Mutilating tacit sexual consent

So you're ok, then, with terrifying people into not saying no?

The only issue is "terror" is a subjective element, "coercion" is not, but is quickly becoming a subjective element. For example with Louis C.K. Just because of his celebrity quite a large amount of people were saying his actions, the worst of which was asking if he could whack it in front of a couple fans in his private room, was coercion because he was a celebrity and those women felt pressured because of it. 

When like, ok, so anyone who has any semblence of power and celebrity cant make sexual advances? Because if their celebrity makes any sexual advance coercion, which is absurd to what coercion is, for example, telling a subordinate "either you sleep with me or i'll make sure you lose your job" or "have sex with me if you want this job". The act of coercion requires active intimidation, not percieved. 

But as pointed out, plenty of people are trying to attribute a criminal act(coercion) to acts which are far from coercive(such as C.K.). That's a dangerous precedent to set because it places the determination of whether or not a crime has been committed, squarely in the hands of the person percieving the wrongdoing, and not independent of that. Basically, its stepping into the territory of, *thats a crime because I thought it was". Which in turn makes alot of people guilty of crimes they rationally should not be held as guilty of 🤔

No, I'm not. But if someone chooses to go along with something that they don't want to, then that shouldn't be a punishable crime.

The only issue is "terror" is a subjective element, "coercion" is not, but is quickly becoming a subjective element. For example with Louis C.K. Just because of his celebrity quite a large amount of people were saying his actions, the worst of which was asking if he could whack it in front of a couple fans in his private room, was coercion because he was a celebrity and those women felt pressured because of it. 

When like, ok, so anyone who has any semblence of power and celebrity cant make sexual advances? Because if their celebrity makes any sexual advance coercion, which is absurd to what coercion is, for example, telling a subordinate "either you sleep with me or i'll make sure you lose your job" or "have sex with me if you want this job". The act of coercion requires active intimidation, not percieved. 

But as pointed out, plenty of people are trying to attribute a criminal act(coercion) to acts which are far from coercive(such as C.K.). That's a dangerous precedent to set because it places the determination of whether or not a crime has been committed, squarely in the hands of the person percieving the wrongdoing, and not independent of that. Basically, its stepping into the territory of, *thats a crime because I thought it was". Which in turn makes alot of people guilty of crimes they rationally should not be held as guilty of 🤔

 If someone doesn't want to have sex, all they have to do is say no.

Would you agree with that sentiment, Budda?

And how would you, as a third party, ascertain their voluntary choice?

Just because I don't have a solution doesn't mean I can't criticize others.

Regulated brothels where sex is the given ---consent from out front--   provided saftey guidlines are in place.

It is so nuts, ---like so many irrational, nutzoid laws--- not to have brothels, primarily for men, to get their genetic fix, satisfied.

That would be a good start for a solution, primarily mens issues regarding sex with women. No? Yes?

Sex with woman who is not in the business of consentual sex as a given, is truly a differrent set of circumstances for the man.

However, the man could maybe learn something about women via the brothel method and that may make for a better exchange with between the man and women in circumstances not brothel related.

So much of what humans do not communicate need to be communicated and in some cases acted out, to satisfy/scratch and itch/gene.





 

And then we get into the issue that stopping in the midst of foreplay to be like, "I'm gonna need you to sign an consent form" is a huge buzzkill and oft would lead to zero sex and awkward interactions thereafter and into the future. Baby making would be super constrained, basically, and we want a system thats conducive to babymaking, while also one that stresses consent. Its a balance between the two. Too much focus on consent and the thrill dissapears, because well, you try reading over a contract and staying ready for sex, i wouldnt be able to, and credit to anyone who could 😂. 

That's pretty difficult. In cases of rape, it's mostly "he said, she said." I'm talking about ways to prevent it, not ways to convict rapists. And like Buddamoose said, it's quite difficult to have good sex while having to gain consent every five seconds, and at the same time can lead to people feeling like they aren't trusted.

Just because I don't have a solution doesn't mean I can't criticize others.

I do agree that men should take body language into account, and if they're continuing to do something even though the girl is being quite hesitant, there's something wrong.

Except no one is asking you to sign a contract. I mean, people see a positive consent law and talk about things like contracts and affirming consent every five seconds. This is basically text-book strawman

Guilty as charged 😂

Ok, so lets get down to brass tacks. Now, these concepts, as you pointed out with the laws that recognized spousal rape, have real world consequences. There is an active consent law in place in California, so i think its a more than reasonable thing to examine for the effects of a "yes means yes"(active consent) a opposed to a "no means no" standard(passive consent)

The New Law seeks both to improve how universities handle rape and sexual assault accusations and to clarify the standards, requiring an "affirmative consent" and stating that consent can't be given if someone is asleep or incapacitated by drugs or alcohol. [1]

"Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent," the law states, "nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time."[1]

the bill is inherently “reversing” the traditional presumption of innocence for those accused because the accused now have to prove they did get permission to be found not guilty -- at least in college disciplinary hearings.

Denice Labertew, the director of advocacy services at the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, said the bill creates a "clearer standard" because instead of the alleged victim being required to prove they didn't want to engage in sexual activity, the alleged perpetrator would be required to prove his partner did want to.[1]

But consider, two individuals are both drinking. Both actively consent to sex throughout the encounter. The next day Person A files a complaint against person B for rape. Now, the question here is not whether person B is guilty of rape, the question is, how do we determine that? If both are drinking, then neither is capable of consent, no? So both are guilty of rape, or neither? 

Now this is just in universities, right now. But it is not "omg that's so absurd, stop strawmanning hardcore" to bring up the situation where such standards end up mandating, to protect oneself legally from accusations of rape and/or sexual assault, that measures be taken to safeguard. Nor absurd to examine for effects if adopted widespread.

Ur right that written contracts would be useless and are a total strawman though, because consent can just be revoked after the theoretical contract would be signed. So then comes the issue, is the burden of proof being shifted, is the presumption of innocence being reversed, worth it? 

I would hold no, my mind does not sit easy with an ends justify the means approach as that in essence is 🤔. Nor does it sit easy with me the kind of precedent that would set for criminal prosecutions. And thats not a slippery slope fallacy, because that is already an issue in universities, now even with Title IX, apart from the aforementioned law, which is now holding that same presumption.[2]

I can see the noble intent, but what do you suggest individuals do when guilt is presumed, and written consent is pointless? I agree it theoretically should be revokable at any time, but it becomes a clear issue to me when such standards constitute as reversals of the principles of presumption of innocence and burden of proof being on prosecution/accuser.

And now the accused is placed in a position of having to prove they didnt commit a crime, instead of having to prove a crime has been committed. 

1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted

This statistic is absolute rubbish. First of all, that information was from a survey. A survey that had numerous issues. 

 

Indeed, AAU’s 23 percent figure should be interpreted within the survey’s broad definitional umbrella of sexual assault and sexual misconduct, which includes incidences of unwanted “sexual touching: touching someone’s breast, chest crotch groin, or buttocks—grabbing, groping or rubbing against the other in a sexual way, even if the touching is over the other’s clothes.”
While researchers wrote that the “sexual touching” behaviors they outlined fit with criminal definitions of sexual battery, it is impossible to know whether participants’ varying accounts of unwanted “sexual touching” would hold up in campus tribunals, let alone in criminal court.
Though the survey’s results are more nuanced in the fine print, the AAU researchers still lumped together varying degrees of “sexual assault and sexual misconduct.” This, too, could mislead readers, given that degrees of assault are generally categorized under the law and punished accordingly. And lumping assault and misconduct together may minimize more serious traumas.[1]

Sexual misconduct is inexcusable, but a minor incident of unwanted touching should not be equated with rape. Indeed, we should educate college women to distinguish varying degrees of sexual assault while still understanding that they shouldn’t tolerate or be ashamed of speaking out about sexual assault or misconduct.[1]

 AAU researchers acknowledged that their findings could reflect an inflated victimization rate at participating schools due to “non-response bias”; in other words, they determined that the hundreds of thousands of students who didn’t participate in their electronic survey (only 19 percent of those asked to take the survey did so) were less likely to have been sexually assaulted. The non-response bias further weakens the oft-recited “one in five” figure—the number of women who say they have been sexually assaulted during their college years—since AAU’s survey and others that preceded it are not representative of all college women[1]

The study clashes with data gathered by the Justice Department between 1995 and 2013, which found that college-age women who aren’t students are more likely to be raped or sexually assaulted than women who are students. The number of victims was significantly lower than those in other recent surveys: 7.6 of 1,000 non-students compared to 6.1 of 1,000 students

I do agree that men should take body language into account, and if they're continuing to do something even though the girl is being quite hesitant, there's something wrong.

Yeah, no one has the solution to the dmans point of  'he said she said' truth.

What I recall the judge saying to us 12 jurors, was that he is the judge of the law, and we are the judge of the truth. Good luck there, especially when so much of the peoples under considerations history, may not be included/allowed i.e. how well do 12 strangers know the two people. Not that well.

Electronic implants in man and woman to record our lives may be the final solution. Then we can just check the electronic record.  Can it be tampered with. Sure but that is whole other issue.

Regulated communication brothels is rational logical common sense aid for man and woman to become informed about the opposite sex, satisfy and genetic drive and practice social skills.

So I have nothing much to offer than what Ive repeated above.  I read once that the biggest differrences for people is not race it is sex.

Square dancing  was a way of old 'square' peoples to exchange energy in a fun way.  Imagine that, having fun can be accepted. 

Then came dirty dancing ergo dirty fun?

This statistic is absolute rubbish. First of all, that information was from a survey. A survey that had numerous issues.

For these statistics to even matter you would have to be presuming guilt where it's either not been prosecuted, or does not reach a conviction. 

to protect oneself legally from accusations of rape and/or sexual assault, that measures be taken to safeguard

Which, holy shit, this directly ties into my point about C.K. and coercion.(which btw, in person, he was pretty clear he asked for consent before pulling out his junk.), And yet, you hold he still committed wrongdoing because his celebrity, as you held, constitutes as "pressuring" which is itself included within "intimidation" itself included in "coercion". Ergo, you still consider it to be coercive, for a celebrity, to make a sexual advance on someone. 

Which brings up a huge issue, you are advocating for active consent as if this will solve alllll these problems. When you necessarily conceded with the C.K. issue, that you can still be held as having committed wrongdoing, criminal or non-criminal is irrelevant, as the accusation still has heavy real world consequences, even if they seek consent, active or otherwise. 

resulted in young adults being railroaded out of university without any semblence of a fair trial, in proceedings where guilt is presumed and burden of proof is on the accused. 

Now, I'm pretty sure we can both realize, that though these students arent usually criminally prosecuted, they are still ousted from a federally funded university and given a black mark on their record that will follow them around for life. This all from something that it seems obvious both of us would agree does not at all constitute a fair trial.

Then you are going to have to own up to the real world consequences of the very position you are advocating for. That is not hyperbole...

I do agree that men should take body language into account, and if they're continuing to do something even though the girl is being quite hesitant, there's something wrong

You say this as if men for the most part arent factoring that in already. "Active v Tacit" consent is not an issue of body language and non verbal cues. Active consent holds nonverbal cues as just as much a form of consent as tacit. 

Tacit would be a presumption of consent when no rejection or indication of lack of desire has been offered despite having opportunity to do so. Active would be both partners actively consenting(verbally or non-verbally) throughout the encounter. 

The idea that there are consequences to this isn't what I'm calling hyperbole. What I'm calling hyperbole is this notion that this change somehow completely and utterly inverts the presumption of innocence. It doesn't. There is no evidence it has

Now, Drafter proposes this as something that addresses the ambiguity of non verbal communication. But no, it doesn't, as active consent allows for non verbal cues as consent. 

Which necessarily means burdens of proof are shifted AND presumption of guilt.

Under active consent *it is only necessary a person not want to continue sexual activities* even after otherwise consenting previously in the same encounter, without having to make it known or indicate otherwise

Cite this.

Silent; not expressed; implied or inferred; manifested by the refraining from contradiction or objection; inferred from the situation and circumstances, in the absence of express matter. Thusly tacit consent is consent inferred from the fact that the party kept silence when he had an opportunity to forbid or refuse.[1]

If tacit consent holds as its core principle that revoked consent must be made known through verbal or non-verbal communication, but active consent does not hold the inverse principle, that being it does not need to be made known, then active consent and this discussion as a whole is consequentially a herring to mutilating tacit consent as you arent even addressing the core principle. Either you disagree that consent cant be revoked passively, or you agree. If active consent does not operate as an inverse to that principle, then it is not addressing tacit consent, full stop.