PaulaToThePeople :VeryQueer:
Until an hour ago I could have said something like "Rape is not sex, just like a beating is not dancing."
But now I've read what #AngelaChen has to say about it in #Ace.
"Rape is not sex" implies that sex is not violent or wrong, but it can be both.
Rape and sex are a spectrum.
No means no, but yes can mean any number of things:
* oh my god, yes please!
* yes, because it's you asking
* okay, let's get this over with, so you will shut up about it
or even:
* yes, because I'm afraid to say no.
MeerderWörter
@PaulaToThePeople Tbh, I agree with that sentiment. Sex is what you do, not how you do it. Or why. And the how and the why is where it gets problematic.
PaulaToThePeople :VeryQueer:
@Wuzzy Did you even read my post? I give examples on how consent is obviously on a spectrum, how yes is not always yes.
Wuzzy
@PaulaToThePeople If sex and rape are a spectrum that would have terrible implications.
I think there should be a hard red line when it's becoming rape and that red line is called "consent". I have no idea how there could be a "spectrum" of consent. Either you have it, or you don't. A "half consent" does not exist. A "consent spectrum" sounds like a great way for rapists to argue themselves out by misinterpreting words.
PaulaToThePeople :VeryQueer:
@Wuzzy Then where would you put that hard red line you were talking about?
Wuzzy
@PaulaToThePeople You literally said "Rape and sex are a spectrum." and I strongly disagree with that sentence specifically.
I *do* agree with that it takes more than a simple "yes" for proper consent tho.
PaulaToThePeople :VeryQueer:
@Wuzzy If I'm asexual, but don't know it (yet) and feel pressured by society to have sex, I will say yes to the person I love and mean it - even though I actually don't want sex.
So now you're saying it's never okay to have sex with people against their will. So in other words sex is always rape, because you can never know, if the other person wants it.
I still don't see a hard red line here.
Wuzzy
@PaulaToThePeople This doesn't make sense. If I don't want sex (I never want sex), I can't say yes and also "mean it". I clearly did not mean it in this situation, since I didn't want sex.
And no, having sex with people against their will is never OK. I am the last one who would defend rape culture; I would only harm myself.
I mostly agree with you; all I'm saying is that I view as consent as an "all-or-nothing" (the default being "nothing") rather than a "spectrum".
PaulaToThePeople :VeryQueer:
@Wuzzy So having sex with someone who doesn't want sex, but said yes and meant it is okay?
Wuzzy
@PaulaToThePeople When there is no consent or consent was violated. Examples:
* You said "no".
* Your body language clearly signalled rejection
* You said the safe word yet it continued
* You said "yes" but were threatened, trapped, in danger, etc.
* You gave consent at first but revoked it during the act but it continued anyway against your will
* When it was ambigious/unclear. In that case, it should be assumed as "no consent" to be safe
Wuzzy
@PaulaToThePeople I disagree by the way that if you're ace and don't know it yet you will automatically engage in sex if pressured enough. I think it depends on the specific person.
As for me, I was affected by allonormativity and (falsely) bought into all bad sex stereotypes. I thought I was hetero but I never got around to actually have sex. It sucked because it made me feel bad but eventually I accepted I'm just ace and all bad feelings went POOF. It was quite liberating.
PaulaToThePeople :VeryQueer:
@Wuzzy I didn't say that. I just gave an example of what could happen and often does.
PaulaToThePeople :VeryQueer:
Making consent dependent on doubt is dangerous. Self assured assholes will never have doubt, so they can't rape?
On the other hand reasonable people who know about all these things will always have doubt, so they can never have sex?
Wuzzy
@PaulaToThePeople Well in my view consent is a strict binary: Either you give consent or you don't. There's nothing in between. If consent *was* spectrum, there should be something like a "50% consent" or a "75% consent" etc. and it seems to me this just needlessly complicates things. If a person has sex who only gave "half consent", was it "half a rape"? It doesn't make sense.
When in doubt, assume that consent was not given at all. Better safe than sorry.
PaulaToThePeople :VeryQueer:
@Wuzzy No this is important.
I want to understand what you mean with "consent is not a spectrum".
This would explain it. If you're not considering what a person actually wants in the question of consent, then yes, I agree, there can be a hard red line between consent and no consent.*
But not considering what people want when it comes to consent is imo batshit crazy, absolutely dangerous and will always lead to people getting hurt.
*PS: No, actually I still don't. It's still only possible for the person giving or not giving consent to draw that line.
Wuzzy
@PaulaToThePeople Umm, now we're splitting hairs and this is getting confusing. Can we just agree that pressuring people into sex is not OK?
PaulaToThePeople :VeryQueer:
@Wuzzy So you're saying saying yes and meaning it when it's actually no, has nothing to do with consent?
Wuzzy
@PaulaToThePeople Sadly, stories of aces who were pressured into sex not neccessarily by their partners but society in general are too common. I think this is a much bigger issue than consent because it calls into question our view on sex in general.
Being sexual is expected from us and this is a problem.
IMHO sex should be seen as optional, not as obligation.
My "red line" was about consent, not about the broader view on sex (which is much trickier).
GNU social JP is a social network, courtesy of GNU social JP管理人. It runs on GNU social, version 2.0.2-dev, available under the GNU Affero General Public License.
All GNU social JP content and data are available under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 license.