I know. I know, you’re curious. But trust me. This way lies pain and confusion.
Spice weasel, I have to say that I admire you quite a bit. This has been so exhausting to me- and I have a tiny fraction of the personal horror in my past that you have. I’m thinking to myself how tired I am of dealing with this, yet you continue to calmly and thoughtfully address the same things that just. Wear. Me. OUT. So kudos to you.
Right. Exactly. These are two different things.
My comment was about interpreting non-verbal cues. It was not about what Limbaugh said, which was something else.
Thanks! You will always be able to tell when I’ve reached my limit, because I won’t be here. I’ve learned to disengage when necessary.
Please forgive me, Spice Weasel, you know I love you but the line under your user name bugs the crap out of me every time I see it. The phrase followed by “BAM!” as originated by chef Emeril Lagasse is “Kick[ing] it up a notch”, not “knocking it up a notch”.
If you could correct this please it would be ever so groovy.
Thanks.
My god. Let me be even more clear:
-The things I listed are signs that your partner is almost certainly consenting to what you are doing. They are not a blank check for the future. Enthusiastic consent should continue.
If someone is making out hot and heavy with a happily reciprocating partner, and puts a hand up the partner’s shirt, and the partner moves that hand back out, suddenly consent has been revoked. The handsy person did not commit sexual assault. Virtually nobody would argue with that, I think. If kissing continues, that’s also not sexual assault
Sexual assault occurs when Handsy Partner puts the hand right back up the shirt.
I disagree that “virtually nobody would argue with that”. Quite a lot of people would argue with that.
You have a bit of wriggle room as you’ve not defined “making out hot and heavy”, but assuming that putting a hand up the partner’s shirt amounts to taking it to a new level, then many people - most advocates of the “yes means yes”, AFAICT - would consider that sexual assault.
Of course, that’s assuming that the woman later claims that she consented to kissing (or whatever) but not to hands up her shirt. In most cases that won’t happen, and everything works out fine. In some cases that will happen and everything doesn’t work out fine.
Hahaha! Excellent! I hereby withdraw my whinge! Thanks. 
ETA: And now at least I know where your name came from. 
As an advocate of ‘‘yes means yes,’’ I am skeptical that most people in my camp would consider that sexual assault. It only becomes sexual assault once consent has been revoked. I don’t believe consent must be verbally explicit, just enthusiastic and affirmative.
In a dating situation (this seems to be what we’re talking about, mainly) I think an attempted kiss would be pretty much expected, so a verbal request to kiss your date seems unnecessary. You should be able to figure out by that point if you are into each other. If the date is not going well and you’re trying to kiss her, you’re a dumbass, but not a rapey one. Not until you pressure and push.
If you’ve moved beyond kissing to a ‘‘hot and heavy’’ enthusiastic makeout session, the next natural order of course would be hands up the clothes. Even from the psychological standpoint of the victim, the event doesn’t become potentially traumatizing until it involves a feeling of helplessness and humiliation, which generally doesn’t happen until a revocation of consent is ignored. I can’t speak for everyone, but I would honestly not be offended or hurt in this situation if a guy made a move like that within that context – if I removed his hand and he put it right back,* that’s* where victimization begins. And psychologically, that’s where helplessness begins. It sends a clear message to the victim that her boundaries are not important to the assailant and makes her less likely to resist any future advances.
I don’t have time to look this up just now but what you write contradicts much of what I’ve seen on the subject, which stresses the requirement for affirmative consent (not necessarily verbal) every step of the way. So anything that counts as a new step - and I’m assuming hands up a shirt count (as you say, it’s the “next natural order”) - would require affirmative consent, and it wouldn’t be enough to back off if rejected as you suggest.
I’m not sure I follow. If affirmative consent doesn’t have to be verbal, one must assume we’re talking about the partner’s non-verbal cues indicating enthusiasm and enjoyment, right? If you’re not interacting verbally, there is no conceivable way to determine one’s level of enthusiasm for something that hasn’t happened yet. Based on your description, this standard seems not just pragmatically, but literally impossible. IOW, I’m skeptical of your interpretation.
If you are having sexual contact with a partner and detect anything less than wholehearted enthusiasm (which I would further define as ‘‘active reciprocation or happy noises’’), the onus is on you to verbally check in with them (Which is a good idea anyway, because the response might be as simple as ‘‘a little more to the left.’’) If you are making out with mutual enthusiasm with a partner, that is consent. If you grope your partner and your partner ceases to be enthusiastic/participatory, it’s time for a verbal check-in because consent is no longer a given. If they remove your hand, that is a clear and strong signal that consent has been revoked. To me, that is the actual meaning of ‘‘affirmative consent every step of the way.’’ To me, what I have just described is ‘‘Yes Means Yes’’ in actual practice.
It sounds like you’re arguing that enthusiastic participation in Step A counts as non-verbal consent for Step B until that consent is revoked.
That doesn’t seem correct.
I’m saying that there’s no possible way to determine non-verbal consent for Step B until Step B actually happens. Anyone who would use the standard you’re describing is committing a logical error. You cannot assume consent when you escalate to the next step, it is, in effect, a question. That question is either answered with enthusiasm or it isn’t.
(I don’t know exactly how my org. teaches consent – I’m going to learn that at new staff orientation in February, which I technically should have gone through a year ago – but we do have a magnet sticking to our staff fridge that says something like:
Consent is
-Enthusiastic
-Ongoing
-Revocable
There’s a bit of explanation after each thing, but nothing says anything about ‘‘obtaining consent before you move to the next step.’’)
Sorry that’s all the info I’ve got to work with right now.
In theory you could either announce your intention to do something, or make it clear from your actions that you intend to do it, and see the other person’s reaction.
I agree that it’s tough to meet the literal standard. But that seems to be what it is.
From looking around just a little bit, it seems that people raise these concerns and the response is generally not that what you say, but rather along the lines of “just make sure she’s into what you’re doing and you won’t get accused of anything”. See e.g. here:
That’s not the same as claiming that this meets the standard.
[FWIW, my brief google search also turned up some outfit claiming all consent needs to be verbal.]
Ha! I turned up the same website. I personally think that’s dumb and unrealistic. If you are such a person that you expect verbal consent every step of the way, that should be made clear right from the beginning. Shit, I had severe PTSD when I met my husband and even I didn’t set that standard. We always just played it by ear.
Bolding mine. How does that dodge the question? It seems to be explicitly saying that it does meet the standard. By the definition of affirmative consent, rape is impossible if both partners are enthusiastic.
FWIW, I’m not sold on the idea that Affirmative Consent should become the new legal definition of consent. For one thing, it’s entirely subjective and impossible to prove. ‘‘She kissed me enthusiastically!’’ ‘‘No, I didn’t!’’ Etc. I could even see it being used against victims to damage their credibility.
I think it should become the new standard of what is considered socially acceptable sexual interaction. I think it should become part of our sexual culture. Because it will minimize the odds that misunderstandings happen. And they absolutely do happen.
There was a Reddit thread (long since removed) of men sharing their experiences of raping/almost raping women. Some of the men were disgustingly, deliberately methodical and intentional in what they were doing, right up to the gaslighting of their victims afterward. But at least 25% of them recounted stories in which they were so totally into what they were doing they had no clear concept they were about to commit assault – until they happened to glance up into the terrified face of their partner. I have empathy for the victim, sure, but I have empathy for those unwitting men, too. Many of them are writhing in guilt because nobody bothered to teach them the dynamics of power in sexual relationships. I can’t see how teaching people to display and seek out affirmative consent cues would result in anything but a positive outcome.
And consciously aware. You can’t assume consent exists just because somebody is too drunk or stoned to express their normal objections.
I have nothing to add, except for this link to an excerpt of “50 Shades of Grey” read by Gilbert Gottfried.
Really? So, you’re closed-mouth kissing and before you give tongue you ask “is it okay?”, I can understand with a one-night-stand wanting to be extra careful, but with a regular partner, on a healthy relation it’s silly. Of course it doesn’t mean that I can fist my wife after giving her a peck on the cheek.
Of course, in those cases, it’s obvious you’re gonna do it because EVERY time you have sex it’s a special thing. It’s like I’m having sex but my, say, shoulder hurts a bit, my wife will ask if that move is ok.
For people still having trouble with the concept, the best video to ever come out of the UK.
I’m wondering, do the “all consent must be verbal” people think the mute should never have sex?