That's the problem with consent. If it's implied, its existence or lack thereof is up to the one doing the inferring. Consent can be said to exist until it is removed, or it can be said to not exist until it is expressely given. I challenge anyone to say they have never had a sexual encounter where the former was the condition.
It appears that, in this case, the removal of consent was successful in curtailing the activity. That really should do it.
(Generally speaking. That would be except for the flashing that MH mentions in another thread. I think that's against the law)
You're simply flailing words around to attempt to appear erudite. Consent either exists, or it doesn't. It is established through communication, which can happen verbally or otherwise, but you ought not to be just doing a Trump and grabbing someone by the
**** because you think you're a star, or whatever.
Home
Contact
Login
Register