Anonymous wrote:

All well and good. However it still does not answer the question what is consent?
In these cases you guys are crying rape even if both people are drunk and eagerly consenting if the girl wakes up later and decides she did not consent, it is rape to you even though the guy was just as drunk.
if a girl says yes to sex but after the sexat decides she really meant no under your definition it is rape too.
The goal posts keep shifting. In some campuses now a hug is sexual assault. So people should just stop hugging each other. Other policies include withholding affection as sexual assault.

Instead of hand wringing just make it clear and say no sex. Full stop.

Depending on how you drunk you are, you might be able to consent, or you might not be able to consent. If you are incapacitatingly drunk, you cannot consent. You can agree, but you cannot consent. What's more, this has nothing to do with what you might think after you wake up the next morning. If you were sober enough to consent last night, but this morning upon sober consideration you decide it was a bad idea, that is not rape. If you not sober enough last night to able to consent, that was rape. You = anybody, by the way; not just women.

Also, don't hug people who don't want to be hugged.

As for supposed campus policies that include withholding affection as sexual assault, please provide a specific reference to a specific campus's specific policy.

But yes, certainly, if you don't think that you can navigate the complexities of "only have sex with people if you are certain that they are consenting", then it is best just to avoid all sexual contact.

Anonymous wrote:I think the tangent and bizarre focus on the break-up example is strange, and if anything is diluting this topic, it's that. As others have stated, rape is a real problem. Boys not truly understanding consent is a real problem.

So can we all just stop with the more far-fetched scenario that is being thrown out here? There are coercion examples that would most definitely constitute as rape. I don't see anyone here saying that every situation where a guy is a jerk and begs for sex to be rape, but I do see a lot of dismissal of the overall facts about rape, and how a lot of guys just don't get it.

In other words, all this nitpicking bullshit is stupid, and I think most of us agree more than we disagree.

OMG THANK YOU! THIS THREAD.

Anonymous wrote:What I am disagreeing with, even in the title of this thread is the assumption that young men are demons that needed to be taught not to rape or to disrespect women. Everyone understands rape is awful. There are some evil people that even though rape is awful will decide to do it. However the majority of young men are people trying to figure it out. However in some victim crusade people are determined to demonize them, leading to a fake campus rape hysteria that has been debunked.

There were some links posted a few pages back that show that the reality is the opposite. Not everyone understands rape is awful, and many rapists don't think they rape.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

yes it seems very straightforward does it not. However, in this climate consent is nebulous. You could consent, withdraw it later and cry rape.

If you're doing Sexual Act A with a consenting partner, and in the midst of Sexual Act A your partner stops consenting, it actually is rape. Also rape: if your partner consented to Sexual A, but you do Sexual Act B, which your partner did not consent to. Why? Because sex without consent is rape.

Here are two simple rules for navigating this supposedly nebulous climate:

1. Only do sexual things with consenting partners.
2. Unless you are certain that a person is consenting, do not do sexual things with that person.

And there you go.

All well and good. However it still does not answer the question what is consent?
In these cases you guys are crying rape even if both people are drunk and eagerly consenting if the girl wakes up later and decides she did not consent, it is rape to you even though the guy was just as drunk.
if a girl says yes to sex but after the sexat decides she really meant no under your definition it is rape too.
The goal posts keep shifting. In some campuses now a hug is sexual assault. So people should just stop hugging each other. Other policies include withholding affection as sexual assault.


Instead of hand wringing just make it clear and say no sex. Full stop.

Where is a hug considered sexual assault. And stop saying "cry rape" - it is offensive to the tons and tons of women who have been raped and been afraid to go to authorities. Seriously, please use other wording.

Anyway, I would loove to hear where hugs are sexual assault.

What I am disagreeing with, even in the title of this thread is the assumption that young men are demons that needed to be taught not to rape or to disrespect women. Everyone understands rape is awful. There are some evil people that even though rape is awful will decide to do it. However the majority of young men are people trying to figure it out. However in some victim crusade people are determined to demonize them, leading to a fake campus rape hysteria that has been debunked.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

yes it seems very straightforward does it not. However, in this climate consent is nebulous. You could consent, withdraw it later and cry rape.

If you're doing Sexual Act A with a consenting partner, and in the midst of Sexual Act A your partner stops consenting, it actually is rape. Also rape: if your partner consented to Sexual A, but you do Sexual Act B, which your partner did not consent to. Why? Because sex without consent is rape.

Here are two simple rules for navigating this supposedly nebulous climate:

1. Only do sexual things with consenting partners.
2. Unless you are certain that a person is consenting, do not do sexual things with that person.

And there you go.

All well and good. However it still does not answer the question what is consent?
In these cases you guys are crying rape even if both people are drunk and eagerly consenting if the girl wakes up later and decides she did not consent, it is rape to you even though the guy was just as drunk.
if a girl says yes to sex but after the sexat decides she really meant no under your definition it is rape too.
The goal posts keep shifting. In some campuses now a hug is sexual assault. So people should just stop hugging each other. Other policies include withholding affection as sexual assault.


Instead of hand wringing just make it clear and say no sex. Full stop.

I think the tangent and bizarre focus on the break-up example is strange, and if anything is diluting this topic, it's that. As others have stated, rape is a real problem. Boys not truly understanding consent is a real problem.

So can we all just stop with the more far-fetched scenario that is being thrown out here? There are coercion examples that would most definitely constitute as rape. I don't see anyone here saying that every situation where a guy is a jerk and begs for sex to be rape, but I do see a lot of dismissal of the overall facts about rape, and how a lot of guys just don't get it.

In other words, all this nitpicking bullshit is stupid, and I think most of us agree more than we disagree.

Anonymous wrote:by turning all forms of sex into rape, you guys have diluted the impact and the severity of rape.

This.

I'm the victim of rape, have posted a few times. Rape is not about coercing someone to have sex with you. If you have ever been raped it is clear its all about the other person saying NO.

"Have sex with me or we're breaking up" is NOT rape. Is the guy an asshole? Sure. But rape? My god, no.
"Have sex with me or I will kill you/leave you here in the woods to die"? Yeah, that's rape.

My rapist didn't hold me down physically. But he did keep daring me to get up. There was a threat of harm of some kind or death.
It was clear he wanted me to say no, to overrule my decision. That's what rape is all about-it's about control and power. It's not about schmoozing someone to have sex with you.

Threat of a breakup? As a victim, I feel like that vastly diminishes the crime of rape to a minimal emotional level. Rape is a violent crime.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

yes it seems very straightforward does it not. However, in this climate consent is nebulous. You could consent, withdraw it later and cry rape.

If you're doing Sexual Act A with a consenting partner, and in the midst of Sexual Act A your partner stops consenting, it actually is rape. Also rape: if your partner consented to Sexual A, but you do Sexual Act B, which your partner did not consent to. Why? Because sex without consent is rape.

Here are two simple rules for navigating this supposedly nebulous climate:

1. Only do sexual things with consenting partners.
2. Unless you are certain that a person is consenting, do not do sexual things with that person.

And there you go.

Ooooh, I was waiting for someone to say "cry rape." Right up there with other gross phrases like "race card." All credibility is lost once that's said, so I ignored those posts.

Anonymous wrote:

yes it seems very straightforward does it not. However, in this climate consent is nebulous. You could consent, withdraw it later and cry rape.

If you're doing Sexual Act A with a consenting partner, and in the midst of Sexual Act A your partner stops consenting, it actually is rape. Also rape: if your partner consented to Sexual A, but you do Sexual Act B, which your partner did not consent to. Why? Because sex without consent is rape.

Here are two simple rules for navigating this supposedly nebulous climate:

1. Only do sexual things with consenting partners.
2. Unless you are certain that a person is consenting, do not do sexual things with that person.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:
Canadian feminist author Anne Thériault laments “the still-pervasive and very flawed idea that if she doesn’t say no, it’s not rape”

Surely you're not saying that this idea is flawed? Because the alternative is the idea that I'm saying yes unless I explicitly said no.

I'm specifically speaking about the situation where a woman agrees to sex but is inwardly uncomfortable but does not express it to her partner.According to her, yes, that would fall under rape.

I also find this affirmative consent yes means yes business stupid. There was once in a drunken fit I invited a cute boy from upstairs to my dorm. No words were said. Under this yes means yes what we did, I probably raped him. Oh no he raped me. ridiculous.

"Affirmative consent" doesn't actually mean that you have to continuously verbalize "yes".

And setting aside Anne Theriault, whom I've never heard of, and even if I had, so what? given that there is no World Committee of Feminism that authorized her to speak on behalf of all feminists -- would you want to have sex with a partner whose enthusiasm consisted of not explicitly objecting to it? I wouldn't. And if I had a son, I would advise him to not do that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If I was a guy, I would be VERY careful where I put my penis.

Problem solved.

But then some guys might get less penis action! And we can't have that! So instead we have to keep on talking about how it's all so very complicated, and how is a nice guy supposed to know, and those silly, silly women in an alternate universe where accusing a guy of rape gets you out of trouble, instead of in.

If you think guys are protesting because they see sex drying up, that's ridiculous. These are young people trying to navigate the sexual mores of our world and its not working out. And yes, crying rape now gets you an invitation by senators to state of the union, awards from NOW and your art piece being hailed by art critics as brave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

+1 Seems like maybe the people of past generations had a point in fostering rigid and strict sexual mores among st young folk. So far this free love experiment has just led to more confusion and accusations. If that is so, we can return to the sexual mores of before, no sex before marriage. Full stop. At least society can be upfront about that instead of espousing free love and sex positivity then leading to all this hand wringing over what is acceptable sex and what is not.

I don't know why the hand-wringing. It's very simple.

Acceptable = all involved parties consented
Not acceptable = everything else

Also, the official sexual mores of before may have been no sex before marriage, but what people actually did was very different.

yes it seems very straightforward does it not. However, in this climate consent is nebulous. You could consent, withdraw it later and cry rape.

Anonymous wrote:If I was a guy, I would be VERY careful where I put my penis.

Problem solved.

But then some guys might get less penis action! And we can't have that! So instead we have to keep on talking about how it's all so very complicated, and how is a nice guy supposed to know, and those silly, silly women in an alternate universe where accusing a guy of rape gets you out of trouble, instead of in.