Wait, This Need To Be Taught?

[Imp_Emissary]

Spoiler: Eh, I can see where you're coming from.

Every once in a while I'll go to buzzfeed, because I have a few issues with anger (nothing major) and I'm trying to build an immunity to bullshit and to overcome the urge to yell profanities when I hear something mind numbingly stupid. However, today I came across this: sorry for posting a buzzfeed link. Now if you read that (once again I'm sorry for exposing you to buzzfeed) you'll see that starting at around four or five that there are people complaining that they didn't get taught about consent.

Now I always thought that it was common sense that you can't force someone to have sex with you and vice versa. Maybe it was the Church I was raised in (which was quite frank and truthful about sex), maybe it was my mother (who is extremely frank and truthful about sex), but for as long as I can remember I've known about rape and that it's wrong, and that you don't have to have sex with anyone if you don't want to and vice versa, and I didn't need to be told, I just figured it out using critical thinking. I.E. If I have to ask to play a friends SNES then I must ask for sex, If I have the right to deny use of my SNES I have the right to say no to sex. and my question is:

Am I overreacting, or am I justified in thinking these people are fucking idiots for not knowing this by use of the lump three feet above their ass, is it a societal problem, or is it something in the middle that I'm not seeing? I sincerely want to know, because I want to slap the shit out the people that are saying they didn't know they could say no and I want to know if I'm justified in feeling that way.

That said, the very definition of what counts as rape is newer than you'd think.

As Angelblaze mentioned, spousal rape is pretty common. Likely because before 1970 to 1993 (in the U.S. at least) it wasn't criminalized.

I say 1970 TO 1993 is because not every state made it criminalized at the same time. It took 23 years for all 50 states to agree that yeah, you shouldn't rape your spouse.
Even now 13 states still make a legal distinction in classifying raping your spouse vs. raping someone you didn't marry.

Also, relationships are complicated. Most people (Hopefully) don't need to be told that they shouldn't attack someone, or drug/knock them out and have sex with them, but there are some other situations where things get a bit more blurry for people.

One example being spousal rape.

 

[chiggerwood]

What one thinks is common sense is not necessarily the same for other people. Perception is the basis for each person's reality, and not everyone is able to see things the same exact way. So yeah sometimes what is blatantly obvious to you, me and probably a good percentage of people, is a complete and total blind spot for other folks.
Psychological, physical or cultural, doesn't matter everyone has a blind spot. Its not an excuse, but it is a reason. So you can continue to allow folks ignorance affect you in some way or just shrug. Maybe if you personally see a blind spot in someone, point it out for them constructively, or however the situation calls for it but I suggest trying civility first and leaving condescension or patronization in a garbage bin somewhere as they're never helpful or positive in any way. Personally I feel condescension and patronizing someone is a form of bullying people, its not direct but its definitely designed to negatively affect soemone mentally or emotionally.
Everyone needs education on some things, and like I said everyone has a blind spot on some topic that is generally obvious to the rest of the world. I think people need a bit more patience when dealing with "ignorance" because we're all ignorant somewhere.

I always do try and do things civilly unless I'm just ranting, but yeah you're right everyone has a blind spot and that's why I make threads like this to try and find mine. My main problem is that I see ignorance as a bigger issue than it is. I see it as a fatal flaw instead of the easily remedied issue that it is, not only in others but in myself. Which has caused some issues in my past. I'm trying to stop, but twenty six years of self loathing dies hard.

 

[chiggerwood]

Well, I don't see what the harm would be in being "taught" what consent is. You admit that you were essentially taught about what it means, so try imagining an alternate-universe you where you weren't raised with that kind of knowledge. Maybe Earth-69 Chiggerwood is on /r/MensRights right now complaining about how that girl he likes totes friendzoned him.
.

If there is an alternate universe me that goes for that MRA bullshit I will find him and I will kill him. I will go straight up Liam Neeson on his Earth-69 ass

 

[chiggerwood]

Only way out would be to have prepared documents in triplicate on hand , together with court official, for all parties involved to voluntarily sign. Even if I'm joking, i really see no other way out of the problem.

Heh, even that wouldn't be watertight, it'd only prove that the person wanted to have sex at the time the document was signed, they could easily withdraw consent later before or during the actual sex. The only foolproof way would be to film every sexual encounter you ever have so a complete record exists and I can't see that becoming popular >.>

True story , my brother advised me to run a background check on any girl I was interested in and get a notarized contract before any dates I went on. And yes he was being serious, Dead. Fucking. Serious. And as for the filming of everything, I could see it happening, just instead of repeatedly yelling yes out of ecstasy it's for legal purposes. Hell I could see it trending on twitter #proofofconsent

 

[chiggerwood]

Am I overreacting, or am I justified in thinking these people are fucking idiots for not knowing this by use of the lump three feet above their ass, is it a societal problem, or is it something in the middle that I'm not seeing? I sincerely want to know, because I want to slap the shit out the people that are saying they didn't know they could say no and I want to know if I'm justified in feeling that way.

I'd generally say something in the middle. First off, stupid people will always find a way to be stupid. Worse, guilty people (as in people who feel guilt) will always try to find a way to justify their actions. Ie, if I eat the last cookie even though I know I've had more than my share, I will try to convince myself that I deserved that cookie more than others did, damn it. Of course, the combination (stupid + guilt) is the worst possible combination.

Now, the societal conditioning (particularly in the USA) that men are supposed to "work" for sex, and the idea that if you work hard, you get what you want (which, in combination, logically results in 'I did the work, so I deserve the sex') isn't helping. Part of that is simply toxic gender rolls (as another thread noted, they restrict men as much as women, harming both) create an artificial dance where women who are horny aren't allowed to just say "god, I need a good fuck - can someone help me out with that?" - no, we're expected to make men "work for it" - which only encourages the idea that men who work for it somehow deserve it.

So yeah, combination. Society sets up toxic expectations, and then reality fails to live up to those expectations, causing people to do stupid shit and then try to justify it after the fact.

that second sentence made me laugh, I just got this visual image of an explorer going across the Andes: "Day 16: There is no site of stupidity yet, but if the local legends hold true the mass riches of the YEEENGGGHHH! tribe should show itself soon."... I should be ashamed of myself I am aware of this. Anyways!

Yeah I forget about the whole societal thing of "work and you get your treat" and I find it abhorrent at best. I think what pisses me off about this is the fact that I grew up in an environment where being responsible was the best way to garner respect and respect is the currency of the land. In my family the number one goal you can strive for is to be respected, to have people look up to you, to be honored in the eyes of the family. The words "I'm proud of you." is the single greatest sentence to have uttered to you. So I've seen what people can be, and I guess because of that I put my standards to high. I forget that the world does not run on respect, but arbitrary milestones and false accomplishments that, in all truthfulness, are meaningless. One of the things my mother told me about sex was "Just because you can stick your dick in a hole doesn't make you a man. Any damn fool can do that, they do it every day and they're nothing but damned fools. You want to be a man, you take care of your shit, you do what's right, and you own up to your mistakes. That's what makes a man." So when ever I hear about shit like this my question is: What are the parents doing in these kids lives? (And yes I know that there's a lot of parents that do right and still have stupid kids.)

 

[chiggerwood]

Spoiler: Eh, I can see where you're coming from.

Every once in a while I'll go to buzzfeed, because I have a few issues with anger (nothing major) and I'm trying to build an immunity to bullshit and to overcome the urge to yell profanities when I hear something mind numbingly stupid. However, today I came across this: sorry for posting a buzzfeed link. Now if you read that (once again I'm sorry for exposing you to buzzfeed) you'll see that starting at around four or five that there are people complaining that they didn't get taught about consent.

Now I always thought that it was common sense that you can't force someone to have sex with you and vice versa. Maybe it was the Church I was raised in (which was quite frank and truthful about sex), maybe it was my mother (who is extremely frank and truthful about sex), but for as long as I can remember I've known about rape and that it's wrong, and that you don't have to have sex with anyone if you don't want to and vice versa, and I didn't need to be told, I just figured it out using critical thinking. I.E. If I have to ask to play a friends SNES then I must ask for sex, If I have the right to deny use of my SNES I have the right to say no to sex. and my question is:

Am I overreacting, or am I justified in thinking these people are fucking idiots for not knowing this by use of the lump three feet above their ass, is it a societal problem, or is it something in the middle that I'm not seeing? I sincerely want to know, because I want to slap the shit out the people that are saying they didn't know they could say no and I want to know if I'm justified in feeling that way.

That said, the very definition of what counts as rape is newer than you'd think.

As Angelblaze mentioned, spousal rape is pretty common. Likely because before 1970 to 1993 (in the U.S. at least) it wasn't criminalized.

I say 1970 TO 1993 is because not every state made it criminalized at the same time. It took 23 years for all 50 states to agree that yeah, you shouldn't rape your spouse.
Even now 13 states still make a legal distinction in classifying raping your spouse vs. raping someone you didn't marry.

Also, relationships are complicated. Most people (Hopefully) don't need to be told that they shouldn't attack someone, or drug/knock them out and have sex with them, but there are some other situations where things get a bit more blurry for people.

One example being spousal rape.

Thew idea of spousal rape isn't all that blurry to me. In fact it's crystal clear but then again I have a sister that's a product of spousal rape so... yeah

 

[Imp_Emissary]

Spoiler: Eh, I can see where you're coming from.

Every once in a while I'll go to buzzfeed, because I have a few issues with anger (nothing major) and I'm trying to build an immunity to bullshit and to overcome the urge to yell profanities when I hear something mind numbingly stupid. However, today I came across this: sorry for posting a buzzfeed link. Now if you read that (once again I'm sorry for exposing you to buzzfeed) you'll see that starting at around four or five that there are people complaining that they didn't get taught about consent.

Now I always thought that it was common sense that you can't force someone to have sex with you and vice versa. Maybe it was the Church I was raised in (which was quite frank and truthful about sex), maybe it was my mother (who is extremely frank and truthful about sex), but for as long as I can remember I've known about rape and that it's wrong, and that you don't have to have sex with anyone if you don't want to and vice versa, and I didn't need to be told, I just figured it out using critical thinking. I.E. If I have to ask to play a friends SNES then I must ask for sex, If I have the right to deny use of my SNES I have the right to say no to sex. and my question is:

Am I overreacting, or am I justified in thinking these people are fucking idiots for not knowing this by use of the lump three feet above their ass, is it a societal problem, or is it something in the middle that I'm not seeing? I sincerely want to know, because I want to slap the shit out the people that are saying they didn't know they could say no and I want to know if I'm justified in feeling that way.

Spoiler: But...

That said, the very definition of what counts as rape is newer than you'd think.

As Angelblaze mentioned, spousal rape is pretty common. Likely because before 1970 to 1993 (in the U.S. at least) it wasn't criminalized.

I say 1970 TO 1993 is because not every state made it criminalized at the same time. It took 23 years for all 50 states to agree that yeah, you shouldn't rape your spouse.
Even now 13 states still make a legal distinction in classifying raping your spouse vs. raping someone you didn't marry.

Also, relationships are complicated. Most people (Hopefully) don't need to be told that they shouldn't attack someone, or drug/knock them out and have sex with them, but there are some other situations where things get a bit more blurry for people.

One example being spousal rape.

Thew idea of spousal rape isn't all that blurry to me. In fact it's crystal clear but then again I have a sister that's a product of spousal rape so... yeah

Ah I see.

I understand what ya mean. You're experience and education have given you that perspective. I think it should be obvious too that you shouldn't rape your spouse, but the U.S. legal system needed more time than I've been alive to come to the consensus that it should be a crime.

If a whole group of people can take years to understand something like that in this way, it is so odd that some individuals have different views on the topic, or need to be taught about it?

As someone else said you did get some education on this, so it isn't completely a common since thing. A little extra education never hurt too much anyway. ;D

 

[Erttheking]

Trying to find it, but I remember a survey given to college students male and female that listed a bunch of situations, and then asked if forcing sex without consent in these situations was rape (the correct answer in each and every case was yes).

Depending on the situation, between 25 and 59% of the male respondents said no.

Let me know if you find that. I can never find it when I'm trying how people don't properly understand what consent is.

OT: Sadly, this is why so many people say rape culture is a problem. People say "Rape is bad. But what I did wasn't rape"

*Raises flame shield*

 

[Netrigan]

Too many assholes hiding behind loopholes. When they spread the word that No Means No, the asshole thought to himself "they didn't say anything about drugging them into unconsciousness. When the word gets out about that, assholes think they didn't say anything about women already unconscious.

This shit ain't hard to figure out, but assholes will always play the clueless card when you call them out on being assholes.

 

[SmallHatLogan]

However if you're just at some party and some random you don't know starts chatting you up and eventually wanting sex and you just go through with it because you've never heard of the idea of consent, that seems pretty bizarre to me.

I get where you're coming from in the sense that I don't understand why saying no to sex is completely different than saying no to anything else.

None of us know what sort of home life the people involved have. Some people are given the general experience that asserting themselves is wrong. Others come from cultures where they're expected to be subservient. Some people are just very shy. It probably doesn't hurt to have consent reinforced as something that you can exercise, that is acceptable to exercise, even for kids who are aware of the general idea.

Of course. I might find it strange from my limited experience of other cultures but I'm not saying it shouldn't be taught. If anything, the article that the OP posted shows that the idea of consent is something that clearly should be taught.

 

[runic knight]

So, schools have to teach kids how to be moral citizens as well as functional levels of knowledge in a variety of topics? Cause I could have sworn that the responsibility for raising the child into an upstanding member of society was sort of on the parent and to an extension the community there and that a school's purpose wasn't to be surrogate parents but rather, you know, a place of skill and practical learning and social interaction for peers of age groups.

This issue and other school curriculum like these are just another nugget on the pile of crap schools are being driven into teaching children and teens in place of parents actually doing the job they signed up for by agreeing to have and raise the kid in the first place. Put can't ever try to address a massive social and cultural problem by way of accepting personal responsibility for our part in it as part of society, instead we need to blame it on the school along with the reason kids bully, and the rise in gun violence

Call me crazy, but perhaps rather then trying the fruitless endeavour of tightening and tightening definitions to the point that there aren't loopholes left for people to try to excuse the selfish behavior, maybe we should concentrate on trying to find a way to raise people so they aren't the sort of selfish assholes seeking out such loopholes in the first place?

Hell, everyone* knows rape is wrong both from a societal and, even if by nothing else but extension of societal, a moral view. Fucking unjustifiable. You don't need to teach that to anyone. Consent in various degrees of scenarios isn't any harder either, as even those that refuse to act in such a way can still recognize basic things such as other people's personhood. But ask people if it is ever ok to it someone in the face outside of self defense and you will still see group of people trying to find ways to justify it. As such I think the problem is one of a lack of understanding or just lack of caring about the ethical aspect of consent rather then the legal definition. Thus attempting to define it in more and more stringent definitions under the law isn't going to stop anything, just lead to more and more creative ways to get loopholes. It is missing the heart of the problem and actually making predators have to get better at being predators.

*exceptions noted for sociopaths and those with mental conditions that would impede such standard recognition

Lets be honest here, people of all sorts are going to find loopholes if they want to get what they want without repercussions. You can never remove them all and there comes a point where attempting to is not only a waste of the time and effort spent on doing so when there are many other problems and only a limited amount of time and money we can invest, but also an unduly intrusive impact on the law abiding.

at the end of the day, the effort to "teach" people doesn't matter when the ones you are trying to teach don't have the ethical conscious or empathy required to actually give a shit about other people enough to consider consent as anything but another knot to work a loophole around.

 

[Kashrlyyk]

.....
Heh, even that wouldn't be watertight, it'd only prove that the person wanted to have sex at the time the document was signed, they could easily withdraw consent later before or during the actual sex. The only foolproof way would be to film every sexual encounter you ever have so a complete record exists and I can't see that becoming popular >.>

.......
True story , my brother advised me to run a background check on any girl I was interested in and get a notarized contract before any dates I went on. And yes he was being serious, Dead. Fucking. Serious. And as for the filming of everything, I could see it happening, just instead of repeatedly yelling yes out of ecstasy it's for legal purposes. Hell I could see it trending on twitter #proofofconsent

NO, that is still not enough. "Yes, your honour, before he started the recording he threatened me at knifepoint to "participate"."

Good luck defending you against that. The only solution would be to record EVERY SINGLE SECOND OF EVERY DAY in the life of EVERY WOMAN!

We are at a point in time where lawyers advice their male celebrity clients to NEVER BE ALONE WITH A WOMAN IN AN ELEVATOR!

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

I think it's mostly about drunk rape, though. Hell, it wasn't until a couple of years ago that I learned having sex with someone who is drunk was considered rape. I think that's the real kicker with this, and is something that should be more clearly taught when we're young. Of course it's common sense that forcing someone to the ground, or taking advantage of them while unconscious etc is a terrible act. But for me not too long ago, I'd have thought nothing of it if a drunk woman said yes to sex. So I can certainly understand why that would confuse a lot of others, who may not take that into account.

Just a thought.

 

[Tsun Tzu]

See...this is most likely going to come off completely wrong, but it was sincerely all I could think:

If we're going by "explicit consent," ie. a thumbs up or a direct "yes," as being the barometer for what is or is not considered rape... then there are a loooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooot of rapists out there. Including me. Lots of times. And I mean lots...and it'd mean that I, personally, have been raped. Lots of times. And I mean lots.

I just really don't like the fuzzy nature of that idea and the conflating of negligible hand-wavey actions with sexual assault via the term.

Yes, of course, rape is bad. Having sex with someone when they're incapable of rational decision making (drunk or otherwise impaired) is rape. Having sex with someone against their will is rape. Having sex with someone who just gives a non-committal shrug and spreads their legs/let's ya bounce on them is...rape? Having sex with someone who gives direct body language/directly engages in sexual activity and is, for all intensive porpoises, on board with the idea, but does not explicitly consent to the act is.....rape?

See where I'm going with this? I suppose you could just make a point of always directly asking your partner/potential partner? Would people actually remember to do that in mid-passion? Would you just ask prior to engaging at all? Isn't a lot of this sort of thing communicated by body language/eye contact/tone/physical contact?

I'm in the weeds here.

Wait, was I technically raped when I was drunk, barely cognizant, and that girl pulled my pants off, then climbed on without asking? I never agreed to it, nor did I expressly forbid it, I just sort of went along...and do regret it, but...yay sex? I'm only partially kidding here. I'm really not sure what that would be considered.

Wait part two: When my girlfriend at the time woke me up those...several times...with sex, without me saying it was ok, was it rape?

If I decide, after the fact, that I really didn't want to do that...is it then rape? Is consent retroactive? Can consent be rescinded?

Help.

Edit: Fuck it. Does "come here" or that thing where you beckon someone with a finger count as consent? Does the spreading of legs/removal of pants/slipping on of a condom/etc. etc. etc. etc. constitute consent? Is it just "yes, you may now have sexual relations with me"? Is that the aim? To make that the only legally viable form of consent?

Help Part 2.

Edit #2: I'm not even sure on the "if drunk = rape" thing! If the person who was drunk consents and later confirms said consent and sticks with it, are they then still a victim of rape? Who makes that judgment call? How drunk is too drunk? I assume it'd be black-out drunk or someone who's unconscious, in which case it'd definitely be rape...but the grey areas are killing me here.

Lost may be a bit intoxicated, so, free flow of thought here.

 

[runic knight]

On the drinking thing, I think it is only fair the law remain consistent there. If the alcohol was taken voluntarily, then the actions taken while drunk are still considered with the same responsibility as if made when sober as per it being a direct result of a conscious choice to intentionally reduce the critical thinking ability by getting drunk in the first place.

I base this on the long standing legal backing of "but I was drunk, your honor" not standing in court in order to avoid personal responsibility. If the court already has an established view that consciously agreeing to increase the chance you will do something stupid doesn't excuse you from responsibility of actually doing something stupid afterwards, then I see no good reason to try to overturn that now.

This applies to both genders. This does not apply to someone drugged or spiked though, as the lack of voluntary consumption would then be an arguable case of being deprived the option of consent and would be considered a lack of consent, thus rape. As it should be.

So to sum up.

If you choose to drink, you voluntarily write off your ability to make well thought out critical choices, but you still have to take responsibility for the actions you made while intoxicated, be it paying a fine for tipping a cow, or having to accept you consented to sleeping with someone you regretted after.

If you don't choose to drink but someone spikes your drink, then you were denied the choice and thus did not consent in good faith and can claim rape.

 

[Godhead]

Well, I don't see what the harm would be in being "taught" what consent is. You admit that you were essentially taught about what it means, so try imagining an alternate-universe you where you weren't raised with that kind of knowledge. Maybe Earth-69 Chiggerwood is on /r/MensRights right now complaining about how that girl he likes totes friendzoned him.

Hollywood pounds it into a young boys brain

Ho ho ho.

A good rule of thumb is not stick anything into any other thing without prior thumbs up.

I try to ask myself for permission to stuff food down my pie hole, but my stomach always overrides before I can get an answer. I think I should report it to the authorities.

EDIT: Changed a word because I think it's more fitting than the original one.

Your stomach is obviously ruining your mouth's livelihood and is not respecting it as a part of your body, I think we need to give it an intervention immediately.

 

[Thaluikhain]

Now, the societal conditioning (particularly in the USA) that men are supposed to "work" for sex, and the idea that if you work hard, you get what you want (which, in combination, logically results in 'I did the work, so I deserve the sex') isn't helping.

This.

Do X,Y and Z and women are supposed to have sex with you. If they don't you've been friendzoned (if they do, they're a slut, and if they complain, they're a *****...cannot remember who said that, but it's a good one).