking terrifying and incidents like this are the reason why it's become more prevalent to take rape accusations with a grain of salt, which sadly puts genuine rape victims at an even bigger disadvantage. It doesn't matter the statistics; when something like this can happen, you know there's something flawed.

This is why I never date anyone.

 

[Esper]

I'm not sure of the reasoning behind recanting rape accusations.

Imagine going into a police station and getting a cold response from the police, or being told there's nothing the law can do even if the police do investigate, or you get the feeling that the police aren't taking you seriously, or you get social pressure from mutual friends/family of the person who attacked you, or that you realize you wouldn't be able to stay in your job which you need to survive, or that the person is your spouse and you have children together, or any number of other reasons. There are a lot of non-legal forces that can be at work influencing a person's decisions. I'm not saying it's right or wrong for someone to recant, just that there are plenty of reasons and scenarios in which a person might do it. It's not unlike the factors that go into someone's decision to stay in an abusive relationship.

 

[VisualJae]

This is why people record themselves while "in action." And this is why so many videos end up getting leaked and shared everywhere online.

 

[gimmepie]

This is why people record themselves while "in action." And this is why so many videos end up getting leaked and shared everywhere online.

I would argue that more often than not those people just want to re-watch. Maybe give themselves a pat on the back for good form or something.

 

[VisualJae]

I would argue that more often than not those people just want to re-watch. Maybe give themselves a pat on the back for good form or something.

It was more tongue in cheek, what I said. But I totally understand what you said is something people actually do. I mean... I have some friends who do that. Fantastic times when they feel like sharing too much information at dude gatherings.

 

[Fannie]

https://www.reddit.com/r/morbidquestions/comments/3iin48/what_should_someone_do_if_they_are_falsely/

The immediate big long response post is something everyone should read and the fact that things like this happen at the mere accusation is enough that I honestly can say with a straight face that I cannot in good conscience call the United States "a rape culture." This is ****ing terrifying and incidents like this are the reason why it's become more prevalent to take rape accusations with a grain of salt, which sadly puts genuine rape victims at an even bigger disadvantage. It doesn't matter the statistics; when something like this can happen, you know there's something flawed.

This is why I never date anyone.

It's one of the main reasons I'm glad not to be a man. I'd be terrified of that happening to me.

 

[Her]

It's one of the main reasons I'm glad not to be a man. I'd be terrified of that happening to me.

Well, I mean, women can rape men and men can falsely accuse women of it and things like that.

 

[Fannie]

Well, I mean, women can rape men and men can falsely accuse women of it and things like that.

Yes but I have a feeling it wouldn't be taken as seriously.

 

[Her]

Yes but I have a feeling it wouldn't be taken as seriously.

That's a massive problem here in NZ - until very recently (might have been 2009 or 2013, I don't quite remember when it was fully cleared up) women were simply unable to be charged with rape, period. Rape was legally defined as a penis entering a vagina without consent, or something to that effect. There was just a total lack of belief in the possibility of female aggression, totally unable to believe that a man could ever be in the stereotypically female position and therefore be lesser because of it. Which says a lot more about the female status in rape (and gender roles as a whole) than the man's status.
There was even a case last year where a female teacher used her position to rape a student and people still questioned if it was really rape because surely there had to be some degree of consent if the man wasn't the aggressor.

 

[Sir Codin]

Well, I mean, women can rape men and men can falsely accuse women of it and things like that.

Is that actually a thing, though? I'm not sure I've heard of something like that happening.