The Problem with Modern Views on Consent

[Galloism]

Verbal isn't in most cases, and shouldn't be, required, and one should note that the level of intoxication is highly relevant.

At UGA women must be sober and express verbal consent, otherwise it's rape.

I do wonder what they do when both people are drunk.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

ok, let me spell it out to you: i don't think that the people you thought of as rape apologists are rape apologists and you have no way of knowing for sure, hence you are overestimating imo

How you can make this assumption without even knowing what I'm talking about is beyond me.

statistics

[Genivaria]

How you can make this assumption without even knowing what I'm talking about is beyond me.

statistics

'Sigh'
I'm not going to get any deeper in this pointless argument.

[Galloism]

Ask: Would you like to have sex with me now?

Now that's a way to set the mood.

Generally, when someone says "take your pants off and fuck me", that is both consenting to sex AND setting the mood.

It's all in phraseology.

[Genivaria]

At UGA women must be sober and express verbal consent, otherwise it's rape.

I do wonder what they do when both people are drunk.

Be extremely embarrassed and awkward the next morning?

[Galloism]

I do wonder what they do when both people are drunk.

Be extremely embarrassed and awkward the next morning?

Well, by "they", I meant the college, not the students.

But... well played.

[Natapoc]

There's an objective level of when you are and are not intoxicated that's applied to some crimes, like drunk driving.

I just think that might be a way of defining sober like what OP was talking about.

Well, I find this one puzzling too. Like supposing both people are drunk,do they both get arrested? And in fact doesn't this mean that just as at a workplace you shouldn't flirt in bars or at parties where there is alcohol, according to the principles of understanding sexual harassment and enthusiastic consent?

Regarding your first question.

Let's not worry so much with discussion of "who would be arrested?"

The question you should be asking is: How can I be sure I did not rape someone? The answer to that question is getting affirmative consent. You should be more worried about causing serious trauma to someone you presumably care about by raping them then by worrying about who would be arrested in some hypothetical situation.

Regarding the second question: mild flirting is perfectly fine in a bar so long as you are not making the other person uncomfortable. Look for verbal and non verbal communication.

[Galloism]

Well, I find this one puzzling too. Like supposing both people are drunk,do they both get arrested? And in fact doesn't this mean that just as at a workplace you shouldn't flirt in bars or at parties where there is alcohol, according to the principles of understanding sexual harassment and enthusiastic consent?

Regarding your first question.

Let's not worry so much with discussion of "who would be arrested?"

The question you should be asking is: How can I be sure I did not rape someone? The answer to that question is getting affirmative consent. You should be more worried about causing serious trauma to someone you presumably care about by raping them then by worrying about who would be arrested in some hypothetical situation.

Regarding the second question: mild flirting is perfectly fine in a bar so long as you are not making the other person uncomfortable. Look for verbal and non verbal communication.

That may be fine for a person who's only interested in them personally how they deal with others, but it's wholly inadequate for a person interested in social justice, equality, and proper application of law.

A person who's interested in social justice, equality, and proper application of law wants to have procedures and laws set up in such a way that no one is treated unfairly based on their sex and/or gender.

Now, would you like to try again to answer a political/legal question on a political forum?

[Natapoc]

Now, would you like to try again to answer a political/legal question on a political forum?

Try to be more condensing... Please? I'd like a reason to put you on my ignore list.

[Galloism]

Now, would you like to try again to answer a political/legal question on a political forum?

Try to be more condensing... Please? I'd like a reason to put you on my ignore list.

Tired of nonanswers. Here we are discussing political/legal theory and you throw out some nonanswer that, if codified into law, would give ample room for sexist and inconsistent application of the law by a judiciary that is already shown to be even more sexist against men than it is racist against ethnic minorities.

If your question was an answer to his, it was hopelessly misguided to the point disastrous application. If it was not an answer to his, it's basically just spam.

If you don't want to be criticized, don't throw out such crappy answers/nonanswers.

[Natapoc]

Try to be more condensing... Please? I'd like a reason to put you on my ignore list.

Tired of nonanswers. Here we are discussing political/legal theory and you throw out some nonanswer that, if codified into law, would give ample room for sexist and inconsistent application of the law by a judiciary that is already shown to be even more sexist against men than it is racist against ethnic minorities.

If your question was an answer to his, it was hopelessly misguided to the point disastrous application. If it was not an answer to his, it's basically just spam.

If you don't want to be criticized, don't throw out such crappy answers/nonanswers.

The OP asked a question about what consent was. If this is a thread about legal interpretations of affirmative consent then I must be off topic but the OP seems to be confused about what consent means and to me that's more important than what should happen in the hypothetical situation where two people were both drunk.

My response was not spam. If he's interested only in legal theory then yes that's not a conversation I'm particularly interested in.

If the OP is about legal theory then I suggest the OP reword the OP to make it clear that he's only interested in how specific hypothetical situations would be prosecuted under specific legal frameworks. If this thread is about guidelines for arresting officers then I defer to the appropriate legal authorities.

[Arkolon]

Now that's a way to set the mood.

Generally, when someone says "take your pants off and fuck me", that is both consenting to sex AND setting the mood.

It's all in phraseology.

'Generally', but a lot of ifs need to be satisfied first. I don't know about consent, I've never had to experience it in sexual encounters. My human instincts just kick in and I naturally know if she's OK with it or not. Even if I hypothetically wanted something badly, I would still feel a moral and social scruple... you know, just like any other social creature and/or human being. Consent has always seemed obvious to me, and both hidden/pretend consent as well.

[New Edom]

Well, I find this one puzzling too. Like supposing both people are drunk,do they both get arrested? And in fact doesn't this mean that just as at a workplace you shouldn't flirt in bars or at parties where there is alcohol, according to the principles of understanding sexual harassment and enthusiastic consent?

Regarding your first question.

Let's not worry so much with discussion of "who would be arrested?"

The question you should be asking is: How can I be sure I did not rape someone? The answer to that question is getting affirmative consent. You should be more worried about causing serious trauma to someone you presumably care about by raping them then by worrying about who would be arrested in some hypothetical situation.

I'm sorry but that's not really what I'm asking about the first question. What I'm talking about is what if both people were really drunk, wake up, and realize they had sex. Who is responsible for the nonconsent? What if neither quite remember what happened? What if they both did but don't remember making conscious decisions? If they are both happy with the situation or neutral about it, is it okay?

Now I'll give you a real life example. I was at a party a number of years ago, making out with a girl in a room at the party, and she became very passive. I thought at first she was just being quiet, but then I looked at her and her eyes were closed. I said her name, no response. I tickled her nose, no response, and when I moved away she just kind of collapsed on the bed. So I went out, found a female friend of hers, and said, "Hey, so and so is passed out, can you go check on her and see if she needs to get home?" and left. Now I didn't think much about it at the time, I didn't know much about consent issues. But it is rather obvious in that case that as the MORE sober party I was responsible for deciding to stop as she couldn't make any decision of any kind.

But what if things were different? What if both of us were making out, then...blank...then we both woke up in bed with no clothes on, and evidence of sex? You see where I'm going with this?

Now I'm not trying to suggest that mindless drunken barely aware sex is a GOOD thing, I'm simply pointing out that if people are saying that such sex is rape, there is a bit of a grey area there about it that could be confusing to some people.

Regarding the second question: mild flirting is perfectly fine in a bar so long as you are not making the other person uncomfortable. Look for verbal and non verbal communication.

I don't understand why it is good in this context all of the sudden. What if it is unwanted? According to definitions presented here and elsewhere, if it is unwanted it is harassment.

And what is mild flirting vs. harassing comments?

[Nazi Flower Power]

Now that's a way to set the mood.

Maybe it's not a good way to set in the mood for you, but for sure it's a good way to avoid to rape women.

Yeah... Guys should make sure they have consent, but women could still help their own cause by saying something if they want a guy to back off.

There's no need to say "no" you know? That's exactly the meaning of affirmative consent, implemented in yes-means-yes law and in the State law of UK.
Lacks of voluntary, sober, enthusiastic, informed and verbal consent means "no".

That doesn't mean saying "no" when you want a guy to back off wouldn't prevent a lot of problems. You can talk all you want about the right way that things ought to be, but in practice, speaking up is helpful.

Read here, you'll learn something

No. You getting on your soap box and preaching without addressing the real world is not educational.

[The 19th Century]

I certainly wouldn't presume that she intends to have sex with you, but it means she is not disgusted by your presence, and one would assume that she is willing to converse with you if she accepted an invitation. If nothing else, it is between the two of you and no longer your employer's concern.

I don't think I understand what you mean. Let's say that there is an invitation to dinner. But surely anyone can be invited out to dinner, or is an invitation to dinner between people of the opposite sex always about possible intimacy? At what point does introducing the subject become not bothering people but flirtation and exploring possibilities?

Bear in mind please--if I'm being told there are many circumstances which are harassment and that 'no' is the default--where is the level playing field for 'yes'?

I wouldn't say that an invitation to dinner is always about possible intimacy. It was simple a suggestion of where you might talk more freely than in your workplace without seeming rude or unprofessional. I don't think there is any way to broach such a delicate subject that it will not come with some risk of rejection, misunderstanding, or offense.

[New Edom]

Generally, when someone says "take your pants off and fuck me", that is both consenting to sex AND setting the mood.

It's all in phraseology.

'Generally', but a lot of ifs need to be satisfied first. I don't know about consent, I've never had to experience it in sexual encounters. My human instincts just kick in and I naturally know if she's OK with it or not. Even if I hypothetically wanted something badly, I would still feel a moral and social scruple... you know, just like any other social creature and/or human being. Consent has always seemed obvious to me, and both hidden/pretend consent as well.

Sure but really, do you just intuitively know the above or did you learn and develop it? And do you not think that people can misunderstand one another and carry that misunderstanding beyond the immediate sense of it?

For people who feel it is obvious--I sometimes wonder if they have never really experienced a bad misunderstanding, poor communication which was seen as good communication by both parties.

[Galloism]

Tired of nonanswers. Here we are discussing political/legal theory and you throw out some nonanswer that, if codified into law, would give ample room for sexist and inconsistent application of the law by a judiciary that is already shown to be even more sexist against men than it is racist against ethnic minorities.

If your question was an answer to his, it was hopelessly misguided to the point disastrous application. If it was not an answer to his, it's basically just spam.

If you don't want to be criticized, don't throw out such crappy answers/nonanswers.

The OP asked a question about what consent was. If this is a thread about legal interpretations of affirmative consent then I must be off topic but the OP seems to be confused about what consent means and to me that's more important than what should happen in the hypothetical situation where two people were both drunk.

My response was not spam. If he's interested only in legal theory then yes that's not a conversation I'm particularly interested in.

Then you shouldn't answer questions like "what should happen if two drunk people have sex, should they both be arrested?", which was (the gist of) the post you quoted. That's very clearly in the realm of legal theory as to what should legally happen in a specific set of circumstances.

If the OP is about legal theory then I suggest the OP reword the OP to make it clear that he's only interested in how specific hypothetical situations would be prosecuted under specific legal frameworks. If this thread is about guidelines for arresting officers then I defer to the appropriate legal authorities.

You didn't quote the opening post with your response. You quoted the opening poster who asked a legal question in the very post you responded to, then proceeded to claim you didn't mean legally when answering whether a person should or should not be arrested.

[New Edom]

I don't think I understand what you mean. Let's say that there is an invitation to dinner. But surely anyone can be invited out to dinner, or is an invitation to dinner between people of the opposite sex always about possible intimacy? At what point does introducing the subject become not bothering people but flirtation and exploring possibilities?

Bear in mind please--if I'm being told there are many circumstances which are harassment and that 'no' is the default--where is the level playing field for 'yes'?

I wouldn't say that an invitation to dinner is always about possible intimacy. It was simple a suggestion of where you might talk more freely than in your workplace without seeming rude or unprofessional. I don't think there is any way to broach such a delicate subject that it will not come with some risk of rejection, misunderstanding, or offense.

Then I think that that is a huge problem with the way that consent and harassment are talked about. It seems a contradiction to me to suggest that the default on sex is a big "no" without a clear idea of how to approach "yes". If as you say there is no way to broach such a delicate subject that it will not come with some risk of rejection, misunderstanding or offense, and that misunderstanding or offense can lead to accusation of harassment or rape, then there should be a clear GOOD way to go about this. But as you say, there is not.

[Jumalariik]

Anyone who seems to have trouble understanding what consent is? So let's take this a moment. Let's say that a person is at a class teaching on consent and they say "I don't get it". Is it not possible that they might need it explained another way, have trouble with the explanation itself and want to figure out what it means or implies? Is it not possible that they agree that consent is important but perhaps have different approach to how to go about dealing with it?

In fact, in threads like this I ask for clarity not to mock or belittle, but to figure out what people are talking about. If it is perfectly clear to them, then expanding, explaining is I think a reasonable response. What comes across otherwise is that this is some kind of thing we are just supposed to 'know'.

However we don't learn that way as human beings. We learn by means like example, experience and discussion and application.

I am not trying to mock or belittle you. It is good to ask questions about what consent is if you are unsure about it. Actually it's very important that people who don't understand what it means attempt to learn so if they plan to have sex. All I'm saying is that yes, people who don't understand what consent is are potential rapists or potential rape victims who won't know that they were raped because they are not sure if they said all the magic words or not.

I don't intend to offend you.

So, let me get this straight:
If a man and a woman are having sex, and the woman is not enjoying it to the fullest, yet, because she wants to make the man happy, he feigns enjoyment, the man raped her.
Going further into your argument, if a man and a woman are having sex, and the woman does not enjoy it to the fullest, they finish and have sex again, both enjoying it, should the man be arrested for rape?
Now, what if the woman is not the one not enjoying it, instead it's the man?
Now, what I think you're doing is trivializing rape. You are turning rape from an act of violence and evil into somebody just being a bit selfish.

[The 19th Century]

I am not trying to mock or belittle you. It is good to ask questions about what consent is if you are unsure about it. Actually it's very important that people who don't understand what it means attempt to learn so if they plan to have sex. All I'm saying is that yes, people who don't understand what consent is are potential rapists or potential rape victims who won't know that they were raped because they are not sure if they said all the magic words or not.

I don't intend to offend you.

I appreciate your saying that. What was being referred to was Batorys' comment about how threads like this help to pick out the potential rapists around here. I don't get the impression, though perhaps i'm wrong, that Batorys was suggesting that people might be demonstrated to be confused about the issue.

Part of why I put up this thread is that I have probably (I'm not exaggerating) watched hours and hours of video discussions and lectures, read books and essays on this subject, and found a number of grey areas and areas of confusion that I found were not really addressed to my satisfaction. To me there are contradictions in how advocates of enthusiastic consent talk about sexual conversation, comments and bheaviour, and I'm trying to sort them out. I do not think that this means that figuring out how to make sex safer and more consent driven is bad--quite the contrary.

For instance, I do not understand how it is possible to talk about sex as a way of figuring out if someone consents to it is possible if there is no understanding of what context in which it is appropriate to start talking about it. Perhaps others have this understanding, but frankly I don't get it.

My advice to you is that you take into consideration what you have heard in these lectures and discussions, you do your best to behave gentlemanly, and if someone does think you are too forward, you can simply apologize and explain that it was unintentional. I don't think there are many men who always know the right thing to say, but if you do your best to be considerate of others, that goes a long way.

[The 19th Century]

I wouldn't say that an invitation to dinner is always about possible intimacy. It was simple a suggestion of where you might talk more freely than in your workplace without seeming rude or unprofessional. I don't think there is any way to broach such a delicate subject that it will not come with some risk of rejection, misunderstanding, or offense.

Then I think that that is a huge problem with the way that consent and harassment are talked about. It seems a contradiction to me to suggest that the default on sex is a big "no" without a clear idea of how to approach "yes". If as you say there is no way to broach such a delicate subject that it will not come with some risk of rejection, misunderstanding or offense, and that misunderstanding or offense can lead to accusation of harassment or rape, then there should be a clear GOOD way to go about this. But as you say, there is not.

It shouldn't be that difficult to avoid accusations of rape. Surely by the time you take a woman into your bed, you should know if she wants you or not. That is much different from simply broaching the subject in conversation.

[Arumdaum]

What's wrong with what they're saying?

It seems to be causing confusion.

So people should just ignore complex things they're confused by?

[New Edom]

My advice to you is that you take into consideration what you have heard in these lectures and discussions, you do your best to behave gentlemanly, and if someone does think you are too forward, you can simply apologize and explain that it was unintentional. I don't think there are many men who always know the right thing to say, but if you do your best to be considerate of others, that goes a long way.

That advice is not exactly concrete. You write as if there is actually a guideline that is easily followed. However all you have stated are platitudes and words like 'gentleman'. What is that in this day and age, exactly?

[Jumalariik]

My advice to you is that you take into consideration what you have heard in these lectures and discussions, you do your best to behave gentlemanly, and if someone does think you are too forward, you can simply apologize and explain that it was unintentional. I don't think there are many men who always know the right thing to say, but if you do your best to be considerate of others, that goes a long way.

That advice is not exactly concrete. You write as if there is actually a guideline that is easily followed. However all you have stated are platitudes and words like 'gentleman'. What is that in this day and age, exactly?

Look at the name of his NS nation.....

[Galloism]

My advice to you is that you take into consideration what you have heard in these lectures and discussions, you do your best to behave gentlemanly, and if someone does think you are too forward, you can simply apologize and explain that it was unintentional. I don't think there are many men who always know the right thing to say, but if you do your best to be considerate of others, that goes a long way.

That advice is not exactly concrete. You write as if there is actually a guideline that is easily followed. However all you have stated are platitudes and words like 'gentleman'. What is that in this day and age, exactly?

Last time I looked into it, behaving like a gentleman involved a pocket watch, a sword cane, a top hat and, optionally, a monocle.