Comment by Pfhreak
4 years ago
> Why does it take months and therapy for her to decode those clear signals?
Because brains aren't just bundles of logical interpreters that fully understand what they are experiencing all the time. There are many, many reasons why we may rationalize some behavior in the moment. Why do victims of cons sometimes defend the con artists for significant periods of time after they leave? Why do humans hold out hope for lost loved ones, when the evidence is clear they've passed away?
Emotionally charged topics take a long time for our minds to process sometimes. Sometimes we need help from others to put our thoughts in order or to gain perspective. Maybe she never asked herself, "Why was I crying?" until a therapist said, "Why were you crying?" We're all wired different, and we have to allow for some flexibility in how were perceive and react to events -- especially traumatic events.
> To me, that implies you are suggesting it should be illegal to have sex with this woman - after all, she apparently can't tell if she consented or not.
Come on, that's a clear strawman. I'm happy to disagree with you about this and discuss it, but that whole paragraph feels needlessly out of line.
I think the paragraph that you identify as a strawman is actually the core of our disagreement. I don't intend it as a strawman of your idea but as an illustration of why I struggle to accept the idea that you can retroactively change whether or not you consented - or, phrased in a way you might be more likely to agree with, whether or not you can reevaluate your consent decisions after the fact.
If she doesn't know whether she genuinely consents to sex or not, then how is it morally acceptable to have sex with her? You might be raping her. If she can reevaluate consent decisions in the future, that implies they are not certain in the present. It seems straightforward to say that if you are uncertain about whether someone consents to sex you shouldn't have sex with them.
If this is a strawman I genuinely don't see it. I think it is the logical consequence of accepting mutable consent and it is part of why I don't accept that - or at least why I hesitate to accept mutable consent.
> If she doesn't know whether she genuinely consents to sex or not, then how is it morally acceptable to have sex with her?
Thing is, this is all a nonissue if your partner is enthusiastically into having sex with you.
So maybe more mutually fulfilling romps and less "well it was borderline but I did it anyway."
Yes consent isn't an issue when you assume your partner is consenting.
The problem is enthusiasm varies wildly. There are people I know whose sex would never be described as enthusiastic. There are lots of mild mannered anxious lovers out there. And I could see how it would be difficult for someone to judge the exact level of enthusiasm in a new lover.
Convincing herself it was consensual after doesn't mean she consented during.
What does consent mean to you? Not saying no? Or an enthusiastic yes?
Not saying no.
I've had plenty of sex I wasn't super enthusiastic about but I wouldn't consider any of those exes rapists because I didn't say no.
When you're in a relationship for years not all of the sex is super enthusiastic. There were times when I had sex because I didn't want to hurt their feelings or they traveled a distance to see me.
And I'm sure there were times when my partner wasn't that in the mood and had sex with me for reasons besides they really wanted to have sex at that moment.
Personally outside of established relationships I always waited for the other person to make the first move because I was always so terrified of kissing someone who didn't want to kissed.
But talking with plenty of men and women over my life the majority of sex does not involve an unambiguous yes.
2 replies →