You don't need "consent" to have sex

[Andrei Sergei]

I always shake my head when I hear people saying that you need someone's consent to have sex with them. I think that's the most harebrained and ludicrous idea ever. You don't need someone to give you permission. It's not like they're doing you a favour by allowing you to be intimate with them. The people who go one and on about consent are so full of shit.

Imagine if you were walking in the park with someone, and one of you wants to turn one way down a path and go in a certain direction. You don't need to ask permission. It's not like either party is the boss of the other. It's not as if you would be imposing anything on the other person. It's just something that you want to do, so you can just go ahead and do it.

And when two people are having sex, it's not as if one person is imposing themselves onto the other. Neither party has a monopoly on whether or not it goes ahead. It's something that you do together, and decide together. You don't need consent, you need to be in agreement. Which is different. Each one is having sex with the other just as much as the other is having sex with them. Each one is having as much of an effect on the other, as the other is having on them. Regardless of who is doing most of the moving and who is doing most of the passive lying down.

[Losty]

You seem to be having a hard time understanding terminology. Both people need to consent when they have sex. Please go read a dictionary and check back in later.

[TheRealJoeFish]

Cool story bro.

Most people introduce themselves with something along the lines of, you know, "hi." But troubling verbose nonsense works too.

ETD something like... 16 minutes?

[Andrei Sergei]

You seem to be having a hard time understanding terminology. Both people need to consent when they have sex. Please go read a dictionary and check back in later.

You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a word and a term. That's why I put consent in inverted commas in the title. Of course both parties need consent. But saying "he had sex with her without her consent" makes it sound like the woman is just some passive thing that only says yes or no to stuff. I don't want to be mean but if you want to have this discussion I suggest you pay attention to what I'm actually saying. Otherwise you're just wasting your time responding to what you think I said. Deal?

[Losty]

You seem to be having a hard time understanding terminology. Both people need to consent when they have sex. Please go read a dictionary and check back in later.

You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a word and a term. That's why I put consent in inverted commas in the title. Of course both parties need consent. But saying "he had sex with her without her consent" makes it sound like the woman is just some passive thing that only says yes or no to stuff. I don't want to be mean but if you want to have this discussion I suggest you pay attention to what I'm actually saying. Otherwise you're just wasting your time responding to what you think I said. Deal?

There's no such thing as "he had sex without her consent" that's called rape not having sex. I'm paying attention to what you said and I couldn't care less if you're mean. The thing is your post doesn't have a point. It sounds like you're arguing semantics...with yourself...

---

Cool story bro.

Most people introduce themselves with something along the lines of, you know, "hi." But troubling verbose nonsense works too.

ETD something like... 16 minutes?

I just want my kudos button back D:

[Andrei Sergei]

You seem to have a hard time understanding the difference between a word and a term. That's why I put consent in inverted commas in the title. Of course both parties need consent. But saying "he had sex with her without her consent" makes it sound like the woman is just some passive thing that only says yes or no to stuff. I don't want to be mean but if you want to have this discussion I suggest you pay attention to what I'm actually saying. Otherwise you're just wasting your time responding to what you think I said. Deal?

There's no such thing as "he had sex without her consent" that's called rape not having sex. I'm paying attention to what you said and I couldn't care less if you're mean. The thing is your post doesn't have a point. It sounds like you're arguing semantics...with yourself...

Women aren't the only ones who get to decide if sex happens. You need mutual agreement, not "consent" from a passive woman with no agency. Learn the difference. Your comprehension and logic skills are appalling. I suggest you skip this thread. 

[Jackalope]

I always shake my head when I see the same trolls posting the same troll threads all over the internet, "Andrei Sergei"

[Losty]

No, women aren't the only ones who have to consent. Both people must consent. Your skills at making a point are deplorable. Your skills at being a troll are disappointing at best. Maybe try talking about fancy drinks.

[Andrei Sergei]

No, women aren't the only ones who have to consent. Both people must consent. Your skills at making a point are deplorable. Your skills at being a troll are disappointing at best. Maybe try talking about fancy drinks.

She's catching on. Yes, well done, both parties need consent. So it's not "her" consent. It's mutual consent / agreement. You sound like you're sexist against women. 

[Losty]

I understood what you were saying the whole time. But who are you arguing with? This isn't atheism plus. You'd be hard pressed to find a member of this forum who doesn't agree that both (or all) parties must consent for sex.