Georgetown Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 I feel like there are two competing philosophies of consent for sex and other such intimate physical acts. There is “No”-centric consent, which assumes actions are allowed so long as the “acted-upon” party does not say “No” or voice objection. Then there is “Yes”-centric or affirmative consent, which assumes an action is only allowed if it is specifically agreed upon by both parties beforehand. “No”-centric consent up until recently has been the prevailing school of thought in the USA, but now with the #MeToo movement having the vast cultural impact it’s having, “Yes”-centric consent seems to be getting more and more in vogue. This is an amazing change for the better. ”No”-centric consent is the bane of my existence. It’s an atrociously bad system for governing intimate encounters that definitely hurts both parties. It puts the “actor” party in the risky and awkward position of having to read complex and often culturally-relative cues in order to know if it’s even appropriate to “act”, and it puts the “acted-upon” party in a stressful situation as well where they need to be constantly aware of the signals they’re giving off and also where they have to be prepared to engage in an unpleasant refutation at any point that could ruin the whole mood of their situation or anger the other party. As an American hetero-romantic male asexual who is non-surprisingly bad at reading cues, I am particularly screwed by “No”-centric consent. In spite of the fact that I am woefully unqualified to be an “actor”, the expectations in the USA are that I am supposed to be the “actor” in pretty much any romantic or sexual situation at all involving a woman and myself. In order to avoid hurting anyone via actions I might engage in based off a likely misread, I have for the most part refrained from intimate physical touch with others most of my life and have had to live in perpetual cold detachment. I’m sure it’s even worse for some women with this system who have to worry about getting assualted, but yeah... the “no”-centric system is evil. And all I’d probably want to do is cuddle or make out anyway... I anxiously await the glorious day when “Yes”-centric consent becomes the standard in the USA and we can all walk into bars or attend parties and feel confident asking plainly if the person we are talking to and enjoy being around and find attractive would like to escalate. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 I'm confused. What stops you being able to ask if the person is OK with things now? Most of the guys I've dated who have been respectful (not the kind that would just take it anyway), have always asked "Is this OK?" or "Can I kiss you?" etc. Has been that way for the last fifteen years that I've been in the dating pool. It only moved into non-verbal consent after we had been in a relationship and they had a fair idea of what I liked/didn't like. Link to post Share on other sites
Xenobot Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 There are ways you can seek affirmative consent. You just have to start asking. What generally makes people feel intimidated or afraid to say no are situations where the pursuer is pushy or making assumptions about how they feel about the interaction, or even worse, acts entitled to that person’s time or compliance like their feelings don’t actually matter because they’re confident they’ll win them over in the end. That forces them into a situation where they have to speak up and say no, and virtually no one likes that kind of confrontation. So, ask them! Just check in with how they’re doing by asking if they’re having a good time, or if anything is making them uncomfortable. Link to post Share on other sites
Georgetown Posted January 20, 2018 Author Share Posted January 20, 2018 4 minutes ago, Serran said: I'm confused. What stops you being able to ask if the person is OK with things now? Most of the guys I've dated who have been respectful (not the kind that would just take it anyway), have always asked "Is this OK?" or "Can I kiss you?" etc. Has been that way for the last fifteen years that I've been in the dating pool. It only moved into non-verbal consent after we had been in a relationship and they had a fair idea of what I liked/didn't like. I’ve generally gotten weird looks when asking. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 The "no"-centric thing was (probably) born out of people protesting about being accused of things like rape or sexual assault by doing things that weren't okay with the other person, when they had no idea that was the case because they didn't perceive any protestations. They don't feel like it should be mandatory to have to get consent for every single thing they may do during a sexual encounter, because to them it's decidedly "unsexy"... so instead they want the responsibility to be on the other person to say that something isn't okay. It's sort of like the whole "safeword" mechanic used in BDSM encounters -- it is up to the person who wants things to stop to say something. Honestly, there's cases for both approaches. It really depends on the kind of people involved, because some are just naturally more submissive than others and less likely to protest to something that violates their boundaries, but others are not like this and for them they might prefer the "no"-centric approach because they'll find it tiresome/unsexy to be continuously asked if something is okay with them. As far as the law itself is concerned, as pointed out above, the "no"-centric approach has to be adopted to at least some extent or else you'll have way too many wrongful accusations of sexual assault being thrown around (as in, more than already, that is...) Link to post Share on other sites
Georgetown Posted January 20, 2018 Author Share Posted January 20, 2018 28 minutes ago, Serran said: I'm confused. What stops you being able to ask if the person is OK with things now? Most of the guys I've dated who have been respectful (not the kind that would just take it anyway), have always asked "Is this OK?" or "Can I kiss you?" etc. Has been that way for the last fifteen years that I've been in the dating pool. It only moved into non-verbal consent after we had been in a relationship and they had a fair idea of what I liked/didn't like. Your situation sounds awesome, however. I am sure it’s like that in some places or circles where things are more respectful. I must find those 😎. Link to post Share on other sites
Georgetown Posted January 20, 2018 Author Share Posted January 20, 2018 9 minutes ago, Philip027 said: The "no"-centric thing was (probably) born out of people protesting about being accused of things like rape or sexual assault by doing things that weren't okay with the other person, when they had no idea that was the case because they didn't perceive any protestations. They don't feel like it should be mandatory to have to get consent for every single thing they may do during a sexual encounter, because to them it's decidedly "unsexy"... so instead they want the responsibility to be on the other person to say that something isn't okay. It's sort of like the whole "safeword" mechanic used in BDSM encounters -- it is up to the person who wants things to stop to say something. Honestly, there's cases for both approaches. It really depends on the kind of people involved, because some are just naturally more submissive than others and less likely to protest to something that violates their boundaries, but others are not like this and for them they might prefer the "no"-centric approach because they'll find it tiresome/unsexy to be continuously asked if something is okay with them. As far as the law itself is concerned, as pointed out above, the "no"-centric approach has to be adopted to at least some extent or else you'll have way too many wrongful accusations of sexual assault being thrown around (as in, more than already, that is...) I think the “No”-centric system wouldn’t be so bad if there were true gender equality because at least the pros and cons would be universally experienced, but the intersection of the system and rigid gender roles causes more problems than it’s worth I think. Link to post Share on other sites
Xenobot Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 8 minutes ago, Philip027 said: It's sort of like the whole "safeword" mechanic used in BDSM encounters -- it is up to the person who wants things to stop to say something. Um... people who engage in BDSM responsibly have conversations before a scene to get affirmative consent and a good sense of their partner’s boundaries. It’s also often recommended that doms check in with the sub to make sure they’re still enjoying it. So, BDSM scenes/partners are generally practicing a lot more affirmative consent than average people because they understand the necessity of making sure everyone stays safe, and no one is taken advantage of. Still, safewords are there so they can revoke consent if need be. Also, it allows them to scream “no! stop!” as part of the roleplay while making it clear they’re still enthusiastically consenting. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 Quote Um... people who engage in BDSM responsibly have conversations before a scene to get affirmative consent and a good sense of their partner’s boundaries. It’s also often recommended that doms check in with the sub to make sure they’re still enjoying it. So, BDSM scenes/partners are generally practicing a lot more affirmative consent than average people because they understand the necessity of making sure everyone stays safe, and no one is taken advantage of. Still, safewords are there so they can revoke consent if need be. Also, it allows them to scream “no! stop!” as part of the roleplay while making it clear they’re still enthusiastically consenting. Well yeah, but the whole existence of the safeword mechanic means that to at least some extent they are adopting the "no"-centric approach to consent. I was just trying to point out that it's not some inherently bad thing. People will tend to keep going with whatever they are doing unless they are told to stop. That was merely an example of how/why this sort of thing extends to more typical sexual encounters. I don't care to get into the finer details of the whole BDSM thing because it's something that just doesn't compute in my head. Link to post Share on other sites
Xenobot Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 7 minutes ago, Philip027 said: Well yeah, but the whole existence of the safeword mechanic means that to at least some extent they are adopting the "no"-centric approach to consent. I was just trying to point out that it's not some inherently bad thing. People will tend to keep going with whatever they are doing unless they are told to stop. That was merely an example of how/why this sort of thing extends to more typical sexual encounters. I don't care to get into the finer details of the whole BDSM thing because it's something that just doesn't compute in my head. Except that safe BDSM really isn’t no-centric, it is yes-centric. Safewords are a backup plan. Legally there must always be a way for someone to revoke consent. Ideally, and usually, safewords never need to be used because the participants are using yes-centric forms of consent (discussing plans/boundaries beforehand and checking in during the scene). Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 2 minutes ago, Philip027 said: Well yeah, but the whole existence of the safeword mechanic means that to at least some extent they are adopting the "no"-centric approach to consent. I was just trying to point out that it's not some inherently bad thing. People will tend to keep going with whatever they are doing unless they are told to stop. That was merely an example of how/why this sort of thing extends to more typical sexual encounters. I don't care to get into the finer details of the whole BDSM thing because it's something that just doesn't compute in my head. Their point was it's not really no-centric. You discuss things before hand and make sure to get a very clear verbal affirmative before you proceed. It's very yes-centric. However, since things can get intense and the person might not feel as OK with it once things get going, the safe word is there as an emergency brake in case. There are even paper forms some people make others fill out saying what they consent to, before they'll do anything, with that safe word as a backup. BDSM is about as yes-centric as consent gets, really. Link to post Share on other sites
Philip027 Posted January 20, 2018 Share Posted January 20, 2018 If it wasn't "no"-centric, you wouldn't be bothering with a safeword. The fact that it's a critical aspect to BDSM says otherwise. That's all my point was. Don't really care to debate this any further. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.