Can consent for sexual activity be inferred from the circumstances or should it always be explicit?

[OlderAndWiser]

Guess what? You're not having sex with this girl!

The PC/woke crowd seems to believe that consent to sex should be in writing, but I've never seen any of them suggest that your partner's signature on a consent form should be witnessed and notarized! Even so, stopping for written consent would seem to be a mood killer for most people. . . and perhaps that is their real objective.

Let's say you are on a sixth or seventh date with a girl, you're passionately kissing and you put your hand on her clothed boobs. She makes no effort to stop you and is clearly getting aroused. You move your hand to her lap and she spreads her legs apart. Then she starts fondling you. Isn't she telling you that she wants sex? And if she wants something that is not full PIV sex, like a hand job, she can make that clear to you. Seems obvious to me, but if you suggest that consent can be inferred from the circumstances, some of the white knights/SJW's will descend upon you! From a legal perspective, consent to sex can be inferred from the conduct of the parties even though it was never explicitly discussed between them.

[razelove]

I just have a shitload of cameras around my house, but none in my house. Easiest way to see how the night is going, she's coming home with me, 1, make out in front of one of my cameras, 2, fondle a little in front of the door where there's another camera, 3.

Well, if she wants to stop at any point and leave, that's on her, but that train has left the station and seems like it's on a fast track to entering the tunnel straight ahead. If she wants to make any accusations after, I have video of consent, why the hell would I keep a notary around in my house, or if suspicious of someone's intentions even bring them to my home?

Me saying they said it was cool won't matter, and wow, signing a consent form is a sure fire way to kill the mood. If a woman is into choking and slapping, I never get a form signed, just ask about hard and soft limits, and ask if there's any safe word.

On the same token, in today's world, you need to make at least some effort to cover your ass. Video seems to be the way to go, DVRs and cameras are cheap as all hell.

[UncleJessieRabbit]

If she is thinking of making an accusation just because, then honestly she is not your girlfriend or even friend for that matter.

[razelove]

@UncleJessieRabbit Yes, Men and women never act irrational after a break-up.

[msc545]

I live in California, and at our universities here, consent must be explicitly verbally obtained (actually preferably in writing) for each and every individual sex act. Failure to do this can result in Title IX problems, but only for the man. Women are apparently exempt from any accusations or findings of sexual misconduct. This may account for the very low birth rate in my state.

[OlderAndWiser]

Requiring verbal consent seems silly to me, because women can consent before the act and deny it after the fact.

[msc545]

exactly, which means there is are apparently many great new opportunities for traveling notaries.

[OlderAndWiser]

How fucking stupid all of this has become!

[msc545]

That is putting it mildly.

[UncleJessieRabbit]

Men and women against this nonsense need to start organizing in protest and boycott. This behavior and mentality of double standards has got to end sometimes. I'm going to call it what it is which is fascism.

[msc545]

@UncleJessieRabbit Women are not against it so much because it gives them lots of control, and the opportunity to make accusations if they get bored or unhappy.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

@msc545. Are you referring to a California statutory requirement for explicit consent or one crafted by university regents and/or provosts. Universities here are also famously out in the ozone on administrative rules for sexual conduct. I don’t follow where Title IX is a potential problem (genuinely asking).

[msc545]

@LuvMeSomeBoys It's a little confusing relative to California law: Affirmative Consent Law California "The affirmative consent standard is designed to change the way people approach sexual encounters. Instead of assuming the other partner is ready for and okay with engaging in any sexual activities, the standard asks that you receive a verbal confirmation at some point in the process. Furthermore, the standard highlights the need for individuals to consider a partner’s ability to give consent. After several drinks or doing drugs, many individuals are too impaired to understand the nature of the act. Some critics of the measure believe the measure represents a slippery slope. The standard recognizes the need for clear communication, but it fails to instruct participants on what exactly constitutes legal consent between two adults. Does someone have to ask before touching you? Do you have to receive consent every few minutes? The legal understanding of consent remains vague and open to interpretation." Title IX is used by colleges and universities to adjudicate (and the term is used very loosely) claims of sexual assault and rape brought by women against men. As far as I know, there have been virtually no cases brought by men. Up until about 2 years ago, men were uniformly treated as lying perpetrators and women as credible victims, and most men were kicked out of school as a result. Many men who were kicked out that could afford it brought actions in real civil court in which they almost always prevailed on violation of due process grounds. However, about 2 years ago, the federal education department changed the rules such that men were afforded due process in the college hearings. Since the election of Biden, there is now a move to revoke due process for men and return to the prior rules that produced so many adverse civil court rulings against schools.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

@msc545. Thanks for your reply. It sounds like this piece of 2014 California legislation is what you're referring to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qpRxj0QwgjY

It's essentially a hostage bill, ordering universities and other institutions to institute policy or risk having state funds withheld or denied. Still, the affirmative consent requirement is open to interpretation, and under state law there (and about everywhere) the reasonable person concept will usually prevail. But it depends on circumstances. The age old problem with universities is handling allegations of sexual assault "in house" and many are loathe to get police involved lest their reputation be sullied. What also doesn't help is expanding the definition of sexual misconduct so broadly students can be expelled for telling a dirty joke within earshot of someone who might be offended by it. And their definition of due process becomes essentially "we believe" without hearing, and without appeal.

I'm totally with you on the shady or provably false claims of sexual abuse, I've seen more than enough cases (from both sides). I'll defend anyone accused of sexual assault based on a he said (it was consensual)/she said (it wasn't scenario). But I won't defend any woman for going full Jussie Smollett and making a false report of sexual assault. Those who actually commit sexual assault need to be held accountable for it; likewise, considering the consequences the ones who get falsely accused faced and have to live with, those who make false accusations likewise need to be held accountable.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Well crap, try this link instead. I don't know what happened there.

leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/.../...TextClient.xhtml

[msc545]

@LuvMeSomeBoys Unfortunately, it looks like Biden, the author of VAWA, will undo most of the reforms instituted by DeVos, a most odious woman who somehow managed to get this mostly right.

[msc545]

@LuvMeSomeBoys Yes, that's the one.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

@msc545. Understand where you're coming from, but I'm a little more optimistic. I don't practice law in California, but recognize it's a state that has its quirks when it comes to law. The most promising part of it, at least here, is colleges are gradually losing their leash on containment of serious allegations of offense (not just sexually based offenses). I can understand universities having some latitude to make their own rules, and administer their own disciplinary measures on things such as academics (cheating, plagiarism, graffiti on the walls, and so on) but on serious offenses they should not (as far as I'm concerned, must not) have any role in sexual misconduct allegations or other serious offenses. Their idea of due process is a joke when they play prosecutor, judge, jury, and executioner by a panel of regents who are driven by optics and reputation, not the law. There's something wrong with summarily expelling and making an example of a student accused of sexual misconduct in a he said/she said situation, without a chance to be heard, then giving another student two weeks of double secret probation for causing $10,000 or more in damages to property during a "peaceful demonstration." But after hitting them in their treasuries, where it really hurts, a few times they're gradually getting the message.

[msc545]

@LuvMeSomeBoys I agree with everything you said, but there is some economics at play here that make things more static than you may realize. First, and most importantly, colleges are more afraid of federal funds being cut off than they are of a money judgment, and they are all insured against the kind of money judgments that are seen in the cases they lose, which are almost all of them. Second, not all students and their families have the wherewithal to retain attorneys to pursue cases against the colleges, and I don't think that any of the firms that handle these cases take them on contingency. All of this combined means that colleges have a real reason to find in favor of women, and a real reason to deny men due process since that might produce an undesired result. In many cases they get away with this kind of behavior because men cannot afford to pursue remedies. Women's organizations went crazy when the last administration changed the rules because they knew full well that in many cases women would not only lose but would also be exposed as perjurers. Women knew that this might happen, and many specifically stated multiple times that they could not tolerate cross-examination because it was "too upsetting". With the rules changing back to what they were previously, I am not optimistic. Men cannot get a fair hearing in family law courts, and they cannot get fair hearings in the star chambers run by colleges.

[msc545]

thanks for MHO

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

See it's things like this that have me not wanting to date/be in a relationship. People are going too far/too crazy. I wish sometime would ever try to tell me I had to sign a consent form before sex, cuz the only sex they'd be getting is that form up their, well I think you know where🤬
I agree with the way you described it..
Whatever happened to consent with actions... If you're putting the moves on someone they can both verbally and with actions show she's consenting... I think a lot of this consent worry could be avoided with less stranger hook ups and more sex with people you really know, take the time to get to know and let things progress naturally. And too, it would help if more people stopped believing every lie told on the internet by bitter men and women as fact.

[JackSmy]

@brainsbeforebeauty Don't get swept up in the BULLSHIT of today, the PC things, the idea that anything can be considered "offensive'! When you are with someone, a good person, and you connect, these other things have no meaning, and just social BULLSHIT! The key, is finding that one, that understands, and knows, and doesn't care about the PC shit, because you understand each other.

[Brainsbeforebeauty]

@rajunyk Stop trolling there women's replies... Why don't you post that as a question

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

Your last sentence says it all from a point of law. Judges and juries infer intent from actions; likewise, consent to sex can be reasonably inferred from behavior. Affirmative consent is not a requirement, either legally or practically.

[OlderAndWiser]

Yes, and most of the SJW's and hostile feminists do no want to concede that point.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

@OlderAndWiser. True.

[DrunkAss]

I'm into seduction and taking hints. I don't see how that's hard. It's not difficult to avoid raping a woman. She says "no" in a way like she doesn't want and you stop doing it. Done. Easy. And I've never had that happen to me. How hard is that for people to understand? Maybe they play too many video games now that they think they need contracts for sex.

[DrunkAss]

Sometimes I think special ed has taken over society.

[Daniela1982]

You can usually tell if your partner wants sex. If they don't then they should not let it go beyond kissing, but not the passionate hands roaming type. To me that would be like teasing. You can have a little but it ends before we get to a certain point. I guess what you want should be discussed before it starts to get hot.

[CurlyGirl42]

Consent is giving a 'yes', not about not giving a 'no'. A 'yes' does not have to be explicit like one does not need to be explicit when wanting sex. Just following each others movements and being aware of each others reactions. Essentially easy, but can take some practise to read one another, so ask if in doubt.

[OlderAndWiser]

What you describe is "yes" being inferred from a girl's behavior.

[CurlyGirl42]

Yep, but my point is that it is not covered in your poll. There the focus is on the absence of a 'no'. It is important to cover that there should be a 'yes', some people freeze and do nothing (common during sexual abuse). Doing nothing is not a consent to sex.

[OlderAndWiser]

If a gut puts his hand in a girl's panties and she starts moaning and doesn't say no, doesn't that mean "yes?" I think you are trying to make a semantic distinction that really doesn't make a difference in the real world.

[CurlyGirl42]

moaning is doing something. She probably also shows with the rest of her body that she likes it. It makes a difference in the bad cases where the victim freezes which happen in the real world, even in relationships, for example under influence of alcohol some people gets very bad at registering where the partner is at. So it is an important distinction to me.

[123lucy]

@olderandwiser I think what they're trying to say is that if he "puts his hand in a girl's panties" and she doesn't do or say anything, that is not consent even in the absence of a no.

[OlderAndWiser]

@123lucy Yes, I understand what they are saying, but it just does not comport with the way real people behave.

[CurlyGirl42]

You would be surprise how often someone steps over a limit and people say/do nothing. Even if you do not believe it, it is still not consent. But luckily sounds like you would at least not do that yourself, since it is such a foreign thought.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

The consent argument doesn't take into account the reasonable person concept, which is the litmus test in law and in life. Circumstances are going to vary, but where circumstances exist that would cause a reasonable person to believe the other had consented, no explicit consent need be given. We deal with implied consent as often as we do express consent. When you obtain a driver's license, you give consent to sobriety testing while operating a motor vehicle, even without notification or acknowledgement in writing (it's in the law, and ignorance of it will never be an excuse). You give implied consent to search (usually an inspection) when entering court houses or federal property. If you're injured in an accident and are unconscious and unable to give consent, EMS may reasonable assume you would consent to lifesaving treatment and transport to a hospital. As pointed out, actions (or lack of objection) during an intimate encounter will usually determine when someone finds an action objectionable. And while the fight/flight/freeze theory is novel, it likely isn't going to hold up in a court of law. But it may be enough to get the "accused" summarily expelled "administratively" with no appellate rights on some college campuses.

[loves2learn]

It’s complicated. But I’m a way I guess my husband and I get consent from each other for each new position because we talk about it and have to move our bodies.


In a new sexual situation I think asking before oral sex is a good think. You can ask in a sexy way. Same with penetrative sex. A simple “I want to be inside you right now, are you ready?” Would suffice.

[PaynefulPleasures]

In my opinion know before you go, communicate before you fornicate, no sexual act should be pressured or forced (no means no, yes is yes) but also don't mislead to feed a need ✌️

[Lliam]

Consent absolutely can be inferred.

[LuvMeSomeBoys]

You are absolutely correct.

[Honesttguy]

I think for rich guys they can get writen consent but for common folks at bottom its not practical, i think having video recording is easier and more practical even for common folks. It might give at least some proof rather than nothing.

[matchrestore]

Consent can be communicated nonverbally as well as verbally, especially with a long term partner, but if there is any question in your mind about whether what you're doing is consensual, its best to find out for sure by asking. If it seems like they aren't enjoying it, ask. If they look uncomfortable, ask. If you've never done this specific thing before, ask.

[abc3643]

This:

"The PC/woke crowd seems to believe that consent to sex should be in writing, but I've never seen any of them suggest that your partner's signature on a consent form should be witnessed and notarized! "

is horseshit.

That said, there probably ARE people of any ideological persuasion who are so paranoid that they want lots of things in writing so that there are no legal problems.
After all, even conservatives and liberals and independents request pre-nuptial agreements.

[OlderAndWiser]

How are prenuptial agreements related to this topic? I've drafted and reviewed such agreements and never seen any clauses such as "Wife agrees to give, and husband agree to receive, oral sex three times per week, provided that husband reciprocates and gives wife oral sex three times per week upon request." hahaha!

[OlderAndWiser]

And, yes, I have seen many on the far left suggest that consent for sex should be in writing.

[OlderAndWiser]

www.usatoday.com/.../

[EmbraceThePain]

Depending on the circumstances, it can be clearly obvious/inferred. I don’t think it SHOULD ALWAYS be explicitly stated.

[The_Maphio]

Logic wants that if you had sex you can't retract your consent thereafter.
Thing that the liberal dumbasses did in moltiplicitous occasions, and where therefore flipped off.
3rd wave feminism is a great thing. Whenever you know one, make sure she dies alone of old age.

[ShortCircuit]

I think if you're in a long time relationship, once you have already had sex for the first time, anytime one partner initiates sex, consent should be implied unless specifically stated otherwise.

[kkirk4442]

The practicalities of life, are that putting it in writing almost never occurs, and getting repeated verbal consent for every step is impractical.

[Avicenna]

In my experience, its implied

[WowwGirl]

This is insane It's insane Insane

[Avicenna]

@WowwGirl:Well, that’s been my experience

[WowwGirl]

No having a contract

[WowwGirl]

Crazy

[slizzle01]

Honestly I feel the people who think everyone should say "I consent to sex with you" before having sex, have never or very rarely have sex. They don't understand human interaction.

[Agape93]

It can but that’s why communication is key. If for example, my partner is into sleep sex and I give consent for them to do it during certain times, like every other Wednesday, then they no longer need permission to do it. But if I say they can do it just this once, and they do it again, they have not received my consent.


But that’s why it needs to be discussed beforehand, to mitigate the issues like that.

[Inexpensivefurniture]

No one actually thinks consent should be in writing, it's just that people should check in with their partners more and look out for more than just a "no".

It's doesn't have to be as robotic as "Do I have your consent for X?" It can be a simple "Do you want me to do X?" "Do you like that?" Etc

And just keep in mind that if consent can be given non-verbally, it can also be revoked non-verbally.

[Gwenhwyfar]

Overall I agree with you. For the most part consent is only an issue when you’re dealing with hookups or the early stages of a relationship (though there are exceptions for example and I’m only saying this cause I’m essentially anonymous on this forum but I completely freak out if someone puts their fingers inside me when I’m sleeping so I’m always careful to spell this out to people I’m dating pretty early on).

[elizamichale1]

to me E is the most appropriate choice

[OlderAndWiser]

Agree.

[elizamichale1]

😊😊

[Massageman]

The only time a gal was THAT explicit with me was after her hand was deep in my lap, I asked her that now that she "had" me, what was she going to do with me.

She whispered, "put you inside me". Very persuasive! But it wasn't in writing. :- )