Ye, i agree

That is fantastic. To each their own. But not everyone needs an exhaustive thesis paper on every single breath that is taken.

True but if a person goes from kissing right to intercourse without positive body language and or verbal response, it’s not consensual. Silence is not consent. It can be as simple as: I really wanna blank (action) with you, is that ok?

This is why we need to get back to teaching responsibility. People seem to have fault and responsibility all mixed up. They really shouldn't, that mistake could be fatal. Is it our FAULT that the car salesman is pushy and might try to manipulate us into spending more than we actually wanted to? That is, he's COERCING us into buying something we don't actually want? No, of course not. It's not our fault. However, as the person who chose to be at the car dealership and potentially expose myself to such a person, it is nevertheless my RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that I know how people like this behave and might take advantage of me. I'd even say that my mentors, parents, friends, etc have some partial responsibility in ensuring I'm taught how to handle myself around the pushy salesman. Should the car stop at the stop sign so you can cross the road? YES. If they hit you will it be their fault? YES. Is it still your responsibility to look both ways? YES. And on and on it goes. Life is full of responsibility that we must engage in for things that may or may not be our fault. And there's many many many "shoulds" that people ought to be doing out there and yet, they will not. So it's best to know how to be responsible for one's own self.

Manipulative sale practices are illegal as well. You can actually sue your way out of a sale if, for example, information is withheld or falsified. The thing is, buying and selling things does not involve your body. Many states have adjusted their law to reflect this with laws like "no means no" and "yes means yes". Also, why does it matter if consent can be reinstated? Isn't that obvious?

​@@vulpinemachineboth of the things you describe go hand in hand. But a coerced buyer should have the legal ability to sue an unethical salesman. This motivates salesmen to be honest. Just like dangerous drivers have to be held accountable for aggressive driving. Organisations which educate the public about consent usually also give advice on how to have sex safely. Its not mutually exclusive.

@@FiikusMaximus I agree if you falsify information, it can be similar to secretly removing a condom which is illegal. However being "pushy" is never criminal. "no means no" means consent can be revoked at any time, and "yes means yes" means consent can be reinstated at anytime. A "no" can change into a "yes" if there are no threats.

@@Luxembourgish yes, being pushy can be criminal depending on how you define it. For example: Signing a contract under psychological pressure makes it void. Yes means yes is not the mirror image of no means no. Yes means yes means, that you need affirmative consent to have sex. It's not just enough to not say "no". Yes is yes, no is no. A person can change their mind, if that's what you're talking about. But if a person said no, then you cannot assume later that the "no" doesn't count anymore. You need an affirmative consent in order to turn that "no" into a "yes". I'll write you a clear example so we're on the same page. Two people make out. It seems to develop in the direction of sex. One of them says they don't want sex. That's an example of no means no. Anything beyond that point is SA or rape. Another example. The two later talk it out. The other person later tries again. They make out. But the person already said no earlier. The other person cannot assume they have consent. The person already said no earlier. If they want to have sex, they need to get affirmative consent. This is what yes means yes is. A simpler example is this: two people make out. One is actively making out and the other is not responding but is not stopping it. This is a moment to stop and get affirmative consent. Without it, consent cannot be assumed. Once again, because yes means yes. A pushy salesman cannot take your hand and sign a contract for you. They need to inform you of all details and then they need to let you affirmatively agree. Anything else is a crime.

This is why sex inside marriage only is probably the best option. Lifelong commitment is the ultimate kind of consent. It certainly removes a lot of gray area.

Definitely. They lay it out like it's super duper clear. Except, not everyone, ESPECIALLLY women, follow these "super duper clear rules." In fact, my buddy recently was being threatened by a girl because he DID NOT sleep with her. She was threatening that she would go to the police with and accusation of gRape. If reality was ACTUALLY like these videos, it would be easy to understand, but it's not like these videos no matter how much they try to say it is.

The video has 4 minutes. Is it really that hard to understand?

​@@vulpinemachineand that girl would get nowehere if she did. Its not against the law to refuse sex. Both parties need to consent, neither is owed sex.

Life already has too many forms and overally bureaucratic ritualistic communication to appease the litigious overlords....to take the most sacred human act and make it just as dry and dull sounds AWFUL. I'm so glad I got married 15 years ago. I feel like I caught the last chopper out of 'Nam.

Who says you have to be that dry about it? Just make your intention clear, give the other person space to affirm. If it all goes smooth, continue. And from my experience, people actually love feeling like they're being heard and feeling like they have a choice. Its real life if you make it real life.

​@@FiikusMaximusHave you ever been with someone romantically or sexually? It's not as simple as having a good intention. Some people have certain fetishes where they want to be coerced. Granted, this usually happens between people who have complete trust. But there is a level of playfullness that will put the whole consent thing on it's head. Of course, consent is vital but for it to have legal implications that is going to make life very difficult. Especially in the cases where extremities are part of the sex life. Most women I know and have had serious relationships with they wanted to feel desired. You can do this through kisses, cuddles but also by touching the sensitive parts. Technically, according to the consent doctrine you need to ask for consent on those things too. Usually these things happen spontaneous and as just one of the many ways to express your love. Mess with this, people will just stop doing those.I think this will the first step into the dystopian worlds described and depicted in books and films where every form of humanity is diminished. The fact that people like you aren't more critical of the consequences is what worries me the most.

@@chrichtonsworld1 "The fact that people like you aren't more critical of the consequences is what worries me the most." That's because your prediction of the future is not based on what people are actually advocating for, when they advocate for consent, but on fearmongering. You should be doubly concerned about the issue of consent if kink is part of your sex life. There's nothing complicated about it legally. You shouldn't do anything that wasn't agreed upon, you shouldn't assume other people are into the same things you, just like you shouldn't assume a person wants to have sex with you just because you want to have sex with them. Women do want to feel desired but they also usually want to feel respected. There's a big difference between getting touched by someone you're already intimate with and a stranger. Consent in no way goes against playfulness. If your idea of playfulness means muddling the boundaries of consent, then I'd say that sounds like an accident waiting to happen. As far as shows of affection go, there's nothing simpler than having a conversation like this: "Do you enjoy it when I do x spontaneously?" "Yes" or "No" or "Yes, but only when I'm not busy with other things" etc. From then oon, you never have to worry if you're doing something unwanted. Does that really seem dystopian to you? I've had relationships where I relied on my "instinct" and relationships where I wasn't afraid to bring things up openly and I've never once in my life had to regret being open and I've more than once made a mistake based on my assumptions.

​@@chrichtonsworld1 For fetishes, use a "safe word" to stop when it's uncomfortable, search it up if you don't know what it is. You can also ask someone for consent not only by verbal means but also by initiating non-coercive actions to probe for their intentions (so, for example, you can actually touch them gently first, like a sign, and if they agree to, you keep on doing what you want). Or you just straight up ask them. If you can't trust your partner enough to ask directly or indirectly for consent, then that, depending on the stage, is not a healthy relationship. Seriously, s3x ed is not only about consent but also about how to have a healthy approach to s3x and I feel like people are forgetting this regard. Your comment comes to show the ignorance of available solutions to all the problems you mentioned. Besides, this is unrelated to s3x but I think it's really important for marriage life which goes hand in hand with s3x ed: Communication is everything, just discuss everything with your partner b4hand and you'll be fine (granted you trust them enough to discuss it, because if not, again, that is not a healthy relationship)

It is.

@@vulpinemachine - Thanks for your opinion! It is interesting that no one else answered during the last 3 weeks. Maybe, because they are afraid to expose themselfes as hypocrites 🙂 :-)

Well no. 1. Murder is a legal definition. Abortion is not defined as muder. 2. Let's give you the point of is abortion then an immoral or ilegal termination of a life. Well no it's not. Abortion is not the killing of a feutus, but the withdrawing of consent of letting another human beeing use your body. That the feutus dies due to the act is unfortunate but irrelevant. Very simply put. Even if I grant ALL human rights to a just concieved feutus, not even a second passed when the egg incooporated the spermcell and all human rights apply to that feutus, the feutus doesn't have the right to use another humans body unless said human consented to chareing it's body with the feutus. An abortion here, is the result of consent withdrawn. To make it a bit clearer because humans are weird and grant feutuses special rights. If you need a blood transfusion, and my blood is THE ONLY blood in the world that could safe you - you have no right to demand that I give up my bodily autonomy to keep you alive. Same with the feutus, no feutus has the right to demand a person with a uterus to give up their bodily autonomy or risk their health to keep them alive.

@@alberich3099 you are a pilot. One day you allow a person on to your plane and their cargo. You drop them off at your next stop and continue on your way. Midflight over the ocean you discover someone in your cargo hold. It turns out they had been rendered unconscious and stuffed into the cargo hold with the other cargo from the passenger you consented to picking up. You had no idea and certainly didn't intend to pickup another person but apparently this other passenger brought the unknowing stowaway on board. You've decided you're not really interested in accommodating a passenger who ended up on your plane without their knowledge and without your permission, so you toss them out of the plane into the ocean, to their death. You are a murderer. It doesn't matter that it's your plane. You're a murderer. It doesn't matter that the other passenger lied or violated you or your plane... you'd STILL be a murderer. The unknowing stowaway cannot be held liable for trespass for they had no idea and couldn't and didn't consent to trespass. Therefore casting the unknowing stowaway off the plane/boat etc is in fact murder.

So in theory you're correct, but not in reality. You actually got almost there. You said "if they say yes, but their body language says no..." you're right about this. If they're body language is NO it's definitely a no. But here's the flipside to that. If their words are no and their body language is yes, it's a YES! But people get themselves into trouble because people are getting worse and worse at reading body language...something something too much time on the internet probably. I actually wish it was as simple as this video makes it out to be, but it simply isn't.

​@@vulpinemachineyou're just describing non-verbal consent. If the person is actively and freely participating, that's consent. You can also completely avoid the trouble of relying on body language by being explicit or simply discussing beforehand. What the video discussed is bare minimum.

@@vulpinemachine Sorry I disagree. If they say no and their body says yes. it still is a NO. People get arouse and secret vaginal fluids during rape - the body said yes.... Was it consensual? People get hard when stimmulated eventhough they say no ... was it consensual? Physiological reactions do not override considered free consent.

If she says that, but not quite if he says that.

If "yes" or "no" can never TRULY be relied on, then it might be better to go live under a rock and accept that all human communication is ultimately futile. The rest of us can just go on with our lives.

No crime more heinous than... **? Also how are you listing *regret* among the others. You cannot hold others responsible for you making bad *choices* you later regret.

No crime more heinous than... **? Also how are you listing *regret* among the others. You cannot hold others responsible for you making bad *choices* you later regret.

lol. k is the best one since you'd need to be a mind reader of someone's future mind in order to ever receive consent then. i'm a dude and i have a few regrets, does that mean i've been [email protected].?

@@phoenixfire8226 yes. Congratulations! Unfortunately our work as feminists is not done yet, so you as a man still cannot extort the people who made you a victim unless you transition your gender. I dream of a day when people of EVERY gender have the freedom to frivolously destroy the lives of other people through r*p* accusations. I hope you share my dream.

​@@phoenixfire8226 yes. Congratulations!

We need to start shaming extra-marital sex again.

I hope you are ironic​@@vulpinemachine

@@jos4558 nope

Uh no... since when does marriage have a monopoly on relationships where you talk extensively about boundaries and consent beforehand? FYI married people get raped by their spouses... often conservative misogynistic "family values" men forcing their wives FYI..

yea same. I'm AuDHD, and while I would generally describe myself as demisexual and consent is something I very rarely touch because sex is not something I realy care about, what she said about people with disabilities struggeling to communicate meaning them not beeing in a position to consent. The struggle to communicate is something that irks me. What does struggle mean? A friend of mine is mute, she struggles to communicate with people. Is she now unable to consent? What about a Person that is deaf? Can't they consent just because they don't hear "the question asked"? The issue here is her wording is off. I kinda get the idea behind it, but it was realy badly put. Sexuality with a disability may face different issues, and whiel there is an argument to be held about developmental disabilities influenceing the abilioty to consent (similar to children), people with communicational challanges are just as capable to consent. It's just that you need to figure out how to communicate clear and honest.

JFC if I have to have a "consent" discussion with my wife every time... NO FRIGGON WAY. That isn't how marriages work. Talk about a passionless marriage with as much tedium as IRS statements.

Legaly? Yes it is sexual battery. Marrige doesn't matter here as an excuse as marrige doesn't give you the right to use the other persons body to do with what one wants. Interpersonally? There should be a conversation to be had about what one is ok with. And in my mind much more improtant, one should not be offended if one party tells the other "nah don't just do that". The woman I was in a relationship with for 3 years quite openly told me that she likes when I grab her, give her a slap or pinch her ass when we were alone. Even if it doesn't lead to sex, it was WANTED physical interaction. What is so hard about haveing an open conversation with your significant other about their boundaries? I mean I HATE beeing hugged. I don't even hug my parents it's realy bothersome for me. So my friends respect that boundary and are not offended that I don't hug them but fistbump them. It becomes an issue only if one get's offended if beeing told not to do it. To again give you an personal example from me and my former girlfriend. She loves kisses on the ears.. I hate them, mainly due to sensory issues with sound. When I asked her not to do it, she was confused and could not understand that it was an issue for me as she loved it. We had arather difficult but open discussion about it at whichs end she accepted that that was a boundary of mine and I promised to incoporate hers into foreplay (as I always left that out because I did not like it and didn't gravitate to do it to her). So neither gender nor sex changes anything. Yes slapping her on the bottom wihout consent is legaly sexual battery (battery becuse force is involved) Consent according to CRIP or FRIES can be given without any problem for a long period of time. Just fuckign talk to each other: Hey honey can I grab your ass from time to time, I just like how it looks? Yea sure, just don't do it infront of friends or guests, and don't be mad if I tell you to stop it, should I not feel like it! There done It was considered, it can be reversed, it was informed it was specific and it was participatory. There consent given for a period of time. As for the "it's not very romantic" I think that is a falsehood purpotrated by people who don't know how to ask for consent and are very uptight. A "do you like it when I kiss you neck or do you prefere the collarbone?" is askeing for consent. A "Oh I love when you touch my inner thigh" is giving consent A "grab my ass and stuff it" is asking and giving consent. A "Honey, take my hand and guide it" is giving and asking for consent.

Wtf? What do you mean by that last sentence? In plain english.

the fuck are you on about. Ohh arae you one of those who think a short skirt is consent because it was a mesage to others? that's realy fucked up. no consent is not the violation of trust, Consent is an explicit expressed permission for something to happen. A explicit permission cannot be anything but in a form of communication which is unequivocally sent and recieved by the parties involved. If you interpret a signal from somebody they don't explicitly made towards YOU that is on you and you are violateing expressed permission for something to happen. You realy do sound like someone who excuses rape of someone not wearing the "appropriate" clothing.

It essentially means that even if you might expect consent - it is not consent. E.g. if you invite someone to come to your house, they agree, they agree to come with you to the kitchen and you start to prepare the tea, they still might decide no to tea and you don't have consent until they agree to the tea. Equally, someone can show you they are interested in tea because they consentingly send you pictures of their teabags. They might even ask to see your teaspoon. However, they then decide that they actually don't want the tea. There is no assumed consent to have tea because of other actions that might lead up to drinking tea.

​@@Panda-moan-ium😂 i like that explanation.