Have some context:
Sincerely,
A HNer who is ashamed of the lack of reading comprehension of this community right now.
Sincerely,
A HNer who is ashamed of the lack of reading comprehension of this community right now.
The gist of the controversial advice is "Don't wait for signs before you make your move. Let her be the one who rejects your advances. If she says no, stop immediately and tell her you don't want to do anything that would make her uncomfortable. Try again at a later time if appropriate or cease entirely if she is absolutely not interested."
This is not a defense. This advice leads to sexual assault. You are assuming your partner's consent, and placing the burden on them to reject it. That is the problem.
Without a clear verbal confirmation of consent, or an explicit proactive action, you cannot know if your partner is participating willingly. Failure to reject is not the same thing as consent, and no adult should have difficulty understanding the distinction.
If you follow this advice, you will rape people while believing that they are just shy.
And for what? To avoid the embarrassment of saying, "So do you wanna fuck?" How old are you?
Or are you worried that if you ask a woman "So do you wanna fuck?", she might say no? Do I even need to explain what's wrong with that?
It is, of course, somewhat sad that our culture taught us it's inappropriate and shameful to talk about sex, and that we're more comfortable having sex with someone than we are talking about sex. That's also why the most common advice on reddit.com/r/sex is "just talk to him/her".
Btw, you realize, right, that with your comment you're promoting rape (according to your definition)? After all, a woman taking "explicit proactive action" without your explicit verbal consent is, the same as a man would if the situation was reversed, raping him.
Have you ever touched someone without them giving you verbal consent? Rape! Please, that's absurd!
I used to think that, too, as a teenager. Then I had sex with a bunch of people and realized, who gives a fuck? Sex is fun. It's fun when it happens spontaneously, with mutual passion. It's fun when it's discussed and scheduled ahead of time. It's just fun!
As long as both people want to. Then I thought about some of those times things just happened "naturally", and I realized, I'm not really sure if she did want to. That's not fun.
So now, if there's any doubt in my mind whatsoever, I just ask. I'm in a committed, long-term relationship now, and I still ask her regularly if I'm not sure if she wants to. Because I'm even less interested in pressuring someone I really care about into something she doesn't want. And she will do the same for me.
Guess what? Still fun.
> Btw, you realize, right, that with your comment you're promoting rape (according to your definition)? After all, a woman taking "explicit proactive action" without your explicit verbal consent is, the same as a man would if the situation was reversed, raping him.
Yes. It goes both ways, regardless of gender. Did you expect me to disagree with this?
You do, of course, realize the absurdity of your statement here, given this:
"Without a clear verbal confirmation of consent, or an explicit proactive action, you cannot know if your partner is participating willingly."
How does that work, exactly?
> Did you expect me to disagree with this?
I don't understand. Why did you bring it up if you didn't think it was okay for your partner to make an explicit proactive action without clear verbal confirmation of consent?
Well, the only thing I can say is that I'm glad I live in Europe, where people are still normal and not yet so frigid/distrustful that they need to talk about everything before they do it.
Fortunately, it's like that in the U.S. too for most people. There is a very vocal minority here that is making things way more complicated than they actually are in real life. This was my favorite quote from the person you're responding to:
>I'm in a committed, long-term relationship now, and I still ask her regularly if I'm not sure if she wants to.
This is unbelievable to me. I think the typical woman confronted with this behavior would look for a new boyfriend - one that isn't so amazingly timid. As a married person I can't imagine asking my wife "regularly" for permission to have sex. I know her signals, she knows my signals and if either of us put out a signal the other person isn't up for we volunteer, "Not tonight" and that's the end of it.
To imply that to not receive explicit verbal affirmative permission is equal to rape is unbelievably insulting and delusional.
See, this is the problem. It's not "timid" to talk about sex. I know my girlfriend well, and she knows me, and if we're hanging out together and we're both down to fuck then it's on.
Here's the other thing that happens: I'm in one room playing Starcraft, she's in the other room reading a book, and I start feeling a little randy. I'm not going to wander in there and try to get into her field of view to make eyes at her. If I just walk up and start touching her, and she's not into it, she'll feel irritated and I'll feel rejected and that's not good for us.
So what I do instead is -- and to be clear, this happens about as often the other way around -- I say, hey, do you want to have sex? And she thinks about it for a second, and if she says "yes" we get naked and down to business. If she says "no", no hard feelings, I can go back to my game. If it's in between, like "not really" or "maybe later", we can have a quick chat about it and come to a decision together.
Do you understand what I'm saying here? Me asking my girlfriend if she wants to have sex, and vice versa, means we have way more sex than we would if we both sat around waiting for the "signals". And we really like sex, so this is great for us.
But I guess if you're married with kids, there are other reasons you can't relate to this.
And since I'm here, rid that word "permission" from your vocabulary in this discussion. Permission is asked from a superior. Consent is a mutual arrangement between equals. Therein lies the core of this entire issue.
EDIT: which is to say, it's not wrong that this works for you, this isn't a criticism of that. I think you may be mistaking a local optimum for a global [in the sense of math - so the country/dating pool] optimum because it works so well for you; i.e. the false-consensus effect.
Also, I don't value "having way more sex" over "having extremely hot sex", but this is also just me.
Your advice would not work in my relationship. In fact, it is decidedly unhot to ask a "yes/no" question and I would probably get rolled eyes. It would still work and bluntly convey my intentions, but it would come off as completely un-suave. For us, the language of the body is far more rich, intimate, and revealing to one's true desires. In fact, rarely when we have sex does it start with both parties reaching the same conclusion at the same time. Sometimes, something as simple as a good-bye kiss can turn into a 20-minute delay -- and I wouldn't have it any other way.
Of course, I realize I'm in a really fantastic relationship and most people don't have the luxury of being frank with their partners about their desires. But I'd encourage you to consider those things may not be unrelated.
No, you didn't say "We don't have hot sex". I didn't say "You don't have hot sex" either. Now that you're feeling validated, please consider what was written again, but without getting offended.
You stated what worked for you, and you measured its "workingness" by unambiguousness of the process, the lack of bad feelings on rejection, and (ostensibly most importantly, seeing as how you put it in italics) the quantity. I'm happy for you.
But what if what you are suggesting can come by following your advice //is not what I value//? What if I can achieve what is optimal for my relationship in a different way? What if, and this is crazy but, what if what works for you and what is best for you, isn't best for everyone? -> False consens effect.
I was remarking that I find it interesting that you're defending a particular strategy that works in your relationship and is not a cultural norm (hence, atypical), while at the same time suggesting that all men should act more like you. Too fast there cowboy! If all men woke up tomorrow and acted like that, there might be a few (million?) women who find their choice of mates underwhelming all of a sudden. Why? Because it violates our cultural norms. But at the level of one couple, you and your partner, sure, you have the luxury of making such "optimizations" and being "absolute" about what is best.
There is no need to defend yourself, your sex life, or your relationship. I'm sure you're in a great one; may you two be together forever. Communication is great and key. However, please consider as well that I am not going to follow your advice, and that I, too, am delusional about how awesome my relationship is compared to everyone else's. :) :) :)
How often does she ask you?
That’s the context of the quotes, and in the book, it is prefaced by an instruction to stop immediately if she indicates you to do so.
The difference that makes to whether or not she consents -- the "downer" -- is precisely the point.
To me, those are clear evidence of a desire to progress toward sex. (Obviously, if she says stop, do so.)
The question I'm asking is that if both parties are expressing 'forward motion' in terms of their actions and their body language, is it necessary to have verbal consent?
Or are you violating consent if you assume their apparent physical interest substitutes for verbal consent?
Judging by romance flicks set in modern times, teen pop songs, advertising, and women’s magazines, Western culture says ‘no’ — the guy is supposed to pick up on non-verbal hints and take the wheel. (In reality, she’s already put the car into ‘Drive’, but she wants to give the guy the idea he’s in control)
Now, over time I’ve become fairly religious, and last year I’ve vowed not to have sex before marriage, but even with a girl who shares my faith, she expects me to try something (everything up to actual sex). Otherwise, she thinks I’m not into her (no sexual chemistry = no marriage).
I would agree. Until now, I've always considered the physical fact of the girl being "into it" as consent. I've never been wrong yet.
I suppose it's possible that a girl could physically participate in moving a sexual interaction forward while simultaneously not wanting to do so, but that suggests immaturity, inconsistency, and possible mental illness rather than any kind of behavior that should be recommended for anybody.
Now, over time I’ve become fairly religious, and last year I’ve vowed not to have sex before marriage, but even with a girl who shares my faith, she expects me to try something (everything up to actual sex). Otherwise, she thinks I’m not into her (no sexual chemistry = no marriage).
That's a bit different from "mainstream" culture - it's interesting to hear that expectations are similar (aside from actual PiV sex).
She’s been standing in line at an ice cream truck, it’s finally her turn, and now you, the guy behind the counter, are asking her whether you should make her some ice cream. ’No, I’m here to get movie tickets!’
This is exactly what I was thinking, but unable to verbalize it so well.
Uh, this is literally the difference between raping someone and not raping someone. A lot of people have different levels of comfort with intimate activity, some people may not want to have more than a certain level of contact. Just going for it and not talking about it puts the burden on your partner, which in our society puts that person in a position of being an uptight downer or just suffering through an experience they don't want (yes this is acquaintance rape and it is a real thing).
If every man followed the methods that you describe here and elsewhere in the thread, the human race would die out in one generation.
In instances of sexual assault, this is not at all true and there are a variety of complicating factors that go into sexual assault situations that negate this statement. Just reading the stories of sexual assault survivors is enough to illustrate how not true this is.
> If every man followed the methods that you describe here and elsewhere in the thread, the human race would die out in one generation.
Ah yes, taking care and being sure of consent certainly means the death of humankind.
Well, yeah, you it is possible do a lightning move. My whole point is that you shouldn't do that. That would indeed be sexual assault.
So if I may ask, do you have personal experience with dating/sex? You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I agree with your position in theory, and I actually did what you suggest at first. The problem is that it doesn't work in practice, which is why I stopped doing that.
The last time I pulled that move, it was met with "uh... we don't need this... yet." Fair enough... we hit the brakes a bit. She's my wife now. :)
(Context for this is for your bog-standard straight courting scenario--I do not feel qualified to comment on how courting for any other gender scenario works.)
~
In an ideal world, everybody would communicate honestly and openly. You could sit down with a girl, and have a conversation like so:
"Hi, I think you're attractive and I enjoy your company. Would you be interested in pursuing a relationship, or if not, perhaps a shorter-term physical engagement?" "Yes/No/Not interested."
This is, needless to say, not how 99.999% of the population works--as I, and I suspect others, have found to our dismay. Negotiating these sorts of things is not just a TCP ack sequence or something.
The fact is that even were roles reversed, that is just not what we would consider a compelling user experience. Expecting explicit handshaking for every step of the relationship cycle is something only emotional robots expect.
In an ideal world, the following things would be true:
1. People know what they want in a relationship.
2. People know how to convey what they want accurately to other people, especially in terms of arousal or courting.
3. People are free to signal availability or interest without repercussion, and accept rejection just as easily.
These three things are obviously far, far from the case.
~
There are very much conflicting cultural mores about how courtship is supposed to work.
On the one hand, we have hundreds and thousands of years of precedent (and perhaps biology, though I personally hope this is not the case) suggesting that the man is the one to initiate actions, and that the woman, if disinterested, will make her rejection known. Strictly speaking, we've got a bit more barbarous history behind us than that, but let's assume decent folk here to keep life simple.
On the other hand, we've got this recent push for more explicit confirmation for consent and for the more equitable distribution of first-move-making between the man and the woman.
These two things do not go together, and even worse, trying to come to a synthesis for your average inexperienced guy is a road which easily runs to ruin.
So, instead we find ourselves in this curious place where young men who mean well want to get with young women who also mean well. Unfortunately, the women are brought up expecting that the men will do the work, initiate everything, and the men are increasingly told that hey need to--to be safe and respectful, mind you!--wait for explicit confirmation of every step.
In programming terms, we are setting up for a deadlock.
Perhaps even more troubling, the hilariously large impact of social networks and whatnot mean that gossip is worse than ever, and there is no room to make mistakes if you are one of these young men. Worse, media is constantly reinforcing some awful blend of these two mores, making both sides seek after a state of affairs that simply does not exist.
There's some more issues I've seen, but you get the gist.
Believe it or not, one goal of this policy is more, and better sex.
I assert, though, that the climate today makes it very treacherous to do so--and that even if it didn't, there still is a chicken-and-egg problem in learning how to do it. Vocaroo and similar services seem to be a starting point for folks these days.
Honestly it isn't something you just know how to do (especially if you are prone to over-analysis of your actions), and the chance of making a lot of trouble for yourself is non-trivial.
This is the problem with your argument. I'll admit it, I don't explicitly "ask consent" and there have been times where there was "no doubt in my mind", and yet, I was rejected. :(
But if I was rejected, then I've clearly committed sexual assault in the most strict sense.
It's called "misreading a situation". You may think something is enthusiastic consent, but it isn't. Hence, why I will continue to ignore your advice and "live dangerously" by attempting to interpret the situation and predict the other partner's desires by other subjective and unreliable means such as body language and the nebulous concept of "where we are in our relationship".
That's an easy choice for me.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/feb/...
Essentially, it says that prison rape accounts for the majority of rape in the US and those victims are predominantly male.
1) The legal definition of rape (at least in most states?) makes it such that one cannot "accidentally" do it.
Keywords: "[by means of] force", "duress", "physical resistance", "objected verbally".
A woman who was: * Not forced * Had no duress * Not physically resisting * Not verbally objecting * Mentally capable of making decisions
...is considered to be consenting. In other words, and perhaps contrary to the way you believe it should be, THE LAW REQUIRES YOU TO EXPRESS YOUR DISCOMFORT OR ELSE THERE IS NO PLAUSIBLE WAY THE OTHER PERSON COULD KNOW. Sorry. :(
If a person has sex but later decides they weren't really that into their partner, wished that they didn't, wished that they had stopped it earlier -- it's not rape. Regret and the discomfort / dissonance that comes from it is a far cry from traumatic, forced rape.
2) You know long before you were "accidentally raping" someone whether or not they were consenting.
In the aftermath of the guilty verdict, several people observed that many of the teens at the party didn’t realize that this was rape. To them, the fact that the victim was unconscious didn’t mean anything. “I didn’t know this was rape,” said one witness. “It wasn’t violent.”
...
In many ways, the focus on “no” puts the burden – yet again – on women to rein in the libidos of men who presumably can’t control themselves… and in many ways can put them at a disadvantage. Women are often socialized to be non-direct for fear of causing offense; many women are frequently uncomfortable with being up front with saying “No, I don’t want this.” http://www.doctornerdlove.com/2013/03/enthusiastic-consent/
This is much more complex than you make it out to be, and that's precisely what obliges us to set guidelines that encourage folks not to rape rather than assuming not-rape as the default.
In summary, let's keep rape as a reserved term for obvious and gratuitous violations. This "accidentally raped" is kind of stupid.
Men and women have unwanted sex all the time. They do it because they don't want to let their partner down, because they think it is their "job", because they want to get something, because they are bored, because they want to feel wanted, because they just want to feel loved, because they haven't in a long time, etc. -- not always the best reasons. Typically, those feelings can be resolved in other ways.
We, as lovers, should strive to reduce the number of unwanted sex events as possible, and to do so requires an open bidirectional communication channel. However, while it may be sad that women are more prone to agreeing to unwanted sex, this is not the same thing as //raping// someone. I think it's really important to make the difference, because for one we say that the relationship is a bit off, in the other, we lock a person up and mark them for life.
Or does it have to be given via verbal instructions?
If a girl is touching you back, tugging at your clothes, unzipping your fly - is that some form of communication? Or is it meaningless?
This is so laden with sexism it cannot be taken seriously. No, most women are not brought up expecting men to do all courtship and it silly to assume so. Further, in the context of how men treat women the dominant social narrative is sexual violence perpetrated by men your problem as a victim, so the reality is that the kickstarter project in question advocates taking advantage of this narrative to get sex without clear consent, which is outright rape.
How? Serious question.
I'm not the person you wrote this to, but I can answer that I am 41 years old, have been married for 11 years and have three children (including a daughter).
When I think of the little scene you've played out there occurring, I see the biggest nerd in the world getting his first chance at making out with a girl when he awkwardly stops and says, "Do you consent to fornication at this time?"
Frankly, your advice makes you sound unbelievably young and inexperienced with women. I have yet to meet a woman that wants you ask permission for every stage of a sexual relationship. In fact, every woman I've talked to about the subject has told me that it's specifically unwanted.
Been there, done--basically--that. Damnedest thing; wouldn't you know that it didn't have the intended effect?
...really? Sure, whatever, let's go with it. If that's the only way you know how to figure out consent, that's what you need to say. And I bet it will work more often than not, too. The solution is to teach people better ways to find out if their partner consents, not to say it doesn't matter.
But a fifteen year old kid is likely not going to have a great first time no matter what. If you can't imagine a sexually active adult talking about sex in a sexy way, that's very much your problem.
> Frankly, your advice makes you sound unbelievably young and inexperienced with women. I have yet to meet a woman that wants you ask permission for every stage of a sexual relationship. In fact, every woman I've talked to about the subject has told me that it's specifically unwanted.
I'm not here for the dick waving contest, but suffice it to say my experience is not just with talking to women.
Is it so hard to believe that a woman (or man) may be uncomfortable expressly saying "No" in a given circumstance? Just because you have anecdotal evidence about woman you have talked to does not mean that we should adopt practices that those woman would like the most.
If 1 in 100, 1,000, or even 10,000 people do not like forward advances and feel paralyzed to say no in such circumstances, we should ask for consent because otherwise 1 in however many thousand times it would be rape or assault.
Shockingly, the correct course of action may not actually optimize people's chances of picking up women or men. Yet a culture of rape is a far greater price to pay than having a little more trouble getting dates or having sex. You might, in fact, actually have to ask someone, before touching them or 'shoving your penis in their vagina'.
Also: in that scenario, trying to touch your date’s shoulder or leg, or approaching to kiss her, isn’t rape. It’s an opportunity for her to let you know whether you’ve interpreted her signals correctly.
Most of the time, nothing bad will happen if you depend on non-verbal cues, but in the minority of times your advances may unwanted, and the person feels uncomfortably verbally rebuffing them. In these instances, assault or even rape can and_does_happen.
Simply asking for consent is hardly difficult and the insurance it provides that your partner does in fact like your advances is very valuable.
>Also: in that scenario, trying to touch your date’s shoulder or leg, or approaching to kiss her, isn’t rape. It’s an opportunity for her to let you know whether you’ve interpreted her signals correctly.
How do you know it is not rape (or assault in this circumstance)? Non-verbal queues are not infallible; without asking, you must trust your judgment. While you probably judged correctly, that does not mean it is advisable behavior to proceed without asking.
Furthermore, the risk of being struck by lightning is one you accept when you exit the house. The same is not true in the actual object of the discussion because the victim of your actions will primarily be your would-be partner.
Finally, I find it extremely offense that you assert that the amount of sexual assaults that can be attributed to failure to obtain adequate consent to the chances of being struck by lightning upon exiting your house.
--
Assuming that you do not present the best arguments for your side (at this point, I feel very safe in this assumption), I will acknowledge that, in a committed and well established relationship, it is possible to have sex without first asking for consent. Still, I am reluctant to encourage people to do so, and many sexual assaults occur in committed relationships. It is so easy to ask; I cannot see why someone would refrain from doing so.
EDIT: On further thought, I feel comfortable saying that after having asked consent each time a relationship progresses, that, in a committed relationship,it is safe to rely on non-verbal cues.
In all the scenarios I’ve provided, the girl will have given dozens of non-verbal cues for the guy to act. If the guy then still feels he needs to ask, there’s a real possibility that the girl gets turned off.
If the girl didn’t want to make out, she wouldn't have repeatedly have gone on dates with you, she wouldn't have invited you to her place, she wouldn't have lit candles, she wouldn't have sat on the couch with you, she wouldn't have asked you whether you like the perfume she's wearing, etc etc.
And on the off chance that all these things did happen but she doesn't want to make out, she will have told you by then. She knows way better than you what kind of signals she's giving off.
And lastly, if you misinterpreted her signals and you reach for a kiss, all she has to do is not lean into it. This can happen if you think you’re on a date, while she thinks you're just good friends (she may have thought you were gay). Trying to kiss her clears all that up, and it's better done sooner than later. The longer you wait to kiss her, chances increase she thinks you're not into her.
They do not want sex to be like that, go ahead, ask a woman. They want spontaneity, they want a man to take control, they want to feel desired.
Actually demanding that consent be explicitly verbal suggests that you're a white knight who hasn't been with a lot of woman.
OR, she can be a normal, non-litigious person and reject you. She can say "no", turn her head, take a step back, etc. and you know what, she won't be worse for the wear, mentally or physically. I promise!
I mean, at that rate, a girl could indicate that she wants you to rub her off, but charge you for sexual assault because Simon Didn't Say Touch My Breasts. Good god, please let this never happen to anyone.
Please, stop spreading advice that any and all action must be done with full and explicit consent. American society doesn't value that. Watch romance movies sometime. This is what girls grow up with. This is how many girls wish to be treated. They know how to operate in those scenarios. They understand the roles of each and have predefined expectations long before you meet them. They want their lives to play out like the most romantic scenes from their favorite movies. They want spontaneous adventure. They want unexpected trips and kisses in the rain. They want to stare in your eyes and for you to lean in. Defy these norms at your own risk.
I mean, fundamentally, what you are saying is just that: go against cultural norms because it's better for the girl that way. Says who? You? Her? "Society"? Feminists? Movies? I, for one, do not buy this line of thinking.
In the beginning, I expect relationships with people who aren't too sure about each other might well be represented by a series of try { } catch { } and throw CourtshipAdvanceNotAcceptedExceptions. Fine, this is par for the course. This is quite a bit different from throwing a lawsuit.
The people you should worry about are the ones who after rejection occurs, grab their victim and proceed to force their actions anyways.
Without the source document, though, it's not really easy to say either way.
I'm also not impressed with the author's writing in any event.
Nope. The author of the book who was promoting his project on reddit provided the linked the above pastebin text himself.
[0] http://www.reddit.com/r/seduction/comments/1dvnem/above_the_...
The issue of whether this book is misogynist or not doesn't really matter. You can still buy it if you want or any other legal material you want to buy. Just not on Kickstarter. There are many stores that don't sell things I want to buy.
Meanwhile, I don't think it is wrong to sell books to men to help them learn what women want to succeed in the confusing world of dating. If you can write a better book, one filled with sexy ways to ask permission for each escalation, then thousands of men will buy it.
The real problem is that the science of attraction doesn't match well with feminism. And men want to know the truth. A woman is twice as likely to give you her number if you touch her on the arm at your first meeting[1]. Are we supposed to surpress this hatefact? Or fire the psychologist who did the study?
[1]http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15534510701316177...
Context was obvious if you read the few lines around the quoted "trouble" text