well if you guys wanna chat when you are online I will be here. I am very excited to begin all types of interesting conversations.
The World’s Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
Sexual Consent - When is it "Yes"?
How do you define consent?
Where do you think is an appropriate line to draw between "yes" and "no"?
The only thing that is "yes" is "yes". Just because there is no "no", that doesn't mean there's a "yes". In order for there to be a "yes", there has to be something said. Consent has to be created. Now there's a name for my view; it's called the Affirmative Consent Standard. In order for there to be consent, there has to be affirmation. Consent has to be created.
When I think of this, I think of something my driver's ed teacher said to me as I was learning to drive a car. I took driver's ed when I was 17, and I am now 59, so this has stayed with me for a considerable number of years. We were discussing the principle of The Right of Way, and my driver's ed teacher said: "The Right of Way is not something you have. The Right of Way is something the other driver gives you, and if the other driver doesn't give it to you, you don't have it. No matter what you think the rules of the road are supposed to be, and no matter what you think you are entitled to. And if people really understood that, there would be a lot fewer tragic collisions on the roads."
Consent is like that. Consent is not something you have; consent is something the other person has to give to you. And if the other person doesn't give it to you, you don't have it. No matter what you think the rules are supposed to be, and no matter what you think you are entitled to. That's the Affirmative Consent Standard.
Now here's my sort of bottom line in endorsing that and recommending it to you. Often in philosophy, the way to decide on one position is to see that there's a for in the road, and what happens if we take the other view? If you don't have the Affirmative Consent Standard, you are saying that what's in place is Green Light - go ahead. If you don't have the Affirmative Consent Standard, you are endorsing a world in which other people have right of access to your body without expressly asking you permission to have that access. That's what you are saying if you don't endorse an Affirmative Consent Standard - you are saying "go ahead until somebody stops me" or until there's a stop. I think if we really think about it, no one is really willing to live in a world like that. I don't think any of us would really endorse a lack of an Affirmative Consent Standard if we really knew what was at stake. So that's my bottom line here.
Now I'm going to spell out some other implications and some other aspects of this. I said "consent has to be created; something has to be said". Someone raised the issue of body language. I'm going to hold out for the standard; what's required is explicit verbal consent. That's the standard I'm going to hold out for. The danger in body language is that it's just too easily misinterpreted. And if you misinterpret, if you get it wrong, if you're reading someone's body language and you think you have consent when you really don't, we need to start using language and directly talking about what we're talking about. We're talking about sexual assault; we're talking about rape.
I am not accusing people of intentionally misinterpreting. These are situations in which emotions are running high, things may be getting hot and heavy, and it may be too easy to read in a misinterpretation of the signals. "In all good faith, I really thought!" It's just too dangerous.
[Typed by The Nerd.]
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Simon JM on -
Have you ever had sex where you or the other partner are so drunk you can honestly not remember what you did, or say you didn't know what you were doing. Well technically one or both have just raped each other as neither of you were capable of informed consent. In Australia there have been cases where women have charged men with rape because they were drunk at the time.
Secondly this means that all minors that have sex are raping each other and are now sex offenders. Though I do wonder whether one can rape one-self with masturbation. But hey if sex is intrinsically harmful I guess we are all sex offenders ;) -
-
Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on -
If both parties are drunk then it's just a sad situation all around; she was not in her right mind but neither was he. If just one party is drunk and the other takes advantage, then I put the blame on the person taking advantage.
I can think of some nonverbal cues that are pretty unambiguous, like two people both mutually taking each other's clothes off, getting a condom and ripping it open and putting it on, or being naked together and getting into a "sex" position.
I can also imagine someone being drunk enough to do something they normally wouldn't want to do; let's say the person has a reason they don't want to have sex with someone they're attracted to--they could be in a relationship or any other number of reasons, but they end up getting really drunk with the person (which may not be sensible, but maybe the person is a good friend) and end up saying "yes" to sex with that person even though in their right mind they wouldn't want to. It may be predatory of that other person to have sex, but they might be drunk too or they might think the person saying "yes" is enough consent. -
-
Permalink Reply by Michelle on -
It has been my experience that boys can fall into this trap (which you all have been clear they can as well) of being drunk and letting their body over-ride their brain. The one occasion on which this happened to me it took everything in me to stop him because he was stronger than me and, well, hot. Fortunately I was relatively sober and able to make the call.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on
-
I would also advise anyone that if they want to get super intoxicated, they should only do it in the presence of trusted friends. Still I think the person who takes advantage is worse than the person who does something naive. Usually the responsibility is put on the women: women are given advice on how to avoid rape much more than men, which contradicts the idea that women are not responsible for rape. (The idea that women are responsible for rape implies that males are uncontrollable animals, which is pretty demeaning to men.)
So about getting blotto...if someone is just more suggestable when tipsy, I definitely don't think that's rape. But if someone is blacked out, that could be either from their own drinking or from someone else drugging them. -
-
Permalink Reply by Jezzy on -
I agree completely. My mom informed me that men just get to this certain point where chemically, they just cannot help themselves. What kind of a horrifying world is that?!
-
-
Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on
-
If I am in a sexual situation and I think the person might initiate something I don't want to do, I usually tell them before they start trying to do that particular thing. I don't know if I place any kind of blame on someone who doesn't say they don't want it, but it seems like common sense. That doesn't mean that if a person is at a certain level of sexuality it's a given or assumption that they want to go all the way--but it's helpful to make their limits clear. After which the other person should be respectful.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Ken Westervelt on -
I can't agree with the green-light/stop-sign dichotomy here. This sounds too much like Antioch to me.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antioch_College#The_Sexual_Offense_Pre...
Now, I get little pleasure out of rutting with a reluctant partner. If I suspect she isn't comfortable, I'll stop. But (to continue the traffic metaphor) if I've got to roll through four-way stops instead of seeing green and red lights, I'll find another route. The extra effort often isn't worth it. -
-
Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on
-
I remember hearing about that--guys had to ask if they could hold a woman's hand, and kiss her?
Maybe some people would like the affirmative consent policy, but I think it could make things pretty boring for many others. I'm kind of turned on by the idea of hooking up wordlessly, either using no words or a few minimal words, because people can tell that they want each other. I don't mind talking either, but detailed discussion of every move might take the fun out of it. -
-
Permalink Reply by The Nerd on -
Or it might make it really hot. You know those kids are getting good at the dirty talk. ;)
-
-
Permalink Reply by Prog Rock Girl on
-
True true...although I'd probably get annoyed with a guy asking to do every little thing...but then I started thinking about if he talked like some late 19th century gentleman politely asking if he may take my hand...and then really gradually starting talking dirtier while still keeping a proper veneer...I'd think that was kind of hot.
-
-
Permalink Reply by Michelle on
-
Thanks for the ideas, hmmm what about with an accent? I love a good one that deviates from standard North American. Oooh, what about in Spanish or French?
-
Support Nexus
Click to Buy Amazon items and help A|N
Advertisements
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
Edward R. Bennett commented on Steph S.'s group 'Geek & Nerd Haven'
Aust. Parliament proposal to lift Gay Marriage ban, nationwide:
http://ning.it/xJyIzB
Status posted by Sandi
Maire commented on moJoe's group 'Chariots of Iron'
EllenBeth replied to Dogly's discussion 'Are these ad hominem attacks? Bullying?'
Chris Johnson replied to Chris Dodds's discussion 'School punishes boy for Gay Opposition' in the group Atheist News
Dan Rea liked MADHUKAR KULKARNI's blog post 'MY ATHEISM'
Dan Rea replied to Dan Rea's discussion 'Some muslim Insanity'
Dr. Terence Meaden liked Terry Groff's blog post 'The Atheist Bible: First and only book of Terry'
MADHUKAR KULKARNI replied to Chris Dodds's discussion 'School punishes boy for Gay Opposition' in the group Atheist News
MADHUKAR KULKARNI replied to Joan Denoo's discussion 'Capitalism is insane' in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
MADHUKAR KULKARNI replied to Ruth Anthony-Gardner's discussion 'endemic fraud drives outsourcing' in the group Politics, Economics, and Religion
Citizen Roe liked Mike Lee's discussion 'PWNING THE PLANNED PARENTHOOD PROTESTORS !!!'
Citizen Roe liked Mike Lee's profile
MADHUKAR KULKARNI replied to Mrina's discussion 'Human Colonization of Space- A Kind of "Manifest Destiny?"' in the group Atheists for a Vigorous Space Program
© 2012 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Brother Richard.
