Consent can be withdrawn at any point in time DURING the act, not after, and if the other person then decides to keep going when consent has been withdrawn even IF they have consented initially, then that is wrong.
However, saying you can withdraw consent from a past event that has already happened and you already consented to is simply not true and whoever that lady and those who upvoted the opinion are, you should probably stay away from.
I don't believe anyone should be able to retroactively withdraw consent. One scenario though where I can see some merit is where one party selectively and intentionally omits certain details (e.g. STI status).
And what would that mean in terms of being able to retroactively withdraw consent or not?
Edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted here, I just wanted clarification on their comment.
It means the consent was never valid. In medicine there is a thing called informed consent, where the doctor has to tell you the potential risks as known when undergoing a potentially dangerous procedure. If they don't tell you everything then legally you never consented.
The original vaccines cause autism study was brought before an ethics board because (besides the results being literally changed to suit the narrative) the doctor didn't tell parents that the tests they were doing to TRY and find the link they theorised were incredibly invasive. One procedure was described as 'minimal risk' when it has a danger of tearing your intestine. And then one child got a terrible intestine tear. Those parents were deemed as not having informed consent ipso facto he performed these tests without consent.
u/Finalpotato That's appaling. I've been searching for a citation on this but drawn a blank. Any chance you have one? It's a killer blow for the anti-vaxers.
[Here you go, not that it matters](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2954080/). Being antivax requires a dismissal of basic scientific rigor, it's less about the truth and more about a worldview.
Woman here but I am wondering if she didn’t mean it from a standpoint of just because I consented once doesn’t mean I consent forever. I can see anal or any other kinky type stuff coming up as “you did it before” sure I may have consented to try something previously but that doesn’t mean it is blanket consent moving forward.
that's not the context of this particular instance- in that case that would be reasonable but this is about revoking consent for past events that you had consented to.
This is true.
If you try something and don't like it, make sure to make that explicitly clear.
Hopefully if a guy knows you don't like something, he won't ask, and you won't have to turn him down. That way no one feels like a dick, or like they're pressuring/being pressured or disappointing anyone.
My fiancee and I make sure to communicate this way.
if you find yourself not liking it, you can then "end" your consent by telling the other person. That means anything AFTER that point is non-consensual, but everything BEFORE it still was consensual, you can't take that consent away retroactively.
Yeah, I can only imagine it being that. Has anyone found the link for context yet?
There's quite a few times I've had partners assume blanket consent and not understand say, fucking before work when I start at noon and fucking before a funeral are two wildly different things. And just because I was down for weekend fun quickie I'm sure as fuck not in the mood before doing to my grandma's funeral.
Not trying to play Devil's Advocate here. What if someone feels, for whatever reason, that they're being pressured into providing consent and they fear the consequences of saying "no"?
I had a buddy go through that exact scenario. He was alone with someone and they were cuddling. He asked for consent to have sex and she said yes. Later on, she said that she'd only said yes because she didn't feel safe saying no. It turned into a pretty big social issue for him (not legally, just among the communities they shared) when she came out publicly about how she felt.
Without getting into trying to argue for/against her/him, does that scenario just create a third new situation entirely? Instead of "consent cannot be withdrawn retroactively" versus "consent can be withdrawn retroactively", would this just be a different situation of "consent cannot be withdrawn retroactively, but if consent is the result of fear/pressure, that is a separate situation/issue/discussion"?
That's what juries are for. The instructions to the jury for such a determination typically reads something like "would it be reasonable for the average person under these circumstances to feel duress/fear" that's probably a pretty tough criteria to meet without some kind of implied threat.
You see, now this is a more important conversation that needs to be had and you bring up a good topic, rather than the comment OP brought from the woman that pretty much said that consent can be withdrawn from past sexual experiences, making up the guy or guys they had sex with as weirdos and rapists.
My take for this situation is, I feel like there are going to be many factors in play. What exactly made her uncomfortable about saying no? Did she fear harm? Did the guy actively pester her into having sex? And many other questions could be asked on to figuring out if her uncomfortability and fear was the guy’s fault or her just feeling uncomfortable.
Now, let’s say in a situation a guy politely asked for consent to have sex and the girl he’s asking consent from said yes, they have sex. And then later down the line she says to him “Oh, I only said yes because I was afraid of saying no.” Well, at the end of the day she still said Yes, and that’s assuming throughout the entire act she was still consenting and going along with everything.
So in the guy’s mind, as far as he knew he had consent from her and she was a willing participant in the act. He cannot read her mind and think “Hmm, maybe she is only saying Yes because she is uncomfortable on saying No”. No, she has to own up to the fact that she said Yes despite her should’ve saying No. That is her responsibility in saying whether it is going to be a Yes or a No.
Let’s say you’re out drinking and your friend wants you to drive. Your better judgement KNOWS you should not be driving and you’re uncomfortable and afraid of the consequences of you driving while drunk, but maybe you’re a people pleaser and getting peer pressured and you say Yes. You’re driving and get in a car accident. Should the blame be on the friend for asking you to drive or should it be on you for agreeing to it? Obviously, it’s going to be on you.
As an adult, you must be accountable for all your actions and all your decisions no matter how they make you feel in the moment. The girl in your scenario is accountable for her saying Yes to the guy to have sex. Now this is assuming this isn’t a situation where she has a gun to her head or is actually fearing grave bodily harm, and the guy in the situation did his part in respectfully asking for consent and they are both adults. If she said yes, that is on HER. She should’ve taken accountability for her decision and not blast their privacy to everyone to make the guy out to be a creep who forces women to have sex. That is wrong. Just because you are incapable of saying No doesn’t advert the responsibility to anyone else if you end up saying Yes to something you should’ve said No to. Just because you may regret doing it, doesn’t mean it’s the other person’s fault.
I regret eating cake after I've done it, but it doesn't mean I didn't consent to eating it at the time. No one forced me to eat it, I made that choice.
So no retroactively speaking, sex you regret is not the big R word, it’s just guilt.
YES! I cannot stand this. Words mean things! You don’t just get to use words however you want and expect to be understood. Erasing distinction just means nothing means anything and we’re all confused.
> I thought that was a pretty wild opinion to have, but damn if she didn't have a lot of upvotes.
Of course she did. Lots of people make mistakes they wish they could “undo.” That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake.
> When can consent be retroactively withdrawn?
Consent cannot be retroactively withdrawn. If not could be, then right now I could explicitly tell you “yes do that, I want that” and then tomorrow have you arrested for something I clearly said I wanted. That cannot be fair, that cannot be allowed.
The irony being in those same subs they say false accusations don't happen, meanwhile they are talking about making false accusations by retroactively withdrawing consent.
To those women, in their screwed up minds, they think that is rational, and they convince themselves that is not a false accusation.
Thats one of the big problems with the whole "your truth" thing. There's only one truth and no one gets to decide what the truth is or is not.
Woman here. Buyer’s remorse doesn’t mean you get to claim fraud. Retroactive withdrawal of consent is absolute insanity. You gave permission for something to happen. It happened. You can’t ungive permission for something that’s already happened.
I'm the sort who, for hypothetical questions like this, likes to test the extremes of a question to gauge its possibilities.
For this question, let's assume you and another person agree to have sex with the condition that you each get tested for STIs ahead of time.
You both get tested and share each other's results. No infections reported, so you both have sex.
Later you discover that you have HIV/AIDS. After some investigation, you find out you got it from the aforementioned encounter and the person showed you counterfeit results and they knew they had HIV/AIDS when you had sex.
I think pretty much everyone would agree that the person committed fraud and even some form of assault.
Did they commit rape?
Can you retroactively withdraw consent in this case?
Similarly, but slightly different: can consent be conditional and, if it is later revealed that a condition was intentionally and secretly broken, does that mean consent was never actually given or was it your responsibility at the time to verify the condition was met?
edit: thanks for all the responses, I appreciate your answers
Someone else discussed this already. In this context it isn't "retroactive consent", it's dubious consent (or consent under false pretense). Someone deceived someone else to manipulate their given consent.
> can consent be conditional and, if it is later revealed that a condition was intentionally and secretly broken, does that mean consent was never actually given
Legally speaking, courts have ruled on this. The consent is legally invalid only in extreme cases where a person legitimately thought they were granting consent to a different person. Like a twins situation. You can't pretend to be your twin brother and have sex with his wife, that's rape. She wasn't consenting to sex with you, she was consenting to sex with your brother.
Or the "blindfolded girlfriend" situation. A friend can't sneak into the room and have sex with the blindfolded girlfriend. Even if she explicitly speaks words of consent like "yes, I want you, fuck me hard" because she thinks she's speaking those words to her boyfriend, not to you.
But this doesn't extend to cases of "misrepresented identity". Like if you meet a girl at a bar and tell her you're a millionaire or that you're the catcher for the New York Yankees. In those cases, if she consents to have sex with you - the guy she met at the bar - courts do not hold that consent to be legally invalid because even though she might not know the name or financial situation of the person she is consenting to have sex with, she 100% is consenting to sex with a specific person (you, in this example) and that specific person is the individual with whom sex was had.
The latter case could in principle be covered by *informed* consent, if there would be clear guidance rules about disclosure of pertinent information before sex. Which there typically aren't. In principle consent to have sex is just about sex.
Informed consent is just the other side of the coin of regret.
"If I knew what she looked like without makeup on, I wouldn't have consented to sex".
"If I knew he had a wife, I wouldn't have consented to sex".
"If I knew he was going to breakup with me, I wouldn't have consented to sex".
"If I knew she was a feminist, I wouldn't have consented to sex".
All of those are expressions of information that a person was unaware of when consent was granted. So it could be argued that they didn't provide "fully informed consent".
But what they're really saying is "I regret my decision to have sex with that person, because I learned something I didn't like about them after already consenting and having sex".
Lying about being married might be gross but it’s not rape or even a crime. Lying about your sexual health and knowingly transmitting diseases is actually a crime. So there’s obviously a line where some lies that are told in order to have sex are considered criminal. That line seems to be that that lie objectively physically harmed someone because they didn’t know the truth. That seems fair to me. But being able to cry rape because you find out the guy is kinda a douche or she’s not as hot sans makeup, isn’t.
ETA: In either case, consent is not being retroactively withdrawn. It’s that consent was not given for someone to physically harm you by giving you HIV without your knowledge.
What the fuck?
That would mean that any guy could be accused of rape at any moment at the whim of a vindictive woman.
Also... if we were to use that logic, I hope they realize that that works BOTH WAYS. Men have to consent to sex too... why does it seem like people never remember that part? As if female consent is any more sacred and important than male consent.
If we're gonna go down that path... men would ALSO be able to 'retroactively withdraw consent.'
Men would simply retroactively withdraw consent each time the woman does.
Then what? They had sex but *none* of them consented. Can't be accused when they were "forced" into it.
Yeah I've always wondered why it seems like there's a major double standard there...
I mean... if he was drunk too why is no one asking about HER actions? Was HE able to consent if he was drunk?
By default, if retroactive withdrawal of consent was a thing, the man would be the one in the wrong.
Just like if a man is extremely drunk and can't even walk on his own, and a woman has sex with him, if she had more than 3 drinks that night, the man committed statutory rape.
Laws really don't ever favor men.
Twice in my life I was made to have sex without my consent. I was ridiculed as a male since if a man is erect, he obviously wants it. Absolutely not! My dick can be hard, but my brain does not consent.
Plus one of the times, I was asleep. This also happened to a friend of mine, his roommate had a party on the first floor of the house and a girl went upstairs to my friend's bedroom, got him hard and rode him while he was still sleeping. It didn't matter that it was rape, he was still 100% responsible for child support. He had to pay his Rapist money for raping him for 18 years.
Honestly I have had conversations with women about how they believe a boner is consent and how it's impossible for a woman to have sex with a man without his consent. I mean I was absolutely shocked when I heard it because they were fairly nice and reasonably people when it came to everything else but for some reason this one topic they are batshit crazy. I had asked other women as well because I wanted to know if it was just an isolated thing and was surprised to find that it wasn't all that uncommon of a view. So yeah some of these women might think it doesn't go both ways and that female consent is more important.
Yeah I've heard that sentiment before too. Basically it just shows their total ignorance about the male body... and making their own assumptions based on that ignorance.
Exactly! Male anatomy is designed to react readily to stimulation (visual or physical or mental) to continue the human race. Female anatomy is designed to be coaxed into coitus, but will lubricate to prevent injury. Having a physical reaction that enables sex to occur doesn’t constitute consent in either gender.
Damn, right on the money. I was actually going through both those subs and don't remember which exactly it was. I think what happened was that I was on AW, then followed a link to 2X and saw it there. But it's a little jumbled in my head since I've spent way too much time on Reddit this weekend.
Just went to both those subs, searched “consent” and “retroactive consent” and couldn’t find the post, so either it was posted on a different sub or it has been deleted
Yeah it looks at comments and posts—or at least it has in my experience (idk if that’s something that varies between subs though). Considering the context of the post, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was deleted, whether that’s by the mods or by the author after eventually getting some inevitable pushback (unless it’s AW, where pushback seems more likely to get deleted lol)
I went looking through my history to see if I could find it. But it's like looking for a needle in a haystack - I went through a *lot* of posts yesterday. And since I don't remember the actual post itself, just that comment, I had to check every single one of them.
I gave up after going through around 30 posts. Hopefully, it got deleted. People give TwoX and AW a lot of shit, but the mods are generally pretty good about deleting stuff that's *too* wildly out there.
I mean, I already said it was a comment on another post. And that people were upvoting, but not explicitly agreeing. I never thought it was **popular**. Just not **unpopular**.
There can be cases where someone gives "consent" under duress and afterwards says it wasn't genuine, but to me that shouldn't be considered actual consent.
I don't think actual consent can be withdrawn after the fact.
That’s different. If you’re under duress, you cannot consent.
If someone points a knife at you and says “say this is ok” and you do, you did not consent.
I agree, that's why I said it shouldn't be considered actual consent. Though I was thinking of situations less extreme than being held at knifepoint (e.g., a supervisor implying a subordinate will lose their job if they don't agree to do something).
Withdrawing consent from an event that happened yesterday *is not a thing.*
If consent was given throughout the act and never withdrawn *while it was happening*, then it cannot be withdrawn after.
That's not how consent works. As a woman, I've gotten banned from at least two female-centric subs b/c i call out their toxic bull shit. Do NOT follow those subs. You will find nothing of value in them.
Regardless of how many women agree with that line of thinking, there is undoubtedly some percentage of women who do agree with it. And that just becomes another landmine in the meadow. Except you could step on it tonight...or you could step on it in 5 years...or you could step on it in 6 months after a bitter end to the relationship that she didn't agree with. And who knows if you will be able to defend yourself.
>Her logic is not believed or agreed to by almost all women.
You'd be surprised. In certain online communities, her 'logic' is accepted as obvious and uncontroversial.
> You'd be surprised. In certain online communities, her 'logic' is accepted as obvious and uncontroversial.
The thing about feminists subreddits is that there's basically no scenario where anyone will tell a woman she *wasn't* raped.
Sometimes someone will post a really dubious sounding story and it'll just sit there with zero comments until they delete it.
"Listen and believe" is the only acceptable response, but *responding at all is optional*.
No, it can't be taken away. Could you imagine the precedent that could set. Anytime a woman gets mad at an ex she can claim rape or one night stand she regrets later she can claim rape. Any celebrity that hooks up with a woman an get blackmailed for rape. That would be a slippery slope
The abiltiy to retroactively withdraw consent is exactly the same thing as having the power to have anyone you've ever slept with thrown in jail at any time. It means that one sex has absolute power over the lives of the other. Women can already (and do) blackmail men they've slept with using threats of false accusations.
The ability to retroactively withdraw consent is the ability to make anyone you've slept with your blackmail slave. A women would effectively own any human being she's ever slept with. It is the same thing as legalizing slavery.
It's all about power. The #MeToo movement morphed into a '*Believe all women*' movement, because an adversarial legal system like the one we have in use in the West would require a woman to be cross examined by a hostile representative and many women don't like this. They wish to have the power to bypass a vigorous defense and just be trusted implicitly.
I see this idea of retroactive consent to come from a same place. A wish to be able to wield power that currently is held back due to the mutual interests of all parties having equal weight.
Imagine being frustrated that you haven't gotten everything you want or someone isn't acting the way you wish and being able to threaten the withdrawal of prior consent to criminalize them. I mean what could go wrong /s.
Sounds like they are confusing "consent" with "regret".
Consent is a two party concept. One person grants it, the other proceeds with the act, or one person doesn't give consent, the other person doesn't proceed with the act.
If in the future, once the act is complete, consent is moot because the act is complete and the other party cannot undo said act and are therefore unable to comply.
Consent can be retroactively withdrawn if the original consent was given based on some sort of lie.
For example, Bob and James are twins. One day, James pretends to be Bob and asks Bob's wife Mary if she's in the mood. She says yes, and they have sex. Later, she realizes to her horror that "Bob" was actually James, and she retroactively withdraws her consent. James says "nuh uh, you gave your verbal consent". The police say "nuh UH, you're under arrest".
I think this type of scenario is more common than people might think, where you think you have consented, but didn’t. For example, in the moment you may feel pressured, coerced, unsafe, and say yes out of a fawn response that seems genuine. Then later realize you never wanted to be in that situation at all. It’s a very common situation for women.
Idk if this would help you but you can lens it in the form of a contract. Of which both parties are bound if terms are agreed upon, the contract is binding.
However, if there is willful misrepresentation of fact (in the OC’s comment) James is representing himself as Bob the contract can be voided and is voidable by the counterparty. In this case the “consent”. Since James is misrepresenting facts in the forming of the contracts, the wife can void the contract AFTER the fact (or revoke consent in this case) because the facts of the contract were materially and willfully misrepresented by James for his own personal gain at the expense of the wife. At which point he’d be liable for damages (rape/jail)
Yeah, I can't speak to the subject of the person you're talking about, but I know there was actually a court case involving consent based on a serious lie, and the judge ruled against the man.
I'm sure you can withdraw consent after the act if you want to. But the nature of linear time is such that, even if you do, the act was performed with consent.
Is this like the nightmare college stories where the woman happily consents to sex with a man, and once she finds out her social group doesn't like him for being weird, she reports it as r*pe?
I assume retroactively withdrawing consent means after the act is done and completely over.
>I saw a woman in a more female-oriented sub saying that she believed consent could be retroactively withdrawn from a past event.
I think that'd be fun to have in a law. /s
I guy goes and rapes someone. Straight up rape, no doubt nor nuance about it. There is evidence and everything needed to put him in jail for a long time. She goes to the police; the man gets arrested. The next day she is arrested because the man retroactively withdrew consent. She goes to rot in jail for raping the man.
This absurdity is caught on by TV stations and broadcast across the country. In a month's time, all the rapists in jail for rape withdraw their consent retroactively as and as such all the victims go rot in jail.
I'm a feminist (a moderate one, don't crucify me), this is not feminism. This way of thinking is purely anti-victim.
Whoever says they retroactively withdrew consent is essentially just playing a victim which, in my eyes is mocking the real rape victims.
I'd also like to point out how absurd the concept of retroactively withdrawing consent is. What does it even mean?
"I now don't give consent for what he did in the past" Got it, he now isn't doing anything in the past (including fucking her in the past). So, it's not like it becomes rape.
>I'm a feminist (a moderate one, don't crucify me)
Very well, you shall be burned at the stake.
Jokes aside, it seemed absurd to me as well. Like, let's say you *could* do that. But as a consequence, that also means you were lying to whoever you were involved with, saying that you consented when you didn't. How would it then be their fault that they believed you?
It just feels like it would be a way for people to pretend they were raped. Which is vile.
> She goes to rot in jail for raping the man.
Women cannot be convicted of rape for sex, in most cases. It requires penetration. So a woman could, theoretically, drug a man unconscious, have sex with him, and it would not be rape. It would only be sexual assault.
> I'm a feminist
You're awful.
> this is not feminism
No, this is feminism. You simply don't understand what you support. Feminism has absolutely nothing to do with equality or fair treatment.
> it requires penetration
There’s a category, “forced to penetrate”
- https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/
Woman can indeed rape men
30 years ago if there was a whacko somewhere that was the problem of people who were around that person.
The next whacko with the same strange ideas probably lived 3 towns over or so.
Since about 15 years ago if there is a whacko somewhere the problem is of the entire world. And the next whacko is just right there, making it look like there are a lot of them even if they are an extreme minority.
We tend to forget this a lot and assume that whoever is writing on the internet is a perfectly adjusted person, in general or in this moment of their life.
So in short no, whitdrawning consent retroactively is not a thing and that was either a troll or a person who outside the internet we would never listen to.
My ex-GF told me I was overreacting when I was angry that she couldn't tell me or assure me she was safe (used protection) and refused to get tested when she slept with other people while we were apart.
We were open, sleeping with others wasn't the issue.
If I had been informed though, I would not have slept with her, but that doesn't mean I can withdraw consent now (as much as I wish I could).
The deed has been done and she lied to me to get what she knew wouldn't have otherwise been given, had I known the truth.
Consent cannot be withdrawn unless you're in the act, and that withdrawal should always be observed and followed through completely.
After the act, it is just ridiculous to suggest such a thing.
And, trust me, I really wish I could.
Edit: Clarified some statements.
Legally as far as I know, consent can only be retroactively withdrawn if the consent hinged upon a specific bit of information that was a lie. I think it’s called rape by deception. But then, it gets muddy because she can lie and claim he lied, and because nobody really records that stuff, it’s fairly easy to get away with.
If it is appropriately obtained then it can't be retroactively withdrawn, but there may be something found later that reveals that it wasn't appropriately obtained. That's just a basic principle of consent. What is required to be disclosed can sometimes be up for debate and usually context specific.
If you're consenting to a medical procedure, they don't pull out a stack of research on the topic but they have a responsibility to discuss the common risks and benefits. If it's an emergency, then they might forgo some details if taking that time will make things worth.
There are also things that you may not legally be able to consent to. You can agree to let someone axe murder you, they're still going to jail.
If you're talking about consenting to sexual acts, it can be tricky to determine what's reasonable and necessary to disclose. STI status, other partners, first time, intoxication, credit score? Some things are obvious but some things aren't. And what is legally required might be different from what's morally required.
The only time I'd agree with that concept is the other person was lying to you in a major way and you wouldn't have consented if you knew the truth/they've changed the terms of what you consented to without your knowledge.
People who know they have STI's and say they're clean, people who agree to use a condom and start out that way but try to slip it off without you noticing, etc.
To some extent, that's true (talking specifically here about false premises rendering consent invalid), but I can imagine edge cases. Let's say someone knows or suspects that they have AIDs. They have unprotected sex with a new partner. At no stage did they raise the possibility they might have AIDS, but nor did their partner ask. Is that consensual or not?
The answers differs massively depending on the legal system. Some would say that, because he didn't lie, consent was validly given. One does not have a proactive duty to inform one's partner of the risks associated with unprotected sex. They're adults, and it's on each of us to protect ourselves.
Other jurisdictions argue that this behaviour is tantamount to reckless endangerment and that if the partner contracts HIV, a charge of grievous bodily harm can be brought. However, despite being an offence against the person, it isn't rape as sex itself was still consensual.
Still other jurisdictions may view this to be rape, arguing that people have a proactive duty to inform their partners of matters which it's reasonable to suspect would factor into their decision about whether or not to have sex.
Would these conclusions change if, after the fact, the woman said she would still have had unprotected sex even if she'd known? If so, what does that imply about retrospective consent?
Your example case is ridiculous because in many jurisdictions having intercourse without disclosing HIV positive status can be charged with aggravated sexual assault. This has been stated repeatedly in this post: there is no consent in this example case because there is a positive obligation to disclose HIV status.
I make that exact point in the comment. Lots of jurisdictions do, indeed, treat it that way. But not all do. Some treat it as an offence against the person, not a sexual offence. And some don't prosecute it at all, particularly in countries where AIDS is prevalent.
Your comment has strong "the USA is the only country in the World" vibes. To imply that a question of comparative law is ridiculous because one legal system has reached an answer is silly. It's interesting that different countries reach different conclusions and, even if you don't personally enjoy it, I think it can be fun to discuss.
Your response has strong “I think I’m a lawyer because I took one law class at university” vibes. I’m not even American.
The point is your consent example is weak, and retroactive consent still isn’t a thing.
I was looking for a fun conversation with someone also interested in the topic. I'm sorry my comment upset you so much that you felt the need to take time out of your day to express how ridiculous you found it.
You're obviously not enjoying the conversation. And I'm certainly not enjoying speaking to you. So it's probably best to end the interaction here.
Hopefully, other people are more open to the conversation, as I actually think it's really interesting. Knowing you have AIDS is one thing, but what if one suspects one might have a less serious STI but thinks it's unlikely? And does a positive duty to inform only extent to STIs or to other things? As for lying, should lying about one's job or the extent of one's feelings be viewed not just as immoral but be treated as vitiating consent legally? All of this is super interesting philosophically, and is worth discussing.
Obviously consent can't be withdrawn retroactively, that makes zero sense.
There are two possibilities for what that woman was trying to say:
1) She wouldn't have done something if she'd had more information. Well, that's life. Use your regrets to not make better choices and not make the same mistakes in the future.
2) After being given consent for something once, people assume they have continued consent. She may have meant that she is revoking the assumed, continued consent that was given earlier.
IMO, consent can be revoked at any point without reason. At which point, you stop immediately. You no longer have consent until it’s given again. Proactive and reactive consent.
But retroactively is something I can’t get behind. You can’t consent to something in the moment then a day later decide you actually don’t consent to that having happened to any more. I can’t decide “I actually want to retract my consent waivers for my surgery last month. I know it happened already and I willingly signed them knowing the risk and wanting you to do it, but now that I’m recovering and feeling pain, I actually think you cut into my body without my permission and wanna sue”. You can’t get out of a contract you already signed because you retroactively want to revoke your signature. After it happens it’s too late. You are allowed to regret the decision, but you aren’t allowed to say you didn’t give permission for it
You can get out of signed contracts when the other party was deliberately deceptive to get you to sign it. In the case of consent it could be something like I agree to sleep with you on the basis that you say you have been tested for stds, later it turns out that you are hiv positive and knew about it. The consent I gave was based on false and deceptive information from you. So it's not like I've withdrawn it, more like it was never validly given
Duress and coercion are not what we’re talking about here — those weren’t consent on the first place, so there’s nothing to retroactively withdrawal. You’re deliberately misinterpreting the scope of the question. We’re talking about changing your mind later
I agree with most top comments. To add to the discussion I would just argue that it *might* be true if it wasn't actually real consent in the first place. Was there a power situation? Was the "consent" given when almost blackout drunk? If the "consent" was given in a position of vulnerability, there's debate to be had.
Example from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent?wprov=sfla1):
> [Some dude] also demonstrated how the moral notion of consent does not always align with the legal concept. For example, some adult siblings or other family members may voluntarily enter into a relationship, however the legal system still deems this as incestual, and therefore a crime
You can't retroactively withdraw consent. In the same way, you can't retroactively give it.
If she gave consent before and during sex, then she was a willing participant, regardless of how much she may now regret it. The woman whose opinion this is, is a moron.
Any guy reading this needs to be aware of women like this. They are rare but do exist. To be concise... we should all pick the bear.
I don’t know what the term is but if you find out that you granted the consent under false pretenses, I think that nullifies the consent. There’s nuance to this but I think most people agree that consent needs to be relatively informed. If someone straight up lies to you, once you find out you can say that’s not what you consented to
Poor wording, but there are certain contexts where this makes sense. Without the post it's hard to tell what this is what they were talking about, but what comes to mind is coercive situations like:
1. Person is drugged, given date rape drug etc., given high proof alcohol and was told it was low proof. She might say while high/drunk that she consents, but that should be retractable.
2. Person's boss asks, or person with a high degree of power over them, with potential repercussion implied. They may feel in the moment that they have no choice to consent, but then try to do something about it later.
3. Difference in age, like a 12 year old consents to an adult, then when they are an adult themselves, realizes how wrong the situation is.
4. There is an implied threat of physical violence if they do not consent. Person consents to avoid greater violence, then 'retracts' later when they are no longer at risk.
I think those situations could be described as retracting consent, and are reasonable situations to do so. Again, I don't know if this is what the original poster was talking about, OP if you're going to discuss an inflammatory post, you should link it.
I think all four of those fall under the category of not actually ever being consent in the first place, given that consent definitionally requires absence of coercion and for the person to be in full control of their faculties.
When you falsely accuse someone. You can do that anytime and hope they can't prove there was concent, but of course there may ba consequences if caught. And noone will believe a false accuser the next time.
I believed when people were talking about retroactive consent that maybe a discussion was had before but maybe prior to the act (ot during it) it could be withdrawn.
I've never heard it used this way unless maybe they were under the indluence or unduly coerced in some way (?)
I mean I’d need context and specifics to fully agree or disagree with a statement like that. But right now when it’s hypothetical, it sounds like absolute horseshit to me. I can’t think of any scenario where undoing consent after the fact makes any scrap of sense.
Like yeah, you can have regrets and negative feelings, but that’s all in an individual’s own head. Consent isn’t just about how one person feels. It’s about what that person has communicated to the other involved party. Consent is what a person gets across to the other person, whether through words, actions, or displayed enthusiasm. If you give consent, and the other person does what they do without you turning the green light into a red light through words, actions, or displayed unenthusiasm, that what was done was done with consent. Consent can only be taken away by the methods in which it can be given. And time travel ain’t one of those methods.
It’s important to be accurate when talking about consent because of how heavy the implications are when saying something was done without consent. IDK what that post actually said, but my uneducated guess is that she regretted her consent and said she withdrew it retroactively to emphasize how much she regretted it
Are we talking about sex? If so, no.
You can do that during, always can ofc, but not after a long time that's just.. sorry, but where's your brain at?
Still important to note someone may feel violated or even used / taken advantage of afterwards, even if it's, idk, let's say months, after. But you still gave consent, and that's a permanent fact. If one does feel that way it's important to talk about it, *why* they feel that way yk.
But other than that: that's bs.
Never. I will repeat that more loudly for the fucking morons of the universe: **NEVER**
Once the act has been completed, consent cannot be withdrawn. That is not possible. In any sense. Regardless of how either party feels after the fact. It can be regretted, it can be exulted, it can be questioned even, but not withdrawn. You can, however, withdraw it at any point up to and including *during* the event.
What was the context? If she was talking about coercion or deception then that would explain the upvotes. But most people would frame that as never having consented even if they technically agreed at the time.
IMO, consent can *never* be retroactively withdrawn. If a person doesn't know, in the moment, that "hey, I am not consenting to this", then they can't legitimately look back at the situation later and decide "yeah, I wasn't consenting to that".
That's likely what the post you read was referring to. A situation where the person decides they didn't "really" consent, even though it seemed like they were consenting in the moment, because they had been drinking/taking drugs, thought that the guy was wealthier than he really was, thought that the guy wanted a relationship when he didn't, didn't realize the guy had a girlfriend/wife, etc. Kind of a, "well, yeah, I was consenting then but if the situation had been different, I wouldn't have consented so my consent doesn't count and he's a rapist".
I would just stay away from many of those subreddits. So many are over policed to the point that if anyone tries to come in as a the voice of reason, they'd have their comment removed within the hour. Also important to note that an upvote IS an agreement. It's a minute minority but there are women who think like this and they're honestly just the worst lol
I actually don't see upvotes as agreement. Not necessarily anyways. People upvote for all sorts of reasons. Agreement is probably the biggest one, but it's hardly the *only* one. And people who disagree usually just keep scrolling instead of taking the extra moment to downvote. Unless it already has negative votes, that is.
Only reasons I've ever upvoted is because I agreed with the comment, found it entertaining or found it informative. I can only imagine a proclamation such as the one you witnessed would only meet one of those criteria for some people. Well I at least hope so anyway, If someone is learning that as fact or found that funny then it's equally troubling
That would make absolutely no sense what so ever. You can be disappointed after the fact, you can have regrets, be angry, feel betrayed and robbed. But you can't say you didn't consent to something after you consented and acted upon that exact thing. You can withdraw consent for the same thing in the futur of course.
Maybe you consented to something else then what you got, and that's different.
You can be in a state where consent is impossible, uninformed.
You can remove consent during at any point.
You can't consent to the terms of a contract, say like buying a car, go through it, drive the car and use it for a year and then say "I never consented to buying this car". But you can say it's not the car I thought I was consenting to buy.
In all honesty it can happen at any point and any circumstance. All she has to do is say she asked you to stop and you didn't. What's your defense to that? EXACTLY! About the only guarantee men have nowadays is to convince her that filming the episode (everytime) is protection for both parties or having a neutral witness. Good luck convincing her into either of those. Even with them she can say she felt pressured into doing either of them and then you're back at square one. Just look at how the courts allow women to wiggle out of prenups now.
Nope, the female you were hearing has rocks for brains. Once consent is given and the event ends. She can't go to law enforcement with it saying she revoked it. They look at her and say ma'am have you been evaluated for mental issues?
The guy will be questioned and guys make sure you get evidence of her saying okay. Show it to law enforcement. Then ol Manic Mary will be taken away for filing a false report. Also, entrapment can be charged for doing something like that
I think consent can be retroactively withdrawn for certain things yes. I've I've consented to you hanging up a picture in an art gallery and later you turn out to be a racist piece of shit, I feel I can retroactively withdraw my consent to allow you the use of my art (presuming there has been no purchasing/contractual agreements).
I'm presuming however you're more talking about sex. I think if you are both enthusiastically consenting (i.e. it's definitely a yes rather than not a no) then I can't imagine this coming up. I think some may regret things and wish they hadn't consented. I think there are times consent may be assumed by Partner A but not necessarily enthusiastically given and thus there may be a thought by Partner B that because they didn't protest they had therefore consented when actually, no they hadn't, which may be interpreted as retroactively withdrawing consent from Partner A's perspective. I suspect that this is more likely what has occurred in many of these "retroactively withdrawing consent" situations tbh. It's less retroactively withdrawing, more not really enthusiastically given and thus a communication, pressure and female/male socialisation problem
I don't think that if you and your partner have both enthusiastically consented that it would be fair, reasonable and frankly possible to retroactively withdraw consent and thus make a consensual experience into assault.
This sounds incredibly dangerous, and will get innocent people put in prison. You can’t willingly have sex with someone and then retroactively cry wolf. That’s not how consent works. If you were drugged or otherwise tricked in an insidious way, that’s different. But retroactively withdrawing consent is framing someone for a crime they did not commit.
I was trying to think of a scenario, but I'm going to go with never. The most extreme example I can come up with is if you had someone with a known and active HIV infection who provided you with a false health report saying they were clean of any sexually transmitted infections. It would seem the sex was conditional on them being clean, however trickery does not imply non-consensual sex. The person consented to the sex under false pretenses, but that doesn't allow you to claim it was non-consensual, only that you were lied to. IANAL, but I do believe there are laws that prohibit knowingly transmitting sexually transmitted diseases to others, and in the scenario I presented above, I would hope those laws are applied to their full extent. Making lying to obtain sex criminal would be a very slippery slope, as either party could take that pretty far. As an example, perhaps the man would not have had sex with the woman if he knew what she looked like without makeup.
Don't date modern/western women and wont have any of this issue.
Passport Bro it up.
Y'all crazy ladies not checking your female group gonna be experiencing the repercussions.
I think in the case of porn for example someone may consent to making it but later they don't feel comfortable about it and wish the content was no longer available for viewing. I think that there's something uncomfortable about people watching porn when the person in it doesn't want anyone to watch it. I feel like each viewing should require it's own consent but that's obviously not going happen.
I think there are different levels to this. Legally no, I don’t think consent can or should be retroactively withdrawn. But on a personal level I understand how the memory of an encounter can change with life experience. I definitely “consented” to sex when I was younger that I now look back and realize was coerced. This mostly happened when I was “barely legal” and older men manipulated me into situations where I didn’t believe I had the right to say no, so I didn’t even if I wanted to. Was it legally rape at the time? Ehhh, iffy, definitely never would have been arrested or charged. But when I remember these encounters I do feel that I was made to have sex I didn’t actually want to have.
It’s all kind of gray and murky because I’m sure at least some of those guys didn’t realize they were coercing me. Some probably thought they were being persistent and going after what they wanted, not realizing a certain level of persistence combined with physical superiority becomes a threat. If I tried to discuss this with them now they’d feel I was retroactively withdrawing consent. But I understand now the consent they thought they had was worthless because it wasn’t freely given. And while I’m sure some didn’t realize it wasn’t, I’m equally sure some did.
It’s all very complicated.
i mean your comment more or less explains why we have a legal system in place. without knowing the context and assuming we’re not talking about actual grooming or rape but you yourself stated that you consented and were of legal age. that’s on your own youthful nativity and it’s neither grey nor murky
I mean for example one of the guys kept ignoring that I said no and wouldn’t let me leave until I said yes. So I said yes. That feels pretty murky to me. But that’s kind of my point, there’s a difference between legality and whatever goes on in people’s minds. The fact that that guy can’t and shouldn’t be prosecuted for rape doesn’t change the way I feel now about the sex we had, which is that it was sex I didn’t want to have.
But this is what I get for trying to leave a nuanced answer in AskMen I guess 🤷♀️
Arguments like these equate to having cake and eating it as well, you can’t legally groom an adult, so the argument is that you want the age of adulthood raised. If you cant reasonably manage your own decisions as an adult then you are not an adult, it’s recursive and why the legal system is set up the way it is. Regret is human, not law.
I didn’t say I was groomed. I said I was manipulated into situations that I now as an adult recognize were coercive. The coercion itself wasn’t because of my age, just the fact that I ended up in a position to be coerced because I didn’t have the knowledge to avoid it, which I do now. I think people are not understanding my comment, or they don’t want to understand it, which is fine. I’m not sure why I keep trying to have actual conversations in this sub… Stupidity probably.
Consent can be withdrawn at any point in time DURING the act, not after, and if the other person then decides to keep going when consent has been withdrawn even IF they have consented initially, then that is wrong. However, saying you can withdraw consent from a past event that has already happened and you already consented to is simply not true and whoever that lady and those who upvoted the opinion are, you should probably stay away from.
I don't believe anyone should be able to retroactively withdraw consent. One scenario though where I can see some merit is where one party selectively and intentionally omits certain details (e.g. STI status).
That would just be consent under false pretences.
And what would that mean in terms of being able to retroactively withdraw consent or not? Edit: I don't know why I'm being downvoted here, I just wanted clarification on their comment.
It means the consent was never valid. In medicine there is a thing called informed consent, where the doctor has to tell you the potential risks as known when undergoing a potentially dangerous procedure. If they don't tell you everything then legally you never consented. The original vaccines cause autism study was brought before an ethics board because (besides the results being literally changed to suit the narrative) the doctor didn't tell parents that the tests they were doing to TRY and find the link they theorised were incredibly invasive. One procedure was described as 'minimal risk' when it has a danger of tearing your intestine. And then one child got a terrible intestine tear. Those parents were deemed as not having informed consent ipso facto he performed these tests without consent.
u/Finalpotato That's appaling. I've been searching for a citation on this but drawn a blank. Any chance you have one? It's a killer blow for the anti-vaxers.
It's on his Wikipedia page. If you want more info look up Brian Deer, he exposed all the fraud involved. But antivaxxers won't care
[Here you go, not that it matters](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2954080/). Being antivax requires a dismissal of basic scientific rigor, it's less about the truth and more about a worldview.
I'd say that consent is then considered null and void. Similar to a contract that was made under false pretenses.
Reddit hivemind sees downvote must downvote *monkey noises*
well yeah thats why they call it INFORMED consent.
Woman here but I am wondering if she didn’t mean it from a standpoint of just because I consented once doesn’t mean I consent forever. I can see anal or any other kinky type stuff coming up as “you did it before” sure I may have consented to try something previously but that doesn’t mean it is blanket consent moving forward.
that's not the context of this particular instance- in that case that would be reasonable but this is about revoking consent for past events that you had consented to.
Can you provide a link to the previous post? I'd love to see her explanation
This is true. If you try something and don't like it, make sure to make that explicitly clear. Hopefully if a guy knows you don't like something, he won't ask, and you won't have to turn him down. That way no one feels like a dick, or like they're pressuring/being pressured or disappointing anyone. My fiancee and I make sure to communicate this way.
if you find yourself not liking it, you can then "end" your consent by telling the other person. That means anything AFTER that point is non-consensual, but everything BEFORE it still was consensual, you can't take that consent away retroactively.
Yeah, I can only imagine it being that. Has anyone found the link for context yet? There's quite a few times I've had partners assume blanket consent and not understand say, fucking before work when I start at noon and fucking before a funeral are two wildly different things. And just because I was down for weekend fun quickie I'm sure as fuck not in the mood before doing to my grandma's funeral.
Not trying to play Devil's Advocate here. What if someone feels, for whatever reason, that they're being pressured into providing consent and they fear the consequences of saying "no"? I had a buddy go through that exact scenario. He was alone with someone and they were cuddling. He asked for consent to have sex and she said yes. Later on, she said that she'd only said yes because she didn't feel safe saying no. It turned into a pretty big social issue for him (not legally, just among the communities they shared) when she came out publicly about how she felt. Without getting into trying to argue for/against her/him, does that scenario just create a third new situation entirely? Instead of "consent cannot be withdrawn retroactively" versus "consent can be withdrawn retroactively", would this just be a different situation of "consent cannot be withdrawn retroactively, but if consent is the result of fear/pressure, that is a separate situation/issue/discussion"?
Consent granted due to irrational fear is still consent. Consent granted because of a threat is not legitimate consent.
Ok sure, so how do you qualify whether or not a fear is “irrational”?
That's what juries are for. The instructions to the jury for such a determination typically reads something like "would it be reasonable for the average person under these circumstances to feel duress/fear" that's probably a pretty tough criteria to meet without some kind of implied threat.
You see, now this is a more important conversation that needs to be had and you bring up a good topic, rather than the comment OP brought from the woman that pretty much said that consent can be withdrawn from past sexual experiences, making up the guy or guys they had sex with as weirdos and rapists. My take for this situation is, I feel like there are going to be many factors in play. What exactly made her uncomfortable about saying no? Did she fear harm? Did the guy actively pester her into having sex? And many other questions could be asked on to figuring out if her uncomfortability and fear was the guy’s fault or her just feeling uncomfortable. Now, let’s say in a situation a guy politely asked for consent to have sex and the girl he’s asking consent from said yes, they have sex. And then later down the line she says to him “Oh, I only said yes because I was afraid of saying no.” Well, at the end of the day she still said Yes, and that’s assuming throughout the entire act she was still consenting and going along with everything. So in the guy’s mind, as far as he knew he had consent from her and she was a willing participant in the act. He cannot read her mind and think “Hmm, maybe she is only saying Yes because she is uncomfortable on saying No”. No, she has to own up to the fact that she said Yes despite her should’ve saying No. That is her responsibility in saying whether it is going to be a Yes or a No. Let’s say you’re out drinking and your friend wants you to drive. Your better judgement KNOWS you should not be driving and you’re uncomfortable and afraid of the consequences of you driving while drunk, but maybe you’re a people pleaser and getting peer pressured and you say Yes. You’re driving and get in a car accident. Should the blame be on the friend for asking you to drive or should it be on you for agreeing to it? Obviously, it’s going to be on you. As an adult, you must be accountable for all your actions and all your decisions no matter how they make you feel in the moment. The girl in your scenario is accountable for her saying Yes to the guy to have sex. Now this is assuming this isn’t a situation where she has a gun to her head or is actually fearing grave bodily harm, and the guy in the situation did his part in respectfully asking for consent and they are both adults. If she said yes, that is on HER. She should’ve taken accountability for her decision and not blast their privacy to everyone to make the guy out to be a creep who forces women to have sex. That is wrong. Just because you are incapable of saying No doesn’t advert the responsibility to anyone else if you end up saying Yes to something you should’ve said No to. Just because you may regret doing it, doesn’t mean it’s the other person’s fault.
Nah that's horseshit. She wasn't under any actual danger or threat of losing her job.
I regret eating cake after I've done it, but it doesn't mean I didn't consent to eating it at the time. No one forced me to eat it, I made that choice. So no retroactively speaking, sex you regret is not the big R word, it’s just guilt.
worm dam unite reminiscent complete deliver absorbed zephyr ruthless decide
It's the creeping desire to erase objective definitions.
YES! I cannot stand this. Words mean things! You don’t just get to use words however you want and expect to be understood. Erasing distinction just means nothing means anything and we’re all confused.
Welcome to how society works now
> not the big R word R is for Regret.
I was talking about Rape but I see what you did there
> I thought that was a pretty wild opinion to have, but damn if she didn't have a lot of upvotes. Of course she did. Lots of people make mistakes they wish they could “undo.” That doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake. > When can consent be retroactively withdrawn? Consent cannot be retroactively withdrawn. If not could be, then right now I could explicitly tell you “yes do that, I want that” and then tomorrow have you arrested for something I clearly said I wanted. That cannot be fair, that cannot be allowed.
The irony being in those same subs they say false accusations don't happen, meanwhile they are talking about making false accusations by retroactively withdrawing consent.
To those women, in their screwed up minds, they think that is rational, and they convince themselves that is not a false accusation. Thats one of the big problems with the whole "your truth" thing. There's only one truth and no one gets to decide what the truth is or is not.
Woman here. Buyer’s remorse doesn’t mean you get to claim fraud. Retroactive withdrawal of consent is absolute insanity. You gave permission for something to happen. It happened. You can’t ungive permission for something that’s already happened.
I'm the sort who, for hypothetical questions like this, likes to test the extremes of a question to gauge its possibilities. For this question, let's assume you and another person agree to have sex with the condition that you each get tested for STIs ahead of time. You both get tested and share each other's results. No infections reported, so you both have sex. Later you discover that you have HIV/AIDS. After some investigation, you find out you got it from the aforementioned encounter and the person showed you counterfeit results and they knew they had HIV/AIDS when you had sex. I think pretty much everyone would agree that the person committed fraud and even some form of assault. Did they commit rape? Can you retroactively withdraw consent in this case? Similarly, but slightly different: can consent be conditional and, if it is later revealed that a condition was intentionally and secretly broken, does that mean consent was never actually given or was it your responsibility at the time to verify the condition was met? edit: thanks for all the responses, I appreciate your answers
Someone else discussed this already. In this context it isn't "retroactive consent", it's dubious consent (or consent under false pretense). Someone deceived someone else to manipulate their given consent.
> can consent be conditional and, if it is later revealed that a condition was intentionally and secretly broken, does that mean consent was never actually given Legally speaking, courts have ruled on this. The consent is legally invalid only in extreme cases where a person legitimately thought they were granting consent to a different person. Like a twins situation. You can't pretend to be your twin brother and have sex with his wife, that's rape. She wasn't consenting to sex with you, she was consenting to sex with your brother. Or the "blindfolded girlfriend" situation. A friend can't sneak into the room and have sex with the blindfolded girlfriend. Even if she explicitly speaks words of consent like "yes, I want you, fuck me hard" because she thinks she's speaking those words to her boyfriend, not to you. But this doesn't extend to cases of "misrepresented identity". Like if you meet a girl at a bar and tell her you're a millionaire or that you're the catcher for the New York Yankees. In those cases, if she consents to have sex with you - the guy she met at the bar - courts do not hold that consent to be legally invalid because even though she might not know the name or financial situation of the person she is consenting to have sex with, she 100% is consenting to sex with a specific person (you, in this example) and that specific person is the individual with whom sex was had.
The latter case could in principle be covered by *informed* consent, if there would be clear guidance rules about disclosure of pertinent information before sex. Which there typically aren't. In principle consent to have sex is just about sex.
Informed consent is just the other side of the coin of regret. "If I knew what she looked like without makeup on, I wouldn't have consented to sex". "If I knew he had a wife, I wouldn't have consented to sex". "If I knew he was going to breakup with me, I wouldn't have consented to sex". "If I knew she was a feminist, I wouldn't have consented to sex". All of those are expressions of information that a person was unaware of when consent was granted. So it could be argued that they didn't provide "fully informed consent". But what they're really saying is "I regret my decision to have sex with that person, because I learned something I didn't like about them after already consenting and having sex".
Lying about being married might be gross but it’s not rape or even a crime. Lying about your sexual health and knowingly transmitting diseases is actually a crime. So there’s obviously a line where some lies that are told in order to have sex are considered criminal. That line seems to be that that lie objectively physically harmed someone because they didn’t know the truth. That seems fair to me. But being able to cry rape because you find out the guy is kinda a douche or she’s not as hot sans makeup, isn’t. ETA: In either case, consent is not being retroactively withdrawn. It’s that consent was not given for someone to physically harm you by giving you HIV without your knowledge.
Transactions don't work that way.
Never. That’s literally not how consent works
Regret does not equal withdrawing consent. To put it a different way, she’s an idiot.
What the fuck? That would mean that any guy could be accused of rape at any moment at the whim of a vindictive woman. Also... if we were to use that logic, I hope they realize that that works BOTH WAYS. Men have to consent to sex too... why does it seem like people never remember that part? As if female consent is any more sacred and important than male consent. If we're gonna go down that path... men would ALSO be able to 'retroactively withdraw consent.'
Men would simply retroactively withdraw consent each time the woman does. Then what? They had sex but *none* of them consented. Can't be accused when they were "forced" into it.
This reminds me of that drunk sex ad where both parties were drunk, yet somehow the man was a rapist. Dont assume logic will be followed.
Yeah I've always wondered why it seems like there's a major double standard there... I mean... if he was drunk too why is no one asking about HER actions? Was HE able to consent if he was drunk?
It’s the “Women are Wonderful” effect
By default, if retroactive withdrawal of consent was a thing, the man would be the one in the wrong. Just like if a man is extremely drunk and can't even walk on his own, and a woman has sex with him, if she had more than 3 drinks that night, the man committed statutory rape. Laws really don't ever favor men.
Twice in my life I was made to have sex without my consent. I was ridiculed as a male since if a man is erect, he obviously wants it. Absolutely not! My dick can be hard, but my brain does not consent. Plus one of the times, I was asleep. This also happened to a friend of mine, his roommate had a party on the first floor of the house and a girl went upstairs to my friend's bedroom, got him hard and rode him while he was still sleeping. It didn't matter that it was rape, he was still 100% responsible for child support. He had to pay his Rapist money for raping him for 18 years.
Wow. That's messed up man.
Honestly I have had conversations with women about how they believe a boner is consent and how it's impossible for a woman to have sex with a man without his consent. I mean I was absolutely shocked when I heard it because they were fairly nice and reasonably people when it came to everything else but for some reason this one topic they are batshit crazy. I had asked other women as well because I wanted to know if it was just an isolated thing and was surprised to find that it wasn't all that uncommon of a view. So yeah some of these women might think it doesn't go both ways and that female consent is more important.
Yeah I've heard that sentiment before too. Basically it just shows their total ignorance about the male body... and making their own assumptions based on that ignorance.
“He was asking for it”
Exactly! Male anatomy is designed to react readily to stimulation (visual or physical or mental) to continue the human race. Female anatomy is designed to be coaxed into coitus, but will lubricate to prevent injury. Having a physical reaction that enables sex to occur doesn’t constitute consent in either gender.
You can withdrawn consent anytime leading up to and during the event. After that, it's regret and regret is a learning experience not an illegal act.
I think we can figure out what subreddit that was.
Hmm? Which do you think it was?
The one where dissenting opinions are removed by the mods, which is why you didn't see any negative feedback about that particular opinion.
My friend, that's at least half of Reddit...
Initial signs point to one or two particularly toxic subreddits.
Go on. I'm actually genuinely curious to see if you'll get it right. It's not some obscure sub, so there's a chance.
Either /AW or /TXC.
Damn, right on the money. I was actually going through both those subs and don't remember which exactly it was. I think what happened was that I was on AW, then followed a link to 2X and saw it there. But it's a little jumbled in my head since I've spent way too much time on Reddit this weekend.
Too much time on Reddit? Join our club. We're having matching blazers made up.
Just went to both those subs, searched “consent” and “retroactive consent” and couldn’t find the post, so either it was posted on a different sub or it has been deleted
Does the reddit search function look at comments? I thought it only looked at post titles and maybe the body of the original post.
Yeah it looks at comments and posts—or at least it has in my experience (idk if that’s something that varies between subs though). Considering the context of the post, I wouldn’t be surprised if it was deleted, whether that’s by the mods or by the author after eventually getting some inevitable pushback (unless it’s AW, where pushback seems more likely to get deleted lol)
I went looking through my history to see if I could find it. But it's like looking for a needle in a haystack - I went through a *lot* of posts yesterday. And since I don't remember the actual post itself, just that comment, I had to check every single one of them. I gave up after going through around 30 posts. Hopefully, it got deleted. People give TwoX and AW a lot of shit, but the mods are generally pretty good about deleting stuff that's *too* wildly out there.
As soon as I saw this thread I knew you'd be talking about 2X.
Would you give me a link to the discussion? You can PM me if you want.
Sorry, I didn't save it and now it's buried in my history. I just kept thinking about it, so I made a post.
Seems like it was not a very popular opinion since I can’t find it either…
I mean, I already said it was a comment on another post. And that people were upvoting, but not explicitly agreeing. I never thought it was **popular**. Just not **unpopular**.
Never. Insisting that it can just means someone running away from responsibility.
Run from women that espouse this philosophy.
When you're evil or delusional.
There can be cases where someone gives "consent" under duress and afterwards says it wasn't genuine, but to me that shouldn't be considered actual consent. I don't think actual consent can be withdrawn after the fact.
That’s different. If you’re under duress, you cannot consent. If someone points a knife at you and says “say this is ok” and you do, you did not consent.
I agree, that's why I said it shouldn't be considered actual consent. Though I was thinking of situations less extreme than being held at knifepoint (e.g., a supervisor implying a subordinate will lose their job if they don't agree to do something).
Regret is not rape.
Never. It can be withdrawn in the moment, and then everyone has to stop, but it can’t be withdrawn after the deed
Withdrawing consent from an event that happened yesterday *is not a thing.* If consent was given throughout the act and never withdrawn *while it was happening*, then it cannot be withdrawn after. That's not how consent works. As a woman, I've gotten banned from at least two female-centric subs b/c i call out their toxic bull shit. Do NOT follow those subs. You will find nothing of value in them.
That's wild. Not unexpected. But wild nonetheless.
That bullshit philosophy is a major reason why so many men are no longer persuing women.
Ridiculous. Her logic is not believed or agreed to by almost all women. I know no one who would believe in retroactive reversal of consent.
Regardless of how many women agree with that line of thinking, there is undoubtedly some percentage of women who do agree with it. And that just becomes another landmine in the meadow. Except you could step on it tonight...or you could step on it in 5 years...or you could step on it in 6 months after a bitter end to the relationship that she didn't agree with. And who knows if you will be able to defend yourself.
>Her logic is not believed or agreed to by almost all women. You'd be surprised. In certain online communities, her 'logic' is accepted as obvious and uncontroversial.
> You'd be surprised. In certain online communities, her 'logic' is accepted as obvious and uncontroversial. The thing about feminists subreddits is that there's basically no scenario where anyone will tell a woman she *wasn't* raped. Sometimes someone will post a really dubious sounding story and it'll just sit there with zero comments until they delete it. "Listen and believe" is the only acceptable response, but *responding at all is optional*.
No, it can't be taken away. Could you imagine the precedent that could set. Anytime a woman gets mad at an ex she can claim rape or one night stand she regrets later she can claim rape. Any celebrity that hooks up with a woman an get blackmailed for rape. That would be a slippery slope
Withdrawing consent after the fact is called regret. That doesn't mean a crime was committed.
Consent can only be withdrawn retroactively if you also believe male participation can be withdrawn retroactively.
The abiltiy to retroactively withdraw consent is exactly the same thing as having the power to have anyone you've ever slept with thrown in jail at any time. It means that one sex has absolute power over the lives of the other. Women can already (and do) blackmail men they've slept with using threats of false accusations. The ability to retroactively withdraw consent is the ability to make anyone you've slept with your blackmail slave. A women would effectively own any human being she's ever slept with. It is the same thing as legalizing slavery.
It's all about power. The #MeToo movement morphed into a '*Believe all women*' movement, because an adversarial legal system like the one we have in use in the West would require a woman to be cross examined by a hostile representative and many women don't like this. They wish to have the power to bypass a vigorous defense and just be trusted implicitly. I see this idea of retroactive consent to come from a same place. A wish to be able to wield power that currently is held back due to the mutual interests of all parties having equal weight. Imagine being frustrated that you haven't gotten everything you want or someone isn't acting the way you wish and being able to threaten the withdrawal of prior consent to criminalize them. I mean what could go wrong /s.
It can't, but there's garbage females out there who never felt the touch of a man, and you're describing one of them.
You can't retroactively withdraw consent.
Sounds like they are confusing "consent" with "regret". Consent is a two party concept. One person grants it, the other proceeds with the act, or one person doesn't give consent, the other person doesn't proceed with the act. If in the future, once the act is complete, consent is moot because the act is complete and the other party cannot undo said act and are therefore unable to comply.
It can't, this is feminism looking for a new way men are guilty
Back to the Future?
Consent can be retroactively withdrawn if the original consent was given based on some sort of lie. For example, Bob and James are twins. One day, James pretends to be Bob and asks Bob's wife Mary if she's in the mood. She says yes, and they have sex. Later, she realizes to her horror that "Bob" was actually James, and she retroactively withdraws her consent. James says "nuh uh, you gave your verbal consent". The police say "nuh UH, you're under arrest".
[удалено]
I think this type of scenario is more common than people might think, where you think you have consented, but didn’t. For example, in the moment you may feel pressured, coerced, unsafe, and say yes out of a fawn response that seems genuine. Then later realize you never wanted to be in that situation at all. It’s a very common situation for women.
That's fair. It's not how she seemed to be talking about it, but I actually do agree with this.
Idk if this would help you but you can lens it in the form of a contract. Of which both parties are bound if terms are agreed upon, the contract is binding. However, if there is willful misrepresentation of fact (in the OC’s comment) James is representing himself as Bob the contract can be voided and is voidable by the counterparty. In this case the “consent”. Since James is misrepresenting facts in the forming of the contracts, the wife can void the contract AFTER the fact (or revoke consent in this case) because the facts of the contract were materially and willfully misrepresented by James for his own personal gain at the expense of the wife. At which point he’d be liable for damages (rape/jail)
Yeah, I can't speak to the subject of the person you're talking about, but I know there was actually a court case involving consent based on a serious lie, and the judge ruled against the man.
Or for example, intentionally omitting that you have an STI. It doesn't have to be a "lie".
That's not retroactively revoking consent. That's not giving informed consent in the first place.
Can you link the comment?
I'm sure you can withdraw consent after the act if you want to. But the nature of linear time is such that, even if you do, the act was performed with consent.
It cannot.
Criminalizing regret?
There are lots of dumb people on this website.
Let me guess, the TwoX page?
Is this like the nightmare college stories where the woman happily consents to sex with a man, and once she finds out her social group doesn't like him for being weird, she reports it as r*pe?
I assume retroactively withdrawing consent means after the act is done and completely over. >I saw a woman in a more female-oriented sub saying that she believed consent could be retroactively withdrawn from a past event. I think that'd be fun to have in a law. /s I guy goes and rapes someone. Straight up rape, no doubt nor nuance about it. There is evidence and everything needed to put him in jail for a long time. She goes to the police; the man gets arrested. The next day she is arrested because the man retroactively withdrew consent. She goes to rot in jail for raping the man. This absurdity is caught on by TV stations and broadcast across the country. In a month's time, all the rapists in jail for rape withdraw their consent retroactively as and as such all the victims go rot in jail. I'm a feminist (a moderate one, don't crucify me), this is not feminism. This way of thinking is purely anti-victim. Whoever says they retroactively withdrew consent is essentially just playing a victim which, in my eyes is mocking the real rape victims. I'd also like to point out how absurd the concept of retroactively withdrawing consent is. What does it even mean? "I now don't give consent for what he did in the past" Got it, he now isn't doing anything in the past (including fucking her in the past). So, it's not like it becomes rape.
>I'm a feminist (a moderate one, don't crucify me) Very well, you shall be burned at the stake. Jokes aside, it seemed absurd to me as well. Like, let's say you *could* do that. But as a consequence, that also means you were lying to whoever you were involved with, saying that you consented when you didn't. How would it then be their fault that they believed you? It just feels like it would be a way for people to pretend they were raped. Which is vile.
> She goes to rot in jail for raping the man. Hahahaha LMAO even.
> She goes to rot in jail for raping the man. Women cannot be convicted of rape for sex, in most cases. It requires penetration. So a woman could, theoretically, drug a man unconscious, have sex with him, and it would not be rape. It would only be sexual assault. > I'm a feminist You're awful. > this is not feminism No, this is feminism. You simply don't understand what you support. Feminism has absolutely nothing to do with equality or fair treatment.
> it requires penetration There’s a category, “forced to penetrate” - https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2016/11/the-understudied-female-sexual-predator/503492/ Woman can indeed rape men
"data-gatherers started to track it" doesn't mean it's in the law, and it means fuck-all in court.
Da fuq! And this is why I don’t date younger chicks
Whenever the person chooses to do it retroactively. Nobody else has to give a shit
30 years ago if there was a whacko somewhere that was the problem of people who were around that person. The next whacko with the same strange ideas probably lived 3 towns over or so. Since about 15 years ago if there is a whacko somewhere the problem is of the entire world. And the next whacko is just right there, making it look like there are a lot of them even if they are an extreme minority. We tend to forget this a lot and assume that whoever is writing on the internet is a perfectly adjusted person, in general or in this moment of their life. So in short no, whitdrawning consent retroactively is not a thing and that was either a troll or a person who outside the internet we would never listen to.
Don’t believe anyone on the internet
My ex-GF told me I was overreacting when I was angry that she couldn't tell me or assure me she was safe (used protection) and refused to get tested when she slept with other people while we were apart. We were open, sleeping with others wasn't the issue. If I had been informed though, I would not have slept with her, but that doesn't mean I can withdraw consent now (as much as I wish I could). The deed has been done and she lied to me to get what she knew wouldn't have otherwise been given, had I known the truth. Consent cannot be withdrawn unless you're in the act, and that withdrawal should always be observed and followed through completely. After the act, it is just ridiculous to suggest such a thing. And, trust me, I really wish I could. Edit: Clarified some statements.
morally: only when consent was given under deliberate deception legally: it's complicated, but typically you can't
Legally as far as I know, consent can only be retroactively withdrawn if the consent hinged upon a specific bit of information that was a lie. I think it’s called rape by deception. But then, it gets muddy because she can lie and claim he lied, and because nobody really records that stuff, it’s fairly easy to get away with.
If it is appropriately obtained then it can't be retroactively withdrawn, but there may be something found later that reveals that it wasn't appropriately obtained. That's just a basic principle of consent. What is required to be disclosed can sometimes be up for debate and usually context specific. If you're consenting to a medical procedure, they don't pull out a stack of research on the topic but they have a responsibility to discuss the common risks and benefits. If it's an emergency, then they might forgo some details if taking that time will make things worth. There are also things that you may not legally be able to consent to. You can agree to let someone axe murder you, they're still going to jail. If you're talking about consenting to sexual acts, it can be tricky to determine what's reasonable and necessary to disclose. STI status, other partners, first time, intoxication, credit score? Some things are obvious but some things aren't. And what is legally required might be different from what's morally required.
Bright crimson flag.
The only time I'd agree with that concept is the other person was lying to you in a major way and you wouldn't have consented if you knew the truth/they've changed the terms of what you consented to without your knowledge. People who know they have STI's and say they're clean, people who agree to use a condom and start out that way but try to slip it off without you noticing, etc.
But that isn't withdrawing consent, but consent given on false premises and in many places are equal to rape in the eyes of the law
To some extent, that's true (talking specifically here about false premises rendering consent invalid), but I can imagine edge cases. Let's say someone knows or suspects that they have AIDs. They have unprotected sex with a new partner. At no stage did they raise the possibility they might have AIDS, but nor did their partner ask. Is that consensual or not? The answers differs massively depending on the legal system. Some would say that, because he didn't lie, consent was validly given. One does not have a proactive duty to inform one's partner of the risks associated with unprotected sex. They're adults, and it's on each of us to protect ourselves. Other jurisdictions argue that this behaviour is tantamount to reckless endangerment and that if the partner contracts HIV, a charge of grievous bodily harm can be brought. However, despite being an offence against the person, it isn't rape as sex itself was still consensual. Still other jurisdictions may view this to be rape, arguing that people have a proactive duty to inform their partners of matters which it's reasonable to suspect would factor into their decision about whether or not to have sex. Would these conclusions change if, after the fact, the woman said she would still have had unprotected sex even if she'd known? If so, what does that imply about retrospective consent?
Your example case is ridiculous because in many jurisdictions having intercourse without disclosing HIV positive status can be charged with aggravated sexual assault. This has been stated repeatedly in this post: there is no consent in this example case because there is a positive obligation to disclose HIV status.
I make that exact point in the comment. Lots of jurisdictions do, indeed, treat it that way. But not all do. Some treat it as an offence against the person, not a sexual offence. And some don't prosecute it at all, particularly in countries where AIDS is prevalent. Your comment has strong "the USA is the only country in the World" vibes. To imply that a question of comparative law is ridiculous because one legal system has reached an answer is silly. It's interesting that different countries reach different conclusions and, even if you don't personally enjoy it, I think it can be fun to discuss.
Your response has strong “I think I’m a lawyer because I took one law class at university” vibes. I’m not even American. The point is your consent example is weak, and retroactive consent still isn’t a thing.
I was looking for a fun conversation with someone also interested in the topic. I'm sorry my comment upset you so much that you felt the need to take time out of your day to express how ridiculous you found it. You're obviously not enjoying the conversation. And I'm certainly not enjoying speaking to you. So it's probably best to end the interaction here. Hopefully, other people are more open to the conversation, as I actually think it's really interesting. Knowing you have AIDS is one thing, but what if one suspects one might have a less serious STI but thinks it's unlikely? And does a positive duty to inform only extent to STIs or to other things? As for lying, should lying about one's job or the extent of one's feelings be viewed not just as immoral but be treated as vitiating consent legally? All of this is super interesting philosophically, and is worth discussing.
Obviously consent can't be withdrawn retroactively, that makes zero sense. There are two possibilities for what that woman was trying to say: 1) She wouldn't have done something if she'd had more information. Well, that's life. Use your regrets to not make better choices and not make the same mistakes in the future. 2) After being given consent for something once, people assume they have continued consent. She may have meant that she is revoking the assumed, continued consent that was given earlier.
IMO, consent can be revoked at any point without reason. At which point, you stop immediately. You no longer have consent until it’s given again. Proactive and reactive consent. But retroactively is something I can’t get behind. You can’t consent to something in the moment then a day later decide you actually don’t consent to that having happened to any more. I can’t decide “I actually want to retract my consent waivers for my surgery last month. I know it happened already and I willingly signed them knowing the risk and wanting you to do it, but now that I’m recovering and feeling pain, I actually think you cut into my body without my permission and wanna sue”. You can’t get out of a contract you already signed because you retroactively want to revoke your signature. After it happens it’s too late. You are allowed to regret the decision, but you aren’t allowed to say you didn’t give permission for it
You can get out of signed contracts when the other party was deliberately deceptive to get you to sign it. In the case of consent it could be something like I agree to sleep with you on the basis that you say you have been tested for stds, later it turns out that you are hiv positive and knew about it. The consent I gave was based on false and deceptive information from you. So it's not like I've withdrawn it, more like it was never validly given
Duress and coercion are not what we’re talking about here — those weren’t consent on the first place, so there’s nothing to retroactively withdrawal. You’re deliberately misinterpreting the scope of the question. We’re talking about changing your mind later
I agree to sleep with you because you're a milionaire. Turns out you're broke. Oops, consent not given.
I agree with most top comments. To add to the discussion I would just argue that it *might* be true if it wasn't actually real consent in the first place. Was there a power situation? Was the "consent" given when almost blackout drunk? If the "consent" was given in a position of vulnerability, there's debate to be had. Example from [Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent?wprov=sfla1): > [Some dude] also demonstrated how the moral notion of consent does not always align with the legal concept. For example, some adult siblings or other family members may voluntarily enter into a relationship, however the legal system still deems this as incestual, and therefore a crime
You can't retroactively withdraw consent. In the same way, you can't retroactively give it. If she gave consent before and during sex, then she was a willing participant, regardless of how much she may now regret it. The woman whose opinion this is, is a moron. Any guy reading this needs to be aware of women like this. They are rare but do exist. To be concise... we should all pick the bear.
Yup sounds like something a woman would say. So there ya go.
I don’t know what the term is but if you find out that you granted the consent under false pretenses, I think that nullifies the consent. There’s nuance to this but I think most people agree that consent needs to be relatively informed. If someone straight up lies to you, once you find out you can say that’s not what you consented to
Poor wording, but there are certain contexts where this makes sense. Without the post it's hard to tell what this is what they were talking about, but what comes to mind is coercive situations like: 1. Person is drugged, given date rape drug etc., given high proof alcohol and was told it was low proof. She might say while high/drunk that she consents, but that should be retractable. 2. Person's boss asks, or person with a high degree of power over them, with potential repercussion implied. They may feel in the moment that they have no choice to consent, but then try to do something about it later. 3. Difference in age, like a 12 year old consents to an adult, then when they are an adult themselves, realizes how wrong the situation is. 4. There is an implied threat of physical violence if they do not consent. Person consents to avoid greater violence, then 'retracts' later when they are no longer at risk. I think those situations could be described as retracting consent, and are reasonable situations to do so. Again, I don't know if this is what the original poster was talking about, OP if you're going to discuss an inflammatory post, you should link it.
I think all four of those fall under the category of not actually ever being consent in the first place, given that consent definitionally requires absence of coercion and for the person to be in full control of their faculties.
When you falsely accuse someone. You can do that anytime and hope they can't prove there was concent, but of course there may ba consequences if caught. And noone will believe a false accuser the next time.
I believed when people were talking about retroactive consent that maybe a discussion was had before but maybe prior to the act (ot during it) it could be withdrawn. I've never heard it used this way unless maybe they were under the indluence or unduly coerced in some way (?)
If he didn't call back the next day, she wants to retroactively withdraw consent and punish him for that?
Never. That's not a thing.
It can't... unless, of course, she has a DeLorean.
If I go to the casino and lose everything on the blackjack table, am I allowed to retroactively withdraw my bids and get my money back?
You can retroactively withdraw consent once I am able to retroactively disagree to the loans that I've already received an education with.
I mean I’d need context and specifics to fully agree or disagree with a statement like that. But right now when it’s hypothetical, it sounds like absolute horseshit to me. I can’t think of any scenario where undoing consent after the fact makes any scrap of sense. Like yeah, you can have regrets and negative feelings, but that’s all in an individual’s own head. Consent isn’t just about how one person feels. It’s about what that person has communicated to the other involved party. Consent is what a person gets across to the other person, whether through words, actions, or displayed enthusiasm. If you give consent, and the other person does what they do without you turning the green light into a red light through words, actions, or displayed unenthusiasm, that what was done was done with consent. Consent can only be taken away by the methods in which it can be given. And time travel ain’t one of those methods. It’s important to be accurate when talking about consent because of how heavy the implications are when saying something was done without consent. IDK what that post actually said, but my uneducated guess is that she regretted her consent and said she withdrew it retroactively to emphasize how much she regretted it
Are we talking about sex? If so, no. You can do that during, always can ofc, but not after a long time that's just.. sorry, but where's your brain at? Still important to note someone may feel violated or even used / taken advantage of afterwards, even if it's, idk, let's say months, after. But you still gave consent, and that's a permanent fact. If one does feel that way it's important to talk about it, *why* they feel that way yk. But other than that: that's bs.
Logically consent can never be retroactively withdrawn, unless underaged, coerced, or given while extremely intoxicated.
Never. I will repeat that more loudly for the fucking morons of the universe: **NEVER** Once the act has been completed, consent cannot be withdrawn. That is not possible. In any sense. Regardless of how either party feels after the fact. It can be regretted, it can be exulted, it can be questioned even, but not withdrawn. You can, however, withdraw it at any point up to and including *during* the event.
> When can consent be retroactively withdrawn? It can't. It's hilarious thinking of that concept applied to contract law.
Haha, what batshit sub was it?
Gotta hire a witness to legally validate your consent every time you dick someone down just like you need one for signing a will.
What was the context? If she was talking about coercion or deception then that would explain the upvotes. But most people would frame that as never having consented even if they technically agreed at the time.
IMO, consent can *never* be retroactively withdrawn. If a person doesn't know, in the moment, that "hey, I am not consenting to this", then they can't legitimately look back at the situation later and decide "yeah, I wasn't consenting to that". That's likely what the post you read was referring to. A situation where the person decides they didn't "really" consent, even though it seemed like they were consenting in the moment, because they had been drinking/taking drugs, thought that the guy was wealthier than he really was, thought that the guy wanted a relationship when he didn't, didn't realize the guy had a girlfriend/wife, etc. Kind of a, "well, yeah, I was consenting then but if the situation had been different, I wouldn't have consented so my consent doesn't count and he's a rapist".
Consent can always be withdrawn or it isn’t consent
I would just stay away from many of those subreddits. So many are over policed to the point that if anyone tries to come in as a the voice of reason, they'd have their comment removed within the hour. Also important to note that an upvote IS an agreement. It's a minute minority but there are women who think like this and they're honestly just the worst lol
I actually don't see upvotes as agreement. Not necessarily anyways. People upvote for all sorts of reasons. Agreement is probably the biggest one, but it's hardly the *only* one. And people who disagree usually just keep scrolling instead of taking the extra moment to downvote. Unless it already has negative votes, that is.
Only reasons I've ever upvoted is because I agreed with the comment, found it entertaining or found it informative. I can only imagine a proclamation such as the one you witnessed would only meet one of those criteria for some people. Well I at least hope so anyway, If someone is learning that as fact or found that funny then it's equally troubling
That would make absolutely no sense what so ever. You can be disappointed after the fact, you can have regrets, be angry, feel betrayed and robbed. But you can't say you didn't consent to something after you consented and acted upon that exact thing. You can withdraw consent for the same thing in the futur of course. Maybe you consented to something else then what you got, and that's different. You can be in a state where consent is impossible, uninformed. You can remove consent during at any point. You can't consent to the terms of a contract, say like buying a car, go through it, drive the car and use it for a year and then say "I never consented to buying this car". But you can say it's not the car I thought I was consenting to buy.
In all honesty it can happen at any point and any circumstance. All she has to do is say she asked you to stop and you didn't. What's your defense to that? EXACTLY! About the only guarantee men have nowadays is to convince her that filming the episode (everytime) is protection for both parties or having a neutral witness. Good luck convincing her into either of those. Even with them she can say she felt pressured into doing either of them and then you're back at square one. Just look at how the courts allow women to wiggle out of prenups now.
Nope, the female you were hearing has rocks for brains. Once consent is given and the event ends. She can't go to law enforcement with it saying she revoked it. They look at her and say ma'am have you been evaluated for mental issues? The guy will be questioned and guys make sure you get evidence of her saying okay. Show it to law enforcement. Then ol Manic Mary will be taken away for filing a false report. Also, entrapment can be charged for doing something like that
I think consent can be retroactively withdrawn for certain things yes. I've I've consented to you hanging up a picture in an art gallery and later you turn out to be a racist piece of shit, I feel I can retroactively withdraw my consent to allow you the use of my art (presuming there has been no purchasing/contractual agreements). I'm presuming however you're more talking about sex. I think if you are both enthusiastically consenting (i.e. it's definitely a yes rather than not a no) then I can't imagine this coming up. I think some may regret things and wish they hadn't consented. I think there are times consent may be assumed by Partner A but not necessarily enthusiastically given and thus there may be a thought by Partner B that because they didn't protest they had therefore consented when actually, no they hadn't, which may be interpreted as retroactively withdrawing consent from Partner A's perspective. I suspect that this is more likely what has occurred in many of these "retroactively withdrawing consent" situations tbh. It's less retroactively withdrawing, more not really enthusiastically given and thus a communication, pressure and female/male socialisation problem I don't think that if you and your partner have both enthusiastically consented that it would be fair, reasonable and frankly possible to retroactively withdraw consent and thus make a consensual experience into assault.
This sounds incredibly dangerous, and will get innocent people put in prison. You can’t willingly have sex with someone and then retroactively cry wolf. That’s not how consent works. If you were drugged or otherwise tricked in an insidious way, that’s different. But retroactively withdrawing consent is framing someone for a crime they did not commit.
I was trying to think of a scenario, but I'm going to go with never. The most extreme example I can come up with is if you had someone with a known and active HIV infection who provided you with a false health report saying they were clean of any sexually transmitted infections. It would seem the sex was conditional on them being clean, however trickery does not imply non-consensual sex. The person consented to the sex under false pretenses, but that doesn't allow you to claim it was non-consensual, only that you were lied to. IANAL, but I do believe there are laws that prohibit knowingly transmitting sexually transmitted diseases to others, and in the scenario I presented above, I would hope those laws are applied to their full extent. Making lying to obtain sex criminal would be a very slippery slope, as either party could take that pretty far. As an example, perhaps the man would not have had sex with the woman if he knew what she looked like without makeup.
I think anyone who claims retroactive withdrawal of consent is/should be a thing needs to have "piece of shit" tattooed on their foreheads.
And sadly this is why women today are a joke. Those aren't women, they're a subspecies. -from the mind of a woman-
Don't date modern/western women and wont have any of this issue. Passport Bro it up. Y'all crazy ladies not checking your female group gonna be experiencing the repercussions.
I think in the case of porn for example someone may consent to making it but later they don't feel comfortable about it and wish the content was no longer available for viewing. I think that there's something uncomfortable about people watching porn when the person in it doesn't want anyone to watch it. I feel like each viewing should require it's own consent but that's obviously not going happen.
That's just called regret.
I think there are different levels to this. Legally no, I don’t think consent can or should be retroactively withdrawn. But on a personal level I understand how the memory of an encounter can change with life experience. I definitely “consented” to sex when I was younger that I now look back and realize was coerced. This mostly happened when I was “barely legal” and older men manipulated me into situations where I didn’t believe I had the right to say no, so I didn’t even if I wanted to. Was it legally rape at the time? Ehhh, iffy, definitely never would have been arrested or charged. But when I remember these encounters I do feel that I was made to have sex I didn’t actually want to have. It’s all kind of gray and murky because I’m sure at least some of those guys didn’t realize they were coercing me. Some probably thought they were being persistent and going after what they wanted, not realizing a certain level of persistence combined with physical superiority becomes a threat. If I tried to discuss this with them now they’d feel I was retroactively withdrawing consent. But I understand now the consent they thought they had was worthless because it wasn’t freely given. And while I’m sure some didn’t realize it wasn’t, I’m equally sure some did. It’s all very complicated.
i mean your comment more or less explains why we have a legal system in place. without knowing the context and assuming we’re not talking about actual grooming or rape but you yourself stated that you consented and were of legal age. that’s on your own youthful nativity and it’s neither grey nor murky
I mean for example one of the guys kept ignoring that I said no and wouldn’t let me leave until I said yes. So I said yes. That feels pretty murky to me. But that’s kind of my point, there’s a difference between legality and whatever goes on in people’s minds. The fact that that guy can’t and shouldn’t be prosecuted for rape doesn’t change the way I feel now about the sex we had, which is that it was sex I didn’t want to have. But this is what I get for trying to leave a nuanced answer in AskMen I guess 🤷♀️
Arguments like these equate to having cake and eating it as well, you can’t legally groom an adult, so the argument is that you want the age of adulthood raised. If you cant reasonably manage your own decisions as an adult then you are not an adult, it’s recursive and why the legal system is set up the way it is. Regret is human, not law.
I didn’t say I was groomed. I said I was manipulated into situations that I now as an adult recognize were coercive. The coercion itself wasn’t because of my age, just the fact that I ended up in a position to be coerced because I didn’t have the knowledge to avoid it, which I do now. I think people are not understanding my comment, or they don’t want to understand it, which is fine. I’m not sure why I keep trying to have actual conversations in this sub… Stupidity probably.
[удалено]
I’m sorry, can you quote where I said I was?
Anytime the woman feels like it.