>>8140255Even without forcing the other person to be silent, the other person has the right to ignore you without consenting to what you said. There are cases where silence is not consent, but that is like where the person is touching you and you cannot ignore them. You can't simply declare, "I take away your freedom not to say anything, and you have to engage me verbally if you don't want to consent to the things I say." People have freedom of speech in my country, allegedly, and they can say whatever they want. By that same freedom of speech, I don't have to acknowledge what they say.
>>8140824This is wrong. If I tell someone I'm going to take his wallet and then he just gives me a stupid look, and then I take his wallet, I don't think the judge will say, "Since he didn't say anything when you made your stupid comment, it means that he consented to you taking his wallet."
It's like if I told a woman that I was going to fill her house sleeping gas at night, then sneak in and perform a medical procedure on her to take the eggs from her ovaries, and she didn't say anything to me and just went about her day as if I hadn't said it. Do you think the woman consented to me?
I think not responding to someone is a sign of ~not~ consenting to what they say. When they say silence is consent to sex, that is different because there is no spoken proposition which is consented to. If the person is touching you, then a reasonable person would conclude that you would make an effort to stop the touching if you didn't like it. You do have a right to tell someone to stop touching you. This is totally different than the case of a spoken proposition. Although the person does not have a right to touch you, they do have a right to speak. You have a right to demand that someone stop touching you, but you do not have a right to demand they cease to speak. Refusing to argue with someone who is touching you is different that refusing to argue with someone who is speaking.
