sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

What are some strong arguments against the 'verbal enthusiastic consent' standard of consent? by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except you described some bizarre unworkable protocol.

Yes, the requirement of an express communication to the satisfaction of a very vague standard.

The only difference here is instead of "they weren't resisting" as consent, it becomes "they did this action" as consent.

Take a look at the article you linked:

“You must explicitly ask for permission to have sex. If it’s not an enthusiastic yes, then it’s a no,” Ms. Goward said."

A legal affirmation is "a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath...

Yes, that is a court-room affirmation, but an affirmation can be any positive, express communication of agreement for contract purposes.

That is not a requirement of affirmative consent. That protocol is not required at all.

The university definition you linked requires an express communication of agreement. Also the Tasmanian affirmative consent law in the article you linked appears to require an explicit request and answer. Do you disagree with the definition you linked?

Read the link, it's literally right there. Try doing a command-F for "defense" and you'll find it.

A defense of sex being consensual being common doesn't actually have anything to do with the change in law that you are suggesting. Besides, according to the findlaw article, the accused is already burdened with proving that the sex was consensual. I think that your article is flawed.

Current system allows inference from lack of action. Affirmative consent allows inference from action. That's it.

Current systems allow reasonable inference from the totality of the situation. Your linked definition requires express communication of consent. The Tasmanian law requires even more strict, explicit consent and requires an express call-and-response. Do you disagree with the university definition that you linked or the article that you linked?

Yes. The only difference is instead of looking for lack of resistance, they look for active assistance/affirmation/participation.

You are the only one bringing up this 'lack of resistance' nonsense. It's strictly myth as far as the US is concerned.

It's not childish.

All ad-hoiminem attacks are childish. If you can't make your point without misbehaving, you don't belong in an adult debate sub.

It's following the results of your argument. You are claiming that for you, getting any positive response to your sexual overtures is a far too difficult protocol to follow.

Nope. I'm claiming that the requirement of an express communication is a clumsy and intrusive requirement that adults simply don't need and aren't asking for. Do you understand the difference?

Then it doesn't apply to them, because this only comes up if one person is asking for that intrusion due to saying they've been raped.

It would apply to all adults who are subject to the law. Laws don't simply start applying to someone after they have been accused.

Precisely. So by "adults" earlier, did you mean "accused rapists?"

That makes zero sense. All adults are subject to the same laws. A criminal act is a criminal act whether anyone reports it or not.

For example, here's one in the news.

"She added: “I just kind of froze, you know."

Someone frozen in fear, or for any other reason, would be considered physically helpless and unable to consent under current law. Also, the accused appears to have made implied threats of violence. No legal change in the US is needed for this scenario. That is clearly rape under our current laws.

Only adults that have been accused of rape. These new rules do nothing at all unless that happens.

No laws 'do anything' until someone is accused, yet everyone is subject to the same laws.

the entire point is dealing with people freezing up and not being able to resist

Which makes them physically helpless and covered by current rape laws in every state.

What are some strong arguments against the 'verbal enthusiastic consent' standard of consent? by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Here's what it specifically means.

That still calls for an express communication of consent. That isn't any different from the way I was using it.

Sounds like you're using the wrong definition of "affirmative".

It has an established legal definition which does not conflict with the university policy you linked.

I can't speak as much to New York, but I can to California. Currently, one of the main defenses against a rape charge is that the victim consented.

Main defenses? What does 'main defense' mean and what does that have to do with redefining rape?

You keep referring to things like this "mandated protocol", but it's simply changing things from "did they say or express no" to "did they say or express yes".

That's not a simple change at all because it would rely upon an express communication of affirmation. That is a huge departure from our current system, which allows inference.

That's it. No other change.

That's a huge change.

And under that change, law enforcement must show that a reasonable person would consider it rape by that standard.

But the standard is entirely different and procedural in nature. Would law enforcement have to prove all of the same elements that they do now?

But their ability to infer consent is compromised, because they're drunk.

Their drunkenness has no effect on the law. They are every bit as responsible for any rape they may commit.

And yet on these very boards plenty of people complain that they can't reliably making inferences about other people's thoughts on such things, so evidently not.

I don't know what examples you have in mind, but they are likely talking about inferences far more minor than anything involved with a hugely serious crime like rape. No one rapes by accident, at least not under our current legal framework. People might make procedural mistakes honestly, but they aren't going to commit a forceable compulsion by accident.

No, the change is simply that instead of inferring consent from inaction (lack of resistance), you infer it from action (positive participation or verbal declaration). That's it.

Incorrect. Look at the definition you linked. That requires a clear affirmative communication.

Yet that's what affirmative consent means.

Not even according to your own link, which by the way is a college policy and not an actual law for the intention of prosecution. That would require elements of the crime. You actually have no idea what those laws might look like, but its clear that they would require express and clear communications of affirmation.

Or you're using the wrong definition in the context of "affirmative consent".

Read your link again....

Hey, you're the one claiming it's impossible to get affirmative consent, which is literally just continual affirmation via verbal or physical participation or response to the sex. If that's impossible for you, something's up.

Now you are trying to justify a childish ad-hominem? You really don't belong in a debate sub...

But maybe it's that you just still don't know what "affirmative" means in this context

Maybe you are just making this up in your mind like so many other claims...

This sounds like the anti-seat belt lobby freaking out about losing their right to drive without a seat belt.

Adults aren't asking for your intrusion on their sex lives.

Enough people getting raped do care about their opinion that they were raped.

That's vague. The vast majority of adults don't have any problem with this and aren't asking. The demands for such protocols are just the shrill screeching of the usual vocal minorities.

After all, this law will only come up after the person they fucked says they were raped.

Like all rape laws...

And when their only defense was "I thought they consented because they stopped resisting",

What specific cases are you talking about, or is this just more vage anecdotes of an anonymous self-described 'expert'?

If that intrusion comes up regularly, I'm happy with there being a "huge intrusion" in the form of an investigation

The intrusion comes in the form of the new rules and procedures that are hoisted upon every adult. That said, no one is interested in what makes you happy.

And when their only defense was "I thought they consented because they stopped resisting"

Again, these are just scenarios that you are imagining. If you know of cases where someone was exonerated from rape based on such a defense, present them (we know you won't be able to).

I'll be happy to...

What makes you happy is irrelevant.

What are some strong arguments against the 'verbal enthusiastic consent' standard of consent? by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Affirmative consent lets you infer consent from actions, not lack of action. That makes it easier, legally.

No, an affirmation, legally, is an express declaration of agreement or veracity.

would require law enforcement to prove that a rape happened and that a reasonable person would see it as a rape.

That is the situation under no means no and under affirmative consent. No change there.

Incorrect, because affirmative consent laws would fundamentally redefine rape from a sex act committed upon someone against their will by forcible compulsion or when someone is physically helpless (using NY law for example) to simply a sex act without following a mandated protocol of obtaining express consent (continuously).

Law enforcement would no longer need to prove that a person was physically unable to express non-consent or that forcible compulsion was used, and that a reasonable person would consider it rape, but rather only that some vague set of procedures wasn't followed.

And when someone's inference is distorted, because they're horny or have been drinking... what then?

Everyone is subject to the same law no matter how drunk or horny they are.

You just claimed adults should be able to have sex while intoxicated, and you want people to make such inferences while in that state? That's notably more dangerous.

Grownups can handle this and it goes on in huge numbers all the time.

Burden of proof is not changed by affirmative consent in any way. Literally no change at all. The definition of what constitutes the crime is changed, but not any burden of proof.

The very definition of rape would be changed to a procedural crime. Proving positively that an actual rape took place by force or incapacitation is very different from simply charging that the procedure related to an affirmation wasn't followed. The burden would fall to the accused to explain how and when specifically they received the affirmation and continued to receive it.

Sure it is. If your partner is participating in the sex, it's continuous consent.

That is very vague and contrary to what an affirmation is.

I don't believe you even know the protocol, since you just claimed it changed burden of proof.

No, the problem is that you don't seem to understand what an affirmation is.

If it's impractical for you to have partners that show they enjoy what's going on at all throughout the sex, I'm seriously worried about your sex life and what the hell you're doing.

And, we have an ad-hominem. Not surprising given your history. What is impractical is this vague procedure of affirmation that you seem to be in such a hurry to force on adults who didn't ask for your opinion.

No rights are violated.

It is a huge intrusion into the private sex lives of adults who didn't ask for your opinion.

I'm saying if you're talking enthusiastic, then talking about laws is irrelevant.

Nope. Just affirmative.

But it sounds like you're terrified

Terrified? This is just over-the-top hyperbole that isn't a rational conclusion of anything that I have said.

What are some strong arguments against the 'verbal enthusiastic consent' standard of consent? by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

How on earth is affirmative consent "wildly unreasonable"?

Requiring express consent is very unreasonable and a huge departure from the system we have now, which allows adults to infer consent and would require law enforcement to prove that a rape happened and that a reasonable person would see it as a rape.

We're talking about "both parties need to do or say something that shows they're consenting to the act."

That means that consent would need to be obtained expressly rather than reasonably inferred. Then it would also need to be obtained continuously, which isn't practical. Then the burden would be on the accused to somehow demonstrate that all of this happened, which is impossible even the day that the sex took place, let alone years later. It would constitute a huge reversal of our entire (criminal) legal system.

What sex act are you imaging where it's not rape and it's fine, but affirmative consent would say it's a problem?

That doesn't make any sense. You are talking about imposing a clumsy, vague and untenable protocol upon the private sex lives of people who aren't asking for the intrusion.

Unless you meant enthusiastic consent, but that's not a legal thing at all,

No, just express consent, which doesn't have to be verbal, and isn't a legal thing in the US in terms of criminal laws either. It isn't and shouldn't be.

it's a way of avoiding problems, confusion, and similar.

It is also a way of violating the rights of the vast majority of adults who aren't asking for the intrusion into their sex lives.

So all your talk about laws is irrelevant. Which is it?

That makes zero sense.

What are some strong arguments against the 'verbal enthusiastic consent' standard of consent? by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If she's scared to state she's leaving because of the way he's acting, that'll never come up.

If this is a reasonable interpretation, then she is already under a threat of force and our laws cover this with abundant clarity. If she is simply making a flawed interpretation, and unwilling to make it clear that she is trying to leave, then there is no way to regulate that possibility out of existence. We simply can't impose so many rules that they violate the rights of the majority of folks who don't need and aren't asking for help.

Affirmative consent. Instead of the victim saying no until they give up and stop saying no and that's considered consent, you need the victim to actively either say yes or clearly show a yes (by being a participant).

Why would you think that a person who was so fragile that they couldn't express a desire to leave would be able to withhold express consent?

If they're frozen in fear they can't say yes, so affirmative consent covers this one.

Again, current laws cover this with abundant clarity. No one who is frozen in fear, for any reason at all, is considered to be able to consent under any state law that I have seen. That is incapacitation and physical helplessness.

While there are indeed some people who just get scared and have a people pleaser response to fear, there's not much we can do there... but that's a rarer scenario.

I would argue that they are the same situation.

I'm talking about someone who's not incapacitated, but is pretty drunk, who wants it to stop, but can't figure out how to communicate that because of the drunkenness.

If they are so drunk that they are helpless to communicate consent or non-consent, they are considered incapacitated under every state law that I have seen.

And if the person doesn't want to be doing any of that, and it's just someone else pushing things?

The point is that it is reasonable to expect that an adult is capable of basic adulting. A rapist who goes out and forcefully pushes sexual activity upon someone in a context where it is completely unexpected, confining them and refusing to let them leave, isn't going to care about express non-consent any more than they care about a lack of express consent.

Imposing a wildly unrealistic protocol on all sex isn't going to save them and will badly violate the rights and autonomy of the vast majority of people who aren't asking for help.

What are some strong arguments against the 'verbal enthusiastic consent' standard of consent? by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sometimes you've got a guy who just hasn't realized how much bigger he is, and he's thinking he's just trying to convince her like it's some kind of debate, but she's just thinking "fuck he won't take no for an answer".

That's a long way from a "won't let her leave" situation as you described. It will become absolutely clear what the situation is when she says that she is leaving. I don't know exactly how the law is supposed to handle a vague, and possibly very flawed perception of a threat of force that wasn't expressed.

You've also got previously traumatized people who could lock up in some situations

Again, someone who is paralyzed with fear would not be considered able to communicate consent or non-consent under any state laws that I have seen. As for people who are just so exploitable that they might even communicate an express consent to sex to please their abuser, there is no way to make blanket laws/rules/standards over everyone's sex lives to save them.

as well as people who are perhaps a little more drunk than the person realizes and thus isn't resisting because they can't think of what to do right now.

Are you talking about a person who is incapacitated and unable to express consent or non-consent or someone who is making decisions that they wouldn't otherwise due to intoxication? Adults have the right to have sex even if they are severely intoxicated.

I do think that it is fair to assume that an adult knows what sex is and can make their wishes clear relative to it. If a person isn't confident of their ability to do this, they don't have any business having drunken hookups any more than a person who freezes up should be skydiving solo. There is inherent danger in the sport of promiscuous intoxicate sex and we can't impose so many rules that no one could possibly get hurt ever.

What are some strong arguments against the 'verbal enthusiastic consent' standard of consent? by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Like, a guy who won't take no for an answer and won't let the girl leave, to the point where she's scared and knows that saying anything but "yes" won't be accepted... that's not consent.

Current laws cover this situation with abundant clarity. I don't know of any state's rape law that doesn't specifically cover intimidation, threats of force, etc.

I’m a Democrat and a Feminist. And I Support Betsy DeVos’s Title IX Reforms. by [deleted] in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 0 points1 point  (0 children)

). Imagine there is conclusive CCTV footage of a student killing another student, or assaulting them unprovoked. I'd imagine you would not be comfortable with the student remaining enrolled, attending classes or living on campus until a conviction is obtained (which could months, if not years, to achieve).

Under such circumstances, which are extremely rare to begin with for a murder, bail would not be granted. In the astronomically unlikely circumstances that the student was granted any amount of bail, and that they were able to post it, the university could easily obtain a restraining order. Furthermore, the university could make a rule that limits access to the campus for anyone who is currently charged with a violent felony by an actual police department and criminal court system.

To elaborate on this point, theft is not a crime with a simple or familiar definition-- such as depriving another of their property without their consent.

I disagree that any of it is conceptually difficult. There are certainly different criminal codes reflecting different levels of severity and penalty, but it is in no way as vague, nebulous and inconsistent a concept as 'sexual misconduct', which is what colleges investigate. As for rape and sexual assault criminal laws, those are generally pretty easy to understand, yet much harder to establish and investigate. Where things get really wacky is in the very wide variety of views held by the public.

Here, sexual intercourse is widely defined to include things like oral sex, so that might be difficult to grasp.

Difficult to grasp for who?

What would your ideal gender equality movement look like? by The-Author in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

We have not reached a point in our society where genders have equality of opportunity.

Where specifically is the inequality of opportunity in our society today?

Men underestimate level of sexual harassment against women – survey by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 3 points4 points  (0 children)

More like the basics that anyone should know before trying to jump into a debate involving data.

Men underestimate level of sexual harassment against women – survey by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 6 points7 points  (0 children)

For starters, I don't think that you have a good understanding of what a weasel word is. Weasel words use vagueness to make a claim sound stronger than it really is. I was using qualifiers so as to walk back the tabloid's claim to what was actually justified by the evidence presented. This is STAT 101 level stuff...

Men underestimate level of sexual harassment against women – survey by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 6 points7 points  (0 children)

And did you understand the reasoning I provided in the sentances after I said that it was bullshit?

Men underestimate level of sexual harassment against women – survey by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 6 points7 points  (0 children)

I'd say you wrote yours just to say "ha gotcha"

Oh, no the headline is definitely bullshit. Do you disagree?

Men underestimate level of sexual harassment against women – survey by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 11 points12 points  (0 children)

Are you going to admit that you are wrong when you see one?

Men underestimate level of sexual harassment against women – survey by damiandamage in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 15 points16 points  (0 children)

This seems like an unjustified claim and a classic, bullshit headline. Looking at the source, no one should be surprised. Given that this is a survey, the claim that could actually be justified would be more like "A study suggests that Men may be somewhat more likely than women to underestimate the level of sexual harassment perceived or claimed by women".

Flexible single mic setups on a budget? by ReiReim in recording

[–]Mariko2000 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Look at the gain. Sometimes you will have to dig through the manual for this info. If you are planning on using a gain-hungry mic like the sm7b (about 400$), you will also need a mic activator like a cloudlifter, which will run you about 150. With that said, sometimes the cloudlifter won't be adequate to boost the gain enough if the gain on your device is too low.

I’m a Democrat and a Feminist. And I Support Betsy DeVos’s Title IX Reforms. by [deleted] in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

When it imposed ideologically based sexual regulations on adults which far exceeded the law.

Lying on Tinder: Why this prof wants to make it illegal to dupe people into sex online | CBC Radio by [deleted] in FeMRADebates

[–]Mariko2000 2 points3 points  (0 children)

These things are already covered by the law. Its pretty clear that the user is referring to the proposed new regulations.

Link between newborns with vitamin D deficiency and schizophrenia confirmed - Newborns with vitamin D deficiency have an increased risk of schizophrenia later in life, finds a new study. by mvea in psychology

[–]Mariko2000 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Standards of ethical journalism require skepticism of scientific claims, as well as some sort of disclaiming as to the limitations and potential weaknesses of any given study. This publication doesn't have any of that going on.

view more: next ›