Me Too Champion showed it was him too

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2018, 10:37 AM)Benton Wrote: The part where they dated. Those seeing this as a bigger issue are confusing  a relationship and sexual preferences

Personally, I don’t care what two consenting adults do. And if you stay in a relationship ... consensually... with someone who has sexual preferences you disagree with, you’re consenting to those unless the other party agrees to change. I’m not that involved in some guy from New York’s sex life, so I can’t speak to that conversation (or lack thereof) but I can admire how quickly detractors of women’s rights were able to throw mud at ‘me too.’

I dig you, Benton.  That being said this post displays a huge amount of ignorance regarding domestic abuse.  Many women stay with men who physically, sexually or mentally abuse them.  The mere fact that they stay does not demonstrate consent to their abuse.  The reasons for staying are many and varied, but absolutely none of them imply consent to their abuse.

[Belsnickel]

(05-10-2018, 11:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think Benton said just that when he said a party could decide to change.

That's not how I read it. What I see is Benton saying that being in the relationship is itself consent to the acts and that there has to be discussion to take that consent away, which is not how consent works.

(05-10-2018, 11:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I dig you, Benton.  That being said this post displays a huge amount of ignorance regarding domestic abuse.  Many women stay with men who physically, sexually or mentally abuse them.  The mere fact that they stay does not demonstrate consent to their abuse.  The reasons for staying are many and varied, but absolutely none of them imply consent to their abuse.

Yeah, I didn't get into this, but I was thinking the same thing.

This is just in general, not to either of these posts, but this is something I have had seriously in depth discussions about. I'm not claiming expertise, just that I have a lot of these discussions as someone that adjudicates sexual misconduct claims on our campus. Consent is huge, and so twice a year we have a discussion around consent and how to define it. I know some will see this as some academic liberal elitist bullshit, but it's something we need to talk about as a society overall.

[Benton]

(05-10-2018, 11:12 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I dig you, Benton.  That being said this post displays a huge amount of ignorance regarding domestic abuse.  Many women stay with men who physically, sexually or mentally abuse them.  The mere fact that they stay does not demonstrate consent to their abuse.  The reasons for staying are many and varied, but absolutely none of them imply consent to their abuse.

There's a line between sexual preferences or role playing, and domestic abuse.

Where that line is? I think it's sort of like Stewart's definition of pornography, in that it can be very different from one relationship to the next. And unless there's a conversation between the two, one party may not know. 

[fredtoast]

(05-10-2018, 12:27 PM)Benton Wrote: There's a line between sexual preferences or role playing, and domestic abuse.

Where that line is? I think it's sort of like Stewart's definition of pornography, in that it can be very different from one relationship to the next. And unless there's a conversation between the two, one party may not know. 

Exactly.


Battered women stay in relationships with men who beat them.  They are clearly not "consenting" to the abuse.  But when the only time it gets rough is during consensual sex role playing that is different.

It is a tough line to draw, but there is definitely a big difference.  Just because I let a woman fart glitter in my face during sex that does not mean I am going to allow it while I am eating at the dinner table.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(05-10-2018, 12:27 PM)Benton Wrote: There's a line between sexual preferences or role playing, and domestic abuse.

Where that line is? I think it's sort of like Stewart's definition of pornography, in that it can be very different from one relationship to the next. And unless there's a conversation between the two, one party may not know. 

(05-10-2018, 01:01 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Exactly.


Battered women stay in relationships with men who beat them.  They are clearly not "consenting" to the abuse.  But when the only time it gets rough is during consensual sex role playing that is different.

It is a tough line to draw, but there is definitely a big difference.  Just because I let a woman fart glitter in my face during sex that does not mean I am going to allow it while I am eating at the dinner table.

You're both correct,  But it's not a tough line to draw, the line is when the women states she is no longer consenting.  Based on what I've read about Schneidermen that was expressed.

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2018, 11:09 AM)GMDino Wrote: I think Benton said just that when he said a party could decide to change.

I think you misread what he wrote. 

"Personally, I don’t care what two consenting adults do. And if you stay in a relationship ... consensually... with someone who has sexual preferences you disagree with, you’re consenting to those unless the other party agrees to change. I’m not that involved in some guy from New York’s sex life, so I can’t speak to that conversation (or lack thereof) but I can admire how quickly detractors of women’s rights were able to throw mud at ‘me too.’"

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2018, 10:37 AM)Benton Wrote: The part where they dated. Those seeing this as a bigger issue are confusing  a relationship and sexual preferences

Personally, I don’t care what two consenting adults do. And if you stay in a relationship ... consensually... with someone who has sexual preferences you disagree with, you’re consenting to those unless the other party agrees to change. I’m not that involved in some guy from New York’s sex life, so I can’t speak to that conversation (or lack thereof) but I can admire how quickly detractors of women’s rights were able to throw mud at ‘me too.’

So the fact they dated and they agreed to have sex they consented to being sexually assaulted during the act?

And those that "detractors of women's rights (apparently the right to be assaulted during sex) are not slinging mud at the movement, they are slinging mud at a hypocrite that sexual abused and assaulted women. But I'm sure they appreciate your admiration. 

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2018, 12:27 PM)Benton Wrote: There's a line between sexual preferences or role playing, and domestic abuse.

Where that line is? I think it's sort of like Stewart's definition of pornography, in that it can be very different from one relationship to the next. And unless there's a conversation between the two, one party may not know. 

So if I were to just go up and grab a woman by the vajayjay I wouldn't know she didn't want it if we didn't have a conversation prior?

[GMDino]

(05-10-2018, 06:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So if I were to just go up and grab a woman by the vajayjay I wouldn't know she didn't want it if we didn't have a conversation prior?

What part of "consensual, in a relationship" made you think the above post was smart or clever?

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2018, 06:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: What part of "consensual, in a relationship" made you think the above post was smart or clever?

uuuuuhhhhhhmmmmmmmm.............Benton's comments.

Did you read them?

[Nebuchadnezzar]

Can a husband rape his wife or is it consensual simply because they are married?

What this guy did was wrong, whether he believes it was consensual or not does not. What matters is if the woman agreed to it that instance. It don't matter if she agreed last night either, on this night she didn't want that. Apparently, he didn't ask, he just went straight to the rough sex and she may have been expecting a night of love making.

He was wrong, bottom line.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2018, 06:56 PM)GMDino Wrote: What part of "consensual, in a relationship" made you think the above post was smart or clever?

(05-10-2018, 09:04 PM)bfine32 Wrote: uuuuuhhhhhhmmmmmmmm.............Benton's comments.

Did you read them?

"Did you read them?"

(05-10-2018, 10:37 AM)Benton Wrote: The part where they dated. Those seeing this as a bigger issue are confusing  a relationship and sexual preferences

Personally, I don’t care what two consenting adults do. And if you stay in a relationship ... consensually... with someone who has sexual preferences you disagree with, you’re consenting to those unless the other party agrees to change. I’m not that involved in some guy from New York’s sex life, so I can’t speak to that conversation (or lack thereof) but I can admire how quickly detractors of women’s rights were able to throw mud at ‘me too.’

"uuuuuhhhhhhmmmmmmmm............."

[*bfine32*]

(05-10-2018, 10:39 PM)GMDino Wrote: "Did you read them?"


"uuuuuhhhhhhmmmmmmmm............."

My apologies, you did read them, but just as Matt suggested, you didn't comprehend them. He is not saying what you are asserting. Don't believe me, just ask him. 

Let me ask you and others remaining silent here a question, Don't answer; as I don't expect an honest or straight forward response, just reflect on your response:

If Lucie would have typed the exact same words that Benton did in his response to Schneiderman's actions would your response be the same?

Kudos to Matt and SSF; as they remained consistent.  

[Benton]

(05-10-2018, 06:18 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So the fact they dated and they agreed to have sex they consented to being sexually assaulted during the act?

Sexually assaulted under whose definition?

Again, I dont care what happens between two consenting adults. I'm not going to weigh in on whether an act is sexual assault or just something you deem as abnormal activity, that's outside my judgement. Essentially, I think the only two people who should be involved in that discussion are the two people having sex. Or three or four, whatever. If it's sexual assault, that's for law enforcement or the legal system to determine. 

(05-10-2018, 06:20 PM)bfine32 Wrote: So if I were to just go up and grab a woman by the vajayjay I wouldn't know she didn't want it if we didn't have a conversation prior?

Do you have a previous relationship of grabbing her vagina? IE, is this your wife, girlfriend or patient (if you're a gynecologist) ? Or random woman on the street?

Again — much like pornography — it's not always easily defined, but I often know it when I see it. If you're grabbing vagina's of random women, that's assault. If you're grabbing your wife's, that's possibly assault. If youre grabbing your patients, youre collecting $800 a visit.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2018, 11:11 PM)bfine32 Wrote: My apologies, you did read them, but just as Matt suggested, you didn't comprehend them. He is not saying what you are asserting. Don't believe me, just ask him. 

Let me ask you and others remaining silent here a question, Don't answer; as I don't expect an honest or straight forward response, just reflect on your response:

If Lucie would have typed the exact same words that Benton did in his response to Schneiderman's actions would your response be the same?

Kudos to Matt and SSF; as they remained consistent.  

Well, if you say so, but yeah it would have...just like your responses to me are "consistent".

I agree with Benton that what happens within a consensual relationship is just that.  And once it it is not longer consensual it is no longer the same.

That does not excuse this moron if he really did what others claim he did.

[GMDino]

(05-10-2018, 11:27 PM)Benton Wrote: Sexually assaulted under whose definition?

Again, I dont care what happens between two consenting adults. I'm not going to weigh in on whether an act is sexual assault or just something you deem as abnormal activity, that's outside my judgement. Essentially, I think the only two people who should be involved in that discussion are the two people having sex. Or three or four, whatever. If it's sexual assault, that's for law enforcement or the legal system to determine. 


Do you have a previous relationship of grabbing her vagina? IE, is this your wife, girlfriend or patient (if you're a gynecologist) ? Or random woman on the street?

Again — much like pornography — it's not always easily defined, but I often know it when I see it. If you're grabbing vagina's of random women, that's assault. If you're grabbing your wife's, that's possibly assault. If youre grabbing your patients, youre collecting $800 a visit.

Yep.  No one is saying the guy is innocent.  But to equate randomly grabbing women on the street to what may have happened within a consensual relationship is asinine.

[Belsnickel]

I'm going to make this a more general statement than directing it at one post, but I've been ruminating on this term "consensual relationship." I think I understand what is being implied by this term, but it is being used erroneously. Being in a relationship doesn't imply consent to anything other than being in a relationship. This idea that being in a relationship implies consent to sexual acts and that consent must be revoked is very problematic and, while I'm sure there will be jeers at this term, is a product of a rape culture. This is part of the conversation that we, as a society, are having these days surround the idea of sexual assault and consent and how these things play out. Being in a relationship allows for foundation of communication that better facilitates conversation surrounding consent and what each party is up for and how consent is going to be communicated in the heat of the moment, but the relationship itself does not mean consent is there.

[fredtoast]

(05-11-2018, 09:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote:  Being in a relationship doesn't imply consent to anything other than being in a relationship. This idea that being in a relationship implies consent to sexual acts and that consent must be revoked is very problematic and, while I'm sure there will be jeers at this term, is a product of a rape culture.

The problem is that "course of conduct" does establish consent under contract law.  If I have been in a relationship involving consensual spatula sex for a period of time then I am allowed to assume that is consented to unless consent is withdrawn. 

If you are going to make strict rules of consent then there should not be "special" rules that only apply to sexual relationships.  There is absolutely NO burden to one party to "revoke consent" to something that has been established by a regular course of action.  All he/she has to do is say "You can't do that anymore".  Anyone who has been in a relationship knows that is how it works.  If one party says "no" then that means "no", but someone has to say "no" if it has been consented to before.

[Belsnickel]

(05-11-2018, 09:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that "course of conduct" does establish consent under contract law.  If I have been in a relationship involving consensual spatula sex for a period of time then I am allowed to assume that is consented to unless consent is withdrawn. 

If you are going to make strict rules of consent then there should not be "special" rules that only apply to sexual relationships.  There is absolutely NO burden to one party to "revoke consent" to something that has been established by a regular course of action.  All he/she has to do is say "You can't do that anymore".  Anyone who has been in a relationship knows that is how it works.  If one party says "no" then that means "no", but someone has to say "no" if it has been consented to before.

That's interesting, because that is not how we have defined consent for our Title IX proceedings, and this definition of consent has been tested in federal court.

Quote:An outward demonstration through understandable words or actions that convey a knowing and voluntary agreement to engage in mutually agreed-upon sexual activity. Consent cannot be gained by force that is express or implied, coercion, intimidation, threats or duress. Consent cannot be obtained by ignoring or acting in spite of the objections of another, by previous consent or by taking advantage of another person’s incapacitation or physical helplessness where one knows or reasonably should have known of such incapacitation or helplessness. An individual who is incapacitated because of age, disability, voluntary activity or through the acts of others cannot give consent. Silence or absence of resistance does not imply consent. Consent is voluntary and may be withdrawn at any time by communicating the withdrawal through an outward demonstration of understandable words or actions.

Now, when we adjudicate, we do ask about how consent is typically communicated during sexual activities if the parties have engaged in them before, but consent does not carry from situation to situation for a couple.

[GMDino]

(05-11-2018, 09:40 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm going to make this a more general statement than directing it at one post, but I've been ruminating on this term "consensual relationship." I think I understand what is being implied by this term, but it is being used erroneously. Being in a relationship doesn't imply consent to anything other than being in a relationship. This idea that being in a relationship implies consent to sexual acts and that consent must be revoked is very problematic and, while I'm sure there will be jeers at this term, is a product of a rape culture. This is part of the conversation that we, as a society, are having these days surround the idea of sexual assault and consent and how these things play out. Being in a relationship allows for foundation of communication that better facilitates conversation surrounding consent and what each party is up for and how consent is going to be communicated in the heat of the moment, but the relationship itself does not mean consent is there.

Personally I have never considered the term to mean "anything in the relationship is good to go".  

"Consensual" to me had meant individual acts above and beyond being in the relationship.

1) You want your partner wearing diapers and getting spanked?  As long as your partner says it's ok then it's ok with me too.

2) You want to never put the lid on the toothpaste?  Your partner doesn't have to consent to that, but might not like it anyway.

One directly affects the well being of another person and is acted upon them...that needs consent. 

So I agree that simply being in a relationship is not consent for any and all actions against you within that relationship.  That kind of thinking is went out with the "wife better do as she told" mentality of past generations...I hope.

Side note:  None of that covers randomly grabbing people on the street as was suggested.