a couple of the additions made written in tea form "just because they're dressed for a tea party, it doesn't mean they want to drink tea" "tea isn't good for children, and sometimes don't know what's best for them, so don't give them tea" "sometimes people drink half a cup of tea and decide they don't want the rest, so don't make them finish the cup" "people should know what you're putting in the tea, and you shouldn't add milk if they said they didn't want milk" "people's taste in tea changes, you should check what their order is before serving what they asked for last time"
ye, yes is not an yes. so someone can say yes to make someone comfortable without actually wanting to. that's stupid. say no if your not interested. youre only adding to the hurt by saying yes and then no
i suspect you were distracted by something/someone else around 1:20 and i respectfully suggest you rewatch that bit of the video and fully engage with it
@@tylerlogan7530 learning about consent has nothing to do with experience and it's a good thing to start your sexual activity understanding the complexities of consent, if that were the case for everyone then "virgins" would be a lot more protected from sexual misconduct.
I'm surprised that somebody didn't provide this response to the tea video earlier. Obviously, the tea video has been helpful as it has sparked conversation about consent beyond just the original "no means no" message. Other things also mean "no". The message that you have complete sovereignty over your body is crucial.
To anyone thinking asking for consent isn't "sexy" or "hot". I have hot sex with my partner and we ask for consent for every specific thing we do in bed. Not once has asking for consent taken us out of the mood. Being asked for my consent and asking for consent makes me feel respected, loved and safe and that actually makes us feel a lot more relaxed, comfortable and safe around each other. So you can imagine that it makes the sex a thousand times better when you feel completely safe and relaxed.
I don't think i was ever explained consent but i always understood it. I thought it was common sense and find it crazy some need a video to understand.
Anything that isn’t a yes, is a no. “Um… I’m not sure.” “Uh… well…” “I mean… maybe?” “I don’t know…” Are all no’s. Also if they SAY yes, but their body language says NO, guess what! It’s a no. I love this video because it gets into detail.
So in theory you're correct, but not in reality. You actually got almost there. You said "if they say yes, but their body language says no..." you're right about this. If they're body language is NO it's definitely a no. But here's the flipside to that. If their words are no and their body language is yes, it's a YES! But people get themselves into trouble because people are getting worse and worse at reading body language...something something too much time on the internet probably. I actually wish it was as simple as this video makes it out to be, but it simply isn't.
@@vulpinemachineyou're just describing non-verbal consent. If the person is actively and freely participating, that's consent. You can also completely avoid the trouble of relying on body language by being explicit or simply discussing beforehand. What the video discussed is bare minimum.
@@vulpinemachine Sorry I disagree. If they say no and their body says yes. it still is a NO. People get arouse and secret vaginal fluids during rape - the body said yes.... Was it consensual? People get hard when stimmulated eventhough they say no ... was it consensual? Physiological reactions do not override considered free consent.
If "yes" or "no" can never TRULY be relied on, then it might be better to go live under a rock and accept that all human communication is ultimately futile. The rest of us can just go on with our lives.
I just saw this video in a therapy group this week. Excellent points to bring up which while missing from the "tea" video were also discussed in the group. Also, something to remember is that the statutory age of consent is not static from place to place. Some may have it set for 16, while others may be set at 18, and some may have different standards if both parties are under a certain age but within reason of each other's age. Still another consideration is that if both parties are "FRIES" you need to think of what the "Package" is. Ie, what environment are they in? School? Employment? Church? Sports team? If any person is in a position of authority over another person with whom they are having a otherwise FRIES relationship with, there are still ethical boundaries that could cause the relationship to be non-consentual for the subordinate even if they would be outside of the "box" their FRIES came in. But that was discussed in the group as well. Thank you for putting this together, very well done.
@@isaiahsmith1805 Well no? The tea video is from the Thames Valley Police department. Thames valley is in the UK. From what I can gather the original video, while postes on the Thames valles PD channel originated with Emmeline May known as RockStarDinosaurPiratePrincess who is a blogger out of London. The same as Staffordshire uni which is also in the UK.
"Emotional, or psychological pressure, and abuse" is not legally factual. The only "coercion" the law recognizes is threats or blackmail. You are fully responsible for your "yes". Otherwise a pushy car salesman would be charged with robbery when you agree to buy the car. Or a beggar on the street telling a sob story would be charged with robbery for guilt tripping for money. As people can withdraw consent at anytime, it also follows that people can reinstate consent at anytime with a "yes".
This is why we need to get back to teaching responsibility. People seem to have fault and responsibility all mixed up. They really shouldn't, that mistake could be fatal. Is it our FAULT that the car salesman is pushy and might try to manipulate us into spending more than we actually wanted to? That is, he's COERCING us into buying something we don't actually want? No, of course not. It's not our fault. However, as the person who chose to be at the car dealership and potentially expose myself to such a person, it is nevertheless my RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that I know how people like this behave and might take advantage of me. I'd even say that my mentors, parents, friends, etc have some partial responsibility in ensuring I'm taught how to handle myself around the pushy salesman. Should the car stop at the stop sign so you can cross the road? YES. If they hit you will it be their fault? YES. Is it still your responsibility to look both ways? YES. And on and on it goes. Life is full of responsibility that we must engage in for things that may or may not be our fault. And there's many many many "shoulds" that people ought to be doing out there and yet, they will not. So it's best to know how to be responsible for one's own self.
Manipulative sale practices are illegal as well. You can actually sue your way out of a sale if, for example, information is withheld or falsified. The thing is, buying and selling things does not involve your body. Many states have adjusted their law to reflect this with laws like "no means no" and "yes means yes". Also, why does it matter if consent can be reinstated? Isn't that obvious?
@@vulpinemachineboth of the things you describe go hand in hand. But a coerced buyer should have the legal ability to sue an unethical salesman. This motivates salesmen to be honest. Just like dangerous drivers have to be held accountable for aggressive driving. Organisations which educate the public about consent usually also give advice on how to have sex safely. Its not mutually exclusive.
@@FiikusMaximus I agree if you falsify information, it can be similar to secretly removing a condom which is illegal. However being "pushy" is never criminal. "no means no" means consent can be revoked at any time, and "yes means yes" means consent can be reinstated at anytime. A "no" can change into a "yes" if there are no threats.
@@Luxembourgish yes, being pushy can be criminal depending on how you define it. For example: Signing a contract under psychological pressure makes it void. Yes means yes is not the mirror image of no means no. Yes means yes means, that you need affirmative consent to have sex. It's not just enough to not say "no". Yes is yes, no is no. A person can change their mind, if that's what you're talking about. But if a person said no, then you cannot assume later that the "no" doesn't count anymore. You need an affirmative consent in order to turn that "no" into a "yes". I'll write you a clear example so we're on the same page. Two people make out. It seems to develop in the direction of sex. One of them says they don't want sex. That's an example of no means no. Anything beyond that point is SA or rape. Another example. The two later talk it out. The other person later tries again. They make out. But the person already said no earlier. The other person cannot assume they have consent. The person already said no earlier. If they want to have sex, they need to get affirmative consent. This is what yes means yes is. A simpler example is this: two people make out. One is actively making out and the other is not responding but is not stopping it. This is a moment to stop and get affirmative consent. Without it, consent cannot be assumed. Once again, because yes means yes. A pushy salesman cannot take your hand and sign a contract for you. They need to inform you of all details and then they need to let you affirmatively agree. Anything else is a crime.
I have a lot of respect for this video, I am glad it exists. I made a similar video once for Brighton Council Child Protection Services as a personal narrative of a parent of a disabled child with mental health issues to teach staff a personal story to give an example of when services can go wrong. I happen to also studied for a PhD researching trauma, and the phenomenological experiences that can go with it. But I needed this video, as years later I was then on the receiving end of a psychologically manipulative hate crime, and two years down the road my body still (for example) bucks out when i meditate and other trauma I still carry in my body. I needed this video today because I already knew the rules and needed reminding on a bad day that they still exist. This video is very good at explaining simply what I can guarantee is spot on. Much respect to the confidence of the woman who presents this.
I'm going to nod, and say, "yeah, maybe someone will say "its interesting that Staffordshire U-SU made this eloquent and informative media", as opposed to Sussex, but, I am not that crass, (haaaah, ok, I am that crass), however, I can see this being made by people in Hereford/Worcestershire as well, the basic message remains the same. Anyhow, I hope you recover from that.
As a person who was coerced and a minor, and with a friend who was under the influence and a minor, I took the “yes is consent” as “when it’s given genuinely, without pressure, convincing, and by someone in a state of mental stability and rationality, then it is consent”, and the “unconscious” person as anyone mentally unstable or irrational, anyone under the influence, anyone too young, anyone physically disabled, anyone sleeping, anyone trading sex in exchange for being pulled out of an unfortunate situation (someone abducted, broke, homeless, stalked, etc), and of course anyone who is unconscious
"[A]nyone physically disabled," Physically disabled people often do want sex but FRIES needs to be adhered to. Even mentally disabled people can have sex and should not be restricted from what they genuinely want. Otherwise that would be infantilizing every kind of disabled adults. We are not children.
So, one note on the topic of drugs and alcohol: To me, the waters get really muddy when both participants are so intoxicated that they do not have the capacity to consent, but both of them appear to want it during the act. Would one person be justified in accusing the other of assault in that situation? I am deliberately not specifying genders, because not all intercourse happens between people on opposite, binary sides of the gender spectrum and you do not need to be male to be a perpetrator, nor do you need to be female to be a victim. It's just a very specific hypothetical that my neurodivergent brain is curious about.
Consider. If one party were to accuse the other of assault, they could argue innocence by virtue of incapacitation. At least, in the US. Basically, if you are not capable of making rational decisions due to mental health or substance influence, then you are innocent. It's the same principle that underlies being incapable of consent: you are not capable of making rational decisions while intoxicated.
@@FractalFeline ah, that is very different here. A severe impairment like psychosis might exonorate someone, but if someone commits a crime after taking alcohol or other substances, that can actually increase your punishment, because you chose to drink or take drugs. But our legal system is pretty good at recognizing nuance in cases like my hypothetical.
I'm not sure how accurate a reflection of US law this is. If someone kills someone after getting in a vehicle drunk, they are still charged and punished for this behavior (i.e., they're not innocent). It doesn't matter that you were drunk and not capable of making rational decisions, you still killed someone. It may not be murder (i.e., intention + responsibility), but at least in the driving drunk case, someone would still be responsible for the harm perpetrated while under the influence of drugs/alcohol (i.e., negligent manslaughter (responsibility - intention). Not sure how much this type of reasoning plays out in sexual assault cases in the actual judicial system, but at the very least, we don't give people free passes just because they were intoxicated.
Great job! I agree with 95% of it. Enthusiasm is not required for consent though. And, it's even MORE complex than your excellent explanation. There is the matter of PERSUASION and SEDUCTION, which many people think is hot in some circumstances. But, the line between "attempting to persuade", which is fine in many situations, and "not taking no for an answer", which is not fine at all, is difficult for some people to ascertain sometimes. Worth a followup video, using specific scenarios as examples!
Some fantastic insights there 💗 Perhaps Blue Seat Studios could do an updated version, incorporating these concepts? It also very much hit us hard due to remembering a trilogy of videos that Abigail Thorn of Philosophy Tube (pre-transition) did around an abusive relationship she had been in with an unnamed woman... and this was when she thought she was and presented as a man.
Consent- it's not easy as Consent - it's not easy as tea You and the original video talked about the problems by the point of view of who has to decide but not who propose.
Is consent enough? I mean, the tea video is good and covers important stuff, but what I think a lot of the discussion about consent misses, including this video, is that mere 'consent' just seems like too low a bar to be aiming for. To my ear, 'consent' is broad enough to include 'oh, go on then" and the like. I think about when else we talk about consent, and medical procedures come to mind. "Yes, I give consent to undergo this procedure, but man I wish I didn't have to go through with it". I feel like when teaching about consent we should be telling people consent is just a step along the path - what you should really be looking for is *enthusiasm*.
Yeah, when things go right for us we assume that it's of our making. My thought out, deliberate actions and the correct assessment of others keeps me from making mistakes. But yet, when you think about it, you're just a fraction from disaster the same as anyone else.
I think this is better than the "healthy boundary pushing versus toxic boundary pushing" video I just saw. But it has similar limitations and I have concerns because the final section of affirming bodily autonomy puts the onus back on saying no rather than responsible caution of anyone pushing for sex or making other requests to make good requests. Disabled adults must have their capacity to consent to sex and relationships supported and respected. Balanced affirmation is required there, as well as saying you can't always tell for example who is autistic or dealing with selective mutism, trauma, anxiety or extreme rejection sensitivity. So non categorical and responsible sensitivity is required to find out enough about people to know. Also there's nuances to enthusiasm and fresh consent - some kinds of say solicitous touching might be ok with an established partner whilst not with a member of the public in the street and the law I think has room for that nuance though it should always be revokable. Similarly whilst enthusiasm is a good rule of thumb, especially the less intimacy and trust there is developed, it can be missing whilst there is true consent say during attempts to get pregnant or say an asexual or lower libido partner may consent but not want to call it enthusiastic. I liked the Robot Hugs webcomic. Though despite all that pro-consent and sex positive attitude I'm not sure that some requests like for nude photos can ever be made in good faith. I think they're always more risky red flags than risqué without judgment or blame. Risk management is an important part of the process.It's essentially a sensitive high risk act, required ongoing feedback, trust and consent, with potentially big payoffs: like gymnastics, circus skills, cheerleading, dance and figure skating holds and tumbling.
If any kind of physical, emotional or psychological pressure, abuse or force is used then the person being coerced has lost their freedom of choice and so they cannot truely consent. Kinda like when governments use their position to force societal change or medical procedures on people?
Re-writing tea.. If you offer someone tea, and they say yes, make them tea. If you offer someone tea, and they say no, do not make them tea. Please note that some will say yes out of fear that they’ll miss out, or get scolded. If someone says I don’t know, you can make them tea or not. Please note that if you make tea, they might not drink it. Do not force someone to have tea. Consent is EVERYTHING. There is caffeine in tea, so anyone under the age 18 cannot have tea. If someone is under the influence of drugs, they are not in a good state to have tea. If someone has a disability,they are not in the state to have tea. Do not add ice cubes in tea to only take them out later. No one is your slave. Do not make others drink tea.
If someone says *"yes out of fear that they’ll miss out, or get scolded"*, they are still legally responsible for that yes. As an adult you are responsible for your agreements regardless of how you feel. If you feel social pressure to get a nose job procedure because you'll miss out or get scolded, you still legally consented to procedure when you agree to it.
Good video, but again here the responsibility is put upon the person saying "yes". The point of the tea video is teaching about the person _serving_ the tea, and how to properly act as "host". Maybe FRIES need to be offered along with the tea.
I fully agree on all points. Now say it again, but specifically to women. Tell THEM that NO means NO, as in IF you tell a guy NO, but didn't REALLY mean it, you don't get to go around and tell your friends or worse, go online and tell people you think he's gay because he didn't even TRY to put the moves on you AFTER you said you absolutely WEREN'T going to sleep with him. Yes, there are literally plenty of videos online of these dpshit chicks bitching about a guy they told no, actually complying with her request. Even more videos of a girl breaking up with a guy only to be pissed off that he didn't TRY to fight for her or convince (aka Coerce) her into staying. So let them ALL know, we are going to listen to what they ACTUALLY say, not what they INTENDED us to reinterpret their words to mean. They are adults, they should know what they are actually thinking and feeling and be able to express those thoughts and feelings in words that actually coincide with those thoughts and feelings. Full disclosure, I have ZERO confidence, this will actually happen.
On the flip side of the reversible nature of consent, you can't withdraw consent after the act you consented to is completed. This should be obvious, but it doesn't stop it from happening, or from being valid in court.
But that's the whole thing of it can be taken away and it can be withdrawn, if I was kinda there but then no longer there guess what? My consent has been revoked and the action stops, that's how it's reversible.
as ulquiorra already said the reversible nature is that the decision you made to participate can be revoked at any time and the act stops. If the act already stoped there is no need for consent anymore and the idea of the reversability of the decision doesn't come into play. Reversible in the sense of FRIES (or more modern CRISP) only applies to the act. can I during the act reverse my consent to it? If not consent during the act doesn't exist. It stems from the idea that a yes without the ability to say no is coerced and means nothing. NOBODY thinks reversible means that consent can be withdrawn after the act. And call me cynicle here, but I only hear that "oh what if they say no later" from people who have issue grasping the context of consent. to make it very clear how reversible works. Let's talk about anal. Let's play it through. Freely given? Ok my partner asks, and I say yes without any worry of repercussions of saying no - check Informed? Ok I know what my partner means, what she wants to do and what that means for me. check Enthusiastic? Ok I'm into him, into the situation and ready to try something new. Specific? So she said what she wants to do, I did as well and we made it clear that she's only useing the small dildo and not her fist. Now what about reversible? If she starts, and at any point I do not want it anymore, because my enthusiasm dwindled, as it hurt. Can I say no? And if I say no, will she stop?. If you can answer both questions yes - the consent was reversible. I was able to reverse my consent and she stops. On the other hand, maybe she doesn't like it as much as she thought and eventhough I love it she's just not into in anymore and the fantasy was more fun than the real deal. Can she say "nah, I thought it might be fun, it it wasn't" without me pressureing her into continueing? If so teh consent she gave by askeing me if she could try it was also reversible. HOWEVER if she peggs me and we're done. And after we packed everything away I think, wait a minute, I disliked that and feel unmanly now what if someone finds out. I can't reverse my consent, because nobody is askeing consent anymore. Consent was given by me during the act acording to the best measurable wy to consent (FRIES or CRIPS), and even if I think damn I should not have done that my consent is not reversible because there is no more consent to be reversed at the given time of me rethinking it.
As a mid-40s person this kind of video scares but reassures me. It's a tough world out there, let's not be mean-shits to people for no valid reason, let's not let mean-shits do things to people without their express permission, and maybe let's all stand with the person to our left and right and keep an eye wider than that to help those under the influence of the aforementioned mean-shits. I hope the conversations keep happening and all of us use our voices with good purpose. and it's on just gone 7am, where are my kitten videos
It's only conscent if it's informed, voluntary and ideally enthusiastic, sometimes it's not enthusiastic but "meh why not?" Is not the same as"no. no. no. no. Fine" coercion is NOT voluntary
It sounds good, but this isn't real life. It seems rare that there is a conversation when you get home that goes 'so do you want to have sex now' and then they say 'why, yes I do, shall I sign here.'. Communication is not just verbal, and often neither party would want it to be.
Life already has too many forms and overally bureaucratic ritualistic communication to appease the litigious overlords....to take the most sacred human act and make it just as dry and dull sounds AWFUL. I'm so glad I got married 15 years ago. I feel like I caught the last chopper out of 'Nam.
Who says you have to be that dry about it? Just make your intention clear, give the other person space to affirm. If it all goes smooth, continue. And from my experience, people actually love feeling like they're being heard and feeling like they have a choice. Its real life if you make it real life.
@@FiikusMaximusHave you ever been with someone romantically or sexually? It's not as simple as having a good intention. Some people have certain fetishes where they want to be coerced. Granted, this usually happens between people who have complete trust. But there is a level of playfullness that will put the whole consent thing on it's head. Of course, consent is vital but for it to have legal implications that is going to make life very difficult. Especially in the cases where extremities are part of the sex life. Most women I know and have had serious relationships with they wanted to feel desired. You can do this through kisses, cuddles but also by touching the sensitive parts. Technically, according to the consent doctrine you need to ask for consent on those things too. Usually these things happen spontaneous and as just one of the many ways to express your love. Mess with this, people will just stop doing those.I think this will the first step into the dystopian worlds described and depicted in books and films where every form of humanity is diminished. The fact that people like you aren't more critical of the consequences is what worries me the most.
@@chrichtonsworld1 "The fact that people like you aren't more critical of the consequences is what worries me the most." That's because your prediction of the future is not based on what people are actually advocating for, when they advocate for consent, but on fearmongering. You should be doubly concerned about the issue of consent if kink is part of your sex life. There's nothing complicated about it legally. You shouldn't do anything that wasn't agreed upon, you shouldn't assume other people are into the same things you, just like you shouldn't assume a person wants to have sex with you just because you want to have sex with them. Women do want to feel desired but they also usually want to feel respected. There's a big difference between getting touched by someone you're already intimate with and a stranger. Consent in no way goes against playfulness. If your idea of playfulness means muddling the boundaries of consent, then I'd say that sounds like an accident waiting to happen. As far as shows of affection go, there's nothing simpler than having a conversation like this: "Do you enjoy it when I do x spontaneously?" "Yes" or "No" or "Yes, but only when I'm not busy with other things" etc. From then oon, you never have to worry if you're doing something unwanted. Does that really seem dystopian to you? I've had relationships where I relied on my "instinct" and relationships where I wasn't afraid to bring things up openly and I've never once in my life had to regret being open and I've more than once made a mistake based on my assumptions.
@@chrichtonsworld1 For fetishes, use a "safe word" to stop when it's uncomfortable, search it up if you don't know what it is. You can also ask someone for consent not only by verbal means but also by initiating non-coercive actions to probe for their intentions (so, for example, you can actually touch them gently first, like a sign, and if they agree to, you keep on doing what you want). Or you just straight up ask them. If you can't trust your partner enough to ask directly or indirectly for consent, then that, depending on the stage, is not a healthy relationship. Seriously, s3x ed is not only about consent but also about how to have a healthy approach to s3x and I feel like people are forgetting this regard. Your comment comes to show the ignorance of available solutions to all the problems you mentioned. Besides, this is unrelated to s3x but I think it's really important for marriage life which goes hand in hand with s3x ed: Communication is everything, just discuss everything with your partner b4hand and you'll be fine (granted you trust them enough to discuss it, because if not, again, that is not a healthy relationship)
Great video to complete the message from the popular tea consent video! Interesting how we can coherently apply all the same arguments to see how problematic our governments are: they coerce, they expect consent given once (e.g. at an election) to be valid for years, etc. Real democracy means being free from coercion and able to retract our consent at any time!💚
Thank you indeed for this video, the tea video is just an abelist view of consent. And it can be misleading to other people and cause them more confusion.
Consent is the absence of the violation of trust. Anyone's trust. It's not about yes or no, but about the expectations you create and live up to, or not. So be aware of the messages you send out into the world around you. Your mask and attitude may very well be making promises you never intended to keep.
the fuck are you on about. Ohh arae you one of those who think a short skirt is consent because it was a mesage to others? that's realy fucked up. no consent is not the violation of trust, Consent is an explicit expressed permission for something to happen. A explicit permission cannot be anything but in a form of communication which is unequivocally sent and recieved by the parties involved. If you interpret a signal from somebody they don't explicitly made towards YOU that is on you and you are violateing expressed permission for something to happen. You realy do sound like someone who excuses rape of someone not wearing the "appropriate" clothing.
How is yes a yes? Do we need to make a recording? Sign a contract? What needs to be done? Of course consent should be given at all times but it can happen that in the heat of the moment you haven't signed a contract or recorded a video. Besides video and audio files can't be doctored. A bad person with evil intent can get away scott free. Also how are they going to enforce this? It seems to be that potentially also relatively innocent people can be charged with rape merely for not having asked consent. Or when it's claimed they haven't been given consent. This is only going to empower the people with bad intentions. The good ones will suffer.
True but if a person goes from kissing right to intercourse without positive body language and or verbal response, it’s not consensual. Silence is not consent. It can be as simple as: I really wanna blank (action) with you, is that ok?
The thing I noticed in the tea video was them saying you can make a cup of tea and leave it out for them......what does that mean in relation to consent?
It essentially means that even if you might expect consent - it is not consent. E.g. if you invite someone to come to your house, they agree, they agree to come with you to the kitchen and you start to prepare the tea, they still might decide no to tea and you don't have consent until they agree to the tea. Equally, someone can show you they are interested in tea because they consentingly send you pictures of their teabags. They might even ask to see your teaspoon. However, they then decide that they actually don't want the tea. There is no assumed consent to have tea because of other actions that might lead up to drinking tea.
I see how the point about disabled people not being able to fully express consent might be awfully misread (especially with the "deaf" icon used here) and and lead to gatekeeping and discrimination. Even in case of neurodivergent and mentally or intellectuallly disabled people it is a very nuanced theme that deserves a thoughtful analysis on its own.
yea same. I'm AuDHD, and while I would generally describe myself as demisexual and consent is something I very rarely touch because sex is not something I realy care about, what she said about people with disabilities struggeling to communicate meaning them not beeing in a position to consent. The struggle to communicate is something that irks me. What does struggle mean? A friend of mine is mute, she struggles to communicate with people. Is she now unable to consent? What about a Person that is deaf? Can't they consent just because they don't hear "the question asked"? The issue here is her wording is off. I kinda get the idea behind it, but it was realy badly put. Sexuality with a disability may face different issues, and whiel there is an argument to be held about developmental disabilities influenceing the abilioty to consent (similar to children), people with communicational challanges are just as capable to consent. It's just that you need to figure out how to communicate clear and honest.
I like what you have done. Great job. I would add that people who are in authority positions over others create a power imbalance and the other person may not feel they have the right or ability to say no. Also, those with a history of trauma may not have the ability to say no and don't feel they have the right to anything but consent. This gets really tricky for a lot of people.
Coercion is not consent? Well of course not. It's an attempt to get someone to do something. Saying yes as a result of Coercion? That is not consent either?
There is no crime more heinous than **** which is why consent is so important. It's not as simple as tea, but it's still pretty simple. You do not have sexual consent if she (or they): a) explicitly says no b) says nothing c) weakly acquiesces d) is inebriated e) if you're inebriated f) is in an emotionally vulnerable state g) is being financially coerced h) lacks understanding about how sex and birth control work i) lacks enthusiasm j) doesn't like how you look naked k) regrets having sex with you I'm probably
No crime more heinous than... **? Also how are you listing *regret* among the others. You cannot hold others responsible for you making bad *choices* you later regret.
No crime more heinous than... **? Also how are you listing *regret* among the others. You cannot hold others responsible for you making bad *choices* you later regret.
lol. k is the best one since you'd need to be a mind reader of someone's future mind in order to ever receive consent then. i'm a dude and i have a few regrets, does that mean i've been r.@.p.3.d.?
@@phoenixfire8226 yes. Congratulations! Unfortunately our work as feminists is not done yet, so you as a man still cannot extort the people who made you a victim unless you transition your gender. I dream of a day when people of EVERY gender have the freedom to frivolously destroy the lives of other people through r*p* accusations. I hope you share my dream.
Where's the part where there's a culture where people suggest drinking tea without making it apparent? Or the part where one gender is seen as a pussy if they complain about being forced to drink tea especially if in their eyes it's high quality. Most bland run of the mill vid about consent out there.
I'm currently considering how to apply these rules to the killing of unborn children in the womb. If the unborn child does not consent to be aborted because it cannot yet speak, is an abortion then murder?
@@vulpinemachine - Thanks for your opinion! It is interesting that no one else answered during the last 3 weeks. Maybe, because they are afraid to expose themselfes as hypocrites 🙂 :-)
Well no. 1. Murder is a legal definition. Abortion is not defined as muder. 2. Let's give you the point of is abortion then an immoral or ilegal termination of a life. Well no it's not. Abortion is not the killing of a feutus, but the withdrawing of consent of letting another human beeing use your body. That the feutus dies due to the act is unfortunate but irrelevant. Very simply put. Even if I grant ALL human rights to a just concieved feutus, not even a second passed when the egg incooporated the spermcell and all human rights apply to that feutus, the feutus doesn't have the right to use another humans body unless said human consented to chareing it's body with the feutus. An abortion here, is the result of consent withdrawn. To make it a bit clearer because humans are weird and grant feutuses special rights. If you need a blood transfusion, and my blood is THE ONLY blood in the world that could safe you - you have no right to demand that I give up my bodily autonomy to keep you alive. Same with the feutus, no feutus has the right to demand a person with a uterus to give up their bodily autonomy or risk their health to keep them alive.
@@alberich3099 you are a pilot. One day you allow a person on to your plane and their cargo. You drop them off at your next stop and continue on your way. Midflight over the ocean you discover someone in your cargo hold. It turns out they had been rendered unconscious and stuffed into the cargo hold with the other cargo from the passenger you consented to picking up. You had no idea and certainly didn't intend to pickup another person but apparently this other passenger brought the unknowing stowaway on board. You've decided you're not really interested in accommodating a passenger who ended up on your plane without their knowledge and without your permission, so you toss them out of the plane into the ocean, to their death. You are a murderer. It doesn't matter that it's your plane. You're a murderer. It doesn't matter that the other passenger lied or violated you or your plane... you'd STILL be a murderer. The unknowing stowaway cannot be held liable for trespass for they had no idea and couldn't and didn't consent to trespass. Therefore casting the unknowing stowaway off the plane/boat etc is in fact murder.
Christ, a lot of these issues would be resolved if people weren't so promiscuous, stupid and indulging enough to get batshit drunk to pass out or to be so drunk to barely be able to understand each other to begin with.
you are part of the problem, re-evaluate your stance regarding what you think of as an "acceptable level of xxxxx" with promiscuety as the xxxx in this case, from my, and many others viewpoint, you are trying to absolve things like rape due to "oh, we were drunk" when, actually, its rape; "stupid" its still rape. "induging" "hi, rape again". "whatever other bullshit excuse you dream up" is, irl, not an excuse to take advantage of, and use, another person for sexual, or otherwise, gratification. if you disagree, its actually not my problem, but it is a problem for anyone around you. what steps they decide to take, may be Your problem.
@@staberind Doesn't matter if it's an excuse or not, it's gonna happen more frequently because people are horny, people abuse power and drunkeness makes you weaker and lowers both sides ability to take decisive action and know what they are doing.
@@ActionableFreedom more frequently than when? the history of homo sapiens sapiens is the history of nonconsentual sex. its also nott a "both sides" thing, its an agressor and a victim thing, you are trying to shift the onus of responsibility from one party to the other, thats kind of deplorable, I'd step back from this and do a little introspection.
I have a very good and simple solution: no sex until marriage. While getting engaged, you create a clear set of mutually agreed upon rules about sex that take effect after marriage.
Uh no... since when does marriage have a monopoly on relationships where you talk extensively about boundaries and consent beforehand? FYI married people get raped by their spouses... often conservative misogynistic "family values" men forcing their wives FYI..
Definitely. They lay it out like it's super duper clear. Except, not everyone, ESPECIALLLY women, follow these "super duper clear rules." In fact, my buddy recently was being threatened by a girl because he DID NOT sleep with her. She was threatening that she would go to the police with and accusation of gRape. If reality was ACTUALLY like these videos, it would be easy to understand, but it's not like these videos no matter how much they try to say it is.
@@vulpinemachineand that girl would get nowehere if she did. Its not against the law to refuse sex. Both parties need to consent, neither is owed sex.
Except if you coerce someone into saying "yes" or that person is incapacitated while saying "yes" or that person is not fully informed about what they are saying "yes" to, then it's not consent.
I was coherced into sex by my first girlfriend. We were both 12. I did say 'yes', but it was a weary, 'fine whatever just get it over with' sort of yes. She had asked me about 100 times to do sexual stuff, she wore me down. It wasn't her fault as she had been abused and thought this was normal, and she probably didn't realise what she was doing was psychologically wearing me down, but no she didn't 'tie me up' but it was just as damaging because I felt like I had no choice, if I didn't do it she would be mad or leave me and I liked her.
So if a wife is bending over loading the dishwasher and her husband walking by gives her a playful slap on the behind without asking her first, is that sexual assault? (Assume she has never called him out for it before, but perhaps it is a new marriage and he has never done it before.) I think even she would agree that him stopping and asking "Is it OK if I give you a gentle tap on the butt?" beforehand is probably _even creepier_ than just doing it in that case, and not very romantic. (Anticipating the "He should..." responses: Of course he should _consider_ how she might feel about it, but that doesn't mean he is an expert mind-reader, especially since her feelings may change from hour to hour.) Oh yeah and now reverse the genders and see if you come up with the same answer!
JFC if I have to have a "consent" discussion with my wife every time... NO FRIGGON WAY. That isn't how marriages work. Talk about a passionless marriage with as much tedium as IRS statements.
Legaly? Yes it is sexual battery. Marrige doesn't matter here as an excuse as marrige doesn't give you the right to use the other persons body to do with what one wants. Interpersonally? There should be a conversation to be had about what one is ok with. And in my mind much more improtant, one should not be offended if one party tells the other "nah don't just do that". The woman I was in a relationship with for 3 years quite openly told me that she likes when I grab her, give her a slap or pinch her ass when we were alone. Even if it doesn't lead to sex, it was WANTED physical interaction. What is so hard about haveing an open conversation with your significant other about their boundaries? I mean I HATE beeing hugged. I don't even hug my parents it's realy bothersome for me. So my friends respect that boundary and are not offended that I don't hug them but fistbump them. It becomes an issue only if one get's offended if beeing told not to do it. To again give you an personal example from me and my former girlfriend. She loves kisses on the ears.. I hate them, mainly due to sensory issues with sound. When I asked her not to do it, she was confused and could not understand that it was an issue for me as she loved it. We had arather difficult but open discussion about it at whichs end she accepted that that was a boundary of mine and I promised to incoporate hers into foreplay (as I always left that out because I did not like it and didn't gravitate to do it to her). So neither gender nor sex changes anything. Yes slapping her on the bottom wihout consent is legaly sexual battery (battery becuse force is involved) Consent according to CRIP or FRIES can be given without any problem for a long period of time. Just fuckign talk to each other: Hey honey can I grab your ass from time to time, I just like how it looks? Yea sure, just don't do it infront of friends or guests, and don't be mad if I tell you to stop it, should I not feel like it! There done It was considered, it can be reversed, it was informed it was specific and it was participatory. There consent given for a period of time. As for the "it's not very romantic" I think that is a falsehood purpotrated by people who don't know how to ask for consent and are very uptight. A "do you like it when I kiss you neck or do you prefere the collarbone?" is askeing for consent. A "Oh I love when you touch my inner thigh" is giving consent A "grab my ass and stuff it" is asking and giving consent. A "Honey, take my hand and guide it" is giving and asking for consent.
Oh well, but if you don’t have sex before marriage, you kind of cannot even hypothetically come to the point where consent almost has to be certified in writing…
Ohhh..... but what if the opinions of the followers of weird modern cults don't actually change the fact that your esoteric view, among many other esoteric viewpoints, of the present status of "marriage"* is absoutely meaningless? *subject to change, like the rest of reality.
@@maria24thst I hope you're not saying that consent in marriage should work ANYTHING like this video because I guarantee you this low-trust, verify everything, IRS level scrutiny is a surefire way to destroy all passion inside a marriage. Anyone who has a good marriage does not practice consent in the way this video suggests consent should operate. There's still consent, it just doesn't work this way AT ALL.
a couple of the additions made written in tea form
"just because they're dressed for a tea party, it doesn't mean they want to drink tea"
"tea isn't good for children, and sometimes don't know what's best for them, so don't give them tea"
"sometimes people drink half a cup of tea and decide they don't want the rest, so don't make them finish the cup"
"people should know what you're putting in the tea, and you shouldn't add milk if they said they didn't want milk"
"people's taste in tea changes, you should check what their order is before serving what they asked for last time"
I like the tea video as an introduction especially for young people but this is more nuanced, well done.
ye, yes is not an yes. so someone can say yes to make someone comfortable without actually wanting to. that's stupid. say no if your not interested. youre only adding to the hurt by saying yes and then no
i suspect you were distracted by something/someone else around 1:20 and i respectfully suggest you rewatch that bit of the video and fully engage with it
Getting sex advice from a mega virgin is crazy but that's just me
@@tylerlogan7530 learning about consent has nothing to do with experience and it's a good thing to start your sexual activity understanding the complexities of consent, if that were the case for everyone then "virgins" would be a lot more protected from sexual misconduct.
I'm surprised that somebody didn't provide this response to the tea video earlier. Obviously, the tea video has been helpful as it has sparked conversation about consent beyond just the original "no means no" message. Other things also mean "no". The message that you have complete sovereignty over your body is crucial.
To anyone thinking asking for consent isn't "sexy" or "hot". I have hot sex with my partner and we ask for consent for every specific thing we do in bed. Not once has asking for consent taken us out of the mood. Being asked for my consent and asking for consent makes me feel respected, loved and safe and that actually makes us feel a lot more relaxed, comfortable and safe around each other. So you can imagine that it makes the sex a thousand times better when you feel completely safe and relaxed.
That is fantastic. To each their own. But not everyone needs an exhaustive thesis paper on every single breath that is taken.
I don't think i was ever explained consent but i always understood it. I thought it was common sense and find it crazy some need a video to understand.
Anything that isn’t a yes, is a no. “Um… I’m not sure.” “Uh… well…” “I mean… maybe?” “I don’t know…” Are all no’s.
Also if they SAY yes, but their body language says NO, guess what! It’s a no.
I love this video because it gets into detail.
So in theory you're correct, but not in reality. You actually got almost there. You said "if they say yes, but their body language says no..." you're right about this. If they're body language is NO it's definitely a no. But here's the flipside to that. If their words are no and their body language is yes, it's a YES! But people get themselves into trouble because people are getting worse and worse at reading body language...something something too much time on the internet probably.
I actually wish it was as simple as this video makes it out to be, but it simply isn't.
@@vulpinemachineyou're just describing non-verbal consent. If the person is actively and freely participating, that's consent.
You can also completely avoid the trouble of relying on body language by being explicit or simply discussing beforehand.
What the video discussed is bare minimum.
@@vulpinemachine Sorry I disagree.
If they say no and their body says yes. it still is a NO.
People get arouse and secret vaginal fluids during rape - the body said yes.... Was it consensual?
People get hard when stimmulated eventhough they say no ... was it consensual?
Physiological reactions do not override considered free consent.
If she says that, but not quite if he says that.
If "yes" or "no" can never TRULY be relied on, then it might be better to go live under a rock and accept that all human communication is ultimately futile.
The rest of us can just go on with our lives.
I just saw this video in a therapy group this week. Excellent points to bring up which while missing from the "tea" video were also discussed in the group. Also, something to remember is that the statutory age of consent is not static from place to place. Some may have it set for 16, while others may be set at 18, and some may have different standards if both parties are under a certain age but within reason of each other's age.
Still another consideration is that if both parties are "FRIES" you need to think of what the "Package" is. Ie, what environment are they in? School? Employment? Church? Sports team? If any person is in a position of authority over another person with whom they are having a otherwise FRIES relationship with, there are still ethical boundaries that could cause the relationship to be non-consentual for the subordinate even if they would be outside of the "box" their FRIES came in.
But that was discussed in the group as well.
Thank you for putting this together, very well done.
British: Consent is like tea
Americans: no it's like fries!
Me: its fries with tea 👌
i'm pretty sure the person speaking is british too
french fries or freedom fries?
It's funny cause the tea video is American and this one is British
@@isaiahsmith1805 Well no?
The tea video is from the Thames Valley Police department.
Thames valley is in the UK.
From what I can gather the original video, while postes on the Thames valles PD channel originated with Emmeline May known as RockStarDinosaurPiratePrincess who is a blogger out of London.
The same as Staffordshire uni which is also in the UK.
3:27 I know this video is about a serious topic, but I need to get this joke out.
"Hey, I said I *didn't* want milk in my tea."
This is excellent, I'll be sharing this with my students. Thanks for taking the time to make this.
"Emotional, or psychological pressure, and abuse" is not legally factual. The only "coercion" the law recognizes is threats or blackmail. You are fully responsible for your "yes". Otherwise a pushy car salesman would be charged with robbery when you agree to buy the car. Or a beggar on the street telling a sob story would be charged with robbery for guilt tripping for money.
As people can withdraw consent at anytime, it also follows that people can reinstate consent at anytime with a "yes".
This is why we need to get back to teaching responsibility. People seem to have fault and responsibility all mixed up. They really shouldn't, that mistake could be fatal. Is it our FAULT that the car salesman is pushy and might try to manipulate us into spending more than we actually wanted to? That is, he's COERCING us into buying something we don't actually want? No, of course not. It's not our fault. However, as the person who chose to be at the car dealership and potentially expose myself to such a person, it is nevertheless my RESPONSIBILITY to ensure that I know how people like this behave and might take advantage of me. I'd even say that my mentors, parents, friends, etc have some partial responsibility in ensuring I'm taught how to handle myself around the pushy salesman.
Should the car stop at the stop sign so you can cross the road? YES. If they hit you will it be their fault? YES. Is it still your responsibility to look both ways? YES.
And on and on it goes. Life is full of responsibility that we must engage in for things that may or may not be our fault. And there's many many many "shoulds" that people ought to be doing out there and yet, they will not. So it's best to know how to be responsible for one's own self.
Manipulative sale practices are illegal as well. You can actually sue your way out of a sale if, for example, information is withheld or falsified.
The thing is, buying and selling things does not involve your body. Many states have adjusted their law to reflect this with laws like "no means no" and "yes means yes".
Also, why does it matter if consent can be reinstated? Isn't that obvious?
@@vulpinemachineboth of the things you describe go hand in hand. But a coerced buyer should have the legal ability to sue an unethical salesman. This motivates salesmen to be honest.
Just like dangerous drivers have to be held accountable for aggressive driving.
Organisations which educate the public about consent usually also give advice on how to have sex safely. Its not mutually exclusive.
@@FiikusMaximus I agree if you falsify information, it can be similar to secretly removing a condom which is illegal. However being "pushy" is never criminal.
"no means no" means consent can be revoked at any time, and "yes means yes" means consent can be reinstated at anytime. A "no" can change into a "yes" if there are no threats.
@@Luxembourgish yes, being pushy can be criminal depending on how you define it. For example: Signing a contract under psychological pressure makes it void.
Yes means yes is not the mirror image of no means no. Yes means yes means, that you need affirmative consent to have sex. It's not just enough to not say "no".
Yes is yes, no is no. A person can change their mind, if that's what you're talking about. But if a person said no, then you cannot assume later that the "no" doesn't count anymore. You need an affirmative consent in order to turn that "no" into a "yes".
I'll write you a clear example so we're on the same page.
Two people make out. It seems to develop in the direction of sex. One of them says they don't want sex. That's an example of no means no. Anything beyond that point is SA or rape.
Another example. The two later talk it out. The other person later tries again. They make out. But the person already said no earlier. The other person cannot assume they have consent. The person already said no earlier. If they want to have sex, they need to get affirmative consent. This is what yes means yes is.
A simpler example is this: two people make out. One is actively making out and the other is not responding but is not stopping it. This is a moment to stop and get affirmative consent. Without it, consent cannot be assumed. Once again, because yes means yes.
A pushy salesman cannot take your hand and sign a contract for you. They need to inform you of all details and then they need to let you affirmatively agree. Anything else is a crime.
I have a lot of respect for this video, I am glad it exists.
I made a similar video once for Brighton Council Child Protection Services as a personal narrative of a parent of a disabled child with mental health issues to teach staff a personal story to give an example of when services can go wrong.
I happen to also studied for a PhD researching trauma, and the phenomenological experiences that can go with it.
But I needed this video, as years later I was then on the receiving end of a psychologically manipulative hate crime, and two years down the road my body still (for example) bucks out when i meditate and other trauma I still carry in my body.
I needed this video today because I already knew the rules and needed reminding on a bad day that they still exist. This video is very good at explaining simply what I can guarantee is spot on.
Much respect to the confidence of the woman who presents this.
I'm going to nod, and say, "yeah, maybe someone will say "its interesting that Staffordshire U-SU made this eloquent and informative media", as opposed to Sussex, but, I am not that crass, (haaaah, ok, I am that crass), however, I can see this being made by people in Hereford/Worcestershire as well, the basic message remains the same. Anyhow, I hope you recover from that.
Excellent follow-up to the tea video! And thanks youtube for suggesting it! Well done SUSU!
This is great. Thank you for making this.
As a person who was coerced and a minor, and with a friend who was under the influence and a minor, I took the “yes is consent” as “when it’s given genuinely, without pressure, convincing, and by someone in a state of mental stability and rationality, then it is consent”, and the “unconscious” person as anyone mentally unstable or irrational, anyone under the influence, anyone too young, anyone physically disabled, anyone sleeping, anyone trading sex in exchange for being pulled out of an unfortunate situation (someone abducted, broke, homeless, stalked, etc), and of course anyone who is unconscious
"[A]nyone physically disabled," Physically disabled people often do want sex but FRIES needs to be adhered to. Even mentally disabled people can have sex and should not be restricted from what they genuinely want. Otherwise that would be infantilizing every kind of disabled adults. We are not children.
So, one note on the topic of drugs and alcohol: To me, the waters get really muddy when both participants are so intoxicated that they do not have the capacity to consent, but both of them appear to want it during the act. Would one person be justified in accusing the other of assault in that situation?
I am deliberately not specifying genders, because not all intercourse happens between people on opposite, binary sides of the gender spectrum and you do not need to be male to be a perpetrator, nor do you need to be female to be a victim.
It's just a very specific hypothetical that my neurodivergent brain is curious about.
Consider. If one party were to accuse the other of assault, they could argue innocence by virtue of incapacitation. At least, in the US. Basically, if you are not capable of making rational decisions due to mental health or substance influence, then you are innocent. It's the same principle that underlies being incapable of consent: you are not capable of making rational decisions while intoxicated.
@@FractalFeline ah, that is very different here. A severe impairment like psychosis might exonorate someone, but if someone commits a crime after taking alcohol or other substances, that can actually increase your punishment, because you chose to drink or take drugs. But our legal system is pretty good at recognizing nuance in cases like my hypothetical.
I'm not sure how accurate a reflection of US law this is. If someone kills someone after getting in a vehicle drunk, they are still charged and punished for this behavior (i.e., they're not innocent). It doesn't matter that you were drunk and not capable of making rational decisions, you still killed someone. It may not be murder (i.e., intention + responsibility), but at least in the driving drunk case, someone would still be responsible for the harm perpetrated while under the influence of drugs/alcohol (i.e., negligent manslaughter (responsibility - intention). Not sure how much this type of reasoning plays out in sexual assault cases in the actual judicial system, but at the very least, we don't give people free passes just because they were intoxicated.
I’ve wondered this as well. There’s also the complication of determining when someone is officially too drunk to consent.
Great job! I agree with 95% of it.
Enthusiasm is not required for consent though.
And, it's even MORE complex than your excellent explanation. There is the matter of PERSUASION and SEDUCTION, which many people think is hot in some circumstances. But, the line between "attempting to persuade", which is fine in many situations, and "not taking no for an answer", which is not fine at all, is difficult for some people to ascertain sometimes.
Worth a followup video, using specific scenarios as examples!
Great video, clear and good message! Very well done!
This is highly informative and needs more views
Very well done! You present a clear and concise message that is useful far beyond the university setting.
Some fantastic insights there 💗 Perhaps Blue Seat Studios could do an updated version, incorporating these concepts? It also very much hit us hard due to remembering a trilogy of videos that Abigail Thorn of Philosophy Tube (pre-transition) did around an abusive relationship she had been in with an unnamed woman... and this was when she thought she was and presented as a man.
Consent- it's not easy as Consent - it's not easy as tea
You and the original video talked about the problems by the point of view of who has to decide but not who propose.
Is consent enough?
I mean, the tea video is good and covers important stuff, but what I think a lot of the discussion about consent misses, including this video, is that mere 'consent' just seems like too low a bar to be aiming for. To my ear, 'consent' is broad enough to include 'oh, go on then" and the like.
I think about when else we talk about consent, and medical procedures come to mind. "Yes, I give consent to undergo this procedure, but man I wish I didn't have to go through with it".
I feel like when teaching about consent we should be telling people consent is just a step along the path - what you should really be looking for is *enthusiasm*.
Yeah, when things go right for us we assume that it's of our making. My thought out, deliberate actions and the correct assessment of others keeps me from making mistakes. But yet, when you think about it, you're just a fraction from disaster the same as anyone else.
She literally used the word 'enthusiastic'.
Freely given
Reversible
Informed
**Enthusiastic**
Specific
As a Tutor over the years, I wish i knew about this and could have shown this to more people, cheers SUSU.
I think this is better than the "healthy boundary pushing versus toxic boundary pushing" video I just saw. But it has similar limitations and I have concerns because the final section of affirming bodily autonomy puts the onus back on saying no rather than responsible caution of anyone pushing for sex or making other requests to make good requests.
Disabled adults must have their capacity to consent to sex and relationships supported and respected. Balanced affirmation is required there, as well as saying you can't always tell for example who is autistic or dealing with selective mutism, trauma, anxiety or extreme rejection sensitivity. So non categorical and responsible sensitivity is required to find out enough about people to know.
Also there's nuances to enthusiasm and fresh consent - some kinds of say solicitous touching might be ok with an established partner whilst not with a member of the public in the street and the law I think has room for that nuance though it should always be revokable. Similarly whilst enthusiasm is a good rule of thumb, especially the less intimacy and trust there is developed, it can be missing whilst there is true consent say during attempts to get pregnant or say an asexual or lower libido partner may consent but not want to call it enthusiastic. I liked the Robot Hugs webcomic.
Though despite all that pro-consent and sex positive attitude I'm not sure that some requests like for nude photos can ever be made in good faith. I think they're always more risky red flags than risqué without judgment or blame. Risk management is an important part of the process.It's essentially a sensitive high risk act, required ongoing feedback, trust and consent, with potentially big payoffs: like gymnastics, circus skills, cheerleading, dance and figure skating holds and tumbling.
what the exact fuck is wrong with you? or are you just spazming a response?
If any kind of physical, emotional or psychological pressure, abuse or force is used then the person being coerced has lost their freedom of choice and so they cannot truely consent.
Kinda like when governments use their position to force societal change or medical procedures on people?
"That's (d)ifferent! Trust the science REEEEEEEEE"
Re-writing tea..
If you offer someone tea, and they say yes, make them tea.
If you offer someone tea, and they say no, do not make them tea.
Please note that some will say yes out of fear that they’ll miss out, or get scolded.
If someone says I don’t know, you can make them tea or not. Please note that if you make tea, they might not drink it.
Do not force someone to have tea. Consent is EVERYTHING.
There is caffeine in tea, so anyone under the age 18 cannot have tea.
If someone is under the influence of drugs, they are not in a good state to have tea.
If someone has a disability,they are not in the state to have tea.
Do not add ice cubes in tea to only take them out later.
No one is your slave. Do not make others drink tea.
Uk consent is 16. Butttt if your over 18 having intercorse with someone under 18 is illegal.
Disability depends, it would be rather rude to refuse someone tea because they are missing an arm
If someone says *"yes out of fear that they’ll miss out, or get scolded"*, they are still legally responsible for that yes. As an adult you are responsible for your agreements regardless of how you feel. If you feel social pressure to get a nose job procedure because you'll miss out or get scolded, you still legally consented to procedure when you agree to it.
@@Luxembourgish Ah someone doesn't understand coersion
@@alberich3099 Coercion is law requires threats or blackmail, social "coercion" defined by activists is different from the legal definition
This needs to be shown at every school, followed by Bill Burr's bit on the subject "No Doesn't Always Mean No."
This is such a great video. Thank you for raising awareness on this topic.
I never heard about the tea video, but it is very interesting. Now this video making it even deeper is very important!
They should remake the tea consent video with these extra details
Good video, but again here the responsibility is put upon the person saying "yes". The point of the tea video is teaching about the person _serving_ the tea, and how to properly act as "host". Maybe FRIES need to be offered along with the tea.
I fully agree on all points. Now say it again, but specifically to women. Tell THEM that NO means NO, as in IF you tell a guy NO, but didn't REALLY mean it, you don't get to go around and tell your friends or worse, go online and tell people you think he's gay because he didn't even TRY to put the moves on you AFTER you said you absolutely WEREN'T going to sleep with him.
Yes, there are literally plenty of videos online of these dpshit chicks bitching about a guy they told no, actually complying with her request. Even more videos of a girl breaking up with a guy only to be pissed off that he didn't TRY to fight for her or convince (aka Coerce) her into staying.
So let them ALL know, we are going to listen to what they ACTUALLY say, not what they INTENDED us to reinterpret their words to mean.
They are adults, they should know what they are actually thinking and feeling and be able to express those thoughts and feelings in words that actually coincide with those thoughts and feelings.
Full disclosure, I have ZERO confidence, this will actually happen.
On the flip side of the reversible nature of consent, you can't withdraw consent after the act you consented to is completed. This should be obvious, but it doesn't stop it from happening, or from being valid in court.
But that's the whole thing of it can be taken away and it can be withdrawn, if I was kinda there but then no longer there guess what? My consent has been revoked and the action stops, that's how it's reversible.
as ulquiorra already said the reversible nature is that the decision you made to participate can be revoked at any time and the act stops.
If the act already stoped there is no need for consent anymore and the idea of the reversability of the decision doesn't come into play.
Reversible in the sense of FRIES (or more modern CRISP) only applies to the act. can I during the act reverse my consent to it? If not consent during the act doesn't exist.
It stems from the idea that a yes without the ability to say no is coerced and means nothing.
NOBODY thinks reversible means that consent can be withdrawn after the act. And call me cynicle here, but I only hear that "oh what if they say no later" from people who have issue grasping the context of consent.
to make it very clear how reversible works.
Let's talk about anal. Let's play it through.
Freely given? Ok my partner asks, and I say yes without any worry of repercussions of saying no - check
Informed? Ok I know what my partner means, what she wants to do and what that means for me. check
Enthusiastic? Ok I'm into him, into the situation and ready to try something new.
Specific? So she said what she wants to do, I did as well and we made it clear that she's only useing the small dildo and not her fist.
Now what about reversible? If she starts, and at any point I do not want it anymore, because my enthusiasm dwindled, as it hurt. Can I say no?
And if I say no, will she stop?. If you can answer both questions yes - the consent was reversible. I was able to reverse my consent and she stops.
On the other hand, maybe she doesn't like it as much as she thought and eventhough I love it she's just not into in anymore and the fantasy was more fun than the real deal. Can she say "nah, I thought it might be fun, it it wasn't" without me pressureing her into continueing? If so teh consent she gave by askeing me if she could try it was also reversible.
HOWEVER if she peggs me and we're done. And after we packed everything away I think, wait a minute, I disliked that and feel unmanly now what if someone finds out. I can't reverse my consent, because nobody is askeing consent anymore.
Consent was given by me during the act acording to the best measurable wy to consent (FRIES or CRIPS), and even if I think damn I should not have done that my consent is not reversible because there is no more consent to be reversed at the given time of me rethinking it.
@@alberich3099 There are people who think reversible means it can be withdrawn after the act.
This is what the Tea video already implies.
As a mid-40s person this kind of video scares but reassures me. It's a tough world out there, let's not be mean-shits to people for no valid reason, let's not let mean-shits do things to people without their express permission, and maybe let's all stand with the person to our left and right and keep an eye wider than that to help those under the influence of the aforementioned mean-shits.
I hope the conversations keep happening and all of us use our voices with good purpose. and it's on just gone 7am, where are my kitten videos
It's only conscent if it's informed, voluntary and ideally enthusiastic, sometimes it's not enthusiastic but "meh why not?" Is not the same as"no. no. no. no. Fine" coercion is NOT voluntary
It sounds good, but this isn't real life. It seems rare that there is a conversation when you get home that goes 'so do you want to have sex now' and then they say 'why, yes I do, shall I sign here.'. Communication is not just verbal, and often neither party would want it to be.
Life already has too many forms and overally bureaucratic ritualistic communication to appease the litigious overlords....to take the most sacred human act and make it just as dry and dull sounds AWFUL. I'm so glad I got married 15 years ago. I feel like I caught the last chopper out of 'Nam.
Who says you have to be that dry about it? Just make your intention clear, give the other person space to affirm. If it all goes smooth, continue. And from my experience, people actually love feeling like they're being heard and feeling like they have a choice. Its real life if you make it real life.
@@FiikusMaximusHave you ever been with someone romantically or sexually? It's not as simple as having a good intention. Some people have certain fetishes where they want to be coerced. Granted, this usually happens between people who have complete trust. But there is a level of playfullness that will put the whole consent thing on it's head. Of course, consent is vital but for it to have legal implications that is going to make life very difficult. Especially in the cases where extremities are part of the sex life.
Most women I know and have had serious relationships with they wanted to feel desired. You can do this through kisses, cuddles but also by touching the sensitive parts. Technically, according to the consent doctrine you need to ask for consent on those things too. Usually these things happen spontaneous and as just one of the many ways to express your love. Mess with this, people will just stop doing those.I think this will the first step into the dystopian worlds described and depicted in books and films where every form of humanity is diminished. The fact that people like you aren't more critical of the consequences is what worries me the most.
@@chrichtonsworld1 "The fact that people like you aren't more critical of the consequences is what worries me the most."
That's because your prediction of the future is not based on what people are actually advocating for, when they advocate for consent, but on fearmongering.
You should be doubly concerned about the issue of consent if kink is part of your sex life. There's nothing complicated about it legally. You shouldn't do anything that wasn't agreed upon, you shouldn't assume other people are into the same things you, just like you shouldn't assume a person wants to have sex with you just because you want to have sex with them.
Women do want to feel desired but they also usually want to feel respected. There's a big difference between getting touched by someone you're already intimate with and a stranger.
Consent in no way goes against playfulness. If your idea of playfulness means muddling the boundaries of consent, then I'd say that sounds like an accident waiting to happen.
As far as shows of affection go, there's nothing simpler than having a conversation like this: "Do you enjoy it when I do x spontaneously?" "Yes" or "No" or "Yes, but only when I'm not busy with other things" etc. From then oon, you never have to worry if you're doing something unwanted. Does that really seem dystopian to you?
I've had relationships where I relied on my "instinct" and relationships where I wasn't afraid to bring things up openly and I've never once in my life had to regret being open and I've more than once made a mistake based on my assumptions.
@@chrichtonsworld1 For fetishes, use a "safe word" to stop when it's uncomfortable, search it up if you don't know what it is.
You can also ask someone for consent not only by verbal means but also by initiating non-coercive actions to probe for their intentions (so, for example, you can actually touch them gently first, like a sign, and if they agree to, you keep on doing what you want). Or you just straight up ask them. If you can't trust your partner enough to ask directly or indirectly for consent, then that, depending on the stage, is not a healthy relationship.
Seriously, s3x ed is not only about consent but also about how to have a healthy approach to s3x and I feel like people are forgetting this regard. Your comment comes to show the ignorance of available solutions to all the problems you mentioned. Besides, this is unrelated to s3x but I think it's really important for marriage life which goes hand in hand with s3x ed: Communication is everything, just discuss everything with your partner b4hand and you'll be fine (granted you trust them enough to discuss it, because if not, again, that is not a healthy relationship)
Great follow up video!! 🩷 Thank you 🫶
Of course someone had to add their "but" to it. 🤦♂
Great video to complete the message from the popular tea consent video! Interesting how we can coherently apply all the same arguments to see how problematic our governments are: they coerce, they expect consent given once (e.g. at an election) to be valid for years, etc. Real democracy means being free from coercion and able to retract our consent at any time!💚
Thank you indeed for this video, the tea video is just an abelist view of consent. And it can be misleading to other people and cause them more confusion.
We all know this already. We watched Law and Order
Consent is the absence of the violation of trust. Anyone's trust.
It's not about yes or no, but about the expectations you create and live up to, or not.
So be aware of the messages you send out into the world around you.
Your mask and attitude may very well be making promises you never intended to keep.
Wtf? What do you mean by that last sentence? In plain english.
the fuck are you on about.
Ohh arae you one of those who think a short skirt is consent because it was a mesage to others?
that's realy fucked up.
no consent is not the violation of trust, Consent is an explicit expressed permission for something to happen.
A explicit permission cannot be anything but in a form of communication which is unequivocally sent and recieved by the parties involved.
If you interpret a signal from somebody they don't explicitly made towards YOU that is on you and you are violateing expressed permission for something to happen.
You realy do sound like someone who excuses rape of someone not wearing the "appropriate" clothing.
GREAT MESSEGE!!!! 👏👏👏😲😲
How is yes a yes? Do we need to make a recording? Sign a contract? What needs to be done? Of course consent should be given at all times but it can happen that in the heat of the moment you haven't signed a contract or recorded a video. Besides video and audio files can't be doctored. A bad person with evil intent can get away scott free. Also how are they going to enforce this? It seems to be that potentially also relatively innocent people can be charged with rape merely for not having asked consent. Or when it's claimed they haven't been given consent.
This is only going to empower the people with bad intentions. The good ones will suffer.
True but if a person goes from kissing right to intercourse without positive body language and or verbal response, it’s not consensual. Silence is not consent. It can be as simple as: I really wanna blank (action) with you, is that ok?
The thing I noticed in the tea video was them saying you can make a cup of tea and leave it out for them......what does that mean in relation to consent?
It essentially means that even if you might expect consent - it is not consent.
E.g. if you invite someone to come to your house, they agree, they agree to come with you to the kitchen and you start to prepare the tea, they still might decide no to tea and you don't have consent until they agree to the tea.
Equally, someone can show you they are interested in tea because they consentingly send you pictures of their teabags. They might even ask to see your teaspoon. However, they then decide that they actually don't want the tea.
There is no assumed consent to have tea because of other actions that might lead up to drinking tea.
@@Panda-moan-ium😂 i like that explanation.
Hey, Hanna nice to see you :) Thank you for sharing with us essential critical information. Can you please share with us articles links
I just found out that people should probably move out of North Carolina. If you know, you know. Or get that law changed.
I see how the point about disabled people not being able to fully express consent might be awfully misread (especially with the "deaf" icon used here) and and lead to gatekeeping and discrimination. Even in case of neurodivergent and mentally or intellectuallly disabled people it is a very nuanced theme that deserves a thoughtful analysis on its own.
yea same. I'm AuDHD, and while I would generally describe myself as demisexual and consent is something I very rarely touch because sex is not something I realy care about, what she said about people with disabilities struggeling to communicate meaning them not beeing in a position to consent.
The struggle to communicate is something that irks me.
What does struggle mean? A friend of mine is mute, she struggles to communicate with people. Is she now unable to consent? What about a Person that is deaf? Can't they consent just because they don't hear "the question asked"?
The issue here is her wording is off.
I kinda get the idea behind it, but it was realy badly put.
Sexuality with a disability may face different issues, and whiel there is an argument to be held about developmental disabilities influenceing the abilioty to consent (similar to children), people with communicational challanges are just as capable to consent.
It's just that you need to figure out how to communicate clear and honest.
this is like that school you go to between highschool and college
I like what you have done. Great job. I would add that people who are in authority positions over others create a power imbalance and the other person may not feel they have the right or ability to say no. Also, those with a history of trauma may not have the ability to say no and don't feel they have the right to anything but consent. This gets really tricky for a lot of people.
Why would you not get a hooray? 😅
Thank you.
Wiggle room for regretful behavior
At 1:50 she does the "mocking male voice" thing that many men have heard from significant others.
Coercion is not consent? Well of course not. It's an attempt to get someone to do something. Saying yes as a result of Coercion? That is not consent either?
I'm confused!!!
This is better
Nice video 🙌
There is no crime more heinous than **** which is why consent is so important. It's not as simple as tea, but it's still pretty simple. You do not have sexual consent if she (or they):
a) explicitly says no
b) says nothing
c) weakly acquiesces
d) is inebriated
e) if you're inebriated
f) is in an emotionally vulnerable state
g) is being financially coerced
h) lacks understanding about how sex and birth control work
i) lacks enthusiasm
j) doesn't like how you look naked
k) regrets having sex with you
I'm probably
No crime more heinous than... **?
Also how are you listing *regret* among the others. You cannot hold others responsible for you making bad *choices* you later regret.
No crime more heinous than... **?
Also how are you listing *regret* among the others. You cannot hold others responsible for you making bad *choices* you later regret.
lol. k is the best one since you'd need to be a mind reader of someone's future mind in order to ever receive consent then. i'm a dude and i have a few regrets, does that mean i've been r.@.p.3.d.?
@@phoenixfire8226 yes. Congratulations! Unfortunately our work as feminists is not done yet, so you as a man still cannot extort the people who made you a victim unless you transition your gender. I dream of a day when people of EVERY gender have the freedom to frivolously destroy the lives of other people through r*p* accusations. I hope you share my dream.
@@phoenixfire8226 yes. Congratulations!
Where's the part where there's a culture where people suggest drinking tea without making it apparent? Or the part where one gender is seen as a pussy if they complain about being forced to drink tea especially if in their eyes it's high quality. Most bland run of the mill vid about consent out there.
but isnts this quite obvious?
Not to some people sadly.
🍵🍟♥
Womp Womp
I think u didnt understand the point of the video.
I think she did. She just added to it? Idk what's confusing you
I think she didn't understand the point if the video.
@@panjaro1890 she definetly did.
@@panjaro1890 lol
@@myrtotzaka7440 prob not
What if the person is half asleep?
Then I guess they can half consent. LOL
I'm currently considering how to apply these rules to the killing of unborn children in the womb. If the unborn child does not consent to be aborted because it cannot yet speak, is an abortion then murder?
It is.
@@vulpinemachine - Thanks for your opinion! It is interesting that no one else answered during the last 3 weeks. Maybe, because they are afraid to expose themselfes as hypocrites 🙂 :-)
Well no.
1. Murder is a legal definition. Abortion is not defined as muder.
2. Let's give you the point of is abortion then an immoral or ilegal termination of a life.
Well no it's not.
Abortion is not the killing of a feutus, but the withdrawing of consent of letting another human beeing use your body. That the feutus dies due to the act is unfortunate but irrelevant.
Very simply put.
Even if I grant ALL human rights to a just concieved feutus, not even a second passed when the egg incooporated the spermcell and all human rights apply to that feutus, the feutus doesn't have the right to use another humans body unless said human consented to chareing it's body with the feutus.
An abortion here, is the result of consent withdrawn.
To make it a bit clearer because humans are weird and grant feutuses special rights. If you need a blood transfusion, and my blood is THE ONLY blood in the world that could safe you - you have no right to demand that I give up my bodily autonomy to keep you alive.
Same with the feutus, no feutus has the right to demand a person with a uterus to give up their bodily autonomy or risk their health to keep them alive.
@@alberich3099 you are a pilot. One day you allow a person on to your plane and their cargo. You drop them off at your next stop and continue on your way. Midflight over the ocean you discover someone in your cargo hold. It turns out they had been rendered unconscious and stuffed into the cargo hold with the other cargo from the passenger you consented to picking up. You had no idea and certainly didn't intend to pickup another person but apparently this other passenger brought the unknowing stowaway on board.
You've decided you're not really interested in accommodating a passenger who ended up on your plane without their knowledge and without your permission, so you toss them out of the plane into the ocean, to their death.
You are a murderer.
It doesn't matter that it's your plane. You're a murderer.
It doesn't matter that the other passenger lied or violated you or your plane... you'd STILL be a murderer.
The unknowing stowaway cannot be held liable for trespass for they had no idea and couldn't and didn't consent to trespass. Therefore casting the unknowing stowaway off the plane/boat etc is in fact murder.
how is your relationship with you father
she dosent have one
this is were having a big wallet helps
And also before, during, and after having sex both parties should have their lawyers present to sign off on and complete their contracted obligations.
Christ, a lot of these issues would be resolved if people weren't so promiscuous, stupid and indulging enough to get batshit drunk to pass out or to be so drunk to barely be able to understand each other to begin with.
you are part of the problem, re-evaluate your stance regarding what you think of as an "acceptable level of xxxxx" with promiscuety as the xxxx in this case, from my, and many others viewpoint, you are trying to absolve things like rape due to "oh, we were drunk" when, actually, its rape; "stupid" its still rape. "induging" "hi, rape again". "whatever other bullshit excuse you dream up" is, irl, not an excuse to take advantage of, and use, another person for sexual, or otherwise, gratification. if you disagree, its actually not my problem, but it is a problem for anyone around you. what steps they decide to take, may be Your problem.
@@staberind Doesn't matter if it's an excuse or not, it's gonna happen more frequently because people are horny, people abuse power and drunkeness makes you weaker and lowers both sides ability to take decisive action and know what they are doing.
@@ActionableFreedom more frequently than when? the history of homo sapiens sapiens is the history of nonconsentual sex. its also nott a "both sides" thing, its an agressor and a victim thing, you are trying to shift the onus of responsibility from one party to the other, thats kind of deplorable, I'd step back from this and do a little introspection.
And people still assault their spouses without consent.
"They hated him because he spoke the truth."
it's not going good, i- oh, you weren't really asking, sorry
ok jina the giraffe
I mean they're not saying it's the whole spectrum of consent. Like get a life.
I have a very good and simple solution: no sex until marriage. While getting engaged, you create a clear set of mutually agreed upon rules about sex that take effect after marriage.
We need to start shaming extra-marital sex again.
I hope you are ironic@@vulpinemachine
@@jos4558 nope
Uh no... since when does marriage have a monopoly on relationships where you talk extensively about boundaries and consent beforehand?
FYI married people get raped by their spouses... often conservative misogynistic "family values" men forcing their wives FYI..
Based
Consent is impossible to understand.
Definitely. They lay it out like it's super duper clear. Except, not everyone, ESPECIALLLY women, follow these "super duper clear rules." In fact, my buddy recently was being threatened by a girl because he DID NOT sleep with her. She was threatening that she would go to the police with and accusation of gRape.
If reality was ACTUALLY like these videos, it would be easy to understand, but it's not like these videos no matter how much they try to say it is.
The video has 4 minutes. Is it really that hard to understand?
@@vulpinemachineand that girl would get nowehere if she did. Its not against the law to refuse sex. Both parties need to consent, neither is owed sex.
wat is je nummer
Yes or no it's as easy as that lol
Except if you coerce someone into saying "yes" or that person is incapacitated while saying "yes" or that person is not fully informed about what they are saying "yes" to, then it's not consent.
@@liammarshall-butler3384 well yeah but are you gonna tie someone up and make them say yes because im not going to lol
I was coherced into sex by my first girlfriend. We were both 12. I did say 'yes', but it was a weary, 'fine whatever just get it over with' sort of yes. She had asked me about 100 times to do sexual stuff, she wore me down. It wasn't her fault as she had been abused and thought this was normal, and she probably didn't realise what she was doing was psychologically wearing me down, but no she didn't 'tie me up' but it was just as damaging because I felt like I had no choice, if I didn't do it she would be mad or leave me and I liked her.
@marcydarcie5884 that's rough im sorry to hear that happend
So if a wife is bending over loading the dishwasher and her husband walking by gives her a playful slap on the behind without asking her first, is that sexual assault? (Assume she has never called him out for it before, but perhaps it is a new marriage and he has never done it before.) I think even she would agree that him stopping and asking "Is it OK if I give you a gentle tap on the butt?" beforehand is probably _even creepier_ than just doing it in that case, and not very romantic.
(Anticipating the "He should..." responses: Of course he should _consider_ how she might feel about it, but that doesn't mean he is an expert mind-reader, especially since her feelings may change from hour to hour.) Oh yeah and now reverse the genders and see if you come up with the same answer!
JFC if I have to have a "consent" discussion with my wife every time... NO FRIGGON WAY. That isn't how marriages work. Talk about a passionless marriage with as much tedium as IRS statements.
Legaly? Yes it is sexual battery. Marrige doesn't matter here as an excuse as marrige doesn't give you the right to use the other persons body to do with what one wants.
Interpersonally? There should be a conversation to be had about what one is ok with. And in my mind much more improtant, one should not be offended if one party tells the other "nah don't just do that".
The woman I was in a relationship with for 3 years quite openly told me that she likes when I grab her, give her a slap or pinch her ass when we were alone. Even if it doesn't lead to sex, it was WANTED physical interaction.
What is so hard about haveing an open conversation with your significant other about their boundaries? I mean I HATE beeing hugged. I don't even hug my parents it's realy bothersome for me. So my friends respect that boundary and are not offended that I don't hug them but fistbump them.
It becomes an issue only if one get's offended if beeing told not to do it.
To again give you an personal example from me and my former girlfriend. She loves kisses on the ears.. I hate them, mainly due to sensory issues with sound. When I asked her not to do it, she was confused and could not understand that it was an issue for me as she loved it.
We had arather difficult but open discussion about it at whichs end she accepted that that was a boundary of mine and I promised to incoporate hers into foreplay (as I always left that out because I did not like it and didn't gravitate to do it to her).
So neither gender nor sex changes anything.
Yes slapping her on the bottom wihout consent is legaly sexual battery (battery becuse force is involved)
Consent according to CRIP or FRIES can be given without any problem for a long period of time. Just fuckign talk to each other:
Hey honey can I grab your ass from time to time, I just like how it looks?
Yea sure, just don't do it infront of friends or guests, and don't be mad if I tell you to stop it, should I not feel like it!
There done It was considered, it can be reversed, it was informed it was specific and it was participatory. There consent given for a period of time.
As for the "it's not very romantic" I think that is a falsehood purpotrated by people who don't know how to ask for consent and are very uptight.
A "do you like it when I kiss you neck or do you prefere the collarbone?" is askeing for consent.
A "Oh I love when you touch my inner thigh" is giving consent
A "grab my ass and stuff it" is asking and giving consent.
A "Honey, take my hand and guide it" is giving and asking for consent.
Oh well, but if you don’t have sex before marriage, you kind of cannot even hypothetically come to the point where consent almost has to be certified in writing…
Consent still counts inside a marriage. Marriage is not a blanket consent for whatever someone wants to do to you whenever.
Ohhh..... but what if the opinions of the followers of weird modern cults don't actually change the fact that your esoteric view, among many other esoteric viewpoints, of the present status of "marriage"* is absoutely meaningless?
*subject to change, like the rest of reality.
@@maria24thst I hope you're not saying that consent in marriage should work ANYTHING like this video because I guarantee you this low-trust, verify everything, IRS level scrutiny is a surefire way to destroy all passion inside a marriage. Anyone who has a good marriage does not practice consent in the way this video suggests consent should operate. There's still consent, it just doesn't work this way AT ALL.
You can tell the people who upvoted this video either are not married or divorced. Reading some of these comments are wild. lol