Is "Consent of the Governed" lost to Culture of Coercion Bullying and Rape?

[emilynghiem]

Girls Star Lena Dunham Opens Up About Being Sexually Assaulted in College - ABC News

RE: What's missing from the sexual assault conversation is that every guy that crosses the line isn't a "straight villain," Dunham said.

"Women need to learn to speak out and guys need to talk to each other about consent," she said. "There is no 'No' that means 'Yes.'"

Did you catch that at the end:
"There is no 'No' that means 'Yes.'"

How can we expect to teach anyone that NO means NO
when our political system is CONSTANTLY used to override dissension
as "you consented when you agreed to use this system of majority rule"

If rape can still happen within marriage, and after an agreement to have intimate relations
if one partner stops or changes their mind and says NO I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS.

WHY isn't it respected when someone says NO this policy excludes or violates my beliefs.

WHY does it take a court order to reverse bad legislation that should not have been passed in the first place.
WHY is there no accountability or consequences for pushing bad laws, but this is ENCOURAGED
to force other people to defend their beliefs legally.

Liberals I know don't like having to fight for rights such as marriage they think should already be part of religious freedom.

Why should Conservative have to fight to "restore" rights to free choice in how to pay for health care they don't believe should have been abridged by federal mandates requiring insurance as the only choice to avoid fines.

When people on both sides KNOW that there are conflicting beliefs and people do NOT consent to how a law is written, why not fix it first? Why this insistence on passing a law knowing it is contested and then
trying to DISCREDIT dissenters as "agreeing to it anyway."

How is this not like the rape and bullying culture that liberals are so opposed to?
Or am I the only liberal arguing for free choice and equal inclusion of people of all views?

 

[Moonglow]

I am suppose to talk to a guy about sexual consent with a women?

 

[Rikurzhen]

I am suppose to talk to a guy about sexual consent with a women?

To the liberal reeducation camp for you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Moonglow]

Every time I've done it,,
their was no time for formalities..........

 

[Skylar]

How can we expect to teach anyone that NO means NO
when our political system is CONSTANTLY used to override dissension
as "you consented when you agreed to use this system of majority rule"

If rape can still happen within marriage, and after an agreement to have intimate relations
if one partner stops or changes their mind and says NO I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS.

So you're equating democracy with....rape?

Really?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“WHY does it take a court order to reverse bad legislation that should not have been passed in the first place.”

Because bad legislation is enacted as a consequence of partisanism and subjective political dogma, not the facts and the truth, and consequently not in accordance with the Constitution.

“Why should Conservative have to fight to "restore" rights to free choice in how to pay for health care they don't believe should have been abridged by federal mandates requiring insurance as the only choice to avoid fines.”

The mistake most conservatives make is to incorrectly perceive that the ACA has 'taken' any rights, when in fact that is not the case.

“Liberals I know don't like having to fight for rights such as marriage they think should already be part of religious freedom.”

This doesn't make any sense, as obviously you don't know any liberals.

No liberal believes marriage contract law has anything to do with religion. Liberals correctly understand that the Constitution and its case law apply solely to government and other public sector policy-making entities, not private sector entities such as religious organizations.

And the primary issue is the right of every American citizen to have access to a state's laws, including marriage law.

Otherwise, the premise of your thread fails as a false comparison fallacy.

 

[emilynghiem]

I am suppose to talk to a guy about sexual consent with a women?

ALL people should be talking about what CONSENT really means.
And not this compromised version where your CONSENT can be overridden
by majority rule by political parties with opposing beliefs.

Beliefs are beliefs. A person's consent and dissent should be respected.
This is just BASIC knowledge in conflict resolution, how to work WITH people to get to an agreeable solution.

Maybe we need citizenship training in conflict resolution and legal due process
so people even know what civil laws and responsibilities are, and get on the same page!

Our media, political, legal and legislative system
affects EVERYONE.

 

[emilynghiem]

How can we expect to teach anyone that NO means NO
when our political system is CONSTANTLY used to override dissension
as "you consented when you agreed to use this system of majority rule"

If rape can still happen within marriage, and after an agreement to have intimate relations
if one partner stops or changes their mind and says NO I DON'T AGREE WITH THIS.

So you're equating democracy with....rape?

Really?

????
Your question is twisting it the opposite way of what I am talking about.
Your question is like asking:
"So you're equating [natural sexual intercourse] with rape?
Really?

so the answer is NO -- I'm asking to STOP people from passing off
rape, bullying, coercion, and suppression of dissent
as natural. and start following more ethical standards of democratic due process
that truly recognize equal inclusion, protection and respect for people's consent, interests
and beliefs.

Conflicts arise but these can be RESOLVED
so NOBODY'S consent has to be overridden.
===============
My point is democracy can be run by CONSENSUS and Consent of the Governed as intended.

It does NOT have to mean bulldozing over opposing views by manipulating majority rule with partisan propaganda.

I am talking about *NOT* ABUSING the democratic process to bully and coerce and corrupt the system.

 

[emilynghiem]

Why Rape Victim Emma Sulkowicz Is Our Hero Care2 Healthy Living

Maybe this rape victim turned advocate will succeed in making a stronger statement:

No one should ever have to be afraid of speaking up.
“There’s a reason survivors choose not to go to the police, and that’s because they’re treated as the criminals … The rapists are innocent until proven guilty but survivors are guilty until proven innocent, at least in the eyes of the police.” — Emma Sulkowicz

Columbia Student Will Carry Mattress on Campus Until Her Rapist is Expelled

Her case is SPECIFICALLY about rape, literally.

BUT if you read her statement, this concept of
* assuming some people innocent until proven guilty
* while others guilty until proven innocent

is the same habit people use Politically to slam their opponents first,
and then attack when they try to defend themselves.
Hang and shoot them, assassinate them in the media for political points
to win elections, but complain when they do the same to you.

Assume they are wrong until proven otherwise.
Assume you are right until proven wrong.

And then use all means to BLOCK any corrections or changes
from going through so you can keep justifying your position.

Same tactic. We want due process and right of defense for ourselves,
but are more than willing to act as Judge Jury and Executioner
when it comes to someone else claiming they are being misrepresented or
excluded politically. The political tactic is not to give them any credibility,
just attack and dismiss them so you can dominate! by coercion and force,
not facts and agreed solutions.

 

[Skylar]

Your question is twisting it the opposite way of what I am talking about.
Your question is like asking:
"So you're equating [natural sexual intercourse] with rape?
Really?

so the answer is NO -- I'm asking to STOP people from passing off
rape, bullying, coercion, and suppression of dissent
as natural. and start following more ethical standards of democratic due process
that truly recognize equal inclusion, protection and respect for people's consent, interests
and beliefs.

Okay. That's something I can get behind.