Okay, I’m gonna bite this bait - isn’t consent something decided later? Nobody can prove they said “yes or no” later after all so usually it’s based on who we decide to trust.
Consent can absolutely be decided immediately. But as the situation changes, consent can too. You might’ve been ok with safe sex, and said only “yes” assuming that was the situation. Only to then find out there never was a condom and now you have a greatly increased risk of pregnancy or disease. That consent is now revoked, and retroactively. That isn’t a case of “lol too bad you said yes.”
What about after everyone agrees, the person looks back, and regrets it for some reason.
Can they prosecute for rape, even if you followed all the rules of consent?
Also, one of the reasons I was thinking to just have the other person just tie me to a bed or something and use me, they can do what they want and unless they do something pretty stupid, revoke my own consent. And they literaly can’t be raped if they have to do everything themselves.
No wondering if this person changed their mind or are faking it or something, because they can always just get off, ensuring consent is now just the other person’s problem.
That isn’t a consent issue, it’s a false accusation. It’s common for all sorts of crimes to be used for manipulation; either to deflect blame or to cause damage to someone’s reputation. Even if the language of consent is used, it’s not really about consent; in a different cultural paradigm the same false accusation would be made with different words
Was a thing some years ago thay stirred up drama in the right-wing circles where someone claimed they wanted to bring in laws where you can be satisfied, have good mutual sex, and some time after, decide you feel icky over it, and withdraw consent retroactively.
Prob just someone trying to scare people out of sex.
I am saying, that a person can consent now, and then claim no consent and sue you later. Which I hope never happens to you, but the idea is quite an useful loophole.
That’s a poor choice in partners if it’s someone who’s trying to fuck you over. And like the list shows, many “yes” are actually a no. Ive never had issues with any partner I had, as I’m respectful and clearly show them a “no” is an answer that’s completely fine. Also, I prefer both not to be drunk or under the influence of whatever when it’s the first time because it doesn’t feel real and I’m not sure if my partner is still happy with their decision the day after (or me). Even one night stands go with proper communication beforehand and sober (or after only ~2 beers).
So consent should always be defined beforehand, without doubt.
I’ve also cockblocked many because I was in doubt people would be happy with their decision the day after. “Nope, not going to happen, I will bring you home now. If you still want this tomorrow, you should plan a date together and see where it goes. But tonight, it’s going to be a hard no. Off to bed now.”
In all cases they thanked me the day after, whether they still wanted it or not. Better safe than sorry.
By being extra careful and respectful I may have missed out on many opportunities, but at least there’s no one who had regrets or fell forced or anything like that in the moment or the day after.
Yes, but what if a person decides that while they may have consented originally during the act, they benefit more from saying they have not consented later on? I’m asking about this being quite possibly a profitable endeavor.
Okay, I’m gonna bite this bait - isn’t consent something decided later? Nobody can prove they said “yes or no” later after all so usually it’s based on who we decide to trust.
Consent can absolutely be decided immediately. But as the situation changes, consent can too. You might’ve been ok with safe sex, and said only “yes” assuming that was the situation. Only to then find out there never was a condom and now you have a greatly increased risk of pregnancy or disease. That consent is now revoked, and retroactively. That isn’t a case of “lol too bad you said yes.”
What about after everyone agrees, the person looks back, and regrets it for some reason.
Can they prosecute for rape, even if you followed all the rules of consent?
Also, one of the reasons I was thinking to just have the other person just tie me to a bed or something and use me, they can do what they want and unless they do something pretty stupid, revoke my own consent. And they literaly can’t be raped if they have to do everything themselves.
No wondering if this person changed their mind or are faking it or something, because they can always just get off, ensuring consent is now just the other person’s problem.
No, I’m asking about changing consent retroactively.
Say I consent today, we have fun… and in a few days I get informed that I could earn some money by claiming I did not consent.
That isn’t a consent issue, it’s a false accusation. It’s common for all sorts of crimes to be used for manipulation; either to deflect blame or to cause damage to someone’s reputation. Even if the language of consent is used, it’s not really about consent; in a different cultural paradigm the same false accusation would be made with different words
Was a thing some years ago thay stirred up drama in the right-wing circles where someone claimed they wanted to bring in laws where you can be satisfied, have good mutual sex, and some time after, decide you feel icky over it, and withdraw consent retroactively.
Prob just someone trying to scare people out of sex.
So you’re saying that when you have sex with someone, you don’t know if you’re raping them, but you will find out later and that’s normal?
Have you ever had sex? And if so, for how many have you been convicted?
I am saying, that a person can consent now, and then claim no consent and sue you later. Which I hope never happens to you, but the idea is quite an useful loophole.
That’s a poor choice in partners if it’s someone who’s trying to fuck you over. And like the list shows, many “yes” are actually a no. Ive never had issues with any partner I had, as I’m respectful and clearly show them a “no” is an answer that’s completely fine. Also, I prefer both not to be drunk or under the influence of whatever when it’s the first time because it doesn’t feel real and I’m not sure if my partner is still happy with their decision the day after (or me). Even one night stands go with proper communication beforehand and sober (or after only ~2 beers).
So consent should always be defined beforehand, without doubt.
I’ve also cockblocked many because I was in doubt people would be happy with their decision the day after. “Nope, not going to happen, I will bring you home now. If you still want this tomorrow, you should plan a date together and see where it goes. But tonight, it’s going to be a hard no. Off to bed now.”
In all cases they thanked me the day after, whether they still wanted it or not. Better safe than sorry.
By being extra careful and respectful I may have missed out on many opportunities, but at least there’s no one who had regrets or fell forced or anything like that in the moment or the day after.
Good for you.
No, if a person doesn’t want to do something and the other person does something anyway, that breaks consent that second.
Yes, but what if a person decides that while they may have consented originally during the act, they benefit more from saying they have not consented later on? I’m asking about this being quite possibly a profitable endeavor.
You have a delusionaly high opinion of the courts.
Celebrities and the Uber wealthy have to worry about this. The average person does not.