Aziz Ansari Doesn't Pick Up On "Non-Verbal Cues" and Gets Treated Like A Rapist

[Amarok]

Is it saying that what we call normal consensual sex is neither normal nor consensual?

I don't get the part about no one suggesting the running through a checklist... because that is what affirmative consent would seem to apply. Because there are no clue rules on what precise actions would and wouldn't need affirmative consent... the only clear boundary would be "everything" which would involve a checklist, and contracts, and impossible robotic sex where perfectly normal and rational and decent people and innocent people could get falsely accused of rape because they slipped up when they didn't follow every single instruction down to the most microscopic details. I do not understand.

Fuck MRA. I'm a feminist and I hate the MRA. Men don't need their rights fought for. But this isn't about men. This is about the fact that this movement ISN'T. feminism. Affirmative consent could never actually work in practice. It would lead to no sex ever at best and regular false accusations of sexual assault at worst. Demonizing men has absolutely nothing to do with feminism.

Bullshit . Affirmative consent can and is doable . Sorry if you no interest in making the effort .

(not the you not hating the MRA bit i accept that)

[The Grand Nudger]

Or, and I'm just spitballing here...if puritanical sexual mores where the solution to "this problem", I don't really care whether a person thinks its rape, or pushiness...then why did puritans rape and or get pushy the shit out of each other ?

It's not a solution to any problem.  It's not.  It's not a serious suggestion, and it doesn't matter who it comes from..and an atheist who says the same thing is saying something equally stupid.  It's not as if we hadn't done this before.

[Catholic_Lady]

Let's go back to the comment I made. It was this:


I dont mention religion or being religious at all here, and it was by no means meant to be a religious comment.

A person need not be Catholic to have this view of sex, and Im sure there are atheists out there who also think that hook up culture/porn/using each other in bed is unhealthy and counterproductive to having a better sense of respect for other people. I'm sure there are atheists who also think it's a positive thing for sex to be a language of self giving love and commitment to another person, verses just using each other for pleasure in a one night stand. This can be just as much a humanist approach, and Catholicism doesn't have ownership to this, just as it doesn't have ownership to many other views on morality.  

I'd like to think I'd still have this view of sexuality even if I wasn't religious... simply because it seems the healthiest and makes the most logical sense to me. I made that comment because I was voicing my honest response to the post above it. I in no way meant to push Catholic agenda by doing so (still not sure what that even means).

Your comment was just fine. The irony with it is, if you were an atheist saying that same thing, you wouldn't have been judged for it. It would have been totally accepted and you would have even gotten a few extra kudos for it. But, because you are a theist, more specifically a catholic, some people here will always have issues with what you say, regardless. Those are the people who should not be talking about acceptance of others when they can't even see past their own indifferences. 

Many people seem to have issues with theists here, on all fronts - not just on subjects revolving around religion. This is sad because people are so much more than being religious or non-religious. A Theist makes some wonderful hats and when he posts pictures of them, he gets a lot of kudos. So why is it that some individuals here can't get away from their own hate towards religion when it comes to the non-religious things you say? Probably because they would instantly cut off their nose to spite their face rather than admit that you might have a valid point about something that had nothing to do with religion. 

What's sad about all of that is that those who seem to take issue with every word you say and want to judge you harshly for you being you, seem to have forgotten that they left their own closet door open and a bunch of skeletons fell out in the process.

Thanks Joods. 

[John V]

So real sex i have actually had is not realistic? 

Frankly, I don't believe that you're continually asking for consent during sex. I think you're lying.

[Amarok]

I'm always on the insanely cautious side. But if a woman grabs my dick I'm not going to ask something like "Am I allowed to touch your body too?"

Then that's shady . now to be fair she should ask too . before grabbing your junk .

I consider normal consensual sex to be normal consensual sex. If two people are having passionate sex... all spontaneously... then spontaneous sexual movements that weren't agreed upon beforehand isn't rape. Missing vague signals isn't rape. Ignoring verbal demands to stop all sexual contact is rape.

so in other words ripe for potential rape . Ans as i sad not saying no doesn't mean yes . 

In fact, having it agreed to upon beforehand is far more rapey

That's absurd

[Athene]

I suppose it is, if the truth does doesn't matter to you.

No, please don't lay that on me. What you're proposing is exactly what I've warned against throughout; trial by journalism.

Who gets to decide what the truth is? The journo? The editor? The person who sold the story instead of reporting it to the authorities? What about the accused? What if that was you? Wouldn't you want your hour in court to put your side of the events?

This stuff isn't merely a drama, for salacious public entertainment or outrage. People, actual real people, can get hurt by it. And it's too late to make amends in the event that a mistake is shown to have happened, because the damage is done.

Actually, this kind of thing might even prevent the case going to trial at all, if the public is so whipped up into a froth that finding an unbiased jury becomes impossible. And let's say this guy managed to overturn the accusations. I can see the comments here: "he only got off - so to speak - because of who is / because he's a man / because he's got money" etc etc.

Bottom line is, I'm all for the truth, it matters a great deal. But the truth is not the province of one person, nor whomever shouts the loudest.

This is why I don't do gossip.

Again, all I said was that IF she is telling the truth, then she is justified is speaking about it. 
If you take issue with that bare bones statement, well then.....

And if you think no allegations should ever be discussed, or ONLY be discussed with the accused party's interests in mind, perhaps you shouldn't hang out discussion forums. 
Or find one that's even more of an echo chamber than this one.

[Amarok]

Frankly, I don't believe that you're continually asking for consent during sex. I think you're lying.

I don't care what you believe . I know what i do during sex .You don't

[LadyForCamus]

I'm always on the insanely cautious side. But if a woman grabs my dick I'm not going to ask something like "Am I allowed to touch your body too?"

Then that's shady . now to be fair she should ask too . before grabbing your junk .

I consider normal consensual sex to be normal consensual sex. If two people are having passionate sex... all spontaneously... then spontaneous sexual movements that weren't agreed upon beforehand isn't rape. Missing vague signals isn't rape. Ignoring verbal demands to stop all sexual contact is rape.

so in other words ripe for potential rape . Ans as i sad not saying no doesn't mean yes . 

In fact, having it agreed to upon beforehand is far more rapey

That's absurd

Seriously?  You seriously believe that when two people are mauling each other, grinding hips, and making out passionately, they should stop to ask permission before touching the other person between the legs?  That’s the most absurd thing I’ve ever heard, lol. Talk about killing the moment!

[Edwardo Piet]

@Thena

From that article you linked:

The people who are worried about affirmative consent standards are typically preoccupied about the people who may be penalized for failing to ask questions every step of the way. What if a college student starts passionately kissing his girlfriend without getting her permission first? What if a couple enjoys explicitly consensual foreplay and then moves on to intercourse without a verbal agreement beforehand?

This is also my concern. That it would be completely impossible and ridiculous.

But those hypothetical situations aren’t necessarily breaches of an affirmative consent standard. If both partners were enthusiastic about the sexual encounter, there will be no reason for anyone to report a rape later.

And the answer is... no answer. And indeed expecting everyone to be mind readers. Whether someone seems enthustiastic or not is entirely subjective. Outside of the other person saying "I'm enthusiastic", "I'm still enthusiastic", "I'm still enthusiastic" "You are not misinterpreting my signals... I am still enthusiastic" all the way.

The proposed solution to the problem is to just reassert the exact same problem. It completely begs the question.

Enthusiasm is a subjective emotion that the other person may or may not be experiencing and which you can only guess with your own subjective and biased perspective. Enthusiasm cannot be objectively assessed during sex. This is why you are supposed to use your words. "Stop" and "No" are far more helpful than guessing whether the other person is enthusiastic colored through the own lens of your own motives and your human irrationality, subjectivity and bias...

We're still left with this exact problem:

What if a couple enjoys explicitly consensual foreplay and then moves on to intercourse without a verbal agreement beforehand?

Because the very next line is a complete contradiction:

But those hypothetical situations aren’t necessarily breaches of an affirmative consent standard.

Wrong. On the exact affirmative consent required that would necessarily be a breach of affirmative consent. Whether the other person is feeling enthusiastic or not is irrelevant. The point is not what they're feeling inside if they can't even communicate it successfully. We're once again back to the simple problem of being unable to constantly communicate every single action affirmatively down to the last detail.

If both partners were enthusiastic about the sexual encounter, there will be no reason for anyone to report a rape later

Absurdly wrong answer. "It's how they feel on the inside that matters. Forget about communication" is not an answer to failing to communicate an answer.

The alternative conclusion appears to be "It's rape if you personally aren't feeling enthusiastic even if you don't even bother to communicate that at all." So basically "If you're halfway through sex and stop enjoying it and they don't telepathically notice your internal emotional change immediately and stop immediately... then they're a rapist by default."

So it absolutely is expecting people to be mind readers.

It's expecting people to be superhuman. And all empathy is is a simulation of what you think the other person is feeling! Exactly my point... we have to guess what other people is feeling and that's completely biased.

Affirmative consent seems like it would lead to more rapes, not less. Either that or no sex for anyone ever.

[SaStrike]

Huh where does MRM fit in? Is someone trying to push agendas o: