I recently participated in a twitter discussion on the topic of rape.
A friend of mine posted a picture of herself in a T-shirt that read “No means no.”
On the back the shirt read “Only yes means yes.”
This shirt of course is worn in protest of rape. Now the shirt is somewhat logically consistent. If someone tells you “No, I don’t want to get it on,” and you proceed, you are in fact raping that someone.
However, I have a serious problem with some of the notions tied to these catchy tees.
So I thought I would provoke a little response.
I asked if the shirt was in protest of rape (which is quite clear cut and easy to identify), or was it in protest of a person convincing another person to have sex with them.
I was told by one @peniggas, a feminist in the local area, that convincing someone to sleep with you is in fact rape.
I then questioned @peniggas a bit more on subject, and proceeded to call her argument one of cowardice and selfishness.
Let me explain.
Convincing someone to have sex with you may not be right. And there are certainly illegal ways of doing it, but it is not rape. At it’s worst, it could be considered sexual harassment.
The key word here is “convincing.”
If someone does not give you consent, and then later does in fact give you consent after you have spoken with them about it. You have changed their mind, consent has been given, now making the act consensual.
There are literally tons of parallels to this, especially considering that the concept of “consent” is not limited to sex.
When you take out a loan, and put your signature on the line with the bank, you have given the bank consent. They will sign their side and they will have given you consent.
You have now agreed to the terms of the loan. You may not like it, but you have.
Now obviously in a loan you are locked in because the money is spent and yada yada yada.
I am not saying that you shouldn’t stop if a consensual sex partner asks you to. I am simply saying, the act has begun because both parties agreed.
The reason @peniggas argument is cowardly and selfish lies in the practicality of it. By her logic, anyone who has sex can say (AFTER THE FACT) that despite giving consent, that they did not want too, and therefore they were raped.
Again, there are definitely illegal ways of “convincing” people to do anything. Blackmail, threatening someone physically, threatening someone close to a person physically. Basically if you have to commit another illegal act to convince this person to sleep with you, it’s probably rape. (Though I do still have a problem calling with such a situation based on ferocity contrast between what traditional rape tends to be, and what a like one described above might be.)
Needless to say don’t be this guy ⬇️
The argument that @peniggas used is stereotypically nothing more than a way for girls to shrug off the consequences of their actions in the sexual realm.
I do not believe @peniggas is one of these girls after more discussing matters with her further, but her argument was still silly.
@peniggas’ argument relied on one logically fallacious concept. The concept of “True Consent”.
She told me that just because Person A gives Person B consent, doesn’t necessarily mean that Person A wants to, and therefore it is not true consent.
I have no problem with this concept as a concept. However, in the realm of practicality, this little diddy is all jacked up!
Let’s say you are walking out of a grocery store, and there is table surrounded with girl scouts trying to sell you cookies. You really don’t want to, but everyone is watching and you don’t want to look like a snide prick by walking past them. So you buy the cookies, despite the fact that you really didn’t want to spend the money on some shitty shortbread cookies… Did those girl scouts just rob you? Better yet… DID THEY RAPE YOU??? 🎶DUN DUN DUN🎶
How about someone asking you to give to charity and even though you really don’t want to, you do it anyways so as not to upset that person, or bear the consequences of __Fill In The Blank__
Did that charity worker rob you?
The answer is no, you gave consent. You gave money. You gave them permission to take it despite the fact that you didn’t want to.
The laws must be written in such a way that they can not only be effective, but just. (I know this is a new concept to all you idealistic, feminist, silly geese out there, but bear with me.)
There is no way of ever measuring what people truly want in there heads. We cannot enforce laws based on thoughts. It is wrong to do so. Laws address the tangible.
The truth of the matter is, sexual consent should be tied to ones desire. If one does not act in accordance with what they desire, how can they ever expect to achieve what they desire.
If I want Mexican food, but instead go to an Italian food restaurant, would it be logical of me to expect to eat Mexican food?
No, because I didn’t act on my desire.
If a boy asks you to have sex with him, and you say yes despite the fact that you really meant no.
He did not rape you, you are just a moron.
Caveat was already given above, and so I am putting a period here.
@peniggas blocked me on twitter though I am not quite sure why. She was one of the more intellectually honest feminists I have spoken to in literally a decade.
Manson didn’t want to kill! And what he wanted is what really matters, not what he did right?