Mutilating tacit sexual consent

Author: Analgesic.Spectre

Posts

Total: 56
Topic's author
#1
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
In the past 50 years or so, sex has transpired without the need for explicit rejection or consent. By virtue of the fact that a woman is not physically rejecting your advances, it is apparent that she is just fine with you forcing the issue. If she has to resort to a firm "no" (as opposed to a playful "no"), then you've, as a man, already missed at least several cues of rejection. The benefit of this approach is that it allows sex to be sexy. Women enjoy being taken by a masculine man, and men enjoy the masculinity found in leading the interaction.

Skipping forward to the current decade, and the conception of "yes means yes" is all but ruining the sexual experience. Nothing kills the mood quicker, for both men and women, than the man grovelling for permission. Yet people are dispensing this unsexy add-on of sex all around college campuses, requesting revision of laws (http://endrapeoncampus.org/yes-means-yes/).

Clearly, this is a byproduct of Feminist philosophy, and is thus an extension of undesirable facets of female psychology. Women need to understand that men are unable to just know what she wants, and that courting attempts, by unworthy suitors, may eventuate. In reality, the ideal environment for Feminists would be:

1) Unattractive men are not legally allowed to flirt with women
2) Attractive men just knowing when a woman likes her, and thus will automatically court her
3) Men who have, in the eyes of women, unfairly garnered sex, are to be legally prosecuted (e.gs. lying about ownership of a big boat; the woman being drunk and having sex with a man she would have rejected, had she been sober)

This Feminist utopia is a hellscape for men, as men are unable to naturally gauge their attractiveness to a woman, without flirting with her, thus it devolves into Russian Roulette. Hence, as societies draw closer to it, we see counterpushes from the MRM and MGTOW, suggesting anything from men fighting back against the misandric culture, to walking away from women altogether.

Personally, I would like to see women held responsible for their decisions. We need to stop enabling the pricklier facets of female psychology, and encourage women to realise their potential to become fully functioning, responsible adults, rather than little girls protected from their emotional whims by laws. They are more than capable of owning their actions, and I think would derive great pride and respect from being recognised as fully autonomous individuals, far more than any Feminist notion of imaginary incorrigibility has to offer.
#2
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
Or maybe men need to stop raping women? 🤔
Topic's author
#3
Analgesic.Spectre
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 468
1
1
6
Analgesic.Spectre's avatar
Analgesic.Spectre
1
1
6
-->
@drafterman
Please refrain from posting your shallow, dog-whistle comments on my threads.

Much appreciated.
#4
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Analgesic.Spectre
Wow, I didn't realize not raping people would be such a controversial thing to say for you!

Also, that's not what "dog whistle" means.
#5
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
The "sexual revolution" has made people blind to the reality of sexual immorality.

Maybe people would be better off if they didn't cheapen sex by making it a form of casual entertainment.

Marriage works if you both love God.



#6
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@Mopac
I don't love god and I bet my marriage works better than yours and who says that sex isn't casual entertainment?
#7
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@vagabond

Loose attitudes about sex are the source of the problems stated in the OP. People who do it the right way don't have these issues.
#8
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@Mopac
Try answering the questions if you wish to respond to my questions.
#9
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@vagabond
What question did I not answer?

#10
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
Your posts about the "right" and "wrong" way to do sex and marriage are lacking in specifics. Could you elaborate?
#11
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Exclusively within the covenant of godly marriage. Not adultury, not fornication, not sodomy.

This of course, is very much at odds with a post "sexual revolution" culture, but it is the right way of doing it. Nowadays, people don't really have a good understanding of what sexual immorality is... but widespread sexual immorality leads to the multiplication of orphans, disease, self centered and unhealthy attitudes towards relationship, and all manner of evil that leads to the destruction of a free society and the introduction of tyranny.

Sexual immorality doesn't come from love. If you love someone, put a ring on them. Marriage works when both partners love God more than they love eachother, and this love of God is what allows a couple to be married for 60 years and still have romantic feelings towards one another.

The relationship of a man towards his wife is to be like Christ towards the church, and the love of a woman towards their husband like the church towards Christ.

Mercy, truth, love, service, self sacrifice. It works when people are guided by something other than lust and vanity.




#12
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mopac
and all manner of evil that leads to the destruction of a free society and the introduction of tyranny.
Name one society destroyed by a sexual revolution.
#13
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@drafterman
Sexual revolution is not the root of it. Turning away from God, that is The Truth, which leads to chasing after vanities, widespread decadence, neglect of the poor, and doing that which is abominable.

All these things are signs that a society has turned away from God and in the stage of decline. Fat on the abundance of bread, not strengthening the hand of the poor, and making life about satisfying the lusts of the mind and flesh.

So no, rampant sexual immorality is a symptom, not a cause.



#14
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@Mopac
Define rampant sexual immorality and who made you the arbiter of morality?
#15
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@Mopac
This "?" is a hint.
#16
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@vagabond
Never claimed to be the arbiter.

What inevitably happens to a society overrun by orphans and disease? How is "gettin' some" destructive towards the way people treat eachother? It warps hearts and minds.

No, I'm not the arbiter, and a society that forgets sexual immorality will be effected, whether the perverts and deviants like to believe so or not.
#17
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
5
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
5
-->
@drafterman
Or maybe men need to stop raping women?
Yeah, and people should stop stealing, and murdering, and assaulting, and dealing drugs, and laundering money....

I've always hated this response. "Why don't men just not do bad things?" It's not that simple, get a grip on reality.


In response to OP, I agree completely, and I've been thinking the same thing for ages. Sex is no longer an enjoyable act with these ridiculous new feminist ideas that we need to constantly ask "is it okay if I do this?" every eight seconds. Same with people saying if you've had any alcohol at all (even if the man has too) it's fucking RAPE punishable by a decade in prison if they have consensual sex.

It's almost as if feminists don't understand there's a difference between being black out drunk and having a couple martinis, do they really have that little faith in their fellow woman?
#18
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mister_Man
Ok. So we've both presented unrealistic versions of either side (a world where men don't rape and a world where you must validate consent every 8 seconds).

Now, let's imagine you had a choice: a world where there is no rape, but consent is validated every 8 seconds, or a world where there is rape, but you aren't inconvenienced by having to determine whether or not your partner is willing.

Which do you think is the better world, overall?

#19
ResurgetExFavilla
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 627
3
2
7
ResurgetExFavilla's avatar
ResurgetExFavilla
3
2
7
The whole consent ideology is rooted in individualism and atomization, so it's not surprise that it's focused on college campuses. The problem isn't consent ideology itself, but the philosophical underpinnings from which it springs, which is this weird quasi-libertarian reductionism which sees all relationships as transactional and contractual. To understand something as nuanced as human sexuality, you have to have an accurate understanding of human nature, of how society emerges from interactions between people and is informed both socially and temporally, and of how laws are the 'bones' of a society, which it evolves over time to reflect these deeper truths. If you reverse the order of things and only see that last step, the rigid legalistic take, then you'll obviously arrive at absurdities. But that's common in a society like ours, which is in a state of consumerist, hedonistic decay, lost in either impotent nostalgia or absurd utopian fanaticism.
#20
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
5
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
5
-->
@drafterman
The better world would be the one where there is no rape and consent is validated every eight seconds.

However that won't end rape, and is beyond unrealistic. That situation usually only applies to the women who regret it after, and is not necessarily rape, but a poor decision or a lack of communication.

If someone is taking their clothes off and continues with whatever is going on, that's called "implied consent," and considering the majority of communication between humans is via body language, classifying that situation as rape simply goes against human nature.

Sick fucks will continue to forcibly have sex with others against their will even if verbal consent every few seconds is mandatory. It's unfortunate, but a harsh reality. If we could find a way to end shit like that, I'd be more than happy to be a part of that movement.
#21
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mister_Man
The better world would be the one where there is no rape and consent is validated every eight seconds.
Then, why when you approach the scenario described by the OP, do you immediately jump on the "criticize consent" bandwagon? If you recognize that rape is the greater evil and (I hope) recognize that the reason people are so hung up about consent is because of rape then surely you should be arguing against rape, rather than the reaction to rape vis-a-vis stricter views about consent.
#22
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
5
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
5
-->
@drafterman
Then, why when you approach the scenario described by the OP, do you immediately jump on the "criticize consent" bandwagon?
Because it's silly and pointless. You basically asked "would you rather kill all rapists or let them live?" Obviously I'd rather rid the world of rapists, but the option you provided won't work. It'll just cause a lot of discomfort and annoyance between sexual partners.

If there was a more reasonable solution to ending rape (which is sex against someone's will - someone regretting doing something because they decided not to say no is not rape), I would be completely on board with it. Unfortunately, rape is incredibly hard to prove and deter to begin with, so I'm not too sure what we can really do to put an end to it.

You're also taking away from natural human instinct and hurting the way we communicate naturally by forcing vocal interactions when nonverbal interactions have been our way of life forever.
#23
vagabond
vagabond's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 277
0
2
3
vagabond's avatar
vagabond
0
2
3
-->
@Mopac
I don't know, what does happen and how would you know? No fairy tales now.
#24
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@vagabond
Why don't you move to an inner city ghetto and find out for yourself.
#25
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
-->
@drafterman
" a world where there is no rape, but consent is validated every 8 seconds,"  ---

This is a logically impossible world.  If there was no rape, there couldn't possibly consent regarding it.


#26
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@FaustianJustice
If there was no rape, then logically that means all sex is consensual. But that is a separate issue from validating that consent.
#27
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mister_Man
If there was a more reasonable solution to ending rape (which is sex against someone's will - someone regretting doing something because they decided not to say no is not rape), I would be completely on board with it. Unfortunately, rape is incredibly hard to prove and deter to begin with, so I'm not too sure what we can really do to put an end to it.
So instead you decide to give up on trying to end it and then criticize others for their solutions?

You're also taking away from natural human instinct and hurting the way we communicate naturally by forcing vocal interactions when nonverbal interactions have been our way of life forever.
I think this is an exaggeration of the situation; sex historically has involved and incorporated verbal interaction since the dawn of time. Furthermore, a culture of primarily non-verbal ques involving sex is just asking to create a haven where rape can go pretty much unchecked. As you just said, rape is incredibly hard to prove, precisely because of the ambiguous nature of consent. Yet you oppose making consent less ambiguous!
#28
FaustianJustice
FaustianJustice's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 150
0
1
3
FaustianJustice's avatar
FaustianJustice
0
1
3
That doesn't address anything.

If by magical/logical fiat, you eliminate the concept of "rape", consent also has no meaning.  Rape by definition needs consent as part of its existence.  "Sex" on the other hand, doesn't.  That means the logical "which is a better world" scenario is immaterial, as one world can logically exist, and one world cannot.  

All that, however, is pettifogging to the core of the issue at hand.  

The grouse is right here:  "...but you aren't inconvenienced by having to determine whether or not your partner is willing....".  'Willing' is an incredibly subjective determination, one fraught with societal and loosely evolutionary ramifications.  An intoxicated partner can seem willing, but... apparently but protections laws, are determined to be NOT willing despite every immediate indicator to the contrary.  What is being argued is the codification of man/woman interaction, as though going to some one's residence after drinking a bit at a bar has obvious platonic inclination.  Such is not the case.  It defies common sense to know some one less than a date, get to their residence, drink a bit (more), and then claim the various sexual attempts were a surprise.  Social sentiment trends against the sexually open and aggressive, and appears to 'protect' those whom feel their capacity to 'adult' was influenced.

#29
Mister_Man
Mister_Man's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 98
0
0
5
Mister_Man's avatar
Mister_Man
0
0
5
-->
@drafterman
So instead you decide to give up on trying to end it and then criticize others for their solutions?
I'm not giving up on trying to end it, I just call out a ridiculous option when I see one. Like I said, a "solution" like this will do nothing but make everything awkward. Rapists don't give a shit if someone says no.

If someone doesn't want to have sex, they shouldn't have sex. I speak from multiple personal experiences when I say the majority of the time, neither of us ask if we want to have sex. It just happens, it's completely nonverbal. If someone doesn't want to have sex, all they have to do is say no. Implementing a law that requires someone to ask if every single action is "okay" isn't going to cause the person responding to all of a sudden say no, as they chose not to say no before this hypothetical law came into place.

Consent can be pretty easily straight forward - say no if you don't want to do something.
#30
drafterman
drafterman's avatar
Debates: 6
Posts: 5,653
3
6
9
drafterman's avatar
drafterman
3
6
9
-->
@Mister_Man
So you're ok, then, with terrifying people into not saying no?