Consent, it's actually very simple

[AmpleRaspberries]

Hi, been lurking for a while, but friend just posted the following to fb www.theloop.ca/this-woman-just-explained-consent-with-the-most-perfect-metaphor/ which I wanted to share. When I read it I thought yes that's it! For all those idiots who can't work it out, this explains enthusiastic consent perfectly.

Also an added note - if you claim not tl be able to tell whether someone wants tea or not, and have a habit of 'accidentally' foisting tea on unwilling people then you should lock yourself in a room because you're a dangerous idiot.

I would be interested to hear people's views on an experience I had many years ago. I'll try to keep it short.

I was drinking in a bar in Marbella, Spain. I got chatting to a Norwegian woman, we were both getting quite drunk. She invited me back to her apartment and we had more drinks.

She made obvious advances towards me, but I knew she was drunk and did not want to take things further.

She then started to verbally abuse me and told me I was gay (not saying that is abuse) I left.

I met her again a couple of days later. She told me how grateful she was that I had not 'taken advantage'. We remained friends while we were there.

Would you have considered it rape if I had accepted her advances?

Where does the cup of tea fit into this scenario?

If you think someone doesn't have the freedom or capacity to give consent, then you risk raping them if you continue.

If you think someone had that freedom and capacity but they might regret it the next day, then you risk contributing to them feeling shit.

In the second, you're not a rapist, but you'd probably prefer your sexual partners to remain happy about the experience, so you stop anyway, right?

Rape isn't about what the woman does partial, anyway. It would have been about what you did in that scenario. You didn't do anything so the woman wasn't raped. Men don't have to accept the advances of every woman who makes them.

Moving away from the tea analogy, suppose a person was at a party, very drunk, demanding that someone give them cocaine. This person hadn't ever tried hard drugs before but was a bit plastered so fancied giving it a go. Would you give them drugs in that instance? One would hope not for obvious reasons. So why would you entertain sticking your penis into someone who was very drunk?

We stop very drunk people harming themselves all the time without asking whether we would be doing the right thing in not inflicting harm on them. You seem to think that sticking your penis into a very drunk woman wouldn't harm them. Why is that?

Scallops, I think the last sentence is a bit unfair as partial did decide to leave the situation because he was concerned about the woman.

So why was he asking whether it would have been rape to stick his penis into a very drunk woman?

He's asking if it would have been considered rape by the MN collective.

I wish that people wouldn't ask that. I don't know why they do. It makes me uncomfortable. I don't pop on and post "met someone drunk who tried to give me £100, would it have been theft if I'd said yes?" - I would say no to that because it's clearly the right thing to do and if they really wanted to give me money, let them do it sober.

It's always rape where people ask for clarity if not doing the right thing goes as far as being a crime. In this instance, partial did the right thing. Good, no cookie, but good.

Partial, if we said "no, that wouldn't be rape" - would you wish you'd taken the other decision? I hope not because I hope all our morals go further than "ah, it's probably not criminal".

Yes well exactly AKnickerful. At some level partial must think that it would be OK for a man to stick his penis into a very drunk woman and that wouldn't be a problem. Otherwise he wouldn't have asked the question.

I dunno. I think we are back to the debating school point.

If I ask a theoretical question at the Oxford Union about whether a potential immoral action of mine, say accepting money from an elderly person with a failing memory. would constitute a crime, maybe I'm philosophically stimulated.

If I ask it in a room where many people present are elderly people with failing memories who have had their money taken, unequivocally, no room for was it or wasn't it doubt. it's a different fish kettle.

cailindana
In hindsight, Father Ted's Mrs Doyle was a total sex pest

scallopsrgreat At some level partial must think that it would be OK for a man to stick his penis into a very drunk woman

ffs scallop, that is an awful thing to imply, and based upon what? I really do not see how my post suggested that I want to stick my penis into anyone.

Deeply offensive.

Sorry to divert the OP

Well said Buffy. I found your question extremely odd partial. You behaved like a decent human being and the woman appreciated that. It doesn't really matter whether we think it would have been rape or not had you gone ahead. It would have been a shitty experience, possibly for the both of you. You were sensible and kind, which is really the least you should expect from yourself. No one here can say whether jt would have been rape as we weren't there but clearly you saw things weren't right and you made a good decision. IMO if you'd seen things weren't right and gone ahead anyway then that would indicate a rapist mentality at least and there is every chance it would have been raped.
BTW her behaviour very much fits the mould of someone who's been raped in the past.

Buffy, I agree with everything you say. And thank you for responding in a way that didn't find fault with me or scallop.

Thank you cailindana,I can seen that my OP was odd.

It's just something that has been with me for many years and that I wanted to open to MN.

Partial, can I ask why it's been on your mind?

A good question Knickerful, and probably not one I can answer satisfactorily.

I read the Feminist threads on a regular basis, and often try to measure up the opinions on these forums (or fora) against my own behavior. I do not always come out smelling of roses

So when I read this one about consent, I did wonder if it was as straightforward as the very well written article implied.

This in turn made me reflect upon some of my experiences, the one I related has remained with me a long time, as well as a few others that I have not related.

I hope that explains 'why', to some extent.

Ok, and feel free not to answer, but I'm just not clear why it's remained with you.

You clearly did the right thing, whether it would've been rape or not.

If you'd gone ahead and were looking back wondering if you made the right choice, I could understand that more readily.

But I'm not your priest or your conscience, so ignore if you wish.

Thing is, partial, examining your own behaviour and identifying the areas where you don't "smell of roses" is the most honest, feminist thing you can do. Even better if you then try to change your behaviour based on that.

Feminists (speaking generally here) don't expect men to be saints. We are all products of patriarchy and we've all had our behaviour and thinking influenced by it. The point of it all is to look back and see how that has happened to try to change it, which you are trying to do, it seems.

I know it may appear that I am posting here in order to receive praise and the occasional pat on the head for walking away.

That wasn't what I intended.

I was trying to challenge the black/white view on consent. But I did it very badly with a personal experience.

knickerful, I can't answer for partial, but that is one scenario which I have spent a lot of time figuring out too. Mostly because when I was younger (uni years) a drunk person and a sober person having sex was generally considered "shitty behaviour" rather than rape. So even once I'd grasped the "drunk consent is not consent" idea I started remembering those incidents (luckily not involving me) and trying to deal with my own guilt for not preventing rape.