Let's talk about consent - Yes vs Lack of No

[BritterSweet]

WARNING: this is about sexual consent, so non-consent is included in the topic. This can get potentially triggering.

 

Ready? Okay.

 

I regularly visit a blog called Paging Dr. Nerdlove, which is full of good advice on dating and relationships. One of the latest articles discussed consent to sex, specifically enthusiastic consent.

 

link removed

 

Basically it said that "no means no" is an important message, but it's not enough on its own. It would be better if we change our idea of what real consent is. Rather than just accepting a lack of "no" as consent (which can be obtained through dishonest and immoral means), we should only accept an honest "yes" as consent. (Note that I said "honest" because coercion may enter the picture).

 

Here's another article on enthusiastic consent that's worth reading, as it debunks arguments used against affirmative consent (yes, those exist):

link removed

 

This may not be necessarily asking for advice, but I feel this is an important topic, what with the surge of horrifying and disgusting news and social networking coverage of rapes. Not to mention that not too long ago, there have been threads here where posters have argued on whether a sexual act was consensual or not. Some of you may be thinking, "Shouldn't this be a basic standard?" Yes, it should. But depressingly/infuriatingly, it's not.

[Batya33]

This reminds me of the widely publicized "antioch" rules in the early 1990s. I think it's fine between consenting adults (where both are sober/not drunk) to imply consent to sex through actions - I think if you go down the path of requiring someone to say "yes" and say it "honestly" there will be too many cases of people who mistook an "I didn't really mean yes" for "yes" especially between strangers and lots of people who regret their actions later hanging on to "but I didn't actually say the word yes!"

 

For the Antioch policy simply google it and 1993.

[BritterSweet]

This reminds me of the widely publicized "antioch" rules in the early 1990s. I think it's fine between consenting adults (where both are sober/not drunk) to imply consent to sex through actions - I think if you go down the path of requiring someone to say "yes" and say it "honestly" there will be too many cases of people who mistook an "I didn't really mean yes" for "yes" especially between strangers and lots of people who regret their actions later hanging on to "but I didn't actually say the word yes!"

 

For the Antioch policy simply google it and 1993.

 

What's kind of disheartening here is that a big reason for the enthusiastic consent model is to get rid of all these "but-what-abouts."

 

All I wanted to say was, "It would be better if it was clear that your partner is just as in on it as you are."

 

If your partner is not awake or aware, the default answer is no.

If your partner is not in their right mind (drunk, etc.), err on the side of caution and assume it's a no-go. Better safe than sorry.

If your partner gives in and says yes after a guilt trip, that's not a real yes.

If your partner is into it at first but then wants to stop, that yes became a no. You and your partner can change your minds.

 

And it doesn't have to be as extreme as signing a piece of paper for permission to french kiss. Just pay attention to each other, set yourselves up on the same page, and if in doubt, clear it up by asking.

[HeatherB]

I guess this is really important if you're talking about strangers. No one should dare touch you in that way if they don't know you.

 

I think the guilt trip bit is taking things a bit far, though. Allowing yourself be emotionally manipulated into sex isn't being violated by the guilt tripper, in my opinion. It's violating yourself. And expecting everyone to shout, "Yes yes yes! I desire sexual act a, but not sexual act b, you bohunk you!" when they're turned on is not uniformly practical either. Verbal ability sometimes goes to heck when your blood rushes elsewhere.

[Scribbler]

Two great articles.

They really do say it all and I sincerely hope many people read them.

 

...no, really, if you haven't read them yet, click those links!

 

They contain such an important message without blaming, make excuses for or devaluing anyone.

There is an overwhelmingly positive message in the articles that benefits everyone without asking anything negative in return.

The articles essentially are advocating for self respect and that we ALL deserve to be having better sex!

 

In our current blame culture it seems to be up to the female to prevent being raped, how many times have we come accross the "she was asking for it" kind of mentality?

It is seldom understood that no, she wasn't asking for it unless she was EXPLICITLY asking for it.

The current attitude makes it acceptable for the wants of women to be disrespected and ignored. It devalues women not only physically, but devalues their worth as feeling/thinking/intelligent people.

 

Ironically the current attitudes disrespect men just as much as they disrespect women, also devaluing the ability of males to be seen as thinking/feeling/intelligent people; males are painted as sex crazed maniacs, incapable of self control, unable to take responsibility for their actions... and thus a minority of males then think it is ok to act as such.

It's more beneficial to communicate to males that more is expected of them, that they are indeed adult and intelligent, it is expected that they have empathy and self awareness, and should value them selves enough to settle for nothing less than a resounding "Yes!" before having sex, whilst understanding a "yes" will not always come and they are able to deal with that because they are more than just a walking pr*ck.

 

It's just a matter of learning to treat each other with respect, AND respecting yourself enough to not have sex with someone who you do not want or who doesn't want you...

Positive re-education!

 

(note: I'm aware that in the case of rape I've addressed males as the offenders, and females as the victims. I know this isn't ALWAYS the case and the tables can be turned, but it's about reforming attitudes that accept males as sex-hungry-beats... females are seldom thought of as walking predatory vagina monsters on the hunt for quick d*ck. Neither scenario is correct, but one is more widely accepted. know what I mean?)

[BritterSweet]

Thank you, Scribbler, for pointing out the positivity in the articles. I probably should have done that from the start as well because this topic is pretty heavy, so some people may be scared off and hesitate to read the articles. You're right in that the benefits are not just reducing loophole abuse for "no means no," but also having a better respect for yourselves and each other. As well as making sex more enjoyable!

 

Ironically the current attitudes disrespect men just as much as they disrespect women, also devaluing the ability of males to be seen as thinking/feeling/intelligent people; males are painted as sex crazed maniacs, incapable of self control, unable to take responsibility for their actions... and thus a minority of males then think it is ok to act as such.

 

Here's even more irony: back in the olden days, like ancient Greece, that was a female stereotype!

[Scribbler]

Here's even more irony: back in the olden days, like ancient Greece, that was a female stereotype!

 

SO ironic!!

 

There should be a thread about this.

 

My favourite example to bring up in discussion on this matter is:

 

 

 

Ah David, sculpted in the Greek tradition that a small penis is the civilised and desirable option! Back then to have a large penis was positively shameful!

 

And, just for some more off topic fun:

 

 

 

So beautiful, so "feminine", and so lacking in giant mammaries...

 

These works of stone outlast the civilisations in which they were created, and thus help us put a mirror up to ourselves and contemplate the irrelevance of all we consider to be true "male" and "female" characteristics and behaviours, which are constantly constantly evolving.

 

My point I guess is that what we consider to be the norm in sexual behaviour is always evolving too, and with a little bit more education I'm sure the positive ideas in the first article will indeed be the basic standard, with the help of open discussion.

[Batya33]

I don't agree with the "yes" after a guilt trip situation -if an adult is of sound mind and says yes out of guilt, that's fine -that's her/his burden to bear- some people get pleasure out of giving in or playing a martyr and it shouldn't be the other person's responsibility to analyze the meaning of "yes". Drunk/incapacitated -cannot give consent I agree.

 

I also agree that yes can change to no at any point and that should be honored.

[BritterSweet]

I still stand by the guilt trip part because the partner who gave in still ends up having sex they didn't really want. I consider guilt trips a form of coercion, which takes the enthusiasm and even honesty out of the yes. Whether or not you think it's consent, it is a form of abuse, and should not be seen as a way around obtaining enthusiastic consent. I also do not support blaming the person who was pressured, rather than the person doing the pressuring.

[pl3asehelp]

I still stand by the guilt trip part because the partner who gave in still ends up having sex they didn't really want. I consider guilt trips a form of coercion, which takes the enthusiasm and even honesty out of the yes. Whether or not you think it's consent, it is a form of abuse, and should not be seen as a way around obtaining enthusiastic consent. I also do not support blaming the person who was pressured, rather than the person doing the pressuring.

 

Problem with this is there is no way to precisely define a guilt trip. One person's guilt trip is another's seduction. If you're sober and you say yes, unless there's a physical threat, it's on you.

[BritterSweet]

That's disturbing. Is it sexy to make someone feel bad? "If you loved me, you would..." counts as dirty talk? Can you really feel proud of yourself for successfully pushing someone into sex when they weren't really willing?

 

What is emotional abuse, then, if this isn't it?

[camus154]

This just sounds like a lot of over-explication for what common sense should already tell you. Do we really need to invent such silly buzz phrases like "enthusiastic consent" in order to educate young people that when some dude is having sex with the passed-out girl at the party, maybe someone should do something about it?

[HeatherB]

I was just reading some Gottman, "What Makes Love Last?" And he says that an enthusiastic, positive response to being turned down is the key to more sex in a relationship. Shows that you care about the person and don't feel they owe you sex. Which makes them more likely to go for it or initiate it next time.

 

So I'd like to see enthusiastic acceptance of rejection highlighted as well.

[pl3asehelp]

That's disturbing. Is it sexy to make someone feel bad? "If you loved me, you would..." counts as dirty talk? Can you really feel proud of yourself for successfully pushing someone into sex when they weren't really willing?

 

What is emotional abuse, then, if this isn't it?

 

Not dirty talk, seduction. 'I want to so bad, come on you know you want to, just the tip, etc, blah blah.'. Not my up of tea but lots of people find some else's coersion and persistence a fun pursuit when it ends in them saying yes. May be emotional abuse, but emotional abuse doesn't equal rape.

[BritterSweet]

This just sounds like a lot of over-explication for what common sense should already tell you. Do we really need to invent such silly buzz phrases like "enthusiastic consent" in order to educate young people that when some dude is having sex with the passed-out girl at the party, maybe someone should do something about it?

 

Sadly, this should be common sense, but it isn't. If the Steubenville rape case -among others- is any indication, we as a society have very messed up views.

 

And apparently we have to give it a buzz phrase name like "enthusiastic consent" because just "consent" is still not clear enough for these people. Someone should do something, but no one actually does. The victim ends up blamed and threatened with rape and death, and the rapist rarely faces consequences for committing the crime.

[BritterSweet]

I'm going to give this link here to further explain the difference between seduction and coercion.

 

link removed

 

A quote from it: "Herein lies the critical difference between seduction and coercion. The idea behind seduction is to encourage consent - actual, willing and even enthusiastic consent – by building arousal and interest, not by putting pressure on [him or] her to give in."

 

It doesn't matter whether you think it's emotional abuse or if it's rape or not rape. If it wasn't wanted, true consent was not given.

[pl3asehelp]

I'm going to give this link here to further explain the difference between seduction and coercion.

 

link removed

 

A quote from it: "Herein lies the critical difference between seduction and coercion. The idea behind seduction is to encourage consent - actual, willing and even enthusiastic consent – by building arousal and interest, not by putting pressure on [him or] her to give in."

 

It doesn't matter whether you think it's emotional abuse or if it's rape or not rape. If it wasn't wanted, true consent was not given.

 

Interesting distinction and I agree with it, but I just don't see why it matters given that nobody could ever prove if they other party was getting aroused or interested or not. If someone says yes, they're going to own that decision unless someone had a gun to their head or a knife to their throat. Who cares about consent in any contex but rape?

[SapphireNoir10]

Thread closed. Not asking for advice.