quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
I thought it would be tactless to point out that the argument raised among your whining like a little bitch in this thread's OP was different to the hilarious bullshit about evolutionary theory removing consent as an issue in your first attempt.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


(*Deep Announcer Voice)

Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the forums ...

The new follow-up to the blockbuster: "CONSENT"

It's back ... In I-Max and Sensoround:

CONSENT 2: The Thread that Failed the First Time

Roll credits.



Michael

quote:

What? Do you really think that a man who enjoys consensual sex should be compared to a serial murderer

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloverodella

I really don't understand the problem, or what it is you think needs discussion.

If someone is not vocally, enthusiastically willing to have sex with you, stop pursing and acknowledge their personal autonomy.
If someone is intoxicated and may not be capable of proper thinking, stop pursing and acknowledge their personal autonomy.
If you don't know if they're too intoxicated to properly think, stop pursing and acknowledge their personal autonomy, just in case.
If you are unsure if someone wants to have sexual contact, ask them, or just stop pursing and acknowledge their personal autonomy.
If the person would not say yes if you wait till tomorrow, stop pursuing and definitely don't fuck them because they don't want it with you, period.

And if you are unable to understand those things because you're too drunk/stupid/whatever, make sure you go out with a friend whose judgement you trust to keep you out of trouble, and just go home alone, grab some hand lotion, and use your hand.

It's super simple: if you are unsure whether someone is down to fuck, ask them and follow their wishes, unless you think they may be impaired, in which case go home alone and take a goddamned cold shower.

Consent is not this new thing. It's always been there. It's always been proper to make sure the person you want to do something with wants to do it with you. Period. There's nothing to complicate. The only difference is that these days, sometimes the sexual aggressor is actually punished for violating another person's autonomy and personhood.

This is all besides the fact that consent can be revoked at any time. If you're in the middle of sexual relations, for example both of you have your clothes off, either party can say something to the effect of "no, I don't want to do this," and call the thing off. That they said they were into it before has no bearing if they decide they're in over their head.

Besides, consent is fucking hot. It is such a turn on when a Dom says "do you want X?", and then responds to my "yes" with "then ask for it then, tell me you want it." If you are not openly communicating to your partner before, during, and after sex, you are doing it wrong.

In conclusion, consent is super simple: you put respect for fellow human beings above your need to get your rocks off. The only time it is not simple, as far as I can understand, is when the person says no but you don't like their answer, so you come up with "what ifs" and imagine a "slippery slope" that ends in "consent forms, witnessed by two or more of their friends and breathalyzer tests, maybe even drug tests and maybe even a waiting period like they do before buying a gun, before you 'hook up.'" And really, calling hook ups a "mating ritual" is intellectually dishonest. When you hook up with someone, it's for pleasure, not to leave the bar and make babies with someone you just met.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles

Since my first thread about consent went south and even though I started it by saying I believed in consent, I was told that I didn’t really believe in consent and was actually advocating rape and I was told that I had started the “conversation” “incorrectly” and basically “caused” everyone not to talk about consent and to instead talk about anything else instead, I thought I would try again and see if commenters could actually stick to the topic at hand or whether the subject is so emotionally charged that is impossible.

When I was young, sex was a taboo subject and the mating ritual was passed along in pieces by books, movies and your peers and you were left wondering how do you get there from here? Having gone from there though the “sexual revolution” to here, the 21st century, where, with a few key strokes, every type of “sex” can viewed and explained in great detail, it would seem that there should be no reason for anyone to say I didn’t know what I was getting into.

But obviously, I don’t know what I’m getting into. Let me explain.

When I was a youth, it seemed many people went to bars had a few drinks and “hooked up” but now in the 21st century that same thing seems to be headed toward consent forms, witnessed by two or more of their friends and breathalyzer tests, maybe even drug tests and maybe even a waiting period like they do before buying a gun, before you “hook up”.

Is anything short of that to be considered “rape” or is there a place somewhere in the spectrum of “consent” where, between two consenting adults, there can be “implied consent”?

Or is the, “two people meet and there is love at first sight and they make mad passionate love and live happily ever after” a thing of the past or is it to be “not without consent forms”?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

I think a smart/or honorable person, will not take advantage of someone or "hook up" with someone they barely know, who is clearly intoxicated.
It is possible to be charged with rape, even if you are married, so I think it's best to error on the side of caution, if you are smart.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

I think a smart/or honorable person, will not take advantage of someone or "hook up" with someone they barely know, who is clearly intoxicated.
It is possible to be charged with rape, even if you are married, so I think it's best to error on the side of caution, if you are smart.

I think one of the issues, here lies in this paragraph I pulled.

I think back to when I was "living better through chemicals" (Dear God in heaven; can it be over thirty years?) and I KNOW, for a fact, there were plenty of times I was intoxicated where no one else had a clue.

The DUI laws were changed in NJ, when I was just about to turn 18 (I would not be "grandfathered in" as legal). The penalties went from (this is from memory. Bear with me) a 60 day loss of license and $250 fine to 6 months and $2,000 per year "insurance surcharge". Also, this was when breathalyzers were instituted in NJ.

I will repeat: There were plenty of times when I was legally intoxicated, but because of having built up a tolerance, no one else knew I was.

Now, imagine being able to wake up with a case of "Fucker's Remorse" and honestly (as far as the law is concerned) being able to claim: "I was intoxicated and, therefore, it's not my fault I slept with that vile man"?

Unfortunately, that is (in some cases) what is going on, today. Sure, the ladies are "intoxicated" (by their own claim and by virtue of the legal limit only being .08%), but if they want to be REALLY honest, they "knew" what they were doing, at the time. They just didn't care or think it through or whatever and their "rapist" had no idea that they were "impaired".

Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: ThatDizzyChick

Jesus fuck, are you honestly this stupid?

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

I dont even think that he knows that consent means its "consensual" so yes

quote:

ORIGINAL: Milesnmiles
When I was a youth, it seemed many people went to bars had a few drinks and “hooked up” but now in the 21st century that same thing seems to be headed toward consent forms, witnessed by two or more of their friends and breathalyzer tests, maybe even drug tests and maybe even a waiting period like they do before buying a gun, before you “hook up”.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloverodella

I really don't understand the problem, or what it is you think needs discussion.

If someone is not vocally, enthusiastically willing to have sex with you, stop pursing and acknowledge their personal autonomy.
If someone is intoxicated and may not be capable of proper thinking, stop pursing and acknowledge their personal autonomy.
If you don't know if they're too intoxicated to properly think, stop pursing and acknowledge their personal autonomy, just in case.
If you are unsure if someone wants to have sexual contact, ask them, or just stop pursing and acknowledge their personal autonomy.
If the person would not say yes if you wait till tomorrow, stop pursuing and definitely don't fuck them because they don't want it with you, period.

And if you are unable to understand those things because you're too drunk/stupid/whatever, make sure you go out with a friend whose judgement you trust to keep you out of trouble, and just go home alone, grab some hand lotion, and use your hand.

It's super simple: if you are unsure whether someone is down to fuck, ask them and follow their wishes, unless you think they may be impaired, in which case go home alone and take a goddamned cold shower.

Consent is not this new thing. It's always been there. It's always been proper to make sure the person you want to do something with wants to do it with you. Period. There's nothing to complicate. The only difference is that these days, sometimes the sexual aggressor is actually punished for violating another person's autonomy and personhood.

This is all besides the fact that consent can be revoked at any time. If you're in the middle of sexual relations, for example both of you have your clothes off, either party can say something to the effect of "no, I don't want to do this," and call the thing off. That they said they were into it before has no bearing if they decide they're in over their head.

Besides, consent is fucking hot. It is such a turn on when a Dom says "do you want X?", and then responds to my "yes" with "then ask for it then, tell me you want it." If you are not openly communicating to your partner before, during, and after sex, you are doing it wrong.

In conclusion, consent is super simple: you put respect for fellow human beings above your need to get your rocks off. The only time it is not simple, as far as I can understand, is when the person says no but you don't like their answer, so you come up with "what ifs" and imagine a "slippery slope" that ends in "consent forms, witnessed by two or more of their friends and breathalyzer tests, maybe even drug tests and maybe even a waiting period like they do before buying a gun, before you 'hook up.'" And really, calling hook ups a "mating ritual" is intellectually dishonest. When you hook up with someone, it's for pleasure, not to leave the bar and make babies with someone you just met.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Lucylastic

miles, you said in the last thread

quote:

What? Do you really think that a man who enjoys consensual sex should be compared to a serial murderer

thats one hell of a straw man
consensual sex IS the point, and quite happy sex...
Non consensual sex IS rape, yanno, unless you have that adult version of CNC
learn it, get over yourself and stop pretending that because you are a child of the 60s, 70s and 80s that it was fine until women and men started "complaining". about their rights too.
blue balls wont kill you...
its a new discovery.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini
I "think" I get, a bit of where you are going here.
I remember being younger, and having too much to drink or smoke, and sometimes finding myself in "situations".
I learned not to put myself in compromising positions, when I had overindulged.

Another question could be, "Is someone ABLE to give consent when they are intoxicated or not fully coherent"?
If you are in a committed relationship or a marriage, and you are drunk, medicated or high, you still need to be able to give "consent", even intoxicated.

What if you are NOT in a committed relationship, you are drunk or high out of your mind, and you say "yes"--engage in sexual activities, and then sober up and say "no" an hour later?

Was it rape?

I think a smart/or honorable person, will not take advantage of someone or "hook up" with someone they barely know, who is clearly intoxicated.
It is possible to be charged with rape, even if you are married, so I think it's best to error on the side of caution, if you are smart.

I have read profiles of people stating that want to be "raped"/forced and abused, etc.
I am not even sure how that works, are they giving "consent" to be forced/abused?
What happens when they give "consent" to be forced/raped or abused, and in the middle of the activity, they find it is no longer fun, and say no?
If you STOP immediately, was it still consensual?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marini

I think a smart/or honorable person, will not take advantage of someone or "hook up" with someone they barely know, who is clearly intoxicated.
It is possible to be charged with rape, even if you are married, so I think it's best to error on the side of caution, if you are smart.

I think one of the issues, here lies in this paragraph I pulled.

I think back to when I was "living better through chemicals" (Dear God in heaven; can it be over thirty years?) and I KNOW, for a fact, there were plenty of times I was intoxicated where no one else had a clue.

The DUI laws were changed in NJ, when I was just about to turn 18 (I would not be "grandfathered in" as legal). The penalties went from (this is from memory. Bear with me) a 60 day loss of license and $250 fine to 6 months and $2,000 per year "insurance surcharge". Also, this was when breathalyzers were instituted in NJ.

I will repeat: There were plenty of times when I was legally intoxicated, but because of having built up a tolerance, no one else knew I was.

Now, imagine being able to wake up with a case of "Fucker's Remorse" and honestly (as far as the law is concerned) being able to claim: "I was intoxicated and, therefore, it's not my fault I slept with that vile man"?

Unfortunately, that is (in some cases) what is going on, today. Sure, the ladies are "intoxicated" (by their own claim and by virtue of the legal limit only being .08%), but if they want to be REALLY honest, they "knew" what they were doing, at the time. They just didn't care or think it through or whatever and their "rapist" had no idea that they were "impaired".

Michael