I'm not new to this at all. I'm just not prepared to say that everyone who says that they were raped is a victim of rape, especially when agreeing that a rape occurred under such absurd and impossible circumstances is going to do such immense harm to the actual project of dismantling rape culture. This shit's gross,…

I think we can all agree that regardless of whether the parameters of his piece implied consent, she violated him and this was a sexual assault, just as we would consider someone whipping him a physical assault (implicit consent or no).

The mental backflips are all on your side, lady, where even expressed written consent not withdrawn at any time isn't sufficient, now, to constitute consent. And the reason to point out how fucking stupid and gross Shia is being, here, is because his phony and selfish attempt to grasp for the mantle of rape victimhood…

Again let's repeat this until you mouth breathers get it: a lack of no does not mean yes.

And the social contract permits people to have sex with each other, sometimes as part of art projects, when they consent to do so.

Again, you're misrepresenting the situation completely. Shia affirmatively consented and then, given ample opportunity to rescind, did not. That's consent. Textbook consent.

But 'do whatever you want' does not equal 'I consent to sex.'

You seem to have some kind of idea that I'm arguing that it isn't gross. I'm not.

What I think constitutes "constant and affirmative consent" certainly includes oral and written statements of consent to acts that include sex, then carrying out a sex act while not rescinding that consent.

A lack of "no" doesn't mean consent.

Right. There. Where it was happening, and he knew it was happening, and where every moment was a conscious, free choice on his part to remain. That's participatory.

It beggars belief to suggest that he asked people to harm him, gave them tools to do so, signed a waiver, and gave affirmative consent to it, but wasn't actually inviting anyone to cause him harm. It's absurd. You're saying that Shia was lying then and telling the truth now, but why isn't the reverse more likely?

I don't think you understand the meaning of "affirmative."

This is fucking gross. He's making a mockery of real sexual assault, and you're helping him do it - and putting people at risk.

Torture is not acceptable behavior, neither is non-consensual sexual contact.

But he did participate.

But I'm guessing that if he expected sex to be on the table he would at least have set out condoms.

You don't have a right to your own facts, though. The fact is that he affirmatively consented to acts that included sex, and that at no time was he under any sort of coercion or force or threat of force or even the implied threat of force. Every moment he was in that situation was a conscious, free choice to be there,…

Suppose for a moment, though, that Shia had actually intended to invite the audience to harm him, if they wished. How would you communicate that intention beyond not having guards, telling the audience to do anything they wanted to you, signing an affidavit to that effect, and even providing real weapons with which to…

I was raped by Neil Armstrong, on the moon.