Consent for women

In that article I find the words "If someone is harassed, physically attacked, or killed because of their race or sexuality, that is a “hate crime” in UK law. Perpetrators of these crimes can often receive a heavier sentence, and specialized governmental and policing groups work to monitor and reduce hate crime. However, there’s no such thing in UK law as a hate crime motivated by sex."

It always seems to me that heterosexuality is a sexuality quite as much as homosexuality or bisexuality; so crimes against heterosexual women because of their being heterosexual women ought also to be hate-crimes. To behave as if they are not is wilfully to ignore the facts of the matter.

The new SNP law about hate-crime includes cross-dressing; all women wearing trousers should therefore be able to claim that assault on them is a hate-crime...

But that it a derailment; sorry, Arabella.

I believe that in theory, failure to get the woman's consent before having sexual congress is in the legal definition of rape, isn't it? There was a lot of fuss made by men saying "but what if she said yes and then passed out, that shouldn't be rape!" in an aggrieved way.

According to section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, someone consents when she or he "agrees by choice…and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

So trying to debate whether she's allowed to say no at all is not relevant, really.

There was a reasonable explanation in The Independent back in 2015: www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/consent-rape-rape-a6718931.html

'Nobody has the right to shame you for your sexual preferences."

I think it's been clarified that the op meant this in the context of the title, ie consent.
Nobody has the right to shame you for your sexual preferences in what or who you say 'no' to.

I agree that certain sexual "preferences" and behaviours are shameful and should remain that way.

I don't think the point is "let's discuss what and who women are allowed to be attracted to."

I think the thread began as a statement that "women are allowed to draw sexual boundaries and say no at any time and have that refusal accepted without attempts at eroding those boundaries."

Christ why is the concept bodily autonomy bothering people so much?

I do agree that no one has a right to demand you find them sexually attractive. That would come under the category of rape and sexual harassment.

But I disagree with you when you say 'Nobody has the right to shame you for your sexual preferences."
What if a person is sexually aroused by child abuse or by evil abusive people.
I agree that no one should be shamed for being gay or lesbian.
But if a person is sexually aroused by abuse or by abusive people (including bullying, child abuse, rapists, and wife beaters). then it is right to shame that person.
People should be ashamed to be attracted to evil people or evil abuse.

Neither the moral nor the intellectual high ground are available merely for attempts to conjure them up by disputation and berating.

I didn’t expect it to turn into a live demonstration of people seeing “no” as the opening of a negotiation. But it did!

I know. It was genuinely astonishing, wasn't it, Sophocles? Fascinating to see what catches people on the raw...

ArabellaScott
God, can you not leave a consent thread up without derailing into trans issues? Really?

We have seen the answer to that question, I feel.

Bloody hell Arabella you started this thread 5 days ago. Are people really still arguing the toss about women saying no?

This has been an education. Thanks for starting, Arabella.

I didn’t expect it to turn into a live demonstration of people seeing “no” as the opening of a negotiation. But it did!

Indeed, so never question the validity of a lesbian for being in a relationship with a trans woman, or shame her for it, or tell her that she must only include women who aren't trans in her dating pool if she wants to be recognised as a lesbian.

From what I've seen, aren't lesbians usually harangued for excluding certain categories of people from their dating pool, not for including them?

Yeah I'm really surprised that so many people have targeted a thread about consent and "no means no." What on earth is so objectionable about those ideas?!

Criticizing someone for who they choose to have sex with is, err, an entirely separate thing?

At the moment I am frequently finding myself astounded about what has suddenly become controversial. Also, what has suddenly become acceptable. It sometimes feels as if we have gone through the looking glass.

Well, "sorry, I'm just not that into you" has become astoundingly controversial in recent years. Especially when a woman says it.

That's hilarious. This conversation has jack shit to do with women criticising other women for who they choose to fuck. It is about women who choose not to and are shamed or pressured into it.

Interesting to see how much this thread has been targeted, its clearly touched a nerve or three.

Good point Shizuku

Also, mn fave gl*nner screenshotting dating profiles of trans women from an app they had every right to be on, but which he had lied in order to sign up to, in order to mock them on his blog spoke of someone whose grasp on consent is questionable.