Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(KFVS 12)   "Go further without consent"   ( kfvs12.com) divider line
    More: Fail, trendy ad campaign, Birth control, safe sex initiative, Planned Parenthood League, New York Post, Consent Condoms, problematic prophylactic, condom company  
•       •       •

9222 clicks; posted to Main » on 14 Sep 2017 at 8:20 AM (12 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



150 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2017-09-14 12:56:24 PM  

IDisposable: orbister: IDisposable: it's also "not saying anything means no".

That's a very dubious notion. Are you really claiming that consent is withdrawn if either party stops talking during sex?

Obviously not.

If she explicitly says yes and then never revokes that consent, then presumably she is still consenting.

If she never explicitly says yes to begin with, then that's obviously different.


What if she never says a word, undresses herself, and is an active participant?  She couldn't say yes, she had her mouth busy.
 
2017-09-14 01:00:00 PM  

Fano: Oh no she's also "othering " them, depending on the way you feel about her eating crackers.


I'll wait for Orbister's response. There's a real discussion to be had here and I am very curious and serious to see where this goes and how this person's mind works.
 
2017-09-14 01:03:33 PM  

peterquince: DontMakeMeComeBackThere: peterquince: Smoking GNU: Benevolent Misanthrope: And they sold the fark out of them, too.

We had a thread about this recently - how rapists don't know they're rapists and the whole idea of consent being difficult for many men to get their brains around.  This makes me think guys feel like consent for sex is a joke - something you do because she might falsely accuse you of rape later, but everybody knows it's just another PC-stupid thing.

As a male, i find ''No means no'' to be pretty self-explanatory.

The challenge is convincing some guys (not directed at you, because you're clearly a supporter) that "no means no" isn't enough - but that "yes means yes".

Been married a long time now...so I've been out of the dating scene for a long time, which means this really isn't my subject or concern...but are times such that you REALLY have to stop what you  are doing, and ask your female partner (who is going along gleefully with everything so far, who has said not a word of protest) "Are you REALLY sure you want to have sex now?"  "Really, really sure?" "I'm not pressuring you into anything?"   That seems really bizarre to me.  Again, not my scene anymore, but has it really gotten that bad with predatory men, and women who can't (I know that is a loaded word) stand up for themselves and just say "No."?

There's nothing unsexy about "are you good with this?" as activities unfold. It's not even so much about predatory guys as about making sure everyone's on the same page.

And.....in the case of drunken college folk, can also be about coherence as a requirement for concent (that "too farked up to say no" isn't the same as a "yes.")

The first time I was "with" my fiance, he (we're a gay couple) asked "is this okay" at least three or four times as things progressed. Didn't kill the mood at all.

I don't think anyone's pushing for anything even that drastic. I think it's more about moving the needle a little bit.


Huh, people advising other people that they way they have sex is the way everyone should have sex. Well that's new.
 
2017-09-14 01:05:37 PM  

dbrunker: Sometimes the message doesn't get across...

[img.fark.net image 640x360]
[img.fark.net image 640x360]


richmondbizsense.comView Full Size

i.pinimg.comView Full Size


Virginia has since revoked those plates because our DMV is a huge f*cking bummer
 
2017-09-14 01:08:32 PM  

Fano: Huh, people advising other people that they way they have sex is the way everyone should have sex. Well that's new.


If "Hey maybe it's a good idea to confirm consent throughout the process of sex until you're comfortable with one another in order to avoid potentially borderline rape-y situations" is a controversial opinion to you, might I suggest shutting the f*ck up?
 
2017-09-14 01:11:28 PM  

Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: I think the biggest issue, and why there is such a big question mark on the "sensibility" of the entire conversation is that there are 2 sides to this subject.


And, really, two different subjects: consent, the concept, and consent as it applies to legal lines in the sand.

I find myself _morally_ agreeing with the idea that one should carry a higher standard of consent besides "well, there wasn't a 'no'."  That much strikes me as simply human, and polite... something I think one should be with another person even on a one night stand.

However, due to the very high potential for abuse (in the legal sense) that such a vague, unspecific non-standard carries, I would be extremely uncomfortable with anything other than "no equals no" being the legal divider between rape and all other forms of awkward, uncertain, probably-inexperienced sex.  There are cases where "not saying anything" has meant "yes," there are cases where it has meant "no," and most of the time, "not saying anything" is just too vague.  I don't think the law should see such a situation as "rape... you know, just in case."

And yes, I see a frightening number of people pushing for exactly that.  I think that's where a lot of the pushback against "extended consent" comes from.
 
2017-09-14 01:13:02 PM  

Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: "Unless she is physically putting your dick in one of her holes, then it means no".


She can't get to it with the handcuffs on though!

/Note: handcuffs were requested by the restrained party
 
2017-09-14 01:14:37 PM  

Ker_Thwap: [iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/oQbei5JGiT8 - 480x270]


Have you ever just asked a woman directly what kind of tea she likes and then offered her a cup of that kind of tea?  Just come right out and ask her directly:    "I enjoy serving this kind of tea--do you like this kind?  Would you like some tea later this evening?  Or perhaps right now?"

It works just great. 17 years (this Christmas) later it's *still* awesome.

Treating the people you want to fark like rational human beings--what a concept!
 
2017-09-14 01:20:36 PM  

IHadMeAVision: ::shakes tiny fist::


Did you get consent first?
 
2017-09-14 01:22:00 PM  

Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: Ok, let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying when she uses the words "My experiences differ from that of other ethnic groups" that she is making a knowledge claim on what other ethnic groups experiences are?


Well of course she is, because otherwise she can't know that her experience is "vastly different", not just different, from theirs. And she write that "As a white woman". What is it about being a white woman that lets her judge the experiences of others?
 
2017-09-14 01:22:45 PM  

WorLord: Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: I think the biggest issue, and why there is such a big question mark on the "sensibility" of the entire conversation is that there are 2 sides to this subject.

And, really, two different subjects: consent, the concept, and consent as it applies to legal lines in the sand.

I find myself _morally_ agreeing with the idea that one should carry a higher standard of consent besides "well, there wasn't a 'no'."  That much strikes me as simply human, and polite... something I think one should be with another person even on a one night stand.

However, due to the very high potential for abuse (in the legal sense) that such a vague, unspecific non-standard carries, I would be extremely uncomfortable with anything other than "no equals no" being the legal divider between rape and all other forms of awkward, uncertain, probably-inexperienced sex.  There are cases where "not saying anything" has meant "yes," there are cases where it has meant "no," and most of the time, "not saying anything" is just too vague.  I don't think the law should see such a situation as "rape... you know, just in case."

And yes, I see a frightening number of people pushing for exactly that.  I think that's where a lot of the pushback against "extended consent" comes from.


So with that, are you in agreement that the dividing factor in the conversation are where people draw the lines of acceptable consent are different for each person?

That's how I read your statement, that we are in agreement.
 
2017-09-14 01:23:19 PM  

IHadMeAVision: It's not like all people of the same ethnic group have similar experiences to begin with.


Well yes, that's what I would have thought. I would not have used my skin colour and gender to bundle the experiences of other groups together. There are words for doing that.
 
2017-09-14 01:24:25 PM  

karlandtanya: Ker_Thwap: [iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/oQbei5JGiT8 - 480x270]

Have you ever just asked a woman directly what kind of tea she likes and then offered her a cup of that kind of tea?  Just come right out and ask her directly:    "I enjoy serving this kind of tea--do you like this kind?  Would you like some tea later this evening?  Or perhaps right now?"

It works just great. 17 years (this Christmas) later it's *still* awesome.


I got one of these for Christmas two years ago, and it's awesome. I have have any kind of tea I want at any time!

img.fark.netView Full Size

You really can't go wrong with Zojirushi.
 
2017-09-14 01:25:38 PM  

orbister: Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: Ok, let me see if I understand you correctly. You are saying when she uses the words "My experiences differ from that of other ethnic groups" that she is making a knowledge claim on what other ethnic groups experiences are?

Well of course she is, because otherwise she can't know that her experience is "vastly different", not just different, from theirs. And she write that "As a white woman". What is it about being a white woman that lets her judge the experiences of others?


Ok, so, you are also putting emphasis on vastly as the deciding factor in the knowledge claim and that you are inferring that she is judging the experiences of others as well.

Interesting.

Ok, mind if I ask you a few questions to pick your brain?
 
2017-09-14 01:28:27 PM  

karlandtanya: Have you ever just asked a woman directly what kind of tea she likes and then offered her a cup of that kind of tea? Just come right out and ask her directly: "I enjoy serving this kind of tea--do you like this kind? Would you like some tea later this evening? Or perhaps right now?"


That bloody tea video is terrible. "Yesterday I visited my friend. Last time I saw her she made me a cup of tea, which I drank. The time before that, she made me a cup of tea, which I drank. In fact, we've been meeting up twice a week for five years and every time she has made me a cup of tea and I've drunk it. But yesterday ... she made the tea without asking. The biatch raped me."

And, of course, it makes the usual prudish assumption that no women could ever want sex without being coaxed into it.
 
2017-09-14 01:36:41 PM  

Ker_Thwap: There's a condom ad for women now.  It's kind of stupid, and slays a giant straw man. "Don't let anyone tell you that women can't buy condoms!"  I thought it was kind of insulting.  Gendered condoms?  Really?


Go google "female condoms". Or don't.
 
2017-09-14 01:43:50 PM  

Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: Ok, so, you are also putting emphasis on vastly as the deciding factor in the knowledge claim and that you are inferring that she is judging the experiences of others as well.

Interesting.

Ok, mind if I ask you a few questions to pick your brain?


Three things concern me about "As a white woman, my experience is vastly different from other ethnic groups. "

First of all, "as a white woman". That can, I grant you, be read in two ways. Either she is claiming that as a white woman she has special insight into these matters or she means "my experience as a white woman". But in the latter case she is effectively claiming to speak for all white women. Can she do that? How has she acquired the relevant knowledge? How does she know what parts of her experience are down to being white, what pats are down to being a woman and what are down to completely different factors - her education, job, sexuality, social background and so on.

Second, "is vastly different". Again, how does she know? By quantifying the extent to which her singular experience is different from those of everybody in other ethnic groupings, she is claiming knowledge of experiences across these groupings and

Third, "from other ethnic groups" indicates that those experiences can be grouped together by ethnicity, regardless of other social factors.

Maybe it as just a badly thought out version of "I recognise that my experience will have been shaped by being a white women in a society which is both racist and sexist, and that other people from other groups, and indeed my own, will have a wide range of experiences" but she chose the words she did and it's not wholly unreasonable to examine them a little further. Not least because of that mention of "my black and Latino friends" which sounds suspiciously like "some of my best friends are Jewish".
 
2017-09-14 01:53:23 PM  

orbister: Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: Ok, so, you are also putting emphasis on vastly as the deciding factor in the knowledge claim and that you are inferring that she is judging the experiences of others as well.

Interesting.

Ok, mind if I ask you a few questions to pick your brain?

Three things concern me about "As a white woman, my experience is vastly different from other ethnic groups. "

First of all, "as a white woman". That can, I grant you, be read in two ways. Either she is claiming that as a white woman she has special insight into these matters or she means "my experience as a white woman". But in the latter case she is effectively claiming to speak for all white women. Can she do that? How has she acquired the relevant knowledge? How does she know what parts of her experience are down to being white, what pats are down to being a woman and what are down to completely different factors - her education, job, sexuality, social background and so on.

Second, "is vastly different". Again, how does she know? By quantifying the extent to which her singular experience is different from those of everybody in other ethnic groupings, she is claiming knowledge of experiences across these groupings and

Third, "from other ethnic groups" indicates that those experiences can be grouped together by ethnicity, regardless of other social factors.

Maybe it as just a badly thought out version of "I recognise that my experience will have been shaped by being a white women in a society which is both racist and sexist, and that other people from other groups, and indeed my own, will have a wide range of experiences" but she chose the words she did and it's not wholly unreasonable to examine them a little further. Not least because of that mention of "my black and Latino friends" which sounds suspiciously like "some of my best friends are Jewish".


Oh I'm not planning on asking you to clarify further. We've established that I understand your statements and line of thinking. So that's not what these questions are going to be.

As a point of disclaimer, I am challenging your thoughts on this as I don't agree with you. So the line of questioning will be provacative, but I hope you trust that I will not presume to know your answers, or to insult you. If we get through these and you have a rational explanation for any discrepancies or contradictions in thought, then we can discuss those further.

This is me, actively listening to your thoughts as I will be asking further questions that are tailored around your answers.
 
2017-09-14 01:55:21 PM  

Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: This is me, actively listening to your thoughts as I will be asking further questions that are tailored around your answers.


If you decline, that's fine. Just know there's probably nothing further we can discuss moving forward and we will simply have to dismiss each other's views.
 
2017-09-14 02:00:55 PM  

karlandtanya: Ker_Thwap: [iFrame https://www.youtube.com/embed/oQbei5JGiT8 - 480x270]

Have you ever just asked a woman directly what kind of tea she likes and then offered her a cup of that kind of tea?  Just come right out and ask her directly:    "I enjoy serving this kind of tea--do you like this kind?  Would you like some tea later this evening?  Or perhaps right now?"


Gloria, I too know what it feels like to be thirsty.
 
2017-09-14 02:08:08 PM  
This inspired me to violate a cruller.

At least the condom kept the crumbs out of my meatus.  So I'm going to call the whole experience, not thrilling but acceptable.  It was a little dry.

Note to self:  Maybe incorporate coffee dunking into my donut and pastry foreplay.  Experiment with urethra sprinkles.
 
2017-09-14 02:16:51 PM  
Gives deeper meaning to the phrase "go take a flying fark at a rolling donut."
 
2017-09-14 02:20:36 PM  

Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: So with that, are you in agreement that the dividing factor in the conversation are where people draw the lines of acceptable consent are different for each person?

That's how I read your statement, that we are in agreement.


I... OK, that sentence is kind of confusing.  I think I've parsed it right, but can't be sure.  

I think as far as my opinion goes -- as in, how I act in the world -- we're more in agreement than we are not, but I don't think our opinions matter all that much. 

I think what matters is the legal definition of things, and as far as that is concerned, it -- pretty much by definition -- _can't_ be something that differs on a per-person basis.  *A* singular line has to be drawn, and applied to all, and "no means no" is the best, clearest, most-fair-to-everyone standard that shouldn't be expanded or mucked with.  

Does that answer make sense?  Did I answer the right question?
 
2017-09-14 02:23:04 PM  

WorLord: Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: So with that, are you in agreement that the dividing factor in the conversation are where people draw the lines of acceptable consent are different for each person?

That's how I read your statement, that we are in agreement.

I... OK, that sentence is kind of confusing.  I think I've parsed it right, but can't be sure.  

I think as far as my opinion goes -- as in, how I act in the world -- we're more in agreement than we are not, but I don't think our opinions matter all that much. 

I think what matters is the legal definition of things, and as far as that is concerned, it -- pretty much by definition -- _can't_ be something that differs on a per-person basis.  *A* singular line has to be drawn, and applied to all, and "no means no" is the best, clearest, most-fair-to-everyone standard that shouldn't be expanded or mucked with.  

Does that answer make sense?  Did I answer the right question?


That's fine. And I would agree with your assessment. No means No has worked in certain circles without fail, so I'm good with it.
 
2017-09-14 02:53:39 PM  

bainsguy: look, can I fark the donut or not? I've got my pants off and this cruller is cooling pretty rapidly


Doesn't seem like it's saying yes
 
2017-09-14 02:58:26 PM  

Naido: bainsguy: look, can I fark the donut or not? I've got my pants off and this cruller is cooling pretty rapidly

Doesn't seem like it's saying yes


yeah I ended up not f*cking it. The donut never consented, so I put my pants back on and called an Uber for it. Frustrating, sure, but I just jerked off and went to sleep instead.
 
2017-09-14 03:03:08 PM  
i know it's a bit sophmoric, (and i don't know why i find it mildly amusing) but the Oz idiomatic expression "donut puncher" springs to mind here.

perhaps a running gag from the factory?
 
2017-09-14 03:07:03 PM  

IDisposable: Smoking GNU: As a male, i find ''No means no'' to be pretty self-explanatory.

It's not just "no means no", it's also "not saying anything means no".


As stated literally, this is way overboard.  While explicitly asking for verbal consent is something that should always be on the table when there's a large degree of uncertainty about what one of you wants, reading body language or expecting some active participation from your partner (i.e. cues that something isn't wanted) is not automatically "sex without consent", and the idea that every advance must be preceded by a verbal request lest the advance be considered assault is absolutely ludicrous.

It's silly to try to codify a human interaction as messy as sex that strictly, and the kind of people blind enough to non-verbal cues to need such strict rules are the same kind of people who will find a way to commit assaults around them regardless.
 
2017-09-14 03:29:51 PM  

Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: If you decline, that's fine. Just know there's probably nothing further we can discuss moving forward and we will simply have to dismiss each other's views.


That's OK. I'm in the UK, it's mid evening and I have a lot to do before tomorrow, so if I don't reply much it's nothing personal.

Generally I prefer a Marxist approach to issues of race and ethnicity. The real conflict is and always has been rich versus poor, and where it is white versus non-white, as it undoubtedly is in many places, that's because "white" stands proxy for rich and "non-white" stands proxy for poor. Except, of course, that it's nt that simple, because there are poor white people and there are rich non-white people. As soon as people let themselves believe that the experience of others must be different because of ethnicity, they are basically allowing capital to divide labour and thereby rule over it. Solidarity, that's what we need, not division.
 
2017-09-14 03:38:23 PM  

Z-clipped: As stated literally, this is way overboard. While explicitly asking for verbal consent is something that should always be on the table when there's a large degree of uncertainty about what one of you wants, reading body language or expecting some active participation from your partner (i.e. cues that something isn't wanted) is not automatically "sex without consent", and the idea that every advance must be preceded by a verbal request lest the advance be considered assault is absolutely ludicrous.

It's silly to try to codify a human interaction as messy as sex that strictly, and the kind of people blind enough to non-verbal cues to need such strict rules are the same kind of people who will find a way to commit assaults around them regardless.


Absolutely. "No means no" is a useful starting point, but we either teach young people that in real rife it's much more complicated than that or we let them find out for themselves. One problem is that as soon as you suggest that both partners (hell, all partners) in a sexual encounter have some responsibility for making it enjoyable, screams of "victim blaming" drown out all sensible discussion.
 
2017-09-14 03:53:35 PM  
What's a "condom"?
 
2017-09-14 03:56:32 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: And they sold the fark out of them, too.

We had a thread about this recently - how rapists don't know they're rapists and the whole idea of consent being difficult for many men to get their brains around.  This makes me think guys feel like consent for sex is a joke - something you do because she might falsely accuse you of rape later, but everybody knows it's just another PC-stupid thing.


The mirror is true. Women tend to be passive and view consent as something that should be asked of them instead of proactively saying their wishes. If you don't want to use your voice you're abrogating your responsibility just as much as the guys. Deal with it.
 
2017-09-14 03:56:58 PM  

backhand.slap.of.reason: What's a "condom"?


It's like a condor, except smaller and more rubbery.
 
2017-09-14 04:20:41 PM  
Go Further?

s26.postimg.orgView Full Size
 
2017-09-14 04:31:24 PM  
I'm married...

Consent is completely different after 20 years. Is the child asleep enough to stay in her own farking room, does anyone have to work in the morning, everyone seen the back-cracker and in good physical working order?  We haven't even gotten to is anyone in the mood yet...

I remember when I used to bite her neck until she melted in my arms, pull her panties down and lift her skirt and hammer her up against he wall of her apartment before she had to go sit through class as a well farked 20 year old hot mess.

/Get off my lawn.
 
2017-09-14 04:48:25 PM  

orbister: Extra Virgin Geek Olive Oil: If you decline, that's fine. Just know there's probably nothing further we can discuss moving forward and we will simply have to dismiss each other's views.

That's OK. I'm in the UK, it's mid evening and I have a lot to do before tomorrow, so if I don't reply much it's nothing personal.

Generally I prefer a Marxist approach to issues of race and ethnicity. The real conflict is and always has been rich versus poor, and where it is white versus non-white, as it undoubtedly is in many places, that's because "white" stands proxy for rich and "non-white" stands proxy for poor. Except, of course, that it's nt that simple, because there are poor white people and there are rich non-white people. As soon as people let themselves believe that the experience of others must be different because of ethnicity, they are basically allowing capital to divide labour and thereby rule over it. Solidarity, that's what we need, not division.


What I disagree with you on isn't the inference of what "must be" by these statements. My disagreement with you is specifically on the possibility for someone to reasonably claim to know that, on average, being a part of one type of group of people, experiences life or thing in life differently than another group of people. Race, gender, income, sexual identity, sexual preference, it makes no difference how you fill out that variable in On Average Group A experiences things in life differently than Group B.

The claim of saying As a member of Group A, my experiences are vastly different than Group B. Let's break a couple of things down.

First, when using the term know, in most cases save for some very specific instances, when someone says they know something, it means they have reasonably sufficient knowledge to be able to answer questions that demonstrate that knowledge. If I said I know the Spanish language, and yet the only words I could demonstrate were some very basic greetings and a few nouns or a slang term. Most would agree that I did not in fact demonstrate a reasonable knowledge of the Spanish language. If on the other hand I was able to hold an hour long conversation in Spanish with someone and there were minimal to no mistranslations, then most would agree that I had enough knowledge about the language to say that I know Spanish.

Second, is it possible for someone to gain reasonably sufficient knowledge about a topic to make the claim to know about it without having been present, immersed, or born into? Seeing as how we have entire fields of experts who make a living on subjects that they were never a part of, it's safe to say that yes it is possible to have reasonable knowledge of things such as cultures or race without having to specifically be a part of or born into them.

Next, how can we come to know the experiences of people in other groups if we were not born into or immersed in those groups? The answer here is pretty easy. We communicate with those people. They share with us their experiences. We share with them ours. By examining their collective experiences and comparing those to experiences shared by the people who share our own group, we can see a more clear picture. And by having empathy, we can reasonably extrapolate any negative differences between our experiences and theirs.

Finally, how can we determine the vastness of these differences. Again by examining the negative differences between what one group experiences over another, especially in the cases of interactions with people from a third type of group (white men vs black men when interacting with police for example) and mentally calculating the number of differences of these types of situations, we can say within reason that two groups of people do in fact experience things vastly different from each other.

All of this takes into consideration the type of data collected and how much and doing a quick mental calculation to figure out what the average seems to be, and basing those statements using those averages.

It is reasonable to say "As a thrill-seeker, my experiences on roller coasters are vastly different from acrophobics" (those with a fear of things like roller coasters or bungee jumping).

Just because race or gender is involved in the topic, that doesn't mean we should tip-toe around facts. If the fact is that on the average women experience dating vastly different then men, and this is something that is largely common knowledge, there is nothing offensive about it, and to state this fact, being a member of either of those groups, doesn't inherently mean you are speaking on behalf of all of that group, only that your experiences seem, by all accounts, to largely match the majority of others in that group.

Nothing more, nothing less.
 
2017-09-14 04:52:37 PM  

inglixthemad: Benevolent Misanthrope: And they sold the fark out of them, too.

We had a thread about this recently - how rapists don't know they're rapists and the whole idea of consent being difficult for many men to get their brains around.  This makes me think guys feel like consent for sex is a joke - something you do because she might falsely accuse you of rape later, but everybody knows it's just another PC-stupid thing.

The mirror is true. Women tend to be passive and view consent as something that should be asked of them instead of proactively saying their wishes. If you don't want to use your voice you're abrogating your responsibility just as much as the guys. Deal with it.


You know what's funny? I've had sex with a LOT of women in my life, in a variety of contexts ranging from two marriages to the occasional anonymous one-nighter, and not once that I can remember has a single one of them ever explicitly asked my verbal permission before making an advance upon my person.  And I find this to be a good thing.
 
TWX
2017-09-14 04:54:36 PM  

Z-clipped: IDisposable: Smoking GNU: As a male, i find ''No means no'' to be pretty self-explanatory.

It's not just "no means no", it's also "not saying anything means no".

As stated literally, this is way overboard.  While explicitly asking for verbal consent is something that should always be on the table when there's a large degree of uncertainty about what one of you wants, reading body language or expecting some active participation from your partner (i.e. cues that something isn't wanted) is not automatically "sex without consent", and the idea that every advance must be preceded by a verbal request lest the advance be considered assault is absolutely ludicrous.

It's silly to try to codify a human interaction as messy as sex that strictly, and the kind of people blind enough to non-verbal cues to need such strict rules are the same kind of people who will find a way to commit assaults around them regardless.


As I came to understand it, "no means no," was to prevent someone from asking a question with the phrasing that the response, "no" meant to proceed. The answer of no meant that sex was not consented to, regardless of how the question was asked.

The type of question where this applied was along the lines of, "Would you mind having sex?" where "No" could be interpreted as either no-the-respondent-wouldn't-mind-having-sex or no-the-respondent-doesn't-want-sex. Since sometimes the person responding can be bashful on the topic of sex, a somewhat demure response that really is intended as a negative might not be interpreted as a negative by the person asking if she turns away with just a touch of embarrassment as she says no.
 
2017-09-14 05:29:38 PM  

TWX: Z-clipped: IDisposable: Smoking GNU: As a male, i find ''No means no'' to be pretty self-explanatory.

It's not just "no means no", it's also "not saying anything means no".

As stated literally, this is way overboard.  While explicitly asking for verbal consent is something that should always be on the table when there's a large degree of uncertainty about what one of you wants, reading body language or expecting some active participation from your partner (i.e. cues that something isn't wanted) is not automatically "sex without consent", and the idea that every advance must be preceded by a verbal request lest the advance be considered assault is absolutely ludicrous.

It's silly to try to codify a human interaction as messy as sex that strictly, and the kind of people blind enough to non-verbal cues to need such strict rules are the same kind of people who will find a way to commit assaults around them regardless.

As I came to understand it, "no means no," was to prevent someone from asking a question with the phrasing that the response, "no" meant to proceed. The answer of no meant that sex was not consented to, regardless of how the question was asked.

The type of question where this applied was along the lines of, "Would you mind having sex?" where "No" could be interpreted as either no-the-respondent-wouldn't-mind-having-sex or no-the-respondent-doesn't-want-sex. Since sometimes the person responding can be bashful on the topic of sex, a somewhat demure response that really is intended as a negative might not be interpreted as a negative by the person asking if she turns away with just a touch of embarrassment as she says no.


Then you misunderstood. "No means no" is meant to dispel the notion present in some other cultures that women should play coy and reject all advances (even welcome ones) out of a sense of propriety, and that men shouldn't take no for an answer unless it's emphatic.

I wasn't actually originally commenting on "No means no", but rather the notion that's being pushed onto the younger generation that all consent must be verbal and explicit and that things like "implied consent", "using good judgement", or "having basic interpersonal skills" have no place in the discussion about sexual encounters.
 
2017-09-14 05:48:12 PM  

Z-clipped: but rather the notion that's being pushed onto the younger generation that all consent must be verbal and explicit and that things like "implied consent", "using good judgement", or "having basic interpersonal skills" have no place in the discussion about sexual encounters.


Interestingly, I find that notion being pushed into the conversation _from_ the younger generation.  IME, it's older people who find the "extended" versions of consent (the ones that dismiss implied consent, good judgement, and having basic interpersonal skills) to be silly and counter to most real-life sexual situations.
 
2017-09-14 07:33:52 PM  

SanityIsAFullTimeJob: Benevolent Misanthrope: And they sold the fark out of them, too.

We had a thread about this recently - how rapists don't know they're rapists and the whole idea of consent being difficult for many men to get their brains around.  This makes me think guys feel like consent for sex is a joke - something you do because she might falsely accuse you of rape later, but everybody knows it's just another PC-stupid thing.

If by "guys," you mean "very few guys," you may be right. Dumb stereotyping is dumb.


54% of college athletes and 38% of non-athletes admit to raping their partner
 

Of the sexually coercive behaviors listed on the survey, including "I used threats to make my partner have oral or anal sex," almost all met the legal definition of rape.

When campus rapists don't think they're rapists
  Nearly one-third of college men admit they might rape a woman if they could get away with it, a new study on campus sexual assault claims. Of those men, however, far fewer will admit this if the word rape is actually used during the course of questioning.

I can only figure that men get so angry about this subject because they're looking back at some of the things they did when they were "young and dumb" and realising they might have, just a little bit, raped someone, or did nothing while one of their friends raped someone.  That's not the way you want to think about yourself, or your buddies, is it?

/#VeryFewMen
 
2017-09-14 07:42:50 PM  

bainsguy: Fano: Huh, people advising other people that they way they have sex is the way everyone should have sex. Well that's new.

If "Hey maybe it's a good idea to confirm consent throughout the process of sex until you're comfortable with one another in order to avoid potentially borderline rape-y situations" is a controversial opinion to you, might I suggest shutting the f*ck up?


media.giphy.comView Full Size
 
2017-09-14 09:01:03 PM  

if_i_really_have_to: SanityIsAFullTimeJob: Benevolent Misanthrope: And they sold the fark out of them, too.

We had a thread about this recently - how rapists don't know they're rapists and the whole idea of consent being difficult for many men to get their brains around.  This makes me think guys feel like consent for sex is a joke - something you do because she might falsely accuse you of rape later, but everybody knows it's just another PC-stupid thing.

If by "guys," you mean "very few guys," you may be right. Dumb stereotyping is dumb.

54% of college athletes and 38% of non-athletes admit to raping their partner
 

Of the sexually coercive behaviors listed on the survey, including "I used threats to make my partner have oral or anal sex," almost all met the legal definition of rape.

When campus rapists don't think they're rapists
  Nearly one-third of college men admit they might rape a woman if they could get away with it, a new study on campus sexual assault claims. Of those men, however, far fewer will admit this if the word rape is actually used during the course of questioning.

I can only figure that men get so angry about this subject because they're looking back at some of the things they did when they were "young and dumb" and realising they might have, just a little bit, raped someone, or did nothing while one of their friends raped someone.  That's not the way you want to think about yourself, or your buddies, is it?

/#VeryFewMen


Those studies use a lot of ambiguous language and questionable defininitions to get from here to there.

"Verbal coercion" and "threats" can be construed very loosely. You can verbally threaten someone with physical violence to get them to have sex with you, and you can also "threaten" to break up with them if they don't do anal. One of those is rape. The other is not. I'm extremely dubious about the percentages listed accurately reflecting the intentions of men. I will absolutely concede that college athletes are more likely to commit rapes though.
 
2017-09-15 01:30:53 AM  
I actually asked my wife about this -- she grew up in the Caribbean, that might be relevant -- and she was basically like "Oh I've seen that consent shiat on the internet, it's ridiculous, girls need to speak up for themselves."

On the other hand
 
2017-09-15 01:35:32 AM  

IHadMeAVision: I actually asked my wife about this -- she grew up in the Caribbean, that might be relevant -- and she was basically like "Oh I've seen that consent shiat on the internet, it's ridiculous, girls need to speak up for themselves."

On the other hand


I feel one problem white liberals have to deal with is that they need to realize the minorities they are bringing into their tent often have religious or traditional foundations and sometimes they harp on the wrong shiat to try to discredit conservatives and it's not helping.
 
2017-09-15 05:56:23 AM  

Lady J: No of course not. The vast majority of people have sufficiently developed social skills that it's obvious whether someone wants to or not.

If someone is all over you, kissing you back, taking your clothes off as you take theirs off, etc, then you don't need to check they want to cos it's obvious.

But if someone is not responding at all, just stting there, or lying there, it probably is worth saying 'are you sure you want to do this?' It might be they're very nervous and they want you to take the lead, but they do wanna do it. But it might be that they don't, and they're scared to say no because they think you might be angry or tell everyone they're frigid.

I honestly think this mostly is only an issue with young, inexperienced people, just starting out, or people with low self esteem, who are a bit damaged.


A large part of the problem seems to be with people in the Twitter/Tumblrsphere who create "rules" of sexual interaction that don't work in real life. Many of them seem to lack that "sufficiently developed social skills" or have been damaged to the point that normal interaction is alien, yet they're the ones driving the debate. Even the perception of that, due to some big names, causes some dismissal.

Honestly, I'm not that broken up about it, because even if it's just the "signed contracts before sex" people who are most earnest about it, they're still driving the conversation forward and hopefully empowering more people to stop feeling manipulated into sex.
 
2017-09-15 06:00:05 AM  

orbister: karlandtanya: Have you ever just asked a woman directly what kind of tea she likes and then offered her a cup of that kind of tea? Just come right out and ask her directly: "I enjoy serving this kind of tea--do you like this kind? Would you like some tea later this evening? Or perhaps right now?"

That bloody tea video is terrible. "Yesterday I visited my friend. Last time I saw her she made me a cup of tea, which I drank. The time before that, she made me a cup of tea, which I drank. In fact, we've been meeting up twice a week for five years and every time she has made me a cup of tea and I've drunk it. But yesterday ... she made the tea without asking. The biatch raped me."

And, of course, it makes the usual prudish assumption that no women could ever want sex without being coaxed into it.


I had no idea that tea was now a metaphor for rape. Thank you for ruining my morning ritual, Internet. Don't know how I'll repay you for this one.
 
2017-09-15 06:05:08 AM  

drayno76: I'm married...

Consent is completely different after 20 years. Is the child asleep enough to stay in her own farking room, does anyone have to work in the morning, everyone seen the back-cracker and in good physical working order?  We haven't even gotten to is anyone in the mood yet...

I remember when I used to bite her neck until she melted in my arms, pull her panties down and lift her skirt and hammer her up against he wall of her apartment before she had to go sit through class as a well farked 20 year old hot mess.

/Get off my lawn.


Um, that was... wow. You're like 90% of the way to a story at Archive of our Own or Literotica with that. Do it!
 
2017-09-15 09:14:15 AM  

Z-clipped: if_i_really_have_to: SanityIsAFullTimeJob: Benevolent Misanthrope: And they sold the fark out of them, too.

We had a thread about this recently - how rapists don't know they're rapists and the whole idea of consent being difficult for many men to get their brains around.  This makes me think guys feel like consent for sex is a joke - something you do because she might falsely accuse you of rape later, but everybody knows it's just another PC-stupid thing.

If by "guys," you mean "very few guys," you may be right. Dumb stereotyping is dumb.

54% of college athletes and 38% of non-athletes admit to raping their partner
 

Of the sexually coercive behaviors listed on the survey, including "I used threats to make my partner have oral or anal sex," almost all met the legal definition of rape.

When campus rapists don't think they're rapists
  Nearly one-third of college men admit they might rape a woman if they could get away with it, a new study on campus sexual assault claims. Of those men, however, far fewer will admit this if the word rape is actually used during the course of questioning.

I can only figure that men get so angry about this subject because they're looking back at some of the things they did when they were "young and dumb" and realising they might have, just a little bit, raped someone, or did nothing while one of their friends raped someone.  That's not the way you want to think about yourself, or your buddies, is it?

/#VeryFewMen

Those studies use a lot of ambiguous language and questionable defininitions to get from here to there.

"Verbal coercion" and "threats" can be construed very loosely. You can verbally threaten someone with physical violence to get them to have sex with you, and you can also "threaten" to break up with them if they don't do anal. One of those is rape. The other is not. I'm extremely dubious about the percentages listed accurately reflecting the intentions of men. I will absolutely concede that college athletes are more likely to commit rapes though.


The survey itself seems questionable, as the sensational article points out. Limited sample set, small sample, bad numbers, and let's get the million dollar Ring of Gyges question out of the way:
"If you could have sex with someone without their consent, but there would be no consequences and no one would ever know, would you?" (Repeat, sub in "rape", discover ferewer people say yes)

Let's try again: "if you could get rid of someone you hate, and no one would ever know and there would be no consequences would you" and "if you could murder someone...."
ZOMG MOST PEOPLE ARE MURDERERS
 
2017-09-15 01:58:37 PM  

Fano: Z-clipped: if_i_really_have_to: SanityIsAFullTimeJob: Benevolent Misanthrope: And they sold the fark out

Fano: ZOMG MOST PEOPLE ARE MURDERERS


People who buy into this crap (*ahem*if_i_really_have_to*ahem*)prove only how dedicated they are to the belief that most men are monsters.  Try to pay them no heed, you can't reason with things like that.
 
Displayed 50 of 150 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking

On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report