https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/rcmp-stealthing-sexual-assault-1.6062324
QuoteOn paper, Anna DiBella's experience seems like a victory. She reported a sexual assault to police. Her alleged perpetrator now faces charges.
But DiBella said she struggled for weeks to convince the RCMP to investigate and charge a man for taking off a condom during sex without her knowledge. It was a process, she said, that left her feeling vulnerable all over again.
"I was feeling worse than I had just being a sexual assault victim at this point, because I felt very unprotected. Like, there's been a crime committed against me," she said.
"If someone's broken a law, why does no one care? And I felt ... why are they empowering this guy?"
In early April, the Surrey, B.C. resident went on a date with someone she met on the online dating app Bumble. The evening started off well, she said.
She brought him back home, she said, where they began consensual sex with a condom. DiBella said the man lost his erection and asked her to let him remove the condom. She said she insisted he keep it on because she wasn't on birth control.
At one point, she said, he asked her to turn over.
"And then next thing I know, he was ejaculating on my back. I was confused why that was happening. And I said, 'What's going on? Are you still wearing a condom?' He said, 'No, I only took it off for a little bit," she said.
(more in the link)
What say you Languish? Does removing a condom without consent during sex vitiate the consent to have sex? Does it equal sexual assault or rape?
As mentioned in the article it is something the courts have kind-of struggled with (including the Hutchinson decision mentioned). As a general rule the courts have been very reluctant to get too involved in inserting a fraud analysis into consent. If you lie and say you're a movie director and you're looking for a new actress for your latest movie to get someone into bed the courts will almost certainly not get involved.
But there has been one big exception - HIV. The courts have held that failure to disclose being HIV+ will likely vitiate consent. But honestly 30+ years later that's starting to feel like a reaction from the HIV panic of the 80s/90s, as it doesn't apply to any other STD that I'm aware of.
But issues of birth control and reproduction do seem intimately connected to the issue of consent to sexual activity, so courts have been willing to get involved. See Hutchinson where the Accused deliberately pocked holes in the condom - the court unanimously convicted him of sexual assault, even if the justices couldn't agree on why.
Doing something during sex your partner explicitly does not want should be a sexual crime. The severity depends on the deed of course. No idea about the exact definitions, so I cannot say whether it is assault or rape.
This was some kind of sexual assault, IMO, but not rape. Probably not a highly serious sexual assault either, which it would have been had he ejaculated inside her.
Quote from: Zanza on June 21, 2021, 02:22:55 PM
Doing something during sex your partner explicitly does not want should be a sexual crime. The severity depends on the deed of course. No idea about the exact definitions, so I cannot say whether it is assault or rape.
So I nibble of my partner's ear during sex. My partner says "I hate it when people nibble on my ear". Is that a crime? Do we need to explicitly discuss every possible sexual act in advance? That feels wrong to me.
But if that seems wrong, what about something far more blatant. I'm with my partner, we agree to have 'sex', when suddenly and without warning I ram my penis in my partner's ass. Is that a crime? I'm more inclined here to say "yes". But then how is different from the first scenario?
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2021, 02:31:13 PM
This was some kind of sexual assault, IMO, but not rape. Probably not a highly serious sexual assault either, which it would have been had he ejaculated inside her.
Curious how other jurisdictions might define it, but there are only three levels of sexual assault. Most serious is aggravated sexual assault, where someone is maimed or wounded during the assault. Next is sexual assault with a weapon/uttering threats/causing bodily harm. Then there is just regular sexual assault. But "regular" sexual assault covers everything from an unwanted butt grab to full penetration (and ejaculation) without consent.
I threw rape in as a more colloquial word, but it no longer exists in Canadian law.
Bottom line is that engaging in non-consensual sexual activity - and that includes through deception and sleight-of-hand - is a form of sexual assault. Whether to classify it as rape or not, I'm fairly agnostic about but I think it's reasonable that it should be punishable by law.
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 02:32:56 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 21, 2021, 02:22:55 PM
Doing something during sex your partner explicitly does not want should be a sexual crime. The severity depends on the deed of course. No idea about the exact definitions, so I cannot say whether it is assault or rape.
So I nibble of my partner's ear during sex. My partner says "I hate it when people nibble on my ear". Is that a crime? Do we need to explicitly discuss every possible sexual act in advance? That feels wrong to me.
But if that seems wrong, what about something far more blatant. I'm with my partner, we agree to have 'sex', when suddenly and without warning I ram my penis in my partner's ass. Is that a crime? I'm more inclined here to say "yes". But then how is different from the first scenario?
Des the law not distinguish between sexual and non-sexual activity? Is nibbling on someone's ear a sex act? If someone physically does something to another that they know (or should reasonably know) the other person does not want done, I thought we called that "assault" not "sexual assault."
Book him Dano.
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2021, 02:35:35 PM
Bottom line is that engaging in non-consensual sexual activity - and that includes through deception and sleight-of-hand - is a form of sexual assault. Whether to classify it as rape or not, I'm fairly agnostic about but I think it's reasonable that it should be punishable by law.
There was an infamous case in Israel a number of years ago. A woman called police after she had sex with a man who claimed to be jewish. In fact he was an arab. It was heavily criticized at the time as being thinly-veiled racism.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/palestinian-claimed-jew-jailed-rape-deception/story?id=11224513
Dishonesty is not exactly unheard of in navigating sexual consent - from lying about your job, your community, your age, whether you're married or not, etc. Should all of those be criminalized?
How is the distinction Beebs is trying to tease out different in terms of sexual assault versus any other kind of assault? The same "scale" problems apply, right?
If I am arguing with someone on the street and hit them in the head, causing them to get a nosebleed, that is assault.
If I hard foul someone in a basketball game, and they get a nosebleed, that is not assault.
If I intentionally foul someone in a basketball game where I just haul off and hit them....whelp, back to assault!
All these nuances are within the same basic definition of what minimally constitutes assault, but we don't have to lay them all out specifically in the law, right? That is what we have prosecutors and courts for - to say "Nibbling someone's ear without consent does not meet the bar, vis-a-vis see JoeTheEarGuy vs. Jane, 2013" and hence we aren't prosecuting that!
But wait - he actually BIT her ear and drew blood?? Well, THAT is different from that case, so maybe we will prosecute that....
Right?
In Virginia there are four degrees of sexual assault, with the first degree being assault using violence or threat of violence, or sexual assault of someone under 13 years of age. Fourth degree (which is a Class A Misdemeanor) is
QuoteSexual harassment, stalking, or lewd behavior toward another person without the consent of that person
Sexual intercourse with a person 16 or 17 years old
The first definition seems applicable here, in that taking off a condom and ejaculating on her back could be considered lewd behavior.
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 02:41:15 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2021, 02:35:35 PM
Bottom line is that engaging in non-consensual sexual activity - and that includes through deception and sleight-of-hand - is a form of sexual assault. Whether to classify it as rape or not, I'm fairly agnostic about but I think it's reasonable that it should be punishable by law.
There was an infamous case in Israel a number of years ago. A woman called police after she had sex with a man who claimed to be jewish. In fact he was an arab. It was heavily criticized at the time as being thinly-veiled racism.
https://abcnews.go.com/International/palestinian-claimed-jew-jailed-rape-deception/story?id=11224513
Dishonesty is not exactly unheard of in navigating sexual consent - from lying about your job, your community, your age, whether you're married or not, etc. Should all of those be criminalized?
None of those things should be criminalized, because (IMO) none of them materially harm the person you are having sex with in and of themselves. Sex with a married man is not harmful to you in some material fashion then sex with a non-married man.
Sex with someone who has HIV is most definitely more potentially harmful - therefore THAT lie should have a criminal consequence.
Being an asshole is not illegal.
And I think there is a pretty easy to apply "standard and expected" measure around sexual acts as well. I don't think anyone actually assumes that consent to sex includes consent to anal sex for example, and anyone who claims they thought it did is full of shit, especially if they claimed it was so clear that they could just do it without asking first, verbally or otherwise.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2021, 02:37:22 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 02:32:56 PM
Quote from: Zanza on June 21, 2021, 02:22:55 PM
Doing something during sex your partner explicitly does not want should be a sexual crime. The severity depends on the deed of course. No idea about the exact definitions, so I cannot say whether it is assault or rape.
So I nibble of my partner's ear during sex. My partner says "I hate it when people nibble on my ear". Is that a crime? Do we need to explicitly discuss every possible sexual act in advance? That feels wrong to me.
But if that seems wrong, what about something far more blatant. I'm with my partner, we agree to have 'sex', when suddenly and without warning I ram my penis in my partner's ass. Is that a crime? I'm more inclined here to say "yes". But then how is different from the first scenario?
Des the law not distinguish between sexual and non-sexual activity? Is nibbling on someone's ear a sex act? If someone physically does something to another that they know (or should reasonably know) the other person does not want done, I thought we called that "assault" not "sexual assault."
Given the range of human sexual activity almost anything can be a sex act, depending on the circumstances. Dressing up in a plush costume can be a sex act to a furry. Generally speaking it's a sexual act when it interferes with the sexual integrity of a person. Generally speaking slapping a woman on the butt would be considered a sexual act, though it could be argued if you're I dunno playing a sport that your slap was not meant in a sexual way.
In my example, nibbling someone on the ear
while engaging in sex is pretty obviously part of a sexual act.
What I don't understand Beebs is why you are making this slipperly slope arguments - or appearing to.
I don't think saying "Sticking your dick in someone's ass without asking first is assault" means that nibbling on someones ear without asking first must be assault as well.
The same way that punching your buddy on the shoulder while screwing around isn't assault but punching him in the face in a fit of rage because you found out he was having anal sex with your girlfriend is....
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 02:45:16 PM
All these nuances are within the same basic definition of what minimally constitutes assault, but we don't have to lay them all out specifically in the law, right? That is what we have prosecutors and courts for - to say "Nibbling someone's ear without consent does not meet the bar, vis-a-vis see JoeTheEarGuy vs. Jane, 2013" and hence we aren't prosecuting that!
But wait - he actually BIT her ear and drew blood?? Well, THAT is different from that case, so maybe we will prosecute that....
Right?
That's fine - if you trust judges and lawyers like me to draw the line in the right place. And the more grey areas there are in law, the more discretion you give to police and prosecutors and the less certain you can be of any one outcome.
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 02:41:15 PM
Dishonesty is not exactly unheard of in navigating sexual consent - from lying about your job, your community, your age, whether you're married or not, etc. Should all of those be criminalized?
In the UK this is the key section, I think - and was used for the extradition application for Julian Assange. It's about dishonesty relating to the sexual act:
Quote76Conclusive presumptions about consent
(1)If in proceedings for an offence to which this section applies it is proved that the defendant did the relevant act and that any of the circumstances specified in subsection (2) existed, it is to be conclusively presumed—
(a)that the complainant did not consent to the relevant act, and
(b)that the defendant did not believe that the complainant consented to the relevant act.
(2)The circumstances are that—
(a)the defendant intentionally deceived the complainant as to the nature or purpose of the relevant act;
(b)the defendant intentionally induced the complainant to consent to the relevant act by impersonating a person known personally to the complainant.
So if you say you're going to use a condom and then you remove it you've deceived them about the nature of sexual act and moved from one they've consented to, to one it's broadly presumed they didn't consent to.
This also applies to someone agreeing to have sex only if their partners withdraws to ejaculate and they deliberately don't:
Quote"She was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based. Accordingly her consent was negated. Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina. In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape".
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 02:57:50 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 02:45:16 PM
All these nuances are within the same basic definition of what minimally constitutes assault, but we don't have to lay them all out specifically in the law, right? That is what we have prosecutors and courts for - to say "Nibbling someone's ear without consent does not meet the bar, vis-a-vis see JoeTheEarGuy vs. Jane, 2013" and hence we aren't prosecuting that!
But wait - he actually BIT her ear and drew blood?? Well, THAT is different from that case, so maybe we will prosecute that....
Right?
That's fine - if you trust judges and lawyers like me to draw the line in the right place. And the more grey areas there are in law, the more discretion you give to police and prosecutors and the less certain you can be of any one outcome.
Is there an alternative?
I mean, if as a society we find that the court system doesn't draw the line where we like (say you acquit someone of rape when they definitely had anal sex without permission) then that is the point at which we can and should pass a law making it more explicit.
At least, I think that is how it is supposed to work....
Is a sexual misdemeanor a thing?
A problem I can see is what if it comes off accidentally?
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 02:50:08 PM
And I think there is a pretty easy to apply "standard and expected" measure around sexual acts as well. I don't think anyone actually assumes that consent to sex includes consent to anal sex for example, and anyone who claims they thought it did is full of shit, especially if they claimed it was so clear that they could just do it without asking first, verbally or otherwise.
So the law doesn't use anything like "standard and expected" when it comes to sexual assault. The problem is one of date rape - it opens up a whole can of worms of "well she was dressed slutty / well she came back to my room / well she didn't say no" kind of defences.
So the law (again in Canada though broadly similar in other places) is if someone didn't consent then they didn't consent. It doesn't matter if the other partner expected them to consent. The only defence then is one of "honest but mistaken belief in consent".
In the age of sex offender registries, and the propensity for them to retroactively cover more and more crimes, I think there is effectively no such thing as a minor sex crime. In light of that fact, I think everyone should err on the side of criminalizing fewer acts rather than more acts.
The problem with making potentially a lot things a sexual assault is that you're going to have very inconsistent but draconian enforcement: most people who could get convicted will probably not be convicted in one way or another, and the likelihood of being convicted would be more a function of how honest you are with investigators. My understanding is that pretty much the only way to get convicted in cases where consent is in question is to tell on yourself.
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 03:04:33 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 02:50:08 PM
And I think there is a pretty easy to apply "standard and expected" measure around sexual acts as well. I don't think anyone actually assumes that consent to sex includes consent to anal sex for example, and anyone who claims they thought it did is full of shit, especially if they claimed it was so clear that they could just do it without asking first, verbally or otherwise.
So the law doesn't use anything like "standard and expected" when it comes to sexual assault. The problem is one of date rape - it opens up a whole can of worms of "well she was dressed slutty / well she came back to my room / well she didn't say no" kind of defences.
Incidentally the UK government has announced they'll be launching pilots specifically to address these after a recent collapse in the (very low) rate of rape convictions - there were similar trials already underway in 2010 before they were cancelled so I worry this will be too slow. But it is frustrating to see more women trusting the police enough to report sexual offences and the rate of successful convictions plumet like this:
QuoteMinisters apologise to rape victims and promise overhaul of system
Alexandra Topping and Caelainn Barr
Thu 17 Jun 2021 22.23 BST
Last modified on Fri 18 Jun 2021 05.26 BST
Ministers have apologised unreservedly to rape victims, saying they are "deeply ashamed" that thousands of survivors have been failed on the government's watch, as they pledged an overhaul of the criminal justice system.
A long-awaited government review into a precipitous decline in rape prosecutions promises sweeping reform of how cases are handled in England and Wales, including targets for the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and police to increase the number of prosecutions, and plans to shift the focus of investigations from the victim's credibility to the perpetrator.
But while charities and victim groups welcomed the apology, they said the measures lacked urgency and were underfunded.
Vera Baird, the victims' commissioner for England and Wales, said it was right that ministers had "voiced their shame" and resolved to reverse the downward trend in prosecutions, but added that there was "no hiding that this review presents some missed opportunities".
The lord chancellor, Robert Buckland QC MP, said he was "deeply sorry" many victims had been denied justice "as a result of systemic failings" after years of austerity. "We will not rest until real improvements are made – from transforming the support given to victims, to ensuring cases are investigated fully and prosecuted robustly," he said.
The police and the CPS have been ordered to work together to increase the number of rape cases making it to court and return prosecutions to 2016 levels before the end of this parliament.
A pilot named Operation Soteria, which pushes police and CPS to focus investigations on suspects rather than complainants' credibility, will be rolled out across four forces by the end of the year with the intention of implementing a national "radical new operating model". Funding of £3.2m to cover the project for 12 months will come from the Home Office.
Sarah Crew, the National Police Chiefs' Council's lead for rape, said the service was "absolutely committed to doing better", while the director of public prosecutions, Max Hill, said he was "determined to lead meaningful and lasting change".
"Scorecards" that measure "timeliness, quality and victim engagement ... and implementation of the action plan" will be published every six months. The crime and policing minister, Kit Malthouse, has been given responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the rape review, and will head a monthly external taskforce including the victims' commissioner, the domestic abuse commissioner, victims' groups and representatives from the criminal justice agencies.
"We've taken a hard and honest look at how the entire criminal justice system deals with rape, and in too many instances it simply has not been good enough," said Malthouse, who added that the police and CPS would be "more accountable than ever".
In a warning shot across the bow for the agencies involved, the review states that should the already-launched CPS-police joint action plan not be enough to improve outcomes, "further proposals ... will be considered".
The review followed a series of revelations in the Guardian and sustained campaigning from victims' groups about the failings over rape prosecutions.
It recommends an overhaul of the treatment of rape complainants, in an attempt to tackle the growing number of those dropping out of cases – in the past five years the attrition rate has increased from 25% to 43%.
A pilot allowing victims to pre-record their evidence and cross-examination, to spare them the trauma of attending court, is being extended from three to six courts and if successful will be rolled out nationally.
In a raft of proposals, the review also advises that victims:
Should no longer be subject to a "digital strip search" of their communications, and only evidence that is pertinent to a rape case should be used at court.
Have their phones returned within 24 hours, with a replacement being provided during that time.
Have access to therapeutic and clinical support, with the ambition of boosting the number of Independent Sexual Violence Advisors (ISVA) by 700.
Receive clear and prompt engagement from first report to trial, and better information about their rights.
The review was announced in an attempt to halt a major drop in rape prosecutions, which have fallen to historic lows since 2016, while rape reports have doubled.
Prosecutions in 2016-17 stood at 5,190 and fell nearly 60% in four years to 2,102 in 2019-20, even as the number of reports to police increased.
Convictions have also fallen to a record low. According to Guardian analysis of the most recent quarterly figures, there were 1,917 fewer rapists convicted in the year to December 2020 than in 2016-17, a decline of 64% – the CPS secured 2,991 convictions four years ago, compared with 1,074 last year.
Andrea Simon, the director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition (EVAW), said that while the review showed a desire to fix the justice system for rape survivors, there was "a distinct lack of urgency, measures which reflect the ambition needed and resourcing of plans to make this a reality".
In a joint statement, Evaw, the Centre for Women's Justice, Imkaan and Rape Crisis said the review proposed pilots and consultations that may not see results for years, instead of taking urgent action. They added that not enough work had been done to support minority groups and their access to justice.
The organisations have previously accused the government of failing to engage with victims, and Simon noted: "Unfortunately these recommendations reflect this failure to hear from survivors themselves."
The review also examined why the number of prosecutions had fallen to such a degree. A legal case brought by Evaw and the Centre for Women's Justice accusing the CPS of raising the bar for charging was dismissed in March. The review concludes that the reasons are "complex", and include an increase in demands for digital data, investigative delays, "strained relationships" between different parts of the criminal justice system, a lack of specialist resources and "inconsistent" support for victims.
The report does not directly mention the impact of austerity or cuts, despite the fact that since 2010 the CPS has faced a 25% budget cut and a 30% reduction in staff, while police forces in England and Wales lost 21,732 officers between March 2010 and March 2018 (15% of their total number).
As part of the review, the Law Commission will consider reforms "to increase the understanding of consent and sexual harm and improve the treatment of victims, while ensuring that defendants receive a fair trial". It will also examine rape myths and the use of victim's sexual history and medical records as evidence.
Quote from: DGuller on June 21, 2021, 03:09:13 PM
In the age of sex offender registries, and the propensity for them to retroactively cover more and more crimes. I think there is effectively no such thing as a minor sex crime. In light of that fact, I think everyone should err on the side of criminalizing fewer acts rather than more acts.
I don't think this is a trend outside of the US, so it's not really relevant outside of that jurisdiction. And honestly, the answer there is to push back against the registries and their implementation, rather than condoning "lesser" offences.
QuoteMy understanding is that pretty much the only way to get convicted in cases where consent is in question is to tell on yourself.
That doesn't seem to apply in the particular case at the start of this thread?
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2021, 03:15:27 PM
QuoteMy understanding is that pretty much the only way to get convicted in cases where consent is in question is to tell on yourself.
That doesn't seem to apply in the particular case at the start of this thread?
I wanted to argue with Tyr, but then I remembered the last sex assault case I got a conviction on was one that heavily relied on statements made by the Accused.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca27/2021abca27.html
Which the eagle-eyed amongst you will realize was overturned in the Court of Appeal with a new trial ordered. Complainant then refused to testify what would have been a third time and the charges were stayed.
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 03:02:51 PM
Is there an alternative?
I mean, if as a society we find that the court system doesn't draw the line where we like (say you acquit someone of rape when they definitely had anal sex without permission) then that is the point at which we can and should pass a law making it more explicit.
At least, I think that is how it is supposed to work....
I'm not asking you guys to draft a new law - I'm just more curious what your opinions are. Because these are issues that I can certainly struggle with sometimes, the "where do you draw the line" questions.
I don't know if he had just taken off his condom. Sleezy but I don't know if it's sexual assault. But here she specific told him not to remove his condom and he did so anyway. So in this case I say sexual assault.
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2021, 03:59:02 PM
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
:yes:
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2021, 03:59:02 PM
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
I have to push back against the "potentially deadly medical condition". The US maternal mortality rate is 19/100,000. In Canada it's 10.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_maternal_mortality_ratio
As well it's a risk in any sexual encounter. No method of birth control is 100% effective. Condoms break. And in any event this guy didn't ejaculate inside of the woman - he ejaculated on her back.
Like I said it kind of feels like this be against the law. But I can't articulate a principled reason why this, and not some of the other examples.
It's definitely a breach of contract, but I guess that's more civil than criminal, jah?
From the quote in the opening post it's not clear to me exactly what happened, so it's hard to say much about that specific case. Did he penetrate her without a condom?
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2021, 03:59:02 PM
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
Not only pregnancy - also STDs. Which can apply to anyone having sex (such as removing a condom during gay sex, for example).
Issue to me is that person A said they didn't want to take the risk, and person B disregarded their stated wishes, putting them at a risk they said they did not want. Person A consented to the sex, but not to the risks that went with unprotected sex. That strikes me as behaviour that ought to be subject to criminal sanctions if some sort, though I admit it doesn't fit easily in the ordinary meaning of sexual assault, which usually concerns having sex without consent.
I would have no problem making it criminal behaviour under a different heading, like reckless endangerment. The severity of which could be increased to done sort of malicious endangerment if, for example, the condom removing person B knew they had a STD. There have been cases like that, of evil people who got AIDS and then deliberately set out to infect others by having unprotected sex with them - though I can't remember off the top what crime they were charged with when caught.
Quote from: Malthus on June 21, 2021, 04:58:35 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2021, 03:59:02 PM
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
Not only pregnancy - also STDs. Which can apply to anyone having sex (such as removing a condom during gay sex, for example).
Issue to me is that person A said they didn't want to take the risk, and person B disregarded their stated wishes, putting them at a risk they said they did not want. Person A consented to the sex, but not to the risks that went with unprotected sex. That strikes me as behaviour that ought to be subject to criminal sanctions if some sort, though I admit it doesn't fit easily in the ordinary meaning of sexual assault, which usually concerns having sex without consent.
I would have no problem making it criminal behaviour under a different heading, like reckless endangerment. The severity of which could be increased to done sort of malicious endangerment if, for example, the condom removing person B knew they had a STD. There have been cases like that, of evil people who got AIDS and then deliberately set out to infect others by having unprotected sex with them - though I can't remember off the top what crime they were charged with when caught.
aggravated sexual assault, which is conduct that endangered the victim's life.
It is an interesting issue. The sexual act was consented to. But I think that consent had with it the condition of wearing a condom.
Initial consent is not agreement to everything that might subsequently happen. Consent can be withdrawn and consent for something beyond what was consented to needs to be obtained. I think the onus is to ensure ongoing consent is obtained. Normally this won't be a problem. But it seems to me that taking off the condom is a pretty bright line.
Quote from: The Brain on June 21, 2021, 04:42:57 PM
From the quote in the opening post it's not clear to me exactly what happened, so it's hard to say much about that specific case. Did he penetrate her without a condom?
Apparently not. He seems to have removed the condom in order to ejaculate on her body. At worst this seems to me to be what in Virginia is called Fourth Degree Sexual Assault, a misdemeanor (though a Class A one, the most severe).
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2021, 05:29:00 PM
Quote from: The Brain on June 21, 2021, 04:42:57 PM
From the quote in the opening post it's not clear to me exactly what happened, so it's hard to say much about that specific case. Did he penetrate her without a condom?
Apparently not. He seems to have removed the condom in order to ejaculate on her body. At worst this seems to me to be what in Virginia is called Fourth Degree Sexual Assault, a misdemeanor (though a Class A one, the most severe).
It is not clear when he took it off. What is clear is he was told to keep it on.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 05:30:42 PM
It is not clear when he took it off. What is clear is he was told to keep it on.
It isn't clear-clear, but she would have been able to see whether he had a condom on when he withdrew after the face-to-face sex. If she has evidence that he penetrated her without a condom, then that becomes a much more serious case for him, because he knew she was not on birth control and was depending on the condom for her own protection.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2021, 05:37:48 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 05:30:42 PM
It is not clear when he took it off. What is clear is he was told to keep it on.
It isn't clear-clear, but she would have been able to see whether he had a condom on when he withdrew after the face-to-face sex. If she has evidence that he penetrated her without a condom, then that becomes a much more serious case for him, because he knew she was not on birth control and was depending on the condom for her own protection.
It seems they continued intercourse after she turned over based on her question and his comment that he only had it off for a little while. But lets put the fact pattern of unprotected intercourse aside as I think we all agree that would be serious.
Assuming he pulled it off in order to ejaculate on her, I still think she did not consent to that act. She told him to keep the condom on.
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2021, 03:15:27 PM
I don't think this is a trend outside of the US, so it's not really relevant outside of that jurisdiction. And honestly, the answer there is to push back against the registries and their implementation, rather than condoning "lesser" offences.
Obviously the answer is to push back against the registries for this and many more reasons, but that is never going to happen. There is no political way to eliminate sex offender registries, it's not exactly an issue to campaign on, and the Supreme Court already greenlighted them a long time ago. Some people really do enjoy dealing out endless cruelty in the name of justice.
Taking the reality of the situation as it exists, it seems like the best way to work around it is to not expand the definition of sexual assault without a very compelling reason. I also don't think that being conservative with criminalizing some conduct condones it, not everything that's not illegal is condoned.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 05:46:57 PM
Assuming he pulled it off in order to ejaculate on her, I still think she did not consent to that act. She told him to keep the condom on.
Yes. That's been my position since response #2 of this thread.
Quote from: grumbler on June 21, 2021, 06:38:20 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 05:46:57 PM
Assuming he pulled it off in order to ejaculate on her, I still think she did not consent to that act. She told him to keep the condom on.
Yes. That's been my position since response #2 of this thread.
Then we are in complete agreement.
Stand back and watch DGuller keel over.
WTF just happened?
:unsure:
Quote from: Berkut on June 21, 2021, 02:45:16 PM
If I hard foul someone in a basketball game, and they get a nosebleed, that is not assault.
As an aside, that is actually a very interesting legal question. It is an assault; however there is a Volenti defence. To summarize a first year tort lecture into one sentence - the victim voluntary assumed the risk that they might get hit in that way. This comes up now and then in law suits against NHL players who injure other players during games, and the question of what risks are voluntarily assumed by stepping on to the ice becomes very interesting.
I think that the much more important point is that condoms suck.
I think ejaculating on someone during sex, absent them specifically saying not to, might be a dickish move, but does not rise to level of assault. Or even close to it.
I mean, its gross at worst assuming you happen to find that unpleasant.
Hell, I've had women...make a mess on me during sex without asking my permission. I could not even imagine thinking I was assaulted.
Actually....I think even doing so even if they asked you not to is still not criminal - just asshole.
There is an entire set of actions around sex that I don't think we need to freaking pass a bunch of laws around.
If someone said "come on my face" and it gets in their hair, is that a crime because they didn't say to get it in their hair?
Vice versa?
Its sex. Its kind of messy by its nature.
If he was having consensual sex with her from behind, and she told him it had to be with a condom on, I could see someone thinking that means during intercourse, but not necessarily after it. AGAIN, not saying that is ok, just that it isn't criminal.
Again - its an asshole move to take it off and do that simply because A) You don't know her well enough to know if she is ok with that, and B) You are doing something where she cannot know at that point whether she can trust that you did in fact take it off after the intercourse. Being very clear about that is just being a basic decent human being, especially with someone the first time.
But criminal? Seems like that's a tough charge to make stick. If you go by the basic standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" then there is clearly reasonable doubt as to whether he had intercourse with without the condom on.
Of course, if he did and that was clearly proven, then I think he has absolutely done something potentially illegal.
The problem with your argument is she did specifically tell him to keep his condom on. I am not sure how one could reasonably infer that she was consenting to be ejaculated on.
That is very different from someone consenting to a man ejaculating on them.
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2021, 03:59:02 PM
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.
If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front.
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2021, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2021, 03:59:02 PM
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.
If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front.
If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented to have his sperm sprayed all over her back when she specifically told him to keep the thing on.
Is there some basis to imply consent for him to remove it for some other purpose?
Definitely a crime.
I've given this way more thought than I'd like to, but I distinguish between 1) having intercourse without a condom in spite of explicit instructions to keep it on, and 2) having intercourse with a condom, but removing it once the two are no longer having intercourse, to ejaculate on the partner's skin.
I think 1) is significantly worse than 2), since in the second scenario there's no real chance of STDs or pregnancy. My understanding is that the case at hand conforms to the first scenario, not the second... but I could be mistaken.
Quote from: Jacob on June 22, 2021, 12:22:13 AM
I've given this way more thought than I'd like to, but I distinguish between 1) having intercourse without a condom in spite of explicit instructions to keep it on, and 2) having intercourse with a condom, but removing it once the two are no longer having intercourse, to ejaculate on the partner's skin.
I think 1) is significantly worse than 2), since in the second scenario there's no real chance of STDs or pregnancy. My understanding is that the case at hand conforms to the first scenario, not the second... but I could be mistaken.
Same thoughts here. I also find it hard to tell what happened though as article only says that he asked to take it off at a point he was losing his erection inside her and she said no. Then it appears to skip to at one point he asked her to turn over and then ejaculated on her. Unclear to me if had removed the condom or not while still engaged in intercourse but seems like she thinks he did.
Quote from: Barrister on June 21, 2021, 03:25:13 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 21, 2021, 03:15:27 PM
QuoteMy understanding is that pretty much the only way to get convicted in cases where consent is in question is to tell on yourself.
That doesn't seem to apply in the particular case at the start of this thread?
I wanted to argue with Tyr, but then I remembered the last sex assault case I got a conviction on was one that heavily relied on statements made by the Accused.
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2021/2021abca27/2021abca27.html
Which the eagle-eyed amongst you will realize was overturned in the Court of Appeal with a new trial ordered. Complainant then refused to testify what would have been a third time and the charges were stayed.
Argue how?
It does seem a genuine issue. They do come off accidentally and if this becomes a commonly prosecuted crime I can imagine a bunch of cases arising from that as well as genuine dick heads.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 11:01:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2021, 09:34:42 PM
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape.
If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented...
Languish, this is what a strawman looks like.
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2021, 07:09:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 11:01:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2021, 09:34:42 PM
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape.
If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented...
Languish, this is what a strawman looks like.
Is it possible that you do not understand that if there was no consent to the sexual act of ejaculating on her then it was a sexual assault?
I wonder if watching porn has so warped men's understanding of sex that you have concluded consent is not necessary.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2021, 07:47:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2021, 07:09:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 11:01:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2021, 09:34:42 PM
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape.
If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented...
Languish, this is what a strawman looks like.
Is it possible that you do not understand that if there was no consent to the sexual act of ejaculating on her then it was a sexual assault?
I wonder if watching porn has so warped men's understanding of sex that you have concluded consent is not necessary.
...and followed up with another strawman, AND a straight out implication that I am an actual rapist and don't think consent is necessary for sex.
Always a delight to discuss things with you.
Let me spell this out carefully - of course, we all know you know exactly what Valmy said.
1. Something can lack consent WITHOUT it being sexual assault/rape.
2. That does not make it ok.
Valmy was EXTREMELY specific. He never said anything about consent. You can tell by reading his post and noting that he never said the word "consent" or any synonym of consent. He simply stated that the act described, in his opinion, does not constitute sexual assault.
Now, if you want to argue that if there is no consent, then that any sexual act IS sexual assault, make THAT argument. But don't just assume that to be true, and then fucking jump from "you think it isn't assault even though there isn't consent, hence you must be a-ok with sexual assault!"
Some sexual acts that are done without consent are assault. That doesn't mean all are, and one can disagree about some particular act without then thinking that all acts without consent are not assault.
This is so fucking obvious, I cannot believe you can sit there imply fellow posters of being rapists in good or honest faith.
Just to close the loop - there are plenty of sexual acts that happen without consent. Some of them are assault, but by no means all of them. For your argument to be reasonable, you would have to argue that any sexual act taken without consent is in fact sexual assault.
"You just caressed my breast while we were naked in bed and I didn't say it was ok! Assault!"
I actually had something like that happen once. I was in bed with a date, and she had told me that she had super sensitive nipples and did not like them to be touched. In the heat of things, I forgot, and kissed one. She kind of gasped and grabbed my head and said "Ahhh, don't do that!"
I apologized because I had forgotten.
I guess I should be in jail for assault now, probably because I watch so much porn.
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2021, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2021, 03:59:02 PM
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.
If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front.
It sounded like BB was arguing against your second statement.
Also, I'm not sure how anyone can be certain - except for the guy - that he hadn't inserted himself in her without a condom. I sure wouldn't be checking if we'd already agreed that a condom would be used, and I don't make a habit of looking at it just in general. It has its uses, but pretty it ain't. :P
Quote from: garbon on June 22, 2021, 12:53:59 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 22, 2021, 12:22:13 AM
I've given this way more thought than I'd like to, but I distinguish between 1) having intercourse without a condom in spite of explicit instructions to keep it on, and 2) having intercourse with a condom, but removing it once the two are no longer having intercourse, to ejaculate on the partner's skin.
I think 1) is significantly worse than 2), since in the second scenario there's no real chance of STDs or pregnancy. My understanding is that the case at hand conforms to the first scenario, not the second... but I could be mistaken.
Same thoughts here. I also find it hard to tell what happened though as article only says that he asked to take it off at a point he was losing his erection inside her and she said no. Then it appears to skip to at one point he asked her to turn over and then ejaculated on her. Unclear to me if had removed the condom or not while still engaged in intercourse but seems like she thinks he did.
:yes:
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2021, 08:13:26 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2021, 07:47:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2021, 07:09:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 11:01:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2021, 09:34:42 PM
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape.
If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented...
Languish, this is what a strawman looks like.
Is it possible that you do not understand that if there was no consent to the sexual act of ejaculating on her then it was a sexual assault?
I wonder if watching porn has so warped men's understanding of sex that you have concluded consent is not necessary.
...and followed up with another strawman, AND a straight out implication that I am an actual rapist and don't think consent is necessary for sex.
Always a delight to discuss things with you.
Let me spell this out carefully - of course, we all know you know exactly what Valmy said.
1. Something can lack consent WITHOUT it being sexual assault/rape.
2. That does not make it ok.
Valmy was EXTREMELY specific. He never said anything about consent. You can tell by reading his post and noting that he never said the word "consent" or any synonym of consent. He simply stated that the act described, in his opinion, does not constitute sexual assault.
Now, if you want to argue that if there is no consent, then that any sexual act IS sexual assault, make THAT argument. But don't just assume that to be true, and then fucking jump from "you think it isn't assault even though there isn't consent, hence you must be a-ok with sexual assault!"
Some sexual acts that are done without consent are assault. That doesn't mean all are, and one can disagree about some particular act without then thinking that all acts without consent are not assault.
This is so fucking obvious, I cannot believe you can sit there imply fellow posters of being rapists in good or honest faith.
Just to close the loop - there are plenty of sexual acts that happen without consent. Some of them are assault, but by no means all of them. For your argument to be reasonable, you would have to argue that any sexual act taken without consent is in fact sexual assault.
"You just caressed my breast while we were naked in bed and I didn't say it was ok! Assault!"
I actually had something like that happen once. I was in bed with a date, and she had told me that she had super sensitive nipples and did not like them to be touched. In the heat of things, I forgot, and kissed one. She kind of gasped and grabbed my head and said "Ahhh, don't do that!"
I apologized because I had forgotten.
I guess I should be in jail for assault now, probably because I watch so much porn.
To clarify, you accused me of engaging in a strawman, the only way you could possibly conclude that is if you did not understand the whole issue is whether or not consent was given. I did not spell that out for Valmy because I think he understood that point. But I did not anticipate someone who did not have that level of understanding as also reading the post.
The comment about porn is a separate thought caused by the idea you expressed that taking off a condom to cum over your partner is something which should be included within the original consent - but then again you might not actually understand the issue of consent, so my mistake.
Quote from: merithyn on June 22, 2021, 08:48:40 AM
Also, I'm not sure how anyone can be certain - except for the guy - that he hadn't inserted himself in her without a condom.
Yeah that's a fair point.
Quote from: Jacob on June 22, 2021, 09:58:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 22, 2021, 08:48:40 AM
Also, I'm not sure how anyone can be certain - except for the guy - that he hadn't inserted himself in her without a condom.
Yeah that's a fair point.
And that might make this one of those cases where first degree sexual assault cannot be successfully prosecuted, given the prosecution's need to demonstrate this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Sometimes you can encounter a tendency to try to make anything unpleasant that happens during sex a crime. I was with a woman who suddenly started biting me during sex. We hadn't even discussed biting so obviously I hadn't given consent. A law that makes her action assault is an unsound law IMHO.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 11:01:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2021, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2021, 03:59:02 PM
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.
If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front.
If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented to have his sperm sprayed all over her back when she specifically told him to keep the thing on.
Is there some basis to imply consent for him to remove it for some other purpose?
Did I arrive at that conclusion :hmm: I thought I said it was probably a crime of some kind.
Also you have to remember the absolutely barbaric nature of our criminal justice system, somebody would have to fuck me up pretty fucking bad before I would want anybody to endure that horror show. Spewing on somebody is pretty gross and awful thing to do but sending them to suffer under brutal conditions for months and then be a pariah for the rest of their lives seems like disproportionate punishment. But it's Canada so maybe getting a sentence like that is not what it would be here.
Obviously if he did put her in danger of getting pregnant or get a STD that is different.
Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2021, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 11:01:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2021, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2021, 03:59:02 PM
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.
If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front.
If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented to have his sperm sprayed all over her back when she specifically told him to keep the thing on.
Is there some basis to imply consent for him to remove it for some other purpose?
Did I arrive at that conclusion :hmm: I thought I said it was probably a crime of some kind.
CC is a lawyer. I think he can understand written arguments correctly.
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2021, 10:39:08 AM
Sometimes you can encounter a tendency to try to make anything unpleasant that happens during sex a crime. I was with a woman who suddenly started biting me during sex. We hadn't even discussed biting so obviously I hadn't given consent. A law that makes her action assault is an unsound law IMHO.
I mean... Biting someone is assault.
Seems to me things are kind of the opposite of what I'm getting from your post here. That in sex a lot more is acceptable than would be in the world at large.
Quote from: Tyr on June 22, 2021, 11:00:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2021, 10:39:08 AM
Sometimes you can encounter a tendency to try to make anything unpleasant that happens during sex a crime. I was with a woman who suddenly started biting me during sex. We hadn't even discussed biting so obviously I hadn't given consent. A law that makes her action assault is an unsound law IMHO.
I mean... Biting someone is assault.
Seems to me things are kind of the opposite of what I'm getting from your post here. That in sex a lot more is acceptable than would be in the world at large.
I wouldn't know. I don't engage in passionate embrace with people in the street.
See, society had no such issues to ponder when sex outside marriage was illegal and the wife was effectively the property of the husband. Simpler times. :P
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2021, 10:43:46 AM
CC is a lawyer. I think he can understand written arguments correctly.
Evidence suggests otherwise.
Quote from: Tyr on June 22, 2021, 11:00:40 AM
Quote from: The Brain on June 22, 2021, 10:39:08 AM
Sometimes you can encounter a tendency to try to make anything unpleasant that happens during sex a crime. I was with a woman who suddenly started biting me during sex. We hadn't even discussed biting so obviously I hadn't given consent. A law that makes her action assault is an unsound law IMHO.
I mean... Biting someone is assault.
I feel like that just sets up a victim mentality unless you are thinking about biting that involves breaking the skin.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 22, 2021, 07:47:25 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 22, 2021, 07:09:21 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 11:01:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2021, 09:34:42 PM
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape.
If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented...
Languish, this is what a strawman looks like.
Is it possible that you do not understand that if there was no consent to the sexual act of ejaculating on her then it was a sexual assault?
Is it possible for you to understand that not all sexual acts that lack consent are sexual assault or rape?
Answer: Yes, because various people have posten many examples of non-consensual acts that are not assault or rape.
Further, is it possible to understand that just because someone is putting forth the argument that something might not be criminal, that doesn't mean they think it is ok.
Quote
I wonder if watching porn has so warped men's understanding of sex that you have concluded consent is not necessary.
I wonder how someone could take a discussion in the abstract among nominal friends about what is and is not a crime when it comes to sexual behavior, and weaponize that into an implied accusation that someone who does not agree with you is a sexual predator, or at hte very least a serious fucking asshole.
Nothing that has been said justifies anything like that kind of remark.
I think CC needs a timeout, in all honesty. If we can't discuss issues here without being safe from insinuations of being a rapist, we should just shut this forum down.
Quote from: grumbler on June 22, 2021, 10:07:19 AM
Quote from: Jacob on June 22, 2021, 09:58:55 AM
Quote from: merithyn on June 22, 2021, 08:48:40 AM
Also, I'm not sure how anyone can be certain - except for the guy - that he hadn't inserted himself in her without a condom.
Yeah that's a fair point.
And that might make this one of those cases where first degree sexual assault cannot be successfully prosecuted, given the prosecution's need to demonstrate this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Unless he tells on himself, you're correct.
I've gone back and forth about six times about whether to ask if women can feel a condom or not. :hide:
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2021, 04:39:45 PM
I've gone back and forth about six times about whether to ask if women can feel a condom or not. :hide:
What did you ultimately decide to do?
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2021, 05:02:31 PM
What did you ultimately decide to do?
Still undecided.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 22, 2021, 04:39:45 PM
I've gone back and forth about six times about whether to ask if women can feel a condom or not. :hide:
I cannot. Other women may.
Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2021, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 11:01:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2021, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2021, 03:59:02 PM
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.
If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front.
If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented to have his sperm sprayed all over her back when she specifically told him to keep the thing on.
Is there some basis to imply consent for him to remove it for some other purpose?
Did I arrive at that conclusion :hmm: I thought I said it was probably a crime of some kind.
Also you have to remember the absolutely barbaric nature of our criminal justice system, somebody would have to fuck me up pretty fucking bad before I would want anybody to endure that horror show. Spewing on somebody is pretty gross and awful thing to do but sending them to suffer under brutal conditions for months and then be a pariah for the rest of their lives seems like disproportionate punishment. But it's Canada so maybe getting a sentence like that is not what it would be here.
Obviously if he did put her in danger of getting pregnant or get a STD that is different.
So lets go back to what you wrote. "If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.
If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front."
You said it would be something, but not sexual assault. For it to not be sexual assault there would have to be consent. So I asked you how you were concluding there had been consent to ejaculating on her body - assuming he did not actually engage in intercourse with the condom off which we all agree would be sexual assault.
There could be an interesting discussion about whether there was consent and that is why I asked you the question.
It is also clear that a number in the peanut gallery fail to understanding the necessary link between consent and this not being a sexual assault. And the ones who cry most about Ad Hom attacks are the first to pull them out. Such is Languish.
Quote from: DGuller on June 22, 2021, 12:18:55 PM
I think CC needs a timeout, in all honesty. If we can't discuss issues here without being safe from insinuations of being a rapist, we should just shut this forum down.
The fact that you can make that kind of characterization of my posts is a good example of the problem here.
I concur with CC.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2021, 10:43:49 AM
So lets go back to what you wrote. "If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.
If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front."
You said it would be something, but not sexual assault. For it to not be sexual assault there would have to be consent. So I asked you how you were concluding there had been consent to ejaculating on her body - assuming he did not actually engage in intercourse with the condom off which we all agree would be sexual assault.
There could be an interesting discussion about whether there was consent and that is why I asked you the question.
I think the argument would be that given there was general consent to sexual activity, even if not to this one specific act, that the matter is not beyond
de minimis and therefore should not be prosecuted.
Let's say you agree to engage in a fistfight, but in the midst of that fistfight your opponent knees you in the groin. Should that be an assault charge?
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 12:07:04 PM
I concur with CC.
And I concur with DG. When CC summarizes someone's argument and concludes that "I wonder if watching porn has so warped men's understanding of sex that you have concluded consent is not necessary," that's WAYYY over the line. Accusing someone of concluding that "consent is not necessary" is accusing them of being at least potentially a rapist (and a sociopath to boot).
CC's always been too fond of the
ad hominem argument, but when that's pretty much all he has left, he should take a timeout.
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 12:07:04 PM
I concur with CC.
Wow.
You are cool with accusing fellow posters of "...you have concluded consent is not necessary". Note that this isn't in respect to a theoretical case, but directed at the actual posters and their views about sex and consent. Apparently motivated by porn, and you "concur" with his coming to this conclusion because of, your know, porn.
That's surprising, coming from you.
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 23, 2021, 10:43:49 AM
Quote from: Valmy on June 22, 2021, 10:41:47 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on June 21, 2021, 11:01:16 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 21, 2021, 09:34:42 PM
Quote from: merithyn on June 21, 2021, 03:59:02 PM
What happened was he not only disregarded her request to wear a condom, but also put her at risk of a potentially deadly medical condition - pregnancy. Additionally, had she become pregnant and didn't believe in abortion, he then put her in a position to either give up a child she didn't want but may now feel a bond with due to the pregnancy or keep a child she didn't want.
This isn't just about whether or not he nibbled on her ear after she asked him not to. He threatened her life with his actions, as well as precariously put her into a horrible moral quandary had he impregnated her.
He took control of her body away from her with his actions. How is that not sexual assault/rape?
If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.
If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front.
If he did, how are you arriving at the conclusion that she consented to have his sperm sprayed all over her back when she specifically told him to keep the thing on.
Is there some basis to imply consent for him to remove it for some other purpose?
Did I arrive at that conclusion :hmm: I thought I said it was probably a crime of some kind.
Also you have to remember the absolutely barbaric nature of our criminal justice system, somebody would have to fuck me up pretty fucking bad before I would want anybody to endure that horror show. Spewing on somebody is pretty gross and awful thing to do but sending them to suffer under brutal conditions for months and then be a pariah for the rest of their lives seems like disproportionate punishment. But it's Canada so maybe getting a sentence like that is not what it would be here.
Obviously if he did put her in danger of getting pregnant or get a STD that is different.
So lets go back to what you wrote. "If he took the condom off after he pulled out so he could ejaculate on her body I don't think it was sexual assault/rape. It might be something but not sexual assault/rape.
If he did it and was in her again than it was sexual assault/rape. I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise on that front."
You said it would be something, but not sexual assault. For it to not be sexual assault there would have to be consent. So I asked you how you were concluding there had been consent to ejaculating on her body - assuming he did not actually engage in intercourse with the condom off which we all agree would be sexual assault.
There could be an interesting discussion about whether there was consent and that is why I asked you the question.
It is also clear that a number in the peanut gallery fail to understanding the necessary link between consent and this not being a sexual assault. And the ones who cry most about Ad Hom attacks are the first to pull them out. Such is Languish.
Well maybe I lack the necessary bloodthirstyness and lust for vengeance required to be a lawyer. If he did a gross thing without her consent then sure put him in jail for a few weeks or days and make him pay a fine, maybe some probation whatever. Scare him straight. If he did put her in danger then that is different.
I just am hesitant to have somebody suffer years of inhuman and brutal treatment for years unless absolutely necessary. If somebody assaulted or robbed from me if it was something I could walk away from, I would have to think hard about reporting them just for that reason. I would have to be pretty sure they would continue to do so in the future to others.
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 12:14:13 PM
I think the argument would be that given there was general consent to sexual activity, even if not to this one specific act, that the matter is not beyond de minimis and therefore should not be prosecuted.
Let's say you agree to engage in a fistfight, but in the midst of that fistfight your opponent knees you in the groin. Should that be an assault charge?
Yes? You agreed to a fistfight, not to be hit in whatever ways the other guy thinks of.
Yeah and your consent can be conditional. If you said okay but only if you use a condom or okay but don't ejaculate on me - and the other person deliberately ignores that then I think that's a violation of the consent on which the sexual act is based.
From my understanding of UK law the condom one would be rape and the ejaculation would be sexual assault.
Obviously it may be that you generally consent to sexual activity and change your mind - that initial consent doesn't mean the other person can carry on regardless. Similarly you may consent at the start and then the other person does something does something your're not okay with and you can say "no" at that point and if they still do it it's in violation of your consent - the example that springs to mind is if they try anal, you say no and they proceed.
I'm not quite sure that we need to go to analogies of fist fights or other things when we can just examples of sexual conduct.
Edit: And for what it's worth in UK law, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003 - both the ejaculation (the case here was actually someone ejaculating in their partner when they'd been told not to) and the removing the condom (this was the Assange extradition case) are criminal under UK law.
Did Assange penetrate without a condom?
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 03:19:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 12:14:13 PM
I think the argument would be that given there was general consent to sexual activity, even if not to this one specific act, that the matter is not beyond de minimis and therefore should not be prosecuted.
Let's say you agree to engage in a fistfight, but in the midst of that fistfight your opponent knees you in the groin. Should that be an assault charge?
Yes? You agreed to a fistfight, not to be hit in whatever ways the other guy thinks of.
Why should we waste the court's time trying to police exactly what is and isn't allowed in a fist fight? If you're dumb enough to agree to a fist fight up to a certain point you deserve what you get.
I think it's obvious that context should matter to the law. If you're in a sexual situation with someone and you grab their ass without having asked first if it's OK, that's not the same thing as grabbing some stranger's ass on the bus without having asked first.
I think it was an aggravating factor in Sweden (I think the victim was asleep).
Assange argued that if the assault described in the Swedish arrest warrant wasn't rape and if it had been fairly and accurately described it would not have constituted rape. I think on the first point the court basically the Swedish court's considered it as a matter of Swedish law and issued a European arrest warrant which was kind of decisive, but even if that was incorrect the assault would constitute rape under British law too (mainly because she was asleep) but also on the condom point:
QuoteIt would plainly be open to a jury to hold that if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom ..... His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003....
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 03:32:06 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 03:19:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 12:14:13 PM
I think the argument would be that given there was general consent to sexual activity, even if not to this one specific act, that the matter is not beyond de minimis and therefore should not be prosecuted.
Let's say you agree to engage in a fistfight, but in the midst of that fistfight your opponent knees you in the groin. Should that be an assault charge?
Yes? You agreed to a fistfight, not to be hit in whatever ways the other guy thinks of.
Why should we waste the court's time trying to police exactly what is and isn't allowed in a fist fight? If you're dumb enough to agree to a fist fight up to a certain point you deserve what you get.
So, uh, are you really arguing that if you are "dumb enough" to agree to have sex, you deserve what you get, and the courts shouldn't waste time with it? Otherwise I'm not sure what your analogy is about.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2021, 03:42:44 PM
I think it was an aggravating factor in Sweden (I think the victim was asleep).
Assange argued that if the assault described in the Swedish arrest warrant wasn't rape and if it had been fairly and accurately described it would not have constituted rape. I think on the first point the court basically the Swedish court's considered it as a matter of Swedish law and issued a European arrest warrant which was kind of decisive, but even if that was incorrect the assault would constitute rape under British law too (mainly because she was asleep) but also on the condom point:
QuoteIt would plainly be open to a jury to hold that if AA had made clear that she would only consent to sexual intercourse if Mr Assange used a condom, then there would be no consent if, without her consent, he did not use a condom, or removed or tore the condom ..... His conduct in having sexual intercourse without a condom in circumstances where she had made clear she would only have sexual intercourse if he used a condom would therefore amount to an offence under the Sexual Offences Act 2003....
Googled and found this decent summary of the allegations against Assange:
https://www.vox.com/identities/2019/4/12/18306901/julian-assange-arrest-wikileaks-rape-sweden-embassy
The first allegation could have been rape all by itself: Assange was staying at her house, then starts touching her and taking her clothes off. She tries to fend him off, but then gives in. She insists on a condom but then says Assange did something to the condom so that it broke.
Second allegation was with a different woman. She insisted on a condom, he refused, so they went to sleep. Later on they woke u and had sex with a condom. In the morning she woke up with Assange inside her, with no condom.
Maybe it just slipped in by accident.
Yeah - I think the English court basically summarised Assange's argument on the condom point as: "It was therefore submitted that in the present case, as AA had consented to sexual intercourse, and as that was the nature of the relevant act, it did not matter that she had consented only on the basis that he used a condom, as that did not change the nature of the act. It was accepted on Mr Assange' s behalf that this contention might not be one contemporary society would readily understand or consider justifiable, but Parliament had enacted the law in those terms and the duty of the courts was to apply the law."
Needless to say they disagreed on that interpretation of the law.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 03:32:06 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 03:19:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 12:14:13 PM
I think the argument would be that given there was general consent to sexual activity, even if not to this one specific act, that the matter is not beyond de minimis and therefore should not be prosecuted.
Let's say you agree to engage in a fistfight, but in the midst of that fistfight your opponent knees you in the groin. Should that be an assault charge?
Yes? You agreed to a fistfight, not to be hit in whatever ways the other guy thinks of.
Why should we waste the court's time trying to police exactly what is and isn't allowed in a fist fight? If you're dumb enough to agree to a fist fight up to a certain point you deserve what you get.
So, uh, are you really arguing that if you are "dumb enough" to agree to have sex, you deserve what you get, and the courts shouldn't waste time with it? Otherwise I'm not sure what your analogy is about.
Depending on the circumstances, yes.
Okay, you agree to have sex, but your partner says "kissing is gross. No kissing". Mid-way through sex you kiss your partner anyways. Should that be charged as sexual assault? I don't think so.
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:14:06 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 03:32:06 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 03:19:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 12:14:13 PM
I think the argument would be that given there was general consent to sexual activity, even if not to this one specific act, that the matter is not beyond de minimis and therefore should not be prosecuted.
Let's say you agree to engage in a fistfight, but in the midst of that fistfight your opponent knees you in the groin. Should that be an assault charge?
Yes? You agreed to a fistfight, not to be hit in whatever ways the other guy thinks of.
Why should we waste the court's time trying to police exactly what is and isn't allowed in a fist fight? If you're dumb enough to agree to a fist fight up to a certain point you deserve what you get.
So, uh, are you really arguing that if you are "dumb enough" to agree to have sex, you deserve what you get, and the courts shouldn't waste time with it? Otherwise I'm not sure what your analogy is about.
Depending on the circumstances, yes.
Okay, you agree to have sex, but your partner says "kissing is gross. No kissing". Mid-way through sex you kiss your partner anyways. Should that be charged as sexual assault? I don't think so.
See, you are bringing up an example of something that is usually considered common and "normal", but consent is consent regardless of what it's for. Replace kissing in your example with anal penetration or sadistic whipping (both things that people can engage in during sex), and try again.
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:14:06 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 03:32:06 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 03:19:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 12:14:13 PM
I think the argument would be that given there was general consent to sexual activity, even if not to this one specific act, that the matter is not beyond de minimis and therefore should not be prosecuted.
Let's say you agree to engage in a fistfight, but in the midst of that fistfight your opponent knees you in the groin. Should that be an assault charge?
Yes? You agreed to a fistfight, not to be hit in whatever ways the other guy thinks of.
Why should we waste the court's time trying to police exactly what is and isn't allowed in a fist fight? If you're dumb enough to agree to a fist fight up to a certain point you deserve what you get.
So, uh, are you really arguing that if you are "dumb enough" to agree to have sex, you deserve what you get, and the courts shouldn't waste time with it? Otherwise I'm not sure what your analogy is about.
Depending on the circumstances, yes.
Okay, you agree to have sex, but your partner says "kissing is gross. No kissing". Mid-way through sex you kiss your partner anyways. Should that be charged as sexual assault? I don't think so.
I had this basically happen, as I described earlier.
I guess I should be in jail now as a predator.
Instead we both laughed a little and screwed each other brains out instead, and still do on occasion.
Probably because we watch so much porn?
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:14:06 PM
Depending on the circumstances, yes.
Okay, you agree to have sex, but your partner says "kissing is gross. No kissing". Mid-way through sex you kiss your partner anyways. Should that be charged as sexual assault? I don't think so.
So consent contingent on respecting a set of boundaries is the same as blanket consent, and the boundaries are irrelevant? Or are there particular types of boundaries or conditions where disregarding them does in fact constitute sexual assault in your view?
Say, A agrees to give B a handjob. Is there no sexual act that B can inflict on A against their explict wishes that would constitute sexual assault in your view?
Whether it's worth charging someone with a crime certainly can depend on how severely the other person was affected - a single kiss by mistake won't harm someone too much (probably), but if you French kiss someone for ten minutes despite them saying no beforehand, then it's sexual assault. And generally speaking, people should rather learn to respect consent instead of offering explanations of how some violation of consent or another was "totally harmless and not worth the courts' time".
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:19:28 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:14:06 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:00:33 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 03:32:06 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 03:19:38 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 12:14:13 PM
I think the argument would be that given there was general consent to sexual activity, even if not to this one specific act, that the matter is not beyond de minimis and therefore should not be prosecuted.
Let's say you agree to engage in a fistfight, but in the midst of that fistfight your opponent knees you in the groin. Should that be an assault charge?
Yes? You agreed to a fistfight, not to be hit in whatever ways the other guy thinks of.
Why should we waste the court's time trying to police exactly what is and isn't allowed in a fist fight? If you're dumb enough to agree to a fist fight up to a certain point you deserve what you get.
So, uh, are you really arguing that if you are "dumb enough" to agree to have sex, you deserve what you get, and the courts shouldn't waste time with it? Otherwise I'm not sure what your analogy is about.
Depending on the circumstances, yes.
Okay, you agree to have sex, but your partner says "kissing is gross. No kissing". Mid-way through sex you kiss your partner anyways. Should that be charged as sexual assault? I don't think so.
See, you are bringing up an example of something that is usually considered common and "normal", but consent is consent regardless of what it's for. Replace kissing in your example with anal penetration or sadistic whipping (both things that people can engage in during sex), and try again.
Hence the "depending on circumstances".
That is the entire point. It DEPENDS ON THE CIRCUMSTANCES.
There is no "no consent equal sexual assault" hard and fast rule. And reasonable people can reasonably disagree where some particular act goes from "That's an honest mistake, no harm no foul" to "That's an asshole thing to do, and probably means we aren't repeating" to "That's a REALLY fucking asshole thing to do I am telling my friends about" to "MOTHERFUCKER WTF! I am calling the cops!" to outright rape.
And having the discussion about it is not evidence that you think consent doesn't matter or isn't necessary, no matter how much porn you watch. And suggesting that having the conversation is indicative of some posters disdain for obtaining consent is fucking contemptible. Only slightly less contemptible is how accepting everyone is of someone who would do that.
My view is, people should learn to err on the side of caution when it comes to consent, rather than trying to make a scale on how harmless some sexual activity is or assuming someone would not be greatly affected by it. Even a simple unwanted kiss could be traumatic to someone.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:30:13 PM
My view is, people should learn to err on the side of caution when it comes to consent, rather than trying to make a scale on how harmless some sexual activity is or assuming someone would not be greatly affected by it. Even a simple unwanted kiss could be traumatic to someone.
Indeed. It is a fraught interaction, and almost always complicated by passion and emotion.
It is worthy of great care and consideration.
The question however, is what happens when that breaks down? Either willfully, because some people are jerks, or because sometimes people just don't communicate well, and make mistakes or mis-interpret things in a complex situation where what people want can and will change from moment to moment?
It's easy to just say "OMG no consent! Rape!" But not very useful in the actual world where society has to make hard choices about how to make objective laws and responses to subjective experiences.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:30:13 PM
My view is, people should learn to err on the side of caution when it comes to consent, rather than trying to make a scale on how harmless some sexual activity is or assuming someone would not be greatly affected by it. Even a simple unwanted kiss could be traumatic to someone.
Absolutely. But that's more just a matter of good manners.
I've had say a victim of crime crying after court. I will ask them if it's okay for me to hug them before doing so in order to try and comfort them.
But some things that are definitely bad manners don't deserve to be charged as crimes.
But I suppose isn't the depending on the circumstance depending on that person - the complainant - rather than for the law necessarily. Obviously it's up to that person and we expect a degree of prosecutorial discretion.
In the UK the way it works is basically you have four key offences: rape (penetration with a penis); assault by penetration (with something else); sexual assault; and causing a person to engage in sexual conduct without consent. All of those rely on consent but there's additional presumption of a lack of consent if there is deception about the nature or purpose of the act (or if they catfished them) basically.
But in that framework unwanted kissing (this came up a lot during me too revelations in the UK) can be sexual assault.
There may well be cases where the complainant doesn't feel it's worth going to the police because it was a really minor thing or where there's some prosecutorial discretion or the jury doesn't think it's a crime. But just because those things can happen doesn't mean you try and write all of those circumstances into the law, because I think it's less of a concern that someone gets done for sexual kissing than that someone gets off for turning one type of sexual encounter into something their partner didn't consent to.
I think that sort of distinction is broadly what the courts and the justice system are for. It's so you don't have to write perfect laws that will be zealously applied to all potential offences in all circumstances - that might be a model, but I don't think it's that the one that we have.
I liked this forum better when all threads ended up in the Civil War, not a civil war.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:30:13 PM
My view is, people should learn to err on the side of caution when it comes to consent, rather than trying to make a scale on how harmless some sexual activity is or assuming someone would not be greatly affected by it. Even a simple unwanted kiss could be traumatic to someone.
Yeah I agree.
Alternately, understand that if they're relying on implied consent that they me incorrect and if they are, then the other person has recourse to a variety of actions in response.
That said, I do think there's a scale of severity of impact, a scale of egregiousness of particular acts, and room for considering misunderstandings. But the bottom line is that engaging in a sexual act to which the other party does not consent is sexual assault.
In reality, of course, people engage in all kinds of sexual activity without explicitly discussing consent based on prior experiences, implied consent, and other factors... which is fine. As long as the other party is okay with what's happening, you're fine... but you're running a bit of a risk and have to trust your partner if you do so.
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2021, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:30:13 PM
My view is, people should learn to err on the side of caution when it comes to consent, rather than trying to make a scale on how harmless some sexual activity is or assuming someone would not be greatly affected by it. Even a simple unwanted kiss could be traumatic to someone.
Indeed. It is a fraught interaction, and almost always complicated by passion and emotion.
It is worthy of great care and consideration.
The question however, is what happens when that breaks down? Either willfully, because some people are jerks, or because sometimes people just don't communicate well, and make mistakes or mis-interpret things in a complex situation where what people want can and will change from moment to moment?
It's easy to just say "OMG no consent! Rape!" But not very useful in the actual world where society has to make hard choices about how to make objective laws and responses to subjective experiences.
It's also equally easy for the other side to argue "OMG it was an honest mistake, that person I was having sex with did not communicate well!" And then everyone would use that defense to get off scot free (as, indeed, is the case right now, because the percentage of rape or sexual assault convictions is EXTREMELY low).
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 04:46:11 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:30:13 PM
My view is, people should learn to err on the side of caution when it comes to consent, rather than trying to make a scale on how harmless some sexual activity is or assuming someone would not be greatly affected by it. Even a simple unwanted kiss could be traumatic to someone.
Yeah I agree.
Alternately, understand that if they're relying on implied consent that they me incorrect and if they are, then the other person has recourse to a variety of actions in response.
That said, I do think there's a scale of severity of impact, a scale of egregiousness of particular acts, and room for considering misunderstandings. But the bottom line is that engaging in a sexual act to which the other party does not consent is sexual assault.
In reality, of course, people engage in all kinds of sexual activity without explicitly discussing consent based on prior experiences, implied consent, and other factors... which is fine. As long as the other party is okay with what's happening, you're fine... but you're running a bit of a risk and have to trust your partner if you do so.
Agreed with all of this. It's best to never assume something is okay in a sexual context no matter how innocent it seems to you.
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 04:22:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:14:06 PM
Depending on the circumstances, yes.
Okay, you agree to have sex, but your partner says "kissing is gross. No kissing". Mid-way through sex you kiss your partner anyways. Should that be charged as sexual assault? I don't think so.
So consent contingent on respecting a set of boundaries is the same as blanket consent, and the boundaries are irrelevant? Or are there particular types of boundaries or conditions where disregarding them does in fact constitute sexual assault in your view?
Say, A agrees to give B a handjob. Is there no sexual act that B can inflict on A against their explict wishes that would constitute sexual assault in your view?
That's a very absolutist view when I started the whole thing with "Depending on the circumstances".
I think there's probably some room for "testing boundaries" within an otherwise consensual encounter. Like the kissing example I used. But if the person repeatedly went to kiss their partner despite repeated insistence that not happen, then probably that does feel more like something perhaps more suited to the courts.
But that's also within the context of an otherwise consensual encounter. If your partner says "I've had it! I don't want to have sex with you" then no means no.
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 04:22:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:14:06 PM
Depending on the circumstances, yes.
Okay, you agree to have sex, but your partner says "kissing is gross. No kissing". Mid-way through sex you kiss your partner anyways. Should that be charged as sexual assault? I don't think so.
So consent contingent on respecting a set of boundaries is the same as blanket consent, and the boundaries are irrelevant? Or are there particular types of boundaries or conditions where disregarding them does in fact constitute sexual assault in your view?
Say, A agrees to give B a handjob. Is there no sexual act that B can inflict on A against their explict wishes that would constitute sexual assault in your view?
That's a very absolutist view when I started the whole thing with "Depending on the circumstances".
I think there's probably some room for "testing boundaries" within an otherwise consensual encounter. Like the kissing example I used. But if the person repeatedly went to kiss their partner despite repeated insistence that not happen, then probably that does feel more like something perhaps more suited to the courts.
But that's also within the context of an otherwise consensual encounter. If your partner says "I've had it! I don't want to have sex with you" then no means no.
Actually, at least in the BDSM subculture, "testing boundaries" is also a thing that should be consented to. :D Incidentally, kinky people tend to be more mindful of consent compared to vanilla people, probably because they engage in all sorts of activities that can go badly wrong and land them in jail if not planned beforehand.
Yeah - for me the issue within a sexual encounter isn't necessarily that you only do what's kind of been pre-agreed. It's more you don't do what you're told not to do (unless, of course that's your kink and no-one's using a safe word :lol:).
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:52:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 04:22:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:14:06 PM
Depending on the circumstances, yes.
Okay, you agree to have sex, but your partner says "kissing is gross. No kissing". Mid-way through sex you kiss your partner anyways. Should that be charged as sexual assault? I don't think so.
So consent contingent on respecting a set of boundaries is the same as blanket consent, and the boundaries are irrelevant? Or are there particular types of boundaries or conditions where disregarding them does in fact constitute sexual assault in your view?
Say, A agrees to give B a handjob. Is there no sexual act that B can inflict on A against their explict wishes that would constitute sexual assault in your view?
That's a very absolutist view when I started the whole thing with "Depending on the circumstances".
I think there's probably some room for "testing boundaries" within an otherwise consensual encounter. Like the kissing example I used. But if the person repeatedly went to kiss their partner despite repeated insistence that not happen, then probably that does feel more like something perhaps more suited to the courts.
But that's also within the context of an otherwise consensual encounter. If your partner says "I've had it! I don't want to have sex with you" then no means no.
Actually, at least in the BDSM subculture, "testing boundaries" is also a thing that should be consented to. :D Incidentally, kinky people tend to be more mindful of consent compared to vanilla people, probably because they engage in all sorts of activities that can go badly wrong and land them in jail if not planned beforehand.
YOu know what, I've prosecuted my fair share of sexual assaults, but never any involving the BDSM community.
I think I would agree that before you start tieing someone up and whipping them you'd better get some pretty damn clear consent.
I think people here have mostly been talking about the same thing, just from different angles, at least in the general sense. :D I still think that the case that started this whole thread, when a guy took off his condom and ejaculated on his partner despite having been explicitly told to keep the condom on (presumably for the entire duration of sex, including the ejaculation), can be classified as sexual assault.
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:55:15 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:52:36 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:49:44 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 04:22:49 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:14:06 PM
Depending on the circumstances, yes.
Okay, you agree to have sex, but your partner says "kissing is gross. No kissing". Mid-way through sex you kiss your partner anyways. Should that be charged as sexual assault? I don't think so.
So consent contingent on respecting a set of boundaries is the same as blanket consent, and the boundaries are irrelevant? Or are there particular types of boundaries or conditions where disregarding them does in fact constitute sexual assault in your view?
Say, A agrees to give B a handjob. Is there no sexual act that B can inflict on A against their explict wishes that would constitute sexual assault in your view?
That's a very absolutist view when I started the whole thing with "Depending on the circumstances".
I think there's probably some room for "testing boundaries" within an otherwise consensual encounter. Like the kissing example I used. But if the person repeatedly went to kiss their partner despite repeated insistence that not happen, then probably that does feel more like something perhaps more suited to the courts.
But that's also within the context of an otherwise consensual encounter. If your partner says "I've had it! I don't want to have sex with you" then no means no.
Actually, at least in the BDSM subculture, "testing boundaries" is also a thing that should be consented to. :D Incidentally, kinky people tend to be more mindful of consent compared to vanilla people, probably because they engage in all sorts of activities that can go badly wrong and land them in jail if not planned beforehand.
YOu know what, I've prosecuted my fair share of sexual assaults, but never any involving the BDSM community.
I think I would agree that before you start tieing someone up and whipping them you'd better get some pretty damn clear consent.
Yes, and just because you agreed on a whipping doesn't mean you can then also slap them in the face or start choking them. Consent needs to be very specific, and a lack of a no does not mean yes.
1. Discuss birth control/STD prevention.
2. Explicit consent for anything up the ass.
3. Everything else fair game.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 05:00:17 PM
Yes, and just because you agreed on a whipping doesn't mean you can then also slap them in the face or start choking them. Consent needs to be very specific, and a lack of a no does not mean yes.
Even there...
You've consented to "kinky" sex and agree you're going to be tied up and whipped. You setup a safe word, and agree that you won't be choked. Mid way through your partner starts choking you. So say the safe word and the choking stops.
I just don't think that's something the courts need to get involved in. I don't think a prosecution would be "in the public interest". That person is an asshole, but I don't think they need to be charged.
What's up with all you kinky people?
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:55:15 PM
YOu know what, I've prosecuted my fair share of sexual assaults, but never any involving the BDSM community.
I think I would agree that before you start tieing someone up and whipping them you'd better get some pretty damn clear consent.
There's a really famous BDSM case in England and Wales from the early 90s. Basically the polce decided to launch a nationwide investigation into same-sex BDSM because homophobia and arrested about 100 men all told.
There was a test case (of the most extreme stuff) that was prosecuted GBH and ABH and it went to the Law Lords whether consent was a defence. They decided it wasn't (3-2).
I mainly remember it for how ridiculous and often homophobic the judgements (Lord Templeman: "Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing." Lord Jauncey: "Furthermore, the possibility of proselytisation and corruption of young men is a real danger" Lord Lowry: "Sado-masochistic homosexual activity cannot be regarded as conducive to the enhancement or enjoyment of family life or conducive to the welfare of society. A relaxation of the prohibitions in sections 20 and 47 can only encourage the practice of homosexual sado-masochism and the physical cruelty that it must involve (which can scarcely be regarded as a "manly diversion") by withdrawing the legal penalty and giving the activity a judicial imprimatur.") and even the dissents were pretty bad (Lord Mustill is correct, if judgemental: "In my opinion it should be a case about the criminal law of private sexual relations, if about anything at all ... [leaving aside] repugnance and moral objection, both of which are entirely natural but neither of which are, in my opinion, grounds upon which the court could properly create a new crime").
I don't think it's ever actually been overturned but, needless to say, the police have stopped spending their time raiding BDSM clubs.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 23, 2021, 05:07:27 PM
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 04:55:15 PM
YOu know what, I've prosecuted my fair share of sexual assaults, but never any involving the BDSM community.
I think I would agree that before you start tieing someone up and whipping them you'd better get some pretty damn clear consent.
There's a really famous BDSM case in England and Wales from the early 90s. Basically the polce decided to launch a nationwide investigation into same-sex BDSM because homophobia and arrested about 100 men all told.
How many of those were Tory MPs?
:lol: The investigation did end suddenly :hmm:
Our Supreme Court also decided in the early 90s that for public policy you can not consent to the infliction of bodily harm. That was in the context of a consensual bar fight where the victim died.
I don't know if it's ever been applied in a BDSM case.
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 05:12:39 PM
Our Supreme Court also decided in the early 90s that for public policy you can not consent to the infliction of bodily harm. That was in the context of a consensual bar fight where the victim died.
I don't know if it's ever been applied in a BDSM case.
Does harm include inflicting pain in a way that leaves permanent marks?
Quote from: Barrister on June 23, 2021, 05:05:34 PM
Even there...
You've consented to "kinky" sex and agree you're going to be tied up and whipped. You setup a safe word, and agree that you won't be choked. Mid way through your partner starts choking you. So say the safe word and the choking stops.
I just don't think that's something the courts need to get involved in. I don't think a prosecution would be "in the public interest". That person is an asshole, but I don't think they need to be charged.
Well yeah, that's the point of the safe word. And I think it's extremely unlikely that the courts would get involved, because neither partner would bring the courts in. And if one of them did, then it would hinge on whether the safe word was in fact respected.
But if they say the safe word and the person doing the choking doesn't stop, well then perhaps the courts should get involved. Or, perhaps, if the safeword is used and they're told to stop and they respond by saying "just give me 30 seconds" and ejaculate on your face before they stop choking you, then perhaps the courts should in fact get involved.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:47:46 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 04:46:11 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:30:13 PM
My view is, people should learn to err on the side of caution when it comes to consent, rather than trying to make a scale on how harmless some sexual activity is or assuming someone would not be greatly affected by it. Even a simple unwanted kiss could be traumatic to someone.
Yeah I agree.
Alternately, understand that if they're relying on implied consent that they me incorrect and if they are, then the other person has recourse to a variety of actions in response.
That said, I do think there's a scale of severity of impact, a scale of egregiousness of particular acts, and room for considering misunderstandings. But the bottom line is that engaging in a sexual act to which the other party does not consent is sexual assault.
In reality, of course, people engage in all kinds of sexual activity without explicitly discussing consent based on prior experiences, implied consent, and other factors... which is fine. As long as the other party is okay with what's happening, you're fine... but you're running a bit of a risk and have to trust your partner if you do so.
Agreed with all of this. It's best to never assume something is okay in a sexual context no matter how innocent it seems to you.
:huh:
So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?
Quote from: PDH on June 23, 2021, 04:45:37 PM
I liked this forum better when all threads ended up in the Civil War, not a civil war.
This does bring up an interesting question. Did the 20th Maine technically rape the 15th Alabama when they charged them off of little round top? While they didn't get formal consent, the 15th Alabama ran "like a herd of wild cattle" (their commander Oates' own words), and in the absence of resistence, does that constitute a form of consent?
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2021, 06:07:34 PM
:huh:
So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?
You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.
So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 06:21:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2021, 06:07:34 PM
:huh:
So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?
You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.
So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).
What a world.
Quote from: alfred russel on June 23, 2021, 06:19:43 PM
Quote from: PDH on June 23, 2021, 04:45:37 PM
I liked this forum better when all threads ended up in the Civil War, not a civil war.
This does bring up an interesting question. Did the 20th Maine technically rape the 15th Alabama when they charged them off of little round top? While they didn't get formal consent, the 15th Alabama ran "like a herd of wild cattle" (their commander Oates' own words), and in the absence of resistence, does that constitute a form of consent?
Dorsey, you might be a douche, but I am a man of honor. Thank you for this.
Speaking of consent, what do you guys think of Britney Spear's testimony that she has been forced to have an IUD by her conservators?
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 06:21:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2021, 06:07:34 PM
:huh:
So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?
You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.
So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).
Laws like you describe seem unsound to me.
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2021, 06:29:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 06:21:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2021, 06:07:34 PM
:huh:
So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?
You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.
So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).
What a world.
Yeah, imagine actually having to make sure the other person wants you to do something to them before you do it.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 24, 2021, 04:01:21 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2021, 06:29:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 06:21:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2021, 06:07:34 PM
:huh:
So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?
You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.
So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).
What a world.
Yeah, imagine actually having to make sure the other person wants you to do something to them before you do it.
It just sounds so bizarre to have two people to decide to have sex and then be at such confusion about what they other would or would not permit.
From my experience (given Jacob decided to condescened to me by making his example about grindr), there was alwas a base of stuff that was implied as acceptable and then if it was getting to say penile insertion there would be comments like 'do you want me to fuck you?' or 'will you suck it'? At the same time if one partner went to suck the other's dick and the other wasn't feeling it (for whatever reason), they would pull back up on the suckee or say something like 'Oh I'm not feeling like having my dick sucked.' People had (and I'd guess still have) the ability to speak and if something started to happen that they didn't want, they could say that / things like say fisting or watersports are not part of the basic package.
Only consent around kissing, I can recall, is someone saying 'I don't like to kiss/want to kiss' and that would always point out to me that it was time to leave/cut that activity short.
I also wonder what this does to a sense of exploration, as in, you don't come to your first sexual encounters knowing exactly what you like nor do you want to be particpating in a Q&A session.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2021, 04:45:49 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 24, 2021, 04:01:21 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2021, 06:29:34 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 23, 2021, 06:21:05 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 23, 2021, 06:07:34 PM
:huh:
So you have to ask for every single thing? As in, I'm going to kiss you now, is that okay? I'm going to nibble on your earlobe now, is that okay?
You don't, but you should know that if you don't ask you better be pretty certain of the unspoken or implicit consent, and trust your partner. Because if you're wrong, or your partner is devious, you could be in trouble.
So, say, with a fresh grindr date you may want to be extra explicit, but with your husband with whom you have a long history of trust, love, and communication you can rely on the conversations you've had so far (and rely on your partner to tell you to stop in a timely fashion, if you're crossing any lines).
What a world.
Yeah, imagine actually having to make sure the other person wants you to do something to them before you do it.
It just sounds so bizarre to have two people to decide to have sex and then be at such confusion about what they other would or would not permit.
From my experience (given Jacob decided to condescened to me by making his example about grindr), there was alwas a base of stuff that was implied as acceptable and then if it was getting to say penile insertion there would be comments like 'do you want me to fuck you?' or 'will you suck it'? At the same time if one partner went to suck the other's dick and the other wasn't feeling it (for whatever reason), they would pull back up on the suckee or say something like 'Oh I'm not feeling like having my dick sucked.' People had (and I'd guess still have) the ability to speak and if something started to happen that they didn't want, they could say that / things like say fisting or watersports are not part of the basic package.
Only consent around kissing, I can recall, is someone saying 'I don't like to kiss/want to kiss' and that would always point out to me that it was time to leave/cut that activity short.
I also wonder what this does to a sense of exploration, as in, you don't come to your first sexual encounters knowing exactly what you like nor do you want to be particpating in a Q&A session.
As someone actively dating, and actually negotiating this entire making out/sex interaction on a somewhat regular basis, I find this entire description of how sex works in the minds of everyone at such odds with how it actually transpires.
None of this is that difficult in reality. People are quite capable of communicating clearly most of the time, about what they want and like and dont want and dont like and how to respect each other pretty simply. And in those cases that "most of the time" doesn't cover, the mistakes between two people are easily negotiated without any need to start worrying about crimes having been committed.
Its kind of weird to talk about it, because you are talking about an intimate moment, but the idea that it's somehow super tough to figure this out is kind of beyond me.
And the idea that the outcome of a mis-communication is potentially going to be criminal is simply fucking beyond understanding.
Crimes are things people do with malice and intent to harm. Not shitty communication in bed.
The way this has been described, I am, in the views of many here, both the victim and the perpetrator of several acts of "sexual assault". And I am confident that if you told me that (as a "victim") I would laugh at the idea, and if you told my partners (when they were the "victim") they would find the idea ridiculous.
I do recall being told before on Languish that I was secually assaulted which I found odd and that was something for more egregious then not asking consent to kiss someone or touch their genitals.
All of this only makes sense if you go into sex with patanoia/see it as an adversarial scenario. In which case I'd suggest perhaps that isn't someone you should have sex with.
Going back to the original case.
Lets assume these are the actual facts of what actually happened.
A and B mutually decided to have sex.
A tells B that a condom is a pre-condition to the act of intercourse. They engage in other sexual activity (kissing, fondling, even oral sex between them) without the condom.
B and A are ready for intercourse, and B complains that he does not like condoms - do we really need to use one?
A says "Yes, non-negotiable, stop bitching and put the thing on and screw me already!"
B puts on condom, they have intercourse.
B is about to orgasm, and pulls out of A, removes condom, and ejaculates on A. Or maybe B even realizes he will not orgasm with it on, so pulls out, takes the condom off, and finishes on A.
Let's assume that A knows that the condom was removed after penetration, so there is no question of whether or not B was inside A without a condom. Take that question off the table.
At this point, the potential "crime" is that B ejacualted on A. Now, A never said "Don't cum on me, I think that's gross!". But A certainly could have thought that was implied in the overall "Use the condom for intercourse!" instruction. B could have thought "Well, I did as asked, and used the condom for intercourse, but we did lots of other stuff without it, so what's the problem?"
B might be guilty of not being very considerate, and A could genuinely have found this to be really, really fucking objectionable because they happen to really really not like having cum on them.
But I don't think any crime was committed. Nothing here rises to the level of "Lets send B to jail for 6 months!", and this is NOT an example of how hard it is to prosecute sexual assault.
Variations on this encounter happen all the time, in various ways, between two people having sex for the first or fifth time with each other.
What say everyone - was B ejaculating on A without *explicit* permission a crime?
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2021, 08:18:53 AM
I do recall being told before on Languish that I was secually assaulted which I found odd and that was something for more egregious then not asking consent to kiss someone or touch their genitals.
All of this only makes sense if you go into sex with patanoia/see it as an adversarial scenario. In which case I'd suggest perhaps that isn't someone you should have sex with.
Yeah, that is definitely a consideration BEFORE hopping into bed with someone.
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 08:14:36 AM
The way this has been described, I am, in the views of many here, both the victim and the perpetrator of several acts of "sexual assault". And I am confident that if you told me that (as a "victim") I would laugh at the idea, and if you told my partners (when they were the "victim") they would find the idea ridiculous.
I think the fear of dismissing victims of sexual assault is so pervasive that it fosters such seemingly idiotic absolutism that we're seeing here (although like with many things of this nature, I think what people say publicly and what they believe in practice is different). Any time you have a discussion where one side of the argument is a lot more constrained than the other one ultimately leads to this ratcheting dynamic. You can never go wrong with "more consent required is better" in a discussion, but arguing the other side opens you up to implications of being a rapist. When such a discussion goes on long enough, you will find that having a handjob without a signed and notarized 12 page contract will make you a very bad person.
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2021, 09:06:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 08:14:36 AM
The way this has been described, I am, in the views of many here, both the victim and the perpetrator of several acts of "sexual assault". And I am confident that if you told me that (as a "victim") I would laugh at the idea, and if you told my partners (when they were the "victim") they would find the idea ridiculous.
I think the fear of dismissing victims of sexual assault is so pervasive that it fosters such seemingly idiotic absolutism that we're seeing here (although like with many things of this nature, I think what people say publicly and what they believe in practice is different). Any time you have a discussion where one side of the argument is a lot more constrained than the other one ultimately leads to this ratcheting dynamic. You can never go wrong with "more consent required is better" in a discussion, but arguing the other side opens you up to implications of being a rapist. When such a discussion goes on long enough, you will find that having a handjob without a signed and notarized 12 page contract will make you a very bad person.
I just think the delta between how this actually works in the actual world and how it is described by many here is just...bizarre.
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 08:26:53 AM
Going back to the original case.
Lets assume these are the actual facts of what actually happened.
A and B mutually decided to have sex.
A tells B that a condom is a pre-condition to the act of intercourse. They engage in other sexual activity (kissing, fondling, even oral sex between them) without the condom.
B and A are ready for intercourse, and B complains that he does not like condoms - do we really need to use one?
A says "Yes, non-negotiable, stop bitching and put the thing on and screw me already!"
B puts on condom, they have intercourse.
B is about to orgasm, and pulls out of A, removes condom, and ejaculates on A. Or maybe B even realizes he will not orgasm with it on, so pulls out, takes the condom off, and finishes on A.
Let's assume that A knows that the condom was removed after penetration, so there is no question of whether or not B was inside A without a condom. Take that question off the table.
At this point, the potential "crime" is that B ejacualted on A. Now, A never said "Don't cum on me, I think that's gross!". But A certainly could have thought that was implied in the overall "Use the condom for intercourse!" instruction. B could have thought "Well, I did as asked, and used the condom for intercourse, but we did lots of other stuff without it, so what's the problem?"
B might be guilty of not being very considerate, and A could genuinely have found this to be really, really fucking objectionable because they happen to really really not like having cum on them.
But I don't think any crime was committed. Nothing here rises to the level of "Lets send B to jail for 6 months!", and this is NOT an example of how hard it is to prosecute sexual assault.
Variations on this encounter happen all the time, in various ways, between two people having sex for the first or fifth time with each other.
What say everyone - was B ejaculating on A without *explicit* permission a crime?
No - not in the UK and I don't think it should be.
As I say in the UK (which I know - but also I think has quite a well-drafted law on this) you've got those four sexual crimes which are related to acts. All of the offences in some way or other involve "consent".
In general consent has it's normal day-to-day meaning and it's generally assessed as a "reasonable belef" in consent. But there are also circumstances which are slighty different where the law provides for presumptions about consent. The relevant ones here are if the defendant
intentionally deceives the complainant about the sexual act or its purpose; or the defendant
intentionally induces consent by impersonating another person known to the complainant.
That's quite limited in two ways. They have to be lying about the act itself - so for example it doesn't cover "disingenuous blandishments or common or garden lies" which might well be persuasive in getting someone into bed, but they're not relevant. They're not about the act itself. And obviously it needs to be deliberate deceit not just an accident or mistake. But if that's what the court finds then it's considered conclusive on consent. The reasoning behind that is if you are intentionally deceiving or intentionally inducing someone to do an act, then you can't believe that they're okay with it and if the person was actually okay with it they wouldn't have made the criminal complaint.
So your example isn't caught because B doesn't "deliberately deceive" A about the act. A never said don't ejaculate on me, B never said they wouldn't.
But if A said - I'm fine with sex but don't cum on me, which B is fine with but B then does cum on A then that could be sexual assault. If B was wearing a condom they would have to remove it to ejaculate on A which I think would probably be indicative enough of deliberate deception about the act (it won't involve ejaculation on A; it did).
In the UK there was actually a case on ejaculation but the other way round. It was in the context of an abusive relationship and there were lots of incidents. The woman didn't want another kid, the man didn't wear condoms because he didn't like them - so they agreed to using withdrawal as their contraception method (which it isn't - but there we are). So both people knew that she didn't consent to him ejaculating inside of her.
The issue was there was a sexual encounter that was within the definition of consensual, and he told her that we would ejaculate insider her "because you are my wife and I'll do it if I want". She actually became pregnant. The court's basic view in the end was this was rape:
QuoteIn law, the question which arises is whether this factual structure can give rise to a conviction for rape. Did the claimant consent to this penetration? She did so, provided, in the language of s.74 of the 2003 Act, she agreed by choice, when she had the freedom and capacity to make the choice. What Assange underlines is that "choice" is crucial to the issue of "consent", and indeed we underline that the statutory definition of consent provided in s.74 applies equally to s.1(1)(c) as it does to s.1(1)(b). The evidence relating to "choice" and the "freedom" to make any particular choice must be approached in a broad commonsense way. If before penetration began the intervener had made up his mind that he would penetrate and ejaculate within the claimant's vagina, or even, because "penetration is a continuing act from entry to withdrawal" (see s.79(2) of the 2003 Act) he decided that he would not withdraw at all, just because he deemed the claimant subservient to his control, she was deprived of choice relating to the crucial feature on which her original consent to sexual intercourse was based. Accordingly her consent was negated. Contrary to her wishes, and knowing that she would not have consented, and did not consent to penetration or the continuation of penetration if she had any inkling of his intention, he deliberately ejaculated within her vagina. In law, this combination of circumstances falls within the statutory definition of rape.
It's worth nothing in the same judgment actually addressed what I think you're talking about:
QuoteWe must emphasise that we are not addressing the situation in which sexual intercourse occurs consensually when the man, intending to withdraw in accordance with his partner's wishes, or their understanding, nevertheless ejaculates prematurely, or accidentally, within rather than outside his partner's vagina. These things happen. They always have and they always will, and no offence is committed when they do. They underline why withdrawal is not a safe method of contraception. Equally we are not addressing the many fluctuating ways in which sexual relationships may develop, as couples discover and renew their own levels of understanding and tolerance, their codes of communication, express or understood, and mutual give and take, experimentation and excitement. These are intensely private matters, personal to the couple in question.
Also this whole conversation just makes me think of "I May Destroy You" - which is well worth a watch and is a really, really good show. But a large part of it is exploring consent.
Edit: As I've said before the point isn't that you need explicit permission for every act, but if you've been told explicitly not to do something then the consent to that act is conditional.
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2021, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:30:13 PM
My view is, people should learn to err on the side of caution when it comes to consent, rather than trying to make a scale on how harmless some sexual activity is or assuming someone would not be greatly affected by it. Even a simple unwanted kiss could be traumatic to someone.
Indeed. It is a fraught interaction, and almost always complicated by passion and emotion.
It is worthy of great care and consideration.
The question however, is what happens when that breaks down? Either willfully, because some people are jerks, or because sometimes people just don't communicate well, and make mistakes or mis-interpret things in a complex situation where what people want can and will change from moment to moment?
It's easy to just say "OMG no consent! Rape!" But not very useful in the actual world where society has to make hard choices about how to make objective laws and responses to subjective experiences.
I completely agree with this.
You all know where I stand on consent, but this is so nuanced as to be impossible to tease out. And I think the risk to the people involved matters. BB can say that pregnancy doesn't count as a risk because mortality rates are low, but pregnancy does a lot more to a woman's body than just killing it. That's a risk that should be considered. So is STDs, or physical trauma.
Kissing someone after being told not to isn't likely to cause any of those. But there are other sex acts that can - and do. And I think that when we're talking about nuances, we need to include that specific nuance. Does that specific act cause a risk of bodily harm? If so, then it's not just "did they just not get explicit consent". Instead, it now becomes something a bit more serious and worth the discussion that's ensuing.
Quote from: merithyn on June 24, 2021, 09:50:13 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 23, 2021, 04:37:33 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 23, 2021, 04:30:13 PM
My view is, people should learn to err on the side of caution when it comes to consent, rather than trying to make a scale on how harmless some sexual activity is or assuming someone would not be greatly affected by it. Even a simple unwanted kiss could be traumatic to someone.
Indeed. It is a fraught interaction, and almost always complicated by passion and emotion.
It is worthy of great care and consideration.
The question however, is what happens when that breaks down? Either willfully, because some people are jerks, or because sometimes people just don't communicate well, and make mistakes or mis-interpret things in a complex situation where what people want can and will change from moment to moment?
It's easy to just say "OMG no consent! Rape!" But not very useful in the actual world where society has to make hard choices about how to make objective laws and responses to subjective experiences.
I completely agree with this.
You all know where I stand on consent, but this is so nuanced as to be impossible to tease out. And I think the risk to the people involved matters. BB can say that pregnancy doesn't count as a risk because mortality rates are low, but pregnancy does a lot more to a woman's body than just killing it. That's a risk that should be considered. So is STDs, or physical trauma.
Kissing someone after being told not to isn't likely to cause any of those. But there are other sex acts that can - and do. And I think that when we're talking about nuances, we need to include that specific nuance. Does that specific act cause a risk of bodily harm? If so, then it's not just "did they just not get explicit consent". Instead, it now becomes something a bit more serious and worth the discussion that's ensuing.
Indeed.
This goes back to the basic point here - there is nuance, and the details matter, and that is why we have courts, because there is nothing nearly so cut and dried as "If there is no consent, then it is assault".
Hell, that doesn't even address the basic idea of what "consent" itself means - active consent ("You can do that") versus implied consent (I did not say you cannot do that). That difference alone encompasses an immense amount of interactions that themselves clearly have radically different conclusions based on the details.
Example: Two different sexual acts, both of which fall under the general category of "A did something that B did not say was ok".
A bites Bs nipple kind of hard. Not breaking skin or anything like that, but a definite light bite. B did not say anything like "Oooh, bite my nipple!". There was no consent given, nor was there any consent explicitly denied.
I think everyone would agree this is not criminal. This is not assauly in the context of two people engaging in mutually consenting sex. Not everyone likes that, but lots of people do, and its not terribly unreasonable that one partner might do that in the act of exploring boundaries.
Second example (already menioned):
A shoves their dick on Bs ass without any preamble, discussion, or any particular reason to suspect that B might want or consent to that. I don't think reasonable people consider that to be within the bounds of normal expectations when engaged in sexual activity. IMO, that is something that B could consider assault. There is risk to B that has not been addressed, it fucking hurts A LOT very likely, and plenty of people irrespective of the risk and the pain simply don't like it at all, and A knew that.
Those two cases are both of a kind when it comes to the basic facts, but it requires the details to determine that one is just part of exploring, and the other is fucking rape.
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 08:26:53 AM
Going back to the original case.
Lets assume these are the actual facts of what actually happened.
A and B mutually decided to have sex.
A tells B that a condom is a pre-condition to the act of intercourse. They engage in other sexual activity (kissing, fondling, even oral sex between them) without the condom.
B and A are ready for intercourse, and B complains that he does not like condoms - do we really need to use one?
A says "Yes, non-negotiable, stop bitching and put the thing on and screw me already!"
B puts on condom, they have intercourse.
B is about to orgasm, and pulls out of A, removes condom, and ejaculates on A. Or maybe B even realizes he will not orgasm with it on, so pulls out, takes the condom off, and finishes on A.
Let's assume that A knows that the condom was removed after penetration, so there is no question of whether or not B was inside A without a condom. Take that question off the table.
At this point, the potential "crime" is that B ejacualted on A. Now, A never said "Don't cum on me, I think that's gross!". But A certainly could have thought that was implied in the overall "Use the condom for intercourse!" instruction. B could have thought "Well, I did as asked, and used the condom for intercourse, but we did lots of other stuff without it, so what's the problem?"
B might be guilty of not being very considerate, and A could genuinely have found this to be really, really fucking objectionable because they happen to really really not like having cum on them.
But I don't think any crime was committed. Nothing here rises to the level of "Lets send B to jail for 6 months!", and this is NOT an example of how hard it is to prosecute sexual assault.
Variations on this encounter happen all the time, in various ways, between two people having sex for the first or fifth time with each other.
What say everyone - was B ejaculating on A without *explicit* permission a crime?
As described here, no. There are a lot of assumptions on the facts of the case, though.
Quote from: merithyn on June 24, 2021, 10:09:21 AM
As described here, no. There are a lot of assumptions on the facts of the case, though.
Absolutely - that was the idea, to remove the "Well, what happened??" part of the debate and get down to the actual principles around this particular fact case.
I think everyone pretty much agrees that if he stuck is bare dick inside her after she said not to, that is definitely assault.
Quote from: garbon on June 24, 2021, 04:45:49 AM
It just sounds so bizarre to have two people to decide to have sex and then be at such confusion about what they other would or would not permit.
Typically there is no such confusion, as you and I both know from personal experience. But it's probably worth it being on the lookout for such confusion, especially with a new partner.
QuoteFrom my experience (given Jacob decided to condescened to me by making his example about grindr)...
It wasn't intended to be condescending, please accept my apology. I was trying to avoid being heteronormative. It doesn't have to be about you at all :hug:
Quote...there was alwas a base of stuff that was implied as acceptable and then if it was getting to say penile insertion there would be comments like 'do you want me to fuck you?' or 'will you suck it'? At the same time if one partner went to suck the other's dick and the other wasn't feeling it (for whatever reason), they would pull back up on the suckee or say something like 'Oh I'm not feeling like having my dick sucked.' People had (and I'd guess still have) the ability to speak and if something started to happen that they didn't want, they could say that / things like say fisting or watersports are not part of the basic package.
Yeah, that's how it's supposed to happen and that's what happens most of the time. And if you throw in the occasional "you good with this" if you're with someone, then I expect you're good. Conversely, if you go in with an attitude of "I'm going to get off the way I like and the other person is just an accessory that I mostly ignore except when convenient to me" you run a risk of crossing a line (still small, I expect, depending on what you're doing).
QuoteOnly consent around kissing, I can recall, is someone saying 'I don't like to kiss/want to kiss' and that would always point out to me that it was time to leave/cut that activity short.
That's how it's supposed to work.
The kissing thing I think revolves more around someone repeatedly using "innocent kisses" to impose themselves on someone who is unwilling and unable to say no (i.e. where there's a power differential) or someone who catastrophically misjudged a situation (the other person is actually not interested at all and you thought they were).
I think the bottom line is something like this:
Can something even as innocent as kissing be used to sexually assault someone. I think the answer to that question is yes.
Is it reasonable to assume that in any sexual context that kissing is okay, unless clearly indicated otherwise? I think in something like 99.99% of cases the answer is also yes.
Is 100% legally clear and irrefutable and exhaustive conversations about consent about every little detail in sexual activities completely impractical and unrealistic to expect in real life? The answer there is also clearly yes, IMO.
You can deal with it by saying kissing is always innocent, and that 0.001% of people who are actually sexually assaulted via kissing will just have to toughen up (buttercup). Personally I don't think that's right.
Alternately, you can say that kissing can be sexual assault depending on context and expect consenting adults to negotiate ensuring that the context they're in is safe and consensual in a mutually satisfactory way, and leave the courts available for when something crosses that line. I believe in the current state of affairs, and I don't believe there's a massive number of cases where people are being done for kissing as sexual assault. Because by and large people can figure this stuff out, as you say. But when they can't and one of the parties considers it especially egregious, I think it's acceptable that there's a legal recourse.
QuoteI also wonder what this does to a sense of exploration, as in, you don't come to your first sexual encounters knowing exactly what you like nor do you want to be particpating in a Q&A session.
For sure, but a reasonable level of "that feels good" or "not like that" and responsiveness to non-verbal cues is probably a good idea, as you yourself have indicated.
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2021, 09:06:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 08:14:36 AM
The way this has been described, I am, in the views of many here, both the victim and the perpetrator of several acts of "sexual assault". And I am confident that if you told me that (as a "victim") I would laugh at the idea, and if you told my partners (when they were the "victim") they would find the idea ridiculous.
I think the fear of dismissing victims of sexual assault is so pervasive that it fosters such seemingly idiotic absolutism that we're seeing here (although like with many things of this nature, I think what people say publicly and what they believe in practice is different). Any time you have a discussion where one side of the argument is a lot more constrained than the other one ultimately leads to this ratcheting dynamic. You can never go wrong with "more consent required is better" in a discussion, but arguing the other side opens you up to implications of being a rapist. When such a discussion goes on long enough, you will find that having a handjob without a signed and notarized 12 page contract will make you a very bad person.
I just think the delta between how this actually works in the actual world and how it is described by many here is just...bizarre.
In the actual world, if I meet a new person and we decide to have sexy times together, I certainly like to talk beforehand about what kinds of things we like and what kinds of things are absolutely no-no. And even while we engage in sexy times (which includes much more than just penetration), I occasionally will ask if the other person is okay, if something I do feels good, or if I can do this new thing that I just thought about. Communication about consent is ongoing and does not need to stop during sex, especially if you are unsure about something you want to do.
Of course, if I am having sexy times with a person I already know well and know what kinds of things they like, there doesn't need to be as much talking since I can trust them and assume implied consent about such things.
Quote from: Solmyr on June 24, 2021, 04:16:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2021, 09:06:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 08:14:36 AM
The way this has been described, I am, in the views of many here, both the victim and the perpetrator of several acts of "sexual assault". And I am confident that if you told me that (as a "victim") I would laugh at the idea, and if you told my partners (when they were the "victim") they would find the idea ridiculous.
I think the fear of dismissing victims of sexual assault is so pervasive that it fosters such seemingly idiotic absolutism that we're seeing here (although like with many things of this nature, I think what people say publicly and what they believe in practice is different). Any time you have a discussion where one side of the argument is a lot more constrained than the other one ultimately leads to this ratcheting dynamic. You can never go wrong with "more consent required is better" in a discussion, but arguing the other side opens you up to implications of being a rapist. When such a discussion goes on long enough, you will find that having a handjob without a signed and notarized 12 page contract will make you a very bad person.
I just think the delta between how this actually works in the actual world and how it is described by many here is just...bizarre.
In the actual world, if I meet a new person and we decide to have sexy times together, I certainly like to talk beforehand about what kinds of things we like and what kinds of things are absolutely no-no. And even while we engage in sexy times (which includes much more than just penetration), I occasionally will ask if the other person is okay, if something I do feels good, or if I can do this new thing that I just thought about. Communication about consent is ongoing and does not need to stop during sex, especially if you are unsure about something you want to do.
Of course, if I am having sexy times with a person I already know well and know what kinds of things they like, there doesn't need to be as much talking since I can trust them and assume implied consent about such things.
Really just the occasional pause, give them a moment to regroup, and "Hey, how are you? Do you want to keep going?" mostly covers it.
I do generally specifically pause for a moment before The First Penetration, and again, give them a moment to actually think about if this is what they want, right now. It's easy to get caught up in the moment, and even if there is consent NOW, who wants there to be regrets later?
I actually have a kind of funny story about this that happened just about a year ago....
Quote from: Solmyr on June 24, 2021, 04:16:37 PM
In the actual world, if I meet a new person and we decide to have sexy times together, I certainly like to talk beforehand about what kinds of things we like and what kinds of things are absolutely no-no. And even while we engage in sexy times (which includes much more than just penetration), I occasionally will ask if the other person is okay, if something I do feels good, or if I can do this new thing that I just thought about. Communication about consent is ongoing and does not need to stop during sex, especially if you are unsure about something you want to do.
Of course, if I am having sexy times with a person I already know well and know what kinds of things they like, there doesn't need to be as much talking since I can trust them and assume implied consent about such things.
To add to my recommendation on I May Destroy You - I think Normal People had possibly the best sex scenes in terms of depicting a relatively realistic relationship but also consent (though it is not sort of exploring consent in the way I May Destroy You does).
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 24, 2021, 04:16:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2021, 09:06:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 08:14:36 AM
The way this has been described, I am, in the views of many here, both the victim and the perpetrator of several acts of "sexual assault". And I am confident that if you told me that (as a "victim") I would laugh at the idea, and if you told my partners (when they were the "victim") they would find the idea ridiculous.
I think the fear of dismissing victims of sexual assault is so pervasive that it fosters such seemingly idiotic absolutism that we're seeing here (although like with many things of this nature, I think what people say publicly and what they believe in practice is different). Any time you have a discussion where one side of the argument is a lot more constrained than the other one ultimately leads to this ratcheting dynamic. You can never go wrong with "more consent required is better" in a discussion, but arguing the other side opens you up to implications of being a rapist. When such a discussion goes on long enough, you will find that having a handjob without a signed and notarized 12 page contract will make you a very bad person.
I just think the delta between how this actually works in the actual world and how it is described by many here is just...bizarre.
In the actual world, if I meet a new person and we decide to have sexy times together, I certainly like to talk beforehand about what kinds of things we like and what kinds of things are absolutely no-no. And even while we engage in sexy times (which includes much more than just penetration), I occasionally will ask if the other person is okay, if something I do feels good, or if I can do this new thing that I just thought about. Communication about consent is ongoing and does not need to stop during sex, especially if you are unsure about something you want to do.
Of course, if I am having sexy times with a person I already know well and know what kinds of things they like, there doesn't need to be as much talking since I can trust them and assume implied consent about such things.
Really just the occasional pause, give them a moment to regroup, and "Hey, how are you? Do you want to keep going?" mostly covers it.
I do generally specifically pause for a moment before The First Penetration, and again, give them a moment to actually think about if this is what they want, right now. It's easy to get caught up in the moment, and even if there is consent NOW, who wants there to be regrets later?
I actually have a kind of funny story about this that happened just about a year ago....
Dear Penthouse...
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 24, 2021, 04:16:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2021, 09:06:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 08:14:36 AM
The way this has been described, I am, in the views of many here, both the victim and the perpetrator of several acts of "sexual assault". And I am confident that if you told me that (as a "victim") I would laugh at the idea, and if you told my partners (when they were the "victim") they would find the idea ridiculous.
I think the fear of dismissing victims of sexual assault is so pervasive that it fosters such seemingly idiotic absolutism that we're seeing here (although like with many things of this nature, I think what people say publicly and what they believe in practice is different). Any time you have a discussion where one side of the argument is a lot more constrained than the other one ultimately leads to this ratcheting dynamic. You can never go wrong with "more consent required is better" in a discussion, but arguing the other side opens you up to implications of being a rapist. When such a discussion goes on long enough, you will find that having a handjob without a signed and notarized 12 page contract will make you a very bad person.
I just think the delta between how this actually works in the actual world and how it is described by many here is just...bizarre.
In the actual world, if I meet a new person and we decide to have sexy times together, I certainly like to talk beforehand about what kinds of things we like and what kinds of things are absolutely no-no. And even while we engage in sexy times (which includes much more than just penetration), I occasionally will ask if the other person is okay, if something I do feels good, or if I can do this new thing that I just thought about. Communication about consent is ongoing and does not need to stop during sex, especially if you are unsure about something you want to do.
Of course, if I am having sexy times with a person I already know well and know what kinds of things they like, there doesn't need to be as much talking since I can trust them and assume implied consent about such things.
Really just the occasional pause, give them a moment to regroup, and "Hey, how are you? Do you want to keep going?" mostly covers it.
I do generally specifically pause for a moment before The First Penetration, and again, give them a moment to actually think about if this is what they want, right now. It's easy to get caught up in the moment, and even if there is consent NOW, who wants there to be regrets later?
I actually have a kind of funny story about this that happened just about a year ago....
So we basically agree on things. :P
Quote from: Solmyr on June 25, 2021, 04:08:27 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 04:33:50 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 24, 2021, 04:16:37 PM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 09:16:18 AM
Quote from: DGuller on June 24, 2021, 09:06:46 AM
Quote from: Berkut on June 24, 2021, 08:14:36 AM
The way this has been described, I am, in the views of many here, both the victim and the perpetrator of several acts of "sexual assault". And I am confident that if you told me that (as a "victim") I would laugh at the idea, and if you told my partners (when they were the "victim") they would find the idea ridiculous.
I think the fear of dismissing victims of sexual assault is so pervasive that it fosters such seemingly idiotic absolutism that we're seeing here (although like with many things of this nature, I think what people say publicly and what they believe in practice is different). Any time you have a discussion where one side of the argument is a lot more constrained than the other one ultimately leads to this ratcheting dynamic. You can never go wrong with "more consent required is better" in a discussion, but arguing the other side opens you up to implications of being a rapist. When such a discussion goes on long enough, you will find that having a handjob without a signed and notarized 12 page contract will make you a very bad person.
I just think the delta between how this actually works in the actual world and how it is described by many here is just...bizarre.
In the actual world, if I meet a new person and we decide to have sexy times together, I certainly like to talk beforehand about what kinds of things we like and what kinds of things are absolutely no-no. And even while we engage in sexy times (which includes much more than just penetration), I occasionally will ask if the other person is okay, if something I do feels good, or if I can do this new thing that I just thought about. Communication about consent is ongoing and does not need to stop during sex, especially if you are unsure about something you want to do.
Of course, if I am having sexy times with a person I already know well and know what kinds of things they like, there doesn't need to be as much talking since I can trust them and assume implied consent about such things.
Really just the occasional pause, give them a moment to regroup, and "Hey, how are you? Do you want to keep going?" mostly covers it.
I do generally specifically pause for a moment before The First Penetration, and again, give them a moment to actually think about if this is what they want, right now. It's easy to get caught up in the moment, and even if there is consent NOW, who wants there to be regrets later?
I actually have a kind of funny story about this that happened just about a year ago....
So we basically agree on things. :P
I think we've been mostly agreeing all along.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 24, 2021, 04:35:32 PM
Quote from: Solmyr on June 24, 2021, 04:16:37 PM
In the actual world, if I meet a new person and we decide to have sexy times together, I certainly like to talk beforehand about what kinds of things we like and what kinds of things are absolutely no-no. And even while we engage in sexy times (which includes much more than just penetration), I occasionally will ask if the other person is okay, if something I do feels good, or if I can do this new thing that I just thought about. Communication about consent is ongoing and does not need to stop during sex, especially if you are unsure about something you want to do.
Of course, if I am having sexy times with a person I already know well and know what kinds of things they like, there doesn't need to be as much talking since I can trust them and assume implied consent about such things.
To add to my recommendation on I May Destroy You - I think Normal People had possibly the best sex scenes in terms of depicting a relatively realistic relationship but also consent (though it is not sort of exploring consent in the way I May Destroy You does).
Im probably going to hell for this, but I swear to fucking god this clip popped up in my YouTube feed this morning!
https://youtu.be/yDxleN2S6TY?t=202
I forgot my rule not to click on YouTube links and was gifted Bill Burr. :(