Patrick Kane: [Updated] D.A. Decides Not to Prosecute; NHL Determines Claims "Unfounded"

[LGR4GM]

I think actual and proper sex education for both men and women would go a long way towards lower rape incidences in the US.  We can't maintain the status quo where 1 out of 4 women between the age of 18-24 will be sexually assaulted, it's barbaric.  Also men need to look at themselves long and hard and make sure they are being appropriate. 

[...]

You answered your own question. The advancement stops when she decides she doesn't want to have sex.

 

Period.

 

Doesn't matter how far along in the act they were. Once it is not consensual, it is game over. That could be before, during, or after intercourse, by the way.

 

That should be obvious to a gentleman with an ounce of moral fiber that doesn't let his d ick do his thinking for him.

You're not responding to the full quote. He said: "How do you suggest we stop this advancement when she doesn't give the impression she doesn't want to stop, not to mention never says 'no'?"

 

So, the guy is supposed to read minds? Be an expert on facial expressions and body language? How about the person (male or female) saying "STOP!". That would be, uhm, helpful.

[JJFIVEOH]

You answered your own question. The advancement stops when she decides she doesn't want to have sex.

 

Period.

 

Doesn't matter how far along in the act they were. Once it is not consensual, it is game over. That could be before, during, or after intercourse, by the way.

 

That should be obvious to a gentleman with an ounce of moral fiber that doesn't let his d ick do his thinking for him.

 

The impressions have been (over the last page or two) that some women don't say 'no' and they don't give the impression they don't want to have sex because of social pressures, etc......

 

If she decides she doesn't want to have sex, how is the man supposed to know?

 

I'm not trying to sound cold, but at some point people need to stop trying to blame somebody, or something else.

 

Say I'm a female, I've been dancing with you all night, we're having a good time, we go back to your place, we make it into bed, we start taking off our clothes. At that point I decide it's gone too far but I don't say 'no' and I don't give the impression I don't want it to go any further because of social pressures. How is it your fault if we have sex? And no, it's not always obvious.

[LGR4GM]

You're not responding to the full quote. He said: "How do you suggest we stop this advancement when she doesn't give the impression she doesn't want to stop, not to mention never says 'no'?"

 

So, the guy is supposed to read minds? Be an expert on facial expressions and body language? How about the person (male or female) saying "STOP!". That would be, uhm, helpful.

She should say no in this very specific  scenario;  and we need to make sure women know that is their right and they should use it.

Edited August 20, 2015 by LGR4GM

[Neo]

I've not weighed in here, much. The debate has been thorough. I struggle with the concept of regret, or withdrawn consent. I struggle with that as a general matter, and not as one simply in this heinous context. I just don't know what it means.

[Hoss]

I think actual and proper sex education for both men and women would go a long way towards lower rape incidences in the US. We can't maintain the status quo where 1 out of 4 women between the age of 18-24 will be sexually assaulted, it's barbaric. Also men need to look at themselves long and hard and make sure they are being appropriate.

BINGO. In some states it is actually ILLEGAL for educators to say the word "condom" in an education building. How messed up is that?

 

Sex education shouldn't be a one-day thing in high school that everybody just giggles away. It should be part of a larger "life" class. Said class should spend at least a month on sexual education. It should also include a plethora of other world-skills, but sex education should be expanded. There should be lessons on how to apply condoms, how to confirm consent, what to do when your period is late, etc.

[K-9]

You're not responding to the full quote. He said: "How do you suggest we stop this advancement when she doesn't give the impression she doesn't want to stop, not to mention never says 'no'?"So, the guy is supposed to read minds? Be an expert on facial expressions and body language? How about the person (male or female) saying "STOP!". That would be, uhm, helpful.

Common sense should indicate that when a person decides not to have sex but doesn't indicate that to their partner, then that person really hasn't decided not to have sex.

 

I find the argument specious as it strains credulity to think that most people who have decided not to have sex with someone don't make it abundantly clear to the other person.

 

Are there exceptions? As with anything, yes, I'm sure there are. I just don't put much stock in exception proves the rule types of arguments.

[Hoss]

You're not responding to the full quote. He said: "How do you suggest we stop this advancement when she doesn't give the impression she doesn't want to stop, not to mention never says 'no'?"

 

So, the guy is supposed to read minds? Be an expert on facial expressions and body language? How about the person (male or female) saying "STOP!". That would be, uhm, helpful.

So you believe the onus of not having sex lies totally on the woman in this scenario? It's her job to not have sex here, not the man's. He gets to have sex with her up until she says no. Gotcha.

[Taro T]

You answered your own question. The advancement stops when she decides she doesn't want to have sex.

Period.

Doesn't matter how far along in the act they were. Once it is not consensual, it is game over. That could be before, during, or after intercourse, by the way.

That should be obvious to a gentleman with an ounce of moral fiber that doesn't let his d ick do his thinking for him.

May be splitting hairs here, but in the scenario provided (and this assumes the double negative in the post you responded to was unintentional, if it was intentional, then we're on the same page), the woman "doesn't give the impression she doesn't want to stop, not to mention never says 'no'" which necessarily implies (again, assuming the second "doesn't" was meant to be written "does") that the man needs to be a mind reader to know that she didn't want their actions to lead further. How is the man supposed to know to stop if there is NO indication from the woman that she no longer wants to go further/ continue what is happening? (I hope this question isn't coming off in a flippant manner, I would truly like to understand your position. I also am having difficulty coming up w/ a scenario where the initial premise is valid - the woman (who can consent) indicates she wants to have sex, changes her mind, but then gives no indication to her partner that she has changed her mind - so perhaps that question is moot.)

 

And 1 even more intriguing item, how does the act become "non-consentual" AFTER it was censentually enacted? At 1st reading, it comes across as telling someone that was driving 55 in a 55 that they're getting a ticket for speeding because that stretch of road will be rezoned to 35 on Tuesday.

[...]

Common sense should indicate that when a person decides not to have sex but doesn't indicate that to their partner, then that person really hasn't decided not to have sex.

 

I find the argument specious as it strains credulity to think that most people who have decided not to have sex with someone don't make it abundantly clear to the other person.

 

Are there exceptions? As with anything, yes, I'm sure there are. I just don't put much stock in exception proves the rule types of arguments.

I think you're wrong here. What some of the roster of folk here in this thread seem to be arguing is that due to societal pressures, a female may be thinking "no, I don't want this", but continue with the activity none-the-less. I think this is true.

 

As a FOR-INSTANCE (meaning, I'm not implying or alleging anything), the woman involved in the Pat Kane case may have been saying to herself no way, but at the same time thinking "this is Pat Kane, if I don't do what he wants what will people say?". She may not have wanted to do it, but other than maybe a soft "stop" and or an insignificant bat at his hand, she may have let him take off her clothes, again, due to not being able to resolve the dissonance she felt over the situation.

So you believe the onus of not having sex lies totally on the woman in this scenario? It's her job to not have sex here, not the man's. He gets to have sex with her up until she says no. Gotcha.

Dude, you are immature. Go back and detail where I said or implied that, with specific notes. Otherwise, stop being an intellectual bully and ass.

[qwksndmonster]

So you believe the onus of not having sex lies totally on the woman in this scenario? It's her job to not have sex here, not the man's. He gets to have sex with her up until she says no. Gotcha.

Well, in this particular hypothetical scenario the girl has taken her clothes off to have sex and then silently decided not to have sex... and then didn't vocalize her decision and still had sex?  It's a pretty silly hypothetical, but Sizzle didn't come up with it, nor is he saying anything even close to the bolded.   Be careful about putting words into people's mouths, and then being enraged about them.  This is almost exactly what Sizzle was talking about with his "making posters into monsters" stuff.

[Hoss]

So the momentum here seems to be that there is an assumed yes until there is a no.

 

Where many, like myself and most women's rights groups, are trying to get to is that there is an assumed no until there is a yes. THAT will prevent rape. Always assume the answer is no until you get a clear green light.

 

Now if you meet somebody at a bar, he/she takes you to their place, both individuals are coherent enough to give consent and both mutually head to the bedroom then there is a green light there. If one individual then says "no" or "not that far" then you don't go that far. Simple as that. It's not a difficult concept in my opinion.

[WildCard]

I think actual and proper sex education for both men and women would go a long way towards lower rape incidences in the US. We can't maintain the status quo where 1 out of 4 women between the age of 18-24 will be sexually assaulted, it's barbaric. Also men need to look at themselves long and hard and make sure they are being appropriate.

Got a link for that statistic?

[JJFIVEOH]

Well, in this particular hypothetical scenario the girl has taken her clothes off to have sex and then silently decided not to have sex... and then didn't vocalize her decision and still had sex?  It's a pretty silly hypothetical, but Sizzle didn't come up with it, nor is he saying anything even close to the bolded.   Be careful about putting words into people's mouths, and then being enraged about them.  This is almost exactly what Sizzle was talking about with his "making posters into monsters" stuff.

 

It's not that silly, it's an implied hypothetcial based on the assumptions that some women don't say no and go through with the act becuase of social pressures. Not sure how else a hypothetical could play out.

[LGR4GM]

Got a link for that statistic?

Hold on... I need to find it

[Hoss]

Well, in this particular hypothetical scenario the girl has taken her clothes off to have sex and then silently decided not to have sex... and then didn't vocalize her decision and still had sex? It's a pretty silly hypothetical, but Sizzle didn't come up with it, nor is he saying anything even close to the bolded. Be careful about putting words into people's mouths, and then being enraged about them. This is almost exactly what Sizzle was talking about with his "making posters into monsters" stuff.

I do not see this scenario you speak of. My original response was to JJ's questioning about a woman "not showing reluctance." There was no scenario. He then went on to mention that they've made their way back to her place from the bar, but I don't see anything about clothing being removed. Removing clothing, if the individual is clearly willing and never stops you/assists you, is a green light to begin sexual contact. But both individuals STILL reserve the right to say "no" or "just oral" or "just handjobs" or whatever they feel comfortable with in that moment.

 

The way to be safe here if you're in that scenario is to say something like "let me get a condom" or something along those lines. If they don't want sex they will say "no, I don't want to have sex" or something similar.

[qwksndmonster]

So the momentum here seems to be that there is an assumed yes until there is a no.

 

Where many, like myself and most women's rights groups, are trying to get to is that there is an assumed no until there is a yes. THAT will prevent rape. Always assume the answer is no until you get a clear green light.

That's not what "the momentum" here seems to be.  You are taking some comments considering a hypothetical situation out of context and running with it.

 

Now if you meet somebody at a bar, he/she takes you to their place, both individuals are coherent enough to give consent and both mutually head to the bedroom then there is a green light there. If one individual then says "no" or "not that far" then you don't go that far. Simple as that. It's not a difficult concept in my opinion.

 

The proposed hypothetical scenario is this:

 

[snip]

 

If two people hook up at a club after they've been dancing together, they decide to go back to one of their places together, they get into bed and are preparing to have sex........... then she decides she doesn't want to have sex. How do you suggest we stop this advancement when she doesn't give the impression she doesn't want to stop, not to mention never says 'no'?

 

[JJFIVEOH]

So the momentum here seems to be that there is an assumed yes until there is a no.

 

Where many, like myself and most women's rights groups, are trying to get to is that there is an assumed no until there is a yes. THAT will prevent rape. Always assume the answer is no until you get a clear green light.

 

Now if you meet somebody at a bar, he/she takes you to their place, both individuals are coherent enough to give consent and both mutually head to the bedroom then there is a green light there. If one individual then says "no" or "not that far" then you don't go that far. Simple as that. It's not a difficult concept in my opinion.

Of course if somebody says 'no', then it needs to stop. But this isn't about saying 'no', it's about NOT saying 'no' and then claiming sexual abuse.

[...]

I'm convinced some people in this thread have never had a hot sexual encounter. Some of the suggestions on how to handle "reality" are un-realistic.

[qwksndmonster]

@Hoss You're right that the clothes off thing wasn't in the original text, it was that they had gotten into bed. 

Edited August 20, 2015 by immerman

[JJFIVEOH]

I think maybe a female poster might be better to answer this.  I think that young women especially do not feel they can say that and judging from the research it seems to come up again and again.  Social pressure, situational pressure, not understanding their own rights fully, many things can contribute to someone not feeling they have the power to say no.

 

My scenario was drawn up because of posts similar to this.

[LGR4GM]

Sorry took me a second...

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/sv-datasheet-a.pdf

 

[JJFIVEOH]

@Hoss You're right that the clothes off thing wasn't in the original text, it was that they had gotten into bed. 

 

Again, it was implied in the scenario in which she doesn't say 'no'. Sex doesn't happen with clothes on. If the clothers are completely on then a scenario of sexual abuse because she didn't say 'no' never happens.

[LGR4GM]

Again, it was implied in the scenario in which she doesn't say 'no'. Sex doesn't happen with clothes on. If the clothers are completely on then a scenario of sexual abuse because she didn't say 'no' never happens.

... You can definitely have sex with almost all your clothes on, especially if you are a woman in a dress.

[qwksndmonster]

I think actual and proper sex education for both men and women would go a long way towards lower rape incidences in the US.  We can't maintain the status quo where 1 out of 4 women between the age of 18-24 will be sexually assaulted, it's barbaric.  Also men need to look at themselves long and hard and make sure they are being appropriate. 

 

That says 37.4% of female rape victims were first raped between the ages of 18-24.  

 

Then the second stat says 19% of undergraduate women (in "a study" unspecified) experienced attempted or completed sexual assault since entering college.

 

EDIT: The study is specified in the report "Krebs CP, Linquist CH, Warner TD, Fisher BS, Martin SL. College women’s experiences with physically forced, alcohol- or other drug-enabled, and drug-facilitated sexual assault before and since entering college. Journal of American College Health 2009; 57(6):639-647."

 

I looked through it a bit.  The sample of women they got were from "2 large 4-year universities" ~45% of applicable women from those schools participated in the survey.  So there's the sample size.

Edited August 20, 2015 by immerman