Current Events > I actually don't think sexual consent is straightforward to understand. (spicy)

(+) Yeah! (+)

I have mixed feelings about writing this, and I don't like how the title makes me sound. I know that in writing this, it appears that I'm trying to do damage control for something, or apologise for rapists, or attempt to draw sympathy to the perpetrators of sex crimes and not the actual victims. Maybe it paints me as a creep myself. I hope that in writing it and receiving feedback I'll understand my own thoughts better, but here we go.

You see a lot of internet discourse expressing the idea that consent is really the simplest thing in the world. It tends to go something like this: "Did she say yes? That's a yes. If she didn't say yes, that's a no. If she didn't say anything, that's still a no. If she said yes at first but then stopped saying yes, that's now a no."

That as a concept is simple to understand. The trouble I have with it is that...this is absolutely not how sex works in my experience, and importantly it is absolutely not the feedback or real life response I have had from women I have had physical relationships with.

I'm not even suggesting that I've just ignored this concept and I just haven't yet been accused of rape. I mean that in most of my relationships this concept has been ignored and actively discouraged by the woman in the relationship.

The most hardcore feminist I ever dated (and you know that I've dated some full blown man haters CE) explicitly stated that she was disappointed that I stopped to put on a condom when she asked. We had never discussed "consensual non-consent" before, i.e the kink where you sort of pretend to not be into it but you agree the rules beforehand. She quite literally just meant that she was turned on by the idea that I would ignore her.

That's an extreme example, of course. I'm happy in that instance to conclude that she was way in the wrong for that position. For the most part, I just mean that I have never had a sexual encounter that relied on receiving a constant stream of positive affirmations throughout. In many of my sexual encounters over the years, I have stopped to ask if it was ok and this was - according to the woman - something that "killed the mood".

The idea that you should "read the mood" as opposed to receiving explicit consent is not clear at all. And according to the discourse, anything short of explicit affirmation isn't good enough. How often have rapists said in their defense, "but I know she wanted it", or "she didn't say no, she was enjoying it"? We know that that is not good enough, so where does that leave the problem of having sexual relationships that rely on reading the mood?

So I really am confused by it, and I find it a bit terrifying. To have the legal framework and social discourse suggest that nothing short of a constant stream of permission being granted is appropriate, whereas my personal experiences being much more loose and relying on subtle context cues.

I feel fairly comfortable with my own ability to communicate with a sexual partner and "read the mood", but I don't think it fits into the idea that consent is a simple, black and white topic, not in the way it is portrayed in trending discourse.

So I don't mean to frame this argument as if to say, "see? Rape is a wishy washy subject, let's not listen to victims". I just mean to say, actually, can anyone reliably reconcile how consent is defined versus how it is actually given?
---

No means no, homie.
---

p0nyp0nyp0ny462 posted...

No means no, homie.

Just read it man.
---

pinky0926 posted...

p0nyp0nyp0ny462 posted...

No means no, homie.

Just read it man.

Like 462 alt of the day is ever going to be in the situation.
---

DrizztLink posted...

pinky0926 posted...

p0nyp0nyp0ny462 posted...

No means no, homie.

Just read it man.

Like 462 alt of the day is ever going to be in the situation.

Taking advantage of someone, ignoring consent?

Yea that wont be me.
---

DrizztLink posted...

pinky0926 posted...

p0nyp0nyp0ny462 posted...

No means no, homie.

Just read it man.

Like 462 alt of the day is ever going to be in the situation.

True. I won't bite this time. But I am interested in genuine disagreement and discussion.
---

People have make consent way more complicated than it is

Girls, if you don't want to have sex with someone don't be in the position where that could happen

Guys, if she says no then it's no

Simple
---

Women like being dominated. What else is new?

Its only wrong when she doesnt like it.

pinky0926 posted...

DrizztLink posted...

pinky0926 posted...

p0nyp0nyp0ny462 posted...

No means no, homie.

Just read it man.

Like 462 alt of the day is ever going to be in the situation.

True. I won't bite this time. But I am interested in genuine disagreement and discussion.

It's a bit of reading the room, I guess.
---

Write a contract with her and make up a safe word for when she really aint in the mood.
---

im not 13 posted...

People have make consent way more complicated than it is

Girls, if you don't want to have sex with someone don't be in the position where that could happen

Guys, if she says no then it's no

Simple

I partially agree with this, however sometimes a person can't avoid being in a situation where the question could pop up, or the other party could make a advance, and thus they will have to eventually shoot them down with a no. Like a interested guy taking a girl on a night out on the town and the two having to ride together in a single vehicle. The only way she could completely avoid the situation is to turn him down for the date completely. Other than that it's all good.
---

p0nyp0nyp0ny462 posted...

No means no, homie.

this

didnt read your post btw TC
---

HerBigSurprise posted...

didnt read your post btw TC

I can tell
---

Number090684 posted...

I partially agree with this, however sometimes a person can't avoid being in a situation where the question could pop up, or the other party could make a advance, and thus they will have to eventually shoot them down with a no. Like a interested guy taking a girl on a night out on the town and the two having to ride together in a single vehicle. The only way she could completely avoid the situation is to turn him down for the date completely. Other than that it's all good.

I mean sitting next to someone isn't quite what I'm talking about. I've read stories of women that say they went to a man's house got naked in front of him said no then was surprised what followed

I'm not saying that's acceptable behaviour for the man in this example (hence why I said no means no) but I don't get why someone would put themselves in harms way like that.
---

im not 13 posted...

Number090684 posted...

I partially agree with this, however sometimes a person can't avoid being in a situation where the question could pop up, or the other party could make a advance, and thus they will have to eventually shoot them down with a no. Like a interested guy taking a girl on a night out on the town and the two having to ride together in a single vehicle. The only way she could completely avoid the situation is to turn him down for the date completely. Other than that it's all good.

I mean sitting next to someone isn't quite what I'm talking about. I've read stories of women that say they went to a man's house got naked in front of him said no then was surprised what followed

I'm not saying that's acceptable behaviour for the man in this example (hence why I said no means no) but I don't get why someone would put themselves in harms way like that.

Okay. I entirely agree based on the example you provided.
---

You could be in the middle of sex and something could make you uncomfortable. For example, if a man is having sex with a woman and all of a sudden decides he wants anal while she said no, then that would be a legit form of rape. If there's any pain that a person is in and their partner continues despite said person saying they had enough, consent is no longer given.
---

this is why i make all my sexual partners sign a contract beforehand
---

TwoDoorPunkCab posted...

this is why i make all my sexual partners sign a contract beforehand

Don't forget the annex for anal intercourse if the situation arises
---

Nice to be married and not have to worry about this. Came twice this morning already and didnt have to ask for consent even once.
---

this is an important topic, but people will shit on it because its not a conversation a lot of people want to have.

i agree that it is not straightforward. i agree its not as simple as did they say yes or no

Zodd3224 posted...

Nice to be married and not have to worry about this. Came twice this morning already and didnt have to ask for consent even once.

calling the cops rn tbh

Fam_Fam posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

Nice to be married and not have to worry about this. Came twice this morning already and didnt have to ask for consent even once.

calling the cops rn tbh

---

That's a bummer about your experiences.

I can say from mine that they've been clear. No one ever said that affirming consent got them in the mood, but neither did any ever say that my confirming consent verbally ("You good?") ever took them out of the mood either.

Then again, pretty small sample size
---

CyricZ posted...

That's a bummer about your experiences.

I can say from mine that they've been clear. No one ever said that affirming consent got them in the mood, but neither did any ever say that my confirming consent verbally ("You good?") ever took them out of the mood either.

Then again, pretty small sample size

I feel that my experiences have been clear, to me. But I also feel that that's also what a lot of rapists say, and often seems to be the arguments in a lot of sexual assault cases. So it might seem clear to me, but perhaps it's not. And even if it is clear, the difference between how I felt about it and what might be perceived in a court is pretty stark.
---

I mean, I can't speak for sexual assault cases, and I don't think any of us can, unless we ourselves have been accused of sexual assault.

We can't get into the heads of those accused and figure out for a verifiable fact what they interpreted as consent that wasn't actually consent. We can't know for sure if their alleged victims did in fact revoke consent and they just ignored it or failed to interpret it.

To which I almost want to give a Tommy Wiseau "Don't worry about it babe". If you're seeking consent, you're doing it right. If you're paying attention to your partner to see if they're still into it, you're doing it right.

And if you have a partner who gets turned off by you seeking consent, then you're not the one with the problem. :-P
---

I 100% agree with everything you said. I'm gonna guess (or hope) that the people who think consent should function that way are just the vocal minority, sort of like how some people say that consent can not be given under any circumstances if either party had a few drinks (welp, guess there's quite a few of us that are the product of "rape" in that case).

It's just not how the real world works. Every action, every encounter, you're supposed to utter a specifically phrased question and not proceed unless you get a clear and emphatic yes? *insert sound of a straw sucking air from an empty beverage container as her vagina instantly dries up here* You should make a woman feel comfortable and read her well enough to know if she's into it, but she damn sure doesn't want to play 21 questions on the lead up to sex.

Normal couple stuff, too. Like, say if my girlfriend spends the night. If I wake up first and I'm feeling frisky, I might start caressing her body a bit. Maybe she wakes up and turns toward me and we make out, one thing leads to another, boom, sex. Maybe she wakes up first and decides she wants to wake me up with a BJ. I think that sort of shit is just natural. Consent wasn't verbally requested or given, just implied through body language or "they didn't say no or move away so it was okay" (which is a major no-no if you talk to the proponents of this whole consent movement).

The whole "anything that isn't a yes is a no" or the concept of husbands "raping" their wives of many years (to be clear, not talking about anyone specifically being told "no" or being pushed away and going ahead with it anyway) is lost on me. I don't find it practical at all.
---

im not 13 posted...

Girls, if you don't want to have sex with someone don't be in the position where that could happen

omegayikes
---

im not 13 posted...

Number090684 posted...

I partially agree with this, however sometimes a person can't avoid being in a situation where the question could pop up, or the other party could make a advance, and thus they will have to eventually shoot them down with a no. Like a interested guy taking a girl on a night out on the town and the two having to ride together in a single vehicle. The only way she could completely avoid the situation is to turn him down for the date completely. Other than that it's all good.

I mean sitting next to someone isn't quite what I'm talking about. I've read stories of women that say they went to a man's house got naked in front of him said no then was surprised what followed

I'm not saying that's acceptable behaviour for the man in this example (hence why I said no means no) but I don't get why someone would put themselves in harms way like that.

Yeah.

Like obviousoy still rape if he fucks her anyways...but that is kinda like shoving a wad of 20s in a homeless persons face saying "you want this?" and than saying "too bad you can't have it" and than being suprised when they get extremely angry and cuss you out or try take the money by force.
---

DeathDeathSong posted...

im not 13 posted...

Girls, if you don't want to have sex with someone don't be in the position where that could happen

omegayikes

Common sense makes you yikes?
---

im not 13 posted...

DeathDeathSong posted...

im not 13 posted...

Girls, if you don't want to have sex with someone don't be in the position where that could happen

omegayikes

Common sense makes you yikes?

it sounds like you're implying women shouldn't get married unless they're prepared to have sex on command
---

TwoDoorPunkCab posted...

it sounds like you're implying women shouldn't get married unless they're prepared to have sex on command

I am certainly not.
---

pikachupwnage posted...

Yeah.

Like obviousoy still rape if he fucks her anyways...but that is kinda like shoving a wad of 20s in a homeless persons face saying "you want this?" and than saying "too bad you can't have it" and than being suprised when they get extremely angry and cuss you out or try take the money by force.

Well I wouldn't have equated myself with a theoretical "crazy homeless person", but you do you.

Ultima Dragon posted...

Normal couple stuff, too.

The more you learn about someone, the more things become comfortable and reading consent becomes easier. Also, you trust each other more.

I think anyone who expects a long-time partner to suddenly revoke consent and press charges because they weren't into it one night might be thinking a little too hard about it.

The whole "anything that isn't a yes is a no" or the concept of husbands "raping" their wives of many years (to be clear, not talking about anyone specifically being told "no" or being pushed away and going ahead with it anyway) is lost on me. I don't find it practical at all.

Forced sex in a relationship is almost never a single incident. It almost always carries with it a pattern of abusive behavior.

These "new rules of consent" are tied largely to new relationships where mutual trust and communication hasn't yet been established. The only thing to really carry into a long-term relationship is the idea that a partner still has the right to revoke consent.
---