How does 'affirmative consent' work?

hippydipster · 2016-06-02T14:53:05+00:00

Verbal affirmative consent? Then we're just back to a he said/she said situation.

This is what you want though.

If it was a case of a girl was claiming you raped her, and the judge asked you "did you ask her if she wanted to have sex with you?" and you said no, well you're probably fucked.

If you say you did, recite the exchange, then you at least have a stance and a defense.

And while there have been a few cases where men have been convicted anyway, most of the time, these cases are actually dismissed unless the girl can provide additional evidence (vaginal test showing trauma, proof of incapacitation and inability to consent).

But I think where the power in this most lies is the fact that, if a girl WAS feeling unsure, you are giving her an out. You may miss your chance of getting laid that night, but an unsure girl might mean she might want to put the blame on you later on. Even if it wouldn't have really been rape had you continued, you are filtering out a potential shitstorm later on.

The more you stick to chicks that enthusiastically want your penis and aren't wasted, the less likely you are to ever get a rape accusation.

Also, psychological studies have shown when you give people a choice about something, and they make a choice, they tend to feel better and more confident of the choice they picked. So again, it goes in your favor as the girl will be a lot less likely to regret your sex later on.

From a man's perspective (or at least, the party that is propositioning for sex), I cannot think of a good reason NOT to do this.

The mood died? If a mood dies because you asked, "you really feeling up for this?" then chances are you just dogged a massive bullet because the girl wasn't really up for fucking you anyway. Asking that question won't kill the mood if you have a girl who's actually there deliberately and happily.

modulok · 2016-06-02T15:06:49+00:00

[deleted]

citrusdrink76 · 2016-06-02T17:00:21+00:00

Has anyone answered this yet, OP? With a concrete definition of 'affirmative consent'? I saw the post from yesterday and the OP had not included a (legal) definition of it. Is there one? In California? Anywhere? Because if there isn't, I don't see how anybody, feminists included, can possibly think it's workable/doable. In order to perform an act, especially an act that, not-performed, may lead to criminal charges, there needs to be a clear definition of said act.

Now, as for the rest of this. It's kind of a total fucking mess, isn't it? I'll try and be semi-coherent here.

Relationships matter here. When I talk about this I am assuming a ONS/hook-up type situation, simply because it seems that mistaken assumptions about consent are much more likely to occur here than in an established relationship where both parties know each other well.
Some people are saying this law lessens the chances of 'accidental' rape (i.e. rape where she doesn't want it but also doesn't verbalize it or clearly indicate it and he assumes that she is consenting) and maybe it does but is the law the place for this? When it necessarily criminalizes a LOT of people? According to the 'affirmative (verbal??) consent' people I am both a rape victim and a rapist. How do people not see how totally unworkable this is? The definition of 'affirmative consent' needs to be clearly stated and conversation can go from there.
I suggest that if anyone feels they are in any danger of a 'freeze' response to sex, then they have no business putting themselves in a situation where sex is explicitly on the table. Why would you do that (to yourself)? What possible reason could there be to go back to a stranger's house, make out with them, maybe get naked etc. if you DON'T intend to have sex with them? Why would any woman who isn't sure she wants sex put herself in that situation? I personally do not believe that freeze response = rape. If you have given no indication that you've changed your mind about having sex (or that you didn't want sex in the first place despite going back to his house late at night and making out with him), the man is not a rapist. The responsibility is on the woman there. If you think there is even a tiny chance that you will be unable to indicate lack of consent in a sexual situation, it's your responsibility to not get into a sexual situation. And if anyone's going to ask me if this means getting felt up by a stranger on the metro and having a freeze response (or some similar scenario) means you're at fault for being felt up - NO. I am talking specifically about sexual situations that a woman has put herself in (like going back to a dude's apartment after meeting him at a party and talking to/making out with him all night).
Sex is not safe. The law, your university's policy, government policy etc. cannot make sex safe. A 120 lb. woman going back to a 200 lb. man's home when they are strangers and he is sexually aroused is inherently dangerous. I believe girls need to be raised to understand this and to take control of their own decisions when it comes to their sex lives.
It's interesting how having sex with strangers, always an inherently dangerous thing for a woman, has now or is now becoming dangerous for men, too. The nature of rape is intimate - that there will be no witnesses. He said/she said. That's the reason women need to be careful about who they go home with. But it's also the reason, now, that men need to be careful about who they go home with.
Affirmative consent. Definition needed, feminism.

Edit: 7. Red Pill, you really need to stop advising the recording, without consent, of sexual encounters. You're encouraging men to commit a crime when you do that and it's fucking stupid.

statsfodder · 2016-06-03T00:19:02+00:00

It has to be muddy as hell or it won't work as intended, to weaponize sex and to absolve women of responsibility and consequence.

He didn't call you the next day - rape

He did call the next day - rape

He wasn't any good - rape

Your friends laughed at you for banging him - rape

You sobered up and he wasn't as cute or as charming as he was last night - rape

You got caught cheating - rape

These are all examples where consent was given but the femmenazis will argue that you can withdraw consent after the fact... I can't get myself stupid enough to understand that logic.

Flipside though... she knowingly lies that it is his kid when it isn't? - Perfectly OK

obstinatebeagle · 2016-06-03T05:09:19+00:00

It works like this - men stop asking women for sex. Seriously what do you think is the point of a law in which a man has to somehow magically prove he had consent and has a record of it to the court's satisfaction? It's to stop him daring to take the risk of having sex in the first place.

Consent contracts mean nothing. You could claim you signed under duress, you could claim you changed your mind - and according to the law this would be fine because consent must be ongoing, you could claim that you consented to one sexual act but not another and that was not spelled out in the fine print, etc.

civilsaint · 2016-06-02T16:22:04+00:00

Nothing that you suggested could positively ensure consent. Consent can be withdrawn at any time, even after the fact if the person decides they FELT coerced in any way. There is no contract, app, or photo than can demonstrate ongoing and enthusiastic consent throughout the entirety of the sexual act/s.

The real purpose of affirmative consent is to allow any woman to accuse any man of rape if they have any contact.

I'm not saying millions of women will do this, but it is enabling the nutters out there to screw with a man's life for their own purposes.

The counter to the law is that the accused has to knowingly commit a crime. The only way they can know it is if a person says no. So in practice, the law will have to revert to 'no means no'.

We just have to live through this hysteria until it destroys third wave feminism.

BTW, I'm glad this topic is being debated so frequently lately.

GridReXX · 2016-06-02T16:39:40+00:00

"Affirmative Consent" or rather an enthusiastic partner offers peace of mind to the man.

If your partner is wincing or dead in the eyes as you're fucking her... do not be surprised if she doesn't think fondly of the experience.

Women who don't think fondly of the experience tend to regret said experience.

Women who regret the sex tend to be more likely to liken the experience to an unwanted and uncomfortable one ...à la rape.

These women are more likely to falsely accuse than a woman who was an enthusiastic participant of said sexual experience.

I agree with /u/shoup88 that the importance of finding an enthusiastic partner should be taught culturally. As a law it's a bit nebulous... how do you prove it? But as a concept it makes 100% perfect sense.

I find people of the "I don't care if the other person is into it or not" variety no different than sadists. If you don't care... hire a prostitute.

bluehorseinvincible · 2016-06-02T17:07:26+00:00

Can I look in your direction? Can I touch your hand? Can I kiss you? Can I kiss you deeper? Can I brush your breast? Can I cup it? Can I remove your shirt......

Hear that sound children, that's the sounds of vagina's drying up.

shoup88 · 2016-06-02T15:07:59+00:00

These issues are partially why I think affirmative consent should be taught in sex education, but not written into law. Culturally, the idea still exists that men want to have sex and women need to convinced or cajoled into it. When a man has sex with a woman, it's like he's pulling one over on her. I'd like to see a societal shift where we see sex as a positive experience for both parties. Where you're not trying to trick someone into having sex with you, but instead you're trying to find someone who actively wants to do it, too.

Affirmative consent laws are not designed to stop men who are purposefully and knowingly raping their victim. They're designed to help men who truly can't read body language or understand nonverbal cues, and to help women who freeze under pressure and aren't voicing their discomfort.

Basically, this law will (theoretically) stop 'accidental' rapes from happening, but will do nothing to prevent deliberate acts. The only way to implement this law to have any effect would be through widespread education. People should be aware the law exists, so that they don't unknowingly violate it. I don't think it will do much in terms of prosecution, but it could help with prevention. Laws are not solely about punishment.

Note: I'm saying men and women because that's what is law is really about, but obviously the genders could be switched.

drok007 · 2016-06-02T15:21:18+00:00

I bet they'll make an app for it.

Justbeingme145 · 2016-06-02T15:18:10+00:00

Then we're just back to a he said/she said situation

It's almost always a he said/she said situation. Affermative consent is, in my view, not meant to weed out actual rapists, but people who take advantage of other drunk or otherwise not entirely conscious people. It also prevents people from being scared into sexual acts (she didn't say no, so it's not rape!). I really don't understand the hysteria about this. Just ask "is this okay with you?" and if get an enthusiastic yes, continue on. If not, just bugger off.

TheChemist158 · 2016-06-02T19:55:49+00:00

I'm not a fan of affirmative consent either, but I thought the point was to ensure the woman was comfortable and okay with the actions, rather than to generate proof that the sex was consensual. So you could stop and ask if this is okay regularly to ensure she is comfortable. It wouldn't generate proof that your could later show to a court, but it's would prevent cases where the woman was too scared to say no.

SkinnySweaty · 2016-06-02T16:36:02+00:00

Here's the real issue that will be on display throughout the comments section, terpers believing as a point of faith that women are actively looking to accuse them of rape just because they feel like it.

Blue pill, on the other hand, recognizes that relationships are not often open warfare, therefore consent is an afterthought, if it's even thought about at all since we respect our partners.

You guys want to play uneducated Internet lawyer, but the real difference is not getting addressed.

MakeEmSayAyy · 2016-06-03T08:32:13+00:00

affirmative consent is what you get when women get control of society.

there is ZERO semblance of justice of responsibility involved in the idea for the woman, and 100% liability for the man

Just how women like it!

[deleted] · 2016-06-03T13:09:29+00:00

In my opinion there is no possible way to write any workable legislation on this issue. It is impossible to develop a framework and impossible to police. You should not reverse the presumption of innocence or implement retroactive legislation. In most civilised legal systems the constitution and the judiciary prevents such terrible law from being implemented. It would also be legislation based on a lie.

The very suggestion of making laws requiring affirmative consent before a sex act is fundamentally ridiculous. One cannot set up a pre-emptive defence to a possible future crime. Even with a contract a person can withdraw consent at any time during the act. The fact that this topic is even being discussed just shows how afraid of the bogeyman these poor brainwashed girls are.

Sometimes I think SJWs and feminists are more to be pitied than scorned. They are so lost in a dreamworld it's like they have Munchausen's syndrome. It is like these idiots who have no medical reason to avoid milk/ gluten/ pork/ insert foodstuff here/ but diagnose themselves and say "I feel better now" when they stop eating it. We have laws against rape and sexual assault. Laws are there to protect everyone in society; men, women and children.

kick6 · 2016-06-03T13:56:04+00:00

How does affirmative consent work?

it doesn't.

BluePiller1776 · 2016-06-02T15:19:20+00:00

How does 'affirmative consent' work?

Partner 1 : "Hey do you want to do [sex act]"

Partner 2 : "Yes"

Couple does [sex act]

OR

Partner 1 : "Hey do you want to do [sex act]"

Partner 2 : "No"

Couple doesn't do [sex act]

Literally all you are doing is making sure your partner is okay with what you are doing before you do it.

rappedillyen · 2016-06-04T03:48:03+00:00

Ask your prospect to take a quick video with your phone.

"I, So-and-so, being a legally responsible adult and of my own volition, do hereby agree to have sex with whatsisface but not do <position I don't like>"

Yes, I realize nobody would actually do this, but if it became the norm it would solve the problem pretty quick. If a jury sees a video and someone's obviously slurring their words, it's a clear indicator something untoward happened. If someone seems normal then suddenly starts slurring their words, it's time to get your phone back and your ass out the door.

GuildedCasket · 2016-06-04T15:43:39+00:00

Affirmative consent, in a legal sense, means nothing. You still need physical evidence in nearly all cases - it's why the vast majority of sexual assaults go unprosecuted.

Affirmative consent is more a concept we should teach everyone. It's the idea that someone should be enthusiastic and happy to be there, and if they arent, it's not worth it to either party to go through with it.

This can manifest as:

"God, I really want to fucking kiss you right now." "Then do it."

Physical enthusiasm in response to you (doesnt everyone hate starfishing anyway?). Obvious verbal enthusiasm.

"You want my cock inside you?" "Fuck yes, please!"

Lack of signs of uncomfortableness like being hesitant or quiet, pushing you away, not communicating, seeming reluctant.

In my mind it's not and cannot be a legal standard (and isnt). But it should be the standard we all, male and female, hold ourselves to. Because really, who just wants fucking notches? People want fulfilling, fun, awesome, sexy sex, and engaging with someone who cant say "Yes, fuck me!" Or who isnt scrabbling to get to your dick or pussy or someone who isnt gleeful when your mouth is on their cock or clit.... who wants that? No one.

And it has the awesome side effect of avoiding accidentally fucking someone who didnt want to be fucked.

adrixshadow · 2016-06-06T20:32:07+00:00

You video tape it.

That is the ONLY solution. Consent contracts are scraps of paper with no legal weight. They will evaporate just like Pre-nups.

AutoModerator · 2016-06-02T14:43:14+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

dakru · 2016-06-02T15:21:21+00:00

I don't have a good answer for you, but I think it's important for framing the discussion that we're actually dealing with two separate questions. First, what does someone have to do to get affirmative consent? (i.e. what actions count, and how often do those actions have to happen?) And second, assuming that someone has done this, how do they prove or demonstrate it in a court or university tribunal?

Here the concept of sex contracts makes a lot more sense. Obviously they're not needed in response to the first question. I'd be surprised if someone verbally affirming their desire to have sex wasn't sufficient to count as affirmative consent (though it's not at all clear how often this has to happen for the consent to be "ongoing", which is a major major problem).

But what about the second question? How do you prove that she verbally affirmed her consent? After all, part of the reason for affirmative consent laws seems to be to shift the burden of proof to the man to make sure he got consent, rather than the woman to make sure she made it clear that she didn't consent. It's here where the point of "so do we need sex contracts?" makes more sense. They're proposing a way to look at rape that seems to require sex contracts to prove that you didn't rape someone.

czerdec · 2016-06-02T20:27:36+00:00

It's accurate that secretly recording sex is illegal.

It's highly debatable that it is morally wrong. Weed is illegal almost everywhere. But a minority of millennials think weed is a moral problem.

Hypothetical: a law is passed that allows a person to buy police-issue recording equipment. The device will function purely as protection from dishonest accusers (and a deterrent).

It can only be played by officially sanctioned sex crime officials. It would have an uplink to the police to alert them when it's being used. Provided nobody makes an accusation, the evidence would not be examined.

Just an idle speculation.

Why do we ban secret recording of sex? To prevent third parties from invading the privacy of others without proper legal justification.

Such a device is perfectly fine, morally. It would dissuade some would-be false accusers.

In fact, I'm not sure you can morally justify a blanket prohibition on a person recording his lovers without their knowledge. A written account of sex, if accurate, is perfectly legal. That is a form of recording.

In practice, it's difficult but not impossible for a person to covertly record all his lovers but never allow another soul to see the recordings. In such an instance, there is simply no empirical harm suffered by any party.

midnightvulpine · 2016-06-02T20:51:22+00:00

Personally, I see this more as a way to make sure guys are actually confirming the girl is down, rather than taking submissive silence as consent. In he most in the moment, practical sense.

wombatinaburrow · 2016-06-03T02:33:32+00:00

It's to protect people who don't understand social cues. If in doubt; ask.

How does 'affirmative consent' work?

Comments

AH- SLIGHT PROBLEM IN THE UK WHEN DPP GUIDANCE EFFECTIVELY MADE TI THE LAW OF THE LAND IN THE UK. SEEMS TO BE MORE A CASE THAT PEOPLE'S BODILY SPACE IS CLASS B AIRSPACE RATHER THAN CLASS G.

^{^{^I}} ^{^{^am}} ^{^{^a}} ^{^{^bot,}} ^{^{^and}} ^{^{^I}} ^{^{^don't}} ^{^{^respond}} ^{^{^to}} ^{^{^myself.}}

Title	How does 'affirmative consent' work?
Author	GaiusScaevolus
Upvotes	24
Comments	376
Date	June 2, 2016 2:43 PM UTC (10 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4m7hb4/how_does_affirmative_consent_work/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/how-does-affirmative-consent-work.274453 https://theredarchive.com/post/274453

Comments

AH- SLIGHT PROBLEM IN THE UK WHEN DPP GUIDANCE EFFECTIVELY MADE TI THE LAW OF THE LAND IN THE UK. SEEMS TO BE MORE A CASE THAT PEOPLE'S BODILY SPACE IS CLASS B AIRSPACE RATHER THAN CLASS G.

I am a bot, and I don't respond to myself.

^{^{^I}} ^{^{^am}} ^{^{^a}} ^{^{^bot,}} ^{^{^and}} ^{^{^I}} ^{^{^don't}} ^{^{^respond}} ^{^{^to}} ^{^{^myself.}}