Just because she isn?t saying no doesn?t mean she is saying yes

[Iron Criterion]

Why don't we have contracts drawn up and sign them pre-fornication. It's the only way to avoid this raising fear of retroactively being accused of rape.

Or don't have sex with strangers? I mean, its not a necessity... and strangers are more likely to be assholes then someone you've spent time getting to know.

Please don't talk about appropriate sexual behaviour on a GAMES forum. That's the last place I would take advice from, even directly below the Anti-Sex League in 1984.

Edit: Also you still make it sound like me being accused of rape would be my fault for sleeping around, as opposed to being the fault of the evil person accusing me for their twisted amusement/Machiavellian schemes. I shouldn't have to second guess everything - if I meet an attractive woman and we AGREE to have sex and that status doesn't change at any point, then it's unfair I could still be in the wrong if she retroactively changes her mind.

 

[Iron Criterion]

How is it hard to get consent? I've had one night stands, it's easy to confirm. Somewhere between tops coming off and pants coming off a quick "you wanna do this?" reaffirms it. Easy. Takes barely a second.

Real people never do this. Flat out.

Besides, the woman can always deny it later. So what good does this do?

"What good does it do to affirm a woman's consent before having sex with her? She can just deny it later!"

This is a serious question, being asked by a serious poster. Sweet Jesus.

Firstly it's never good to deliberately misquote people.

Secondly he didn't say that exactly. He pointed out the woman has all the power in this scenario. A man can do all he humanly can to ensure he has consent, but is still fucked if she changes her mind after the fact (for whatever reason). It's unfair.

 

[TAdamson]

Now I'm going to disagree with you her on logical grounds. Earlier somebody cited Canadian law that states that in some cases even cooperative acts towards sex could be considered non consensual. With that in mind isn't the implied consent of inserting the penis not sufficient to disprove the rape of a man?

If you are going the route of affirmative verbal consent then it should be required for both parties our the implied consent of removing clothing etc. could be compared to insertion.

Now I'm going to disagree with you her on logical grounds.

Earlier somebody cited Canadian law that states that in some cases even cooperative acts towards sex could be considered non consensual.

With that in mind isn't the implied consent of inserting the penis not sufficient to disprove the rape of a man?

Umm... not if consent to insert the penis was never given.... If you don't get consent (AS in yes please put your dick in me.) then you open yourself up to accusations of rape.... Get consent bro.

 

[Darkmantle]

How about

'Never have sex with someone without their explicit consent'

Pretty damn simple.

Because I'm not going to ask my girlfriend "hey, can you sign this consensual sex waiver, I just want to make sure we are on the same page" every time things start to get heavy.

which is not really the situation in the article, but your statement is far too broad.

Explicit consent doesn't by necessity mean written consent.

"Want to have sex?" (or any other sex euphamism you two use)
"Yeah"

You really think that's hard?
If so, do you just never actually talk to your girlfriend?

not necessarily going to ask it either. You seem to assume that sex is going to be planned in advance. Like I'm going to say "hey wanna fuck?" and then we just go off and do it. Often doesn't work that way.

 

[Darkmantle]

How about

'Never have sex with someone without their explicit consent'

Pretty damn simple.

Because I'm not going to ask my girlfriend "hey, can you sign this consensual sex waiver, I just want to make sure we are on the same page" every time things start to get heavy.

which is not really the situation in the article, but your statement is far too broad.

You're overthinking it. Seriously, it really isn't that hard to get this.

First off, what the thread implies is that its between 2 relative strangers/first timers.

It doesn't even have to be verbal when it comes to a partner (though it does still need to be consensual), if the girl is as eager to get your pants off as you are hers and is mad for your cock, consent is pretty much given.

But if she becomes a plank, while you ride her like you would a rubber doll, then thats probably not something you want to be doing. Oh, its also incredibly creepy.

Unless nailing a plank is something you both find particularly arousing. A quick, "ready?" would suffice, followed by "yeah" or "go for it" or "mhhmm" *nod* (if your into kinky shit) will mean all is gold.

IT isn't complicated. Stop complicating it.

Why don't we have contracts drawn up and sign them pre-fornication. It's the only way to avoid this raising fear of retroactively being accused of rape.

Or don't have sex with strangers? I mean, its not a necessity... and strangers are more likely to be assholes then someone you've spent time getting to know.

And I stated that what I said was not exactly the same as what the article said, I was replying to the previous posters statement alone, not the article. Yeah, don't have sex with passed out chicks, that's pretty easy, and quite frankly the sensible thing to do. But to require explicit consent in everything (as per buddy's post) is silly, as it implies that every time I have had sex with my girlfriend, and I didn't specifically ask, even though she was clearly into it, I was raping her. That is moronic.

also, how do you prove a person gave you verbal consent, or how do you prove you/s/he didn't give verbal consent? will I need a witness every time I ask my GF if she wants to fuck? Please, amuse me.

 

[ZtH]

Now I'm going to disagree with you her on logical grounds. Earlier somebody cited Canadian law that states that in some cases even cooperative acts towards sex could be considered non consensual. With that in mind isn't the implied consent of inserting the penis not sufficient to disprove the rape of a man?

If you are going the route of affirmative verbal consent then it should be required for both parties our the implied consent of removing clothing etc. could be compared to insertion.

Now I'm going to disagree with you her on logical grounds.

What?!!

Earlier somebody cited Canadian law that states that in some cases even cooperative acts towards sex could be considered non consensual.

What?!! Are you drunk man. WTF does that mean?

With that in mind isn't the implied consent of inserting the penis not sufficient to disprove the rape of a man?

Umm... not if consent to insert the penis was never given.... If you don't get consent (AS in yes please put your dick in me.) then you open yourself up to accusations of rape.... Get consent bro.

Well apparently you can't read. I was pointing out the inconsistency in requiring explicit consent from a woman while taking the implied consent of a man as sufficient. I used the reference to Canadian law as the premise that cooperative acts aka those that further the attempt to copulate are not sufficient consent. Therefore under those rules it would be reasonable to argue that implied consent of a man penetrating a woman would not be sufficient to disprove her raping him. She would need to get explicit consent as well under those rules which is something I felt was being overlooked. Your knee-jerk reaction was enough to show you completely failed to comprehend my post

 

[Kahunaburger]

And I stated that what I said was not exactly the same as what the article said, I was replying to the previous posters statement alone, not the article. Yeah, don't have sex with passed out chicks, that's pretty easy, and quite frankly the sensible thing to do. But to require explicit consent in everything (as per buddy's post) is silly, as it implies that every time I have had sex with my girlfriend, and I didn't specifically ask, even though she was clearly into it, I was raping her. That is moronic.

also, how do you prove a person gave you verbal consent, or how do you prove you/s/he didn't give verbal consent? will I need a witness every time I ask my GF if she wants to fuck? Please, amuse me.

You're telling us you can't tell when someone wants to fuck you? In my experience, the verbal and nonverbal communication in that kind of situation is pretty unambiguous. (And if it is ambiguous, then maybe you should get some clarification that your partner is actually consenting.)

 

[Kahunaburger]

"It's bad. Don't do it."?

This is apparently a hard concept for the internet.

 

[Darkmantle]

And I stated that what I said was not exactly the same as what the article said, I was replying to the previous posters statement alone, not the article. Yeah, don't have sex with passed out chicks, that's pretty easy, and quite frankly the sensible thing to do. But to require explicit consent in everything (as per buddy's post) is silly, as it implies that every time I have had sex with my girlfriend, and I didn't specifically ask, even though she was clearly into it, I was raping her. That is moronic.

also, how do you prove a person gave you verbal consent, or how do you prove you/s/he didn't give verbal consent? will I need a witness every time I ask my GF if she wants to fuck? Please, amuse me.

You're telling us you can't tell when someone wants to fuck you? In my experience, the verbal and nonverbal communication in that kind of situation is pretty unambiguous. (And if it is ambiguous, then maybe you should get some clarification that your partner is actually consenting.)

It's not ambiguous to me, that's the thing. The guy I was replying to is stating that I should have literal verbal consent, because apparently men can't read body language. But like you said, it's usually pretty unambiguous, body language is a hell of a thing. I even said in the post you quoted "requiring explicit (meaning verbal or written) consent in everything is silly."

EDIT: You would be the 2nd person who jumped in half way and took me out of context. I think that means the people in this thread already have their rape hysteria blinders on.

 

[Jerkules]

How is it hard to get consent? I've had one night stands, it's easy to confirm. Somewhere between tops coming off and pants coming off a quick "you wanna do this?" reaffirms it. Easy. Takes barely a second.

Real people never do this. Flat out.

Besides, the woman can always deny it later. So what good does this do?

"What good does it do to affirm a woman's consent before having sex with her? She can just deny it later!"

This is a serious question, being asked by a serious poster. Sweet Jesus.

Firstly it's never good to deliberately misquote people.

I didn't misquote him. I directly quoted him, and then paraphrased his words to highlight how heinous and misogynistic they were.

Secondly he didn't say that exactly. He pointed out the woman has all the power in this scenario. A man can do all he humanly can to ensure he has consent, but is still fucked if she changes her mind after the fact (for whatever reason). It's unfair.

It's only unfair if, like aestu, you imagine yourself to be living in a world where wicked women are constantly looking to beguile men into having what they think is consensual sex, only to slap them with a rape allegation (and presumably return to their lairs afterward to stroke white cats and cackle maniacally).

It's only unfair if you think false rape accusations are a bigger problem than actual rape, when in reality quite the opposite is true.

It's only unfair if you're unaware of the fact that most rapes aren't even reported, or the fact that of the ones that are, most never even make it to trial, or the fact that the conviction rate for rape is extremely low, because rape is extremely difficult to prove.

Essentially, it's only unfair if you think your right to have sex with women without worrying about consent trumps a woman's right to not be raped.

 

[Kahunaburger]

It's not ambiguous to me, that's the thing. The guy I was replying to is stating that I should have literal verbal consent, because apparently men can't read body language.

Funny, because the post you quoted reads in part:

It doesn't even have to be verbal when it comes to a partner (though it does still need to be consensual), if the girl is as eager to get your pants off as you are hers and is mad for your cock, consent is pretty much given.

So, uh, glad to hear you're on board with the whole "let's be decent human beings" thing.

 

[Canadish]

I think it's all agreed that Rape is obviously evil and having sex with an unconscious person is wrong. No need to keep reiterating those points.

The only major issue here is that some of the more extreme branches of feminism aren't looking for equality anymore and are instead asking that the burden of proof to be on the accused, not the accuser when it comes to rape.
That shit just don't fly. It's a foundation of Western law that the accuser has to bring forth the burden of proof. Once you destroy that, you've opened Pandora's box.

Edit: Might also be worth mentioning the whole "having consensual sex and then regretting it later and claiming Rape". That's utterly disgusting and life destroying.

Anyway... Yeah, there's a bit of a double standard. However until the reason why there is a double standard is fully addressed. It will continue to serve to protect folks.
White straight men don't really need much protecting. They're white. They're men. They're straight. They get all the doors opened pretty much for them. Them fucking up... Is kinda on them.

That is such a crock of horseshit I don't even know where to begin.

I don't know if it's your intent, but your generalizing all stright-white-males there and assuming we all come from the same backgrounds, upbringings and lifestyles.

Certainly, there are a few places and circles where being a striaght-white-man helps, but they're only found in places like the bible belt in America and at the high-end of a handful of businesses.

Otherwise, we're in the same boat as everyone else. We go to the same schools, we have to pass the same exams, try to win the affections of the same women (or men if we're just looking at the race side of this for a moment), and compete for the same jobs.
The bias just isn't there anymore for this generation.
No one but a handful of extreme right-wingers has any active bias against the gay and black community.
Women face the same challenges we do when looking for a job these days, and more then welcomed in the workplace these days.

This isn't the 50's anymore.
I've had no doors opened for me based on being straight, based on being white or based on being man (let me be clear here, this is a good thing).
Frankly, it's an insult you're suggesting that.

Now, unless you're referring to a certain area or part of the world (I can't say I know what it's like in America or Canada right now), in which case, fair enough.
But we're on an international forum here, so please specify if this is the case.

 

[LetalisK]

You're telling us you can't tell when someone wants to fuck you? In my experience, the verbal and nonverbal communication in that kind of situation is pretty unambiguous. (And if it is ambiguous, then maybe you should get some clarification that your partner is actually consenting.)

If she's going down on me and dropping a digit on my pooper, is that ambiguous?

(Not poking fun at you, poking fun at the idea that there is a whole lot mystery around this issue)

 

[Thaluikhain]

The only major issue here is that some of the more extreme branches of feminism aren't looking for equality anymore and are instead asking that the burden of proof to be on the accused, not the accuser when it comes to rape.
That shit just don't fly. It's a foundation of Western law that the accuser has to bring forth the burden of proof. Once you destroy that, you've opened Pandora's box.

No, the burden of proof is still on the accuser, they have to prove that the act took place. If they can't prove that it occured, there's no conviction. This is not controversial.

There are merely pushes to remove "I thought she wanted me to commit the crime against her" as a defence. This isn't generally held to be a defence in any other setting.

Or, to put it another way, if you force the victim to prove lack of consent, you are saying that women are in a permanent state of consent unless proved otherwise in a court of law.

 

[Canadish]

The only major issue here is that some of the more extreme branches of feminism aren't looking for equality anymore and are instead asking that the burden of proof to be on the accused, not the accuser when it comes to rape.
That shit just don't fly. It's a foundation of Western law that the accuser has to bring forth the burden of proof. Once you destroy that, you've opened Pandora's box.

No, the burden of proof is still on the accuser, they have to prove that the act took place. If they can't prove that it occured, there's no conviction. This is not controversial.

There are merely pushes to remove "I thought she wanted me to commit the crime against her" as a defence. This isn't generally held to be a defence in any other setting.

Or, to put it another way, if you force the victim to prove lack of consent, you are saying that women are in a permanent state of consent unless proved otherwise in a court of law.

Oh I know it still is, and I'm well aware most feminists are just trying to change the attitude.

I've seen a small handful of radicals saying that the law should be changed just for them though, wider consequences be damned.

I would say it's an unhealthy attitude for courts to assume all sex is not consented unless proven otherwise however.

 

[Thaluikhain]

I would say it's an unhealthy attitude for courts to assume all sex is not consented unless proven otherwise however.

I'd agree, but the alternative is to say all sex is consented unless proven otherwise, which seems worse.

snip

Let me refine that for you.

If you're the one that is penetrating someone else and they do-not give you implicit permission then that is rape if they so think it.

It's a hard line but if you want to be free from the accusation of rape then get permission.

Women can rape men as well you know. So i'm sorry to tell you this, but your argument is biased and your "refinement" falls flat.

Er...no it doesn't. It frees men from accusations of rape, not being raped.

 

[Ragsnstitches]

How about

'Never have sex with someone without their explicit consent'

Pretty damn simple.

Because I'm not going to ask my girlfriend "hey, can you sign this consensual sex waiver, I just want to make sure we are on the same page" every time things start to get heavy.

which is not really the situation in the article, but your statement is far too broad.

You're overthinking it. Seriously, it really isn't that hard to get this.

First off, what the thread implies is that its between 2 relative strangers/first timers.

It doesn't even have to be verbal when it comes to a partner (though it does still need to be consensual), if the girl is as eager to get your pants off as you are hers and is mad for your cock, consent is pretty much given.

But if she becomes a plank, while you ride her like you would a rubber doll, then thats probably not something you want to be doing. Oh, its also incredibly creepy.

Unless nailing a plank is something you both find particularly arousing. A quick, "ready?" would suffice, followed by "yeah" or "go for it" or "mhhmm" *nod* (if your into kinky shit) will mean all is gold.

IT isn't complicated. Stop complicating it.

Why don't we have contracts drawn up and sign them pre-fornication. It's the only way to avoid this raising fear of retroactively being accused of rape.

Or don't have sex with strangers? I mean, its not a necessity... and strangers are more likely to be assholes then someone you've spent time getting to know.

And I stated that what I said was not exactly the same as what the article said, I was replying to the previous posters statement alone, not the article. Yeah, don't have sex with passed out chicks, that's pretty easy, and quite frankly the sensible thing to do. But to require explicit consent in everything (as per buddy's post) is silly, as it implies that every time I have had sex with my girlfriend, and I didn't specifically ask, even though she was clearly into it, I was raping her. That is moronic.

also, how do you prove a person gave you verbal consent, or how do you prove you/s/he didn't give verbal consent? will I need a witness every time I ask my GF if she wants to fuck? Please, amuse me.

Stop being dense.

Lets work under the assumption that you aren't in some backwater culture, where women are considered objects, where inter-spouse/partner communication isn't a sin and that you are in fact a sensible, empathetic creature. I presume you would at least KNOW when your girl is up for it and when she isn't. Heck, if you are a considerate person, you would be just as concerned about what she gets from sex then just what you would get from it.

Also, lets assume that women aren't all malicious creatures, merely biding their time before they ruin your life.

But holy fucking shit if you struggle with that concept then I'm wasting my time with the rest of this.

Let's take "explicit" out of the equation. Instead lets called it doubt and change how you look at it. If there is any doubt in your mind that the other half doesn't want to engage... ask. Thats ANY doubt... has she been feeling under the weather? Is it that time of the month? Has something happened that has put her in an ill mood? Does she shrug you off or turn into a lifeless doll as soon as you touch her in a sexual way? Actually, at that point I would start to question the integrity of that relationship.

So again, ANY doubt, ask.

Why? Well first off, its the most considerate thing to do (you know, that aspect of a healthy relationship, where both partners consider the other halves feelings), it doesn't harm anyone (if she says no, go wank, get some release, move on) and it doesn't break the flow (unless of course, she does in fact feel reluctant to participate). If you've got to the point of having regular sex in a prolonged relationship, then formulating a non-mood killing question IF you have doubts shouldn't be an issue...

The only feasible way this could be an issue for you, is that you might actually be afraid she will say no, or WORSE, that you have absolutely NO communication skills when it comes to sexual partners and proceed to choke on your own words. Either of those realisations would make me step back and seriously ponder the way that relationship dynamic is taking you.

As for proving verbal consent. I'll just redirect the question... how do you prove rape?

Now I'll answer both... through a long, imperfect and traumatising process, in a system that doesn't give a flying fuck about the people being affected, but rather the objective results i.e truth [convenient or absolute] is known, criminal [whether wrongly or rightly accused] is punished, Law [distinct from justice] is enforced.

Ergo, for either, there is not guarantee of proof. So yeah, best be careful because the world doesn't give a fuck if your innocent or not, she was actually raped or not... or whether justice is served or not.

Tough shit if your Innocent but get the blame. Tough shit if your raped but the rapist gets away. You can always appeal though... (of course that costs money, so if your poor your buggered). If you have a better solution that isn't blatantly self-serving, then by all means preach it like a mother-fucker.

Otherwise, Tough Shit. Don't expect the world to care.

Why don't we have contracts drawn up and sign them pre-fornication. It's the only way to avoid this raising fear of retroactively being accused of rape.

Or don't have sex with strangers? I mean, its not a necessity... and strangers are more likely to be assholes then someone you've spent time getting to know.

Please don't talk about appropriate sexual behaviour on a GAMES forum. That's the last place I would take advice from, even directly below the Anti-Sex League in 1984.

Edit: Also you still make it sound like me being accused of rape would be my fault for sleeping around, as opposed to being the fault of the evil person accusing me for their twisted amusement/Machiavellian schemes. I shouldn't have to second guess everything - if I meet an attractive woman and we AGREE to have sex and that status doesn't change at any point, then it's unfair I could still be in the wrong if she retroactively changes her mind.

I'm sorry, I didn't give you any advice. I was under the assumption that promiscuous and uninhibited sexual antics wasn't a necessity, merely a freedom people have. A choice if you will. People are also free to play extreme sports, but they at least acknowledge the risks (even *gasp* taking precautions) or don't whine about how uncaring life can be when they break every bone in their body.

I thought my frankly obvious solution to avoiding assholes was better then your bluntly sarcastic attempt at devaluing the action = consequence dynamic the world revolves on.

Also your edit basically makes my point even more relative. Life is full of shit, so watch your step.

You're absolutely right. It isn't fair that you have the burden of proving your innocence if accused and you hadn't actually done anything wrong... life just isn't fair. If the LAW (which I stated above, is distinct from justice) fails to see the truth and you take the fall for something you didn't do... well, tough shit. I would also say that if a real rapist gets away with their crime then thats tough shit on the rape victim.

Now, I'm not clairvoyant, but I can see you taking my last point out of context. I don't blame the victim. I will never say "nope, its your fault for not being cautious" and if I knew you personally and I believed you didn't do it, I would try and support you as best I can. But for you and you alone, its tough shit. Same for a rape victim. If I know someone who has been raped (and I assure you that I do), then I will never take the stance that she/he deserved it because she/he wasn't being careful. But for them, its tough shit.

Rape shouldn't happen... but shit happens. Malicious Lies shouldn't happen... but shit happens. I say this as a person who wallowed in self-pity for a LONG time, until I realised no one gave a fuck. Oh, by all means they tried to support me. But no one was going to sacrifice their life to reinvigorate mine. That realisation nearly broke me. Scratch that, it did break me... otherwise I wouldn't be writing this.

Life is shit and then you die and all that shtick. The only way to make it tolerable is to avoid as much crap as possible, but you will find your self in the deep at some point (or many). When you step in it, you can either scrape it off, move on with it stuck to you, feel bad that no one actually cares that you stood in shit or, more nobly, warn people of the shit you yourself have experienced.

I by no means think its okay. But I don't think life cares. People might care, but you'd be safer assuming they don't.