Should affirmative consent apply to wallets?

[Recursion]

There's something of a backlash against affirmative consent for sex going on now, so I want to see if the doctrine makes sense about other things.

Let's take wallets.

Should removing money from someone's wallet require affirmative consent?

4 votes, 1 pass | Time left: Unlimited
	Yes: you should only take money from someone's wallet with affirmative consent
	3 (75%)
	No: there are times when it is OK to take money from someone's wallet without affirmative consent
	1 (25%)
	1 DU member did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Logical]

1. Silly post! Nt

[sub.theory]

6. Translation?

I disagree, but can't offer a convincing argument why?

[Warpy]

26. Wallets are simple property, they and their contents easily replaced.

Our bodies are ourselves.

Big difference.

[sub.theory]

27. All the more reason to protect our bodies from predators, right?

Good point

[Warpy]

28. I'm just sick to death of male tax whiners

trying to compare having to pay taxes, child support, or other costs with being raped.

They seem to have no idea what they look like.

[sub.theory]

29. I completely agree with you on that

That's an absolutely sickening comparison

[Erich Bloodaxe BSN]

2. I think we call that 'taxation'.

And all the libertarians call it theft.

You're forced to 'consent' with the threat of jail if you refuse.

Thankfully, a woman is not a wallet.

[Xipe Totec]

3. I said yes, it's ok to take money from someone else's wallet

But I did not say who's and by whom.

My spouse has blanket permission to raid my wallet.

Not that she has to; she can always go to the ATM and withdraw, but that's a hassle sometimes.

This, however, does not apply to intimate contact. It takes two to tango.

[MineralMan]

4. So, why do you need money from my wallet, eh?

Hell, if I had your money, I'd burn mine!

"No," She said. "Oh, OK," I replied.

[Deadshot]

5. Affirmative consent seems a bit silly.

Especially with the contract situation at the University of Minnesota.

[MineralMan]

7. Not really. I think you may be misunderstanding.

The U’s new rule, which is poised to take effect this month after a 30-day comment period, says that sex is OK only if both parties express consent through “clear and unambiguous words or actions.” Absent that, it would fit the U’s ­definition of sexual assault.

http://www.startribune.com/university-of-minnesota-to-adopt-affirmative-consent-rule/311650821/

My rule has always been that sex required "enthusiastic consent." Just ordinary consent isn't enough, as far as I'm concerned.

[Deadshot]

12. Consent should be enough.

This quote from the article is spot-on:

“Once that accusation has been made, it’s somehow up to the accused person to prove they did have consent,” said Robert Shibley, executive director of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE), a civil liberties group in Philadelphia. “What that means is that they’re guilty until proven innocent.”

[MineralMan]

13. Yes means yes.

Consent requires a "yes." Assuming consent exists doesn't mean there is consent.

It's not rocket science. It simply means communicating clearly with someone else. Consent requires affirmation. Affirmative consent simply means that both people agree clearly that they want to do whatever they're doing.

Silence is not consent. Not resisting is not consent. Consent is an affirmative thing. It is saying yes, either verbally or by taking some action to indicates a desire to continue what's going on.

My insistence on enthusiastic consent goes a little farther. It requires not only a simple approval, but active encouragement. That's my rule, though, not the University of Minnesota's rule.

Some people think a written contract is needed. I think that's silly. People can communicate with each other, even when having sex. That's what I recommend. Communicate and respect the other person's communications. Affirmative consent is consent. Anything less is not.

[Deadshot]

16. Answer this question for me.

Have you ever went up to your wife while she was making supper and wrapped your arms around her and kissed her?

If you answer yes to that question, you've committed sexual assault on your wife per the U of MN's new guidelines.

[MineralMan]

17. No. I haven't. That's dangerous.

She could cut herself or burn herself, so I wouldn't do that. My wife and I have been together for 24 years. We communicate very well with each other. We long ago consented to the idea of random kissing. But we don't suddenly grab each other if one person is actually doing something else. Generally, a kiss is initiated after looking at each other. Kisses are pretty much always welcome, though. Kisses aren't always sexual, either. In fact, most often, they're simply affectionate.

Established couples generally understand each other pretty well, or should. But when it comes to actual sexual activity, affirmative consent is still required by both parties, even with established couples. That's established couples. Couples that are not long established require additional levels of consent, since no blanket consents have been agreed to in general. I would not kiss someone I did not already have an established relationship with unless I had some clear consent.

I don't believe I've ever kissed someone without consent. For a simple kiss, consent is usually pretty obvious, really, but it must be there and recognized. A good example is when the shorter person presents an upturned face and soft eyes when you are near. That's pretty clear affirmative consent to be kissed, or even enthusiastic consent. I learned that when I was 14, when a girl I knew did that, and then said, "Aren't you going to kiss me?" when I didn't recognize the invitation.

[Facility Inspector]

22. Please characterize "enthusiastic consent"

[MineralMan]

25. It's anything more enthusiastic than just "yes."

Most often, it's non-verbal and often involves the other person actively initiating something. It could also be an emphatic request for some activity. Enthusiastic consent is eager and active involvement by both people. It is often one party taking the other party by the hand or whatever and encouraging escalation of the activity.

What it's not is one party wheedling and begging, followed by "OK." It is not simply acceptance of some escalation of the activity, initiated by one party without asking. Enthusiasm from both parties is required, at least for me.

It's not something like "copping a feel" spontaneously. If one isn't actively led by the other party into an activity like that, then asking if it's OK is required. "Would you like it if I...?" is asking. A resigned "I guess so" isn't consent. "Yes" is affirmative consent. "Sure!" is enthusiastic consent. "Oh, Hell yes!" would also be enthusiastic consent, and would indicate that you should have asked earlier, probably.

Enthusiastic consent is mutual, obvious enjoyment of whatever's going on. That's my standard. Others may just be fine with simple affirmative consent. That's OK. No consent or no opportunity to consent is not OK.

I hope that clarifies.

[Deadshot]

31. "Yes" should be enough.

Why does it have to be enthusiastic? Will I get arrested for sexual assault if she doesn't jump for joy when she says "yes"?

[gollygee]

34. The term is to show the difference between someone really wanting to and

"Well OK, I guess so," which is something someone might say after being coerced.

I don't know how many people simply say "yes" without any enthusaism behind it. It isn't a business transaction. If someone wants it, it's usually pretty easy to tell. If it's hard to tell, or if there is no enthusiasm, it might be worth finding out if the person is really wanting it or feels obligated or coerced or something.

[Deadshot]

36. I've said "well,okay, I guess so" to many girlfriends.

I decided to have sex even though I was kinda tired. Does that mean I was raped or coerced into having sex? No. It does not. I decided to do it, even though I was tired.

If I was on the campus of the U of MN, she would have been charged with sexual assault.

[gollygee]

37. You read part of what I said but not all.

I said "It's worth checking to see if your partner really wants to" in that case, not that it is automatically rape in that case. She maybe had a reason to believe you really wanted to, which would make it not rape.

Also, you'd have to persue it for her to be charged with anything, and if you weren't coerced you wouldn't persue it.

[MineralMan]

35. What you do is up to you.

That's my personal standard only. I have no idea what the standards of others might be, but actual consent is needed. Anything less than that is simply wring on many levels.

[lumberjack_jeff]

8. Is this a child support thread? n/t

[Electric Monk]

19. I suspect it's a Julian Assange thread.... nt

[PowerToThePeople]

9. I will never willingly let someone take from my wallet

I will give from my wallet if I consent to the transfer.

But, I guess some people could allow others to take from theirs. In that case, affirmative consent would be a requirement.

[Dr. Strange]

10. How literal are we being here with "affirmative consent" and "wallet"?

If someone says, "No, I don't want to contribute to social security," does that mean the government can't reach into their "wallet" and take money in the name of withholdings?

Or if someone says to a union, "No, I don't want to pay dues, even fair share dues," they get a pass?

If a pretty woman violates my patent, I can take her to court and sue her, asking the government to take money from her wallet and give it to me. I don't think a court would allow me to ask for sex as a payment.

Given that we take money away from people all the time in the name of "majority rule," I'm inclined to say that this doesn't transfer very well to sex.

[Shandris]

11. If you can't imagine any scenario in which it is acceptable to...

...take from a person's wallet without them directly telling you 'yes, take money from my wallet this very moment', then you're functionally a vegetable.

This is a terrible analogy though, so fortunately it proves literally nothing except that terrible analogies are terrible.

[Rex]

20. SSDD.

And since we all know this is not from a vegetable, the only other thing is concern trolling which is all the rage ATM on DU.

[Shandris]

21. I see.

Well thank you for proving exactly what I said: That if you cannot think of a way, then you're a vegetable.

As for the other drivel, I have no idea what in the fuck you were going on about.

[Rex]

23. So you agree with me, but didn't understand at all what I said.

SSDD. SMH.

[Shandris]

24. I'm going to go on faith one time here...

...because I have a long history of getting burnt trying to be nice to people who accuse me of trolling from the first time I interact with them and I suppose it's possible I overreacted. I thought you were saying Social Security Disability (Insurance) (I figured the second D was either a typo or a different colloquial usage, like 'Department of Disability' or something similar), where another might have to take control of a disabled person's finances temporarily.

A reread and puzzlement at your response leads that you may have meant 'same stuff different day', which...mystifies me as an answer. At that point, yeah, I don't get what you said at all.

So, I'll offer the branch of peace by first apologizing, then asking: What do/did you mean?

[Rex]

30. I was agreeing with you

and talking about the OP concern trolling a horrible anology being almost the same shit just a different day. My post was not clear, I suspect that I should have elaborated instead of assuming you know what I meant by SSDD. My fault for that and I am sorry.

[Shandris]

32. Well don't I feel about knee-high to a grasshopper...

...and that's probably a feeling everyone should get at least once a week. All is well, I see where we got mixed up and yeah, it was mostly my fault. I think living in the heart of Red Stateville has left me a seige mentality occasionally!

But it serves a good reminder to me to read and reread multiple multiple times to make sure I haven't misread something. Have a good weekend, Rex.

[Rex]

33. You too have a great week!

I hear ya I live in south Texas and have to monitor myself that I don't get off into seige mentality material. The best came from this, we figured out what they other was saying and exchanged pleasantries. Can't ask for better than that imo.

Yesterday someone was trying to make an analogy between BLM and uninvited house guests, the day before it was Japan surrendering and the Civil War. I should just quit reading them and go laugh at posts in the Lounge!

[MineralMan]

14. Wallets but not purses?

Hmm...

[LostOne4Ever]

15. But, but, but, but they might tell me no I cant take the money T.T

[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]Just in case someone misunderstands me:

[/font]

[LittleBlue]

18. Taxes, child support, garnishment of wages, SS, Medicare

We do it all the time. So I'd say yes, it is okay.

[BlueJazz]

38. I usually just take the whole wallet.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

39. Apart from inadvertently swerving into the libertarian argument against taxes

What if I agree to make change for a $100 bill. Do I get to agree once or do I have to vocalize consent with each new action? Do I even have to say anything or am I adult enough to start making change on my own terms, hopefully in a way that pleases the other person?

[Taitertots]

40. With "affirmative consent". You ask for a buck, I give you a buck, and you just robbed me

You didn't get "affirmative consent" to take the money.