rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
I've asked the bdsm lawyers among us about this kind of thing and never really gotten a straight answer, outside of "proceed @ your own risk".
Consent: when is it present?
- Thread starter Pure
- Start date
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
Recidiva said:
Now that's the spirit.
G
Guest
Guest
Pure - thank you for the heads up about the discussion here - sorry it took me so long to drop in!
Here's your extended post and my replies (in blue):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pure
Sweetsub said, with Nora concurring
You've taken her out to dinner and dancing. You've flirted all evening. You want sex, she wants sex. She even told you she wanted sex. You're at one or the other's apartments, clothes are off, you're writhing on the bed and about to penetrate her and then she says STOP.
If you continue it is rape.
You can call her a cocktease, a bitch, a whore, or worse. Fine.
You can piss and bitch and moan that you spent money on this woman (even though you asked her out in the first place) as if that somehow entitles you to get laid. Hire a hooker if you believe you deserve nookie just because you bought her steak and a salad.
But if you decide in your mind she really DOES want to have sex (as if somehow you know her mind better than she does?) And this is after she told you NO and still you hold her down and shove on in, it is rape. And a felony.
And you should be in jail.
P: I have no problem with this 'stop' concept and indeed it's happened, and I've stopped. OK, so I'm with you in principle.
Back at ya.
P: 1. But in one case, she didn't get up or stop 'making out' so I continued to try and persuade her, even using some force, but not enough to overcome her resistance. I would call it 'mild physical resistance' on her part and that did succeed for her. With hindsight, it appears she wanted sex, but not intercourse. So am I with the saints or sinners? IOW, regarding my mild attempts to force her, am I morally in the wrong? legally in the wrong? Incidentally I might add that she never subsequently brought up the incident in either a positive or negative way, and we remained friends.
Many women have had this happen. What you are describing is very common. You wanted sex, she was uncertain but finally she decided she wasn't ready for it. Met with even mild resistance, you stopped. And that was the end of it. Since you remained friends, it seems you handled it correctly.
2. OK, you say, Hire a hooker if you believe you deserve nookie just because you bought her steak and a salad
P: I make an agreement with a hooker that, for $100 plus steak dinner, we will 'party.' I pay her the $100 and take her dinner, and then things follow the course you describe, we're naked and I'm about to penetrate, when she says, 'no, I don't want to' and moves to leave the bed. Then, in your words, and still you hold her down and shove on in,
Is this rape? Do I gather from your remark about 'deserving nookie' that you would say 'no it's not rape.' But I believe that in the law, it is (though it could never go to trial). Perhaps this is an ill chosen example?
If she plans to refund your money it is rape.
3) I modify your She even told you she wanted sex. You're at one or the other's apartments, clothes are off, you're writhing on the bed and about to penetrate her and then she says STOP.
[P] Modified to: "She has told me she wants sex and likes sometimes a sense of its being forced upon her. She's at my aparment, clothes are off and some 'making out' ensues. During that, I try something (short of penetration), and she physically resists. I overcome that resistance and in doing the thing, I notice her responding strongly, and further that she continues the session." From there on it ensues as you say; she say 'no' at the point of penetration. I ignore that and encounter no physical resistance as we continue to intercourse, which she appears to participate in. Is it rape? [revised, 10 23 am EDT]
That's iffy, isn't it? That's why there is always a need for a safe word of some kind when couples engage in a bit of rough play. Especially if this is their first time together. I would think since she seemed to participate in the sex act following penetration it may have been what she wanted all along. But I have no way of knowing that.
4. [P] Modified to: "we are writhing on the bed and I am about to penetrate her and she says, 'I don't know if this is right. I am married [which she has said before].' She does not move to end the session but continues the 'making out,' and then at the second attempt she mildly resists (without saying anything) and I physically overcome that resistance and she cooperates in intercourse, offers no further resistance, indeed seems to be 'getting into it'. However, later that evening, at her home, talking with hubby and lying about where she was ('with our friends'), she is struck with lots of guilt. It comes to her that it really was wrong. Further she realizes that her lie is so flimsy that he will likely figure it out as soon as he talks to their friends she says she was with. She now tells hubby, 'I was raped but too ashamed to tell the truth' calls the police and says, 'I was raped.' "
Was she?
peace,
Hmmm. No clue here. Never fuck a married woman.
Here's your extended post and my replies (in blue):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pure
Sweetsub said, with Nora concurring
You've taken her out to dinner and dancing. You've flirted all evening. You want sex, she wants sex. She even told you she wanted sex. You're at one or the other's apartments, clothes are off, you're writhing on the bed and about to penetrate her and then she says STOP.
If you continue it is rape.
You can call her a cocktease, a bitch, a whore, or worse. Fine.
You can piss and bitch and moan that you spent money on this woman (even though you asked her out in the first place) as if that somehow entitles you to get laid. Hire a hooker if you believe you deserve nookie just because you bought her steak and a salad.
But if you decide in your mind she really DOES want to have sex (as if somehow you know her mind better than she does?) And this is after she told you NO and still you hold her down and shove on in, it is rape. And a felony.
And you should be in jail.
P: I have no problem with this 'stop' concept and indeed it's happened, and I've stopped. OK, so I'm with you in principle.
Back at ya.
P: 1. But in one case, she didn't get up or stop 'making out' so I continued to try and persuade her, even using some force, but not enough to overcome her resistance. I would call it 'mild physical resistance' on her part and that did succeed for her. With hindsight, it appears she wanted sex, but not intercourse. So am I with the saints or sinners? IOW, regarding my mild attempts to force her, am I morally in the wrong? legally in the wrong? Incidentally I might add that she never subsequently brought up the incident in either a positive or negative way, and we remained friends.
Many women have had this happen. What you are describing is very common. You wanted sex, she was uncertain but finally she decided she wasn't ready for it. Met with even mild resistance, you stopped. And that was the end of it. Since you remained friends, it seems you handled it correctly.
2. OK, you say, Hire a hooker if you believe you deserve nookie just because you bought her steak and a salad
P: I make an agreement with a hooker that, for $100 plus steak dinner, we will 'party.' I pay her the $100 and take her dinner, and then things follow the course you describe, we're naked and I'm about to penetrate, when she says, 'no, I don't want to' and moves to leave the bed. Then, in your words, and still you hold her down and shove on in,
Is this rape? Do I gather from your remark about 'deserving nookie' that you would say 'no it's not rape.' But I believe that in the law, it is (though it could never go to trial). Perhaps this is an ill chosen example?
If she plans to refund your money it is rape.
3) I modify your She even told you she wanted sex. You're at one or the other's apartments, clothes are off, you're writhing on the bed and about to penetrate her and then she says STOP.
[P] Modified to: "She has told me she wants sex and likes sometimes a sense of its being forced upon her. She's at my aparment, clothes are off and some 'making out' ensues. During that, I try something (short of penetration), and she physically resists. I overcome that resistance and in doing the thing, I notice her responding strongly, and further that she continues the session." From there on it ensues as you say; she say 'no' at the point of penetration. I ignore that and encounter no physical resistance as we continue to intercourse, which she appears to participate in. Is it rape? [revised, 10 23 am EDT]
That's iffy, isn't it? That's why there is always a need for a safe word of some kind when couples engage in a bit of rough play. Especially if this is their first time together. I would think since she seemed to participate in the sex act following penetration it may have been what she wanted all along. But I have no way of knowing that.
4. [P] Modified to: "we are writhing on the bed and I am about to penetrate her and she says, 'I don't know if this is right. I am married [which she has said before].' She does not move to end the session but continues the 'making out,' and then at the second attempt she mildly resists (without saying anything) and I physically overcome that resistance and she cooperates in intercourse, offers no further resistance, indeed seems to be 'getting into it'. However, later that evening, at her home, talking with hubby and lying about where she was ('with our friends'), she is struck with lots of guilt. It comes to her that it really was wrong. Further she realizes that her lie is so flimsy that he will likely figure it out as soon as he talks to their friends she says she was with. She now tells hubby, 'I was raped but too ashamed to tell the truth' calls the police and says, 'I was raped.' "
Was she?
peace,
Hmmm. No clue here. Never fuck a married woman.
G
Guest
Guest
Pure said:2. OK, you say, SSSHire a hooker if you believe you deserve nookie just because you bought her steak and a salad
P: I make an agreement with a hooker that, for $100 plus steak dinner, we will 'party.' I pay her the $100 and take her dinner, and then things follow the course you describe, we're naked and I'm about to penetrate, when she says, 'no, I don't want to' and moves to leave the bed. Then, in your words, and still you hold her down and shove on in,
P: Is this rape? Do I gather from your remark about 'deserving nookie' that you would say 'no it's not rape.' But I believe that in the law, it is (though it could never go to trial). Perhaps this is an ill chosen example?
Sweet sub: If she plans to refund your money it is rape.
P: If she does NOT plan to refund your money (for some reason we will not state), and you force yourself on her, against 'no's' and resistance, it is also rape, in the law-- I'm virtually certain.
An analogy would be: I make an agreement with X to clean my swimming pool, and pay up front. When he's one quarter finished, he says, "I've had enough of this, I'm leaving." and moves to leave. When I ask for most or all of my money back, he refuses, and continues to leave. Whereupon I throw him on the ground, whack him on the jaw to quiet him, and take back my money. It's assault.
IN short I believe the case is no different than any other woman who 'contracts'/agrees to sex, quite clearly: "Yes I'd be happy to go to your place and fuck all night." If, after preliminaries, she says. "I'm not going ahead. I'm leaving. Good bye." There is no right to use force to 'enforce' the agreement.
----
Further thoughts on example 4) [below]
In the case of the married woman, she has stated something that might be called reluctance or hesitation because of conscience. Yet her action is to continue. Some might say she has clearly NOT consented, in that the only thing she said, likely leads to the opposite inference. I believe I'd subscribe to an 'actions speak louder than words, here.' Is that a male thing? IF after offering resistance, which is overcome, she is cooperative, indeed enthusiastic, then 'constructively' [as the law would say--by imputation] she has consented. This of course discounts her later assessment. Further in these cases she typically says later(sometimes truthfully), "since my resistance didn't work, i was intimidated and decided to accept the inevitable."
Yet the example points to another issue: How the woman LATER feels. Looking back, she says, "I didn't want that." At the time she seemed to.
---
My point in these examples is to cast doubt on one sort of 'feminist solution' famously implemented at Antioch College: There must be an explicit asking, explicit agreement about which act(s)-- XYZ-- and explicit consent--'yes, I want to do XYZ' LACKING THAT --so the administration said-- there is a rape.
What say you?
====
Pure's example 4) "we are writhing on the bed and I am about to penetrate her and she says, 'I don't know if this is right. I am married [which she has said before].' She does not move to end the session but continues the 'making out,' and then at the second attempt she mildly resists (without saying anything) and I physically overcome that resistance and she cooperates in intercourse, offers no further resistance, indeed seems to be 'getting into it'. However, later that evening, at her home, talking with hubby and lying about where she was ('with our friends'), she is struck with lots of guilt. It comes to her that it really was wrong. Further she realizes that her lie is so flimsy that he will likely figure it out as soon as he talks to their friends she says she was with. She now tells hubby, 'I was raped but too ashamed to tell the truth' calls the police and says, 'I was raped.' "
Was she?
And my reply -
The hooker question is more difficult, I must admit.
You've contracted to pay for services - SEX - and the second party doesn't follow through.
I think the dinner part is irrelevant. If he chooses to spend additional funds on the evening, that's his loss. Almost like putting serious money into a rental property?
And yes, he cannot force her to have sex, and I know there have been cases of prostitutes charging men with rape. As prostitution is illegal in most parts of the U.S., that makes it difficult for the man to get a refund if she chooses to deny him.
There are too many mitigating circumstances here, I suppose. Too many illegal legalities.
As to the other - hmmm.
It is tough to make a decent analogy with the married women fooling around case.
Maybe buyer's regret? She hastily made a purchase because she liked the flash (and the salesman was pushy) and then got home with it and realized she could neither afford it nor live with it.
Ooops.
I don't believe that should be considered rape. Stupidity, yes, as this was not a sexually inexperienced female. But not rape.
psyconaught
Experienced
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Posts
- 39
In a situation where you KNOW you have consent, where their are safe words and rape is a game, you fuck on and you fuck hard and you fuck without consent, even when they scream no no no no no...
At any other time you DO NOT. If there is any tiny possible doubt you do not.
This is one of the fundamental rules.
If you dont live but it then you take the risks.
At any other time you DO NOT. If there is any tiny possible doubt you do not.
This is one of the fundamental rules.
If you dont live but it then you take the risks.
G
Guest
Guest
psyconaught said:
Agreed.
Communication and prior preparation are key.
THEN you can go wild.
rosco rathbone
1. f3e5 2. g4??
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2002
- Posts
- 42,430
psyconaught said:
You've got a way with words, buddy.
I'm interested in what would happen if a prostitute claimed rape after the fact. It must have happened before.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
RRI'm interested in what would happen if a prostitute claimed rape after the fact. It must have happened before.
Confining ourselves to a legal situation for neatness, I think one scenario results quite commonly. The guy contracts for a lay, but, over protests, [taking one example] flogs her ass severely then repeatedly forces her up the ass.
And the marks are visible and the injury, rectal tears and bleeding, is documented.
I think this is sexual assualt, and certainly common assault: it's not unlike a case where two men agree to fisticuffs, and one pulls out a knife and savages the other. The scope of consent is violated.
While a prostitute may present certain problems of credibility, I believe such cases have been successfully prosecuted (where it's a presentable, articulate witness, not a previously coked out ho who can barely remember.)
Confining ourselves to a legal situation for neatness, I think one scenario results quite commonly. The guy contracts for a lay, but, over protests, [taking one example] flogs her ass severely then repeatedly forces her up the ass.
And the marks are visible and the injury, rectal tears and bleeding, is documented.
I think this is sexual assualt, and certainly common assault: it's not unlike a case where two men agree to fisticuffs, and one pulls out a knife and savages the other. The scope of consent is violated.
While a prostitute may present certain problems of credibility, I believe such cases have been successfully prosecuted (where it's a presentable, articulate witness, not a previously coked out ho who can barely remember.)
Last edited:
psyconaught
Experienced
- Joined
- Apr 13, 2006
- Posts
- 39
There have been some interesting cases in the UK recently where the victim was so drunk they were not able to consent. If a man carries on regardless he could be prosecuted.
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
yes, drunkennes and unconsciousness which allow sex to occur are, in many laws, to be taken as precluding consent. i agree with that.
Yet I don't think you want a requirement that the 'consent' be express (verbal) and direct, as in the woman making the statement, "Yes, I want to do X,Y,and Z."
Hang me if you will, but I say that enthusiastic cooperation (and a lack of certain conditions, such as the woman's child being held hostage) is a sign of genuine consent.
Yet I don't think you want a requirement that the 'consent' be express (verbal) and direct, as in the woman making the statement, "Yes, I want to do X,Y,and Z."
Hang me if you will, but I say that enthusiastic cooperation (and a lack of certain conditions, such as the woman's child being held hostage) is a sign of genuine consent.
G
Guest
Guest
Pure said:
Oh, I don't know.
On certain occasions I've given someone a list.
AvaAdore
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2002
- Posts
- 488
Here is yet another variation:
All the dinner blah blah, flirting, etc.
Fooling around ensues, both peoples clothes are off. The woman says she doesn't want to have intercourse, but everything else is fine. After more fooling around, the guy thinks she's into it enough that he goes ahead and penetrates. He meets no physical resistance and she seems to be enjoying it.
Afterwords, the woman feels bad about the whole thing. Yes she enjoyed the sex, but she didn't really consent to it and that is bothering her.
Is this rape?
All the dinner blah blah, flirting, etc.
Fooling around ensues, both peoples clothes are off. The woman says she doesn't want to have intercourse, but everything else is fine. After more fooling around, the guy thinks she's into it enough that he goes ahead and penetrates. He meets no physical resistance and she seems to be enjoying it.
Afterwords, the woman feels bad about the whole thing. Yes she enjoyed the sex, but she didn't really consent to it and that is bothering her.
Is this rape?
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
Hi Ava,
I'd say it's a definite moral infraction, something I wouldn't want to do to a friend (who maybe has some good reason, like an infection). IOW, I'd discount her apparent changes as to what she wants as due to the heat of the moment, and try to honor the earlier, calm expression.
Legally, however, I don't think "I don't want.." said at 9pm necessarily covers 10pm.
And I propose my 'thing' above:
Hang me if you will, but I say that enthusiastic cooperation (and a lack of certain conditions, such as the woman's child being held hostage) is a sign of genuine consent to which I now add,
_this is especially true when a series of interactions has occurred (just before the crucial moment) to which there's been at least implicit consent as evidenced in apparent cooperation and enjoyment_.
Why? because--arguing legally-- it's a reasonable inference that she changed her mind (in the absence of contrary signs).
I think in *legal* terms, and espectially with 'dates' of those who are aquainted, a 'no' has to be backed up with some resistance or protest to be 'robust' enough to sustain a criminal prosecution.
OK, throw the brickbats, stones, tomatoes!
I'd say it's a definite moral infraction, something I wouldn't want to do to a friend (who maybe has some good reason, like an infection). IOW, I'd discount her apparent changes as to what she wants as due to the heat of the moment, and try to honor the earlier, calm expression.
Legally, however, I don't think "I don't want.." said at 9pm necessarily covers 10pm.
And I propose my 'thing' above:
Hang me if you will, but I say that enthusiastic cooperation (and a lack of certain conditions, such as the woman's child being held hostage) is a sign of genuine consent to which I now add,
_this is especially true when a series of interactions has occurred (just before the crucial moment) to which there's been at least implicit consent as evidenced in apparent cooperation and enjoyment_.
Why? because--arguing legally-- it's a reasonable inference that she changed her mind (in the absence of contrary signs).
I think in *legal* terms, and espectially with 'dates' of those who are aquainted, a 'no' has to be backed up with some resistance or protest to be 'robust' enough to sustain a criminal prosecution.
OK, throw the brickbats, stones, tomatoes!
AvaAdore said:
Last edited:
Netzach
>semiotics?
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2003
- Posts
- 21,732
Pure said:Hi Ava,
I'd say it's a definite moral infraction, something I wouldn't want to do to a friend (who maybe has some good reason, like an infection). IOW, I'd discount her apparent changes as to what she wants as due to the heat of the moment, and try to honor the earlier, calm expression.
Legally, however, I don't think "I don't want.." said at 9pm necessarily covers 10pm.
And I propose my 'thing' above:
Hang me if you will, but I say that enthusiastic cooperation (and a lack of certain conditions, such as the woman's child being held hostage) is a sign of genuine consent to which I now add,
_this is especially true when a series of interactions has occurred (just before the crucial moment) to which there's been at least implicit consent as evidenced in apparent cooperation and enjoyment_.
Why? because--arguing legally-- it's a reasonable inference that she changed her mind (in the absence of contrary signs).
I think in *legal* terms, and espectially with 'dates' of those who are aquainted, a 'no' has to be backed up with some resistance or protest to be 'robust' enough to sustain a criminal prosecution.
OK, throw the brickbats, stones, tomatoes!
Would that hold up if I had my boyfriend bruno there with his dick out and you were being held down? Would "no" not be sufficient? A re-think of all those heated promises not viable?
RJMasters
workaholic
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2004
- Posts
- 4,298
Even without the threat of Bruno, which made me spew diet coke btw.
Having another person in the room as a witness....to hear her say No, stop...adds a bit of a shift in focus.
This all has been framed in the context of he said she said and what will legally hold up. Since the thread is focused upon the legality...perhaps my point is mute, but there is a moment of decision he must make at the point of shoving it in. Regardless weather it is legally provable or not, it is rape, period. I would even go so far to say even after penetration, if she says stop and he continues, IMO that is still rape.
I guess I should add my answer to at least the title of the thread. Consent: When is it present? Up till either party say no or stop. IMO it doesn't matter at what point that moment comes, if it comes, consent is no longer present. Any sex after that moment in my way of thinking is deemed as forced sex upon a person who is unconsenting and is consider also in my opinion rape.
Having another person in the room as a witness....to hear her say No, stop...adds a bit of a shift in focus.
This all has been framed in the context of he said she said and what will legally hold up. Since the thread is focused upon the legality...perhaps my point is mute, but there is a moment of decision he must make at the point of shoving it in. Regardless weather it is legally provable or not, it is rape, period. I would even go so far to say even after penetration, if she says stop and he continues, IMO that is still rape.
I guess I should add my answer to at least the title of the thread. Consent: When is it present? Up till either party say no or stop. IMO it doesn't matter at what point that moment comes, if it comes, consent is no longer present. Any sex after that moment in my way of thinking is deemed as forced sex upon a person who is unconsenting and is consider also in my opinion rape.
Last edited:
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
to Netz; note re RJ
Pure : //Hang me if you will, but I say that enthusiastic cooperation (and a lack of certain conditions, such as the woman's child being held hostage) is a sign of genuine consent to which I now add,
_this is especially true when a series of interactions has occurred (just before the crucial moment) to which there's been at least implicit consent as evidenced in apparent cooperation and enjoyment_.//
Netz: Would that hold up if I had my boyfriend bruno there with his dick out and you were being held down? Would "no" not be sufficient?
P: No, it would not be sufficient. There should be indications that I mean what I say, or at very least an absence of indications that I'm fine with what's happening.
N: A re-think of all those heated promises not viable?
I'm not sure I understand, but perhaps you're asking "Having made promises [of wanting X] in the heat of whatever, would I want to be able to rethink the matter and bail out?"
Certainly a person can seek to 'bail out' but they'd better make it look like a serious desire. (There are also qualifications here, if a person has made an agreement [blanket consent] for nonconsensual happenings, and for the ignoring of any expressions of nonconsent.)
----
As to RJ
Consent: When is it present? Up till either party say no or stop. IMO it doesn't matter at what point that moment comes, if it comes, consent is no longer present.
Given a continuous stream of indications of consent, IF you hold that a single, momentary, word shows a *real* change of mind, THEN you must hold that in the next little while, the mind can change back; and that could, IMO, be evidenced in a number of ways, among them, signs of enthusiastic cooperation.
Pure : //Hang me if you will, but I say that enthusiastic cooperation (and a lack of certain conditions, such as the woman's child being held hostage) is a sign of genuine consent to which I now add,
_this is especially true when a series of interactions has occurred (just before the crucial moment) to which there's been at least implicit consent as evidenced in apparent cooperation and enjoyment_.//
Netz: Would that hold up if I had my boyfriend bruno there with his dick out and you were being held down? Would "no" not be sufficient?
P: No, it would not be sufficient. There should be indications that I mean what I say, or at very least an absence of indications that I'm fine with what's happening.
N: A re-think of all those heated promises not viable?
I'm not sure I understand, but perhaps you're asking "Having made promises [of wanting X] in the heat of whatever, would I want to be able to rethink the matter and bail out?"
Certainly a person can seek to 'bail out' but they'd better make it look like a serious desire. (There are also qualifications here, if a person has made an agreement [blanket consent] for nonconsensual happenings, and for the ignoring of any expressions of nonconsent.)
----
As to RJ
Consent: When is it present? Up till either party say no or stop. IMO it doesn't matter at what point that moment comes, if it comes, consent is no longer present.
Given a continuous stream of indications of consent, IF you hold that a single, momentary, word shows a *real* change of mind, THEN you must hold that in the next little while, the mind can change back; and that could, IMO, be evidenced in a number of ways, among them, signs of enthusiastic cooperation.
Last edited:
alice_underneath
with malice toward none
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Posts
- 1,071
Pure - I hope you won't consider this an unacceptable hijack, but I'd like to address the question at hand from the woman's point of view.
I've said 'no' plenty of times - most often during the initial period of dating, before I was ready to be intimate. (I'm not really a fast forward kinduva girl.... lol
).
I learned early on that 'no' in a sweet, shy, loving, gentle, sympathetic, or sensitive voice is not going to put the brakes on the situation. 'No' - whispered while gazing at him affectionately so he won't feel badly - is useless. 'No' - murmured while trembling at his touch - will be ignored.
That type of tone, facial expression, or body language will simply be interpreted as an invitation to try harder to overcome my resistance.
Whether this is right, wrong, or illegal is irrelevant (from my perspective). My first concern is not whether he would feel guilty after the fact, or be convicted of rape. Instead, my first priority is making sure that unwanted penetration doesn't take place!
Therefore, looking at this from the woman's perspective, my opinion is: The word 'no' isn't good enough. Not by a long shot.
If I do not want him inside my body, I have a responsibility - to myself - to convey this message loud and clear. Facial expressions, tone, body language..... these are at least as important as the words coming out of my mouth.
To be honest, the behavior of the women in the scenarios on this thread bothers me. There is a certain absence of responsibility that I find objectionable. If a woman is with a guy, and she doesn't want him inside her, he should KNOW that. Ambiguity in this situation is dangerous and therefore totally unacceptable.
I have two children. I tell my son something similar to this:
Please note: When talking to either of them, I don't mention the Mr. Rathbones of the world.... or how hot I found post number 18 on this thread....
Alice
I've said 'no' plenty of times - most often during the initial period of dating, before I was ready to be intimate. (I'm not really a fast forward kinduva girl.... lol
).I learned early on that 'no' in a sweet, shy, loving, gentle, sympathetic, or sensitive voice is not going to put the brakes on the situation. 'No' - whispered while gazing at him affectionately so he won't feel badly - is useless. 'No' - murmured while trembling at his touch - will be ignored.
That type of tone, facial expression, or body language will simply be interpreted as an invitation to try harder to overcome my resistance.
Whether this is right, wrong, or illegal is irrelevant (from my perspective). My first concern is not whether he would feel guilty after the fact, or be convicted of rape. Instead, my first priority is making sure that unwanted penetration doesn't take place!
Therefore, looking at this from the woman's perspective, my opinion is: The word 'no' isn't good enough. Not by a long shot.
If I do not want him inside my body, I have a responsibility - to myself - to convey this message loud and clear. Facial expressions, tone, body language..... these are at least as important as the words coming out of my mouth.
To be honest, the behavior of the women in the scenarios on this thread bothers me. There is a certain absence of responsibility that I find objectionable. If a woman is with a guy, and she doesn't want him inside her, he should KNOW that. Ambiguity in this situation is dangerous and therefore totally unacceptable.
I have two children. I tell my son something similar to this:
When talking to my daughter, I sound more like this:RJMasters said:
Pure said:
Please note: When talking to either of them, I don't mention the Mr. Rathbones of the world.... or how hot I found post number 18 on this thread....
Alice
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
good points, alice
i'd put it thus,
it fine to focus your son on the moral issue, esp where friends are concerned. as i've posted, with friend's 'i'm unsure about this' should mean something and cause a pause, if not a stop.
likewise i see the virtue of focussing your daughter on the legal issues, as well as practical dangers: 1) in fact, were she assaulted she would be in a weak or untenable position were she to have gotten into something consensually, then said 'no,' then acted as if it wasn't in force. 2) wishy washy 'no's' or 'i'm not sure's' early on, render her more vulnerable to assaults (or unwanted or unpleasant sex), since the signal just isn't clear enough for the drooling lust-crazed persons such as myself.
Note: Yes, RR's post #18, on women who've said 'no,' is a classic. His blunt candor made him an ideal mayor of Topopolis, in the golden age of that town
i'd put it thus,
it fine to focus your son on the moral issue, esp where friends are concerned. as i've posted, with friend's 'i'm unsure about this' should mean something and cause a pause, if not a stop.
likewise i see the virtue of focussing your daughter on the legal issues, as well as practical dangers: 1) in fact, were she assaulted she would be in a weak or untenable position were she to have gotten into something consensually, then said 'no,' then acted as if it wasn't in force. 2) wishy washy 'no's' or 'i'm not sure's' early on, render her more vulnerable to assaults (or unwanted or unpleasant sex), since the signal just isn't clear enough for the drooling lust-crazed persons such as myself.
Note: Yes, RR's post #18, on women who've said 'no,' is a classic. His blunt candor made him an ideal mayor of Topopolis, in the golden age of that town
Last edited:
alice_underneath
with malice toward none
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Posts
- 1,071
Admittedly, my sample size is not exactly huge.Pure said:likewise i see the virtue of focussing your daughter on the legal issues, as well as practical dangers: 1) in fact, were she assaulted she would be in a weak or untenable position were she to have gotten into something consensually, then said 'no,' then acted as if it wasn't in force. 2) wishy washy 'no's' or 'i'm not sure's' early on, render her more vulnerable to assaults (or unwanted or unpleasant sex), since the signal just isn't clear enough for the drooling lust-crazed persons such as myself.
However, based on my personal experiences, I'd say that in these situations all guys are "drooling lust-crazed persons". Not that there's anything wrong with that..... I'm going to quote it below, with the part I find most important bolded:Pure said:
The history of trust implies that this is neither stranger rape nor forced sex in the early stages of dating.rosco rathbone said:
For various reasons, it's still dangerous ground. But the history of trust caveat is critical in explaining why I find the idea arousing rather than abhorrent.
Alice
Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
odd, alice
I read the passage differently, as describing two different situations. This is my 'take' and it could be wrong.
RRI've forced sex on people who were screaming NO, but it was in context of a long history of trust.
1) RR ignores a screamed 'no' in an established context of trust
RRI've also been told, "I like that you don't listen when I say no, even if I sound like I really mean it--even though I DID mean it at the time." Obviously, this is pretty dangerous ground to be on.
P: Note the word 'also', and the last sentence about 'dangerous ground.'
2) he's with someone who's much newer to him. there are signs of response; then there is a 'no' and maybe some transient resistance; RR has a guess, nevertheless, about what she might enjoy.
So the 'no' was not heeded and RR proceeded to do whatever, and afterwards she, having apparently enjoyed it, says 'I DID mean it at the time, but it turned out well, so I'd glad you didn't pay heed to 'no'.
It's going by a guess, with a less familiar person, that is risky (depending on your people skills). In the law, one must have reasonable grounds, considered objectively, for such a 'guess'--was it an 'educated' one. that's unclear here
The simplest interpretation would be to say that the objection, the NON consent ceased to exist at some point in the new act. She wanted it to continue and be completed (though she hadn't wanted it to start).
THIs is my rabbinic interpretation, and it may be wrong. But if it's right, then it's not far from my example 3): a momentary 'no' followed by signs of assent, indeed of desire to participate.
I read the passage differently, as describing two different situations. This is my 'take' and it could be wrong.
RRI've forced sex on people who were screaming NO, but it was in context of a long history of trust.
1) RR ignores a screamed 'no' in an established context of trust
RRI've also been told, "I like that you don't listen when I say no, even if I sound like I really mean it--even though I DID mean it at the time." Obviously, this is pretty dangerous ground to be on.
P: Note the word 'also', and the last sentence about 'dangerous ground.'
2) he's with someone who's much newer to him. there are signs of response; then there is a 'no' and maybe some transient resistance; RR has a guess, nevertheless, about what she might enjoy.
So the 'no' was not heeded and RR proceeded to do whatever, and afterwards she, having apparently enjoyed it, says 'I DID mean it at the time, but it turned out well, so I'd glad you didn't pay heed to 'no'.
It's going by a guess, with a less familiar person, that is risky (depending on your people skills). In the law, one must have reasonable grounds, considered objectively, for such a 'guess'--was it an 'educated' one. that's unclear here
The simplest interpretation would be to say that the objection, the NON consent ceased to exist at some point in the new act. She wanted it to continue and be completed (though she hadn't wanted it to start).
THIs is my rabbinic interpretation, and it may be wrong. But if it's right, then it's not far from my example 3): a momentary 'no' followed by signs of assent, indeed of desire to participate.
Last edited:
alice_underneath
with malice toward none
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2005
- Posts
- 1,071
I see your point here, but have two quick comments (pending Mr. Rathbone's return and clarification).Pure said:
#1 - Since spousal rape is illegal, even a married man who forces sex on a wife screaming NO is on dangerous ground. Not only could he face incarceration, but he could also destroy the trust that functions as the foundation for their relationship.
#2 - If Mr. R. is describing two different situations, then only the former arouses me (in contemplating real life, not fantasy, scenarios). Imagining real life forced sex with someone whom I do not already know & trust is more terrifying than scintillating for me.
Alice
