Frylock, you sure post perty!
That’s not how I interpret the OP. If I understand him correctly, he’s asking what would society be like if sex were treated as casually as, say, walking up to a stranger and discussing the weather. Like it would be rude NOT to have sex with a total stranger under most circumstances. (I mean…for the rest of you. For me it’s already more or less like that:D )
I think “enthusiastic consent” might be a bit much to expect. Sometimes you might have to fuck some girl up the ass just to be polite.
I think the conclusion of this challenge is that ‘norms’ should be descriptive, not prescriptive - and in some cases, there may not be a single standard - it might be a case of “Some like it this way, others, not so much”
People are different - why should we expect them to all behave the same?
You don’t say which is the man and which is the woman (assuming hetero-sex).
I think the concept of “enthusiastic” consent being the only true consent makes consent so outside what most people experience/practice that it actually hurts the conversation.
People have sex plenty of times when they’re only kinda interested, or only kinda in the mood. It’s still consensual.
Some people have sex when they’re trying to conceive, even if they’re not feeling enthusiastic about the encounter. It’s consensual.
Some people have sex as a means to some other goal, even if they’re not that enthusiastic about the sex itself. It’s consensual.
And, sometimes people know the true state of enthusiasm of their partners. Sometimes they don’t. Still consensual.
(And a note to clarify; I’m not arguing against consent, I’m arguing against “enthusiastic” consent as a reasonable standard of consent)
I’m assuming this is meant to be practised by all parties involved in equal measure - I mean, if this were just a prescription for men, or just for women, or just for hetero men, it fails before it even starts.
I’m going to argue against ‘explicit’. I may wish to express consent in general until countermanded - in fact there are some acts for which consent cannot be explicitly and immediately given (for example: if my wife asks “How about if I wake you up tomorrow by tickling your balls with an egg whisk?” and I say “sure, any time you like, with any blunt utensil”, then the consent stands until the day I say “Not the cutlery drawer tomorrow, dear - I want a lie-in” or something)
And if that kind of consent is OK, then so is “to have and to hold, from this day forth” - blanket consent to anything ‘reasonable’ at the time of the marriage union.
a) I hear a lot of people complain that “doing it that way would take away all the frisson and life, you’re putting romance on a dissecting table” or something.
The people who promote explicit consent at each stage assume that the everyday alternative is more intrusive, and that this represents a careful cautious approach.
I don’t think it’s that simple. There is a whole world of hints, body language, and other nonverbal and indirect inquiry and dialogue that can be less pushy than the verbal inquiry.
I suspect some of the people complaining about the robot-like artificiality of doing the “consent at each stage” are actually complaining about that: that doing it verbally is clumsy and klunky and that they do inquire about consent at each stage, but that they do it nonverbally.
b) There’s an implicit gender assumption that tends to operate here, in which the “asker” of each little question is male and the “consenter” (or non) is female:
(note the gendering)
(I’m not saying that each and every person visualizes it with him doing the asking, just that there’s a tendency to do so. also not saying Mijin assumes this or does so inflexibly, I just stole the post to use as an easy example).
The people who propose or support explicit consent at each stage tend to see it as empowering women: that if sexual communication is done this way they have a better opportunity to opt out. (And again they are often visualizing the men doing the asking and the women doing the consenting at each stage. They could probably sell the idea better if they did more videos and acting-outs and example-dialogs in which the people take turns taking the initiative)
There is a perception among the supports of explicit consent that some of the people who dislike it do not want women to be more empowered — that his domination of her, the power imbalance, is sexy and to make things more equal takes that away.
My perception is that a lot more would be accomplished by ditching the entire expectation that the person with the external genitalia bits is going to be doing the asking and initiating and work towards a model that’s more like a “co-reactive dance” —I made a move, so now it’s your move, you initiate something or you must not be interested.
Seduction is not rape. And sometimes the seduction and the sexual tension is fun. And exciting. And part of the experience. And the non-verbal cueing can be fun. And sometimes, even if I want sex, I want my partner to have to work for it a little bit. Because it’s not just about the 30 minutes or so in bed. It’s about feeling desirable. And making myself desirable.
This is assuming both parties are mature adults. And mature adults are not afraid to use their words if they feel the non-verbal communication isn’t working. So much of the new mentality around sex seems to be based on the idea that women don’t have equal agency with men. The idea that in a coequal situation women are weak creatures and easily pressured into doing things they don’t want to do. The idea that in a coequal situation, women must be protected from themselves and their overly agreeable nature. I don’t want to be treated that way. I came if age at a time when women fought not be treated that way. My incoming freshman college class was the first one NOT to have a dorm curfew. And the women before me fought for that.
Yes, non-verbal communication can result in mixed signals. And sometimes you have to speak up, either to say “No, I’m really not into this right now” or “Go Away” or “I’ve been trying to get you to make out with me for the past hour, dude”. But the solution to miscommunication is not to try to make a bunch of rules that codify and limit communication. The solution is more and better communication. It’s a skill that takes practice.
Yes, and sometimes there are “fails” when it comes to non-verbal and indirect communication. And sometimes that leads to an uncomfortable situation. And you might have tp speak out. That has happened to me many many times. In both non-sexual and sexual situation. For example, I was in the habit of introducing my technicians to my client while praising their work. It my thinking, it made them seem appreciated. But one of them really didn’t like it when I did that. So he took me aside and said “I don’t like it when you do that”. So didn’t do it anymore with him. And I was more mindful about doing that with other employees. I didn’t stop,most of my employees DID feel appreciated when I did that, but I was more mindful about it.
I remember a porn story with that as a theme. The twist at the end was the characters decided to make it into a porn story.
I agree! (Not totally sure why you quoted my post)
To indicate agreement and to elaborate. Sorry for any miscommunication ( see how easy that was!)
And the other thing about the idea of enthusiastic consent for everything is it could lead to some lousy sex. Like you may consent with mild enthusiasm to A because your partner loves it but you’re just OK with it but maybe you don’t like doing B much at all and want to move on to C, lots and lots of C. Hard to communicate that if there’s a social stricture that demands enthusiastic consent to everything.
If you can’t enjoy sex without affirmative consent at each step, that’s definitely something you should communicate to your partner(s). But asking the whole world to do it that way every time just so you don’t have to communicate YOUR preferences to YOUR partner seems a bit much.
Gotcha!
I also feel that I need to add that while I stand by everything I have said above, I also acknowledge that there are plenty of people who don’t feel comfortable/don’t have a voice to communicate lack of consent clearly and end up having sex in unwanted situations, and I think that’s bad, and I think we as a society need to work to undo a lot of the internalizations that lead to those situations. I just don’t think that the method/definitions in the OP are the most constructive path, nor do I think they would stand up as an effective, long term, systemic solution.
I’m not sure that the OP’s proposal solves the problem that it’s meant to. If the circumstances are such that person B feels pressured or otherwise unable to refuse a nonverbal advance from person A, wouldn’t there be similar pressure not to say no to a verbal request?
Part of the sex process, among those looking for a potential long term relationship at that time, is understanding their potential partner’s non-verbal clues, body language and the like. That’s how much of the communication my wife and I have. We don’t have a two page form, with a number 2 pencil and bubbles to figure out what we’re going to have for dinner on a given night. Part of this journey though life is communicating with others, figuring out what works and what doesn’t, what’s offense, what’s hurtful what helps what doesn’t.
Using your flowchart to orgasm is a giant step backward for mankind.
I thought about this for a little while, and here are my thoughts:
Enthusiastic consent (which may not have to be verbal, IMO, but it must be enthusiastic) is probably a wise standard for folks that you don’t know well, like first (or 2nd or 3rd) dates. The benefit – you have pretty much zero chance of making someone feel uncomfortable or fearful. The cost – you may miss some chances for sex with a partner who is outwardly more reserved, despite an inner enthusiasm you wouldn’t detect until you know them better. That benefit strikes me as more than making up for the cost.
With a long-time partner, it’s all different, and every couple that’s respectful of each other finds their own pattern and approach.
Later in my dating life, after I had learned and matured, I always said something like the following at the end of a date (if/when I saw an opening to get closer): “Hey, you can come up to my place/hotel room, but you don’t have to. And even if you do, nothing will happen that you’re not comfortable with. No hard feelings if you don’t want to come up, and no hard feelings if you want to come up but don’t want to do anything.” And after that, if they chose to come up, any intimate encounters would be gradual, with plenty of pauses.
I’m struggling to understand what’s better about this as compared to, “Hey, you wanna come up?”
I think that one of the underdiscussed issues around casual sex is how sex between strangers invites many problems, unintentional sexual assault being one of the biggest.
If you know the person you are having sex with, you don’t have to ask at every step. You do read nonverbal cues and you probably have a sense of what this person is into. Even if it’s the first time there’s already some level of familiarity. Now take this total lack of familiarity, add alcohol, and it’s easy to see how bad things happen.
I have no problem with casual sex, wish I’d had more of it before getting married. But I’ve never thought that sex with strangers was anything but Russian roulette, and it’s not just the disease I’m referring to. Going to a stranger’s house or bringing one into your house is always a dangerous proposition and I’ve always been amazed at a) how normalized the practice is, and b) how shocked people act when it goes badly.
If people stopped going to strangers’ houses after imbibing alcohol or inviting strangers to their house, I bet sexual assault would drop by 70% overnight.
I agree that enthusiastic consent is a good standard, but I don’t think it should be considered the only reasonable standard. If we’re going to go that far then we might as well just take the next step, which is “only females initiate casual sex”. Because now we’re starting to get into issues like “pestering” and “nonverbal cues”, and while men should not pester women for sex, and while men should notice verbal cues, we’re starting to get far enough into the weeds on this issue that it’s establishing a standard that actually takes a lot of effort for men to meet. And failure to meet those standards, if made public, carries a very high price.
You know what standard is really, really, easy to meet? Don’t grope strangers. Don’t proposition strangers. Don’t bring strangers into your apartment. Things are a lot easier when you actually know the person you’re trying to hook up with. And I think we just naturally treat people we know with more respect than people who we’re just trying to shag and want them out of our lives when the shagging’s done.