And exactly where is this line supposed to be. Before a kiss? If one thing leads to another and neither party pauses to ask consent do we have a mutual rape?
This is exactly my point. Outside of a marriage this can lead to an accusation that consent was not obtained. My question is whether or not that consent has to be obtained each and every time after one is married.
So according to this the one spouse can't come up to the other, begin nuzzles and such maybe even some fondling (as may be the dynamic), the other says nothing but sex happens, and that wrong because the other never said a word? Or is maybe that the implied consent in play with the other having the ability to say "not tonight" and thus withdrawing that implied consent?
No.
Actually it was, at least in my case, from a conversation about consent and other related matters. A woman in the discussion noted that simply by marrying she has given an implied consent but she is still allowed to withdraw it at anytime, including in the middle of sex. It sparked a whole new line of discussion with us. So I thought I'd bring the topic to my debate sites and see what others said.
Would that not be an implied consent since it's not explicit? And you just noted that he has the ability to withdraw it. So how is that different from what I asked?
If you are in a sexual relationship with the person dont you know their signals by now? I would be very insulted if my SO or partner had to ask verbally for consent because he could not read my body language or sounds or that was a response to his touch/stimulus.
If one partner silently goes along with intimacy, then that implies consent. But consent can be withdrawn at any time by either partner too. Just as one partner can come on to the the other, the other partner can shy away or rebuke any physical advances, which implies consent is not given.
You asked:
I answered that direct question very directly for my experience. Whether others have independently come up with the question or position has nothing to do with where I got the idea.
That's not true. In some states not engaging in sex for some period of time is grounds for divorce.
But isn't that the argument for the current level of getting consent? Isn't the call out there that we shouldn't assume that a lack of "no" or resistance means "yes"? Is it not the claim, especially in the context of wives being raped by husbands, that she might not resist or say "no" simply because she fears to and that it is rape because of that? That she might even cooperate in order to not get further hurt? Is not that the purpose behind the explicit consent demand currently out there?
See my responses to Lisa and Demon just a couple of posts back.
Which is still irrelevant to the topic at hand. While it certainly can be grounds for divorce, sex or consummation is not required by the law. A lack of such doesn't change the legal status of the relationship. The question is about whether the consent to sex within a marriage is implied by the fact that they are married, regardless of whether that consent is acted upon or not.
See my previous post to soylentgreen
If a woman is in fear of her husband and is saying “yes” when she doesn’t want to have sex to avoid getting hurt, there are much larger problems at play than “implied” or “verbal” consent…and neither implied nor verbal consent are the answer to the problem.
Go back and look. I have yet to say whether I believe that there is such a thing or not. I've not given my position on the matter. Only asked the question, and then asked questions based on the argument given for or against the concept, or called out those who either ignored what was written or presented what I wrote as different from what was actually presented.
It’s not irrelevant to the topic. The fact that a marriage can be dissolved if there is no sex is evidence that, absent understanding otherwise, consent is implied.