25 years old and deep in debt

[MadImmortalMan]

I've been raped dozens of times by the Amherst standard. I kinda see where Garbo's coming from.

You mean like you were by the 21 year old waitress the other day? That's the Amherst standard?

No she didn't touch me.

[merithyn]

Well I do not see how that is possible.  What might be too far for one person might not be for another.  Which is why I think it is perfectly fine so long as somebody stops what they are doing when the other person says something. 

I guess the alternative is we have very strict codes of etiquette where everything is very strictly controlled via social convention.  But we already did that and we rebelled remember?  Besides I don't know if that actually reduces rape.  But it probably reduces somebody getting a bit too frisky on a date.

This why education of both boys and girls is essential. Girls need to learn that "no" is a safeword, not a ploy to appear coy. And boys need to learn that when they hear that, they need to back off and figure out what's really going on. Even if she still pushes forward, the smart boy stops the whole thing and walks away to have a rational, clear conversation before continuing anything. The smart girl doesn't play around when she uses the word "no". She says it loudly, clearly, and definitively. No equivocation.

It all comes down to clear, concise communication on both sides. We need to teach kids this in Sex Ed starting in 6th grade and reiterate it all the way through school.

[garbon]

Yeah... this sort of thing informs the debate a fair bit, I think. Most of us have been in situations where consent was blurry, marginal, or absent - whether they were acted on or not. We all have a preferred way of looking at those incidents - whether we want to think of ourselves as victims or not, or whether we 'made a mistake anyone would've made' versus 'I could've made that mistake so easily, thankfully I didn't' versus 'that's how women like it/ it doesn't matter/ she really wanted it'; and that preference colours how we view these discussions a fair bit.

I guess that makes sense though I'd say because of my perspective that the line I draw for sexual assault/rape is a bit different...as I'd say scenarios like mine make me thinking that we are cheapening the serious issue of sexual assault/rape.  Sort of like the Camille Paglia approach.

[garbon]

This thread veered into rape?

Thank Philip V

[MadImmortalMan]

Yeah... this sort of thing informs the debate a fair bit, I think. Most of us have been in situations where consent was blurry, marginal, or absent - whether they were acted on or not. We all have a preferred way of looking at those incidents - whether we want to think of ourselves as victims or not, or whether we 'made a mistake anyone would've made' versus 'I could've made that mistake so easily, thankfully I didn't' versus 'that's how women like it/ it doesn't matter/ she really wanted it'; and that preference colours how we view these discussions a fair bit.

I guess that makes sense though I'd say because of my perspective that the line I draw for sexual assault/rape is a bit different...as I'd say scenarios like mine make me thinking that we are cheapening the serious issue of sexual assault/rape.  Sort of like the Camille Paglia approach.

It SHOULD be serious as hell when someone says the R word. It should make the village round up the posse by default.

[Barrister]

But that's odd. I mean I'd consented to all the other acts in scenario 2 (including oral which was in B's hypothetical) just not the bit where he wanted me to penetrate him. Isn't that isolating one element of a consenting sexual encounter?

You had consented, but then you both decided to go to sleep.  At that point your consent ended.

[garbon]

Yeah... this sort of thing informs the debate a fair bit, I think. Most of us have been in situations where consent was blurry, marginal, or absent - whether they were acted on or not. We all have a preferred way of looking at those incidents - whether we want to think of ourselves as victims or not, or whether we 'made a mistake anyone would've made' versus 'I could've made that mistake so easily, thankfully I didn't' versus 'that's how women like it/ it doesn't matter/ she really wanted it'; and that preference colours how we view these discussions a fair bit.

I guess that makes sense though I'd say because of my perspective that the line I draw for sexual assault/rape is a bit different...as I'd say scenarios like mine make me thinking that we are cheapening the serious issue of sexual assault/rape.  Sort of like the Camille Paglia approach.

It SHOULD be serious as hell when someone says the R word. It should make the village round up the posse by default.

Exactly.

[garbon]

But that's odd. I mean I'd consented to all the other acts in scenario 2 (including oral which was in B's hypothetical) just not the bit where he wanted me to penetrate him. Isn't that isolating one element of a consenting sexual encounter?

You had consented, but then you both decided to go to sleep.  At that point your consent ended.

Did it though? I think it was fairly reasonable to assume that I'd be up for more of the same the next day - but definitely not the fucking as I'd clearly and physically marked that as a no go zone the night before (although why am I saying night as there was really only a few hours between each ).

[Barrister]

But that's odd. I mean I'd consented to all the other acts in scenario 2 (including oral which was in B's hypothetical) just not the bit where he wanted me to penetrate him. Isn't that isolating one element of a consenting sexual encounter?

You had consented, but then you both decided to go to sleep.  At that point your consent ended.

Did it though? I think it was fairly reasonable to assume that I'd be up for more of the same the next day - but definitely not the fucking as I'd clearly and physically marked that as a no go zone the night before (although why am I saying night as there was really only a few hours between each ).

Yes, it did.

You can't assume once you say no.  That's the bright line here.

[Razgovory]

This thread veered into rape?

Thank Philip V

Pat is probably lurking right now, and rubbing himself off while reading this.

[garbon]

But that's odd. I mean I'd consented to all the other acts in scenario 2 (including oral which was in B's hypothetical) just not the bit where he wanted me to penetrate him. Isn't that isolating one element of a consenting sexual encounter?

You had consented, but then you both decided to go to sleep.  At that point your consent ended.

Did it though? I think it was fairly reasonable to assume that I'd be up for more of the same the next day - but definitely not the fucking as I'd clearly and physically marked that as a no go zone the night before (although why am I saying night as there was really only a few hours between each ).

Yes, it did.

You can't assume once you say no.  That's the bright line here.

But I said no to the fucking several times while we messed around doing other things. It was clear cut where I said no to fucking and then we went to sleep.

[Barrister]

Garbo - once you go to sleep consent has ended as a matter of law.



Canadian law of course - it's all I can discuss.  But it's at least a useful starting point to the discussion.

[merithyn]

But I said no to the fucking several times while we messed around doing other things. It was clear cut where I said no to fucking and then we went to sleep.

Which is why it's sexual assault.

Just because someone says yes to first base, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're okay with going to second or third. That's common sense. You made it clear where the line for you was: No intercourse.

The first situation is the most iffy to me, to be honest, since he did for himself what you said no to. Yeah, he used your body to an extent (which is kind of icky when it's just a casual encounter), but there's more leeway on what you call that kind of situation. The second, however, is unequivocable. You said no to intercourse; he took advantage of your lack of consciousness to initiate it anyway.

[garbon]

Garbo - once you go to sleep consent has ended as a matter of law.

Canadian law of course - it's all I can discuss.  But it's at least a useful starting point to the discussion.

Gotcha. I can see that though also strikes me as a bit unreasonable.

[garbon]

But I said no to the fucking several times while we messed around doing other things. It was clear cut where I said no to fucking and then we went to sleep.

Which is why it's sexual assault.

Just because someone says yes to first base, it doesn't necessarily follow that they're okay with going to second or third. That's common sense. You made it clear where the line for you was: No intercourse.

The first situation is the most iffy to me, to be honest, since he did for himself what you said no to. Yeah, he used your body to an extent (which is kind of icky when it's just a casual encounter), but there's more leeway on what you call that kind of situation. The second, however, is unequivocable. You said no to intercourse; he took advantage of your lack of consciousness to initiate it anyway.

I suppose I can see that, however I'm still leery given that I wouldn't have wanted him charged with a crime, he didn't endanger my sexual health and it wasn't a traumatizing act. I guess points 1 and 3 could be different for different people but then I think that would have to play into whether it was rape as what happened to me still seems far away from even just your scenario.