"didn't really want to participate" is basically the definition of sexual assault.
Yes, but is also a case of "your word against mine" unless supported by verifiable data.
Ever heard someone say this..
I didn't want to go to school but I did.
It's like saying I didn't want to kill that person. It is an unfinished statement to what the final decision is. It could be: So I did or so I didn't.
It might seem pointlessly semantic, but I think it's important with issues such as sexual assault and rape. Especially considering the people on either side of this likely have their lives ruined.
"Eh, whatever" and "no, not without a condom" aren't the same thing.
If you don't communicate that you don't want to have sex it becomes a really murky topic, as you didn't give verbal nor non-verbal consent. But you also didn't give verbal nor nnon-verbal disconsent. This could be something you regret afterwards, but I don't think you can attribute that to malintent (or rape/sexual assault) on your sexual partner's side.
So removing the condom mid-act would be sexual assault, a broken condom wouldn't be. But the partner consented to sex with a condom.
Or in case a woman says she's on birthcontrol (or has a spiral) and it later turns out that was false, then you also didn't consent to that.
So basically my second point is that it takes a lot of language to define what is and what isn't sexual assault or rape. Condensing it down would be harmful to victims and people accused.
Most people who have had long term sexual partners have had a time or two where they "didn't really want to participate" but did anyway without much/any complaining for the sake of their partner. Are all all those instances "basically sexual assault"?
Watering down the definition of sexual assault to include instances where nobody felt assaulted in any way does not result in it being taken more seriously.
*Disclaimer: The parent post was edited after I began replying to be worded a bit less absolutely.
I'm talking strictly about situations where there is no threat of violence.
Obviously there is a spectrum of varying degrees of consent from "perfectly ok" to "definitely rape" and somewhere in there is a range that constitutes sexual assault but to say that the lack of specifically enthusiastic consent defines the floor of the sexual assault range is farcical when there are so many other variables to consider.
>Disclaimer: The parent post was edited after I began replying to be worded a bit less absolutely.
I changed the order of the three points.
>we are mapping "didn't really want to" very differently onto real examples of emotional state.
I think a lot of people find "didn't really want to" to be equivalent to "really didn't want to"
"Informed enthusiastic consent" isn't so hard to figure out, is it? If you feel like you're being pressured into something you don't want, that's still non-consensual even if you don't put up a fight.
Frankly maybe we should, but until we do it’s going to be hard to make this a bright line.