1
10
11

This is an album of a reddit users view on consent and rape. Real life trigger warning. Not for the faint of heart (imgur.com)

submitted by david-me

sorted by:
best
best
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]MashCaster -6 ポイント-5 ポイント

He's right though.

[–]david-me[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Go on. Explain your thought on this. I'll listen.

[–]MashCaster -5 ポイント-4 ポイント

Sex != "rape until proven consensual", it's the other way around. By default, if 2 partners of age have willingly engaged in sex (and both are either drunk or sober, but no mental imbalance), the act is not initially rape. To become rape one party must express a clear desire to stop, only to be ignored by the other party. Obviously there are gray lines here, but an inaudible or unclear "no" would not be sufficient.

There are actual rape victims who have suffered and continue to feel anguish over their brutal attack. To me, equating them to some idiotic rape-culture feminist saying "I thought no in my mind so it was rape" is probably the most offensive thing you can do. If you were getting nailed by some guy, would you softly whisper "no" or would you struggle a bit, shout "STOP", etc.? I seriously doubt it.

[–]Poogans 3 ポイント4 ポイント

Volume != seriousness

[–]MashCaster 0 ポイント1 ポイント

Walk into an movie theater, say "there's a fire..." to some random couple, see what the reaction is.

Walk into another theater, scream "FIRE!", see what the reaction is.

[–]Poogans [score hidden]

Yeah, it's different. The reason is because the two different examples there have different levels of urgency. They don't have different levels of seriousness.

[–]MashCaster [score hidden]

So are you saying that if a woman weakly says no in a barely audible fashion, and doesn't make any nonverbal communication indicating that she does not want to continue, that means it isn't urgent for you to stop? "It's rape, I guess, but go ahead and finish anyway, no big deal"... it sounds like this is what you are saying.

[–]Poogans [score hidden]

Of course not. Fires are a completely different situation. "There's a fire" could mean "We should probably leave now", or it could mean "This is why we can't get popcorn". "no" during sex means "no" no matter what.

I get what you're trying to do, but your analogy isn't a 1:1 comparison. Nice try at flipping it around though.

[–]MashCaster [score hidden]

Uh, no. What about

"No, not that speed. Slower/Faster."

"No, don't put your finger there"

I find it odd that you can see "there's a fire" in multiple contexts, but the word no can only have one. I'm not going to argue with you any further, because it would be pointless.

[–]Poogans [score hidden]

Because if someone wants you to go slower/faster, or to adjust, they clarify. If they say a flat "no" with no context, no matter the volume, it means stop.

And your second example fits my idea perfectly. If someone says "don't put your finger there", but at a low volume, and the finger is put there, that's fucked up.

I'm glad that you won't argue further, because you seem to believe that I think context doesn't matter. No shit it matters, but that's not what we're arguing. You're the one who started with saying that screaming no is inherently different than saying it quietly. Based SOLELY on that, you're wrong. Of course people can say "no, do X or don't do Y" during sex. That's an entirely different statement, and you know that. You just want to win so badly that you build up your strawmen. Everyone agrees with the point that you're trying to say I'm arguing against.

[–]dont_dangit [score hidden]

If you are in a situation where you are having sex with a person who you are not sure has consented, you have already fucked up. Telling the judge that you don't think her 'No' was audible enough to count is a fucking joke. How can you not see this?

If two people have consensual sex and then one claims later that the sex was not consensual, that's a different matter entirely.

[–]MashCaster [score hidden]

If you are in a situation where you are having sex with a person who you are not sure has consented

I don't think I was talking about that, and neither was the guy in the OP. The assumption here is that they started with consensual sex. It would definitely be pretty rapey to strip a girl down and start having sex with her after she says No. The body language would indicate that she clearly does not want to have sex, plus it is pretty hard to take clothes off of a person when they are moving away and telling you to stop. But the fact that you both started willingly strongly implies consent. And as I said earlier, it's consensual until proven rape, not the other way around.

[–]Discord_Dancing 0 ポイント1 ポイント

"Well she didn't beat me over the head with a crowbar, so it obviously wasn't rape, right?"

[–]MashCaster 0 ポイント1 ポイント

"When losing a debate, strawman arguments, hyperbole and mockery are you best friends."

[–]Discord_Dancing -1 ポイント0 ポイント

This is a debate?

No means no, it doesn't matter how loud someone says it - they still said it.

[–]MashCaster [score hidden]

Not a debate I suppose, but the statement still applies.

If you want to say "No means no, it doesn't matter how loud someone says it - they still said it.", then just say that. That's a sensible claim, and I can respond to that in various ways, such as arguing that since the majority of communication is nonverbal, perhaps part of the "No" is actual forcefulness of the voice and possibly physical resistance. Don't just immediately jump to absurd levels with Strawmen like

"Well she didn't beat me over the head with a crowbar, so it obviously wasn't rape, right?"

[–]Discord_Dancing [score hidden]

Don't just immediately jump to absurd levels

Thinking that someone saying no, but not loud enough somehow invalidates their non-consent is absurd.

[–]IS44 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント

Wow. Instant Worst-Case Scenario.