Fair enough. My point is that it depends on the couple, and it gets complicated.
I still stand by my original statement, after a couple is in an established relationship they should be good at reading verbal and non-verbal signals to proceed or stop.
From what I’ve seen there are lots of relationships with libido mismatches, not all of which are women wanting less sex than men. And there are lots where one partner stops being interested and sex stops.
Maybe in these cases a breakup allowing both partners to find other partners better tuned to their needs is good for everyone. Which means that one partner doing it for England just prolongs the agony.
Most people, even men, can pick up when their partner is not all that interested.
I can understand someone feeling forced into it, but this can apply to many aspects of a relationship - money, cooking, childcare, cleaning. If a partner gets violent when ones needs are expressed, leaving sooner rather than later is a good thing.
I think there are two problems with the script the OP suggests.
it makes sense to ask about each thing in a new relationship, but in an established relationship, the people usually have some idea of what they like, and there’s a lot of “previously granted consent”. That is, I feel like it’s okay to grab your spouse’s bum as you like in bed. If they aren’t into it right now, they’ll let you know, but it’s not a consent violation (for most couples) to reach over and touch each other in erotic places without explicitly asking. So the “rules” that make sense to people who are often trying to pick up new partners are different from the rules that makes sense in the context of a long-term relationship.
There’s a lot of explicit consent that’s non-verbal. If the guy leans in to kiss the girl at the end of the canonical first date, the girl isn’t just a static object. She may pull away, or she may lean in with her lips. The latter is explicit consent. The same is true for most stages of making out. Yes, there are a few stages where it’s probably good to get verbal consent. It’s a much bigger deal to stick part of your body into part of someone else’s body than to touch someone’s neck with your finger-tips, for instance, and it’s a good idea to be really sure the other person it expecting and welcoming that. And if you want to try something unusual, that might be unexpected, or that isn’t easy to clearly clue with just your body language, it’s certainly good to make sure the other party knows what to expect, so they can express consent or lack thereof. But for ordinary “moves”, in ordinary situations, both parties should be able to express consent (even enthusiastic consent) or disinterest without a running verbal commentary. I mean, if you and your partner find the running verbal commentary hot, then go for it. But I don’t think it’s necessary for consent.
I’m not sure verbalizing is sufficient, either. I mean, if you feel overpowered or intimidated, and you don’t feel comfortable pulling away, or gently brushing your partner’s hand away from an erogenous zone, would you feel empowered to say “no, that’s not okay now”? I realize it might be easier to be silent (lack of consent in a verbal situation) than to pull away, because frightened people can freeze. But I think a decent partner who is concerned with consent will stop if their partner freezes instead of recipriocating. So I’m not sure that verbalizing adds a lot consent-wise to ordinary sexual encounters.
Wasn’t there a university that came up with a consent form like this awhile back, or at least a list of guidelines, similiar to what the OP is suggesting? And people (rightly, in my opinion), thought it was generally laughable.
Oh, if only arranging threesomes was that easy…
On the internet no one knows you’re a bonobo.
How would verbal consent make B any safer or prevent A from criminal liability? And relying A to judge whether or not the consent is “enthusiastic”? No, no, no. That would carry no weight in court. It should be a written checklist, and both parties should have to initial it. Oh, wait, that won’t work.
I’m all for safeguards. I’m the victim of sexual assault by a stranger and have had friends who were date raped. I know the terror and trauma of being completely powerless. But the main issue with verbal, “enthusiastic” consent isn’t that it would kill the mood (though it would) but that it doesn’t solve the problem or make the B’s of this world any safer.
Let’s say B agrees with what seems to A like enthusiasm consent to activity X. But after enthusiastically consenting, B changes her mind. Doesn’t whether or not A proceeds still come down to B’s “no”?
There are few activities where we’re more vulnerable than sex. Are we less vulnerable because we give or get explicit, enthusiastic permission for each potential act? No. In fact, hell, no. I shudder to think of a defendant saying, “Your honor, B says I proceeded to X without her consent, but she clearly agreed to X beforehand.” And if B states she changed her mind, I doubt such a checklist would be helpful to A’s defense, either. At least, I’d hope not.
Define enthusiastic.
As others have pointed out, there are things to be learned from the BDSM community.
IMO, the most important is the paired notions of “a scene or session” and “negotiation”.
SCENE/SESSION: The dynamics of consent inside the scene do not have to remain as they are outside of the scene. Among other things that lets a person ascribe to “this is my goddam body and you don’t ever get to do anything to it without my explicit consent if not initiation” without that person being confined to the somewhat clinical experience that some people are complaining about.
NEGOTIATION: Negotiation occurs outside of (and prior to) the scene and the parties involved work out the rules that they want to play by. This includes the establishment of safe words, but also things like hard limits (“don’t EVER do this”) and soft limits (“I don’t like this”) and turnons (“I’ve always fantasized about this”) and tendencies (“when someone does this, it tends to elicit this reaction in me”) and so on.
People during initial flirting and discussion could do negotiation and define a scene instead of always just going with the unspoken defaults. Unlike the dialog in the OP, the discussion can be personally revealing and fun and flirtatious in and of itself, and yet it establishes the same safeties.
Or learning the alphabet. 
Yes, and SNL did it in 1993.
“No” means no. “Yes” means … no? Because the party (and the dialogue is only meaning that party is female) saying “yes” might not really want to be saying yes, but is only saying “yes” because they have somehow been socialized into doing so. Only an “enthusiastic” yes really means yes. Only YES!!! with balloons and kazoos means yes. No multiple exclamation marks and underlining? Don’t assume that the other party actually is the adult that they are by age and capable of honest and straightforward communication.
It is absurd to infantilize potential partners like that. I could not imagine wanting to be with a partner who needed to be so infantilized. No matter what their chronological age they are emotionally not old enough for sex. Give me my strong woman please.
How about this?
Don’t have sex, especially casual recreational sex with someone who you do not know well and who does not know you well unless you are prepared to communicate unambiguously and even then prepared to be disappointed. Clearly communicate what you want and do not want. No means no. Yes means yes. Maybe means you can ask again in a bit after we keep things at this level or less for now. That communication can be verbal or nonverbal and is like most communication a constant give and take process but the less well you know your partner of the moment the more outrageously clear and unambiguous it must be. Be a good sex partner and pay as much attention as you can to figuring out what your partner wants and does not want and to making the experience what they want (to the degree it does not violate what you want) and be a good sex partner by communicating clearly what they need to do (and not do) to make the experience one that satisfies your desires. Asking for what you want is not a violation. If your partner seems to not understand what are communicating then try to communicate it even more clearly. Or call the encounter off (which you can do at any time, really you can). Or if you feel a less than completely satisfying encounter is better than one called off then settle for bad sex. For each participant it is their call and their responsibility.
That’s literally exactly what I’m talking about and portrayed in the OP.
If you think so then one or both of us have completely misunderstood the other.
Unambiguous communication ≠ a requirement for explicit enthusiastic consent.
First unambiguous is not necessarily verbal or explicit and what is unambiguous is different depending on the context of the relationship and its communication. In a relationship in which people know each other well a look and a smile in response may be completely unambiguous and suffices for all that follows and a “not moving my hands as much” might unambiguously communicate an interest in stopping. In a hook up with a relative stranger communication needs to be more explicit to be unambiguous. “I want to fuck you.” is one crude explicit communication. A response of “Let me get the condom.” even stated matter of factly and without any exclamation points or enthusiasm, or reaching to the partner’s genitalia, are both unambiguous as consent and a shaking the head gently side to side negatively is unambiguous as is saying “Sorry, don’t wanna fuck you.” Saying “Let’s go slow” or “I’m not sure.” if the intent of the communication was “Don’t wanna” or “Let’s stop this.” is not unambiguous.
Second communication is not just about consent (or the communication of withdrawal of consent) and has nothing to do with demanding it be enthusiastic.
I would like to post in this thread. Would you all enjoy that?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
The main issue with the Ansari article is this. The writers and the #cruicifyAziz crowd are missing the fact that there are two transactions which must take place before the withdrawal of consent can be effected. They often happen simultaneously, but they are distinct. The first is the decision to withdraw. The second is the communication of that fact to the other party. No one doubts that consent can be withdrawn at any time and for no reason. The question is whether that fact was *communicated * to the other person. Even adopting the most charitable view, its hard to deduce that “Grace” did infact communicate it in such a way that a reasonable person would recognize understand that consent is finished.
That will not change with a positive consent law either. A person still has to communicate “enthusiastic” consent to the other party and the other party still has to interpret it as such. And like Ansari, he has to be a mind reader. Yeah, I suggested that we cuddle, and she smiled and we did it. Now I want PIV and suggested it and she smiled, thats enthusiastic right? Or is that just a polite smile?
Oh sure - you post once to the thread. A quick one-liner, over almost as soon as it’s begun.
Then you disappear from the thread. You don’t write, you don’t text, you don’t send flowers - you are off bragging to your cheap friends in Café Society, and leave us alone on a Saturday night eating chocolate and watching bad romantic comedies. Alone.
:sobs: We thought you were different!
Regards,
Shodan
Isn’t that romantic!?!?!
Do you suggest putting these sessions on your google calendar so you make sure you have time to finish everything?
There are a few things you have to ask permission for (because the forgiveness would never come) but spontaneity can be a turn on as well. Why not just rely on the circuit breaker we already have in place to stop the show, the word “NO”
No, it certainly is not.
If the sensible approach that DSeid spelled out clearly and eloquently is what you intended to say, then it’s more than a little ironic that you communicated your intended meaning so poorly. I consent enthusiastically to what you apparently intended to say, but I would have called an Uber and fled from what you actually said.
I think the proposal as it was actually phrased is rather bizarre and a more interesting hypothetical- that societal norms would be such that everyone should explicitly and enthusiastically consent to any and all sex acts when requested to do so, and that to fail to consent to any proposed sex act would be considered impolite and a breach of social norms.
I think the disadvantages of this proposal are fairly obvious. Very attractive people would have to be very impolite much of the time if they wanted to go out in public and do anything but sex. Incompatible sexual preferences and/or kinks would make pretty much everyone need to be impolite, at least from time to time. “Kinks” in this context would include such bizarre preferences as preferring monogamy.