I find the affirmative ongoing consent idea ridiculous. It's not enough to get consent before the act, somebody is supposed to continually ask during the act if consent is still present?
How often is someone supposed to be asking that?
VA - Freshman daughter, mom 'good time drop off' outrages VA university
- Thread starter zwiebel
- Start date
I find the affirmative ongoing consent idea ridiculous. It's not enough to get consent before the act, somebody is supposed to continually ask during the act if consent is still present?
How often is someone supposed to be asking that?
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 44,707
Without being literal, yes it does. It has to be consensual or it is a sexual attack. The minute one person starts to feel uncomfortable at any point, or loses consciousness, or is unaware what is going to happen, is the minute where if the other person continues it becomes an attack/rape. If a person changes their mind or falls asleep is the point where you stop. If you are disappointed, too bad! When I was molested, I was blindsided. He called me over, I obeyed not knowing what he intended. At no point did he have my consent to go under my panties and finger me!!! I was horrified and ran into the house and hid in my bedroom.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 634
Affirmative consent isn't constant questioning necessarily, it's taking the time to think about what you really want to do with your partner and communicating enough to make sure he or she wants the same stuff.
If it's a new relationship or a casual one night stand it's not necessarily clear that both parties understood that they consented to the same thing if there was consent "before the act". How far into it were they when they consented? Just kissing and mildly touching over the clothes? Putting on a condom?
I don't understand why it's seen as such a hardship to check in every once in a while. Do you like it when I do this? Would you like me to do that...? Would you like to do that to me...? Do you want to have sex with me? Are you enjoying this babe? Does this feel good as good to you as it does to me...?
Some people actually say communicating their wants and desires makes sex better for both of them.
If it's a new relationship or a casual one night stand it's not necessarily clear that both parties understood that they consented to the same thing if there was consent "before the act". How far into it were they when they consented? Just kissing and mildly touching over the clothes? Putting on a condom?
I don't understand why it's seen as such a hardship to check in every once in a while. Do you like it when I do this? Would you like me to do that...? Would you like to do that to me...? Do you want to have sex with me? Are you enjoying this babe? Does this feel good as good to you as it does to me...?
Some people actually say communicating their wants and desires makes sex better for both of them.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,246
- Reaction score
- 274,162
From what I have read lately, it does change a lt of things with the Affirmative Consent decree.
Previously, males were 'protecting' themselves by taking pix with the girl, and they both give a thumbs up and make a caption, CONSENT GIVEN. There are even APPS made that students can use to show that both gave consent and it is dated and timestamped.
But those 'consent given' pix and apps no longer apply under this new 'ongoing consent needed' rule. They say that even if a guy has a picture of a smiling girl saying CONSENT GIVEN at 10 pm, and she declares RAPE at 10:45, his picture will be of no
legal help because she just has to say she did not continue to affirm her consent. And under the new guidelines, that means RAPE.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 44,707
Because most people aren't so passive as to let someone physically hurt them or go along with something they are uncomfortable with without speaking up or expressing fear in some way, unless there is a weapon being held on them/threat of violence.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,246
- Reaction score
- 274,162
My daughter told me that some guys she knows had a routine they did before having sex with a girl. They would go to someplace with cameras, like the Quickstop, and have the girl be with them while they bought condoms. They'd have her pick them out, and they would take a double selfie of them doing so, as PROOF if they needed it later.
If the girl later accuses them of rape, it won't matter, considering she can withdraw consent at any time.
So they are naïve if they think it will protect them.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 634
Well I think explicit forms of consenting beforehand would probably still be helpful.
However, don't you think that regardless of any photos that got taken and any apps that were used, there might need to be some sort of out for both parties to revoke their consent once it gets uncomfortable and scary? What if the young man thought he consented to regular sex with a nice girl but the girl turns out to be a psycho in the middle of the session and the guy wants to get the hell out of there? Does the consent photo
mean that he must submit to everything she wants to do to him thereafter without complaint? Both have the right to say their consent goes only so far and not any further, and if the other person does not care about that, why would it be wrong to call him or her out for sexual assault?
And how is one supposed to know that somebody changed their mind if "ongoing affirmative consent" is required?
If you demand "ongoing affirmative consent" then it's not enough for person to affirm before the act, cause it's "ongoing."
Using this logic, somebody can claim "rape" if they consented before the act, but change their mind during the act, even if they never said they are no longer consenting.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2004
- Messages
- 28,777
- Reaction score
- 44,707
They're gonna tell you they changed their mind and if you don't continue, you don't need to worry about being charged with rape. Geez, I can't believe the ridiculous hypotheticals on this thread, use common sense and logic people!!!:banghead::banghead::banghead:
If they have to tell you they changed their mind, that's no longer affirmative consent. If you demand ongoing affirmative consent, they have to constantly affirm they are still consenting. Geez.
If ongoing affirmative consent is required, your own opinion of what you think other person wants or doesn't isn't enough.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 634
Well I don't think it ever was enough. My opinion of what my partner's opinion might be always had to agree with the partner's actual opinion, otherwise anything I make him/her do goes uncomfortably into the not-consensual territory.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,246
- Reaction score
- 274,162
Of course, neither partner should submit to any action they do not want to take part in. Getting up and leaving should always be an option, for either party. If any force is used, rape should be charged and prosecuted, imo.
My problem is with the less cut and dry cases. The way it is now, it is strongly stacked against the male students. The female can give an initial consent, enthusiastically say yes, even spend the night with the male. And then one, two, three years later she can walk into a Title IX office and accuse the male of rape. All they need is her word and he will be expelled and his life may be ruined as he cannot transfer, nor graduate. Cannot get a good job with that record.
Even if he submits proof that she was voluntarily on the date, they dated for awhile, had sex previously, and she consented to have sex that night, if she said she withheld consent halfway through and he continued, he is considered a rapist, with no proof but her word. And there is NO WAY that he would be able to combat that lie. Especially with the new way of 'investigating' and
'reviewing' these cases. It is GUILTY until proven innocent, which is impossible.
IMO - this is on topic. No one needs to point out these "celebrities" to the kids who see them non-stop, day after day, in MSM, TV and social media. The same message they're (whether intentionally or not) sending to girls, they're also sending to boys - we are sexual objects.
I sincerely doubt any of the Kardashian/Jenner women or Miley Cyrus would be the slightest bit offended by these banners.
There are many ways to express consent (or non-consent) throughout an encounter without stopping for a full-on conversation every couple of minutes. Jeez.
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,246
- Reaction score
- 274,162
example case:
UC San Diego didn't give male student fair trial in sex case, judge rules
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83989229/
UC San Diego failed to give a fair trial to a male student it found responsible for sexual misconduct last year by refusing to allow him to fully confront and cross-examine his accuser, a judge has ruled.
In what is believed to be the first ruling against the University of California in a sexual misconduct case, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Joel M. Pressman found there was insufficient evidence to support charges that the student, identified only as John Doe, had pressed a classmate to engage in sexual activity against her will in February 2014. Pressman ordered the university to drop its finding against Doe and all sanctions, including a suspension of one year and a quarter.
"It's a huge relief," said Doe, who asked for anonymity to protect his future academic and career plans.
The case is being watched nationally, as concern has grown that the intensified crackdown on campus sexual assault over the last few years has skewed too far against those accused, violating their due process rights. Last fall, 28 Harvard Law School faculty members published an opinion article condemning their campus procedures on sexual assault cases as lacking "the most basic elements of fairness and due process" and "overwhelmingly stacked against the accused."
In the San Diego case, Doe met the accuser, identified as Jane Roe, at a party in January 2014 and began a sexual relationship later that month. Both sides agreed that at least some of the sex was consensual. But four months later, in June, Roe filed a complaint alleging three instances of sexual misconduct in late January and early February, all of which Doe denied.
Elena Acevedo Dalcourt, UC San Diego's campus complaint resolution officer, found insufficient evidence for two of the charges but determined that the third allegation of digital penetration without consent was valid.
UC San Diego didn't give male student fair trial in sex case, judge rules
http://touch.latimes.com/#section/-1/article/p2p-83989229/
UC San Diego failed to give a fair trial to a male student it found responsible for sexual misconduct last year by refusing to allow him to fully confront and cross-examine his accuser, a judge has ruled.
In what is believed to be the first ruling against the University of California in a sexual misconduct case, San Diego County Superior Court Judge Joel M. Pressman found there was insufficient evidence to support charges that the student, identified only as John Doe, had pressed a classmate to engage in sexual activity against her will in February 2014. Pressman ordered the university to drop its finding against Doe and all sanctions, including a suspension of one year and a quarter.
"It's a huge relief," said Doe, who asked for anonymity to protect his future academic and career plans.
The case is being watched nationally, as concern has grown that the intensified crackdown on campus sexual assault over the last few years has skewed too far against those accused, violating their due process rights. Last fall, 28 Harvard Law School faculty members published an opinion article condemning their campus procedures on sexual assault cases as lacking "the most basic elements of fairness and due process" and "overwhelmingly stacked against the accused."
In the San Diego case, Doe met the accuser, identified as Jane Roe, at a party in January 2014 and began a sexual relationship later that month. Both sides agreed that at least some of the sex was consensual. But four months later, in June, Roe filed a complaint alleging three instances of sexual misconduct in late January and early February, all of which Doe denied.
Elena Acevedo Dalcourt, UC San Diego's campus complaint resolution officer, found insufficient evidence for two of the charges but determined that the third allegation of digital penetration without consent was valid.
Donjeta
Adji Desir, missing from Florida
- Joined
- Mar 11, 2009
- Messages
- 19,246
- Reaction score
- 634
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2011
- Messages
- 70,246
- Reaction score
- 274,162
But what if an 18 yr old THINKS the other person wants to be in bed with them? That is the problem. Young people, 'hooking up', with very little clear communication.
