This Is How People Really Define Consent

[Halicia]

This is an incredibly dishonest read even by sarahtasher's usually low standards. The reality is that most married couples simply don't have misunderstandings around consent. As a married man, I'd never force my wife into anything, but I also don't have spend any mental energy on that at all because I'm well aware of what she wants, it's always obvious if there's consent, and who's been drinking is completely irrelevant.

Judging by all the headlines nowdays, "force" is completely irrelevant in rape. Even consent or sex is, in a couple of the claims.

- - - Updated - - -

So if a man begs his wife for sex and she reluctantly agrees because she isn't in the mood he just raped her? Jesus....

If he has money, and the divorce proceedings 20 years later get messy, then yes, he raped her in the all powerful eyes of the tabloids.

[Unhinged]

Seems very strange that you have to be ENTHUSIASTIC about sex to give consent.

So if a man begs his wife for sex and she reluctantly agrees because she isn't in the mood he just raped her? Jesus....

What kind of loser wants to have sex with someone that isn't enthusiastic about it? Women just aren't fleshlights to get off in.

[Underverse]

What kind of loser wants to have sex with someone that isn't enthusiastic about it? Women just aren't fleshlights to get off in.

Being a loser and being a rapist are two very different things.

[Vlaid]

What kind of loser wants to have sex with someone that isn't enthusiastic about it? Women just aren't fleshlights to get off in.

Women are often proud of how good they are at faking enthusiasm. If the law says they have to be enthusiastic for consent that makes consent impossible.

Anyone can fake enthusiasm.

[Underverse]

Women are often proud of how good they are at faking enthusiasm. If the law says they have to be enthusiastic for consent that makes consent impossible.

Anyone can fake enthusiasm.

More importantly I think, how would the law determine whether or not someone was enthusiastic enough?

And what if someone wants to have sex, but is not enthusiastic?

[Doctor Amadeus]

Real fucking simple YOU SHOULDN'T NEED TO, keep in mind everyone has a different threshold for moral right and wrong, but unless you were raised by fucking wolves, as in literally, you know.

A woman passed the fuck out or man, who you do not know and has clearly not engaged or given any indication they want to be touched much less have sex, then yeah, that isn't giving consent.


And even when consent is asked for unless you have some mental damage yourself, you should be able to ascertain who can or can't really give informed consent, someone under aged, someone inebriated, someone without the true cognitive capacity, say someone grieving and what not. All of the above if taken advantage of makes the person doing so an unmitigated piece of shit, bar none.

People do make mistakes, and that, I generally consider when you ARE a teenager, and are capable of making a mistakes, but that is what GUARDIANS are for, not just to keep you from having FUN, that said no matter who you are within your capacity to understand, just because you make a mistake no matter how sorry you are, doesn't mean you don't have to pay for it.

Consent in my view simply means with the cognitive, informed ability to give an affirmative YES when engaged for personal and adult behavior.

[Vlaid]

More importantly I think, how would the law determine whether or not someone was enthusiastic enough?

And what if someone wants to have sex, but is not enthusiastic?

That's my point. In the above example I mentioned a man begging his wife for sex and she reluctantly agrees. Well most people will know sometimes you can not be in the mood for sex and then once you get into the foreplay and sex you really enjoy it.

If someone agrees to have sex that should be enough to me. We can't police what people are thinking or their emotional feelings about the act, only what they say and what they do.

[Rexosaurus]

The only grey area is when both parties are really drunk. Besides that, it's pretty easy to tell whether you're doing something shady/illegal or not. Common sense is your friend folks.

[Deleted]

Murica, the only country on the planet where you can get thrown in jail for having casual sex.
Aside from saudi arabia that is.

[Tennis]

Well shit, I'm a rapist guys. I always take advantage of my wife, and she never gives consent.

You're married. This isn't what the issue is mostly about.

[Aeula]

You should always have a lawyer present during sexual intercourse to ensure everything remains legal and above board.

[Calfredd]

You're married. This isn't what the issue is mostly about.

Today I learned consent isn't needed when married.

[Spectral]

What kind of loser wants to have sex with someone that isn't enthusiastic about it? Women just aren't fleshlights to get off in.

People can start out unenthusiastic and warm up. For all sorts of things, not just sex, but definitely including sex.

[Xargoth6634]

How about not fucking drunk people, or stopping as soon as someone says no/safeword?

See, if I'm drunk, and she's drunk, and we have sex, it's probably still rape on my part even if she initiates. That's how our society works these days.

[Spectral]

And even when consent is asked for unless you have some mental damage yourself, you should be able to ascertain who can or can't really give informed consent, someone under aged, someone inebriated, someone without the true cognitive capacity, say someone grieving and what not. All of the above if taken advantage of makes the person doing so an unmitigated piece of shit, bar none.

Nonsense. Inebriated people can and do give consent all the time. Being below full cognitive capacity also isn't necessarily all that relevant in the context of a relationship.

So much of this stems from people insisting on fucking strangers.

- - - Updated - - -

Today I learned consent isn't needed when married.

Explicit consent is certainly not required in the context of serious relationships.

[Doctor Amadeus]

Nonsense. Inebriated people can and do give consent all the time. Being below full cognitive capacity also isn't necessarily all that relevant in the context of a relationship.

So much of this stems from people insisting on fucking strangers.

- - - Updated - - -


Explicit consent is certainly not required in the context of serious relationships.

Spectral you’re fucking wrong and you know better regardless to what social quest you think you’re arguing from. If someone is too drunk to give consent whether intentional or not it isn’t consent. As I said you know this. Just because you can ask someone who doesn’t know any better doesn’t mean you should.

[Doomislav]

Only rapists and the socially innept struggle with the concept of consent

Pretty much this!

[Spectral]

Spectral you’re fucking wrong and you know better regardless to what social quest you think you’re arguing from. If someone is too drunk to give consent whether intentional or not it isn’t consent. As I said you know this. Just because you can ask someone who doesn’t know any better doesn’t mean you should.

The phrase "too drunk to give consent" is the obvious swingpoint here. Drunk people can and do consent. They do all the time. I do all the time.

Some people really are too drunk to consent, but it's damn sure not most drunk people most of the time.

[pateuvasiliu]

Only rapists and the socially innept struggle with the concept of consent

The justice system struggles plenty considering they judge a drunk man fucking a drunk woman a rapist.

Because penis is evil.

[Endus]

Sounds like it's time for this again;