Your opinion on feminism?

[Nah]

re: focusing on one group's rights/equality--it's fine. People do it for the same reason specialization became a thing in the first place millenia ago: it's not physically possible for anyone to do everything and do so to an adequate degree. So different groups tackle different issues so they can deal with that particular issue better. And then so hopefully when all groups succeed, we finally have that ideal of true equality become a reality.

It's like if you're putting together a team in some multiplayer RPG and some people are like "yeah I'ma be thief+tank+support". Maybe you'll make it through the dungeon, but it'll work out a lot better/go more smoothly if everyone dedicates to one role.

probably a shitty analogy but I was never good at explaining things

 

[KetsuekiR]

I don't really agree with you here, i'm not sure what your sources are but you're making some pretty sweeping statements that i don't think are really accurate. I guess feminism can be called woman-centric because it's goals pertain to women specifically (although by default they have to also be about men- you can't exactly have equality by..... not being equal?).

I don't think there's any real substantial amount of people claiming that bad things for women are directly the fault of men, or any kind of concious conspiracy and i definitely don't think there's anyone saying that the bad things for men are "no one's fault" (I mean- i talked directly about this in the first part of my post and i'm pretty sure the position i took wasn't just something i made up as my own unique philosophy)

It kind of feels like a cop out to say "I agree with feminism, but also everyone who calls themselves a feminist is wrong and bad and wants things that aren't the things i agree with" and i think more exposure to and understanding of feminist perspectives and ideologies would help a lot, since i don't think your blanket statements are really accurate or helpful to furthering the things you agree with

I'm not sure which part of that point you disgree with, so I'll elaborate. In the first sentence, I was talking about the serious lack of conversation on men's issues. I listen to the news a lot and I can't say I've seen much of anything on that topic. Then, if blaming men is not what's been done here, what is the concept of patriachal opression of women based on? Finally, It's not a cop-out to call out a movement that has gone askew from what it's meant to be about. That's me stating I am for what it once was but not what it has become.

Uh, I'm pretty sure rape culture has meant what i'm talking about for a pretty long time, at least in the context we're talking about it in? I don't get your argument here though, "things are bad in other countries so we shouldn't talk about these issues" ?

It doesn't really feel helpful to me to focus on the perceived semantics of a term i used rather than the things i talked about

How are perceived semantic not important in any discussion? This is the same issue I have with feminism. Perception matters. It doesn't really matter feminism is "supposed to be" or "is truly", what matters is its perception in modern society. Right now, it's a mess.

Can we take a step back and think about what you're using as a launch pad, though? You're agreeing with me- that you can't depend on non-verbal cues- but you're framing this as somehow something that modern feminists are... against?

Surely, doing something without asking for consent, and then considering silence or inaction to be consent, is wrong and we can all agree that it's sexual assault?

I agree with the idea that if a woman- or anyone- doesn't like a sexual advance they should be able to leave, but it's a very simplistic view to say "well, if they don't it's their fault". It's a very complicated subject with a lot of variables, like intimidation and contextual power dynamics , fear or surprise, level of sobriety ect and just... victim blaming, i guess, by saying that in every situation someone who doesn't consent should (or can) just leave doesn't feel very useful or helpful to the discussion

No, it's not about staying silent when sexually assaulted. It's about giving consent and then regretting it later, followed by blaming the man for going through with it even though deep down, you didn't want to. This is exactly what happened with the Aziz Ansari case. You can't really argue modern feminists are against the idea that non-verbal cues are unreliable when there was an entire, two-day mass conversation over this. As far as I'm aware, all cases against Donald Trump are similar.

As for the second part of your response, I don't think it's the woman's fault for not leaving, but it's not the man's fault for taking consent as consent either. You seem to have mistaken by support for actual evidence being necessary for support for victim-blaming. Like I said, every woman deserves to be listened to, but only those with evidence should be believed.

I feel like this is both kind of a gross miscategorisation of what happened and the testimony of the woman that you're using as a blanket statement? I went and read up on the situation (not limited to this article, but it's the one that swayed me in the strongest way).

Rather than making weird blanket statements that directly implies (what you've said isn't a "this is what feminists think women can't do" you've outright said that, based on that example women in general can't do this) women can't consent "right" and are too meek or whatever to consent or not consent, why don't we just agree that proper consent needs to be taught? A situation of mutual trust where you ask for consent is how things should be done, and the fact that situations are arising where consent is murky at all isn't a good thing

No, I pretty much said, "this is what feminists think women can't do". To quote myself, "The problem with this being categorised as sexual assault is... that women are apparently not strong enough to make the decision to reject or walk out themselves."

In case that wasn't clear enough, it is a problem to classify that as sexual assault because it would mean women are not able to give consent on their own. If you re-read my earlier response, it's fairly clear I'm against that.

In the case with Aziz Ansari, proper consent was used. She said yes. Repeatedly. I'm not sure what more needs to happen. She went home and regretted it, but that's not really his fault, is it?

I'm not sure what we're talking about here- do you mean the multitude of sexual assault claims and cases against Trump over his 70-ish years of life or do you mean the statement he himself made about sexual assault?

I don't really get what you're saying because it doesn't really fit either of those topics? Groping women without consent as he described himself doing is sexual assault. The claims he raped or sexual assaulted numerous women are substantiated in various amounts on a case by case basis, from his ex-wife's legal testimony that he raped her to the modern claims that were only made public during his campaign and also have varying levels of substantiation by outside parties.

I'm unaware of cases where evidence was substantiated. All cases I've looked into were not solid or similar to that of Aziz Ansari. Could you please cite your sources? I'll be happy to respond to this more in-depth once I've read through!

 

[Gengar666]

I'm saying we should work together to make sure muggings don't happen for any reason in essence. Rather just stop muggings that happen because of a single specific reason.

I think everyone as a whole should fight oppression and that it's important to stand up for the rights of others as well as yourself.

Too bad you'll never know what it's like to be among an oppressed minority enough to know what a single movement can mean to someone. Or what kind of time and energy can go into organizing or participating in a demonstration. Why would you? You've no inkling of what it's like in their shoes.

Also, a participant in one group CAN be part of another. A woman of color can be part of B.L.M. AND want equal and better treatment of women, which would make her a feminist too. It's not like X can't be Y, it's just that these movements are of different categories of the same overall cause that are resisting different categories of oppression. For example, BLM is a direct response to the many acts of police mistreating people of color that often resulted in death.

We differentiate these movements so we know which movement to respond to a different type of oppression with. Just because they have a different primary focus doesn't mean they're not playing an essential part in overall equality and it doesn't mean supporters of one can't support the other.

Overlooking that is prejudice because it shows how unwilling you are to even bother thinking about it from that side, which makes it easier to oppose the movements of groups that are genuinely facing danger.

Since you seem so very interested though, I guess I should fill you in a bit. You are correct that I am white, male and cis-gendered but if you think that means I've never had to deal with oppressive behaviour or stigmas you're very, very wrong. Firstly, I suffer from two mental illnesses and a behavioural disorder and have been marginalised by people for both my entire life. Secondly, I am a man that works with children and for no other reason than me being male, people act like that makes me a paedophile or otherwise some sort of threat to their children.

Ok first of all did you just unironically not all men? "Not all men who deal with children are pedophiles! IIIIII'm not a pedophile!" Next, have you ever feared being killed or raped? Your problems do suck, but don't try to guilt trip me with incomparable comparisons to them. It's grossly downplaying the severity of these movements' causes.

Now, you're making a lot of assumptions about me here, and quite frankly what you're doing is actually the same thing you're very happy to accuse others of.

You don't get to make assumptions about me based on my gender or my race. That in and of itself is sexism and racism and it is because of attitudes like yours that I have a problem with feminism. You have a lot to learn about the world.

Actually, I didn't assume anything BECAUSE you're white. I assumed you WERE white based on the foggy viewpoint you tossed out, and I was right. Oh, you find that oppressive and prejudice towards white males? Well, perhaps privileged white males can spare a little bit of their ego to have a microscopic taste of what sort of oppression is happening to other social groups in question. Must be rough, dude.

 

[gimmepie]

Snip

You've demonstrated multiple times in this post the exact sort of behaviour you apparently have a problem with. You again have repeatedly made assumptions based on my race and gender. I'm not going to bother continuing a pointless discussion with you because honestly every time you open your mouth you make a better case against yourself than I could ever hope to.

 

[Gengar666]

You've demonstrated multiple times in this post the exact sort of behaviour you apparently have a problem with. You again have repeatedly made assumptions based on my race and gender. I'm not going to bother continuing a pointless discussion with you because honestly every time you open your mouth you make a better case against yourself than I could ever hope to.

And I still say my assumptions about you based on your race and gender are nothing compared to what the movements you criticize are combating. You will never know what it's like to face that of such a caliber, and that's why I think your opposition to such movements are unreasonable.

If this post gets me banned, so be it.

 

[Grey Wind]

Secondly, I do not support any group that only seeks to benefit themselves (or otherwise focuses only on the rights of one group). That means feminism, BLM, MRAs, whatever twisted group think white people need to take back America - all of them. If the very nature of your movement is exclusive, then it isn't promoting equality. If you feel like your work s done when problems facing women are dealt with but issues facing men, racial issues, LGBT issues, class issues and so-forth aren't something you speak out against then you never wanted equality. Equality has to be for everyone. As Bay mentioned, even in the feminist movement itself, the focus is very clearly on what benefits middle-upper class white women compared to other females.

I consider myself egalitarian. Not as a thinly-veiled way to do nothing and maintain the status quo like some conservatives use the term, I want equality for everyone and I think the sooner there is a global initiative for equal rights for all, the better.

I'm saying we should work together to make sure muggings don't happen for any reason in essence. Rather just stop muggings that happen because of a single specific reason.

But what form does that take? How do we challenge deeply rooted inequalities in society if all we're promoting is a vague, egalitarian message? And do you have any examples of major social change being brought about that way? Because I can list a ton that's happened because of "exclusive" movements.

Saying that we need to include everyone or whatever is all very well and good, but in practice it's kind of ridiculous. If you're not addressing these problems at their roots and educating the public about the inequalities people face, then you're not getting anywhere. I don't see the problem with saying "hey, x group don't have equal rights and face discrimination - and that needs to change".

 

[Star-Lord]

I feel like a lot I would have said has already been touched on.

In the case with Aziz Ansari, proper consent was used. She said yes. Repeatedly. I'm not sure what more needs to happen. She went home and regretted it, but that's not really his fault, is it?

What do you define as proper consent? I read the story a while back and there were two separate instances where the woman in question wanted to "relax" or w/e language she used, only for Azis Ansari to put his fingers in her mouth. This happened twice. Should we as a society not set up a reasonable expectation that we understand that our sexual partners are uncomfortable, and therefor disengage in the act?

I feel like people need to understand that consent should be enthusiastic. The description from the story certainly didn't make it look like the woman involved was enthusiastic. If we have enthusiastic consent, then less situations like this would happen.

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that there are people who think Ansari acted appropriately. In all fairness I've gone through similar situations myself so perhaps I'm a little too sensitive to the topic, but honestly.

 

[KetsuekiR]

What do you define as proper consent? I read the story a while back and there were two separate instances where the woman in question wanted to "relax" or w/e language she used, only for Azis Ansari to put his fingers in her mouth. This happened twice. Should we as a society not set up a reasonable expectation that we understand that our sexual partners are uncomfortable, and therefor disengage in the act?

I feel like people need to understand that consent should be enthusiastic. The description from the story certainly didn't make it look like the woman involved was enthusiastic. If we have enthusiastic consent, then less situations like this would happen.

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that there are people who think Ansari acted appropriately. In all fairness I've gone through similar situations myself so perhaps I'm a little too sensitive to the topic, but honestly.

I don't think Aziz Ansari acted appropriately, I think he should've picked up on it like a gentlemen. That said, she gave him verbal consent and him not reading her body language/tone and thus resulting in an awkward sexual encounter should not be put on the same level as sexual assault/rape, which is what 's been happening. I don't see that as helping the movement whatsoever.

 

[Vragon]

I feel like a lot I would have said has already been touched on.

What do you define as proper consent? I read the story a while back and there were two separate instances where the woman in question wanted to "relax" or w/e language she used, only for Azis Ansari to put his fingers in her mouth. This happened twice. Should we as a society not set up a reasonable expectation that we understand that our sexual partners are uncomfortable, and therefor disengage in the act?

I feel like people need to understand that consent should be enthusiastic. The description from the story certainly didn't make it look like the woman involved was enthusiastic. If we have enthusiastic consent, then less situations like this would happen.

I just can't wrap my mind around the fact that there are people who think Ansari acted appropriately. In all fairness I've gone through similar situations myself so perhaps I'm a little too sensitive to the topic, but honestly.

The issue I have with this stems from the communications aspect into perspective. Not everyone can pick up on signals and not everyone is good at conveying them. You can say that partners having it should try and look out for the other making calls they are familiar with and I'd agree with you. It isn't however, societies job to do that.

Also, I disagree with consent needs to be enthusiastic. Consent is when someone is willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not. If someone doesn't want to do it, then there needs to be a clear point sent across that says, "Hey I'm not doing this."

Perhaps if consent was only for enthusiastic things then maybe less situations would happen, but that's not a reason in itself to set up a societal standard.

I don't think he acted like he should have or at least with respects to how she felt about it. The issue I have is that if you don't like something, "You need to get your message out". A common problem I see in society is that people misunderstand things, which leads into a false sense of them not wanting to do it when the person probably just didn't understand or get the message. Communication is a two way street and while I won't say he's scot free on it for not trying to make sure she was fine with it, but at the same time if what you're doing isn't working you need to step it up a notch to get your point across.

I don't think there is a more proper (or at least universally understood) consent than a firm "yes". Yes there needs to be better communication between the partners so that situations like this can be avoided in the future.

 

[Star-Lord]

I don't think Aziz Ansari acted appropriately, I think he should've picked up on it like a gentlemen. That said, she gave him verbal consent and him not reading her body language/tone and thus resulting in an awkward sexual encounter should not be put on the same level as sexual assault/rape, which is what 's been happening. I don't see that as helping the movement whatsoever.

Did she really give him consent though? I think that's what the question really boils down to. Where she may not have said an explicit no, she certainly didn't give an enthusiastic yes. In fact, she made it very clear a few times during the encounter that she wasn't really interested at all, and yet he persisted. Is it not his responsibility to understand that?

I did a couple of quick lookups for definitions of sexual assault. To be entirely honest I didn't take a look to see what jurisdiction you live in, so I apologize in advance. Here's one sort of America-centric:

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault

I bolded some keywords. Explicit is sort of tricky to understand in this situation-- It's very clear that we see it two separate ways. I feel that she didn't explicitly consent, due to the fact she rescinded her consent in later parts of their encounter. If I understand correctly, you feel that she did explicitly consent because she said it out loud. I bolded fondling because that seemed to be a very large part of what could have potentially made the encounter into a sexual assault.

Sexual assault is an act in which a person sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will.

Source: Cameron, P., Jelinek, G., Kelly, A-M., Brown. A. F. T., Little, M. Textbook of Adult Emergency Medicine E-Book p. 658.

I've bolded the word coerce so that it's used as a point of consideration in discussing this topic. When I read the situation regarding Aziz Ansari, it seemed clear to me that the woman was coerced. While she seemed to consent in parts, it seemed clear that she also did not fully consent in other parts. Is it fair to say that she was coerced in this situation? If she was, it certainly fits this definition of sexual assault that is used in a textbook meant to educate trainee doctors in Emergency Room settings.

I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, but I personally think that, considering the facts, it's fair to compare this to sexual assault.

The issue I have with this stems from the communications aspect into perspective. Not everyone can pick up on signals and not everyone is good at conveying them. You can say that partners having it should try and look out for the other making calls they are familiar with and I'd agree with you. It isn't however, societies job to do that.

I personally can't see how it isn't society's job not to do that. The entire point of law (at least from what I understand from a Canadian and United States perspective) is establishing a set of guidelines which is meant to protect people in a fair and democratic society. We have laws which tell people not to harm others in the greater interest of protecting the overall population. How is this any different than establishing guidelines to protect people from being sexually assaulted? Even from a non-legal perspective, is it not our responsibility as a society to educate people from harming others? Is teaching proper communication cues during sexual encounters not beneficial in preventing harmful situations from occurring?

Also, I disagree with consent needs to be enthusiastic. Consent is when someone is willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not. If someone doesn't want to do it, then there needs to be a clear point sent across that says, "Hey I'm not doing this."

I think you need to seriously re-examine what your definition of consent is. I deleted my post earlier, because I thought it was sort of inflammatory, but I think it rings true to what you're saying here.

While sort of sassy, this was taken from a situation I had many years ago. To make a long story short, I got drunk and ended up going home with somebody. It was very clear that he wanted to have sex with me, but I wasn't entirely motivated and comfortable doing it. He goaded me until I eventually gave him consent to have sex with me, despite the fact I didn't want to have it in the first place. To use your language, I " was willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not.". Was I willing to carry it out? Absolutely, I used it as a mechanism that prevented me from having an argument despite the fact I didn't want it in the first place. Did I want it at all? No. I didn't want it whatsoever. in literally NO world did I want to have sex, but I had to so that I A) Didn't potentially get further hurt B) Get kicked out drunk and forced to make my own way back home. This isn't real consent. No amount of mental gymnastics anybody goes through will ever justify this being actual, legitimate, true consent, despite the fact I was willing to carry it out.

Refer back to the earlier definition that I gave. I was coerced into having sex. Do you know what a great way to understand whether someone wants to have sex with you or not? Enthusiastic Consent.

Perhaps if consent was only for enthusiastic things then maybe less situations would happen, but that's not a reason in itself to set up a societal standard.

I am going to be very honest with you. How do you understand consent, even when it comes to non-sexual encounters? If you invite friends to go to a movie, but one of them seems apprehensive to go to a movie, do you feel comfortable taking them to that movie, or do you have the reasonable sense to try and compromise? The logic is really the same here. Enthusiasm is a very easy trait to recognize-- Friends can see that I am enthusiastic about playing rugby and continuing my studies. Is this not a characteristic that we should recognize in our interpersonal relationships? I can see my friend Amy is excited to go the movie, so I know my decision is sound! If Amy seems a little apprehensive about going to see this film, maybe I'll go find another one for her, or have a quiet night in.

---

I'm also going to be honest and say that I may not respond to you guys further. I don't spend a lot of time on this website, so your replies may get sidetracked to some of my other responsibilities. I certainly hope I gave you some food for thought though.

 

[KetsuekiR]

-snip-

Ultimately, my point of view is that perhaps as a society we should be encouraging women to say no if they want to say no, and that "no" means no and "yes" means "yes" instead of teaching men to become behavioural analysts who, if they misread a non-verbal clues are classified sexual abusers.

That isn't to say a man shouldn't try to pick up on these clues but if a woman says yes, you can't exactly blame the blame for taking that as a yes. In the moment, his enthusiasm was probably high enough to not notice her enthusiasm but she did say yes. It boils down to that, frankly.

 

[silvershred]

Doing a movement that supports everyone is that it does kinda ignore the group that is struggling. We don't have movements to allow both same-sex and opposite-sex marriage. The latter is already a thing, and doesn't need any support at the moment. At the same time most men don't face the same problems women face because of their gender. It doesn't mean that men can't face discrimination at all, but it's rare for them to be underestimated or seen as weak because of their gender identity. They face a differnt kind of problem with having more pressure on gender roles, which is a thing that should be dealt with on its own.

More rights for one group of people does not mean less for the rest.

 

[Vragon]

Sexual assault is any type of sexual contact or behavior that occurs without the explicit consent of the recipient. Falling under the definition of sexual assault are sexual activities as forced sexual intercourse, forcible sodomy, child molestation, incest, fondling, and attempted rape.

Source: https://www.justice.gov/ovw/sexual-assault

I bolded some keywords. Explicit is sort of tricky to understand in this situation-- It's very clear that we see it two separate ways. I feel that she didn't explicitly consent, due to the fact she rescinded her consent in later parts of their encounter. If I understand correctly, you feel that she did explicitly consent because she said it out loud. I bolded fondling because that seemed to be a very large part of what could have potentially made the encounter into a sexual assault.

My overarching point when it comes to consent is getting your point across if you do or don't want to. It's up to you to ensure that you've done all you can to get the person to understand your position, it's on them to try and understand it and not brush it aside until they've confirmed with you. The fact you and I see how the consent thing differs is an example of how we both communicate differently (or observe such details in different ways). I'm not saying one is wrong or the other, just that it is important to be clear.

Sexual assault is an act in which a person sexually touches another person without that person's consent, or coerces or physically forces a person to engage in a sexual act against their will

Source: Cameron, P., Jelinek, G., Kelly, A-M., Brown. A. F. T., Little, M. Textbook of Adult Emergency Medicine E-Book p. 658.

I've bolded the word coerce so that it's used as a point of consideration in discussing this topic. When I read the situation regarding Aziz Ansari, it seemed clear to me that the woman was coerced. While she seemed to consent in parts, it seemed clear that she also did not fully consent in other parts. Is it fair to say that she was coerced in this situation? If she was, it certainly fits this definition of sexual assault that is used in a textbook meant to educate trainee doctors in Emergency Room settings.

Okay, I can agree that she wouldn't want to be in that situation all the time and she should try and convey her wants to get out. Coerced is a thing yes, but something that's important to touch up on is what I said prior, "Communication being clear". If he is coercing and it is affecting you then it would be advised to emphasize that it's something you don't want. Plus there's the definition of Coerce being for an "Unwilling" person. Now I can agree that she may have been unwilling, the thing is I don't know for certain since there was no conveying of "Unwillingess" or enough to be a signal to the guy. If he kept going on then yeah, he'd be going too far, but the issue lies in those two being able to communicate. Did she make it clear? Did he understand yet go ahead with it anyway? These things need to be understood and evidence to support them.

I'm not a lawyer nor a judge, but I personally think that, considering the facts, it's fair to compare this to sexual assault.

Let be clear on my position. I believe that you shouldn't force anyone to do anything without their consent. Something I also believe is that communication needs to be established for things to get accurately across. I'm not contending any definitions, just wanted to say that.

The issue I have with this stems from the communications aspect into perspective. Not everyone can pick up on signals and not everyone is good at conveying them. You can say that partners having it should try and look out for the other making calls they are familiar with and I'd agree with you. It isn't however, societies job to do that.

I personally can't see how it isn't society's job not to do that. The entire point of law (at least from what I understand from a Canadian and United States perspective) is establishing a set of guidelines which is meant to protect people in a fair and democratic society. We have laws which tell people not to harm others in the greater interest of protecting the overall population. How is this any different than establishing guidelines to protect people from being sexually assaulted? Even from a non-legal perspective, is it not our responsibility as a society to educate people from harming others? Is teaching proper communication cues during sexual encounters not beneficial in preventing harmful situations from occurring?

I can understand if what I said might not have been clear so let me clarify my position. I do think society should have guidelines like the whole "yes means yes" and "no means no" and other things along with laws against assault and go into good detail what makes it assault. Now what I'm referring to hear is the couple's communication. No one really hears the same thing nor does everyone say things in the same way. It's more of how the couple would be able to convey such feelings that aren't in the guidelines that are set up by them. Society can have guidelines, but it can't go overboard or overly complex with them since many couples do things differently and not everyone sees/hears things in the same way.

Also, I disagree with consent needs to be enthusiastic. Consent is when someone is willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not. If someone doesn't want to do it, then there needs to be a clear point sent across that says, "Hey I'm not doing this."

I think you need to seriously re-examine what your definition of consent is. I deleted my post earlier, because I thought it was sort of inflammatory, but I think it rings true to what you're saying here.

Okay, so understand I'm not saying consent shouldn't be clarified by the other person nor am I saying that all consents given should be accepted as willing. My point is not about why you give consent, but that you did.
When it comes to consent, it's up to the consent to give consent. They can refuse to; they can clarify for the person to stop. I don't believe it coercing someone to get what you want, cause that is a childish tactic that is befitting of an adult. When I disagree that consent needs to be enthusiastic I refer not to the person giving consent but the person that is given the consent. I wouldn't know what goes on in a person's mind so how would I think that they would be less than enthusiastic for that specific reason, unless I asked. (an example of the other party trying to ensure they get the point) I'm not giving saying a person should consent after being constantly asked/argued nor am I advocating a quick solution. I know couples situations are different. So what I mean by consent, I mean once it's given there isn't an excuse to claim anything about "Forced to do something you don't want" Unless you slam that door to begin with or shut the door in the middle.

While sort of sassy, this was taken from a situation I had many years ago. To make a long story short, I got drunk and ended up going home with somebody. It was very clear that he wanted to have sex with me, but I wasn't entirely motivated and comfortable doing it. He goaded me until I eventually gave him consent to have sex with me, despite the fact I didn't want to have it in the first place. To use your language, I " was willing to carry it out whether they at the time are avidly wanting it or not.". Was I willing to carry it out? Absolutely, I used it as a mechanism that prevented me from having an argument despite the fact I didn't want it in the first place. Did I want it at all? No. I didn't want it whatsoever. in literally NO world did I want to have sex, but I had to so that I A) Didn't potentially get further hurt B) Get kicked out drunk and forced to make my own way back home. This isn't real consent. No amount of mental gymnastics anybody goes through will ever justify this being actual, legitimate, true consent, despite the fact I was willing to carry it out.

Refer back to the earlier definition that I gave. I was coerced into having sex. Do you know what a great way to understand whether someone wants to have sex with you or not? Enthusiastic Consent.

With regards to your image, I disagree with the guy constantly bothering you about it. I don't think he should be pressing you for it and you have every reason to say "No". When it comes to law, if you do sex so that it won't become an argument, means it's out of anyone's hands to call "Forced" if you willingly do it. I wouldn't want you to nor do I think he is right, but at the same time there isn't much you can criminalize him for above just merely pestering you about it unless he did coercing.

Also, might I add that there is a society guideline that someone that is intoxicated is a factor to consider as well as others. Here's a link that explains them in order, feel free to treat it with scrutiny.
https://www.rainn.org/articles/legal-role-consent

In that situation I will say you weren't in a state to give consent if you were intoxicated. Look, I'm not trying to play devils advocate, I'm trying to analyze this from the perspective of someone outside of this scenario. If you were drunk to one of the intoxication levels, you legally can't give consent. Therefore what you gave to him wasn't consent and he could be charged for it.

I am going to be very honest with you. How do you understand consent, even when it comes to non-sexual encounters? If you invite friends to go to a movie, but one of them seems apprehensive to go to a movie, do you feel comfortable taking them to that movie, or do you have the reasonable sense to try and compromise? The logic is really the same here. Enthusiasm is a very easy trait to recognize-- Friends can see that I am enthusiastic about playing rugby and continuing my studies. Is this not a characteristic that we should recognize in our interpersonal relationships? I can see my friend Amy is excited to go the movie, so I know my decision is sound! If Amy seems a little apprehensive about going to see this film, maybe I'll go find another one for her, or have a quiet night in.

---

And there is an example of you picking up the communications made by the person that they don't want to go. Let me make myself as clear as I can be in regards to what I'm debating on.

I'm not debating on the person's consent level of interest, because if it's given then there isn't anything legal that can be done if the consent is legally given. I have plenty of opinions on that and I keep them aside so I can treat this from a legal/in-biased (hopefully)/broad perspective. I hope I didn't come off too despicable since my opinions on consent and all aren't too far from what you're saying. I feel it's important to make sure everyone is on board and wants to be there and it's important to establish that first and foremost. But not everyone is like me and justice doesn't care for my definitions on the matter.
I don't say that to be condescending, but to keep things in perspective.

I'm also going to be honest and say that I may not respond to you guys further. I don't spend a lot of time on this website, so your replies may get sidetracked to some of my other responsibilities. I certainly hope I gave you some food for thought though.

You certainly have provided your case well and in all honesty I don't disagree inherently with your points or opinions (some of them). I'm just trying to stay neutral in this and the evidence that supports it like a few others I believe are in this chat (albeit I'm probably failing but eh). So what I say here, please understand isn't my full opinion, but me trying to approach this rationally.

Thank you for the discussion and for being respectful with your response.

I wish you well.

 

[luuma]

Ultimately, my point of view is that perhaps as a society we should be encouraging women to say no if they want to say no, and that "no" means no and "yes" means "yes" instead of teaching men to become behavioural analysts who, if they misread a non-verbal clues are classified sexual abusers.

In my opinion this is a comparatively terrible idea! The whole basis of the argument star lord is making is that someone may not always feel able to say no. His ideal scenario of "people always, always look for enthusiastic consent" works much better than yours.

Given this assumption, your supposed ideal scenario actually seems to make things worse in many casses! Let's say I've gotten pulled by a big scary geezer with tattoos all up their arm and they calmy ask someone if they wanna come back to the lad pad, go on it'll be fun, i promise it won't be awkward, etcetera. He's actually a tender hearted soul, but I am absolutely terrified, and also likely drunk. I am unlikely to be in a position to "say no if I want to say no" because training falls apart

In star lord's ideal world, where the responsibility lies entirely on the side of the person posing the question, I give unenthusiastic consent, the scary geezer uses his training and realises that his looks have spooked me out, and quietly reassures me that it's chill, I don't have to.
But people are flawed machines;. It's possible he pressures me more, and we spend the night together. I didn't consent enthusiastically, and I can make a case against him the morning after.


Now let's look at your ideal world, where responsibility lies upon me. I've been told to only say yes when I mean it, and say no for the rest. I say no. He graciously backs off.
But people, as I say, are flawed machines: It's possible I forget my training, get scared by him, and say yes. He's well aware of society's training, so to him this categorically means that I want to spend the night. So we do.
The morning after I have nothing to do. It was my fault. Why would I be able to get justice for myself when in the eyes of society it is my own screwup??

Do you see the difference? All we did was put the training on the victim rather than the accuser, and suddenly the bad scenario seems infinitely harsher on statutory rape victims.Unwanted intimacy, and I cannot stress this enough, Messes you up. We need a safety net for those affected. the training, and by extension, the blame, should lie with the person asking.

Also this issue is unrelated to gender politics unless we're discussing favorable treatment of women in the courts. gay guys have consent issues too. So do women asking men. Let's go back to feminism.

 

[KetsuekiR]

-snip-

I can get behind all of this except on the part where this is equivalent to genuine sexual assault. This is its own kind of problem and yes, perhaps society could be educated on it, but what good does it do for the people victims of serious sexual assault if these cases are treated the same?

 

[Star-Lord]

she did say yes. It boils down to that, frankly.

How terrible. Your complete refusal to engage with situations critically by boiling it down to a "She said yes so she clearly consented" mindset is insanely irresponsible and damaging to those who are too threatened to verbalize their refusal of consent and those who are unable to provide informed consent. My heart breaks for all the victims out there who have to listen to such insanely stupid rhetoric.

Shame on you.

 

[Lipstick Vogue]

They've gotten rid of grid girls in F1. Feminism literally losing women good jobs.

 

[Vragon]

Ultimately, my point of view is that perhaps as a society we should be encouraging women to say no if they want to say no, and that "no" means no and "yes" means "yes" instead of teaching men to become behavioural analysts who, if they misread a non-verbal clues are classified sexual abusers.

That isn't to say a man shouldn't try to pick up on these clues but if a woman says yes, you can't exactly blame the blame for taking that as a yes. In the moment, his enthusiasm was probably high enough to not notice her enthusiasm but she did say yes. It boils down to that, frankly.

snip

First off, I wanna say that I don't think you are intentionally straw manning, however this is a mis-representation of KetsuekiR's opinion in your comment.
The law can only do what the law has and if consent is given within the law's stipulation nothing of legal action can be done unless proven illegal. It isn't heartless nor is it something to be shamed for in keeping that in realistic sense. I've read in this thread and KetsuekiR has already stated that KetsuekiR's opinion isn't too far off save for the "Legal" action done as a result of it. This isn't a case of playing devil's advocate, this is a case of perspective thinking and understanding how the law does things.

If a person gives consent that is within the law, there isn't any legal action that can be done until it's illegal. I personally have opinions on the matter that go beyond the law and honestly I do want both parties to be enthusiastic and want to do it with each other. The issue is that my feelings on the matter are not a reason to "Legally" press a accusation when if consent is given "legally" then I can't do anything in regards to legal action. I'm not saying I support it, nor am I saying I condone it.

The issue with this whole thing is that women and men aren't perfect and won't always understand each other's "communication" signals. I agree that society should try and make it simpler to understand, but you can't make it law based on that for reasons I gave earlier. If someone says a weak "yes" but the other only catches up on the "yes", then what more do you want? If the signal isn't clear and they don't get the message then what's the roadblock? I can agree that a person can give consent without wanting to do it and if the other person tries to clarify if the consent giver really wants to then that's all well and good, but not every person will do that first nor will every person see that there's something off by signals they don't recognize.

I get this isn't a comfortable topic, nor is taking a legal perspective pretty. However, I'm firmly against using "shaming" tactics on another for the sole reason of a difference in opinion. I'm not saying you should be okay with these things, but at the same time rules won't consider the factors outside it's jurisdiction.

That's all I have to say and Star-Lord I'm not trying to come off as condescending or attacking, but I'm trying to say that the legal perspective is a very neutral and cold perspective that can come off as heartless. It may be like that, but it's an important view point to understand, to avoid the lynching/shaming tactics that have been used to ruin people's lives.

I wish you well

 

[Star-Lord]

I understand how the law works perfectly well which is why I chose not to respond to your earlier comment. What we as a society are able and unable to prosecute under the law is a talking point I've never brought up. It's part of why I elected to not talk about the legality surrounding my situation any further. While I think you had good intentions trying to unpack what happened to me with your perspective, I need you to understand that as this is a situation that happened to me, not yourself, and because of that I already did all the necessary research into the legality of it and my legal options. Honestly I was sort of dumbstruck at the fact you felt the need to try and "educate" me on it (for a lack of a better word). I mean no ill-will but it was an insanely bizarre experience for me.

As for what my actual goals and intentions are, I think I've made it clear that I'm trying to make us as a society think critically on the notion of consent in the first place. A theme that is present in this thread (that you yourself are not guilty of, actually) is that "Yes means yes and no means no". On paper that sounds great, and of course I agree with empowering people so that they have the ability to say yes and no clearly. That would be an ideal world, but the reality of the world we live in is that it's obviously not ideal. It's already been explained in this thread that context is important when analyzing behaviors in situations-- A woman saying"yes" to consent to sex because she's too afraid to be subjected to violence (despite the fact she doesn't want to have sex in the first place) needs to be examined critically. Can it be prosecuted under a statute? That's debatable, but I'm really not interested in debating in, as I've said.

We don't need to be able to prosecute a situation for it to be considered sexual assault, and I think that focusing it on this purely under the legal scope of the law is short-sighted to the fact that this is a societal problem. Many victims don't have the financial ability or are otherwise unable to pursue litigation against their assailant. Law in general doesn't always do what people feel is the most "fair" or "ethical" decision-- That's why I'm focused on broadening society's views on sexual assault in the first place. Through education I think we may have a shot of preventing further sexual assault. After all, if people have a better notion of consent through context (my goal!) then there will be less people who feel assaulted and violated.

I have very little patience for people who succumb to an context lacking and un-nuanced definition of consent. If this makes me a "shamer", so be it.

All the best.

 

[Vragon]

Educating you was not the intention I wished to display, for that I apologize. As for the unpacking, it wasn't my intention either for education in that field and I can't blame you for feeling that way. I wasn't trying to "assert" into that nor claim that you didn't educate yourself in this or have knowledge in this area. I don't debate for a condescension or pride points for myself and I do apologize that I came off that way to you.

I do agree with that force (whether direct or indirect) is a violation of consent. I understand that it's an important detail to delve into and treat with scrutiny.

We don't need to be able to prosecute a situation for it to be considered sexual assault, and I think that focusing it on this purely under the legal scope of the law is short-sighted to the fact that this is a societal problem. Many victims don't have the financial ability or are otherwise unable to pursue litigation against their assailant. Law in general doesn't always do what people feel is the most "fair" or "ethical" decision-- That's why I'm focused on broadening society's views on sexual assault in the first place. Through education I think we may have a shot of preventing further sexual assault. After all, if people have a better notion of consent through context (my goal!) then there will be less people who feel assaulted and violated.

I have very little patience for people who succumb to an context lacking and un-nuanced definition of consent. If this makes me a "shamer", so be it.

I understand your impatience with such "people" and assault and for that I respect you for. Perhaps this is merely a slight difference in opinion when it comes to the overall influence on society. I agree, the law is basic and won't always be "fair" and I don't contend your position on that.

My concern with what you are saying isn't the intention or motive. I'm concerned in exactly the effect in it. The reason I press the whole "communications" thing is that one sometimes isn't aware of the situation. I'm not using that as an excuse, but it's a real thing that exists. I sometimes don't know that I'm hurting someone and aren't aware of the influence and that takes "communication" from either me or the other person to bridge that gap. Inherently I don't think education in this is bad; I do think it's bad if it's treated as someone not "caring" or avidly "doing it intentionally" if they just fail to read the signs. I understand education would help, but not everyone would get that education always be on their toes on it, aware when something is wrong, will recognize it and I don't think it's reasonable for people that aren't intentionally trying to harm their partner should be scapegoated for it.

I'm not against your education nor am I against the reasoning. I only want to say that misreading signals shouldn't be "villainized" or people "scapegoated" as a result. That's the only thing I disagree with you on. Everything else, I'm fine with and makes sense, but in my own opinion that's where I differ.

I do believe that "context" is important and I understand that you aren't debating on the matter of law now and so I won't debate on that section further (or at least try not to, I'm only human).

I hope this clarifies my opinion on the matter and sorry that I caused you frustration. It wasn't my intention to come off as "educating" you; I just fail at writing sometimes. I do think your intentions are honorable and your education if handled well can be a good thing. I've already stated where my own opinion differs and it's fine for us to disagree.

I wish you well