Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Africa]

"Enthusiastic consent"....can't buy it. Let's do a reductio ad absurdum. Take a poll of...well, everyone. Ask them if they want a sex partner to ask their permission before every act, or to just do it. See what results you get.

I guarantee you people's responses will confirm that asking "May I touch your boob" -> "May I put my mouth on any part of your body" -> "May I penetrate" is not a feasible way for most people to determine when the other person feels like doing something. If you set it as the standard for what's not rape, well...

OK, so a couple can establish that before they do anything, they both need to "enthusiastically" say yes. Great. So now any kind of uninitiated touching is now sexual assault and nothing can progress unless they both check to make sure they're on the same page. And for one-night stands? Well, they'd cease to exist. There is literally no way the mood can be maintained while progress is peppered with a series of "yeses" and "yeahs" or even other codewords at regular intervals to keep things moving along.


So I'd say it can never work, not as a broadly understand standard of how everyone should go about it, not as a legal bar for determining rape, and not even as a communication tool for most couples. It's not the same as saying "it's rape unless both parties indicate yes," anyway. And that's also not a good way of determining, because "indicate yes" is such a fuzzy and hard to pin down idea that it's been what drives basically all debates and arguments about rape, and for good reason.

Note: as male humor often notes, the one case where this is always necessary is getting your girl to do anal.

[Vector]

One way of demonstrating enthusiastic consent is by participating enthusiastically.

Not all consent needs to be verbal.

[Bauglir]

A blog article on such, which I enjoyed.

This article linked in your linked blog was interesting.

Indeed, I missed that link. At a guess, a reason for that behavior is that their perception of the questions changed once the word "rape" got brought in, just based on the behaviors they associated with it. There may also have been a slight problem between definitions of "should" (what's practically useful vs. what is morally right), and in the latter situation they assume someone's already immoral so you have to go with the practical option of a firm "no" that can't be misinterpreted.

I'm not making excuses, I think. Mostly just trying to analyze where I think the sudden shift might have come from. Entirely speculative, though.

@Africa
You're right that it would be absurd to codify the principle legally for every possible sex act. It doesn't seem absurd, though, to require a single enthusiastic consent for the entire category of sex acts between two particular people (so it's not your whole sequence, but rather, "May I have sex with you?" and that's all you need to ask), and it's certainly not absurd to consider it immoral to violate somebody's explicitly defined request. Also what Vector said.

[KaelGotDwarves]

@Vector: well, people in the kink subculture are quite familiar and comfortable than most with sex and sexual boundaries... as it's said in that subculture. Communication is #1.

This is important.  I've done some reading on this, and I think it's underestimated just how much people vary in how comfortable they are with talking about and otherwise expressing their sexuality and how this translates into issues of consent. 

People develop understandings in very abstract and subtle fashions very often.  Everybody does, and we're often unaware of just how unusual our methods of communicating are unique and strange from one person to the next.  It's inevitable that things get messed up.  Often.

Yes let me clarify this further - and pardon me for bad grammar/spelling - posting from phone.

I'll out myself I am a switch. For those of you not in the know about BDSM, that is an individual who is comfortable with and able to switch into both dominant and submissive roles in a relationship. Most people comprehend the obvious sexual roles, but it's more complex than wrapping someone up in leather and then having your way with them. Being a submissive doesn't mean that you just lie there placidly and give whatever the dominant person wants. It's all about will. That BDSM sex is simply about power and pain is a common misconception spread by most porn - BDSM may be part of a power struggle that helps get people off but that's not what the relationship is about. It's about that test of wills - a level of trust that comes from understanding. "Love" is important, but different types of it may be employed here. So how do you create this level of trust in a relationship where one individual dominates the will of another that submits to them? You do it with what every healthy, proper relationship needs. Open and good communication.

[SalmonGod]

A blog article on such, which I enjoyed.

Read it... I'm sorry but this strikes me as unrealistic.  This looks like it was written for people without any emotional damage, personality disorders, shyness, communication problems, or misguided ideas about sex... all of which are not just common, but prevalent in our culture.  Saying that the kinky subculture can do it just fine isn't useful, because that strongly implies someone with a healthy sexual outlook, who knows exactly what they want, and can communicate it to others... which rules out most of the above problems.

[Vector]

*shrug*

I hit all of the above descriptors (save perhaps the personality disorder) and still strive for enthusiastic consent in all things.  Of course, this is largely because of the above reasons, so maybe you don't mean me.

[SalmonGod]

One way of demonstrating enthusiastic consent is by participating enthusiastically.

Not all consent needs to be verbal.

And... isn't this where misunderstandings occur?

As in the Assange case, I can see how he would have violated this with the girl he held down, assuming that sort of play hadn't been engaged in previously.  How about the girl he woke up?  We have no reason thus far to assume she didn't participate enthusiastically after waking up.

*shrug*

I hit all of the above descriptors (save perhaps the personality disorder) and still strive for enthusiastic consent in all things.  Of course, this is largely because of the above reasons, so maybe you don't mean me.

You're also very aware and educated on women's rights issues and, in my opinion, very emotionally mature.

[Vector]

When someone is actively asleep, they cannot participate.  Not enthusiastically.  Not otherwise.  I think that's the entire point.

You're also very aware and educated on women's rights issues and, in my opinion, very emotionally mature.

I never want anyone to say easily "Yeah, I'm willing to spend time with you, but I frankly don't want to" again.  If there's one thing I've learned about over the past few years, it's boundaries--and not only because mine have been so easily violated, but because I have transgressed on others' repeatedly, and I'm ashamed of myself for it.

If I'm emotionally mature, it's because I've had enough concentrated negative experiences to find some degree of compassion >_>

[Africa]

One way of demonstrating enthusiastic consent is by participating enthusiastically.

Define "enthusiastic" in a court of law.

Leads right back to the problem of my last paragraph.

Bauglir: I'm arguing from analogy with requiring consent for every act. If not having enthusiastic consent for sex makes it rape, then doesn't not having enthusiastic consent for fondling make it sexual assault?


But let's say you only need it for sex - so women enthusiastically has sex with man once, then later that night, unenthusiastically. Is he a rapist? Also, there's the old example of the married couple where she is willing to have sex with her horny husband to oblige him even though she's not in the mood. Does the fact that she's doing him a favor or just being nice to him, but just kind of laying there, make him a rapist?

Enthusiastic consent also leaves out one fairly commonplace dynamic between men and women - the man wants it more than the woman and has to "seduce" her. Neither would say it was rape. The woman finds it extremely pleasurable after things get going. But at first, he had to overcome her unwillingness to get started. I'm not talking about during sex, which would make it rape (and I'm sure many rapists tell themselves that's exactly what happened) but kissing, feeling up, etc. Hell, it can just as easily be the other way around - he doesn't feel like doing anything and grunts and turns away from her until she starts stroking his junk. Well, those were clear signs he didn't want it, and touching someone's genitals who didn't want it is sexual assault, right? But once her hand is there suddenly he's in a different mood.

And does the enthusiastic consent have to be for the new body part that's being brought in the mix? So they're both topless and making out but he hasn't gone below her waist yet, then he starts taking off her panties. She's not really ready for that but she keeps on doing everything she was doing; they're still kissing and groping and all. Did he have consent to take off her panties? What about if she pushes his hand away from some body part while giving a seductive smile? What is he supposed to make of that?

[Africa]

You're also very aware and educated on women's rights issues and, in my opinion, very emotionally mature.

And a math person, IIRC? I got to say, this enthusiastic consent thing kind of reminds me of that XKCD strip where they go out trying to make everything into a system and come back overwhelmed and are like "people are complicated!"

[Vector]

People who are not math people, and who also do not have Asperger's, came up with this idea.  Not me.

So don't think you can say it's because I'm logically minded or socially deficient.  I know damn fucking well that people are complicated, and indeed that my thought processes are extremely different from those of "normal" people.  I bring you the stuff that I stumble on when I'm out trawling the web.  None of this stuff is my idea at all.

[KaelGotDwarves]

Enthusiastic consent also leaves out one fairly commonplace dynamic between men and women - the man wants it more than the woman and has to "seduce" her

Sigh. I cannot cite you a scientific study but honestly women want sex just as much as most men (but are more keenly aware of the consequences); maybe just not particularly with certain types of men - the ones most likely to complain about women not putting out. EDIT - this is the same sort of gender stereotyping that happened earlier in this thread when someone complained about there being no decent men interested more in a relationship than sex.

Spoilers - the decent people that want a relationship quickly find themselves in a relationship and are unavailable to you.

... What about if she pushes his hand away from some body part while giving a seductive smile? What is he supposed to make of that?

Seductive smile or I-can't-believe-this-is-happening-awkward-smile? I mean, holy hell I'm an awkward dude but the difference is quite clear to me.

[Africa]

What can I say? My stereotype of math people is that they think people can be figured out with clean systems.

Even though I just had dinner a few hours ago with one that's one of the most emotional dudes I know.

In any case, I think I've been posting in this thread long enough that if you think you should be offended by something I'm saying, it's probably worth a second look. Cool down!

@ Kael: I'm not saying women don't want sex as much as men. I'm saying there's situations where one partner doesn't want sex as much as the other partner but ends up enjoying it very much. Can go both ways, but whenever you talk about rape it's assumed to be man-on-woman. The fact that's it's so ingrained in stereotype helps make it relevant as a point of argument.
Second line, well, I meant an unambiguously seductive smile, but if the dude can't tell, well then that's even an extra question to be addressed!

[Nadaka]

One way of demonstrating enthusiastic consent is by participating enthusiastically.

Not all consent needs to be verbal.

Not all people are comfortable jumping in and acting aggressively all the time (and in some cases, ever), even if they want sex.

No always means no and if you want to mean no, you say it. And you never move to advance unless your partner is capable of saying no. Once no has been said, all advances stop and you need to ask if no means back the hell off or I like where you are but not further. You need an explicit yes to advance from there. If you want to play with saying no, you need to agree to safe words beforehand just like other kink.

Its simple, does not impede romance and removes ambiguity.

[Truean]

Yeah, I'm sorry but I don't think this could ever be a legal standard....

I get what you're trying to say and in a perfect world, heck yes. In this one.... I don't know. Ideally we'd all be great friends with all our partners too.... *sigh*

I agree, when you've made someone unconscious that's bad, especially if you drugged them or got them drunk.

It is sadly, very complex.

The "no means no" is about as close as we can get.

In good news:
http://news.yahoo.com/calif-gov-signs-landmark-law-teach-gay-history-190037960.html

I hate the republican opposition: "it might teach kids to accept homosexuality...." No shit.... We can only hope.