Relationship Woes and Advice XXVIII: Happy and Perfect!

[Sivarias]

I get that. I really do. Surely those are outliers?

I just want a solution, and MIND READING is not it. At all.

[ve4grm]

What I'm trying to say is that it's this mentality I can't wrap my head around. We live in a civilized society. If they get violent, someone will step in - in a social context - outside of that, I dunno. Maybe it's because I'm a guy and that's how my brain is wired, but I refuse to put myself in a powerless situation. I have been forced into a powerless situations before, and now I take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.

...

I don't know how to articulate that better. It's just, if I let someone take advantage of me, well then I LET THEM take advantage of me. It's my fault ya? Sometimes you don't have the power to fix that, but short of physical coercion aspect, someone ALWAYS has a way out. And even with physical coercion, marshal arts are a thing that keep you safe in that situation as well.

I get what you mean, but it's like saying "if someone gets robbed, it's their own fault" or "if someone gets murdered, it's their own fault".

Those two things sound silly, but the sentiment is the same.

I hope someone, like Glass Mouse, comments more from a female perspective, but I'll do what I can for now.


Prevention is the ideal. It isn't the reality. Some of it is because you can't know what to prevent unless you've been there before, some of which is inability or ignorance of preventative measures, and some of which is fear in the moment keeping you subdued. I'll go bit by bit.

We live in a civilized society. If they get violent, someone will step in

Unfortunately, this is shown time and again to not be the case. If you look on youtube, you'll see tons of videos showing someone getting beaten up by a bully, for example. People stop and record it, perhaps to show it to authority or news, but don't necessarily jump in to stop it.

I was actually told, as a kid, that if someone is trying to molest me in a dark alley, I shouldn't shout "Rape!" because people don't want to get involved, and risk bringing the violence onto them. Instead I was told to shout "Fire!" so people will actually come to look and help.

I have been forced into a powerless situations before, and now I take steps to ensure it doesn't happen again.

I'm glad. I truly am happy that you have been able to take active measures to prevent such situations. But...

I don't know how to articulate that better. It's just, if I let someone take advantage of me, well then I LET THEM take advantage of me. It's my fault ya? Sometimes you don't have the power to fix that, but short of physical coercion aspect, someone ALWAYS has a way out. And even with physical coercion, marshal arts are a thing that keep you safe in that situation as well.

Right, so first of all, the big problem here is assuming that physical coercion is the most effective. Oh, it's powerful, don't get me wrong, but mental and emotional coercion can be just as devastating. Consider:

- A manager and their employee go to a business conference. Late night, after a few drinks, they go back up to their hotel rooms, sit and chat about business for a while. As they are, the manager keeps getting closer, and makes it physical, starting a hand on the knee, a shoulder rub, clearly with the expectation for more. The employee has no witnesses around, and are afraid that rejecting the manager will make them upset, especially because they are tipsy. If this becomes an HR thing, it'll be the word of a senior official versus a wage slave, and the employee can't afford to lose this job. Even if it doesn't go that far, it would make work incredibly awkward, potentially hostile. Rumours could circulate. Maybe it would be best to just go along with it?

- A young couple, in the early days of their relationship. He wants things to be physical. She is in love, but isn't ready for that yet. He keeps pushing, getting closer to her, eventually culminating in "If you loved me, you'd do this for me." She decides he has a point. This is what couples in love do, isn't it? Maybe she should be ready? If she doesn't, he might break up with her!

Non-physical coercion can be very effective, and much more subtle.

And to the topic of physical coercion and martial arts, not everyone is able. One thing to keep in mind is that physically (and mentally) disabled women are sexually harassed at a vastly disproportionate rate, even among women. All because they can't fight back.

...

And finally, the idea that you let the person take advantage of you? Most women will feel the same, at least at first. It's obviously their fault. They must have done something wrong to get into that situation. You took that and made it into a wall of prevention. Many can't do that, and instead it becomes an inevitability.

"It was my fault. I deserved it. I wore the sexy dress, so of course he wanted sex. It'll probably happen again, and I'll deserve it then, too. I'm just worthless like that."

But that's also what this is partly about. While maybe something could have been done to prevent it in retrospect, that in no ways means it's your fault it happened.


If I accidentally leave a window unlocked and someone robs my house, the cops won't arrest me for not locking the window, they'll arrest the person who perpetrated the crime.
If I was having a campfire at the trailer park, and a drunk camper got angry and pushed someone into the fire, they arrest the drunk person who did the act, not the person who set the fire.
If I drive a shiny red corvette and it gets keyed, they won't blame me for having a car that's such a tempting target, they blame the punk who keyed my car.
And if a woman wears a short dress, goes out to the bar with friends, has a few beers, and then is sexually assaulted on the subway ride home? Despite how media, social norms, and even the police may present it, it's not her fault for being assaulted.

I can see that you've gone through a lot in your life. But it's not your fault, either. Maybe, in retrospect, there are things you could have done to be safer. Maybe things you could have said. Maybe if you hadn't been alone in that location. But none of it, and I mean NONE of it, is the victim's fault.

[ve4grm]

I get that. I really do. Surely those are outliers?

I just want a solution, and MIND READING is not it. At all.

Some of them are outliers, sure. That one is extreme. But lesser versions happen every day.

And you're right, the solution isn't mind reading. And a proper solution won't come right away, it'll take time.

So for now, we err on the side of caution. It's not ideal. But it's necessary in order to see this social change happen.

[Recherché]

I get that. I really do. Surely those are outliers?

Unfortunately no

I just want a solution, and MIND READING is not it. At all.

Enthusiastic consent was actually meant to try and stop th expectation of mind reading by getting people to ask instead of assuming that they were correctly reading their partner's mind. Checking in and dirty talk can be really sexy as well. It tells me if I'm doing things right and gives me a little reassurance that I'm not making my partner uncomfortable or there's something they want from me that I'm not giving.It's also because it's a lot easier for a person who really wants sex to give an enthusiastic "yes I want you to [insert act here]" than for a scared, freaked out panicking person to stop freezing and say "no" to someone they're afraid might attack them for that "no." I'm not asking my partner to read my mind. I'm asking them to ask me if they have absolutely any uncertainty and to take anything other than a "yes" as "no or at least not right now. " If I can't bring myself to say "yes" then I don't deserve to get laid. And I'm not advocating that as a legal sstandard I'm advocating it as the "Don't be an ass" standard.

[Crow]

@Sivarias: and these last few pages are why you don't date people from work in this political climate.

[lio45]

(I'm a weird autistic person...)

I'm really surprised that you were too physical, given that.

Honestly, a bit of general advice: in relationships, better err on the side of "too slow" than "too fast".

My very first gf almost went nuts trying to get me to have sex, it took a while and the least subtle cues ever to get me to get past that barrier. Ideally, I would have been able to gauge her mood much better and she wouldn't have felt frustrated for weeks, but still, in the grand scheme of things, she later pointed out she (like most girls, I now know) would definitely rather have a guy at sitting that end of the spectrum any day over one who's at the opposite end (pushy guy who pressures to have sex ASAP).

In retrospect, I didn't do much harm by misinterpreting her desires erring on the side of caution, even though I was just as clueless as you. Contrast that with your own experience.

Now, time to move on, as others have said. Life continues, and you'll find other girls.

[Anonymouswizard]

I'm really surprised that you were too physical, given that.

Weird for an autistic person, not weird because I'm autistic.

In short, I use touch to orient myself due to also having dyspraxia, and so because I'm used to that I also enjoy touching things I like. When next to somebody who due to where she grew up has problems with touch, especially unexpected touching, especially outside of certain areas, it causes major problems. It's a mixture of my autism actually making me over-physical if I like somebody and her having very understandable problems with physicality that I ignored.

It very possibly could be a case of 'too intense for her' while still being hella wrong due to ignoring consent. Many people I know would agree that nothing I did would be wrong if she hadn't made it clear she was uncomfortable, but she did and that takes precedence.

Honestly, a bit of general advice: in relationships, better err on the side of "too slow" than "too fast".

My very first gf almost went nuts trying to get me to have sex, it took a while and the least subtle cues ever to get me to get past that barrier. Ideally, I would have been able to gauge her mood much better and she wouldn't have felt frustrated for weeks, but still, in the grand scheme of things, she later pointed out she (like most girls, I now know) would definitely rather have a guy at sitting that end of the spectrum any day over one who's at the opposite end (pushy guy who pressures to have sex ASAP).

In retrospect, I didn't do much harm by misinterpreting her desires erring on the side of caution, even though I was just as clueless as you. Contrast that with your own experience.

Now, time to move on, as others have said. Life continues, and you'll find other girls.

Sure, I'm giving relationships and dates a rest for at least the next couple of months and I'm going to strive to always listen in my next one, and make sure I ask before doing anything. I'd rather insult a boy or girl I'm into by asking then having to explain why I am then not asking and jumping up and down on their boundaries.

As you say, it's always better to go too slow than too fast. Now if you'll excuse me, I need to convince a friend that while what happened is understandable, it's still wrong because while it wasn't sex or something like that, ignoring consent for something 'minor' is still a bad sign.

[Florian]

@Silvarias:

This is a bit complicated and much of the complications come from our cultures and how you're expected to act in civil society.

For example, things can get weird when there's an overlap in how people are generally supposed to act in civil society and how they're supposed to act when it comes to closer or more intermit contact.
This might send the wrong signals. (See Sender-Reciever-Principle).

Say, when a waiter/waitress at an cafe is trained to/expected to focus on customers, listen to them, be polite, laugh, maybe make eye contact, then there´s heavy overlap between "professional interest" and "personal interest", as in the later case, people tend to act the same. And yes, part of the problem is when "personal interest" is used with cold calculation to further business goals, and such.

So, yes, the closer those move, the more you'd need to be either a "mind reader" or accept it how it is and simply be prepared to receive a form of "nope" without taking it in bad spirit.

(Thinking back, it really was easier when people didn't fake it.)

[FinnLassie]

- A young couple, in the early days of their relationship. He wants things to be physical. She is in love, but isn't ready for that yet. He keeps pushing, getting closer to her, eventually culminating in "If you loved me, you'd do this for me." She decides he has a point. This is what couples in love do, isn't it? Maybe she should be ready? If she doesn't, he might break up with her!

Non-physical coercion can be very effective, and much more subtle.

Oh hey, my experience pretty much to the T!

It took me a long time to accept that after being manipulated, controlled and emotionally abused, I never actually gave true consent. I was groomed. I was made to believe there's no other choice. Whenever things happened, I was scared. I pretended. But you know, it's part of the deal right, haha? It's normal to be ready at all times am I right hahaha? It's what I'm supposed to do as a girlfriend, to be sexually compatible so he doesn't go for others hahahahahahaha?

.... wait, what do you mean these aren't normal relationship quirks?

[ve4grm]

Oh hey, my experience pretty much to the T!

It took me a long time to accept that after being manipulated, controlled and emotionally abused, I never actually gave true consent. I was groomed. I was made to believe there's no other choice. Whenever things happened, I was scared. I pretended. But you know, it's part of the deal right, haha? It's normal to be ready at all times am I right hahaha? It's what I'm supposed to do as a girlfriend, to be sexually compatible so he doesn't go for others hahahahahahaha?

.... wait, what do you mean these aren't normal relationship quirks?

I'd be lying if I said your posts weren't in the back of my mind a bit when I wrong that.

I'm glad you seem to be doing better these days!

[Coidzor]

I get that. I really do. Surely those are outliers?

People murdering one another has been on a marked decline overall along with violent crime in general, at least in the U.S. for the past couple of decades. Basically once the crime wave of the 80s finally died down and the long term positive effects of taking efforts to reduce or even stop contaminating people with lead started to be felt.

I just want a solution, and MIND READING is not it. At all.

Boy howdy is it what some people want you to do, though, and there doesn't seem to be any sign of the conflicting cultural pressures resolving any time soon. I'd expect male bisexuality to start getting broadly accepted by women before things shake out on this front.

Upon reflection, I'm honestly not sure which is worse, the people who expect men to be mind readers or the people who think that natural, healthy human sexual interactions are predicated on the man doing his utmost to dissuade a woman from having sex with him in case she doesn't really want to and is just putting on an act.

[Chen]

Enthusiastic consent was actually meant to try and stop th expectation of mind reading by getting people to ask instead of assuming that they were correctly reading their partner's mind. Checking in and dirty talk can be really sexy as well. It tells me if I'm doing things right and gives me a little reassurance that I'm not making my partner uncomfortable or there's something they want from me that I'm not giving.It's also because it's a lot easier for a person who really wants sex to give an enthusiastic "yes I want you to [insert act here]" than for a scared, freaked out panicking person to stop freezing and say "no" to someone they're afraid might attack them for that "no." I'm not asking my partner to read my mind. I'm asking them to ask me if they have absolutely any uncertainty and to take anything other than a "yes" as "no or at least not right now. " If I can't bring myself to say "yes" then I don't deserve to get laid. And I'm not advocating that as a legal sstandard I'm advocating it as the "Don't be an ass" standard.

How does this mesh with the whole "being worried about violence when saying no". If your partner is directly asking you woukdn't you still be in the same situation?

[ve4grm]

Upon reflection, I'm honestly not sure which is worse, the people who expect men to be mind readers or the people who think that natural, healthy human sexual interactions are predicated on the man doing his utmost to dissuade a woman from having sex with him in case she doesn't really want to and is just putting on an act.

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.

Man: "I want to have sex with you."
Woman, distractedly: "Sure, whatever."
Man: "You're sure? Because it's ok if you're not up for it."
Woman: "No, I'm good. Let's go."

or

Man, rubbing woman's shoulders: "Are you comfortable? Enjoying this?"
Woman: "Yeah. I like it."
*shoulder rub continues*

vs

Man, rubbing woman's shoulders: "Are you comfortable? Enjoying this?"
Woman: "I guess."
Man: "Right, that sounds forced. What's up?"
*shoulder rub ends, discussion probably happens*

.

"Enthusiastic Consent" is really just another term for being a considerate partner.

[Anymage]

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

What someone is down for at any given point can vary based on what's been happening before. Asking for sex right as I walk into a girl's place will likely get me slapped, while taking her hand and leading her to the bedroom will get a very different response. Someone has to be the first to initiate, someone has to make the first move to escalate, and expecting those to only happen when the initiator knows they're welcome does require mind reading.

Plus, I find it very interesting how quickly people's tune changes from "you should only escalate/approach if you know that they'll be enthusiastic about it" to "you're a garbage person for not approaching me" when they're in a situation where approaches dry up.

[Sivarias]

Upon reflection, I'm honestly not sure which is worse, the people who expect men to be mind readers or the people who think that natural, healthy human sexual interactions are predicated on the man doing his utmost to dissuade a woman from having sex with him in case she doesn't really want to and is just putting on an act.

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

What someone is down for at any given point can vary based on what's been happening before. Asking for sex right as I walk into a girl's place will likely get me slapped, while taking her hand and leading her to the bedroom will get a very different response. Someone has to be the first to initiate, someone has to make the first move to escalate, and expecting those to only happen when the initiator knows they're welcome does require mind reading.

Plus, I find it very interesting how quickly people's tune changes from "you should only escalate/approach if you know that they'll be enthusiastic about it" to "you're a garbage person for not approaching me" when they're in a situation where approaches dry up.

It makes me REALLY glad that some people understand my perspective hear and don't feel like I'm talking out my ass. In a way I get enthusiastic consent. I can tell when my wife is just going through the motions for duty sex, and more often than not I just give up on that.

But initiation has to start somewhere, and Anymage really does have a point. If I start actually talking about sex with my wife, that's usually when I get a lukewarm response. When I just initiate and start doing the things that she likes, it's much more likely to be received positively by her.

The less she has to think about it the more fun she has. If I stop to ask her a question, she stops enjoying it to think about her answer, and that's no fun for anyone.

[Anonymouswizard]

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

What someone is down for at any given point can vary based on what's been happening before. Asking for sex right as I walk into a girl's place will likely get me slapped, while taking her hand and leading her to the bedroom will get a very different response. Someone has to be the first to initiate, someone has to make the first move to escalate, and expecting those to only happen when the initiator knows they're welcome does require mind reading.

Plus, I find it very interesting how quickly people's tune changes from "you should only escalate/approach if you know that they'll be enthusiastic about it" to "you're a garbage person for not approaching me" when they're in a situation where approaches dry up.

Sigh, alright, just to clarify for anybody who hasn't got it, this is also getting enthusiastic consent.

Woman: "I want to have sex with you."
Man, distractedly: "Sure, whatever."
Woman: "You're sure? Because it's ok if you're not up for it."
Man: "No, I'm good. Let's go."

As is this.

Man1: "I want to have sex with you."
Man2, distractedly: "Sure, whatever."
Man1: "You're sure? Because it's ok if you're not up for it."
Man2: "No, I'm good. Let's go."

As is this.

Woman1: "I want to have sex with you."
Woman2, distractedly: "Sure, whatever."
Woman1: "You're sure? Because it's ok if you're not up for it."
Woman2: "No, I'm good. Let's go."

Now, a relationship that assumes consent unless said otherwise is fine, as long as if consent is withdrawn that's ignored. Most relationships assume consent for some things even if they don't for sex. For one relationship general consent for touching might be established, in another one partner might be uncomfortable with touching unless consent has been given. Another relationship might have established pre-consent for taking each other's clothes off or whatever.

The way I can see it, enthusiastic consent isn't going to stop everybody, but it'll certainly stop the (however common they are) cases of sexual assault or harassment or rape caused by the tendency to treat an ambiguous situation favourably.

Consider that not checking about something minor, compared to what most people are talking about here, caused me to lose a partner and friend by bringing up somebody's trauma (which I didn't know about beforehand, but that doesn't forgive the fact I didn't ask for consent). If you're not in an established relationship where boundaries have been firmly set and everybody understands them then making sure is always better.

The risk of taking somebody out of the mood is relatively minor compared to the risk of raping somebody you accidentally pressured into sex. If you see no problem with pressure rape then I fail to understand your morality.

Sivarias , it sounds like you and your partner might have established consent for this already, which if true is fine and you're free to continue initiating sex however you want.

[Glass Mouse]

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.

You know what, if there's ever a discussion about consent and you think my situation might help you, I give you (and other people in this discussion) permission to use me as an example. I'd rather it be used to help somebody understand than not. I just request you don't dig out and use my real name (it's not actually hidden).

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to throw you under the bus - it just seemed like a natural extension of the conversation since your experience prompted it all.
Thanks for the permission, though I probably won't ever use names or handles should I need to bring up the example again someday.

I don't know if that's the case, but I'm definitely going to try this method.
next time I want to get ice-cream or tea I'll throw an ice-cream scoop or a teabag at my partner's head and wink...
I'll let you know if it works

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

This is why, with your HR problem you mentioned, I honestly think they did the right thing by going through HR. It can be much more effective (and less intimidating for the accuser) if the "hey, watch your hands" comes from an authority. And even though, as evidenced by the fact that you're now conscious of it and watch yourself in those situations, there probably would have been no issue if they approached you directly, they may not have known that and may not have been comfortable bringing it up directly to you and may have wanted to do so anonymously. This is why HR exists, after all.

That said, it does sound like it was poorly handled. The HR rep should have talked with you after a single complaint, so that you could address it and prevent any future issues right away, and nobody would have gotten in any trouble. It also should probably not have been reported as full-on sexual harassment, but rather just inappropriate behavior, but this may just be how your HR categorizes things. The women in question may have never said the words "sexual harassment", but HR needed to categorize it.

So yeah, could have been handled better by HR.

I agree with this. You said you're a manager, right? If my manager did something sexual-ish to make me uncomfortable like that, I like to think that I'd be able to speak up (the way I have with colleagues in the past), but honestly… there are managers at my job who have so much clout, and who seem like such bad listeners in general, that if either of them started touching me, I would be genuinely scared about backlash if I made him angry. Not violence. But maybe not being invited to important meetings, not getting vacation time approved, petty things for him, important things for me. And with no paper trail, I'd have no way to fight back without making a huge splash in the organisation and creating a big “he said she said” thing. With those guys, I'd probably also go to HR for guidance or maybe to ask them to discreetly pull the guy aside and talk to him on my behalf - the latter in particular if he's doing the same thing to many women so I can hide behind anonymity.

See, that's the thing with managers. The power difference is pretty big. A jerk manager can make a report's life difficult in ways the report just cannot defend themselves against. Which is part of why good managers keep up friendly relations but not actual friendships with their reports. I think flirting falls in the same category. If you want to flirt at work, flirt with peers. Don't flirt with people who aren't in a position to tell you to knock it off.

That said, if you were almost fired over something like that (unless of course you're leaving out something), your HR sucks. A discreet conversion should be enough to take care of it unless someone is a repeat offender.

The pendulum swings, before it settles in one place. It was on the male side for a good long time, and has just suddenly swung to the women's corner.

[snip]

Eventually, the pendulum will swing back a ways, and we'll wind up with an "investigate all accusations" mentality. But be patient. There's a lot of pent-up anger coming out right now.

I've heard this argument a lot lately, and I wholeheartedly believe it to be true. Humans are bad at nuance, and we tend to overcorrect, both in our personal lives (no one is as zealous as a new convert, y'know) and as a culture.

Meanwhile, we need these conversations. We need to parse this out. We need to learn and to educate, and so once the pendulum settles, it'll settle in a better place.

How does this mesh with the whole "being worried about violence when saying no". If your partner is directly asking you woukdn't you still be in the same situation?

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.

Someone has to be the first to initiate, someone has to make the first move to escalate

You seem to be complaining that asking for enthusiastic consent is a burden that lies on the initiator, to which I say… yes. Yes, of course it does.

Someone who is not initiating may or may not even be thinking about sex in the moment. Do you want someone who has no idea that sex is happening to clearly communicate their desire? That's absurd. We can't all walk around parroting our desire levels for all possible acts and all possible people every five minutes.

Yes, I know that in most cultures, the initiator is usually the man. There's a gender skew there. That sucks. But enthusiastic consent is not what makes it suck. EC is an alternative to the mind reading, and is trying to make it suck less. The initiation bias is a broader problem, and I'll happily discuss that, too, but it's a little outside the scope of this.

And even then, the split is not absolute. I've lost out on sex that the other person would've had if I hadn't checked in, and I've mostly dated men. That's good. I wouldn't have wanted sex the other person was uncomfortable with. I mean, still disappointing because I lost out on sex I wanted, but vastly superior to actually going through with it.

(If you want details, just look to Anonymouswizard's examples, some of which I'm sure I've lived verbatim)

expecting those to only happen when the initiator knows they're welcome does require mind reading.

NO ONE IS ASKING FOR MIND READING.

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.

Yes, it's tricky at work. And so if you don't have the empathy and the social skills to read someone's body language, keep your flirting out of the workplace. 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.

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

[Crow]

**** it. Just go masturbate.

[Florian]

Incidentally, just watching a Netflix movie:

Male Teenager: Can I kiss you?
Female Teenager: You're not supposed to asked!
Male Teenager: How else should I know?
....

[Chen]

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.

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.

[FinnLassie]

Incidentally, just watching a Netflix movie:

Male Teenager: Can I kiss you?
Female Teenager: You're not supposed to asked!
Male Teenager: How else should I know?
....

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.

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh, sorry, I didn't mean to throw you under the bus - it just seemed like a natural extension of the conversation since your experience prompted it all.
Thanks for the permission, though I probably won't ever use names or handles should I need to bring up the example again someday.

Oh no, I get exactly why you did it, and think it was right considering the circumstances. Maybe not everybody would have been fine with it, but I will always be happy for things I've posted to be brought up again when useful, even if it's immediately afterwards. I was clarifying partially because I was afraid that if I didn't other people would go 'don't drag other posters into this' or something to that affect.

NO ONE IS ASKING FOR MIND READING.

This. I really don't get this, without enthusiastic consent you need to be a mind reader. How else can I know if a nervous yes is due to not wanting to do it or just being a bit scared because [insert variety of valid reasons to be scared or nervous about sex].

Heck, I'd be as nervous as anything about having sex no matter who asks, because I'm as insecure as hell. I'd much rather somebody double checked or backed off for a minute if I can't give a firm yes that sounds sure than somebody who continues on. (Especially as there's a decent chance of whoever the person I'm sleeping with being male, and I know just enough about that stuff to be scared but not how to solve my issues.)

Yes, it's tricky in dating, but sussing out the other person's attraction is the entire point of dating.

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

Because humans are confusing and don't always say what they mean, or give statements that could be taking multiple ways, or sometimes outright lie. But we struggle through it because there's always that chance of finding somebody who's honest with you and that you can be...

Oh, right. You're not saying you don't understand why relationships are hard.

Incidentally, just watching a Netflix movie:

Male Teenager: Can I kiss you?
Female Teenager: You're not supposed to asked!
Male Teenager: How else should I know?
....

MIND READING.

But yeah, that's a great thing to have in a movie. It wasn't until reading this thread after my breakup (if I sound fine at any point that's because I can process my feelings to the point where I'm functional fast, I'm still not ready to date anybody new but I'm not crying myself to sleep anymore) and we got onto the topic of enthusiastic consent until I realised that I always have the right to ask if I'm unsure. Knowing that would have made me much more considerate during my relationship and might have stopped it from ending.

I kid you not, media during my growing up period made me thing that touching is something that you don't need to ask for, so when the thought of asking for it appeared my mind just went to 'it should be fine, it would be wrong to ask'. Guess why I've called my actions idiotic.

[Anymage]

So I'm confused as to why enthusiastic consent, in that regard, makes much of a difference.

There is something to be said for checking in if they seem checked out. If nothing else, it shows that you're conscious of their comfort level, and sending a message that you are responsive to their feedback.

The two big problems I have with the idea are;

-Every illustration of EC that wasn't in response to being directly called out had the man asking and the woman responding. It very much lives up to a gatekeeper ethos. One of the things I enjoy very much as an adult, meanwhile, is that women are more willing to advocate for themselves instead of trying to figure them out. I'm all for a more open communication paradigm, and I'm willing to do my part. I'm not interested in someone who will only communicate through playing Mother May I.

-Most of the discussion points focus on younger girls who have no clue what the dating and sex landscape looks like, and who are dealing with all sorts of conflicting emotions and ideas. Which are things I can understand appreciate. But they tend to date younger boys with their own conflicting ideas about relationships and sex. (Many of which have been learned through watching the actions of the very younger girls that we're talking about.) If you want to pair me off with a teenager, I'll accept that as the more experienced partner I have to be more mindful and proactive. Expecting teenagers to be able to spot all these issues in the moment and ask at just the right points requires either ridiculous micromanaging ("you must have verbal consent before every escalation"), preternaturally mature teenagers, or telepathy.

[ve4grm]

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

-Every illustration of EC that wasn't in response to being directly called out had the man asking and the woman responding. It very much lives up to a gatekeeper ethos. One of the things I enjoy very much as an adult, meanwhile, is that women are more willing to advocate for themselves instead of trying to figure them out. I'm all for a more open communication paradigm, and I'm willing to do my part. I'm not interested in someone who will only communicate through playing Mother May I.

My fault, sorry. That was literally only me being lazy about writing the examples. This should apply in all directions, with the onus being on the aggressor, whoever that may be.

In my marriage, for example, it's typically my wife who is the aggressor, as she has a higher libido than me. She'll ask what I'm up for, I'll tell her that I'm not feeling it that day, and she'll back down. Easy.

That said, this is an issue that does disproportionately affect women and advances from men, so the conversation tends to default to that direction.

If we use a male/female example again, please forgive us and understand it's just for laziness sake, and it does apply in all directions.

It makes me REALLY glad that some people understand my perspective hear and don't feel like I'm talking out my ass.

Don't worry, man, we don't think you're talking out of your ass. Honestly, a lot of us were exactly where you are at one point, and it took some major realization to get to our current mindset.

In a way I get enthusiastic consent. I can tell when my wife is just going through the motions for duty sex, and more often than not I just give up on that.

But initiation has to start somewhere, and Anymage really does have a point. If I start actually talking about sex with my wife, that's usually when I get a lukewarm response. When I just initiate and start doing the things that she likes, it's much more likely to be received positively by her.

The less she has to think about it the more fun she has. If I stop to ask her a question, she stops enjoying it to think about her answer, and that's no fun for anyone.

I have no doubt that you are very caring about how your wife feels in these situations. That's great!

The thing to keep in mind is that you're talking about a marriage, where the two parties are intimately familiar with each others' needs and desires. Every couple has a level of implied consent that doesn't need to be asked for. Heck, every pair of people does! I have friends who I could come up behind and just start rubbing their shoulders, and everything would be great. But if I don't have that level of trust and implicit consent from someone, I should get explicit consent before rubbing their shoulders.

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.

Honestly, it's mostly so that it wasn't all guys dominating the discussion (before Recherché came in).

There is something to be said for checking in if they seem checked out. If nothing else, it shows that you're conscious of their comfort level, and sending a message that you are responsive to their feedback.

And this is the main part of enthusiastic consent.

Honestly, I'm fairly sure that, from what you've said, you're doing most of what we'd ask for in your daily life.

-Most of the discussion points focus on younger girls who have no clue what the dating and sex landscape looks like, and who are dealing with all sorts of conflicting emotions and ideas. Which are things I can understand appreciate. But they tend to date younger boys with their own conflicting ideas about relationships and sex. (Many of which have been learned through watching the actions of the very younger girls that we're talking about.) If you want to pair me off with a teenager, I'll accept that as the more experienced partner I have to be more mindful and proactive. Expecting teenagers to be able to spot all these issues in the moment and ask at just the right points requires either ridiculous micromanaging ("you must have verbal consent before every escalation"), preternaturally mature teenagers, or telepathy.

And here's where we're talking past each other.

EC isn't asking for telepathy. EC is trying to get rid of the need for telepathy.

Let's say there's two young teens, who are making out. One decides to take things further. This can go in one of two ways:

Without EC
Teen 1 pushes forward, moving from making out to light touching.
Teen 2 is hesitant, but ok.
Teen 1 moves into full-on groping and heavy petting.
Teen 2 is uncomfortable, but doesn't know how to address it. This is what they should want, after all, right?
Teen 1 isn't a telepath, and therefore continues. After a while in this vein, Teen 2 is in a situation they have no idea how to get out of, and Teen 1 has essentially committed sexual assault.

With EC
Teen 1 pushes forward, moving from making out to light touching.
Teen 2 is hesitant, but ok.
Teen 1: "How's this feel?"
Teen 2: "Pretty good."
Teen 1 moves into full-on groping and heavy petting.
Teen 2 is uncomfortable, but doesn't know how to address it. This is what they should want, after all, right?
Teen 1: "You like that?"
Teen 2: "Uh... I think so?"
Consent = middling and unenthusiastic. Teen 1 backs off, down to light touching and stays there (for this time at least) unless Teen 2 initiates more. Everybody is comfortable with what happened.

This doesn't rely on Teen 1 being a telepath or exceptionally mature. In fact, it relies on Teen 1 being uncertain. When Teen 1 escalates, they aren't experienced enough to be certain about consent, so they ask. It takes literally 2 seconds, can be mixed into dirty talk, and helps ensure you aren't doing something undesired.

Honestly, this is something we try to teach kids in preschool. All this is, is the concept of sharing and requesting permission, applied to relationships. After all, what do you teach a child to say when they want to play with a toy that belongs to someone else?

"Excuse me, can I play with this?"

[Anonymouswizard]

Without EC
Teen 1 pushes forward, moving from making out to light touching.
Teen 2 is hesitant, but ok.
Teen 1 moves into full-on groping and heavy petting.
Teen 2 is uncomfortable, but doesn't know how to address it. This is what they should want, after all, right?
Teen 1 isn't a telepath, and therefore continues. After a while in this vein, Teen 2 is in a situation they have no idea how to get out of, and Teen 1 has essentially committed sexual assault.

Heck, situations like this aren't limited to teens. Something very much like this was what I did, and it took (counts in head) three cases before I realised 'no' didn't mean 'not right now' but 'stop until I explicitly say you can'. Unfortunately by then the damage was done, and unfortunately it then took three days until I was even informed that damage had been done.

It wasn't exactly like this example, but yeah feel free to call me whatever names you want, because I did a very bad thing.

[Glass Mouse]

Incidentally, just watching a Netflix movie:

Male Teenager: Can I kiss you?
Female Teenager: You're not supposed to asked!
Male Teenager: How else should I know?
....

Or that adorkable last scene in Frozen!

Kristoff: “I could kiss you. I could. I mean, I’d like to. I–may I? We me? I mean, may we? Wait, what?”
Anna: *kisses him* We may.

So I'm confused as to why enthusiastic consent, in that regard, makes much of a difference.

Ah, alright. I misunderstood the question.

There are people who are cruel enough that they will inflict violence or unemployment on you if you hurt their feelings.

There are people who are self-absorbed enough that they will not care about the social consequences for you if they go out of their way to avoid you (such as not inviting you to meetings or outings) if you hurt their feelings.

There are people who are awkward or self-hating enough that they will spiral out if you hurt their feelings.

And then there are people who can demonstrate a care for your emotions while clearly communicating their own desires - thus demonstrating both empathy and emotional maturity.

The last group does not have much overlap with the first three. People who are good at EC pose a much lower risk of reacting cruelly or immaturely, simply because they have already demonstrated kindness and maturity. Of course it is not perfect, and some people sound kind and respectful while still turning out to be jerks, but it does lower the risk significantly.

Also, importantly, the whole “stop and ask” short-circuits the panic process that many people have when thrust into an unwanted situation. People who are surprised by unwanted sexual contact have a LOT of questions buzzing through their mind:

• ****, what did I do to give them the wrong idea?
• What do they actually want? Is the thing they want something I could tolerate or maybe even like, if I tried?
• How will they react if I say no?
• How do I avoid hurting their feelings?
• How do I avoid retaliation if they get mad?
• What do I do if they won't stop?
• How could I have avoided this?
• What is the best time to speak up? Is sooner better than later or will that just make them more hurt/angry?

Checking in skips right past that entire process and distills the issue into a single yes/no which is much easier to answer. Often, for the initiatee, it's not so much about risk mitigation itself as it's about cutting through the entire risk calculation process.

Heck, I'd be as nervous as anything about having sex no matter who asks, because I'm as insecure as hell. I'd much rather somebody double checked or backed off for a minute if I can't give a firm yes that sounds sure than somebody who continues on. (Especially as there's a decent chance of whoever the person I'm sleeping with being male, and I know just enough about that stuff to be scared but not how to solve my issues.)

Oh man, absolutely! I'm pretty good at asserting myself these days, but I'd still absolutely prefer the person who asks five times too many than someone who asks one time too few. Surprise sex acts are only fun if performed by actual mind readers.

(Also, while I've got you, you are allowed to chill about the self-flagellation. You did a wrong thing, you sought advice, now you know better and will do better in the future. That doesn't make you a monster or worthy of being called names. (except maybe by your ex.)). It's okay.

Every illustration of EC that wasn't in response to being directly called out had the man asking and the woman responding. It very much lives up to a gatekeeper ethos.

Hmm. While the current reality definitely has a gender skew, the ideals we discuss do not. I've personally been trying very hard to keep my own examples gender neutral and have explicitly mentioned female-specific coercion. As will surprise no one, I have only loathing for the gatekeeper narrative and agree with you that we need to push back against that.

As for the Mother May I thing: If someone is so closed off during the act that they are not conveying consent through their actions and sounds and dirty talk (and preferably by advocating for their own desires and doing their own check-ins when appropriate), and therefore that you're so consistently unsure that you need to ask about everything… maybe you shouldn't be having sex with that person?

But! I suspect we're talking about vastly different quantities of check-ins here. The bare minimum of enthusiastic consent is an experience I still went home rattled from: I initiated kisses, then suddenly his clothes were coming off and foreplay was starting while he talked about how much he wanted me (I did not want sex with him at that time and basically froze) and only after fifteen-ish minutes did he stop and ask whether I was actually into it. Would I have called that assault even if we'd gone through with it? No, that'd be ridiculous, I could've said stop at any time. But I had my baggage, and I was young and inexperienced and terrified of depriving him of something that I surely owed him due to my bad communication, right? To this day I'm very thankful for him stopping because I seemed checked out.

On the other end of the scale is asking before anything starts, then before every single new escalation, plus a bunch of “are you sure?” in between. That is on the annoying side, but has not in my experience gotten in the way of anything. I think this is what you're fearing we’re asking for, and, uh… I frankly don't see why that's such a worst case scenario with a new partner. I'd vastly prefer that to someone who does not check in at all.

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.”

And again, I literally cannot overstate the advantage of pausing and locking eyes. Though I'm very much a words person, and if someone has some good non-verbal check-ins, feel free to share.

Expecting teenagers to be able to spot all these issues in the moment and ask at just the right points requires either ridiculous micromanaging ("you must have verbal consent before every escalation"), preternaturally mature teenagers, or telepathy.

No one is expecting teenagers to be perfect. But teenagers do not know these things, and people won't learn unless they’re taught (see Anonymouswizard's post right above yours). So we're having this discussion in the hope that people in the forum, or a lurker or two, is exactly in that situation of needing to learn it.

Also, this is NOT exclusive to teenagers. As people grow older, they generally get better at asserting their desires without prompting, which is awesome, but until that day when everyone is perfect and kind and clearly communicating about everything, we still need to check in a little bit.

[2D8HP]

Well ****.

It turns out I moved too fast for her, made her afraid, and she's decided to break up with me. I feel hollow....

.


So sorry to learn that AW.

It's hard....

I'm also 23.

.

The odds were against you.

I keep wondering what'll happen if I screw up, say the wrong word, do the wrong thing, accidentally push her away..

.
You will feel bad.

And then you will get past that.

And then you will fall in love again, but with a little less intensity, so you will have more your wits about you.

It's even possible to fall in love with the same person twice.

I feel like I want to spend eternity with her, to hold her beside me when the stars go out..

.
Yep, you've been bitten hard.

"In-love" is a bit like the pleasant madness of being intoxicated, especially for the first time.

In my experience, if you're both closer to 20 than to 30, the odds are that relationship won't last, but sometimes they do, so best wishes.

I've also read of some who manage to keep the "in-love" feeling (though usually at a simmer, rather than a boil).

Odds are even if you stay together (rooting for you), the "in love" feeling won't last, but then shared memories will bond you.

Hopeful and scared for you AW, may Eros and Tyche both bless you.

---

Am I weird for not falling madly in love with people, ever? I mean there are certainly people...

.
Then you're missing something wonderful and terrible, R.

In remember how I felt at 19 I think you've missed something.

In remembering how I felt at 20 you're damn lucky.

(For the record I met the person who became my wife, and is still my wife, when I was 23 and she was 26, and no it wasn't the same as at 19, but since that was decades ago my memory may be dim)..

.
Your hurt AW, and you fear you hurt and lost a friend.

As I know little about the romance culture of British and European young adults, and others have addressed and advised on behavior better than I could, and besides generalities don't fall in and out of love, and hurt individuals do, so I'm just going to post how I suspect it will go down for you based on my own experience.

You will hurt, but in time you will hurt less.

You will feel regret. In time you won't think about it much, but every so often you will remember and wince, but not always and forever.

You will be happy again, but not always and forever, nothing is.

You will learn from this.

While the wise may learn from others mistakes, most must learn from their own, fools don't even learn from their own mistakes.

You are not a fool, though you may feel like one now.

You will fall in love again, but you will know that being "in love" is not quite the same as "loving" and you will know that being "in love" is a sort of madness that while often pleasant is a lot like being drunk, and it impairs your judgement, so you won't allow yourself to feel that "high" as much, though for some moments you will get close.

Close is good enough.

Your desires for status, wealth, and romance will drive you to seek them, but happiness in mostly found in conversations about things meaningful or fun for you, be it your hobbies, your work, philosophy, jokes, whatever.

Don't stay alone listening to Lou Reed albums.

Well maybe one listen, but no Joy Division.

Stay away from "Hell is the Absence of God" by Chang, or "The Mysterious Stranger" by Twain. Don't go near Goethe.

Read "The Cambist and Lord Iron" by Abraham instead. Susanna Clarke is good, but only if you read the whole book, otherwise no.

Watch or play a game with company.

Have one small glass of rum (without coffee), or a pint of ale, but no tequila, and absolutely no wine or brandy, even if it's not French.

Don't have a second glass or pint for a few days (from what little I know of Britain that will be hard).

Get in sunlight (from what little I know of Britain that will be hard).

Riding a motorcycle is great therapy, but I've known too many who've died that way, and your most likely to die while your young and learning to ride, maybe a ride as a passenger?

A bicycle ride somewhere quiet with a friend is good.

So are petting zoo"s.

Watch "Hot Fuzz".

Also watch "Tropic Thunder".

Stay away from "Atonement" and "Locke".

Best wishes.

[dehro]

**** it. Just go masturbate.

Those are conflicting instructions... HALP!!

[Florian]

@Annonymouswizard/Glass Mouse:

The introduction of the (german) "No means No" law sparked and interesting and very controversial discussion, that also touched on the topic of responsibility and sexual assault, especially in light of the developments caused by a similar law in a neighboring country.

It might sound a bit heartless, but an important part is about being responsible to say "no" in the first place.
But keep in mind, as we also talk about teenagers here, that parents are fully responsible for what their kids do (or don't do) until a certain age, then have partial responsibility between that age and the age of legal self-responsibility. Parents are directly responsible to teach their kids to say "no" and to accept "no" as an answer (btw., along with sex education, STD prevention education, and so on. These are fixed school topics and you cannot, for whatever reason, exempt your kid from attending those classes (and even private schools are forced by law to have them on the curriculum)).

Understanding that mindset is important is actually pretty important when talking about EC. Being an adult member of polite society comes with the strings attached that one has to take full responsibility for their life. That fundamental premise is broken by how that discussion is held, namely shifting responsibility for one person over to another person. While that might be a "sensible" or "humane" thing to do, it still hurts society (and feminism) more than it helps.

[Anonymouswizard]

Oh man, absolutely! I'm pretty good at asserting myself these days, but I'd still absolutely prefer the person who asks five times too many than someone who asks one time too few. Surprise sex acts are only fun if performed by actual mind readers.

(Also, while I've got you, you are allowed to chill about the self-flagellation. You did a wrong thing, you sought advice, now you know better and will do better in the future. That doesn't make you a monster or worthy of being called names. (except maybe by your ex.)). It's okay.

Sure, I'm in complete agreement. I'd also much rather somebody stopped because they weren't sure I was into it then continued while being unsure.

(With regards to the self-flagellation, can't a spellcaster have a bit of fun when moving past this? My humour even when I'm 100% fine relies on self-depreciation.)

@Annonymouswizard/Glass Mouse:

The introduction of the (german) "No means No" law sparked and interesting and very controversial discussion, that also touched on the topic of responsibility and sexual assault, especially in light of the developments caused by a similar law in a neighboring country.

It might sound a bit heartless, but an important part is about being responsible to say "no" in the first place.
But keep in mind, as we also talk about teenagers here, that parents are fully responsible for what their kids do (or don't do) until a certain age, then have partial responsibility between that age and the age of legal self-responsibility. Parents are directly responsible to teach their kids to say "no" and to accept "no" as an answer (btw., along with sex education, STD prevention education, and so on. These are fixed school topics and you cannot, for whatever reason, exempt your kid from attending those classes (and even private schools are forced by law to have them on the curriculum)).

Understanding that mindset is important is actually pretty important when talking about EC. Being an adult member of polite society comes with the strings attached that one has to take full responsibility for their life. That fundamental premise is broken by how that discussion is held, namely shifting responsibility for one person over to another person. While that might be a "sensible" or "humane" thing to do, it still hurts society (and feminism) more than it helps.

Certainly, I have problems with how the curriculum here in the UK is handled. There's way too much attempting to pretend sex doesn't exist, to the point where I learnt about STDs and protection, but not really about consent. Nobody taught me how to say no or how to accept no, which while some people might find it comes naturally, not all of us learn social stuff easily or at the same age as people do.

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.