Jason B:
I thought these comments may have been directed at me, so I went back and reread the article, and this thread. I can see that my remarks might seem unforgiving of Tom, who has made many protestations that he understands the need for consent. Of course, I don't question that, Tom. The problematic kernel as I see it is found here:
Tom: initiating sex while a partner is asleep is not rape as consent has already been established
...which seems to me a gross assumption. I did not "turn it into a non-consensual sex scenario," but I certainly recognize that it could be one. I never suggested that every sleep/sex scenario precludes consent, nor does every one include it. It is a scenario where consent needs to be explicit. That's my point. (By the way, there cases where someone might not wake up: on meds, blackout drunk, unusually heavy sleeper.)
TomIf a woman or man agrees to sex, generally that does mean - until we go our separate ways in the morning or whenever.
This is what I call equivocating. The same can be said about Tom's remarks on Louis CK. She said no. Like Katy said, she's crazy. If she's into rough sex, she's going about it in the wrong way, putting her partner, and other women, in a genuinely dangerous position. Like I said, responsible people who play those games take the guidelines very seriously. Guidelines make freedom possible. They're what differentiate games - sex games, violence games - from terrible realities.
These definitions do matter, and do have a direct impact on actual suffering human beings. I guess I agree with Kate "Smugthwaite", and, I think, the OP: if there is confusion about consent, you have a problem. Is that so hard? A "social straight-jacket?" "Namby pamby cotton wool idealism?" Am I reading this right?
Jason, let’s look at this “problematic kernel” a little more. To me, it really is a soft centre, once chewed - easily digested. But please do be unforgiving in your replies as I feel you’ve been holding back somewhat and I’m open to a full on dialogue.
I have stated, and you have challenged the statement… “Initiating sex while a partner is asleep is not rape as consent has already been established”.
However, your replies so far have failed to satisfy me as they appear to be reactionary. Obviously you could say that about what I’ve written but I am expanding upon catchphrase answers such as “bizarre and disturbing”. You have to give us more meat, the why of it.
So, an agreement has been established between two people that they will spend the night together in the throes of passion, no strings attached full blown sex. That agreement holds good until they separate or dissolved the said agreement.
Sex for a night, is sex for a night. It’s about sharing, surrendering your body and mind with the other just as they surrender their body and mind to you.
So why, if they follow exactly what the words mean, why describe that as “bizarre and disturbing”?
Let’s take another scenario. These two consensual sex maniacs are going at it like olympians about to hit the zone. The guy gets the idea that he’d like to try anal sex. So he pulls out and begins rubbing against her butt, then without warning tries to thrust inside her butt. “What the fuck, she screams”, “Oh my god, I’m so sorry” says the now deflated macho man. “I thought”, “Well, don’t think, next time see if I want to do that”, the woman says with rightful indignation.
So there are ways to go about doing whatever you want to do. If he approached in a different way, it may have been alright. She may have allowed him to express his scatological desire.
Does he have to expressly and explicitly ask permission? I’d say no. Done in a gentle loving manner the woman may allow entry into that “unnatural domain” (a quote from a Christian minister on homosexual sex which obviously has a parallel here). If she’s not into that, she would simply move his penis elsewhere, with nothing more mentioned about the attempted buggery.
So consent isn’t necessarily about either partner verbally agreeing, but implying, allowing, surrendering. Just as non consent isn’t necessarily about voicing “No”, it can come via a silent gesture or manoeuvre.
This isn’t “stereotypical BS male justification rationale”. It’s what it can only be. Agreeing to sex is agreeing to be permissive. An agreement which is taken as “use my body as you will.”
“initiating sex while a partner is asleep is not rape as consent has already been established.”
So the agreement is in place, no one can possibly dispute what consensual sex is. The problem may arise from the acts which constitute sex, but why?
Jason you said… “It is a scenario where consent needs to be explicit. That's my point.”
For that particular act? It’s just inserting a penis into a vagina which a few minutes prior was completely welcoming. Do you get that? It’s not assault, it’s not rape. The guy is under the impression that the woman still wants him, that the initial agreement is on-going. It may be a wrong assumption (as most assumptions are), but it is based on their sexual relationship thus far. Which is in all fairness is very superficial and entirely open to interpretation by either person.
Obviously we have to be realistic here and include the fact that some women will do the same to a man. He’s asleep but fully erect, she gets on top, slips his penis inside, gently awakening him to what… rape, pleasure, fear, a nice surprise?
I would still say that it is a completely natural and loving act. To call it rape is to be an extremist, a killjoy, a person in need of clarity concerning human sexuality.
And twisting it to… “where someone might not wake up: on meds, blackout drunk, unusually heavy sleeper.” Only a desperate idiot would attempt sex under such conditions – apart from the heavy sleeper, all of which would be non-consensual – i.e. rape.
Can’t you see the contradictions within your thoughts? I’ve been talking of consent, implicit and explicit consent to sex. Obviously if someone wants to have sex with a blackout drunk or whatever they have a desperation problem, a confidence issue that needs looking at. You are blowing what I’m saying way out of proportion, twisting it saying into something entirely different. Why?
Arousing a sleeping partner by a sexual act is not attack. Superficial judgements such as “disturbing” mean nothing. A full moon is disturbing to some. Should we blow up the moon or help the person get over their problem?
It’s like nowadays, little boys aren’t allowed to play fights, to pretend. It’s so pathetic and a complete infringement upon their right as a human being – denying them survival skills, instilling fear of spontaneous action, breaking confidence, etc.
We’ve got too many people trying their best to implement their own agenda. Soon if a man even looks at a woman, it will be classified as a form of rape. Understand where your ideals are leading, look at how they are distorting a simple truth.
Society wants performing monkeys who obey the social norms of the day, but these norms are mostly not normal to a rational balanced person who leaves conformity to the cretins who deserve it... "go on off to war, be patriotic", "here try this new super drug", "GM food will save the planet", "Sex is just for procreation and remember, only one child per family"... blah, blah, blah.
Seriously Jason, lighten up… “This is what I call equivocating. The same can be said about Tom's remarks on Louis CK. She said no. Like Katy said, she's crazy. If she's into rough sex, she's going about it in the wrong way, putting her partner, and other women, in a genuinely dangerous position. Like I said, responsible people who play those games take the guidelines very seriously. Guidelines make freedom possible. They're what differentiate games - sex games, violence games - from terrible realities”.
She said “No”, because she wanted the guy to do something for her, something she feels would get her off – out of her mind. If she said, “Ok, here’s what I want you to do… Step 1: be rough. Step 2: be masterful. Step 3: tear my clothes off. Step 4: bring my clit to life. Step 5: ravage me with your throbbing cock. Oh, by the way, remember to surprise me”.
Well sorry, but game over. She’d know what was coming as she’s had to instruct the guy. If he read her body language he’d know she wanted it rough, she wanted domination, she wanted to completely surrender to her sexual impulse. Sexual interaction isn’t about the guy leading. Firstly it’s about assessing the situation, getting a feel of your partners needs on that particular occasion. Predictability become sterile, breeds boredom, stupidity, death. A real danger to any relationship.
But really, why twist it? Why blow it all up, way out of proportion. There’s no need to enter unnecessary scenarios which are just a figment of your imagination.
Let it go, be simple about what sex is, about what rape is.
“Oh but she could get hurt”. “She needs to apply guidelines”. “She needs to think of others”. Why is she “putting her partner, and other women, in a genuinely dangerous position?” She just wants to play and play hard. Why spread the implications of that simple lust outward, into universal proportions?
That to me is BS rationale. She wanted what she wanted, knew the risk involved but was willing to dive in headfirst. Who cares if she lacks social etiquette or isn’t nicely polished around the edge. The guy chickened out in her eye’s, he just didn’t get the joke.
“She’s crazy”. No, she’s just sex crazed, big difference. Satisfaction is all she asks, but everyone judges her, calls her names, would have her locked in jail so that they can play within the safety of thier preset guidelines and padded rooms. Bunch of namby pamby, conformist fools who don’t have an inkling of their own true nature. And that isn’t name calling – that’s the scientific definition.