Published on 12, July, 2020
I don't know about others, but I'm getting a little concerned that the arguments will put off new members.
Quite often people join and then disappear quite quickly.
I've been involved in these myself on occasion, so I'm not innocent.
However, maybe the mods could create a section where these potentially contentious threads could be placed that had a heading like NSFW (a new one on me but it seems to be well known).
If a seemingly innocuous thread then turns into a constant argument, perhaps it could be moved to there.
It's sometimes interraction between older males and older females (or non binary etc) and comes down to very different relationship/*ex points of view but can of course stem from any subject and any set of contributors.
I think it happens more often than it once did, and I've not been here a year yet.
the arguments here are largely about whether this forum is going to be a sex positive place where we recognise that (most) autistic people have a sexual side, that this is perfectly natural and healthy and that the issues of how autistic people meet those needs is a fit topic for discussion.
Or is this going to be a sex negative place where autistic people are shamed for having or wanting sexual relationships / encounters.
Sex positivity means recognising the need for enthusiastic consent. Please don't use terms you don't understand.
consent is consent it doesn't come in flavours ... that my opinion. But that's beside the point. sex positivity means a lot more than that. Sex positivity means not demonising young autistic men for making a mess of it as they try to navigate sexual relationships with good intentions.
consent (verbal or otherwise) is ascent without unlawful duress by those with the capacity to consent. To agree with a course of action at the time of the action and throughout the action. It must be a genuine choice (hence a lack of duress) saying no must be a realistic option. The consenting party must also have the capacity to consent (mostly relevant if the party is in someway impaired by a substance or medical condition).
Actually capacity to consent is not a very high bar to clear. In the context of substances its somewhere between drunk enough to not remember the night and too drunk to be properly aware of events at the time where capacity ends. For mental health being able to understand broadly what sex is and that consent is required is enough to form capacity. At least that's what case law suggests to me #notlegaladvice.
edit: where things get really controversial is in the legal theory of conditional consent. It'd be interesting to talk through the ethics of the McNALLY case sometime. Lawyers are arguing about that one to this day.
Consent is a state not the literal saying of the words 'I consent'. People can say things under coercion, if someone consents without enthusiasm they're not really consenting, they're accepting their fate...