Do you believe that explicit verbal consent has to be given for sex to not be rape? Anonymous 116355
i.e. one of the partners must ask the question "Do you want to have sex?" and the other partner must respond "Yes." Anything other than this, is it rape?
no>refuses to explain further>leaves thread
No. Consent can also be nonverbal. Basically, not resisting and willingly participating is unspoken consent.
Any sex is inherently always rape-ish, as consent can never truly be given.
Society points us towards having sex, and so the decision can never truly be ours in the first place. Therefore consent can never be meaningfully given
sex will always have an inherent power imbalance. take that as u will
They have to give enthusiastic consent. This can be either verbally or non-verbally.
>>116365>they have to give enthusiastic consent
Enthusiastic consent? How would one even tell if someone is enthusiastic? Where does "enthusiastic consent" end and just boring ole "consent" begin. This is the first time I'm reading this implication.>This can be either verbally or non-verbally.
<posts a video where all examples are explicitly verbal
this falls under the "i know it when i see it" category. people know what is and is not rape (in civilized places) and you don't need to know about fucking contract law to understand how not to rape or to reject people. this is an OP
>>116367>How would one even tell if someone is enthusiastic?
Kid, if you can't tell whether someone is enthusiastic about something or not then you shouldn't be having sex as that's above your paygrade.
You say this, but my older sister 100% believes what I posited and it just didn't sound right to me.
This makes sense in a good context, but not in a bad context. As >>116368
says, what counts as consent depends on the relationship between participants.
Not resisting and willingly participating can mean you want to have sex with your boyfriend. It can also mean you are overwhelmed or don't wan't your attacker to abuse you, so you act submissive hoping he will go easy on you.
Even verbal consent is meaningless when done under coercion. You cannot define consent with a ruleset.
The origin of rape is not the lack of consent but the presence of coersion and enforcment.
If you are free to say no without negative repercusions then you cannot be raped.
You don't want to actively consent everytime, sometimes you don't want to ask, neither respond. You just want to be spontaneous.
>>116397>Even verbal consent is meaningless when done under coercion. You cannot define consent with a ruleset.
Someone should really tell lawmakers because that's what their supposed to be doing in regards to this.>>116427>The origin of rape is not the lack of consent but the presence of coersion and enforcment.
I'm confused, I thought consent was meant to be proof that the interaction was not under coersion nor enforcement. If that's not what consent refers to, what exactly is consent in that case?
Well, that would depende on definitions, I just say that saying: "I consent" is not consent if you are at gun point or pressured in any other way. This obviously includes forcing ir physically.
I think it should be left to the woman's discretion, with no limit or expiration.
It would be the only true solution.
For men, consent should be assumed by default, since they keep saying "a hole is a hole" or whatever. So they wouldn't be able to maliciously leverage rape claims against women.
Just curious, but why are you asking for opinions on sex from the people who have the least sexual experience? Seems like that would skew the accuracy and general knowledge of the replies
Because most threads here are boring. Topics posters barely have enough knowledge in to sit on top of mount stupid without enough practical experience to fall into the valley of despair make for fun threads.
No, I don't believe so, just referencing this graph. Though you're kind of proving my point though.
So… you think people with no experience in a subject should be the ones teaching about that subject? Sounds like a recipe for producing a bunch of sheep that radicalize each other, like those Q boards on 8kun, or pretty much any subreddit. Morons babbling about things they know nothing about but think they know everything. Why would you do this? That's a terrible thing to present misinformation, emotion, conspiracy and ignorance as something to aspire to or to take to heart.
This was really eye opening to me. I never realized this until I read this and I think I have experienced some bad things
>>116530>So… you think people with no experience in a subject should be the ones teaching about that subject?
Teaching? Do discussions without teaching not exist to you? Why imply I'm looking to be taught? Does OP state "please teach me what consent is" or does it ask "Do you believe…" what a fucking midwit question.
> Sounds like a recipe for producing a bunch of sheep that radicalize each other, like those Q boards on 8kun, or pretty much any subreddit. Morons babbling about things they know nothing about but think they know everything.
I'm not sure what's more stupid, morons babbling at each other, or thinking any discussion of any value outside of entertainment has ever been posted on an imageboard. At all, ever. Jesus Christ go back to reddit or something for your serious discussion.>Why would you do this?
Do you have autism or are you just ESL? I thought my answer was pretty clear. Because the other threads were fucking boring. What part of that is hard to undersand? Do you understand what being bored is? Do you understand what making a thread is? What is your major malfunction? God these questions are so inane yet have the thin veneer of being intelligent.>That's a terrible thing to present misinformation, emotion, conspiracy and ignorance as something to aspire to or to take to heart.
Sure. These happen on imageboards regardless though, or actually the internet in general. If you want to escape this, go touch grass or something and fuck off.
What is this twitter shit lol>le brainlet!>le midwit!
Also I think imageboards do have a capacity for valuable conversation, it only depends on the intellegence of its users and somewhat on moderation. Reddit can't do this because its simply too big: quality over quantity. Being bored is one thing, but are you so apathetic and edgy that seeing people begin to believe things that aren't true because a group gathers around them and tells them to is A-OK because its funny! Its funny to see people become paranoid and anxious when they begin to believe lies! Hahaha! Of course echo chamber exist, but telling people to "touch grass or fuck off"[sic] because they made you think about what you put in your head demonstrates that you are, in fact inside of one.
>>116534>Its funny to see people become paranoid and anxious when they begin to believe lies! Hahaha!
I-fine. Fine. You gave me an answer and that's fine. Thank you for being honest.
>>116533>Do you have autism
REEE normies get out!!!!
I remember finding that video so stupid… But in a good way. I mean, it's so fucking simple a toddler can get it, and, Ah I dunno
No. Verbal consent means nothing if there's no enthusiastic consent.
We will totally believe you're a woman for saying this.
Based. But what about female on female cases though?
NTA but then we bring out detectives, judges and juries of course. All female.
I feel like a weirdo for saying this, but every time I think about this sort of thing I try to consider how it would have existed before the development of agriculture. It's obvious that language existed in those societies, but were there words for consent? Almost certainly not. There's a very human urge to be horny and have sex, but in a primitive society consent is implied if neither party actively tries to stop it.
However, in most pre-agricultural societies men and women largely lived apart from each other, with men going off together to hunt, and women doing the actually important work of gathering and raising children. The concept of paternity wasn't discovered until the Mesolithic, and it appears from archeological evidence that sex was a much more casual thing in those days. Likely (and this is just me guessing) you would just go up to a moid you thought was cute and have sex with him whenever you pleased, and he would be happy to be along for the experience. There was no concept of a husband or a father, but instead the main male figure in society was the mother's brother, there to protect his sister's family.
However, with the invention of wealth moids are suddenly in control. You can see this shift even in religion, with the chief deities moving from women to men and the female deities changing from pregnant Great Mother figures to slender sexy women who exist not to create life, but to tempt men (Ishtar being the earliest example I can think of). I think it is here that the concept of consent may have been born. At this point moids fully understood paternity and how sex worked, and being in charge they were now the ones that chose when sex happened. Obviously casual sex still existed then as it does now, but I think that the dawn of civilization is where rape originates. That was the first time that the concept of a husband and wife existed, and explicit in marriage was the ownership of the woman for sexual purposes. For the first time in history, a woman was in a position where she could not say no, and the man was aware of what he was doing.
I was thinking about this as I was trying to sleep last night.
I agree with other anons ITT (about consent being able to be given in non-verbal ways and to be able to be revoked at any time), but now I'm thinking about how you would approach the topic of STDs with a potential sexual partner before doing anything from a simple kiss to sex. Especially with someone you're just hooking up with or casually dating and not a long-term partner. I'm super paranoid about STDs, and I don't know how I should approach this topic with them. Even if someone claims to be a virgin before you kiss or whatever, they could be lying, and that worries me. Also, wouldn't asking about it before an imminent kiss kill the mood? Your STD status cannot be communicated non-verbally like consent.
Anon…what kind of question is that? You should talk to every potential partner about sex first before you attempt contact. You're not supposed to ask it before a kiss.
When you're in the context of about to kiss and then strip you should've already established your relationship prior. Are you just going to hook up casually? Talk about boundaries first. What you're into - what you're open to try - what to NEVER do - safe word if necessary - if you're not squeamish with dirty talk, talking about what you fantasize first is a good way to tell whether you can trust that guy or no.
My current boyfriend, when we were getting real close, opened our relationship with how he "had a dream about me." He wanted to see if I'd want to know his lewd fantasy, so I pried it out of him and he narrated his "dream" about how we eat and drink first, kiss, start touching each other, him reaching for a condom (important) and telling me to say if it hurts.
I liked him a lot more after that and started talking about my fantasies too. We got together shortly because I figured he'd be a sweet guy, and he was, still is every day.
You don't go from a little kissing to sex like in movies as a responsible adult. Especially for a person paranoid about STDs, it's better if you keep a few consistent boys on call rather than hookup with random people each time.
If you think discussing consent etc "ruins the mood" (for me it doesn't) then spend a day talking about sex, and when you arrange a date, explicitly agree on that you're going to have sex according to the rules you set before, and there, you compartmentalize "mood" and "not mood.">>116829
Very insightful post.
I don't have any experience with men but this entire debate would be dissolved if our society just believed explict verbal consent given by someone's own will without someone forcing them is the ideal. If everyone acted according to this ideal it would make everything so much more easier, non verbal consent or wanting things to be spontaneous might be a better sexual experience for healthy couples but I think they should still conform to this ideal every time just in case, I don't think a guy confirming if you want to have sex could you off that much
When everything is rape, nothing is. The term loses meaning. Both interpretations are correct.
Uh, nta, but that's not how spacetime and mass work sry
Samefag, I had a whole speech but deleted it, rip
I froze when i was getting sexually assaulted. Couple of guys and me alone, i tried to mouth no but words wouldn't come out because i was so shocked. If anyone had sense they would've seen i wasn't up for it, but two guys standing at the door looking at me intimidated me psychologically as i was afraid i could get hurt. It was when someone barged in that they moved out the way and pretended it didn't happen but i realized i was about to get raped sober when i was returning home. So no, the rapists would know what they are doing without words. Actions such as trying to get away, not responding to you,feeling uncomfortable…if the cues aren't there it's probably because you are uncivilized