Relationship Woes and Advice XXVIII: Happy and Perfect!

[Sivarias]

But if you're envisioning someone going “May I please be granted permission to touch your left elbow?” every single time you do anything new, of course EC seems ridiculous.

In reality it's more like:

• Saying “I'd really like to do X to you” and then looking them in the eyes, waiting for an enthusiastic response before continuing,
• Touching someone just a bit, to see whether they pull away or lean in,
• Initiating sex playfully with something like “Are you also feeling overdressed?” rather than immediately removing clothes,
• Asking “what would you like us to do now?”
• “Are you okay? You've been quiet for a bit there.”
• Tugging at someone's shirt and looking at their face for signs of enthusiasm before continuing,
• “I love it when you do X.” (modeling the kind of feedback you would love to hear from them, as well)
• “Do you like this?”
• Before anything else, being frank: “Please tell me if I do something that makes you uncomfortable. I'd honestly rather know so this can be good for both of us.”

That... helps. Honestly. Every explanation I've heard for enthusiastic consent runs pretty much along the California "Yes means Yes" law which does nothing but infantalize women from my understanding.

What your describe Glass Mouse (with the exception of the last two in my case) just sounds like good sex. *shrug*.

A couple things to further explain my position. I had a long talk with my wife last night, which lead to some AMAZING sex, (TAKE THAT RED PILL). She got me intoxicated (which I needed). It was one of those "I'm to sober to have this conversation with you right now" and so she kept getting me drinks. SO glad she did. So many walls that I forgot were even up came down. The details I'm willing to share boil down a few things things really.

First, I've been victimized A LOT in my life, so my paranoia is frankly reasonable considering everything that has happened to me. But not only have I been victimized, I've been repeatedly blamed for the scenarios and internalized that blame, to the point where I FEEL like it's my fault. I can recognize that it's not my fault. But I do see how my actions led to the situations where I was either A) molested B) beaten C) robbed at gunpoint or D) was forced to support an emotional parasite. I realize that frames how I look at victimizing circumstances and leads me to wonder if the victim took "reasonable precautions" to avoid an unreasonable situation. That's not necessarily a helpful perspective or a healthy one, so I need to be aware of my own bias when these conversations come up.

Second, The reason any-kind of verbal "Is that ok? Do you like that?" doesn't work for MY relationship is primarily because it creeps my wife out (reminds her of the rape scenes in various crime shows) and just makes me feel like I'm in a gatekeeper scenario with the first question which just breaks the mood for me. That's our relationship though.

Third, well. I've forgotten what that was, and it's pre-work breakfast time now so I'm going to enjoy a nice homecooked meal. I'll be back later.

[Glass Mouse]

Now, my understanding of EC is that it tries to place responsibility on both people. On the person proposing whatever it is for making certain they have consent if and when they're uncertain, and the person subject to the behaviour to be able to remove consent when they're uncomfortable. But there's no attempt to instill that mindset in people in the years where it can truly become ingrained, at least over here.

Indeed, it's two sides of the same coin. Florian has a point that we've pretty much only been discussing the initiator's perspective here.

Because of course, "no" is just as important to teach. It's been and continues to be a huge movement for a reason. But it has so far been putting most of the onus on the person who is not initiating. EC shifts some of that responsibility back while recognizing that in real life, "No means no!" is too simplistic a paradigm to prevent assaults and a-hole behaviour. I don't think anyone wants to argue that no one has any responsibility for saying no, but "No means no!" is only half the solution. We're discussing the other half.

[Glass Mouse]

First, I've been victimized A LOT in my life, so my paranoia is frankly reasonable considering everything that has happened to me. But not only have I been victimized, I've been repeatedly blamed for the scenarios and internalized that blame, to the point where I FEEL like it's my fault. I can recognize that it's not my fault. But I do see how my actions led to the situations where I was either A) molested B) beaten C) robbed at gunpoint or D) was forced to support an emotional parasite. I realize that frames how I look at victimizing circumstances and leads me to wonder if the victim took "reasonable precautions" to avoid an unreasonable situation. That's not necessarily a helpful perspective or a healthy one, so I need to be aware of my own bias when these conversations come up.

I want to thank you for sharing your perspective and experience. And I'm sorry you've had to endure all that bull****.

It's hard, it really is, once you've experienced something bad, to balance that line of "I did not deserve that" and "How can I prevent a similar situation in the future?" because they are so fundamentally opposing. It is so so so common for people to do exactly what you're doing, to uphold the Just World fallacy, because that makes the world make sense again, and it gives you a feeling of control.

And frankly, there is some truth in it. You could've always done something (even something as ridiculous as "didn't leave the house that day"), and sometimes bad things are a result of genuinely bad decisions.

But we have this weird thing when we're victimized by other people, to take on extreme amounts of guilt and responsibility. Even if we accept that bad things like rape and robbery are basically unavoidable forces of nature that will never entirely disappear, we put them in a different category. Is someone to blame for a tsunami? Catching a disease? Do we wrack ourselves with guilt when they happen to us?

No, at least not to the same degree. We accept that statistically, someone will be hurt, and it ****ing sucks that it was us this time. Our actions were still the most reasonable ones we could take, but that didn't make them perfect.

Or at least we have a somewhat easier time coming to that conclusion when it's an experience less fraught with controversy.

Second, The reason any-kind of verbal "Is that ok? Do you like that?" doesn't work for MY relationship is primarily because it creeps my wife out (reminds her of the rape scenes in various crime shows) and just makes me feel like I'm in a gatekeeper scenario with the first question which just breaks the mood for me. That's our relationship though.

It's interesting to hear this other perspective. I've never been asked that question in a way that I didn't interpret positively, but, well, people are different, and in long-term relationships you can take SO MUCH for granted in terms of consent and communication styles.

[dehro]

Remember, it's not science until you write it down… here, for our entertainment

She says I'm not allowed to throw teabags...

[Coidzor]

That's grossly misinterpreting what enthusiastic consent actually means. It's not trying to dissuade your partner from sex. Not even remotely. It's just getting confirmation if there's uncertainty.

There are people who believe that men should basically interrogate women in order to verify their consent even when there's no cause for uncertainty. That's just a thing. An unfortunate thing, but a thing none the less.

Much like how there are feminists who still legitimately believe that all heterosexual sex is rape. Extremists and all that rot.

It's telling that all these examples hinge on the male partner being the one to initiate.

In the vast majority of cases, it's men who have to initiate. That's just reality.

In the majority of cases that the majority of people who care about the subject care about, it's a dude and a woman and whether the dude is transgressing, which *is* the dominant paradigm of what people think of as sexual misconduct. Especially when you get overlap between the person strongly caring about consent as a social issue and the people who believe that sexual misconduct, coercion, etc. are only things that men do.

Whoa. Recherché, ve4grm, Comrade, and Anonymouswizard, I have to declare myself in agreement with everything you've said on the topic of consent so far. I have no idea why anyone is even asking me to chime in again when you're covering the bases so well.

I would hazard a guess that either they're uncomfortable with the subject and believe that you chiming in will help speed up the end of the discussion or they're mad and hope you'll sufficiently chastise someone that they're mad at and disagree with.

NO ONE IS ASKING FOR MIND READING.

My experience has been otherwise, both in terms of what demands I have encountered online and in terms of what I have dealt with from various partners.

Admittedly, less about whether they wanted to start a sexual relationship in the first place and more those times where they wanted to be seduced vs. just wanting to be left alone vs. wanting to interact but not being interested in or open towards things moving towards sex. Or other relationship woes pertaining to poor communication that aren't directly involved with the start or escalation of sexual encounters.

Yes, I know that you guys claim that the pendulum is overcorrecting (though mostly at my work I see people complaining about #MeToo and laughing good-naturedly at our resident sexist's jokes, so YMMV), but still, reasonable people are only asking that you keep your initiating conservative, and that you check in.

Unfortunately there are more people around than just the reasonable ones.

Yes, it's tricky in friendships, but if you can't weather one unwanted touch or the awkwardness of one question answered no, maybe you shouldn't be friends. Yes, it's tricky in dating, but sussing out the other person's attraction is the entire point of dating.

Yes, you shouldn't have been friends in the first place, but by that point you've flirted or asked them out and it's too late to take that back if they're going to make a stink about it or claim it as sexual harassment.

I don't understand why it's so hard.

I believe it's partially because of concerns about there being a non-zero chance that a woman could lie about consenting to have sex and show no signs of uncertainty due to active deception and hiding of said feelings, but where the guy is culpable for the woman's unfounded fear and is thus a rapist in the eyes of a not insignificant number of people who, if made aware of his identity, could ruin his life even if the law never got involved, because she felt pressured even with no inappropriate actions taken on his part or even the appearance of such being given.

Indeed, it's two sides of the same coin. Florian has a point that we've pretty much only been discussing the initiator's perspective here.

Because of course, "no" is just as important to teach. It's been and continues to be a huge movement for a reason. But it has so far been putting most of the onus on the person who is not initiating. EC shifts some of that responsibility back while recognizing that in real life, "No means no!" is too simplistic a paradigm to prevent assaults and a-hole behaviour. I don't think anyone wants to argue that no one has any responsibility for saying no, but "No means no!" is only half the solution. We're discussing the other half.

I certainly hope so, but from what I've seen of how people are talking about it out in the wild, it's very much forgetting that women should also say no to sexual contact they don't want, partially due to the reaction against asking victims why they didn't say no or struggle or put up a fight, etc.

I think we're overestimating the fear of violence here. Of course that's a factor, but most people who react negatively don't actually react with violence.
In a personal relation, someone could: give you the silent treatment, start crying because your rejection means you don't love them anymore, or keep pushing and you know from experience you'll end up giving in so why not skip the exhausting ritual.
A peer at work could: spread rumours about you, freeze you out of water cooler conversation, or stop sharing important work with you.
A manager could do all the things I mentioned above: stop inviting you to meetings, stop assigning important work to you, maybe even fire you.
A stranger might: start yelling at you, start following you around.

Note that some of these don't even require malice. Being frozen out socially at work could happen only because the other person feels awkward about having you react negatively to their advances. The crying partner may feel genuine distress. Awkward and sad people do not react well.

Of course, asking for consent to touches, sex, etc. is no ironclad guarantee against retaliation. But it's a pretty damn good one. Someone who demonstrates a clear willingness to consider your feelings is so much less likely to retaliate in cruel and petty ways if you do not give them their way.

This kind of sentiment also communicates to men that there is no way they can win, or rather, lose gracefully, when rejected. If moving on with one's life and minimizing contact with someone who doesn't want it is retaliation, then there's no winning move except to have never initiated.

I mean, I suppose that establishing a paradigm where women are entitled to the friendship of men who have unrequited sexual and/or romantic interest in them, even if they weren't friends in the first place wasn't ruled out, but that would be crazy.

The violence was not really meant to be the focus, but rather the negative consequences, all of which you wrote. I was asking what part of enthusiastic consent removes the rejection of whatever overture part. The question was asked why people don't just say "No" and the aspect of retaliation came up (with violence as the example). I agree all the points you made are also retaliatory responses that can realistically occur. Enthusiastic consent doesn't change that. You're still asking at some point to be met with rejection. It seems more like it's saying "don't push someone who isn't totally in to it". And that's a great position to take. But the people who are going to be retaliating against a rejection aren't going to be people who take that seriously anyways. And vice versa. So I'm confused as to why enthusiastic consent, in that regard, makes much of a difference.

Setting up a new cultural paradigm of requiring Enthusiastic Consent as the bare minimum would exert cultural pressures on subsequent generations to alter their way of thinking.

It could also lay the groundwork for changing what is necessary to make a charge of sexual misconduct able to make it to court and be tried.

[Liquor Box]

Just a proof of bad writing. Which annoys me so much, because it enforces this image many have about just having to know when things are ok. When in reality I know no one that is bothered by these questions.

It's not bad writing, and just because you are not bothered by that question doesn't mean nobody is. I have heard similar things said.

The problem with enthusiastic consent is that there is, in some cultures, an expectation that things are not made explicit. There is reliance on body language, reading the mood etc. I believe that some people are put off by direct questions about whether another person wants to do x. This may be difficult for some of the commenters here to identify with if, in their culture courtship is culturally open and explicit, but Sivaris has commented that being from the South (southern USA, I presume) that things may work a little differently there.

A good person will not push on if they have doubts that the other person is willing. But the problem arises when one person believes that the other is willing (perhaps they thought themselves to have received enthusiastic consent), but they were incorrect and the second person was not willing. So while a good person should only proceed if they believe the other person willing, there are two more fundamental responsibilities on people to prevent sexual assaults - first that the unwilling person has to be clear and explicit (say 'no') and second that the other person has to stop when told to.

[2D8HP]

There are people who believe that.....

.
Been away from dating and romance for decades, and have little knowledge of what's it like now, but I'm chiming in to post that your post started with "There are people who believe that..", which isn't very helpful as in a big world with so many people, you can be sure that somewhere, someone believes something that anyone could think of, and maybe has an internet presence.

It would be better if you gave face to face anecdotes, so there's a sample size that readers may judge.

I (for example) had never heard of an "enthusiastic concent movement", until reading about it in this thread, so based on a sample size of exactly one, what you described is either extremely uncommon, or hardly known about in my experience.

How common do you encounter the problems you perceive?

[Glass Mouse]

There are people who believe that men should basically interrogate women in order to verify their consent even when there's no cause for uncertainty. That's just a thing. An unfortunate thing, but a thing none the less.

There are people who believe that women are only having sex in order to get pregnant and extract that sweet, sweet child support dough.

Extremists are annoying, but let's not give them undue power.

I believe it's partially because of concerns about there being a non-zero chance that a woman could lie about consenting to have sex and show no signs of uncertainty due to active deception and hiding of said feelings, but where the guy is culpable for the woman's unfounded fear and is thus a rapist in the eyes of a not insignificant number of people who, if made aware of his identity, could ruin his life even if the law never got involved, because she felt pressured even with no inappropriate actions taken on his part or even the appearance of such being given.

No sexual paradigm on earth is gonna protect you if someone is actively and maliciously trying to deceive you. Just like no paradigm on earth is going to save me if someone is hell-bent on raping me.

I certainly hope so, but from what I've seen of how people are talking about it out in the wild, it's very much forgetting that women should also say no to sexual contact they don't want, partially due to the reaction against asking victims why they didn't say no or struggle or put up a fight, etc.

Pendulums and swings, I suppose.

Interestingly, the people I see push back the hardest against the responsibility to say no are also the people who will very clearly say yes and initiate their own sexual adventures. There seems to be a correlation there, which is interesting: those people actually should not have to say no, because the absence of enthusiasm is proof enough. But of course a stranger will not know that, and so we can't abandon “no means no” yet, though maybe in a few generations we already will have.

This kind of sentiment also communicates to men that there is no way they can win, or rather, lose gracefully, when rejected. If moving on with one's life and minimizing contact with someone who doesn't want it is retaliation, then there's no winning move except to have never initiated.

Excuse me, but if you're the kind of person who needs to shun someone if they reject you, you have absolutely no business hitting on anyone at work. Flirt and shun to your heart's content in social settings, but keep it out of situations where people's actual livelihood and career is affected.

That is not an extreme or unreasonable expectation.

Setting up a new cultural paradigm of requiring Enthusiastic Consent as the bare minimum would exert cultural pressures on subsequent generations to alter their way of thinking.

It could also lay the groundwork for changing what is necessary to make a charge of sexual misconduct able to make it to court and be tried.

That sounds pretty good, honestly. We've done that since the sexual revolution first started - y'know, back when “no” meant ”try harder” and spousal rape didn't exist.

My experience has been otherwise, both in terms of what demands I have encountered online and in terms of what I have dealt with from various partners.

Admittedly, less about whether they wanted to start a sexual relationship in the first place and more those times where they wanted to be seduced vs. just wanting to be left alone vs. wanting to interact but not being interested in or open towards things moving towards sex. Or other relationship woes pertaining to poor communication that aren't directly involved with the start or escalation of sexual encounters.

The problem with enthusiastic consent is that there is, in some cultures, an expectation that things are not made explicit. There is reliance on body language, reading the mood etc. I believe that some people are put off by direct questions about whether another person wants to do x. This may be difficult for some of the commenters here to identify with if, in their culture courtship is culturally open and explicit, but Sivaris has commented that being from the South (southern USA, I presume) that things may work a little differently there.

This is very interesting, and I suppose it is telling that I hail from the country that first legalized pornography.

I hear you guys that coyness is still a thing that exists and therefore needs to be taken into account. Gotta admit, I tend to think of those paradigms as pretty harmful in general, partly because they do so little to prevent misunderstandings and assaults, and partly because they basically ask people to become mind-readers. But of course all those ideological considerations aren't worth much to someone who has to operate within those systems, except maybe as encouragement to challenge them.

I still think most of the check-in examples I gave work in a non-explicit paradigm (again, I cannot overstate the value of just pausing and looking someone in the eyes for signs of enthusiasm), but uh, I really am rubbish at all kinds of unstated communication, so: can someone smarter chime in on how to balance EC with not scaring off partners in an indirect communication paradigm? Or is the only option really just to read minds and pray that you don't accidentally assault someone someday?

[Anymage]

Thinking on all of this, it reminded me of one of the more annoying rhetorical tricks out there. Motte and Bailey arguments..

Do I agree with the claim that regular communication with one's partner and active mindfulness are good things? That's pretty self-evident. It's a strong, safe, defensible position for when someone is actively defending a concept like Enthusiastic Consent.

Do I agree with the claim that someone should be able to retroactively withdraw consent because they decided after the fact that they were insufficently enthused? That highly vague and subjective terms should be written into law? That the standards of what counts for full, affirmative, enthusiastic consent seem to shift - in very predictable ways - depending on who the participants are? Those are a lot more out there, but they're what usually get mentioned when people talk about "enthusiastic consent" when they're using the concept to try supporting their position instead of playing defense for the concept in general.

Is it obnoxious when the same word or phrase shifts to radically different meanings - again, in incredibly predictable ways - depending on what position someone finds themselves in at a given moment? I think my stance on that is rather self-evident.

[2D8HP]

There are people who believe that...

....Pendulums and swings....

.
Having read a little of the "debate" in this thread, except for "new labels for old bottles", this just sounds like growing up, little different from what I remember as a youth and young adult in the 1980's.

You learn to communicate, read people, have compassion and empathy, know that others desires do not align with yours, etc.

Read enough (19th century novels, 14th century poems, etc.), and you know that, yes customs and mores change, but at their core people still want to be loved and respected, as always, and no one wants to be hurt.

Good luck, and best wishes to all of you.

[Sivarias]

Thinking on all of this, it reminded me of one of the more annoying rhetorical tricks out there. Motte and Bailey arguments..

Do I agree with the claim that regular communication with one's partner and active mindfulness are good things? That's pretty self-evident. It's a strong, safe, defensible position for when someone is actively defending a concept like Enthusiastic Consent.

Do I agree with the claim that someone should be able to retroactively withdraw consent because they decided after the fact that they were insufficently enthused? That highly vague and subjective terms should be written into law? That the standards of what counts for full, affirmative, enthusiastic consent seem to shift - in very predictable ways - depending on who the participants are? Those are a lot more out there, but they're what usually get mentioned when people talk about "enthusiastic consent" when they're using the concept to try supporting their position instead of playing defense for the concept in general.

Is it obnoxious when the same word or phrase shifts to radically different meanings - again, in incredibly predictable ways - depending on what position someone finds themselves in at a given moment? I think my stance on that is rather self-evident.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that Bill get rubber stamped a WHILE ago? Like 3-4 years? That bull**** law is half the reason I object to the "yes means yes" movement. It infantalizes women, demonizes men, and makes it nearly impossible to have sex on a California college campus without the men getting brought up before the school board on sexual assault "charges" that have no legal basis for a case, but non-the-less get men expelled and blacklisted unable to finish their degree and essentially costing them millions of dollars in potential income.

That giant heap of bovine scatology is what started my protests in the first place.

[2D8HP]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that Bill get rubber stamped a WHILE ago? Like 3-4 years? That bull**** law is half the reason I object to the "yes means yes" movement...

.
I fear I can't address the pro's and con's of a
law.

....It infantalizes women, demonizes men, and makes it nearly impossible to have sex on a California college campus without the men getting brought up before the school board on sexual assault "charges" that have no legal basis for a case, but non-the-less get men expelled and blacklisted unable to finish their degree and essentially costing them millions of dollars in potential income.

That giant heap of bovine scatology is what started my protests in the first place.

That I will discuss.

Wait.

Or join the majority of your fellow citizens who never had the privilege of going to college, because that what going to college is as is, for that matter, having sex with another person, it's a privilege, not something anyone has a "right" to.

Simple.

[Coidzor]

Thinking on all of this, it reminded me of one of the more annoying rhetorical tricks out there. Motte and Bailey arguments..

If you're going to get on my case about base communication, it would help a whole lot if you were more clear about it yourself.

[Anymage]

I wasn't saying that stuff at you specifically. Reading what you said just reminded me of the M&B argument, and why that argument style bugs me. I got a little stream of consciousness with my editing, though, so I'll edit out that last hanging snippet of a quote too.

[Florian]

.
Having read a little of the "debate" in this thread

There's a "funny" little incident in a certain country that begins with "S" and should not be named here, but sets the tone for the entire debate: Guy had a "friends with benefits" relationship with two gals. Routine settled in and he wanted to have intercourse without condoms. Gals felt pressured but agreed, "enthusiastic consent" was not given and the whole thing ended up wit the guy facing two charges for sexual assault.

Now that's a lot of things, "funny", it ain´t.


Now that has me thinking about certain reactions and the possible consequences. Recently, I asked a gal working at a shop that I often frequent if she'd be interested in visiting a museum with me. Now she doesn't wear any kind of ring, tattoo or other kind of "marker", so I felt save asking her that question. Boy, was her reaction p**sed: "No, my boyfriend would have something against it!" - with her reacting like that was a total insult. Me: "So if that would interest you and your boyfriend is against it, why'd you stay with that guy?"... just for kicks.

[Crow]

Now that has me thinking about certain reactions and the possible consequences. Recently, I asked a gal working at a shop that I often frequent if she'd be interested in visiting a museum with me. Now she doesn't wear any kind of ring, tattoo or other kind of "marker", so I felt save asking her that question. Boy, was her reaction p**sed: "No, my boyfriend would have something against it!" - with her reacting like that was a total insult. Me: "So if that would interest you and your boyfriend is against it, why'd you stay with that guy?"... just for kicks.

Well I would assume she interpreted your question as an expression of romantic interest, and responded so as to inform you that she has a boyfriend and that between them, they understand their relationship to be exclusive.

Which makes your response after learning that, grade-A dirtbag material.

[Sivarias]

Well I would assume she interpreted your question as an expression of romantic interest, and responded so as to inform you that she has a boyfriend and that between them, they understand their relationship to be exclusive.

Which makes your response after learning that, grade-A dirtbag material.

Meh, I read it more as a tit-for-tat. He had no way of knowing she was in a relationship before hand, so snapping at him was unnecessary. Yes it was dirtbaggy, but it was not undeserved dirtbaggy.

[georgie_leech]

Meh, I read it more as a tit-for-tat. He had no way of knowing she was in a relationship before hand, so snapping at him was unnecessary. Yes it was dirtbaggy, but it was not undeserved dirtbaggy.

As much as supposedly justified dirtbaggery can be cathartic, I can count the number of times it has helped relationships I've seen on 0 hands.

[Chen]

Better suggestion, don't ask people out at their place of work especially if they are in some sort of customer support/sales role. They're being nice to you because its their job not because they're actually interested in you (for the most part).

[Liquor Box]

This is very interesting, and I suppose it is telling that I hail from the country that first legalized pornography.

I don't necessarily think that it is linked with a sexually open culture as you imply - in my own country porn has never been illegal (although there have been restrictions on types of porn - it might depend how you define it). I'm not an expert on these cultural differences, but I just think that some cultures have a much more explicit way of speaking (not limited to sexuality) such as Germany, and in other cultures there is a lot that is not explicitly said but understood (like England, or Japan even moreso).

I hear you guys that coyness is still a thing that exists and therefore needs to be taken into account. Gotta admit, I tend to think of those paradigms as pretty harmful in general, partly because they do so little to prevent misunderstandings and assaults, and partly because they basically ask people to become mind-readers. But of course all those ideological considerations aren't worth much to someone who has to operate within those systems, except maybe as encouragement to challenge them.

They don't ask people to be mind readers if the unwilling party simply says no. I mean, yes it is still explicit, but if they are not wanting to continue that cultural norm seems less of a factor. From my limited understanding it would be far more socially acceptable to say "no, don't do that" then to say "I would like to do x y and z to/with you, are you down for that".

I still think most of the check-in examples I gave work in a non-explicit paradigm (again, I cannot overstate the value of just pausing and looking someone in the eyes for signs of enthusiasm), but uh, I really am rubbish at all kinds of unstated communication, so: can someone smarter chime in on how to balance EC with not scaring off partners in an indirect communication paradigm? Or is the only option really just to read minds and pray that you don't accidentally assault someone someday?

What is the purpose of enthusiastic consent? I struggle to see how the concept would reduce the incidence of sexual assaults or any of the other negative outcomes you listed on the previous page. It seems that it is just suggesting changing the widely accepted (at least in the developed world) of consent and adding to it an additional layer that is ambiguous as to what it means, and incredibly hard to ascertain whether it exists in certain circumstances.

Both parties judge the consent of the other as best they are able from all the verbal and non-verbal signals they are getting from the other person. If one person wrongly interprets those signals and wrongly thinks the other persons consents, then that other person states their non-consent and the activity was not being consented to stops. I struggle a little to see the downside to that.

[Recherché]

Both parties judge the consent of the other as best they are able from all the verbal and non-verbal signals they are getting from the other person. If one person wrongly interprets those signals and wrongly thinks the other persons consents, then that other person states their non-consent and the activity was not being consented to stops. I struggle a little to see the downside to that.

Because you could get someone like me who's incapable of meaningful speech while in the middle of panic attack. I cannot say "no" then. It's also pretty obvious that something is wrong from the crying, babbling and possibly screaming but I'm also unable to say the magic words that some of the people here are expecting me to say. And if you kept having sex with me I'd consider it rape even though I technically could not say "no."

Alternatively you could also get a person who just freezes up when they panic or who freezes from shock. Or you could be triggering a PTSD flashback and the person in question might not mentally be there. Again they aren't saying "no" technically but they aren't consenting either. They've just unable to communicate their negative consent strongly. In this case I'd rather not have sex than unintentionally rape someone who can't communicate their non-consent so backing off when I don't get a "yes" seems kinder than continuing.

[Liquor Box]

Because you could get someone like me who's incapable of meaningful speech while in the middle of panic attack. I cannot say "no" then. It's also pretty obvious that something is wrong from the crying, babbling and possibly screaming but I'm also unable to say the magic words that some of the people here are expecting me to say. And if you kept having sex with me I'd consider it rape even though I technically could not say "no."

Alternatively you could also get a person who just freezes up when they panic or who freezes from shock. Or you could be triggering a PTSD flashback and the person in question might not mentally be there. Again they aren't saying "no" technically but they aren't consenting either. They've just unable to communicate their negative consent strongly. In this case I'd rather not have sex than unintentionally rape someone who can't communicate their non-consent so backing off when I don't get a "yes" seems kinder than continuing.

With the first, as you say, it would be pretty obvious (and I agree that it would probably be rape), and hopefully with the second the other person would notice as well. I am not suggesting (and I don't think anyone has) that the initiator should never stop unless they hear the magic word 'no' - as I said the initiator should judge the consent of the other person as best they are able, and the magic words are only a fallback for in case the initiator judges things wrong. I don't think many people (or anyone in this thread) would want to have sex with someone who is unwilling. The problem with the yes is cultural, in some cultures it is odd to be so explicit (about many things, not just sex).

[Recherché]

With the first, as you say, it would be pretty obvious, and hopefully with the second the other person would notice as well. I am not suggesting (and I don't think anyone has) that the initiator should never stop unless they hear the magic word 'no' - as I said the initiator should judge the consent of the other person as best they are able, and the magic words are only a fallback for in case the initiator judges things wrong. The problem with the yes is cultural, in some cultures it is odd to be so explicit (about many things, not just sex).

Two things, first cultures aren't stagnant things; they change in response to pressure, to media, to everyday people's decisions and many other factors. I believe a culture that is okay with talking about sex, rape, pleasure and consent openly is a lot better than one that refuses to talk about these things, because talking about them tens to mean less misunderstandings and less expectation that someone can mind read another person. It also increases empathy when you know what other people are going through and reduces the ability of abusers to get away with it when victims are unafraid to speak about what happened to them. Also being able to tell your partner what you want them to do really helps with making things more pleasurable for both of you. So viva la communication!

Second, positive consent in my mind actually puts pressure off of people to be mind readers and/or to have to correctly interpret every twitch of body language. If your fallback position in cases where things get murky is "anything other than an enthusiastic "yes" (or equivalent in body language or actions) means "no" then you might miss out on some sex but you're unlikely to accidentally rape someone who's having a mental breakdown because you misread body language and they can't say "no." It's not actually a very big difference from the "no means no" model except for where the fallback position is when you feel things aren't obvious one way or the other. Its just under "yes means yes" the assumption is that if someone's not communicating clearly through either actions or words it's better to first try and clear things up by asking directly and then if that fails to make things obvious then default to the idea that no sex is better than accidental rape.

[Liquor Box]

Two things, first cultures aren't stagnant things; they change in response to pressure, to media, to everyday people's decisions and many other factors. I believe a culture that is okay with talking about sex, rape, pleasure and consent openly is a lot better than one that refuses to talk about these things, because talking about them tens to mean less misunderstandings and less expectation that someone can mind read another person. It also increases empathy when you know what other people are going through and reduces the ability of abusers to get away with it when victims are unafraid to speak about what happened to them. Also being able to tell your partner what you want them to do really helps with making things more pleasurable for both of you. So viva la communication!

I agree, I prefer it when sex rape etc (as well as a whole lot of difficult or contentious issues) can be spoken about freely with people being able to offer up their frank perspective. But having a dialogue at a conceptual level is not what we are talking about here.

As I said, I don't think the different communication styles are about sex - they go much deeper into all sorts of everyday communication. There are just cultures where a lot is understood without being said. I don't think they fail to communicate with each other as well as people do in those countries where communication is more explicit - or that there is less empathy.

You may not prefer that style of communication (which is understandable, most people prefer the culture that they know), but I don't think you can say it is worse. Even with the confines of a relationship, are you qualified (perhaps by vast experience) to say what best builds understanding and empathy, explicit communication, or being able pick up on hints or unspoken communication? Or are you just saying what you prefer.

I also doubt that the communication style of a given country makes any difference to the likelihood of sexual assault. For example, Japan is an example of a country where communication is a lot less explicit. But it has much lower prevalence of rape than the likes of Norway, USA, Finland, Sweden or France where communication is much more explicit.

So while you hint in your post that cultures can change - why should they if there is no evidence that it would reduce the prevalence of sexual assault. Homogenising cultures is generally a bad thing unless you can point to the cultural aspect you are trying to change as being unambiguously bad - and for the reasons I give above I don't think there is anything wrong with cultures that are less explicit (despite me tending to be an explicit person myself).

Second, positive consent in my mind actually puts pressure off of people to be mind readers and/or to have to correctly interpret every twitch of body language. If your fallback position in cases where things get murky is "anything other than an enthusiastic "yes" (or equivalent in body language or actions) means "no" then you might miss out on some sex but you're unlikely to accidentally rape someone who's having a mental breakdown because you misread body language and they can't say "no." It's not actually a very big difference from the "no means no" model except for where the fallback position is when you feel things aren't obvious one way or the other. Its just under "yes means yes" the assumption is that if someone's not communicating clearly through either actions or words it's better to first try and clear things up by asking directly and then if that fails to make things obvious then default to the idea that no sex is better than accidental rape.

It only take the pressure off people to be mind readers if it is explicit - which hits the problem described above. Glass Mouse's suggestion was that positive consent could be discerned from non verbal or at least non-explicit signals - but such are open to misinterpretation. That was sort of incorporated into my previous suggestion that each person "judge the consent of the other as best they are able from all the verbal and non-verbal signals they are getting from the other person". I do agree that each person should think the situation is reasonably obvious from whatever signals they are getting - but there is still room for a person to think something is obvious but still be wrong - which is why the 'no' (or other clear non-verbal signal, like the screaming you say would happen if you have a panic attack) is important as a fallback.

[Recherché]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't that Bill get rubber stamped a WHILE ago? Like 3-4 years? That bull**** law is half the reason I object to the "yes means yes" movement. It infantalizes women, demonizes men, and makes it nearly impossible to have sex on a California college campus without the men getting brought up before the school board on sexual assault "charges" that have no legal basis for a case, but non-the-less get men expelled and blacklisted unable to finish their degree and essentially costing them millions of dollars in potential income.

That giant heap of bovine scatology is what started my protests in the first place.

So forgive me but it's been kind of niggling in the back of my mind but both you and Coidzor appear to be assuming that all relationships where consent is important are heterosexual and the man is the one who needs to persuade a hesitant/resistant woman. I will be the first to admit that my life is anything but average, however that's not been anywhere near a universal truth in my experience. So when I ask my girlfriend whether she's up for dominating me as part of kinky sex today, who exactly is infantilizing who? In another scenario that actually happened to me we had a potential threesome with a guy set up. The man got cold feet and started sounding unsure of himself and I showed up at his house in a low cut shirt and push up bra to try and persuade him otherwise. When he declined to change his mind, I went away and haven't pressured him since. Here exactly who is demonized by the expectation of enthusiastic consent?

[dehro]

I don't know, but as a guy I feel it's sort of expected from me to make a lewd joke/suggestive remark.
which I guess speaks volumes about gender-tied expectations and clichés.
That, or maybe it's just me and I just have a dirty mind.

on a different note, your post reminds me of the time I slept through the phone ringing on the one occasion a couple of girls tried to reach out to me for just such an opportunity. Sad times were had the next day and the circumstances never presented themselves again.

[Anonymouswizard]

Okay, I've not wanted to bring it up for a while because it's 100% related to me being autistic, but I feel like it needs to be said.

Not everybody understands nonverbal cues. I certainly need them to be very clear myself, and while I might stop if I see somebody crying the difference between 'I don't like this' and 'I like this but don't want to do it now' is something I cannot read without explicit wording (and I've seen where that leads). While some people might think it's weird given how clear my nonverbal cues can be, mine are large because I need them to be large to read them.

There is a massive assumption whenever communication is being discussed that everybody is good at reading nonverbal cues, and this is just not true. Signals are easy to mix, and easy to cross (I once completely missed that two girls were into me because they wouldn't say it, they just seemed friendly to me).

Spoiler: Spoilered because I'm not sure how board appropriate this stuff is, but I still want to say it

Show

I also don't get the desire to not talk about this stuff. Sure, maybe your relationship might have spontaneous sex as something you both enjoy, but even though I'm interested in kinky sex stuff (to the point that my ex did get annoyed she couldn't freak me out by mentioning things she had no interest in at all) it's still not something I'd like to be done without warning. Sure, I can say that I'd at least like to try being the bottom during gay sex, but getting me to actually have any sex without asking me even if we were in a relationship would get you pushed away because if you want me to stop what I'm doing you can ****ing ask instead of just assuming I'll be up for something.

[Liquor Box]

Okay, I've not wanted to bring it up for a while because it's 100% related to me being autistic, but I feel like it needs to be said.

Not everybody understands nonverbal cues. I certainly need them to be very clear myself, and while I might stop if I see somebody crying the difference between 'I don't like this' and 'I like this but don't want to do it now' is something I cannot read without explicit wording (and I've seen where that leads). While some people might think it's weird given how clear my nonverbal cues can be, mine are large because I need them to be large to read them.

There is a massive assumption whenever communication is being discussed that everybody is good at reading nonverbal cues, and this is just not true. Signals are easy to mix, and easy to cross (I once completely missed that two girls were into me because they wouldn't say it, they just seemed friendly to me).

Spoiler: Spoilered because I'm not sure how board appropriate this stuff is, but I still want to say it

Show

I also don't get the desire to not talk about this stuff. Sure, maybe your relationship might have spontaneous sex as something you both enjoy, but even though I'm interested in kinky sex stuff (to the point that my ex did get annoyed she couldn't freak me out by mentioning things she had no interest in at all) it's still not something I'd like to be done without warning. Sure, I can say that I'd at least like to try being the bottom during gay sex, but getting me to actually have any sex without asking me even if we were in a relationship would get you pushed away because if you want me to stop what I'm doing you can ****ing ask instead of just assuming I'll be up for something.

Yeah, I guess if you are not confident in your ability to read non-verbal signals then perhaps you should always get an explicit 'yes' - perhaps not to much of a problem for you because you don't seem to have any cultural aversion to such things (and presumably your partners don't either).

[Recherché]

Part of the reason I feel comfortable trying to push my own culture to be more explicit about sex is because a lot of people are pretty bad at reading body language/non-verbal consent. Statistically we're pretty awful at knowing when someone is flirting with us and while I can't speak for any other women, but at least for me, my chances of enjoying sex if I don't tell my partner what works for me is really low. I can't exactly change another culture from the outside even assuming it was ethical to do so but I can at least try to encourage people in my own neck of the woods to talk more explicitly. Also it can be freaking hot. Or maybe that's just me.

[Liquor Box]

Part of the reason I feel comfortable trying to push my own culture to be more explicit about sex is because a lot of people are pretty bad at reading body language/non-verbal consent. Statistically we're pretty awful at knowing when someone is flirting with us and while I can't speak for any other women, but at least for me, my chances of enjoying sex if I don't tell my partner what works for me is really low. I can't exactly change another culture from the outside even assuming it was ethical to do so but I can at least try to encourage people in my own neck of the woods to talk more explicitly. Also it can be freaking hot. Or maybe that's just me.

Sure, I don't actually think that what you and I are saying is that different - it's just that you have a strong preference for explicit confirmation and I don't (well I'm not against it myself, but I believe that people around me may be). We should each just do what works for ourselves, and our cultural circumstance. I doubt there's much chance of either of us accidentally raping someone - or anyone who has contributed to the last few pages of this thread for that matter.