Apparently, Rape is not Rape

[The_pantless_hero]

Not really, no. But that's because I don't think me giving someone consent to start a sex act is also permission for them to finish it. As Bottle said, consent is an active process and can be withdrawn at any time (unless, of course, one is incapable of withdrawing it). But everyone is making the assumption that once given, consent lasts until explicitly withdrawn. Thus, unless she actively withdraws consent, it is ok to continue a sex act that she may or may not now consent to. By that logic, starting a new sex act would be perfectly fine as long as the other person hasn't explicitly told you that they don't want to have sex again.

If by "by that logic," you mean your personal logic teleporter, then yes. Otherwise, no, cut out your logical fallacy bullshit.

[The_pantless_hero]

Here's a question. Suppose they finished having sex with her fully conscious and laid down. Then she passed out. Would it be ok for him to have sex with her, assuming that her earlier consent still stood?

I see no significant difference between that case and this one.

Then you are obviously not seeing this objectively.

Why? The argument being made is that, since she did not explicitly withdraw consent, she still consented. This is the same situation. The only difference is a little bit of time lapsed between. Are you saying that you would agree it was rape if after she passed out he stopped, answered the phone, then came back and finished fucking her?

No. It's not. Cut it the fuck out.

[Hydesland]

....ah, so he's not a REAL rapist.

He's not the sort of person who is a serious threat to society and should be barred from other countries, if that's what you mean by 'REAL rapist'.

Out of curiosity, if someone is raped by their significant other - someone who has obviously "ever" had consent - does that rape "count" more or less than the one in the alley?

I would say they are both equally severe, perhaps being raped by a stranger is a little bit more horrific, but both are horrible.

[Angleter]

Oh good grief. The combination of the facepalm and eye-rolling smilies didn't give you a glimmer of a hint that sarcasm was present?

He used a list, the eye rolling and face-palm only came after point 2 where he declared it absurd and said something sarcastic, thus REINFORCING point one.

........dear god. You're arguing this point? Seriously? I really wouldn't think the smilies would be necessary, given that that was quite obviously NOT "exactly what he said." "Exactly what he said" would be "All rape is REAL rape. Period. End of discussion. If you are having sex with someone that isn't consenting, you are committing rape," but he helpfully included BOTH "I am being sarcastic now" smilies just to help make the sarcasm so screamingly obvious that a mentally challenged toddler would have difficulty missing it.

Are you being sarcastic now?

[Poliwanacraca]

Consent is given on a fuck-by-fuck basis.

It absolutely is not. If I am having sex with my boyfriend, and I say, "I don't like this, please stop now, seriously, stop" midway through, and he does not stop, he is then raping me. Consent is given on a CONTINUOUS basis and can therefore be revoked at any time.

[Neo Art]

I do have a question for anyone who wants to answer. And don't consider it confrontational or argumentative, but merely an attempt to find a baseline in the conversation.

Let's say you and I are engaged in sex ( ), sex that we each have each other's full, complete, unambiguous and informed consent for. Now, halfway through the "deed" you change your mind. You decide, internally, that you don't want to be doing this anymore. I no longer have your consent for this act.

But you do not tell me, do not resist, do not indicate in any tangible way that you do not want to do this any further. I continue.

At that point, am I raping you?

[Angleter]

Consent is given on a fuck-by-fuck basis.

It absolutely is not. If I am having sex with my boyfriend, and I say, "I don't like this, please stop now, seriously, stop" midway through, and he does not stop, he is then raping me. Consent is given on a CONTINUOUS basis and can therefore be revoked at any time.

Consent is given AND REVOKED on a fuck-by-fuck basis.

Fixed? The point I was making was that you cannot claim that unconsensual sex after consensual sex was consensual due to the consent given to the previous fuck.

[Galloism]

I do have a question for anyone who wants to answer. And don't consider it confrontational or argumentative, but merely an attempt to find a baseline in the conversation.

Let's say you and I are engaged in sex ( ), sex that we each have each other's full, complete, unambiguous and informed consent for. Now, halfway through the "deed" you change your mind. You decide, internally, that you don't want to be doing this anymore. I no longer have your consent for this act.

But you do not tell me, do not resist, do not indicate in any tangible way that you do not want to do this any further. I continue.

At that point, am I raping you?

Stop talking about last weekend. That was supposed to be between us.

You lack intent, and as you previously clarified, "rape" requires a malicious intent.

[Neo Art]

edit: double post

[Angleter]

I do have a question for anyone who wants to answer. And don't consider it confrontational or argumentative, but merely an attempt to find a baseline in the conversation.

Let's say you and I are engaged in sex ( ), sex that we each have each other's full, complete, unambiguous and informed consent for. Now, halfway through the "deed" you change your mind. You decide, internally, that you don't want to be doing this anymore. I no longer have your consent for this act.

But you do not tell me, do not resist, do not indicate in any tangible way that you do not want to do this any further. I continue.

At that point, am I raping you?

No. Unless you are a mind-reader.

[Phenia]

It never ceases to amaze me that even seemingly reasonable people still whip out the silence-equals-consent argument.

Except nobody has argued that. At the most extreme (ignoring some trolls) all that anyone has argued is "consent is consent, and silence in the face of past, unambiguous consent can not be construed as revoking that consent"

First, I don't ignore or dismiss people based on trolling or how extreme their views are. There are plenty of people who do argue that and more than one in this thread.

Second, it amounts to the same thing since it's an attempt to justify this act.

An unconscious person is not in a state where they are able to consent. It's like digging up a corpse and having sex with it, because hey, a few years ago you had "prior consent" to have sex with that person. Only rape is actually more disgusting than necrophilia, since it's more common, and there seems to be this whole support group for rapists to do as they please with unconscious persons.

Offers are not open indefinitely and absolutely, however 'unambiguous' they allegedly are. I don't get to go find that girl I fucked back in high school and rape her unconscious self because one time she said, "You can fuck me any time!" Why not? Wasn't that "prior consent?" She said I could do it any time!

[Sdaeriji]

Not really, no. But that's because I don't think me giving someone consent to start a sex act is also permission for them to finish it. As Bottle said, consent is an active process and can be withdrawn at any time (unless, of course, one is incapable of withdrawing it). But everyone is making the assumption that once given, consent lasts until explicitly withdrawn. Thus, unless she actively withdraws consent, it is ok to continue a sex act that she may or may not now consent to. By that logic, starting a new sex act would be perfectly fine as long as the other person hasn't explicitly told you that they don't want to have sex again.

Like I said earlier, I think the idea that this is ok, but starting a new sex act wouldn't be comes from the idea that women who dare to withdraw consent during the sex act are doing something wrong. Thus, we can assume that she's not a dirty tease or whatever and thus wouldn't have withdrawn consent.

Easy. If he had never realized she was unconscious, and continued the sex act that he had prior consent for until completion without ever figuring out, in his drunken stupor, that she wasn't conscious, then according to NA's post (and your agreement with my reply to it) he would not have raped her according to the law.

However, after completing this agreed-upon sex act, he began to do something new with her that he hadn't received prior consent, he would need to ask for consent, correct? At which point he would realize that she was unconscious when she didn't reply. If he chose to continue with the new, unconsented sex act regardless of her status, then all assumptions of ignorance are lost, and we can easily say that he raped her.

If he only performed the act that he had consent for, and he had no reasonable reason to suspect that consent had been withdrawn, either implicitly or explicitly, then that is different from performing an act for which he had NO consent.

[Jello Biafra]

Not really, no. But that's because I don't think me giving someone consent to start a sex act is also permission for them to finish it. As Bottle said, consent is an active process and can be withdrawn at any time (unless, of course, one is incapable of withdrawing it).

Would this mean that once engaged in sex, both (or all) partners are obligated to say "I give you permission to continue fucking me," at regular intervals?

[Conserative Morality]

Would this mean that once engaged in sex, both (or all) partners are obligated to say "I give you permission to continue fucking me," at regular intervals?

I pictured that in my head... And must thank you for making my day.

[Ifreann]

Then you are obviously not seeing this objectively.

Why? The argument being made is that, since she did not explicitly withdraw consent, she still consented. This is the same situation. The only difference is a little bit of time lapsed between. Are you saying that you would agree it was rape if after she passed out he stopped, answered the phone, then came back and finished fucking her?

Consent is given on a fuck-by-fuck basis. In the case in question, she gave consent to the intercourse that was completed after she passed out (thus it is not rape). In your event she did not give consent to the second one (thus it is rape).

Why isn't the intercourse over when she passed out? After all, an unconscious person can't participate in sex any more than a fleshlight can.

[Poliwanacraca]

Consent is given on a fuck-by-fuck basis.

It absolutely is not. If I am having sex with my boyfriend, and I say, "I don't like this, please stop now, seriously, stop" midway through, and he does not stop, he is then raping me. Consent is given on a CONTINUOUS basis and can therefore be revoked at any time.

Consent is given AND REVOKED on a fuck-by-fuck basis.

Fixed?

No. If I say "stop" and he stops, and I say "nevermind, you can keep going" and he keeps going, and I say "stop" and he stops, and I say "nevermind, you can keep going" and he keeps going, and I say "stop" and he stops, and I say "nevermind, you can keep going" and he keeps going, all over the course of one single "fuck," he STILL has to stop every time that consent is revoked.

[Neo Art]

Not really, no. But that's because I don't think me giving someone consent to start a sex act is also permission for them to finish it. As Bottle said, consent is an active process and can be withdrawn at any time (unless, of course, one is incapable of withdrawing it).

Would this mean that once engaged in sex, both (or all) partners are obligated to say "I give you permission to continue fucking me," at regular intervals?

damn it, you beat me to my punchline. But you do make a point. We don't do this, obviously. None of us have ever actually do that. And because I think we accept that consent, once given, is implicitly CONTINUED TO BE GIVEN until explicitly revoked.

Otherwise, if it's not reasonable to assume that consent exists until revoked, then my girlfriend and I rape each other every time we have sex, as I neither of us have made the effort to punctuate our activities with "is it ok that I keep fucking you?"

[Angleter]

Not really, no. But that's because I don't think me giving someone consent to start a sex act is also permission for them to finish it. As Bottle said, consent is an active process and can be withdrawn at any time (unless, of course, one is incapable of withdrawing it).

Would this mean that once engaged in sex, both (or all) partners are obligated to say "I give you permission to continue fucking me," at regular intervals?

Actually there must be a signed document for each minute of intercourse.

[Sdaeriji]

Why isn't the intercourse over when she passed out? After all, an unconscious person can't participate in sex any more than a fleshlight can.

The body can continue with the physical actions of sex after the conscious mind has stopped.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn6540

[Hydesland]

Would this mean that once engaged in sex, both (or all) partners are obligated to say "I give you permission to continue fucking me," at regular intervals?

I think it means consent has to be explicitly stated at every single instance of time progression during the sex act, which would be a form of Xeno's paradox.

[Angleter]

--GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT--

THE NATIONAL SAFE WORD

The Government has decided that in order to define rape properly, it is imperative to introduce a standard national safe word that will mean automatic revocation of consent. We shall spend £500 million promoting this word, as this is key in avoiding legal disputes in court over whether 'No' meant 'No' or 'That No Where You Really Mean YES'.

THE NATIONAL SAFE WORD IS:
FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN

--END OF GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT--

[Neo Art]

Meanwhile, may I add, that THIS is why people like me use safe words. Human language, feelings, and emotions are imprecise. "yes, no, oh god, oh my god, don't stop, stop, go, no, yes, oh god stop, oh god don't stop", all can get middled and confused.

But when someone has the presence of mind to, in intense moments of passion, pleasure and pain, yell out "Banana! I SAID BANANA!" you know she means business

[Galloism]

Meanwhile, may I add, that THIS is why people like me use safe words. Human language, feelings, and emotions are imprecise. "yes, no, oh god, oh my god, don't stop, stop, go, no, yes, oh god stop, oh god don't stop", all can get middled and confused.

But when someone has the presence of mind to, in intense moments of passion, pleasure and pain, yell out "Banana! I SAID BANANA!" you know she means business

I always use "Margaret Thatcher!" as it kills the mood and is a clear signal all at once.

[Poliwanacraca]

Not really, no. But that's because I don't think me giving someone consent to start a sex act is also permission for them to finish it. As Bottle said, consent is an active process and can be withdrawn at any time (unless, of course, one is incapable of withdrawing it).

Would this mean that once engaged in sex, both (or all) partners are obligated to say "I give you permission to continue fucking me," at regular intervals?

damn it, you beat me to my punchline. But you do make a point. We don't do this, obviously. None of us have ever actually do that. And because I think we accept that consent, once given, is implicitly CONTINUED TO BE GIVEN until explicitly revoked.

I think you're incorrect here. I think we accept that consent, once given, is implicitly continued to be given until explicitly revoked or something significant changes. I do not think you honestly believe that if your girlfriend had a stroke in the middle of you having sex with her, it would be perfectly fine for you to keep on fucking her as if nothing was happening. I'm pretty sure you would feel like, at that point, regardless of whether she could articulate "stop" or struggle against you, you would be obligated to climb off her and get her medical care immediately rather than ignoring her well-being because, hey, she never explicitly told you to stop fucking her.

[Sdaeriji]

--GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT--

THE NATIONAL SAFE WORD

The Government has decided that in order to define rape properly, it is imperative to introduce a standard national safe word that will mean automatic revocation of consent. We shall spend £500 million promoting this word, as this is key in avoiding legal disputes in court over whether 'No' meant 'No' or 'That No Where You Really Mean YES'.

THE NATIONAL SAFE WORD IS:
FLǕGGȦ∂NKđ€ČHIŒβǾLʃÊN

--END OF GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCEMENT--

I see we've abandoned the pretense of educated discussion.