Moms of sons - do you guide your son to be respectful of girls?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, it's all very simple... among rational, level-headed people. Unfortunately, there are certain women who will claim after the fact that a sexual encounter wasn't consensual when it very much was, whether in a drunk stupor or heat of the moment or what-have-you. So it's very flippant and facile to say consensual sex is acceptable, until someone decides to throw out a false narrative, either out of regret, embarrassment, anger, etc. Of course we should be teaching our boys to be respectful of women and when no means no. But our girls absolutely need to know that false accusations are completely unacceptable and IMO, should be strictly sanctioned. Did anything ever happen to "Jackie," of UVA fame? Any apology from her?

If you were in a drunken stupor, you cannot consent to sex, in which case the sex was not consensual.

Also, if we stop at teaching boys when no means no, we are not teaching our boys (or our girls) about consent. The absence of no does not constitute consent. Only consent constitutes consent.

Again: someone can give their consent (enthusiastically, even!) and then recant the next day. How do you propose teaching girls just how wrong this is?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Considering there are over 10 pages of debate over what consent is. Yes, consent in various situations can be very grey and nebulous, even when talking about enthusiastic straightforward consent. .

http://hr.umich.edu/stopabuse/resources/definitions.html

Examples of sexual violence include: discounting the partner's feelings regarding sex; criticizing the partner sexually; touching the partner sexually in inappropriate and uncomfortable ways; demanding sex; forcing partner to strip as a form of humiliation (maybe in front of children), to witness sexual acts, to participate in uncomfortable sex or sex after an episode of violence, to have sex with other people; and using objects and/or weapons to hurt during sex or threats to back up demands for sex.

I see they took the definition for witholding sex off after scrutiny;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/susan-kruth/university-of-michigan-sexual-violence_b_5910788.html

To support your contention that consent can be very gray and nebulous, even when it's enthusiastic straightforward consent, you quote from one campus's examples of sexual violence. Which relates to the supposed nebulousness of enthusiastic straightforward consent how, exactly?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, it's all very simple... among rational, level-headed people. Unfortunately, there are certain women who will claim after the fact that a sexual encounter wasn't consensual when it very much was, whether in a drunk stupor or heat of the moment or what-have-you. So it's very flippant and facile to say consensual sex is acceptable, until someone decides to throw out a false narrative, either out of regret, embarrassment, anger, etc. Of course we should be teaching our boys to be respectful of women and when no means no. But our girls absolutely need to know that false accusations are completely unacceptable and IMO, should be strictly sanctioned. Did anything ever happen to "Jackie," of UVA fame? Any apology from her?

If you were in a drunken stupor, you cannot consent to sex, in which case the sex was not consensual.

Also, if we stop at teaching boys when no means no, we are not teaching our boys (or our girls) about consent. The absence of no does not constitute consent. Only consent constitutes consent.

Again: someone can give their consent (enthusiastically, even!) and then recant the next day. How do you propose teaching girls just how wrong this is?

Do you disagree with the idea that the absence of no does not constitute consent? The assumption is that the person is consenting, unless the person explicitly no?

I'm not going to worry about how to teach girls not to "recant consent" after the fact, because it's not possible to recant consent after the fact. In contrast, disagreement about whether somebody consented is possible. For example, Person A might say, "Person B thought I was consenting, but I didn't consent". And then Person B might respond, "I thought that Person A was consenting because [reasons]." The way to avoid such disagreements is to only have sexual contact with people who are clearly consenting and aren't going to regret having had sex with you the next day.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure, it's all very simple... among rational, level-headed people. Unfortunately, there are certain women who will claim after the fact that a sexual encounter wasn't consensual when it very much was, whether in a drunk stupor or heat of the moment or what-have-you. So it's very flippant and facile to say consensual sex is acceptable, until someone decides to throw out a false narrative, either out of regret, embarrassment, anger, etc. Of course we should be teaching our boys to be respectful of women and when no means no. But our girls absolutely need to know that false accusations are completely unacceptable and IMO, should be strictly sanctioned. Did anything ever happen to "Jackie," of UVA fame? Any apology from her?

If you were in a drunken stupor, you cannot consent to sex, in which case the sex was not consensual.

Also, if we stop at teaching boys when no means no, we are not teaching our boys (or our girls) about consent. The absence of no does not constitute consent. Only consent constitutes consent.

Again: someone can give their consent (enthusiastically, even!) and then recant the next day. How do you propose teaching girls just how wrong this is?

Do you disagree with the idea that the absence of no does not constitute consent? The assumption is that the person is consenting, unless the person explicitly no?

I'm not going to worry about how to teach girls not to "recant consent" after the fact, because it's not possible to recant consent after the fact. In contrast, disagreement about whether somebody consented is possible. For example, Person A might say, "Person B thought I was consenting, but I didn't consent". And then Person B might respond, "I thought that Person A was consenting because [reasons]." The way to avoid such disagreements is to only have sexual contact with people who are clearly consenting and aren't going to regret having had sex with you the next day.

Sure. After all these situations with person A and person B you are still unable to define truly what clear consent means. And you won't be able to, human interaction is complicated and nuanced. Accoding to you, many memorable sexual experiences I had because I did not say explicitly yes I want to have sex, I was raped. Sad truth is in this culture there are women who enthusiastically consent and then regret it after, how can anybody be a hundred percent sure?

There was an e patience in my college dorm where an athletes ex girlfriend showed up at his doorstep wearing lingerie to seduce him. Later after that they did not get back together and she accused him of rape that night. He got suspended and stripped from the team. Incidents like that happen, and diminish the validity of rape where a woman is overpowered in the face of strong resistance, be the rapist a stranger or someone she knows.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. After all these situations with person A and person B you are still unable to define truly what clear consent means. And you won't be able to, human interaction is complicated and nuanced. Accoding to you, many memorable sexual experiences I had because I did not say explicitly yes I want to have sex, I was raped. Sad truth is in this culture there are women who enthusiastically consent and then regret it after, how can anybody be a hundred percent sure?

There was an e patience in my college dorm where an athletes ex girlfriend showed up at his doorstep wearing lingerie to seduce him. Later after that they did not get back together and she accused him of rape that night. He got suspended and stripped from the team. Incidents like that happen, and diminish the validity of rape where a woman is overpowered in the face of strong resistance, be the rapist a stranger or someone she knows.

Nobody is saying that only verbal consent constitutes consent. There are many different ways to show consent. Everybody who has participated in sexual activities with enthusiastic consent knows this, as does everybody who has participated in sexual activities with an enthusiastically consenting partner.

However, I agree that, if Person A is not 100% certain that Person B is consenting, then Person A should not participate in sexual activities with Person B. Or, if that's too technical and complicated: only have sex with people who want to have sex with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Sure. After all these situations with person A and person B you are still unable to define truly what clear consent means. And you won't be able to, human interaction is complicated and nuanced. Accoding to you, many memorable sexual experiences I had because I did not say explicitly yes I want to have sex, I was raped. Sad truth is in this culture there are women who enthusiastically consent and then regret it after, how can anybody be a hundred percent sure?

There was an e patience in my college dorm where an athletes ex girlfriend showed up at his doorstep wearing lingerie to seduce him. Later after that they did not get back together and she accused him of rape that night. He got suspended and stripped from the team. Incidents like that happen, and diminish the validity of rape where a woman is overpowered in the face of strong resistance, be the rapist a stranger or someone she knows.

Nobody is saying that only verbal consent constitutes consent. There are many different ways to show consent. Everybody who has participated in sexual activities with enthusiastic consent knows this, as does everybody who has participated in sexual activities with an enthusiastically consenting partner.

However, I agree that, if Person A is not 100% certain that Person B is consenting, then Person A should not participate in sexual activities with Person B. Or, if that's too technical and complicated: only have sex with people who want to have sex with you.

And what I am trying to point out to you is that enthusiastic consent, when not verbal, can still be misinterpreted leading to misunderstandings , confusion and has accusations of rape. And like it or not, situations like that happen.

Case in point, one of my friends went to a bar and met a really cute guy,. It was her first time and to bolster her courage she drank a lot and proceeded to flirt heavily with him. She ended up going home with him and woke up to find out she had sx, even bough she had blaced out and remember nothing. She and him continued to date and she was very happy. To you that would be rape. To her it was her first love, the man in point was also drunk and sing she was all over him assumed she enthusiastically consented. If my friend had woken up feeling regretful the story would have been very different.

So with us means he laws the only ah to be specifically clear is to have verbal consent every part of the way. Otherwise nuances are difficult. Good luck being so clear cut. You can give your dh a good morning kiss and he can tell you later he did not want you to kiss him and that would be sexual assault. I mean in the Columbia case the alleged rapist was accused of assault in one instance by grabbing a persons arm,..

By casting every human sexual interaction as a possible sexual assault, e.g.sneaking up behind someone to give them a hug, the meaning of rape is diluted. It's an insult to real rape victims everywhere. All you have done is make it even worse for them to be believe.i have been reading the New York Times and do the first tine, with what is a usually very liberal readership, here is a general sentiment and pushback against this insane rape hysteria. When nytimes and Jezebel is starting to pushback, you know the hysteria has gone too far.

[Anonymous]

Yes, all human interactions can lead to misunderstanding. We don't therefore ban human interactions. Nor do we require signed contracts before human interactions. Somehow everybody is able to figure this out countless times every single day -- except when it comes to sexual human interactions, at which point it apparently all becomes so complicated and nebulous that all of these poor pitiful well-meaning people are just completely at sea. I wonder why.

Also, grabbing somebody's arm actually is assault. So is hugging somebody who does not want to be hugged. Is it prosecutable assault, if so, should prosecutors prosecute it? Well, there are bigger fish to fry. Nonetheless, they are both assault. Don't do those things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, all human interactions can lead to misunderstanding. We don't therefore ban human interactions. Nor do we require signed contracts before human interactions. Somehow everybody is able to figure this out countless times every single day -- except when it comes to sexual human interactions, at which point it apparently all becomes so complicated and nebulous that all of these poor pitiful well-meaning people are just completely at sea. I wonder why.

Also, grabbing somebody's arm actually is assault. So is hugging somebody who does not want to be hugged. Is it prosecutable assault, if so, should prosecutors prosecute it? Well, there are bigger fish to fry. Nonetheless, they are both assault. Don't do those things.

You just showed how ridiculous you are. Grabbing a persons arm and hugging someone depended on context and is not assault. In that case I am sure you have committed assault before. Exactly , there are bigger fish to fry. True incidents of rape, not these trumped up charges that everything is assault.

[Anonymous]

And actually, it had come to the point that people have suggested contracts before sex.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And actually, it had come to the point that people have suggested contracts before sex.

The only people who are suggesting contracts before sex are:

1. Christian Grey
2. People who are trying to purvey the point of view that today's crazy modern society's silly obsession with consent is just making things SO COMPLICATED and has taken ALL OF THE FUN out of sex.

[Anonymous]

I have said my piece. Go on enforcing your sexual authoritarian dystopia where all young men are evil and need to be retrained and all forms of contact is sexual assault. The victims are the real rape victims who are even less likely to be believed than before and the guys that have their futures ruined. Nothing I further say will change your mind. Might as well cut the bull crap and get back to Victorian mores where no sex is allowed unless heavily sanctioned.

[Anonymous]

Who is talking about sexual authoritarian dystopia? Or evil, or retraining? It's very simple:

-if you want to have sex with a person, be sure they are consenting
-if you aren't sure that they are consenting, don't have sex with them

Also, you don't get to decide -- nobody gets to decide -- who the "real" rape victims are, vs. the fake rape victims.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is talking about sexual authoritarian dystopia? Or evil, or retraining? It's very simple:

-if you want to have sex with a person, be sure they are consenting
-if you aren't sure that they are consenting, don't have sex with them

Also, you don't get to decide -- nobody gets to decide -- who the "real" rape victims are, vs. the fake rape victims.

ThaNk you. Maybe the people who are acting like consent is too hard for them should not have sex indeed.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Who is talking about sexual authoritarian dystopia? Or evil, or retraining? It's very simple:

-if you want to have sex with a person, be sure they are consenting
-if you aren't sure that they are consenting, don't have sex with them

Also, you don't get to decide -- nobody gets to decide -- who the "real" rape victims are, vs. the fake rape victims.

ThaNk you. Maybe the people who are acting like consent is too hard for them should not have sex indeed.

Considering that you have spent the past pages outlining what exactly is rape and what (hugging yes, blackout yes, grabbing wrist yes, changing mind half way during sex yes, at which point really) isn't sounds like you are arbitrating what rape is and should not be. Hypocrite.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Who is talking about sexual authoritarian dystopia? Or evil, or retraining? It's very simple:

-if you want to have sex with a person, be sure they are consenting
-if you aren't sure that they are consenting, don't have sex with them

Also, you don't get to decide -- nobody gets to decide -- who the "real" rape victims are, vs. the fake rape victims.

Actually that is not true. The cops/courts decide who is the "real" rape victim.