• 💖 [Donate To Keep MyPTSD Online] 💖 Every contribution, no matter how small, fuels our mission and helps us continue to provide peer-to-peer services. Your generosity keeps us independent and available freely to the world. MyPTSD closes if we can't reach our annual goal.

Cognitive distortion about consent

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mee

MyPTSD Pro
I know we don’t do trigger warnings here but this is touchy for me so I just want to warn others. Also there is some ‘alternative lifestyle’ issue here. I know this is outside some people’s morals and I wholly accept that. Please, can we not bring that in here if it’s at all possible because it’s confusing and I was already told by the police my last two rapes were my fault for not being monogamous besides other things and - I might be persuaded to that but I also think it’s victim blaming in another way. I just want to keep this to the one topic . As I am the main off topic wanderer I know I recognise that might be tricky


I guess a key thing for me is that I think I might be ‘a rapist’ . Everyone supportive to me and even some not disputes this, but by logic of consent, though I accept my consent violation was unwitting I think I took someone’s ability to give informed, freely given consent.

I guess: what makes a consent violation? I’m not talking grade 1 or 2 sexual assault, nothing like. But what is consent?

If anyone can askthis clearer please go ahead
 
What kind of situation was that rapist accusation based on?

Because just if (speculating here) you engaged in kink as a side relationship is not on itself enough to say something so serious to/about you.

Ditto, retroactive change of consent criteria is nonsense. But i may be wee bit projecting, there.
 
Issues surrounding consent get complicated, but just to keep it simple for a moment? Consent = Agreement.

If it helps? Consider any of the zillion other areas, outside of sex, where consent is an issue. It can get just as complicated, whether you’re taking money out of a bank account that isn’t your own, or having a conversation.

They’re both simple on the surface (if you don’t have consent it’s stealing, or isn’t a conversation), but there are countless variations that exist in the shades of grey. For example? Married couples often operate out of each other’s bank accounts, in addition to -or instead of- having joint accounts. There was the initial agreement to do so, and then the long standing practice of doing so (implied consent). But if certain conditions aren’t met? It doesn’t matter that there was historical agreement, or even if the other person was operating in good faith. It might not rise to the level of theft, but it can definitely rise to the level of disagreement, hurt feelings, betrayal, or revoked consent... AND... it can also rise to the level of theft. Several different levels of theft, as a matter of fact. So rather than simply being a black and white, yes/no? It’s actually a spectrum of mutually agreed upon conditions up to this point, minor interpersonal problems up to this point, major interpersonal problems up to this point minor legal problems up to this point, and major legal problems at all levels past that point.

Ditto, having a conversation. 2 people who know each other well may have an ongoing agreement that they talk to each other. Or 2 people who have just met may strike up a conversation. Or talking/listening may well be part of your job. Either way? There’s the foundation of consent that makes talking to this person, or listening, an agreed upon conversation. Doesn’t mean you’re/they’re always happy to BE having a conversation. It might be a bad time. Or about a difficult topic. Or just phenomenally boring (work meetings come to mind.) You’ve agreed, and are participating, but aren’t happy about it. Then we move into areas where consent is revoked, by one party or the other. And we move into grey territory. Too many possible examples to list (but just to get a general idea : from hanging up the phone, to breaking up with someone, to quitting their job so their boss no longer has the right to tell them to do anything, to closing the door on a proselytiser, to nodding politely to an idiot at a party until they can get away after making it clear they don’t wish to talk but don’t want to make a scene -yet- so they just stand there until hey judge it safe to leave, to having a fight with a friend/lover, to a stranger shouting at you on the street, to, to, to). Until we move into illegal-land. Someone is using “fighting words”, hurling abuse or insults, attempting to provoke a physical encounter. Someone misquotes you or infringes on copyright or publishes libellous statements. Someone invokes their right to remain silent, to the police. Or issues a restraining order / order of no contact to an individual. Or has been kidnapped/unlawfully restrained. Or is being interrogated.

The basics surrounding consent? Are simple. Black & white. But the details exist on a continuum, unique to individual circumstance.
 
A while back I had an experiences in massage therapy that changed my view of consent.

I have a lot of physical and sexual abuse as a lot of you here can relate.

I notice when I am being massaged if I focus on the hand on my body as reference point I feel sexaulized and aroused.. .a hand pressing me down was intrusive and even I felt violated.

On the other hand if I focused on the part of my body being massaged I felt therapeutic and relaxed of course ...both scenario ...there were some pain on the muscle.

Now I got curious and challenged my experience enough to try both genders and monitor my mood. Yap. If I was not concoius, I would have felt violated but if I change my reference feeling, I do not feel the same at all.
Because of my experiencey, my definition of consent has chsnged.

I do not know what my massage therapists were feeling it thinking but I know my experience injured enough of my senses to split my attention.
consent to me is giving and receiving. The violator wants to give but also wants whatever that is given to be received. And the victim knows something is given but refuses to receive. The rapist had two conditions that are met. Victim has one condition that is denied.

I felt sexaulized and aroused...but I also felt I gave the feeling and I did not intend it to be received so I stopped to respect my m- therapist. If I did not...I think my arousal would be communicated to him or her and they would feel either violated or join the arousal...both nooooo.

if I did not challenge my thoughts, feelings and judgement based in my experience, I would have confused the two scenario and would have accused the therapist for violation. They would be like they did not give it and wanted to be received so they would be confused. It is complicated and not every body sexual trauma person has manifested the same. But I tried and I was shocked how my smart my skin is to differentiate a touch from memory.

that is my take. Hope it makes sense.
Sorry the spelling my keyboard is confused.
 
What kind of situation was that rapist accusation based on?

Because just if (speculating here) you engaged in kink as a side relationship is not on itself enough to say something so serious to/about you.

Ditto, retroactive change of consent criteria is nonsense. But i may be wee bit projecting, there.


No. Not this .

Kink is fine. I understand and get consensual non consent.

Side relationship...... could be a violation of consent imo. ??? Definitely this territory

Re retroactive; There is a really interesting paper about this - regret sex- I think it’s relevant but not to MY quandary exactly, but a bit. ( see I just cannot stay on topic but I think it’s a useful thing ) Note the figures of how many women regret sex they were pressured into ...... regret sea that they were pressured, or coerced into. Coercion is .... a consent issue. I think many people, not just women but a statistical bias probably is towards women here for this kind of consent violation, are realising in retrospect they were raped. I think maybe also some people are realising, if brave enough, they raped. The ted Stanger thordis Elva is a GREAT Ted talk : possibly my all time favourite on this.

The paper I reference though it was in media a bit

Why do women regret casual sex more than men do? - ScienceDirect
 
Issues surrounding consent get complicated, but just to keep it simple for a moment? Consent = Agreement.

If it helps? Consider any of the zillion other areas, outside of sex, where consent is an issue. It can get just as complicated, whether you’re taking money out of a bank account that isn’t your own, or having a conversation.

They’re both simple on the surface (if you don’t have consent it’s stealing, or isn’t a conversation), but there are countless variations that exist in the shades of grey. For example? Married couples often operate out of each other’s bank accounts, in addition to -or instead of- having joint accounts. There was the initial agreement to do so, and then the long standing practice of doing so (implied consent). But if certain conditions aren’t met? It doesn’t matter that there was historical agreement, or even if the other person was operating in good faith. It might not rise to the level of theft, but it can definitely rise to the level of disagreement, hurt feelings, betrayal, or revoked consent... AND... it can also rise to the level of theft. Several different levels of theft, as a matter of fact. So rather than simply being a black and white, yes/no? It’s actually a spectrum of mutually agreed upon conditions up to this point, minor interpersonal problems up to this point, major interpersonal problems up to this point minor legal problems up to this point, and major legal problems at all levels past that point.

Ditto, having a conversation. 2 people who know each other well may have an ongoing agreement that they talk to each other. Or 2 people who have just met may strike up a conversation. Or talking/listening may well be part of your job. Either way? There’s the foundation of consent that makes talking to this person, or listening, an agreed upon conversation. Doesn’t mean you’re/they’re always happy to BE having a conversation. It might be a bad time. Or about a difficult topic. Or just phenomenally boring (work meetings come to mind.) You’ve agreed, and are participating, but aren’t happy about it. Then we move into areas where consent is revoked, by one party or the other. And we move into grey territory. Too many possible examples to list (but just to get a general idea : from hanging up the phone, to breaking up with someone, to quitting their job so their boss no longer has the right to tell them to do anything, to closing the door on a proselytiser, to nodding politely to an idiot at a party until they can get away after making it clear they don’t wish to talk but don’t want to make a scene -yet- so they just stand there until hey judge it safe to leave, to having a fight with a friend/lover, to a stranger shouting at you on the street, to, to, to). Until we move into illegal-land. Someone is using “fighting words”, hurling abuse or insults, attempting to provoke a physical encounter. Someone misquotes you or infringes on copyright or publishes libellous statements. Someone invokes their right to remain silent, to the police. Or issues a restraining order / order of no contact to an individual. Or has been kidnapped/unlawfully restrained. Or is being interrogated.

The basics surrounding consent? Are simple. Black & white. But the details exist on a continuum, unique to individual circumstance.

Yes; I believe in the possibity of implied and ongoing consent in relationships. I know that’s dodgy for some :/.


But if it’s implied and ongoing; then circumstances have to still meet the broad spectrum of what you agreed to to be so?


After the second degree rape I wouldn’t touch dh at night. We had an agreement that we can hug at night or touch each other sensually, wake each other with kisses or intimate touch. That now feels like I crossed the line too,though he assured me he does not see it that way at all.
 
Freely given, informed, affirmative. That’s consent I think?


If it’s using stuff like emotional abuse, lying , gaslighting it’s not illegal but imo it’s still removing freely given informed consent.
 
God that whole " you're in a relationship/married so it's implied consent" thing really pisses me off.

At what point is it no longer implied consent and it's just flat out expected? You're not allowed to say no BECAUSE you're the spouse/ significant other?
Maybe I'm just confused because of my past situation.
 
You're not allowed to say no BECAUSE you're the spouse/ significant other?
You’re always allowed to say no.

And in healthy relationships? That’s not a problem. People say & respect no’s all the time.

A relationship can become unhealthy with too many no’s... but that still doesn’t mean a person can’t or shouldn’t say no. It “just” means that there’s now a problem in the relationship that needs to be addressed. But most of the time? It doesn’t even rise to the level of becoming a problem, much less an ongoing problem that’s crippled a relationship to the point where it’s unhealthy. Most of the time? No I don’t want to have sex, no I don’t want to go out, no I don’t want to go to work, no I don’t want to have people over, no I’m not going to vote, no I’m not getting out of bed today, no I don’t want pizza on pizza night, and 10,000 other no’s to previously agreed upon things? Are just a small unremarkable part of the day/life. When it persists, it can become a problem. If you’re not “allowed” to say no? That IS a problem. Whether it’s across the board, or in a single area like sex or work or dishes.
 
God that whole " you're in a relationship/married so it's implied consent" thing really pisses me off.

At what point is it no longer implied consent and it's just flat out expected? You're not allowed to say no BECAUSE you're the spouse/ significant other?
Maybe I'm just confused because of my past situation.

I agree with you. There is no implied sex. One asks to give sex and receives yes. If one asks to give sex receives no and persuades it anyway...it is not consent. The receiver knows he or she didn't want to receive. In fact both know imliciltly no consent for receiving.
I think when a relationship is that level of consent...it is already broken.
The question is why would a human beg for sex and when he or she gets it assume it was given willingly?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Mee
Freely given, informed, affirmative. That’s consent I think?
And, usually, from a person with the capacity to give consent. So, blind drunk? Unconscious? Asleep? Can't give consent.

But here's the thing - in casually, socially, totally generalised speak? Rape = sex without consent.

But, legally? That's actually not the case in most places.

Some (very limited number) of jurisdictions, I understand (I'm thinking of you, Canada!?!) they're looking to introduce, or have introduced, a legal requirement that an affirmative "yes" must be given for it to not be some form of criminal act.

Most places recognise that's, well, stoopid. Nice in theory, but "Let's stop while we put on condoms, clarify what contraceptive you're on, and discuss what each of us are consenting to..." - humans tend to not communicate like that right before sex, or during sex.

And other forms of communication? Are actually still valid. Up to 80% of interpersonal human communication is non-verbal. And all that stuff? Is valid communication.

Problem occurs when non-verbals get misinterpreted. For all manner of reasons. Oftentimes those reasons aren't sinister.

So, rape = sex without consent is a colloquialism. Actually, rape (or the various sexual assault offence variations from one jurisdiction to the next) requires more than that - a mens rea. That's legal speak for what was the perpetrator reasonably aware of?

So, if the perpetrator really ought to have known, at the time, "this person isn't up for this"? Then that usually pushes it over the line into rape.

But if Person A didn't consent, but Person B had reasonable grounds, at the time, to believe that they had consent? That's not rape. Person B is not a rapist, in most jurisdictions, if they had reason to believe they had the person's consent.

And all of that non-verbal communication? Is relevant to that.

So, the question "did I have consent?" is an important one. I personally believe we should strive to try and make sure we have consent, throughout.

But if you need to hyperanalyse, retroactively, whether or not the person did or didn't consent? Then even if you decide they didn't consent, you aren't definitely therefore etched in stone a rapist. Human communication doesn't work like that. Law doesn't work like that. Even PTSD doesn't work like that (you don't need to have a criminal conviction on the record to claim you've had a Criteria A stressor).

Leaping from "I'm not sure I had consent" to "OMFG I'm a rapist"? Nup. Doesn't work like that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top