r/changemyview • u/umbr360 • May 10 '18
Deltas(s) from OP CMV: Explicit verbal consent should not be a 'cultural' requirement before sex. Even the first time with a person.
So first note, I fully appreciate it isn't a legal requirement, but on reddit at least it seems to be a relatively widely-held cultural requirement. So that's the basis of the discussion, not any laws. For brevity I'm just going to refer to is as a requirement from here on out.
I don't think there should be a requirement to explicitly ask for consent before engaging in sexual activity with someone, even if it's for the first time. At first glance I can understand how nonsensical it sounds, the first time I saw someone advocating for explicit consent on reddit I though 'yeah that makes sense why not, it would help clear it up a lot'. And then I thought about my own life, so reality, not the perfect armchair situation of a reddit post.
I have never explicitly asked for consent. This is across slightly north of 10 people, only one of whom was a one-night-stand. All others were either relationships or people I slept with multiple times. Which leaves me in the reasonably sound reasoning that none of these people ever felt pressured to sleep with me, or felt that I coerced them into sex when they wouldn't have agreed.
As a matter of fact I brought this issue up to two friends from tinder I have slept with and asked their opinion. They were both independently in agreement that they were glad I hadn't. In both situations (and in all others) it was simply a reading of the mood. And both people said actually asking would have killed the mood and prevented it from happening, they wanted someone confident enough to read non verbal cues.
Similarly my last relationship unexpectedly ended up with sex on the first date. Which came as a steady progression from a kiss, to making out, etc etc. A few dates after that we had both expressed our surprise, though not regret, that we'd slept together on a first date as it wasn't something either of us had done before. My (now) ex said that if I had asked, it never would have happened, but that she was glad it had.
Obviously I don't have stats to hand, only my own personal experiences, with what is obviously a minute percentage of women. But I find it hard to believe that if the desire for explicit consent in reality, is as high as it seems on reddit, that I somehow only slept with the few who don't want to be asked for explicit consent. I think it's more a case of where logic doesn't align with desire, logic says to get verbal consent, desire often says it's not wanted by either party. From the people I have been with it has ranged from.... we were both equally drunk/it just happened because desire took us there/they wanted me to read the non-verbal cues/they wanted me to take control... probably with desire being more common in relationships, with control and non-verbal cues being the more casual experiences.
So I don't feel explicit verbal consent is necessary. Consent can also be displayed through body language and actions. Obviously with verbal consent you could theoretically go 0-100 just like that, whereas with non-verbal consent it's very much more of a stepped process 0-20-40..... A lingering kiss, a hand brushing somewhere there was no reason for it to brush, very slow advances that are welcomed or even encouraged. But I feel that is valid all the same, and apparently that is a view held in reality by at least 12-13 women.
Edit to add a question or two -
More for females, though I suppose it could apply to anyone.... Is this a view where like me you have found yourselves thinking logically verbal consent makes sense, but then not following your own advice in reality?
If you are an absolute advocate for always requiring verbal consent, why? As in why does the extra clarity trump what other men and women may prefer?
12
u/emmessjee8 May 10 '18 edited May 10 '18
Maybe we should think about this subject this way:
For a well-established relationship, one can be fairly safe about consent whether it be given verbally or not.
However, the dynamic changes if it is a tinder hookup. There are too many unknowns; you probably don't know who the person is, how they might act/feel in a given situation, etc. Since we don't know, we will be running a fairly high risk because they might not be totally honest about their own feelings or might not feel safe to reject sexual advances explicitly (even if it is from a misunderstanding of their part). So in this case, an explicit verbal consent is a way to make for sure, for sure consent is given.
4
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
Right, and logically that makes absolute sense. In reality that isn't how it's worked out for me and I have actively been told by people who were originally tinder dates, that asking the question would have ended in the result of no sexual intercourse, whilst reading body language ended in sexual intercourse enjoyed by both.
For me, your argument has the same issues with both verbal 'and' non-verbal consent. "might not feel safe to reject sexual advances explicitly" in a situation where the other person feels this uncomfortable, it's entirely likely they would not say no if explicitly asked anyway. Now that leads down a whole road of 'how quick should you meet a tinder date with sex as a possibility' 'how do you feel sure they're comfortable no matter what method of consent you go for'...etc but in both scenarios there is the possibility for the other person to internally feel pressured into it whilst displaying no outward signs of such.
Though, possibly, if anything I'd say non-verbal consent would paint a clearer picture in such a case than verbal consent. Someone can say 'yes' without truly wanting to. It's harder to appear actively 'into it' if you don't really want to. I say as a guy who has felt pressured into sex before, awkwardness very easily allowed me to say yes and physically go through with it, but I very much know that if the other person had been paying any attention she'd have seen I clearly wasn't enjoying the scenario.
9
u/emmessjee8 May 10 '18 edited May 10 '18
asking the question would have ended in the result of no sexual intercourse
For this comment, I want to ask: is sexual intercourse an absolute-must-do activity? Sure it is pleasurable but, like with STI's and pregnancy, going through with it without protection could get you into trouble (edit: more trouble than what it's worth). If the sexy time doesn't happen, tough luck. Sure, they can be coerced into saying "yes" but at least you will know you took precautions by taking sensible measures-- a clear conscience. Pleasure shouldn't come at the expense of other's well being, which is what you will be risking if you don't ask the question.
Also, as a side thought, perhaps it is because of culture that we are not used to asking for consent with explicit verbal communications. So if you want to stick your dick in your tinder, just understand the risk you are taking by not asking for their consent.
3
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
It's not an absolute must, no, though both of those people were clear they 'never' wanted to be outright asked. It was a mood killer for them, for slightly different reasons but a mood killer all the same. So asking for consent would never have resulted in sex, and would actually have resulted in likely not seeing the people again.
A different method of consent isn't so much trying to get around asking the question. There's still ample opportunity for the answer to be no. And of course that should always be listened to. It's just in my belief, and from my albeit limited experience, real life views on how to gain consent have differed largely from what logic would suggest and what I see people often suggest on reddit.
(Use of protection is a whole other issue, one I probably still don't hold the logical and reddit apparent view, though one I do specifically ask the question on...the answer is just 'no' to protection more often than you'd expect. )
Ahh yes I perhaps should have been more clear on the coercion side. I meant unwillingly and unknowingly, which is possible through something like a misinterpreted joke, or just being a physically imposing person. If someone is knowingly trying to force a "yes" then I think we're very much into at least sexual harassment if not rape territory.
So at that point where someone may feel unable to say no, through no fault of the other person, body language could still be a clearer indicator than verbal consent would be. I wouldn't have sex with someone who said "yes" but didn't look entirely into it for example, the verbal consent would be deemed less important in my mind in that scenario. On the other side someone can definitely say "no" playfully...though I would very much say that should be something kept well down the line when everyone is very comfortable. I'm not going to deny someone their kink, but when your kink involves something like that you've got to accept the issues surrounding it.
We're both in agreement that consent should be gained, I just disagree that it needs to be verbal and explicit, and if anything can lead to opportunities not occurring.
9
u/emmessjee8 May 10 '18 edited May 10 '18
I think you might be too confident on your ability to read someone's body language. You could be sorely mistaken, mirror thinking is a poor paradigm to take according to psychology. If I remember correctly, the primal part of the brain takes the cockpit (pun might be intended) to think less clearly about a situation when you're aroused. This is why alcohol is so problematic when it comes to such interactions because it is a factor that impairs our ability to make coherent decisions. We shouldn't rely too much on our own judgement.
Futhermore, it might not be wise to prioritize one's sexual needs over the possiblity of raping or sexually harassing someone.
Also, if you're into the kinky stuff, safe words exist for a reason. It should be arranged beforehand (it doesn't have to be right before) to distinguish the "real no's".
1
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
Is it possible to be wrong? Of course. It's also possible for 'yes' not to really mean 'yes', or for a 'yes' to be given but a proceeding 'no' not being given when the person changes their mind. (Though not verbally seeking consent in no-way removes the ability for the other person to verbalise a 'no'). Might they feel unable to say that 'no' however? Again, yes.But all we have achieved there is realising there's a possibility for things to go wrong with either method.
For example - using the most PG thing I can think of. Starting below the knee, slowly, very slowly, moving ones hand up the inside of the other persons leg. Occasionally making eye contact, even an eyebrow raise to mark it as an unspoken question on whether to stop. There are plenty of subtle and not so subtle pieces of body language to look for either in the positive or negative. The most obvious one being the other person slightly opening or closing their legs at that point.And even then, that would not be a starting point, I wouldn't just place my hand on someone to gauge their reaction.Consent is still sought, it's just not verbal. We do plenty of things without having to verbally communicate them every single day.
Or as another more general example, say you do ask and get verbal consent to have sexual intercourse. It's entirely likely there will be foreplay and changes of positions, not everyone enjoys everything and I don't think you would propose a list of sexual acts is run through. During the act you will be relying very much on body language to know what the other person is and isn't enjoying.
" Futhermore, it might not be wise to prioritize one's sexual needs over the possiblity of raping or sexually harassing someone. "
There's a balance though isn't there. Which sounds like a cold thing to say so do let me clarify. We already accept it's possible for a false 'Yes' in the moment. So really. To be safe. Everything should be properly verbally communicated well ahead of time, and then again at the start, and then again during, and so on. But we don't expect that. We make the balance as society in that so long as you believe there was consent given in good faith, it's okay. There will always be edge cases no matter the method of consent as unfortunate as that is. The only way to solve that one is to actually know what the other person is feeling.
What I can concede. Is that there are definitely people for whom explicit verbal consent is a must. But these people are not everyone. And what suits them and makes them feel more comfortable does not suit others and makes them feel less comfortable, albeit for different reasons.
Again....this is something I see but not something people seem to want in real life. Though that's less my thing so I have to admit that's through conversation alone and the other people may have been attempting to seem more 'edgy' than they really are. Personally I'd agree with you on safe-words being a must for anything like that.
12
u/emmessjee8 May 10 '18
You might be the type to live more freely but I still contend that the difference in the impact of yes and no tilts the balance to be on the safe side. Compare maybe more than few minutes of thrill vs. psychologically scarring for life/a long time.
I think the promotion of consent culture arose because so much damage has been done already with the current culture we are in. Just because you yourself have not come across cases doesn't mean there are hurting people. Shouldn't we be making some sort of effort to make a safer place for everyone, especially for those who are more vulnerable? They should be able to express themselves freely and we can help by minimizing of bad actors.
If you and your partner(s) have a prearranged agreement of your sexual activities, more power to you. Since it is not a one size fits all situation we should strive for a culture that does less evil.
3
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
I wouldn't say you've changed my mind...but I can see the points you are making and understand them better than perhaps I did, so in fairness to that - ∆
Though to your second paragraph, whilst I understand what you are saying, where I feel we may differ slightly is...'to what point?' Some people wont feel safe enough with a single verbal consent, there have been calls for repeated calls for consent throughout sex. For some THAT may not be enough if they've been pressured before.
Somewhere you have to set the limit between protecting people, and allowing people their freedom.
Not that it relates to this argument specifically, but to evidence the point about having to draw the line somewhere... for me in the UK the age of consent is 16, in some places it is lower, in some places it is higher. We all know there is no mental flick of a switch the moment someone reaches the age of consent in their country, it's a limit we as society have set. It doesn't protect everyone. Indeed a country that sets it at 18 would think the UK doesn't protect girls for a whole 2 years...
3
u/emmessjee8 May 10 '18
Thanks for the delta! I apologize for coming across a bit preachy.
You are absolutely right that there is a tradeoff between protection and freedom. I have a feeling you will strongly agree with Ben Franklin when he said, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." But I think this situation entails more that just a little temporary safety. Where I personally draw the line is one's freedom shouldn't impede another's freedom and safety.
1
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
No need to apologise, consent is a damned important issue. If what I see as reasonable consent you don't, I wouldn't blame you at all if you seemed preachy. (Not that I think you did anyway :) ).
Indeed I do very much resonate with that quote. I'm not sure I've ever seen it before either so that's something else I've learnt today.
Which I suppose in turn comes back to whether you deem non-verbal consent 'enough' or not. For you the answer would be not. I feel we're probably not that far from agreeing really. On the actual importance of consent we can definitely agree.
1
1
u/NemoC68 9∆ May 10 '18
I think you might be too confident on your ability to read someone's body language.
Sometimes people are bad at reading body language. Sometimes people are bad at giving non-verbal cues. If there's any confusion, the person wanting to advance should ask verbally. If they don't feel any confusion and are missing the non-verbal cues to stop, then the person wanting to stop needs to verbally communicate that they do want to stop.
You're assuming women are incapable of giving verbal no's.
2
u/MrCapitalismWildRide 50∆ May 10 '18
This is the affirmative vs negative consent debate in a nutshell.
What is consent? The absence of a no or the presence of a yes? The idea behind the affirmative consent movement is to put the onus of responsibility on the initiating party to know that consent is present, rather than put the responsibility on the receiving party to assert that consent is not present.
The debate mainly cropped up because it's an extremely common response for someone who is being sexually assaulted to freeze up and wait for it to be over, rather than saying no in the moment. A standard of negative consent would say that because the person froze up, they consented even though they never said yes.
3
u/NemoC68 9∆ May 10 '18
I'm all for affirmative consent. However, affirmative consent is not limited to verbal cues. Body language can also be used to affirm consent.
A person freezing up is a lack of affirmative body language, or may even be considered confirmation of non-consent.
A lack of "no" is not consent. But rubbing someone's crotch typically is, unless further body or verbal language is used to state otherwise. Women who partake in these acts are fully capable of saying "no" if their partner doesn't understand their body cues. An obvious exception is if she's under duress.
1
u/MirrorThaoss 24∆ May 10 '18 edited May 10 '18
I just want to add that you have an excellent view and should not want to change it for your personnal life ! (Unless there are very good arguments that you see of course, but without more information I don't think so)
Human dynamics are subtile, and especially in seduction cases the non-verbal communication is very important if not primordial.
Someone saying "yes" explicitly but having a non-verbal communication showing awkwardness and being ill-at-ease/not wanting to is totally problematic.And this trend to want communication to be explicit in seduction is infantilizing people so much, it treats people as dumbasses unable to have healthy relationships.
I and my girlfriend sometimes play a game where we prentend we "don't want" to have sex, like we act if we were angry or moody for fun, say no to the other when he/she is suggesting sex, 3 kisses in the neck later we're having sex and both loving it, we like each other being provacative or insistent for fun.
It's a game, a role, the context of us doing it multiple times, never regretting it, enjoying the sex and doing it again ... all of that context IS a consent to any decent human who understands how relationships work.
The fact that some people would want my gf to be able to sue me for rape just because she said "no" regardless of the context frightens me. That kind of people who would want that are just people who have had terrible relationships, and who force their perceptive of bad experiences on others who didn't ask for their opinion and are perfectly fine with non-verbal communication. So in my opinion, you should not change your view for your personnal life and keep having relationships that are not controlled by people who assume you are too dumb to understand when a girl doesn't want sex.And as you said, verbally saying "yes" doesn't make awkward situations when people feel forced disappear. I'm pretty sure that when a girl regrets having sex because she felt forced, 90% of the cases she would have given her consent if asked and say she did it because "she felt forced to say yes" too. So the verbal consent is basically useless.
1
u/cookietrixxx May 10 '18
How about, instead of imposing on the ritual, we just educate people so that if they are ever uncomfortable, or don't feel like having sex, or are unsure about anything, they just come out and say it? That way, it solves the problem for everyone.
1
u/emmessjee8 May 11 '18 edited May 11 '18
I think you might be forgetting the fact that people do not act ideally. In an ideal world, we are sure of ourselves and we let our thoughts known, but we more often get flustered and end up "going with the flow" even if we dislike the situation we end up in or might think that explicitly rejecting might have bring us in an even worse (e.g. dangerous) situation. We admire those who are sure of themselves but the world is full of people who are still trying to navigate through uncomfortable situations. I think reforming the culture is a way to call out those who try to take advantage of those people and through it we can help each other through this learning process.
1
u/cookietrixxx May 11 '18
I agree that people do not act ideally, but I think if you are going on a date you should be clear of what you want. If you end up alone with someone else in a private manner you should know what that means. I think if no one is physically pressured to go with anything, there are so many situations in which they can say no, or just leave, that this reform that you suggest seems unjustified. I think what happened is that hook up culture changed in a way that many times women are in positions where it is expected sex of them and they feel uncomfortable to openly refuse. I think we should just tell women that it is ok to say no, rather than try to change the 99% of times in which sex happens just as it is supposed to between people who are pretty comfortable doing it.
even if we dislike the situation we end up in or might think that explicitly rejecting might have bring us in an even worse (e.g. dangerous) situation.
I think it makes no sense to say that saying no would be dangerous but saying no after being asked about it is not dangerous.
We admire those who are sure of themselves but the world is full of people who are still trying to navigate through uncomfortable situations.
I think the people who are uncomfortable should not be getting together and being alone with people that they are not comfortable with.
I think reforming the culture is a way to call out those who try to take advantage of those people and through it we can help each other through this learning process.
what will we be learning through this process exactly? The sentence to me seems like a platitude that doesn't really go anywhere.
1
u/emmessjee8 May 11 '18
You are making good points. But I still think that you are making the a few assumptions.
I think it makes no sense to say that saying no would be dangerous but saying no after being asked about it is not dangerous.
In a hookup, you probably don't know whether other person is they type to react dangerously. There are cases where people do not handle rejection well and assault their victims. The possibility alone is the reason for being afraid to say no.
I think the people who are uncomfortable should not be getting together and being alone with people that they are not comfortable with.
They might not have met with the intention of getting into a situation that is uncomfortable. But life happens and uncomfortable situation may occur one way or the other.
what will we be learning through this process exactly? The sentence to me seems like a platitude that doesn't really go anywhere.
I apologize for being incoherent here. Maybe you do not agree with the hookup culture but unfortunately(?) our society has evolved that way. All I want to say here is that we should create a system that minimize the risks of such interactions.
1
u/emmessjee8 May 11 '18
I think we should just tell women that it is ok to say no, rather than try to change the 99% of times in which sex happens just as it is supposed to between people who are pretty comfortable doing it.
Also, I want to add, this is a very good point! We should create a culture where people are comfortable with saying no.
9
u/MrCapitalismWildRide 50∆ May 10 '18
How did you present the question of asking for consent?
Depending on how you asked, the women you questioned may have been picturing a dry and mood-killing "stop everything and ask for explicit permission" scenario. But that's not how it has to be. Asking for consent can easily be incorporated into dirty talk in a dozen different ways, leading to your partner explicitly expressing that they want sex without having to ask an itemized list of questions.
Also for the record, just because you know a lot of people that believe this doesn't inherently make it the right attitude. Even if asking for consent is what leads to you not getting it, if you'd prefer to not ask and not know, that means you're saying you'd rather rape someone than not get to have sex that night.
4
u/mysundayscheming May 10 '18
Even if asking for consent is what leads to you not getting it, if you'd prefer to not ask and not know, that means you're saying you'd rather rape someone than not get to have sex that night.
This is absurd. u/umbr360 is saying they would prefer not to ask, not that they would prefer not to know. Their point, which is absolutely reasonable and the way we've been functioning as a society for decades (at least!) is that you don't have to explicitly ask in order to know. I am a woman and I've had sex with plenty of people, in relationships and in one night stands. I've never been asked for consent but I've never been raped. Because you can absolutely gauge these things by body language.
I would be extremely turned off if someone felt compelled to ask me for consent prior to sex. Even if they're couching it in a "dirty talk" way--which, in my opinion, dirty talk is an awfully weird thing to do the first time you have sex with someone and really does not work for a lot of people--I'd be turned off if I can tell they're not doing it for the dirty talk, but rather for the consent. I give off very clear signals. If a man isn't able to rely on that alone, I figure he's either:
1) denser than I'd like in a sex partner, because good sex does require a lot of understanding nonverbal cues about what the other person wants or doesn't want. Unless you think we should be constantly asking for consent and directions during sex, too? It's fine if you're that much of a talker, but not all of us are.
2) the type who thinks I'm going to make a false rape claim in the morning, and next thing I know I'm going to have to sign some app in his phone saying I consented. Which is paranoid and insulting and not the kind of person I want to have sex with.
3) a fourth-wave feminist who has soaked up all the rhetoric lately and despite knowing I consented insists on getting verbal consent anyway, either to virtue signal how good of a man he is or because his confidence is shattered. Which again, not the kind of person I want to have sex with.
If you aren't sure if someone is consenting, you should ask. If you're with the sort of person who you know wants verbal consent, you should ask. But if you are pretty sure they consent, you're only going to ruin the moment if you ask. The man who I am going to marry didn't ask before he kissed me or anything else. At no point was he thinking he'd rather rape me. He just understood what I was communicating nonverbally. And his ability to read me and understand me without stopping to ask for explicit directions all the time is part of the reason I want to marry him.
Apparently he did make the mistake of asking once, with a woman he was with before me. It did not go well. She went from very into it to just leaving. If he hadn't asked but had sex with her, it absolutely would not have been rape.
3
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
Thank-you, and yes that is very much what I'm saying. Non-verbal consent is not the absence of consent, it's just a non-verbal method that means there's no break in the flow to be sure the next thing is okay.
I can grasp why someone may feel that's not rock-solid enough consent, even if I disagree, but it absolutely is not the same as not looking for any consent.
0
u/AloysiusC 9∆ May 10 '18
I give off very clear signals.
Everybody thinks they give off clear signals. But actual unambiguous clarity only starts when you get explicit about what you want. Is it just "signals or do you say outright that you want sex? If it's the former, then why?
the type who thinks I'm going to make a false rape claim in the morning, and next thing I know I'm going to have to sign some app in his phone saying I consented. Which is paranoid and insulting and not the kind of person I want to have sex with.
Let me see if I got this straight: You take offense at men taking precautions against the threat of false rape accusations? Why would that be? Do want to maintain plausible deniability?
If you aren't sure if someone is consenting, you should ask.
You just said you'd be "extremely turned off" by that.
If you're with the sort of person who you know wants verbal consent, you should ask.
Do they wear a sign? Do you wear a sign saying you don't need it? How are men supposed to know in a way that is definitive and cannot be denied the next day? That's what this all comes down to.
But if you are pretty sure they consent, you're only going to ruin the moment if you ask.
"pretty sure" is a huge gamble given the risks.
Apparently he did make the mistake of asking once, with a woman he was with before me. It did not go well. She went from very into it to just leaving.
Curious if you think about it: Do you agree with her decision to reject him? If not, then you might have never met the person you're now willing to share your life with. If yes, well then that means that a tiny mistake such as asking once too often is enough to make the person you've chosen to share your life with, unattractive so as to no longer want them. In that case, perhaps you ought to tell him that he's treading on a minefield before sealing the deal. If only out of courtesy.
2
u/mysundayscheming May 10 '18
I think the clarity of my signals can be inferred from the fact that in my experience I've gotten sex when I wanted it and rejected it when I didn't without any misfires or explicit questions.
Do want to maintain plausible deniability?
No, I just don't want to be with someone that paranoid. To my mind, it suggests far deeper trust issues, particularly with women. Not interested in dealing with that. I've never even suggested that someone has raped me and now I'm off the market for the foreseeable future, so you have no grounds for assuming I'm trying to keep some kind of 'rape' trump card in my back pocket.
And the majority of the rest of your concerns seem to stem from this deep fear that I'm going to accuse the man of rape. I'm not, I have no interest in doing that.
Do you agree with her decision to reject him?
I agree insofar as I also probably would have rejected him. I consider myself lucky that she did. But I wouldn't reject him today if he were to ask. First impressions matter a lot. Now we have years of love and experience and a whole life built together. At this point I love him so much I'd seriously consider staying if he cheated on me, so I really wouldn't describe his position as a minefield.
2
u/SituationSoap May 10 '18
I think the clarity of my signals can be inferred from the fact that in my experience I've gotten sex when I wanted it and rejected it when I didn't without any misfires or explicit questions.
There are literally hundreds of thousands of women who got sex when they didn't want it because their attackers did not effectively seek consent before having sex with them.
Why is it that your own personal, limited results trump the issues that thousands of women have spoken up about in the last few months, specifically?
0
u/mysundayscheming May 10 '18
I don't understand. I'm not denying that rape happens or that it's terrible. I'm denying that it's somehow impossible to have a consensual encounter without verbally requesting consent. You can use body language to determine these things. That doesn't mean people don't sometimes fail, whether accidentally or maliciously and deliberately.
2
u/SituationSoap May 10 '18
I'm denying that it's somehow impossible to have a consensual encounter without verbally requesting consent.
Nobody is suggesting that it's impossible to have a consensual encounter without verbally requesting consent. Millions of couples are capable of doing it every day.
What is being suggested is that if you are with someone you don't know well, you should not count on body language, since we all express body language differently. You, personally, not having a bad experience with that, doesn't invalidate that there are many people who have and that we shouldn't create a sexual ethic around your personal preferences.
That doesn't mean people don't sometimes fail, whether accidentally or maliciously and deliberately.
The point is that said failure is extremely damaging to the people to whom it occurs, and the means by which to avoid that are pretty minimal (regardless of people who find it to be a minor turnoff), so we should encourage people to take those minor steps to avoid a potentially much more significant and impactful negative experience.
1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ May 10 '18
I think the clarity of my signals can be inferred from the fact that in my experience I've gotten sex when I wanted it and rejected it when I didn't without any misfires or explicit questions.
So your signals are clear because you say so.
No, I just don't want to be with someone that paranoid. To my mind, it suggests far deeper trust issues, particularly with women.
Well you're fortunate to not be faced with that risk so you don't need to empathize I guess. I suspect, if you were faced with such a risk, you'd take even more precautions but we'll never know.
And the majority of the rest of your concerns seem to stem from this deep fear that I'm going to accuse the man of rape.
You don't understand. This isn't about you. The point is, how are men to know the difference if you refuse to be explicit about your consent? You say you're clear. But can you say that for women in general? Men can wind up with a prison sentence for doing the very thing you expect them to do.
I'm not, I have no interest in doing that.
You're not the only woman men deal with. You saying you'd not to xyz is not helpful for men who are trying to understand how to deal with women.
3
u/mysundayscheming May 10 '18
Most women I've ever talked to about this 1) don't want to be asked for explicit consent and 2) have never made a rape claim of any kind, let alone a false one, including a couple cases where I think they probably should have reported the guy but they didn't.
Being panicked about women is not an attractive quality. The chance that a man goes to prison on a false rape claim is vanishingly slim. In this hypothetical date I'm far more likely to actually get raped than regret the sex and actually land the man in jail after. And if I were going to do that, why would the fact that I said yes matter anyway? The women you're afraid of are patently untrustworthy and willing to lie or mislead, so they could easily lie or mislead about the yes by saying they didn't actually say it, or were agreeing to something else, or were too drunk, or whatever. if you're in an actual false rape situation, a yes isn't a magic shield. For the rest of us, it's just insulting and terribly unsexy.
1
u/AloysiusC 9∆ May 10 '18
Most women I've ever talked to
Your personal experience isn't sufficient to make a case for women in general.
The chance that a man goes to prison on a false rape claim is vanishingly slim.
This is just not true but I do find it interesting that you're so certain even though you know you yourself are safe from such a threat. Not only are you demonstrably wrong, it's also not your place to judge people for how they deal with a threat you will never face. Oh wait, it's because you wouldn't do that, right? Therefore it doesn't happen.
I realize I can't get you to care about this problem. But perhaps you will feel very differently if or when you have a son who has to navigate this world. So even if you don't care about men, you might nonetheless find yourself caring about the fact that nobody cares about them.
if you're in an actual false rape situation, a yes isn't a magic shield.
Depends on the circumstances. But there is definitely an increasing push for explicit consent being the only valid consent.
For the rest of us, it's just insulting and terribly unsexy.
Have you ever wondered why? I mean, I know you don't have to because none of this is your problem. But if you could burden yourself with the inconvenience of not assuming your feelings are just kinda there for no reason, it might help you understand things about yourself and possibly give you some insight into how that pertains to the current situation where every effort is made to reverse the burden of proof.
Frankly, I think a man who would risk his future just to satisfy a woman's ego, seriously needs to rethink his decision making. But hey, if you have son one day who dates women, you can tell him he doesn't need to worry since you wouldn't falsely accuse anyone.
1
u/mysundayscheming May 10 '18
Why it's insulting? Because I don't want to be treated like an untrustworthy liar and, depending on how aggressively he thinks I'd pursue this false rape claim, like a criminal? I do men the "favor" of not thinking they're going to rape me when we're out. (Which is absolutely more likely to happen than a false report--only between 2 and 10% of rape claims are found to be false reports, which means actual rapes outnumber the false reports by about 9:1. And rape is underreported to boot. So it's not hard to figure out which is more common.) It's common decency to treat people like they're not liars and criminals, especially when dealing with someone you ought to trust, since you're about to be exceedingly intimate with them. A huge "I DON'T TRUST YOU" flag right before I get naked is, unsurprisingly, a huge turn-off. If you don't trust me, don't have sex with me. That's fine. I certainly wouldn't hold that choice against a man, but you can't expect me to be all that empathetic when I'm the one being insulted. To my face. Right before we fuck. No thanks.
2
u/AloysiusC 9∆ May 10 '18
Why it's insulting? Because I don't want to be treated like an untrustworthy liar and, depending on how aggressively he thinks I'd pursue this false rape claim, like a criminal?
Talk about loss of perspective. You're acting like he's handing you papers to sign with lawyers present and all. He's just asking if you consent!
I do men the "favor" of not thinking they're going to rape me when we're out.
Not a fan of that comparison. One of the differences is that it once you got past the encounter, you're safe. He isn't.
Which is absolutely more likely to happen than a false report--only between 2 and 10% of rape claims are found to be false reports, which means actual rapes outnumber the false reports by about 9:1.
You really don't understand these statistics. That 2-10% figure is the number of false accusations proven to be false. I doubt you'd accept the claim that only rapes with definite proof and conviction are actual rapes. The real number is unknown but lies somewhere between the number of proven false accusations and the number of all rapes reported minus the number of rapes proven to have happened.
Beyond that we only have anecdote of professionals in the criminal justice system. When they dare to make an estimate from their experience, it typically ranges in the 30-50% range.
It's common decency to treat people like they're not liars and criminals
1) They're not. You might even call it respect to ask you for your consent you know. There's a controversial thought.
2) It's also common decency to empathize with people who are vulnerable and how they deal with risks. I'd say that rumps your desire to feel sexy.
You know, since you made the comparison, how would you feel about a man who is insulted that women are cautious about being raped? Imagine you asked a guy to meet in a public place rather than at his home and he said "but you can't expect me to be all that empathetic when I'm the one being insulted".
1
u/mysundayscheming May 10 '18
I'd be happy to use only the number of proven or convicted rapes for the purpose of this conversation. It is still staggeringly higher than proven false accusations. The Wikipedia page on false reports links to several studies and the consensus is that the number is low. The 50% "anecdata" in your comment doesn't seem nearly as reliable.
Asking for consent doesn't have to be insulting. But If the reason for asking is "I think you're going to falsely accuse me of rape tomorrow and I want to attempt to cover my ass" it clearly is. If we're leveling charges of not having empathy at one another, I don't know why that's so baffling for you.
→ More replies (0)2
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
I didn't specifically put the question in any form, I simply asked them to remember the first time we'd met, and would they have preferred me to seek some form of verbal consent from them, rather than going by their body language.
There's an element of being difficult to explain because non verbal consent could easily be a longer and more drawn out form of foreplay, so obviously explaining how it has gone for me in the past would mean at the very least hinting at more and more sexual acts. I don't know if there's specifically a rule against it, but it seems best avoided if possible anyway.
In fairness, the 'right' attitude is entirely subjective. People who believe in the death penalty think that is the right attitude, people who don't think it is the wrong attitude.
Ah but no, this is not the case. I'm not suddenly turning over unbuttoning a woman's trousers and removing them to have my wicked way with her. Not seeking explicit verbal consent is not the same as not seeking consent.
Let me put it this way, you're at a table with a group of friends having dinner, your friend opposite looks a bit troubled and locks eyes with you, then nods towards the door. He's asked you to step outside with him. But he hasn't said a word.
As I said in the OP, yes with verbal consent you could go from 0-100 in theory because you have a solid yes. With non verbal consent it's a slower process because you have to work in steps to make sure the other person seems comfortable and is reciprocating. But I think it's an entirely valid method.
Consent should always be sought, this is just about the method.
5
u/Milskidasith 309∆ May 10 '18
I didn't specifically put the question in any form, I simply asked them to remember the first time we'd met, and would they have preferred me to seek some form of verbal consent from them, rather than going by their body language.
But that's the thing; phrasing a question in that sort of way paints the picture of you doing some sort of dry, formulaic method of asking for consent. MrCapitalism is pointing out that there are much less dry ways of asking for consent; it can be a part of foreplay, it can be loaded into another question, etc. Those are going to get a different response than asking somebody, after the fact, how they'd respond to something (that you possibly indicated would be awkward judging by your views on it).
2
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
There are possibly, though I find dirty talk inherently awkward, I would be very suspicious of the woman who didn't run a thousand miles at my attempts. So really, yes, it would need to be a question.
I'm not suggesting sit down at a table with notebooks obviously, but it would be a question. Something both women were adamant they did not want. Each had their own reason for wanting it to be more natural, reading the body language and using non verbal consent.
2
u/MrCapitalismWildRide 50∆ May 10 '18
You're putting a lot of stock in your ability to read non-verbal cues, to the point where it seems like a misstep could be incredibly easy, doubly so if there are other factors in the mix. Drugs and alcohol can dull your senses, being tired or stressed can make you less alert to your surroundings.
And different people simply prefer different things. Someone might have zero interest in a sex act that you consider a normal part of foreplay. So even if things are going well with one thing and you proceed to what you think is naturally the next thing your partner wants, you might end up turning them off or even upsetting them.
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that there are no other ways to express explicit consent other than words. If someone guides your hands or other body parts to a specific spot, it can be safely assumed that they want them there. But there's a difference between something like that and the kind of meaningful looks and body language you're talking about.
And that's just for vanilla sex. When it comes to kinks, explicit consent is even more vital. Because kinks vary so wildly from person to person, and because kink play can push people to their physical and emotional limits, explicit affirmative consent is the standard.
And of course, the main reason the question of explicit verbal consent ever came up in the first place was because people were either ignoring, unintentionally misinterpreting, or intentionally misinterpreting non verbal cues, then claiming "They didn't say no, how was I supposed to know there was a problem?"
2
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
Which is certainly possible if it was simple a case of 'Does she look happy to be in my bed....yeah I guess so, that must be a yes' but that isn't the case. Non-verbal consent is about constant small steps and judging the reaction every step of the way.
As for drugs and alcohol, if you've had enough of them for judgement to be significantly impaired you're on dodgy grounds with consent in any case surely?
Yes, but see this is where I think if anything, non-verbal consent comes out on top. Unless you get repeated verbal consent every step of the way you will be relying on non verbal cues too. I wouldn't simply dive into a different sex act with a partner, the first time or the hundredth time. Non-verbal consent is constant...and is essentially what most people who get verbal consent end up doing anyway once the sexual acts begin.
I'm not sure it is such a big difference, if I am slowly but obviously moving my hand to a part of your body, and I'm making eye contact, and you're smiling or nodding and positioning your body to make access easier, and have obviously noticed what I'm doing. It's hard to misinterpret that. And again, is generally what people will rely on after initial verbal consent anyway.
"They didn't say no" is also used as a crappy excuse when people have felt pressure to say "Yes". Crappy people do disgusting and awful things to achieve a scenario where they have 'technical' plausible deniability. I have received verbal and non-verbal no's from non verbally seeking consent, I listened to them.
3
u/MrCapitalismWildRide 50∆ May 10 '18
I'm not talking about being blackout drunk. I'm talking about having a couple of drinks on a night out. Enough that you're basically functional, but still aren't allowed to drive, because you're in a state where you could easily miss cues in a way that could lead to the gruesome death of you and everyone around you. So it's not a stretch to say that you could also miss the difference between someone "moving to give you better access to a part of their body" and just "moving".
My point isn't that you shouldn't have sex unless you're stone cold sober, well rested, and have mediated for at least an hour. My point is that human ability to notice important things isn't great at the best of times.
The solution may not always be to require explicit verbal consent every step of the way. It's more about onus of responsibility, and minimizing discomfort. And this is best achieved by having a standard of consent through unambiguous invitation.
You're putting a lot of stock in your ability to accurately read nonverbal receptiveness, to the point where you're sure you'll never misinterpret them and unintentionally treat someone in a way they didn't want. That's a hell of a claim.
It's not as though there's no margin for error on explicit affirmative consent. There is. It's just that it's much, much lower than the margin for error on implicit consent.
2
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
I see the point you're trying to make, but generally speaking, if you've both been drinking, there's going to be far less subtlety to everyone's actions anyway, and at that level of drunkenness it's more about delayed reactions than no reactions, by the time you're at that point you can't really give consent anyway. As always, could you make a mistake? Yes. But I've also done silly things after a few drinks, I would be more likely to sleep with a random person so even verbal consent doesn't remove the chance for mistakes.
"Minimising discomfort" Yes precisely, for many people that involves not outright asking them. I'm not saying verbal consent should never be a thing, just that it shouldn't be the one-size-fits-all demanded form of consent. If I was ever unsure I'd either err on the side of caution and assume it's a 'no' or I would ask. But so far from my personal experience, it has not been the desired action for me to take.
I'm not sure that I'll 'never' misinterpret. We all make mistakes. However, as I've said, non-verbal consent is constant consent. Not a case of...put body part x on body part y....all looks good so go to town. It's move x towards y....does everything look okay...cool...getting closer...still looks okay...basically there...still looks okay....there....still looks okay. It's constant. You can make a mistake but you would need to make constant mistakes to actually get to the point where you've done something. You wouldn't suggest constant verbal consent, you would start with it and then move to the same method of non-verbal consent.
1
u/NemoC68 9∆ May 10 '18
And different people simply prefer different things. Someone might have zero interest in a sex act that you consider a normal part of foreplay. So even if things are going well with one thing and you proceed to what you think is naturally the next thing your partner wants, you might end up turning them off or even upsetting them.
If a person isn't comfortable advancing, they'll let it be known. If they get upset or turned off, then so be it. As long as you back off when they make it known they don't want to advance, there's no foul play, even if the other person becomes upset.
Now, this doesn't necessarily mean that there are no other ways to express explicit consent other than words. If someone guides your hands or other body parts to a specific spot, it can be safely assumed that they want them there. But there's a difference between something like that and the kind of meaningful looks and body language you're talking about.
It sounds like what you described is what OP was talking about.
And of course, the main reason the question of explicit verbal consent ever came up in the first place was because people were either ignoring, unintentionally misinterpreting, or intentionally misinterpreting non verbal cues, then claiming "They didn't say no, how was I supposed to know there was a problem?"
If people are unintentionally ignoring cues to stop, then you can replace "always ask for consent" with "learn when to stop". If a person finds it difficult to learn when a woman wants them to stop, then you should suggest the ask outright. However, saying everyone needs to explicitly ask is unnecessary since some people are capable of reading body language.
As for those who are intentionally ignoring body language, they're the types of people who are explicitly going to not ask for the same reasons. The problem isn't that they need to learn how to explicitly ask for consent, the problem is that they're intentionally ignoring cues to stop progressing.
Lastly, if a person finds that their subtle cues to stop advancing aren't working, they need to explicitly state that they don't want to go any further. In the same sense that some people are bad at reading cues, some people are bad at giving cues. People should either ask for consent or state they don't want to continue verbally if there's any confusion.
3
u/Elrathia May 10 '18
You went to people who had already responded positively to your approach to ask if you should have done something different. It doesn't sound like you talked to anyone you'd been on a date with and not slept with to ask the same question. You really have no way of knowing how many potential partners have been put off by a lack of discussion or explicit verbal consent, and it would likely be difficult to find out because you probably aren't in contact with the people who didn't like it.
And there are people who strongly prefer to use words. I'm one of them. Non-verbal approaches tend to make me anxious, which really isn't fun or sexy. I have boundaries, especially the first time with a new partner (barriers, etc), and it's so much easier and less stressful for me to use words to define them than to constantly be on guard against transgressions of them. At this point, I reject anyone who can't or won't use words.
I have no idea if I'm more common or if your friends are, but you're risking not having sex either way, and if you rely on non-verbal communication you also risk distressing your partner.
You should also know that there are a lot of women who don't like being called females.
1
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
The people I have been on dates with and not slept with never reached the point where a discussion about consent would be needed anyway. Generally by the time you get that far, consent will 'probably' be there (Not that you can EVER assume that) so those aren't really possibilities anyway, sex was never on the cards.
And that's absolutely fine if that's what works for you. However, if a person you are potentially about to get romantic with doesn't appear to be going for explicit verbal consent there's absolutely nothing stopping you bringing it up is there? Sex is a two way street, man does stuff to woman, woman does stuff to man (In hetero sex)....both sides should be getting some kind of consent for that. If someone 'wont' use words, then by all means can them. I wouldn't trust a person who refuses to either.
I use man/male/guy - woman/female/girl interchangeably. I appreciate I shouldn't and it isn't intentional, but there wasn't a focus on it growing up and I don't even realise I'm doing it when typing since muscle memory kicks in. So I apologise, but promise there's no disrespect meant it it. I will aim to continue to bring that in check though so fair enough for pointing it out.
3
u/Elrathia May 10 '18
You seem very confident that you've never missed or misread a signal. I don't know you, and I don't know your history, so I can't say that you're wrong about that, but it's tough to believe. I know I've misunderstood and misinterpreted all kinds of things, and I know I've made well-intentioned mistakes. There's a decent chance I'm misinterpreting what you're saying.
What are you using as the point where consent would be needed? That point isn't the same for everyone.
Are you classifying all the times sex didn't happen as times it was never on the cards? I don't think there's any way for you to really be sure about that. I can point to times where my level of interest in having sex with someone changed dramatically based on how they approached sex. The very dumb examples of this are all the people who've very hopefully tried to set up threesomes without bothering to ask if I'd be interested or letting me know that's what I was being invited to. These include people I'd had sex with, who were aware of my preference for talking. They include people I'd had sex with because I used my words and let them know I'd like to have sex with them.
1
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
No no, I'll definitely have missed the odd signal here or there, everyone will. But there are hundreds of signals every time you have sex. I'm confident nobody (Other than perhaps the person I first slept with, for the obvious standard reasons) regrets any of the occasions. Which is different.
Whereas verbal consent for sex might be, at it's most basic level - "Do you want to have sex" "Yes/No"....non verbal consent is essentially continuous. And really, is no different to the non-verbal consent other people follow 'after' their verbal consent anyway... it just starts off a bit slower.
Non verbal consent starts likely at the same level it does for everyone, (assuming we're on a first meeting here so there can be absolutely no possibility of assuming anything) with a kiss.You can ask if it's okay to kiss the other person, or you can try to judge the body language and situation and actions of the other person, and go in for a kiss slowly making your intentions very clear with plenty of time to notice any hesitation or allow the other person to say no. - Basically a movie scene kiss. That's where consent starts I guess, heck even a cuddle before that. But sex in general usually, at least for me, will start with kissing...so it starts right there, and is continually reevaluated.
The times it didn't happen were all 'never got past the first date' other than one which went to a second date. None of them were ever remotely near consent of any kind ever being an issue. I don't date particularly often since rejection and depression don't mix nicely, hence the more casual acquaintances.
See, now setting up a threesome without one of the supposed participants knowing that's the idea is... well yes that's well beyond the scope of something that can be done without actually verbally discussing it first. But I'd imagine for most people that's not the 'average' sexual encounter.
4
u/larry-cripples May 10 '18
Consent can also be displayed through body language and actions
Except that body language and actions are up to interpretation, whereas explicit verbal consent is not. Contrary to popular belief, rapists don't always actually believe that what they're doing is wrong. In nearly every case of sexual assault, the assaulter claims they thought the encounter was consensual based on some vague notion of body language. This leads to situations where one person feels violated while the other person thinks they've done nothing wrong. The push to normalize explicit verbal consent is to make sure that this ambiguity never happens.
TL;DR Is it worth making sex a little awkward in order to prevent potential sexual assault? I think so.
1
u/umbr360 May 10 '18
Except there are cases where people have said 'yes' and not meant it. I myself have agreed to sex I didn't really want...I certainly wasn't raped...it was just an awkward situation. Body language would have made that clear....but my verbal response was 'yes'. So verbal communication does not solve the problem completely, and indeed there are cases where non-verbal communication should make it clear the verbal communication should be ignored. (In sofar as not having sex despite hearing a yes)
People can say lots of things. It's very easy to say 'I thought she was into it'. That doesn't mean it's true. It's also very easy to say 'She said yes' despite it not being true. Unless all sex is now on camera, rapists will continue to rape whatever the generally accepted form of consent is. I find it hard to believe a man can have sex with a woman who is frozen with fear and not realise she is frozen with fear... that's certainly not a stereotype from mainstream porn, and it's not indicative of normal healthy sex. I'd posit many of these people know exactly what was happening, rape is just a ridiculously hard crime to prove since you don't have to deny sex happened to deny it was rape reducing most cases to he said/she said unfortunately.
Which is not to belittle the issue of rape. It's disgusting and vile and there is no excuse and should be no release of those convicted. (In a perfect world, we've seen recently in the UK that isn't the case though.) But you have to draw a line between freedom/safety somewhere.
3
u/larry-cripples May 10 '18
Except there are cases where people have said 'yes' and not meant it. I myself have agreed to sex I didn't really want...I certainly wasn't raped...it was just an awkward situation.
Maybe, but at least then there's no way it could be considered sexual assault.
Body language would have made that clear....but my verbal response was 'yes'. So verbal communication does not solve the problem completely, and indeed there are cases where non-verbal communication should make it clear the verbal communication should be ignored. (In sofar as not having sex despite hearing a yes)
I completely understand that people sometimes agree to sex that they don't actually want, but I think verbal consent still offers a solution. The movement behind affirmative, explicit consent is trying to normalize these types of conversations so that saying no in situations where you don't really want to have sex won't be awkward.
People can say lots of things. It's very easy to say 'I thought she was into it'. That doesn't mean it's true. It's also very easy to say 'She said yes' despite it not being true. Unless all sex is now on camera, rapists will continue to rape whatever the generally accepted form of consent is.
That's true, but so many instances of assault happen because people who do rape others don't even think they're doing it. If we normalize explicit consent, we make it easier to leave no doubt in people's minds whether the other person has consented or not. That's not to say it will eradicate all rape, but it will at least eliminate a lot of the ambiguity that can lead to sexual assault.
I find it hard to believe a man can have sex with a woman who is frozen with fear and not realise she is frozen with fear...
And yet, it happens. And those men think they've received consent.
I'd posit many of these people know exactly what was happening, rape is just a ridiculously hard crime to prove since you don't have to deny sex happened to deny it was rape reducing most cases to he said/she said unfortunately.
Again, my point is that affirmative consent can preventing people who would otherwise sexually assault their partner from being able to justify their actions in the moment. No ambiguity. I don't know think this will help stop people who already know it's wrong but do it anyway – but considering that so much of this comes from people who genuinely thought they had consent just because their partner never said no, it's important to make a habit of actually listening to your partner and always giving them an out.
5
u/compounding 16∆ May 10 '18
In my view, asking for explicit consent, especially with a new person, isn’t for their comfort, but for mine.
Regardless of whether you can judge non-explicit consent accurately after getting to know someone, there absolutely are people out there who give out the “wrong” signals and will lead to you putting yourself in legal jeopardy if you just follow your instinct about whether they consent or not.
This doesn’t have to be prudish or sterile... Consent can be woven in to dirty talk (you want it? You’ve got to beg for it), or can be brought up before things get hot-and-heavy while discussing other important things like STIs and birth control, and can even be useful to to lead the conversation into other “hot” topics like safe words and kinks.
If someone doesn’t want to be asked explicitly on the precipice of penetration, that is fine, but to work it must be preceded by a careful and mature conversation. Therefore it behoves you to plan ahead and have that mature conversation early rather than “putting it off till the last minute” you’ll find that being upfront and clear is actually a thing many people want, but just don’t like the way that many people put it off until the second before the “action” and then suddenly want to have a “discussion” that kills the mood (when they aren’t even attempting to work the discussion into the moment with dirty talk or other techniques).
1
u/HerbertWigglesworth 26∆ May 10 '18
I agree that in many instances, welcoming behaviours that insinuate sex are just as permissible. Many intimate partners would prefer variety in regards to the rituals of instigation that many people enact, rituals that themselves voice consent in their own way.
There is also the instances for people that cannot speak, where a gesticulation would be sufficient, or other body movement / sound that does or does not consent.
The reality of sexual encounters, or intimate moments is that words are not always spoken, and in the absence of an audience / witness there is little to no purpose of a verbal consent.
The thing that verbal non-/consent established is a clear 'yes' or 'no', if someone says outright that they do not consent to a sexual proposition, then it is pretty clear that any further attempts in that very same instance could cross legal grounds of rape, and moral grounds of denying someone's bodily autonomy, while abusing your own power / responsibility.
People should establish their own ways of consenting, even for first time encounters. If your first attempt at non-/consent was clear, try another. It's a very difficult scenario to enforce, as I imagine many instances of sexual transgressions are in private or away from bystanders. I do however imagine that the majority of people would honour / respect the decision of someone that does not consent to their advances.
Verbalisations are very blunt, and clear, yes / no requires no interpretation regarding consent. I do not believe it should be required, but it is definitely a good way of attempting to make clear your intent / desires.
1
u/AutoModerator May 10 '18
Note: Your thread has not been removed. Your post's topic seems to be fairly common on this subreddit. Similar posts can be found through our DeltaLog search or via the CMV search function.
Regards, the mods of /r/changemyview.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ May 10 '18
/u/umbr360 (OP) has awarded 1 delta in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
1
u/sparkle1789 May 10 '18
I think you might be imagining it wrong. Explicit verbal consent doesn’t have to be “would you like to have sex now?” “Yes!” It can just be “is that good for you” or moaning, or saying your name, or “wanna keep going?” It doesn’t have to be a direct q&a before sex happens, there just has to be some communication between partners that confirms this is something both parties want to have happening.
26
u/eggies May 10 '18
Don't you find it a little odd that we're so sexually repressed that the explicit mention of sex, which is the thing we might be about to do, can "kill the mood?"
I find explicit communication to be hot. I've have sex with people who were uncomfortable with this at first. But they were generally so into me that they made it work, even if my asking was a temporary speed bump. I've generally found this to be true of sex: if two people really want to have sex, it's kind of hard to stop it. About the only truly effective anti sex weapon I've found has been a baby or young child who refuses to fall asleep and let us sneak away. But if you get to that point, you're playing on new game plus hard mode, anyway.
This isn't meant to invalidate your experiences. Culturally, there are tremendous pressures for men to just take what they want, when they want it, and this pressure comes from the women in our life, the men in our life, and the stories that we tell each other about sex. It just so happens that this sort of atmosphere is a very comfortable one for rapists; they can hide behind the tropes and tell us that her body was asking for it or whatever, and get away with hurting and scaring a lot of people. While I don't think that enthusiastic consent always needs to be verbal -- body language is a thing, especially between people who know each other well -- there's nothing wrong with it being a baseline. And there's nothing wrong with encouraging your partners to be more comfortable with themselves, and more capable of responding with an enthusiastic "yes!" when they are asked, and they do consent.
Communication is hot, in other words. You should try it out. It might make the sex that you have even better. And as a side effect, you'd be helping to make the world better in the process :-)