Sure, how you feel about any particular experience is fluid and
non-binary, but you don't "kind of" say "yes" or "kind of" say "no" to
something. You can put conditions on that "yes" or "no," but if you
don't communicate one or the other, the other person can't know whether or not
they have your permission, or "consent" to engage in the activity at
all.
If you present "consent" as a universal "in-between yes and no" you automatically make every single person who participates in sex "kind of a rapist" even in the best case.
Setting a standard for behavior (you must get "consent") and then not allowing people to know what that standard is ("consent" is somewhere on this scale...) is about as reasonable as posting a speed limit sign with no numbers on it.
While participating in a recent discussion about whether consent should be a "scaled" thing, these quotes came up:
For there to be a sexual assault - a criminal act, there has to be a perpetrator of a crime. That means every single time somebody is sexually assaulted, somebody else has to have perpetrated criminal actions against them.
For it to be possible to criminalize the actions of a person after the fact, who had been purposefully given a clearly communicated understanding that they were not committing a criminal act at the time, is simply unreasonable. (and could be argued as unconscionable)
If you operate under that "consent" ideology, when somebody says "yes" to a well-intentioned partner, but they don't really mean yes, they are literally making the other person unknowingly commit what is considered a form of violent crime.
I'm sorry, but I'm just never going to believe that's a reasonable position on the subject of "consent." If what you communicate doesn't match what you feel, or even how you feel about it later, that's on you, not them. It may suck big-time to realize you should have said "no" instead of "yes," but your regret about your own decision doesn't make somebody else a criminal.
And despite the victim politics buzzing around the "social justice" sphere lately, feeling bad about something you do doesn't automatically mean somebody else should be punished, even if they weren't doing anything wrong. If they follow the rules in the way any reasonable person would expect them to, they are not "assaulting" you, or "violating" you, or "perpetrating" any sort of criminal activity against you. You may be traumatized by the experience, but you are not victimized by that person.
And just because I'm sure it's going to come up if I don't specifically address it, No, I'm not talking about circumstances where threat or reasonably defined intimidation are being used to coerce* a "yes" from somebody.
* "coerce" according to the actual definition, not the convoluted "social justice" definition
If you present "consent" as a universal "in-between yes and no" you automatically make every single person who participates in sex "kind of a rapist" even in the best case.
Setting a standard for behavior (you must get "consent") and then not allowing people to know what that standard is ("consent" is somewhere on this scale...) is about as reasonable as posting a speed limit sign with no numbers on it.
Speed Limit: ?
Violators will be ticketed.While participating in a recent discussion about whether consent should be a "scaled" thing, these quotes came up:
so many students tell me so many stories about when sex "wasn't a good idea" or "didn't go well" or "was not really rape but still felt awful..." or "i gave him a blow job cuz it seemed like the best way to get out of the situation." the attitude we're encouraged to take is to remind them all that it was sexual assault and a violation of their consent, no matter what. and i do think that is true.
I wasn't thinking about this as a scale I'd use with a partner to discuss sex, like "I'm a 3 on the kinsey-consent scale about this upcoming scene." more as a way to talk to other people after the fact - like "i was about a 3 on the kinsey consent scale that night"This really bothers me.
For there to be a sexual assault - a criminal act, there has to be a perpetrator of a crime. That means every single time somebody is sexually assaulted, somebody else has to have perpetrated criminal actions against them.
For it to be possible to criminalize the actions of a person after the fact, who had been purposefully given a clearly communicated understanding that they were not committing a criminal act at the time, is simply unreasonable. (and could be argued as unconscionable)
sex "wasn't a good idea" or "didn't go well" or "was not really rape but still felt awful..." or "i gave him a blow job cuz it seemed like the best way to get out of the situation." the attitude we're encouraged to take is to remind them all that it was sexual assault and a violation of their consent, no matter what.
more as a way to talk to other people after the fact - like "i was about a 3 on the kinsey consent scale that night"If you operate under that "consent" ideology, where regret about a bad decision and misleading communication on your part is twisted into the criminal liability of somebody else, you literally criminalize sex even when consent is given.
If you operate under that "consent" ideology, when somebody says "yes" to a well-intentioned partner, but they don't really mean yes, they are literally making the other person unknowingly commit what is considered a form of violent crime.
I'm sorry, but I'm just never going to believe that's a reasonable position on the subject of "consent." If what you communicate doesn't match what you feel, or even how you feel about it later, that's on you, not them. It may suck big-time to realize you should have said "no" instead of "yes," but your regret about your own decision doesn't make somebody else a criminal.
And despite the victim politics buzzing around the "social justice" sphere lately, feeling bad about something you do doesn't automatically mean somebody else should be punished, even if they weren't doing anything wrong. If they follow the rules in the way any reasonable person would expect them to, they are not "assaulting" you, or "violating" you, or "perpetrating" any sort of criminal activity against you. You may be traumatized by the experience, but you are not victimized by that person.
And just because I'm sure it's going to come up if I don't specifically address it, No, I'm not talking about circumstances where threat or reasonably defined intimidation are being used to coerce* a "yes" from somebody.
* "coerce" according to the actual definition, not the convoluted "social justice" definition
No comments:
Post a Comment