The boys club

[Phasmal]

I'm gonna keep my replies short because... well because this topic depresses the hell out of me.

I think the argument in these cases is not "women are more important" but "women having the freedom to join the military is more important than whether or not men like it".

Maybe I shouldn't have brought up the military specifically

Since I did, I'll first answer in relation to that:
I think men liking it is irrelevant to why they haven't been "allowed" so far, at least concerning whatever the average grunt thinks. As for the higher ups, I'd wager it has less to do with men being in those positions, than the fact that most women struggle to meet the minimum physical requirements.
Note that I'm talking about combat positions - Any non-combat position might as well be filled by whatever able hands are available, which should be immediately available. As far as I'm concerned, every able person should be eligible for the draft, for those positions (assuming the draft isn't abolished altogether).

In the case of combat positions, I'm not convinced it's a good idea, even if women are able to meet the requirements, one reason being what I wrote above, that it will likely be detrimental to the soldiers. This, however, is just my opinion.

Fair enough, you're certainly entitled to your opinions, agree to disagree and all that.

Say if some men's satisfaction with their jobs did suffer because women entered their workplace, are we supposed to say "Sorry ladies but men don't like it, I guess you should all go home"?

Let me answer that with another question, do you think men in that position are irrelevant and whatever they think, feel or say should be trumped in any or all circumstances?

In any and all? Probably not. In the sense of whether women should be allowed to be there in the first place, yes.
Let's bring this down to something trivial that we all know about- say, videogames.

Say I'm in a guild, participating as you usually do- for example showing up to raids and hanging out on the voice server. Then say another guild member voices the fact that they would really rather that I not be in the guild at all, because they don't feel like they can relax with a woman on the voice server and generally prefer an all-male environment. Am I supposed to be like 'Well shit I don't want to make dudes uncomfortable by...existing'?
Sometimes people just need to get over it.

Perhaps I've missed something, but isn't women's right to get jobs in industries they want to a more important concern than if men might not be keen on having women around?

(I have a distinct feeling of opening a can of worms but whatever).

So far so good, right?

I'll be a bit nitpicky in regards to your question and point out that no one has a right to any job. It's something a person earns through one or several interviews on the basis on their performance, record and CV, and no one is just given a job apart from when nepotism and back room deals apply.
I feel it's important to mention, because men have to earn their jobs as well, it's not like they're handed a job along with a mancard.

Well, that's kind of obvious and besides the point, but yeah. People have to earn jobs.

The political answer to what you're asking is that "everyone should be afforded the same chance at a job", which I basically agree with. It's obviously not always the case and it never will in all of them, but in the large picture that's the general idea of it anyway.

In relation to what I'm saying in regards to this topic, you have to weigh your options and gender might be one of them.
Remember, OP wants to know how we can make a change for the benefit of having women fit in and feel welcome. I'm saying that you can't do that without gauging whatever group you're introducing these women to and that the opinions/feelings of the group in question should have some relevance.

Try to stick to that last part as the core of what I'm saying and disregard the notion of a clear cut case where a person just gets rejected on their gender, because it's not like that, even if some want to portray it as such.
It's easy to say that a boys club just has to deal with it, but if you want to be rational and fair about it, then it's suddenly a very complex topic.

Yeah, but also sometimes the boys club does just have to get over it.
You're talking a lot about taking the thoughts and feelings of men in these positions into consideration- but when that comes down to a discomfort in having women just be about, what compromise can reasonably made?

 

[Gorrath]

1) Have I stolen his keys since he cannot consent to giving them to me?

2) Have I kidnapped him (or unlawfully detained him) by driving him back to my place since he cannot consent to me taking him anywhere?

What people seem to always forget when it comes to this is that an incredibly important factor in whether or not something is a crime is how the potential victim actually views the situation. Now in the example you provide I imagine your friend wouldn't have a problem with what happened and thus wouldn't feel the need to even consider going to the police about it. But what if you weren't friends, and you were just some stranger who showed up when he was horribly intoxicated, took his keys and drove him to some strange place he doesn't know all because he mumbled out an okay? What if you asked him if you could just have his car or trade it for another drink and he said okay? Because not every instance of a drunk person agreeing to something suggested to them by another person is going to result in them just sleeping on their friend's couch for a night.

I understand this, but it's a question of consent. It's not at all ridiculous to expect that a friend would be perfectly grateful for you doing things for them when they are drunk, but that's not the question being asked. If one does the things I mentioned, should they be open to charges if the friend chooses to press them? They are issues that require consent, a consent that can't be given, so should the friend have any right to press charges, even if you and I or anyone thinks it would be ridiculous and likely wouldn't happen.

Rolling over in the morning and giving my wife a kiss is never going to lead to sexual assault charges, whether I asked permission beforehand or not but there are people who want laws in place that would make it clear that doing that is absolutely sexual assault. So it's a question of not just what's likely to be consequences of doing these consent-based things with no ability to get consent but what the underlying moral and ethical obligations are perceived to be.

For my own purposes, I think if you're sober and your date you barely know is smashed off their ass, you should not have sex with them. I also think that if my wife and I have a few and decide to strip the bed, there's not a problem. I think there should be context considered with every situation, not blanket statements like, "If someone's had a drink they can't consent and therefore rape, every time, no other considerations asked." Just like how you point out that taking a drunk person's keys and having them crash at your place is somewhat dependent on how well you know said drunk person.

 

[Phasmal]

Any or all.

Your answer is "Yes", noted. That's completely fine and although I disagree with you, it's definitely a valid answer.
You have an opinion and I have a different one, trying to persuade one another on this point will be fruitless, so that leaves someone to either decide for us or to reach a compromise.

I get your point with the example, and as I disagree with you in regards to work, I also disagree with you in regards to being part of a hobby community. You either fit in or you don't, or the people voicing their concerns don't fit in (which is far more likely) and they have the same option to leave and create their own boys group.
What if most of or the entire guild felt you didn't fit in on the basis that you're a girl?
It wouldn't be fair, sure, but it's like you said - Sometimes people just need to get over it.

And if you don't 'fit in', even due to something as unimportant as your gender, you should get out because change is bad?
Yeah, we're gonna have to agree to disagree.

I disagree, I don't think any group should just deal with it - Translated as in get over whatever your opinions or feelings are and just accept the facts without being heard. In fact I think it's massively detrimental towards the group and trying to include one or more women.

The point I'm trying to make is that no one cares what they think, which you demonstrated yourself. You believe that whatever they think or feel should not be taken into consideration. Well, okay, but doesn't that demonstrate the exact issue with trying to change things?

I... really don't think we're gonna get any further than this, conversation-wise. You're right, I don't really care about the feelings of those made uncomfortable by the presence of women.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Snip

So you're saying America is the world-leading nation in anti-rape laws?
I can promise you that nobody cries rape after drunkenly sleeping with someone else almost anywhere else.

The UK, Canada, Sweeden, New Zealand, and Australia all have such laws on the books as well, and I just can't be bothered to find any more. It is a very common law.

So you are just wrong on that.

I don't see any legal issue with it. As long as you give your consent to becoming inebriated (i.e. aren't drugged or somehow unknowingly injesting alcohol) then you can give whatever consent during your state of drunkenness also.

There is a major legal issue. Consent laws are about more than just rape. For example, consent to doctors for a risky medical procedure, or consent when signing legal documents such as a will. In both cases you cannot consent to these things while under the influence of judgement impairing drugs because you are not in your right mind.

 

[Gorrath]

Snip

So you're saying America is the world-leading nation in anti-rape laws?
I can promise you that nobody cries rape after drunkenly sleeping with someone else almost anywhere else.

The UK, Canada, Sweeden, New Zealand, and Australia all have such laws on the books as well, and I just can't be bothered to find any more. It is a very common law.

So you are just wrong on that.

I don't see any legal issue with it. As long as you give your consent to becoming inebriated (i.e. aren't drugged or somehow unknowingly injesting alcohol) then you can give whatever consent during your state of drunkenness also.

There is a major legal issue. Consent laws are about more than just rape. For example, consent to doctors for a risky medical procedure, or consent when signing legal documents such as a will. In both cases you cannot consent to these things while under the influence of judgement impairing drugs because you are not in your right mind.

That's not entirely accurate. Contract law can be enforced even if one party has imbibed intoxicating substances. I know this because I have been a part of contract talks lots of times over a lunch or dinner where people were imbibing. It's not merely a question of having a drink, it's a question of how drunk, whether or not both parties were aware one party was even inebriated, ect. In our legal system in the U.S., rape is just about the only matter of consent that I ever see get pushed like this, where absolutely no consent can ever be legally given after imbibing. Your doctor example is especially odd, since lots and lots of people who give consent for medical procedures are often under the influence of various drugs, some of which are very intoxicating.

Consent laws and the way they are enforced is very much a case-by-case basis that looks at lots of angles. Consent for sex really is the outlier with how a lot of people approach it in regards to moral and ethical understandings. I think this is in some part due to people not actually having much if any knowledge of how consent works legally with most any other example.

 

[NPC009]

Back from my first suspension. I feel like a proper Escapist forumer now! Weird thing is, though, I did something like this back in high school, except the 'fuck you' was more of a punch. All I got there was a 'You probably had your reasons, but don't do it again'. Did I learn anything from my time in the time-out corner? Well... no.

What I've learnt in the past 15+ years of being part of boys clubs is that one way to earn your spot is to verbally punch the people who want to test or challenge you because of your gender. After asserting your dominance, you start a dialogue as a fellow human being. That's two steps that worked best for me: 1) defend myself and 2) show I'm a fellow human.

I hate the whole 'it's your own fault' thing. It reasoning bullies use all the damn time. People who don't know how to deal with bullying fall back on the same reasoning. It's nice and easy: have the new element remove themselves so the situation returns to the status quo. It is not actually solving the issue. What it is, is thinly veiled victim blaming.

You need two people or more for social interaction, and most times most parties play a role in things going south. Introduce a new member into an established hierachy, and the greater the differences between the new member the old the old ones, the greater the chance of the new member now being accepted, because accepting them would mean changing the status quo. Most people don't like change. However, often times the new member has every right to be there and be accepted. Sadly, gaining that acceptance can be an extremely draining process, which sometimes involves fighting for basic rights. Not everyone wants to spend her or his time that way, and I think that's very understandable. Energy is precious and might be better spend elsewhere. Fighting or retreating - that's something that's up to the individual.

That said, I could never agree with Dreiko. Blaming yourself for not fitting in is not the right way, because a) it's not solely your fault (or might not even be your fault at all!) and b) if you start thinking that way, you'll quickly be blaming yourself for all sorts of other things that are outside of your control. I'm speaking from experience here. If you want to sprint towards depression and give it a nice big hug, that 'it's my fault' mentality is a great place to start.

 

[Phasmal]

I... really don't think we're gonna get any further than this, conversation-wise. You're right, I don't really care about the feelings of those made uncomfortable by the presence of women.

So the bottom line is that you're not interested in understanding men or trying to work with them in order to achieve a goal for your own benefit.

See? I can summarize things you're saying to make you look bad as well.
Like I said, ditch the notion that this is clear cut, it's not. Whatever depression this discussion brings you, is entirely selfinflicted for the simple reason that you are unwilling to understand this topic beyond the assumption that "men just have to deal with it".
You have acted in a way that demonstrates my point on this topic and that probably depresses me a hell of a lot more, than whatever assumption you have of me, depresses you.

This is why we can't have nice things and why people will continually try to push square bricks into round holes and break everything in the process.

I literally have no assumptions of you, guy, please don't take hypothetical internet discussions as a judgement on you personally.
Nor am I trying to make you look bad.

Nor do I think the problem is 'men'. I know loads of men. Hell, I even manage to live with one. It's amazing.
I would have just left the post as is but I feel like you may be taking this a bit more personally than I am.
I agree to disagree with 0 hard feelings.

 

[NPC009]

About the 'men feeling uncomfortable' thing. If they're uncomfortable because they feel their masculinity is being threatened, I'm not going to feel bad for them. If they're uncomfortable because they're not sure how to interact with female coworkers and don't want to make them feel unwelcome: that's totally understandable. Getting along with people you don't know every well can be difficult.

 

[Something Amyss]

Getting along with people you don't know every well can be difficult.

At the same time, that doesn't change with gender. And I say that as someone who is anti-social like crazy

 

[Gorrath]

I understand this, but it's a question of consent. It's not at all ridiculous to expect that a friend would be perfectly grateful for you doing things for them when they are drunk, but that's not the question being asked. If one does the things I mentioned, should they be open to charges if the friend chooses to press them? They are issues that require consent, a consent that can't be given, so should the friend have any right to press charges, even if you and I or anyone thinks it would be ridiculous and likely wouldn't happen.

Yes, he's free to press charges, because you took his property and his body someplace without his consent. This would likely result in absolutely nothing though, because meeting the legal definition of a crime is not the same thing as being arrested and convicted for it.

Again, I understand that. NO one is going to take charges like that seriously because the circumstances are what rule the situation. It's not about merely what meets legal definitions but about the complexities of any given situation. The problem is, plenty of people are pushing for rape and sexual assault definitions and legal enforcement that works specifically to minimize the affect of these other circumstances.

Rolling over in the morning and giving my wife a kiss is never going to lead to sexual assault charges, whether I asked permission beforehand or not but there are people who want laws in place that would make it clear that doing that is absolutely sexual assault. So it's a question of not just what's likely to be consequences of doing these consent-based things with no ability to get consent but what the underlying moral and ethical obligations are perceived to be.

And your moral and ethical obligation is to not force yourself on your wife. Kissing your wife is, like your drunk friend example, incredibly minor and would result in absolutely nothing even if she was opposed to it, but imagine if your wife didn't want you to kiss her. That, for some reason, she was made horribly uncomfortable by it. That if you had asked she would have definitively said no. Now, we can go with your idea in that there should be some sort of legal exception for spouses where they get to simply assume that their spouse consents to things, or we can consider the victim's perspective and wishes and let them decide what to do and leave their options open.

The ethical and moral standard you propose is ridiculous because it is totally lacking in nuance. ON it's face, it sounds fine, but who gets to decide what counts as "forced"? The victim does of course, and since I can't know another person's mindset from moment to moment, I can't possibly know I"m not "forcing" anyone without asking. Seems fair enough, right? Until you try and put anything remotely like that into actual practice. The ethical and moral obligation is on everyone to ask constantly, all the time, before anyone makes any physical contact with anyone, no matter what, if that touching is okay.

I would argue that the actual moral and ethical obligation depends on the situation. You may have circumstances that are clear, cut and dried, where a person did know, should have known or should have asked before making physical contact with someone who didn't want that touch. There are other circumstances where someone being touched holds the burden of making it clear to the other party that something that's been done ten thousand times before without protest and with enthusiastic acceptance isn't okay in that moment.

And again, even if your wife was grossly opposed to you kissing her, literally nothing legal would result. No one is going to arrest or convict you for assuming that your wife would be okay with you kissing her once, just as they wouldn't for assuming that your friend would be okay with you driving them to your place and letting them sleep there. But they might do it for something more serious, which is why we can't rely on examples that are so petty as these to show that there needs to be some sort of outright legal exception for these.

Firstly, I think you are presuming far too much. There's no way I can agree that there is simply no chance whatsoever that a person won't win a case with legal charges based on petty things. People win cases based on petty things. What I think we can probably assume is that it's unlikely. Secondly, I'm not pushing for some kind of legal exceptions for petty things. That's why courts work the way they do, they are supposed to take things into consideration and look at context not just read the letter of the law. What I do push for is a better, more nuanced cultural understanding of sex, consent and the ethical and moral obligations involved. A lot of people have this mindset when it comes to sex or touching, and consent, that there's some hard and fast rules that defy circumstance and that all nuance is lost. These people then press for laws which can be prohibitively restrictive and actively work to eliminate as many of these contextual considerations as possible. For instance, the affirmative consent laws, which I agree wholeheartedly with in essence, are of serious practical concern.

For my own purposes, I think if you're sober and your date you barely know is smashed off their ass, you should not have sex with them. I also think that if my wife and I have a few and decide to strip the bed, there's not a problem. I think there should be context considered with every situation, not blanket statements like, "If someone's had a drink they can't consent and therefore rape, every time, no other considerations asked." Just like how you point out that taking a drunk person's keys and having them crash at your place is somewhat dependent on how well you know said drunk person.

Except no one ever said it was rape every time no other considerations asked. I explicitly stated that there were other considerations, namely, how the potential victim feels about it. If they're fine with what happened, then the only problem is that they and their partner should probably learn a bit more about consent. But if they're not fine with what happened, the option should be open to file charges against the person who assaulted them, and the only way for that to happen is if there is a blanket statement about consent, intoxication, and rape. The point about knowing the person should not be some legal exception to the rule, it is just something the potential victim takes into consideration when weighing how they feel about what just happened.[/quote][/quote]

I know you said that, but claiming that no one has said that is false. There are lots and lots of people who say exactly, precisely that. Hell, I have had people on this very website claim explicitly that if I have a beer and my wife and I have sex, she has raped me, fulls top, no questions asked. The law is fine as-is, as far as I can tell but there are those working to change those laws in a way that makes the considerations we are talking about less relevant or irrelevant and there are plenty of people that disagree whole heartedly with both you and I that context should or does have any real bearing. You are obviously not one of those people but my whole original point was aimed at those people, not you.

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

That's not entirely accurate. Contract law can be enforced even if one party has imbibed intoxicating substances. I know this because I have been a part of contract talks lots of times over a lunch or dinner where people were imbibing. It's not merely a question of having a drink, it's a question of how drunk, whether or not both parties were aware one party was even inebriated, ect. In our legal system in the U.S., rape is just about the only matter of consent that I ever see get pushed like this, where absolutely no consent can ever be legally given after imbibing. Your doctor example is especially odd, since lots and lots of people who give consent for medical procedures are often under the influence of various drugs, some of which are very intoxicating.

Consent laws and the way they are enforced is very much a case-by-case basis that looks at lots of angles. Consent for sex really is the outlier with how a lot of people approach it in regards to moral and ethical understandings. I think this is in some part due to people not actually having much if any knowledge of how consent works legally with most any other example.

Consent laws generally require intoxication "substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct." (the actual wording in US rape law.) Having sipped a drink does not remove the ability to consent. It takes me more than 4 standard drinks to begin to get to that level (I have never been properly drunk, we ran out of alcohol the one time I tried to get there) but my wife gets loopy after just 2, I would call her incapable of proper judgement after 3.

You are correct however that there is no hard line, though in the past legally drunk (where you can get a DUI) has been used in many countries. And frankly, I don't really ever see anyone say a single beer makes a woman incapable of consent.

As for doctors, figuring out how to work consent when a person is heavily medicated is a major issue for doctors and has been for years. There is a ton of history in this, and it is actually really interesting. I admit I am no expert on this particular issue, But just because a doctor cannot get legal consent on a procedure does not mean they cannot perform it or seek the patients opinion. But that isn't the same thing as legally binding consent.

 

[NPC009]

Getting along with people you don't know every well can be difficult.

At the same time, that doesn't change with gender. And I say that as someone who is anti-social like crazy

I'm not so sure. I think it depends on the experiences of the individual. Go from somewhere with next to no men to a place were half or more of the employees are male, and it can be a bit of a culture shock. And vice versa. I spent so much time being part of boys clubs I just get really awkward when having to work together with a large number of people of my own gender. For instance, what's considered 'straight forward' in one group, may be called 'blunt' in another.

 

[Gorrath]

That's not entirely accurate. Contract law can be enforced even if one party has imbibed intoxicating substances. I know this because I have been a part of contract talks lots of times over a lunch or dinner where people were imbibing. It's not merely a question of having a drink, it's a question of how drunk, whether or not both parties were aware one party was even inebriated, ect. In our legal system in the U.S., rape is just about the only matter of consent that I ever see get pushed like this, where absolutely no consent can ever be legally given after imbibing. Your doctor example is especially odd, since lots and lots of people who give consent for medical procedures are often under the influence of various drugs, some of which are very intoxicating.

Consent laws and the way they are enforced is very much a case-by-case basis that looks at lots of angles. Consent for sex really is the outlier with how a lot of people approach it in regards to moral and ethical understandings. I think this is in some part due to people not actually having much if any knowledge of how consent works legally with most any other example.

Consent laws generally require intoxication "substantially impairing the ability of that other person to appraise or control conduct." (the actual wording in US rape law.) Having sipped a drink does not remove the ability to consent. It takes me more than 4 standard drinks to begin to get to that level (I have never been properly drunk, we ran out of alcohol the one time I tried to get there) but my wife gets loopy after just 2, I would call her incapable of proper judgement after 3.

You are correct however that there is no hard line, though in the past legally drunk (where you can get a DUI) has been used in many countries. And frankly, I don't really ever see anyone say a single beer makes a woman incapable of consent.

As for doctors, figuring out how to work consent when a person is heavily medicated is a major issue for doctors and has been for years. There is a ton of history in this, and it is actually really interesting. I admit I am no expert on this particular issue, But just because a doctor cannot get legal consent on a procedure does not mean they cannot perform it or seek the patients opinion. But that isn't the same thing as legally binding consent.

Right, I find nothing disagreeable in anything you say here with one exception. There are people who will and do claim that if a person drinks any amount of alcohol, the law should clearly say that they cannot consent to sex. I have been told on this very website that if I drink a beer and have sex with my wife, she's a rapist, I cannot in any way consent and the law should read exactly that way, my feelings on it be damned.

I will not claim this is in any way how things work nor is it a majority of opinion but there is a growing proportion of people who are pushing for consent laws that are understandable in essence but have serious practical problems and implications. I don't know how many times I've heard people say something along the lines of, "Well if you drink a beer you can't sign a legal contract, so you can't consent to sex either!" Not only are they wrong about contract law, they are unwittingly pushing for definitions of sexual consent that make it harder to have consensual sex with your spouse than negotiate a corporate merger (facetious for humorous effect!)

 

[ThatOtherGirl]

Right, I find nothing disagreeable in anything you say here with one exception. There are people who will and do claim that if a person drinks any amount of alcohol, the law should clearly say that they cannot consent to sex. I have been told on this very website that if I drink a beer and have sex with my wife, she's a rapist, I cannot in any way consent and the law should read exactly that way, my feelings on it be damned.

I will not claim this is in any way how things work nor is it a majority of opinion but there is a growing proportion of people who are pushing for consent laws that are understandable in essence but have serious practical problems and implications. I don't know how many times I've heard people say something along the lines of, "Well if you drink a beer you can't sign a legal contract, so you can't consent to sex either!" Not only are they wrong about contract law, they are unwittingly pushing for definitions of sexual consent that make it harder to have consensual sex with your spouse than negotiate a corporate merger (facetious for humorous effect!)

See, I don't see any indication of growing support for such. I am sure occasionally people make the claim, people say stupid things, but I pay a lot of attention to these things and I have somehow not managed to notice this growing movement. What I have noticed is a lot of people complaining about or concerned about said movement.

Frankly, it seems like a real echo chamber effect. Everyone is telling everyone else that people are making these sorts of assertions all the time so everyone thinks it is happening when it really isn't.

 

[Gorrath]

Again, I understand that. NO one is going to take charges like that seriously because the circumstances are what rule the situation. It's not about merely what meets legal definitions but about the complexities of any given situation. The problem is, plenty of people are pushing for rape and sexual assault definitions and legal enforcement that works specifically to minimize the affect of these other circumstances.

Definitions and legal enforcement of what? Having sex with someone without their consent? Because, as it stands, minimizing the effects of circumstances like "they're friends" or "she flirted with him" on whether sexual assault charges are filed and prosecuted sounds great.

To be more precise, having any contact that could be perceived as sexual with someone without clear, explicit consent at every step along the way in an escalating sexual situation. In other words, if two people are kissing passionately, and one person wraps their arms around the other without first breaking the kiss to ask if they can do that, they are now committing an assault. The fact that they've done it 100 times before makes no difference, the fact that they are married makes no difference, the fact that the person being embraced gives 0 indication verbally or otherwise that this new development is in any way unacceptable makes no difference. Yes, it makes sense that just because a person consents to one sexual act they don't consent to all and that shouldn't be a good defense alone but if a person can show they had a reasonable expectation to think that the embrace was okay, the laws and enforcement should not be so restrictive that they should find themselves in prison for assault.

The ethical and moral standard you propose is ridiculous because it is totally lacking in nuance. ON it's face, it sounds fine, but who gets to decide what counts as "forced"? The victim does of course, and since I can't know another person's mindset from moment to moment, I can't possibly know I"m not "forcing" anyone without asking. Seems fair enough, right? Until you try and put anything remotely like that into actual practice. The ethical and moral obligation is on everyone to ask constantly, all the time, before anyone makes any physical contact with anyone, no matter what, if that touching is okay.

The moral obligation is to make sure what you're doing is okay with the person you're doing them with. If you're comfortable assuming things about them, that, on its own, isn't a problem so long as it is with someone you are familiar with in the context of a sexual relationship. If you're able to understand when they're being receptive or when they want you to stop without the need of an explicit verbal cue, then that's great and I'm happy for you.

But all of this becomes a problem when you assume wrong. And in those cases, should the victim just be told that nothing illegal happened because they allowed themselves to be involved in a sexual relationship with someone?

No, of course not. This is why I am and have suggested that individual circumstance should rule, not that any given assumption by any partner should be good enough to be found guiltless and not that any act committed without explicit verbal approval by a person's sexual partner should be grounds for guilt. No, a victim should not just be told that nothing illegal has happened because they are or have been in a sexual relationship with someone but nor should a person be guilty of sexual assault just because they don't literally stop and ask if they can hug their wife literally every time before they do it. Either example could go either way depending on the actual details of the people involved, what happened and what expectations they had and why.

I would argue that the actual moral and ethical obligation depends on the situation. You may have circumstances that are clear, cut and dried, where a person did know, should have known or should have asked before making physical contact with someone who didn't want that touch. There are other circumstances where someone being touched holds the burden of making it clear to the other party that something that's been done ten thousand times before without protest and with enthusiastic acceptance isn't okay in that moment.

They certainly should, but when it becomes a victim's legal responsibility to resist, then everything becomes disgusting. It's on you to make sure that the person you're doing something to consents to it, and if that means that you have to explicitly ask if someone wants to have sex before having sex than that seems like a petty thing to pay for preventing easily preventable sexual assault.

It's not about a legal responsibility to resist, it's about reasonable expectations and why they exist in a specific situation. No one should be told that if they didn't fight hard enough, the other person isn't guilty of rape. One should also not be told that just because the other person seemed to consent to everything that happened, and did verbally consent to everything else during the encounter, they forgot to ask if touching the other person's hair was okay. And since there was no verbal permission given for hair touching, they are now guilty of assault. In our current system, the latter is not at all likely to be a problem, but in the system some people are pushing for, that could be exactly what happens.

What I do push for is a better, more nuanced cultural understanding of sex, consent and the ethical and moral obligations involved. A lot of people have this mindset when it comes to sex or touching, and consent, that there's some hard and fast rules that defy circumstance and that all nuance is lost. These people then press for laws which can be prohibitively restrictive and actively work to eliminate as many of these contextual considerations as possible. For instance, the affirmative consent laws, which I agree wholeheartedly with in essence, are of serious practical concern.

Affirmative consent laws seem to amount to a serious practical concern for people who think the inconvenience of having to ask for explicit consent before they have sex with someone (or do something new in the midst of things) is too high a price to pay for possibly preventing sexual assault. And honestly, while I might be able to understand seeing it as inconvenient, it's really hard to sympathize with such things.

It's not about inconvenience, like getting up to get a coke is an inconvenience. You're telling me that in every heated moment of any sexual encounter no matter any other circumstance, literally being legally required to ask about every single act taking place is merely a matter of convenience? That's preposterous! Under those laws you could literally get consent for a dozen sexual acts that would put some porn to shame but still get hammered with a sexual assault claim because you didn't ask if hair touching was okay. That's not a matter of mere convenience, it's a matter of practicality. Now maybe the person just really has serious issues with people touching their hair that their sexual partner has literally no idea about. In that case, the person who doesn't like their hair being touched should have at least some expectation placed upon them to mention it or in some way indicate that it's not okay before we turn around and make a sexual assault arrest. This whole matter gets especially convoluted when both people are doing things in the heat of the moment. Framing it all as merely a matter of convenience trivializes what is sure to be a situation with a lot of moving parts is absurd.

I know you said that, but claiming that no one has said that is false. There are lots and lots of people who say exactly, precisely that. Hell, I have had people on this very website claim explicitly that if I have a beer and my wife and I have sex, she has raped me, fulls top, no questions asked. The law is fine as-is, as far as I can tell but there are those working to change those laws in a way that makes the considerations we are talking about less relevant or irrelevant and there are plenty of people that disagree whole heartedly with both you and I that context should or does have any real bearing. You are obviously not one of those people but my whole original point was aimed at those people, not you.

Well, technically, she did rape you. If you went on to press charges you would have a perfectly justified, legal case for it. Your view of the situation simply prevented you from filing charges, but that does not mean that you can retroactively give consent and make everything perfectly legal. No amount of advocacy for changes in the law will manage to change the way it works on such a fundamental level where sexual assault charges can be filed without the victim filing them, at least when it comes to adults. As for the law being fine, it's honestly too difficult to tell if the law, by the letter, is fine or not because enforcement of it is so utterly pathetic.

No, technically, she did not. Because yes, technically, I could and did consent. Even if I brought charges for rape against her because we did something that we'd done a thousand times before with a claim that a single beer inebriated me to the point where I could not possibly consent, I would wholly expect to get laughed out of court. MY wife should have no expectation that my enthusiastic enjoyment of sex after a beer constituted a drunk, unwilling partner, and it is these sorts of standards that I am actively arguing against.

As for enforcement of the current laws, they have the same issues that most every other serious crime has with enforcement. Last I saw the data, which was some years ago, I've had discussions like this before, rape actually has a higher conversion rate (conversion rate for crime being the rate at which convictions happen after a crime is reported) is slightly higher than other serious crimes. While this does not excuse the problems with enforcement, it does suggest that rape is in no way specially problematic in comparison. If the standards of evidence for finding a person guilty of a crime are the same, then we would expect similar conversion rates across different types of crimes and that's exactly what we see. (As of several years ago, when I actually did the research mind you)