I have a very hard time believing that most feminists believe this...

[mjr]

Apparently, this 20-something thinks that "men don't know when they rape".

She also makes the comment that any form of coercion is "not consensual" and is therefore rape.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7gXJIrxct8

To me, that's offensive, for a few reasons.

1. I am a man.
2. I understand that "no means no", but what's the deal with "Yes doesn't always mean yes"?
3. It almost likens rape to "casual sex".
4. It's most offensive because those who have been raped have actually gone through a horrible experience, and it makes that experience seem less horrible and significant than it is.

I have a VERY, VERY hard time believing that most feminists believe this.

Or do they? Someone help me out, here.

[Gravekeeper]

Someone help me out, here.

Okay. You took a random Youtube video, and not even the original but a critique of the original by some questionable asshole, and are extrapolating that onto an entire ideology. ( And also a prime example of Lewis's Law ).

Does that help? -.-

[s_stabeler]

2. I understand that "no means no", but what's the deal with "Yes doesn't always mean yes"?

I can- sort of- see the argument here. Basically, consent should be freely given- if someone is pressured into agreeing to have sex, then they haven't actually given consent. It's basically the same reason why its not possible to give consent when you are drunk- you aren't consenting of your own free will.

[Kheldarson]

I can- sort of- see the argument here. Basically, consent should be freely given- if someone is pressured into agreeing to have sex, then they haven't actually given consent. It's basically the same reason why its not possible to give consent when you are drunk- you aren't consenting of your own free will.

That's it in a nutshell. It also covers "if it's not an emphatic, enthusiastic 'YES', then better assume it's a no", i.e. cases where the girl (or guy) feels pressured into the action, but never says no directly. Silence doesn't equal consent.

[catcul]

Warning: Some readers may find the following disgusting.

Nina Hartley gives the best advice on consent.

I don't agree with 20. How does a man accidentally rape someone? Begging for sex is not rape. If a man is on his knees begging for sex while being tied up, is he raping his partner?

Nina Hartley explains consent better than 20.

[Kheldarson]

Nina Hartley gives the best advice on consent.

I don't agree with 20. How does a man accidentally rape someone? Begging for sex is not rape. If a man is on his knees begging for sex while being tied up, is he raping his partner?

Nina Hartley explains consent better than 20.

A man (or woman) accidentally rapes someone when they don't understand what consent is. Specifically, when they don't understand that anything less than a "yes" is not consent. It's that lovely idea of "if they don't say no and physically respond, they must want it".

Here's a Cracked article about a guy who did just that: http://www.cracked.com/personal-expe...l-assault.html

[mjr]

A man (or woman) accidentally rapes someone when they don't understand what consent is. Specifically, when they don't understand that anything less than a "yes" is not consent. It's that lovely idea of "if they don't say no and physically respond, they must want it".

Here's a Cracked article about a guy who did just that: http://www.cracked.com/personal-expe...l-assault.html

Does marriage come with it an implicit "consent"?

Or can a spouse just constantly say "no" (or, in this case, it seems, just not say "yes")?

How much implied sexual consent is there in marriage?

[Kheldarson]

Does marriage come with it an implicit "consent"?

Or can a spouse just constantly say "no" (or, in this case, it seems, just not say "yes")?

How much implied sexual consent is there in marriage?

Marriage doesn't come with implied consent. Marital rape is a thing.

However, as detailed in the excellent video linked above, long term partners usually discuss/work out how they can tell non-verbal consent cues. If both parties understand what are signals and signs for consent, then you don't need to continually discuss it. You may want revisit now and then as things change.

But, yes, a marital partner can say no all the time. The other partner has to decide if they want accept that and stay with their partner, move on and divorce, or maybe have an open relationship, if their spouse consents.

There is nothing implied about consent. If you're ever unsure about whether or not you have consent, you ask.

[TheHuckster]

I feel like we've had this discussion like 20 times already. Not specifically with the same people, perhaps, but at least in this forum.

It's not rocket science. If you don't know the person well, then for sure you'll want to know if your partner's truly gung-ho about it. Hell, even if it isn't rape in the criminal sense, don't you want to have sex with someone in a situation where both people don't feel regret in the end? Any decent human being would want it to have a mutually positive aftermath where even if things don't work out between you in the end, you both at least have some appreciation for what you had at that time.

When you're married, you should be in a relationship where you kinda have a pretty good idea of how your partner works. I've never had to ask my wife for a friggen written invitation or contract to have sex. It's pretty fucking clear when we're both in the mood. And on the other side, it's pretty clear when one is not in the mood, either. You don't need a "yes" or "no." It's all in the body language. If you are in a marriage where you still can't figure out when your partner's in the mood for sex to the point where you're "mistakenly raping" that person, then you really fucked up the whole "getting to know your partner" phase of your relationship.

I mean, for fuck's sake. Get over this notion that every sexual encounter is some trap where because the girl doesn't say some magic words it's automatically rape. If you have to bend over backwards to have sex, then it's not meant to be. If you feel like your partner is not as much into it as you are, then just take a fucking moment to think about the repercussions about what you're about to do. And again, I'm not even thinking about this solely from a criminal standpoint, but from a simple ethical and moral standpoint.

Sex is one of the most intimate actions two people perform on each other. As such, it provokes intense emotions and feelings. That's why non-consensual sex can be so damaging to one's emotional health and well-being. And, yes, it's important in casual encounters to really know what the other person's feeling before you move forward. And like I said, if you're in a more established relationship, you should by then have known cues about when it's right and when it's not.

There's no need to over-complicate the issue. Yes, there might be some sensitive partners out there who you'll really need to be more sure of as to whether they're ready for it or not. If you've got any kind of decent intuition, you should know right away who those people are and what those signs are. Everyone's different as to what they need to be in the mood, whether that's environment, who they're with, or under what circumstances they're in. When you meet someone new, it's more important to be aware of that fact. If you're with someone you really know and you're a friggen decent human being who listens and has some compassion, you should have already known those criteria long ago.

[HYHYBT]

A lot of this sounds to me like it's saying you cannot give consent for sex unless you're genuinely eager to have sex right now. And that doesn't make sense to me. Do couples not trade off other things? Say, I get nothing out of watching basketball and you don't care for mountains, but we like being together and we like making each other happy, so I'll sit through March Madness and then, once it's over, we'll drive the Blue Ridge Parkway? Is there some rule where sex cannot ever be part of such a tradeoff, and if so, why? If not, how do you square that with the things said in this thread which give that appearance?

[Kheldarson]

A lot of this sounds to me like it's saying you cannot give consent for sex unless you're genuinely eager to have sex right now. And that doesn't make sense to me. Do couples not trade off other things? Say, I get nothing out of watching basketball and you don't care for mountains, but we like being together and we like making each other happy, so I'll sit through March Madness and then, once it's over, we'll drive the Blue Ridge Parkway? Is there some rule where sex cannot ever be part of such a tradeoff, and if so, why? If not, how do you square that with the things said in this thread which give that appearance?

Compromise is still giving consent, unless it is under coercion (So abusive situations, etc.). The big thing about consent, where the "enthusiastic and emphatic" comes in, is that you and your partner are in communication and in agreement on what's going on in the sexual exchange. Even if that's "we can have sex if you don’t bother me until noon tomorrow because I'm exhausted" or whatever. Enthusiasm can be about the relationship, even if it's not the specific act.

But when we talk about consent and rape culture, we're not usually talking about lonh term relationships and putting up with things we may not like for the relationship. We're really talking about parties, one night stands, hookups, just started dating interactions. Ones where communication hasn't been fully established in a meaningful way, so we need to make sure everyone is on board. It still translates to long term relationships (like you can't override a hard "no"), but healthy relationships tend to address consent as part of the development of the relationship.

[s_stabeler]

It's more that you shouldn't pressurise people into giving consent for sex. To give a version of your example that would illustrate the point, just because you sat through march Madness, it wouldn't create an obligation for her to sleep with you.

As has been mentioned earlier in the thread, though, in a healthy relationship, this is not really likely to be an issue.

That, and frankly, if sex only happens as part of a compromise, the relationship itself may well be in trouble.(It's more that sex is supposed to be enjoyable for both partners. As such, it isn't supposed to be that one partner has sex because they feel they should have to.

[SkullKing]

Here's a Cracked article about a guy who did just that: http://www.cracked.com/personal-expe...l-assault.html

I am just seconding the recommendation for this article. It was eye opening.

[Greenday]

How much implied sexual consent is there in marriage?

None. There is no situation where consent is ever implied. They either give it or they don't. There's no implied consent, no obligated consent.

[HYHYBT]

It's more that you shouldn't pressurise people into giving consent for sex. To give a version of your example that would illustrate the point, just because you sat through march Madness, it wouldn't create an obligation for her to sleep with you.

No, but habitually promising "I'll do this if you'll do that" and then not following through would be a problem, no matter what the this and that are.

I was really thinking more along the lines of equivalent tradeoffs within the realm of sex: I don't much like this variation, but it's your favorite and you don't like mine, or I'm not really in the mood now, but when I am in the mood you're not, that sort of thing.