Comment by Pfhreak

4 years ago

It's not vague. Consent is an enthusiastic and unambiguous yes. Was there an enthusiastic and unambiguous yes? You have consent. Was there not an enthusiastic and unambiguous yes? You do not have consent.

>enthusiastic and unambiguous

<rolls eyes>

By redefining consent you've just redefined rape to include some large percentage of people in stable relationships. If everyone's a rapist nobody is.

  • If you are having sex and your partner isn't unambiguously interested, you need to ask yourself some questions.

    Also, people in stable relationships can have non consensual sex. It was legal to rape your wife until like the 90s in parts of the states.

    • People have agency. They're allowed to choose, of their own free will, to do things they aren't 100% on board with. That includes sex.

      Blowing your husband because it wastes less of your time then him trying to woo you or popping a Viagra because your wife is hitting the bong and you know what she's gonna want next aren't ideal but they're facts of some peoples lives.

      There's no way you can honestly allege those sorts of things are rape. So how do you justify your redefinition of consent?

      1 reply →

I think we can agree on that.

I'm not arguing about what consent is, I'm arguing about whether you bear responsibility for what happens to you if you put yourself in a vulnerable position, give consent without being of sound mind, and then regret it later. I think 1) that's pretty dumb to put yourself in that situation, and 2) you do have partial responsibility for what happened.

  • Sure, but do you believe that's what's described here? I don't see anything that suggests that consent was ever given.

    • I'm pretty sure I wrote that I don't know what the facts are here and that I'm inclined to side with her.

      I'm asking about this situation in general, not about her specific case.