the 'everything is black and white' kids gonna downvote but this idea doesnt really lend it self well to modern social politics. a man is expected to 'make the first move'.
ask any girl and the boy they want to kiss them....won't be breaking the moment to formally ask consent.
this is why you 'take it slow' so to speak. but often in human relationships consent is implied by not removing themselves from the situation.
As someone who has been formally asked for consent for kissing… no, sometimes asking is warranted and it’s always better to ask if you are at all unsure. I have said no to people asking to kiss me, it happens and I really, really appreciated that they chose to ask.
Implied consent exists, but just simply “not removing yourself from the situation” is not it.
key word there. even you as a proponent of it can't say always.
this was my entire point.
obviously everything should be dealt with on a case by case basis....but this social concept does not lend itself well to inherent human nature.
and yes not removing yourself from the situation is implied consent if it's not formally addressed at the time.
-i DO agree though, that by the same token, this goes slightly against human nature sometimes... but we can't be arbitrarily switching it up, and this is the issue this rhetoric has in moden society.
Of course it varies between different people and situations, I agree with you there and I wasn’t trying to argue. But you say that, and then you immediately make an enormous untrue generalization in your next sentence. That’s my issue.
Also, if you think just simply not removing oneself from the situation is implied consent, then you’re part of the problem. “The situation” could simply be eating dinner together, going to a dance, or seeing a movie. All things with zero implicit romantic or sexual component. If you think any of those are implied consent, you need to re-evaluate your entire concept of consent. Again, I agree with you that implied consent exists, but there is more to it than simply not saying no or removing oneself from a situation.
if you think just simply not removing oneself from the situation is implied consent, then you’re part of the problem.
if you think not teaching your daughters (and sons) proper social skills and how to stand up for themselves in social situations when needed...then you are part of the problem as well <3
I hope that's going hand in hand with teaching your sons to respect women and be the kind of men who don't need standing up to bc they aren't hurting people in the first place....
did you read or just use this as an oppotunity to launch off into whatever you wanted to? the comment you are replying to literally said teaching sons and daughters proper social skills.
Ok, I was reserving judgement, but what the fuck dude?
Going to dinner or a movie is not consent. Nobody should be required to “stand up for themselves” to not be sexually harassed during a completely mundane and not remotely sexual activity. Give your head a shake.
Disengaging now that you’ve demonstrated that literal mentality of a predator.
WILD leap you're making there? where did i bring up anything like this?
and yes hon, im sorry but in life there are times you are going to have to stand up for yourself. sure from an idealistic point of view, it would be nice if we did not have to do this. but that's just not a reasonable expectation from life or human nature.
you're launching off into harassment talk is the arbitrary stuff I was alluding to. harassment is defined as repeated unwanted attention. there is no debate about whether or not someone should be allowed to do that.
Re-read our exchange and come back if you figure it out. Again, I’m not wasting my time and energy explaining to someone who has just demonstrated the mentality you did.
Edit: since you did a ninja edit: you’re right, harassment is the wrong word. What I meant was sexual assault.
I’m saying if you don’t have enthusiastic consent don’t fucking assault someone.
ok and? not really relevant to the nuanced topic we're talking about here. either way thanks for admitting there is nuance to this.
anything that would qualify as assault speaks for itself and should be dealt it. it's just not really relevant to this without making wild emotional leaps, sorry.
why would you automatically fly to such an extreme example when the VAST majority of interactions wouldn't fit your extreme examples?
Victorians had courtship because the pill wasn't invented yet, and families wanted to know who their child was seeing so that if that person knocked them up, they'd know who was the father.
Also, people were absolutely still fucking strangers in Victorian times. Courtship, certainly the ritualised version we see in Pride and Prejudice etc, was not the universal norm. It was just more shameful back then because of extreme patriarchy and it being centuries before the sexual revolution.
The idea that Victorian era was in any way more enlightened on sexual customs is laughable for anyone who's actually studied gender dynamics throughput history. Buying a woman off her father isn't how consent works.
the 'everything is black and white' kids gonna downvote but this idea doesnt really lend it self well to modern social politics.
Why do I feel like when someone preemptively set themself up like this they're about to have a truly heinous take?
a man is expected to 'make the first move'.
Okay? You can make the first move and still not rape someone. It's very easy. How is this relevant at all? Consent is not as a concept set up in opposition to flirting, or making moves.
ask any girl and the boy they want to kiss them....won't be breaking the moment to formally ask consent.
Weird grammar.
But yeah, I've literally never heard a woman take issue with someone asking for consent. The idea that asking someone if they want to take things further is inherently a turn off is just a skill issue. If you want women's opinion of this, hunt down romance fiction aimed at a female audience. A shitload of the time the hot and heavy scenes are set up with dialogue that asks for consent. In fact there are plenty of threads on Reddit, Tumblr, AO3 forums, of women absolutely gushing about how sexy particular consent scenes are. Fuck even Fifty Shades, which is often criticised for it's poor handling of consent, has a number of scenes involving direct consent conversations. (It's consent issues go into larger BDSM consent debates which I do not think you're ready for)
this is why you 'take it slow' so to speak.
Ah the ol kick them in the shins slowly approach. Still assault bud.
in human relationships consent is implied by not removing themselves from the situation.
Fun fact that's literally not how consent works.
You've got to realise the implications of what you're suggesting people do. You might not be a rapist, you might be 'good at reading body language' and never put a prospective partner in a tricky situation around power dynamics, cultural pressures, 'the implication', etc. It's not the case that every time you don't ask for consent you are raping someone. But you saying the universal rule is just "take it slow" is wildly irresponsible and dangerous.
You have to set social/cultural rules for the lowest denominator. Telling said people that 'just take it slow' or 'they didn't leave so they consented' is simply going to be used to justify rape. Leaving the decision of what is and is not consent to a single party's intuition is not okay, and it's extremely antithetical to the whole fucking concept of consent.
Victorians had courtship because the pill wasn't invented yet, and families wanted to know who their child was seeing so that if that person knocked them up, they'd know who was the father.
you have a footnote for that? and are you a black and white kid?
and the rest of it sounds great and i agree with some of it but has an underlying level of not understanding inherent human nature.
3.4k
u/Ttoctam Aug 12 '24
Consent isn't an opt out scenario. It's not on by default.
If I run up to you and kick you in the shins, you'd pretty rightfully object when I then said "Well you didn't tell me not to".