The number of times you hear misinformation about either gender's reproductive system (sometimes from an owner of such a system) tells you that the truth needs to be explained and repeated.
In fact, there are pills because the opposite of the thesis is clearly not true (absence of a b*ner indicated absence of consent).
A lot of SA survivors actually have trauma because of this, they think that because their body responded the way it just naturally does to external stimuli (ie. boner or wetness), it means it was somehow their fault because the perpetrator thought they were enjoying it. So yeah, boner is not consent. Consent is consent. Ideally informed and enthusiastic consent.
14
deleted
· 2 years ago
For some victims it's even beyond that. They sort of gaslight themselves into believing they "enjoyed" the assault because their bodies reacted "as if they did".
That's not actually very analogous, as arousal is meant as a preparation for sex, while pupil constriction (not dilation) is a reaction to being exposed to bright light.
Weeell I don't know if the analogy is *that* incorrect. Arousal can happen when you look at someone you find attractive but also just as a reaction to physical stimulation. And the latter might be your body preparing "out of necessity" – especially for those of us who have a vagina, the body knows that it'd hurt like hell otherwise so it prepares, whether the encounter is consensual or not – rather than out of genuine arousal. I suppose the mechanics might be a bit different for you gents, but the principle remains. Especially when we take into account that the overwhelming majority of SA happens between people who know each other and there's usually a lot of coercion, manipulation, gaslighting and power dynamics involved.
3
deleted
· 2 years ago
Classic example of male body does what his mind doesn't want to happen is to literally cum at a prostate exam. Doesn't happen every time to every man but surely embarrasses a lot of guys
I'm not saying the point of the analogy is invalid, I'm just saying that because arousal happens as preparation for sex it makes more sense (though, again, not an adequate or legitimate amount of sense) to assume it amounts to consent to sex than assuming that constricting pupils means you consent to looking at a bright light, because the constriction is in reaction to the light, not as preparation for looking at bright light.
I guess flinching when you see a punch coming your way is more analogous, then? Just because you flinched, that doesn't mean you wanted to be punched, right?
And semantics aside, I'll be sure to keep my eye on anyone who tries to seriously, unironically make the case that someone "enjoyed" an assault because their body "prepared" for it.
And again, arousal can be preparation but it can also be a reaction to something that's already happening. Or it can be entirely random. I mean, aren't inappropriately timed boners a crucial part of the male teenage experience?
Yeah, we're probably just splitting hairs here, but I'm pretty sure its reasonable to say that physical sexual arousal exists as a state meant to ready the body for intercourse, where as flinching is meant to avoid whatever made you flinch, so kind of the opposite.
True, nothing wrong about that fact. But I think people might have an issue with the framing and mentioning this fact within a conversation about sexual assault. Like they're expecting that sentence to be implying something.
I know you like to play devil's advocate so I won't accuse you of holding any beliefs you realistically don't. But you see how saying this irl would be pretty bad for optics, right?
Facts are facts, if people want interpret things in retarded, out-of-context ways, that's their problem, not mine. I won't cede reality for the sake of looking good.
But that's the point, this isn't out of context, this whole conversation has been about SA so the issue is rather people interpreting it in context.
But again, splitting hairs. I'm not gonna push back on this too hard because I think we already established we both agree that physical arousal shouldn't be a factor in SA investigations.
In fact, there are pills because the opposite of the thesis is clearly not true (absence of a b*ner indicated absence of consent).
And semantics aside, I'll be sure to keep my eye on anyone who tries to seriously, unironically make the case that someone "enjoyed" an assault because their body "prepared" for it.
And again, arousal can be preparation but it can also be a reaction to something that's already happening. Or it can be entirely random. I mean, aren't inappropriately timed boners a crucial part of the male teenage experience?
I know you like to play devil's advocate so I won't accuse you of holding any beliefs you realistically don't. But you see how saying this irl would be pretty bad for optics, right?
But again, splitting hairs. I'm not gonna push back on this too hard because I think we already established we both agree that physical arousal shouldn't be a factor in SA investigations.