 |
| tumblr user laceandcombatboots |
There are also multiple ways a "yes" can be not-consent, and until you know someone really well and have communicated with them really openly about their motivations and convinced them really thoroughly that everything will be 100% fine if they say "no"--you need to hold out for the "YES FUCK ME NOW" consent.
So if you're linking this post to prove a point about "but they said yes, so is it really rape?" ...Fuck off.
I'm starting to have a problem with the phrase "enthusiastic consent." It's well-meant, certainly: it's supposed to connote consent where the person consenting really means it, as opposed to situations where someone says "yes" out of fear or obligation or confusion or some other crappy reason that isn't "actually wanting to have sex." I'm all for that, obviously, but the phrase sucks. The phrase implies that you have to be horny to consent to sex, that the only real consent is consent given when not just agreeing to sex but craving it.
The problem is that this doesn't respect the agency of the person consenting. It ignores the ability of a sober adult to say "I don't want this with my crotch, but I'm agreeing to it with my brain." It tells people "You say you're consenting, but I know better, you poor dear." And that's pretty shitty. As someone who consents to things most people would consider gross or unpleasant (I've heard way too many times a woman can't really want to be punched black and blue) I'm in no position to tell someone else their consent isn't real. If you're unsure if your partner wants it or is just going along with it, lack of enthusiasm definitely means you need to stop and clarify--but it doesn't mean they can't clarify "yes, actually I do want this."
Which is not to say "yes" is a magic word that always makes everything okay. But what matters isn't "enthusiastic consent" but simply "real consent"--consent that's given freely and sincerely. Consent that someone gives because they're afraid they'll be physically or emotionally attacked if they don't isn't real consent. Consent that's given when someone is incapable of understanding what they're agreeing to (because they're drugged, or they're a child, or they're saying "yes" to a different thing than will actually be done to them) isn't real consent. And obviously consent that's withdrawn or never given at all isn't real consent.
But here are some examples of consent that can be very real, yet not enthusiastic:
• Consent to sex in order to conceive a child.
• Consent to sex or play to make a partner happy. This is a tricky one, because the line between "I wanted to make them happy" and "I was afraid to make them unhappy" can get messy. But consent to "I don't think I'll get pleasure from this, but I still want to give pleasure" definitely can be real.
• Consent to sex work. Sex work can be coercive, but it's not inherently, and drawing that line at "sex work is coercive if the sex worker isn't horny" is absurd.
• Consent to sex or play for curiosity's sake, despite a lack of physical desire.
• Consent to sex in a D/s relationship where the submissive agrees to sex they don't want as sex, but do want as an act of submission.
Grown-ups can decide why they want to have sex, and judging those reasons and whether they're "enthusiastic" enough is, frankly, none of my damn business. All that matters is that they get to decide.
I really like how you deconstruct and analyze even the axioms of feminist thought.
ReplyDeleteThanks for this. I'm pretty shy, and I regularly get very tongue-tied about sex - at least, actual-happening-now sex, as opposed to theoretical sex, which is much easier to talk about. 90% of the time my answer to "want to...?" is "mmm" or *eyes* or *allows self to be picked up and carried to bedroom* (SUPER HOT), and the implication that somehow something is wrong because my answer isn't "OH HELL YES" always...rubs me the wrong way.
ReplyDeletePun totally intended.
I guess I didn't read Cliff's post the same way as you do. Cliff seems to be talking about enthusiasm, while you are talking about explicitness, which strikes me as orthogonal. Consent can be unenthusiastic but explicit ("eh, not really feeling it, but sure, let's have sex") or enthusiastic but implicit (which I think is what you're describing in the "carried to bedroom" example). My impression is that Cliff is pretty big into *explicit* consent, her theory being that misunderstandings are too likely to result from relying on implicit consent.
DeleteI think there's lots of valid ways to communicate consent, but I'm a little concerned about including "allowing yourself to be carried" on that list. I can't tell the difference between someone allowing themself to be carried because they want sex, and someone doing it because they're not fighting back.
DeleteI think consent can be nonverbal, and it can be unenthusiastic, but it can't be ambiguous, and "not fighting back" is way too ambiguous.
Anon. #1 here!
DeleteI get where you're coming from on the being carried thing...for me it's always been super safe and awesome, firstly because of trust and secondly because there's not a huge size/strength difference between my boyfriend and I (if I didn't want to be carried, he wouldn't be able to carry me. I have to hold on just to make it possible.)So that's enough, in my case, to equal definitive consent. But not the case for everyone, so, yes...good personal example, bad example otherwise.
And anon #2: I guess for me it's the same? Because I think a lot of what is implied by the "enthusiastic consent" campaign is "loud and obvious, and therefore easily distinguished." But I see what you mean, too.
And gee, Cliff, your concern makes me feel all...special :)
If you've clearly negotiated rules in a relationship, they supersede most general advice. Nonexplicitly negotiated rules also count, although naturally they're trickier to establish properly.
DeleteThe issue is when you expect your partner to magically intuit what you want, rather than you spelling it out at any point. It's risky for you if they end up misestimating what you're comfortable with. It's worse for anybody they deal with after, since you've sent the message that they have to guess and hope they're right. Complete with the misestimating risks mentioned above.
I'd formulate it even easier: If it isn't given freely and sincerely, it isn't consent.
ReplyDelete'Consent' or 'consensual' don’t need a qualifier.
Instead, we need to identify what is not consent.
For example, giving in to threats, being deceived, being drugged, being blackmailed, are not consent.
Consent is only there if there is also an option to freely say 'no'.
With a more rigid use of the term 'consent', a construction like 'Consent that someone gives because they're afraid they'll be physically or emotionally attacked' is not possible, because consent excludes giving in to threats. The phrase is contradictory in itself. I'd call this 'giving in', not 'consenting': 'Giving in because they're afraid they'll be physically or emotionally attacked'.
My version is:
'Consent that someone gives because they're afraid they'll be physically or emotionally attacked if they don't isn't consent. Consent that's given when someone is incapable of understanding what they're agreeing to (because they're drugged, or they're a child, or they're saying "yes" to a different thing than will actually be done to them) isn't consent.'
Nonconsensual examples:
Someone who...
- with threats, actively reduces another's option to say no...
- takes advantage of another's circumstances that make it too hard for them to say no...
- deceives another person into saying 'yes'...
- drugs someone...
...is not seeking consent.
All these examples are not examples of 'no enthusiastic consent'. They are examples of no consent.
Consensual examples:
Someone who has sex
- because they want to conceive a child...
- because they want to please a partner...
- because they choose to do sex work...
- because they want to try out of curiosity...
- because they are giving long-term consent, reaching beyond just one situation, as part of a DS arrangement...
... if they also have the option to say no, they are consenting.
(Even in the DS relationship example, the option to say 'no' is there. Depending on the individual arrangement, it may mean, by extension, saying 'no' to the entire DS arrangement thenceforth. But the option is there.)
But if my partner gives "unenthusiastic" consent, even though it is true consent, I can still find that unappealing or unfair or just not what I want at that particular moment, and withdraw my own consent, even if I was initiating.
ReplyDeleteOf course. You can withdraw your own consent for any reason or no reason, so I feel almost redundant saying "yeah, you can withdraw your consent if you only wanted enthusiasm."
DeleteJust something about how you worded the post. And it's always a minefield for me, if I initiate but I'm not feeling the enthusiasm in return. And then she feels like her gift of lukewarm consent is being rejected.
DeleteAny consent other than enthusiastic is a negotiation.
Oh, I think enthusiastic consent is a negotiation, too. It's just a really short negotiation.
Delete@Irene: Yes. "Negotiation" is a positive thing in a sexual context, not something that is automatically a turn-off. I get what Ironman is trying to say, but "negotiation" isn't quite it.
DeleteThe way I usually do consent is that I consent (enthusiastically and using lots of words and explicit negotiation) to a *dynamic*, in which I, or my play partner, then gives blanket consent for particular activities that then don't need to be negotiated. This works really well for me, because I get all the benefits of spontaneous D/s without fuzzy consent. But it takes a lot of work, and a lot of checking in between scenes. What bothers me is when "explicit consent" is equated with "physically asking and hearing "yes" every single time." That's not how I do it, and it's not the only way to ensure everyone is into what's happening.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with everything you're saying, I wonder why these couldn't be considered "enthusiastic" consent. Saying, "yes, I really want to submit in this way. This is good for me, yes," or "This seems really interesting to me, and I'm not sure I'll love it, but I know I'd really like to try it," all seem like they'd count as enthusiastic consent.
ReplyDeleteI think that's kind of twisting the meaning of the word "enthusiastic." It may have come to take on the meaning of "sincere and free" in sex-positive-ese, but to me it really connotes "YAY SEX I'M HORNY LET'S DO THIS," which while certainly awesome consent, isn't the only consent.
Delete"I want a baby, so let's do this" is real consent but I'd have a lot of trouble calling it enthusiastic in the "YAY" sense.
See, to me, *that* sounds like a twisting of the word 'enthusiastic'. I've enthusiasicly done a lot of things, and very few of them involved sex or made me horny.
Delete(As an aside, it feels really, really weird to disagree with you.)
~TJ_Rowe
I don't think "enthusiastic" always means "horny," but I think it always means "YAY LET'S DO THIS." You may be "YAY" for a baby, but not really "YAY" at all about the sex required to produce one, and I don't think that makes your consent enthusiastic--it just makes it valid.
Delete(Shit, I don't always know what I'm talking about. Go ahead and disagree! I'm open to most any viewpoint except the ones that end in "therefore, I shouldn't have to obtain consent.")
Stepping away from the dictionary definition of what "enthusiastic" means, a lot of the way enthusiastic consent is promoted seems to focus on the arousal factor.
DeleteThe shirt on the person in the photograph that goes with your article is a great example of that.
to me, enthusaism doesn't have to be all-caps-ish. it can be quiet, mellow, or borne of a desire to please your partner or whatev. i've had a lot of sex like that, and i still think of my consent as being enthusiastic.
Deleteimo, the strength of the word "enthusiastic" underlines that yes, this is real. a certain, genuinely felt yes. for whatever reason.
Yeah. I sometimes want Sex in situations in which I don't want-I'am german, so thats somewhat hard to describe in english.
DeleteI like it if he fucks me for his sake, if I am not wet(the good pain-and after the first minute I'll start to flow over so it's a short good pain) and I will get horny because he fucks me dry in a situation in which I am not enthusiastic.
Well we have a safeword for that situation and in one time he started and I got an overload and he stopped instantly because he knows me and we talked about what to do in such a situation(because often I can't talk then)
So we talked about such situations, how to stop if I really just not want and how to react if I overload.
So I give consent even if I am not initially enthusiastic because I know I will be-and if not we stop and everything is allright.(
Well said.
ReplyDeleteI think there's a place for encouraging enthusiastic consent as an ideal early on, when one is first starting out in the world of partnered sex. I can't think offhand of any reason an inexperienced 18-year-old (much less any younger) should be saying "yes" to a partner with anything other than complete enthusiasm. I think it sets a really bad precedent, especially for women. That's very, very different from the kind of dynamic you can get into with an established sense of your own sexuality and your relationship with your partner.
ReplyDeleteYeah. I think especially in the context of teenage/college hookups, there aren't a lot of excuses for unenthusiastic sex, and "sex to please my partner" versus "sex to please my partner because I feel like I have to" are particularly hard to separate.
DeleteStill, teenagers and college kids aren't the only audience when we talk about consent, so I want to make this distinction.
Absolutely. We need way more discourse that isn't focused on young people/beginners. I just think it can be valuable to point out that something's a really good screwdriver before getting on its case too much for not being a very good hammer :-)
DeleteThanks for this post, Irene! You clarified exactly what I was thinking, but in a much nicer, clearer way - "enthusiastic consent" is so much nicer than just a standard of "she didn't say no", so I feel that there's definitely a place for it, even if it isn't as inclusive as it ought to be.
DeleteAs as relatively sexually-inexperienced, possibly ace-spectrum 20-year-old, I must respectfully disagree that "complete[ly] enthusiasti[cally] is the only way I "should" be consenting to sexual activities. I agree that " 'sex to please my partner' versus 'sex to please my partner because I feel like I *have* to' are particularly hard to separate," and that when in doubt about one's preference to have sex, not having sex is the better option. However, I think "[c]onsent to sex or play for curiosity's sake, despite a lack of physical desire," can be very important and relevent to people who, given their lack of sexual experience (and, sometimes, 'lower than average' feelings of sexual attraction/desire), are not yet sure what sexual activities (if any) they enjoy. Myself included.
Delete(I'd like to note tangentially as well that some people may actively enjoy sex due to emotional connection, physical pleasure, or both, without ever experiencing sexual attraction/desire.)
Young doesn't necessarily equal inexperienced. I'm a college student who was a sexually precocious child, and I've definitely cultivated an "established sense of [my] own sexuality". I recognize that I'm probably an anomaly, but in all this talk about agency, I thought I'd throw in that college kids, and some teens, deserve the courtesy of assumed agency as well. A lot of discussions about sexuality are disappointingly ageist.
DeleteThe only reason I didn't use any younger age in my example was that it creeps me out to make generalizations about under-eighteens. Eighteen seemed to me young enough that an awful lot of people at that age, even if not technically "virgins," would never have had a serious sexual relationship (especially college students, who skew much later than the general population), but old enough that no one can really argue that they're inherently too young for sex. In any case I did specify inexperienced, I didn't assume it. Moreover, saying that enthusiastic consent is a reasonable general ideal to promote to inexperienced people isn't at all doing away with their agency.
DeleteAlso, I said "I can't offhand think of any reason," not "nobody should." Curiosity, by the way, I think I would count as a form of enthusiasm. While I've certainly had disappointing experiences because I was just trying something new without any particular desire behind it (which for me usually turns out not to work well -- YMMV), they were learning experiences, not painful disappointments. Also, coming from a place of curiosity doesn't mess with my head the way some feelings do -- it wouldn't be likely to interfere with my ability to, say, insist on condom use or whatever.
I'm one of those inexperienced young'uns, and I think I disagree with you about the only consent being 'enthusiastic'. My main issue with it is that enthusiastic consent, especially when you're still figuring out what you like, is very easy to be manipulated into (which is sort of part of what Cliff was saying). Another thing for me is that I'm not confident in my sexuality (as in myself as a sexual being with another person(s)), so I get really nervous when I'm trying anything, even if I've done it before. This doesn't mean I don't want to do it, it just means that I'm not always enthusiastic about it because I am so nervous.
DeleteIt just sounded to me like you were saying that the only sex inexperienced people should have is the heat of the moment, quick take me now type. I don't agree with that because it makes it to easy to not take either physical or mental precautions (eg. condoms, emotional effect, etc.) and also because of the manipulation factor. This probably isn't what you meant, and I guess it ties in with what Cliff was saying about how "enthusiastic consent" equates to horniness.
Also Cliff, I just want to add that your blog has really helped me come to terms with my sexual proclivities (or lack thereof). Also with my gender and with feminism and a thousand little things that I always thought were wrong or right but my thinking that was the opposite of how I should think. And you've really helped with that. So thank you.
Sorry for going off-topic.
I don't think you're off-topic at all, and thank you for clarifying. I can totally see why you had that reaction, but you're right, that's not really what I meant. When I think of enthusiastic consent, it mainly means being really, really sure that having sex right now is what I want to do (which actually makes stuff like ensuring condom use a whole lot easier in my experience). To me there's a huge difference between that and just being horny. Believe me, I spent years and years being horny and yet knowing quite well I was in no way ready for partnered sex. I also think the state of mind I'm thinking of is really very nearly the opposite of the state of mind in which I'm most easily manipulated.
DeleteAlright, fair enough! That's pretty much perfectly explained, actually.
DeleteTo be honest, I don't really see why it should be more imperative that inexperienced/young people in particular should have only that type of sex, as opposed to everyone having that sort of sex. Is it mainly the "sex to please my partner" argument that you don't like in this context?
It just seems to me that I hear so many stories (especially from women, but sometimes from men as well) about people having early sexual experiences that they weren't very keen on, and I don't see why they bothered to take the risk. I remember one of my college boyfriends told me his sister had said something like "You wouldn't believe the crap I've put up with just to be held," and I thought it was terribly sad. Some large percentage of teenage mothers have their first baby before they've ever even had an orgasm. Stuff like that. In fact I read about a study a while ago about the average age for teenage girls in a particular area to first have sex being 17, while the average age of first orgasm was 19, and I just went -- bzuh? Aren't those numbers the wrong way around or something? How does that happen? Why?
DeleteFrom my own early experiences, it seems to me there was a period when I just expected the head-spinning sensation of not truly knowing what I wanted to be part of my erotic experience. It was actually easier to get that experience with guys I wasn't as attracted to, which is kind of a recipe for bad relationships. Fortunately I then fell for a guy I really was attracted to, who had a much more straightforward approach that taught me a lot (though not soon enough -- I was probably a pretty maddening partner even with him).
As I said on the other post -- and I'm glad you posted this, so I can expand without derailing -- in the hookup context for which the concept of "enthusiastic consent" was developed, enthusiasm is actually better than the broader notion of sincerity/genuineness.
ReplyDeleteLike, consent to "I don't think I'll get pleasure from this, but I still want to give pleasure" is probably more common in a relationship than a one-night stand; if Pat and Sandy were strangers four hours ago, and all they really have is a human connection and the right combination of genders and/or bits, they may well be only a little interested in the other person's pleasure, or primarily interested in it for self-related reasons*. Moreover, it's a lot harder to tell if "um, I guess" means "um, I guess" or if it means "I don't think I'll get pleasure from this, but I still want to give pleasure" or if it means "I'd rather not, but I feel pressured by a combination of inchoate factors" or if it means "I had a relationship with someone who made me say 'yes' every time so it 'wouldn't be rape' and I haven't fully gotten out of that mindset" or if it means something I haven't thought of.
Similarly (and I know I've used this model a lot), if there are levels of consent, and Pat, through the haze of lust and disinhibition and confirmation bias, perceives Sandy as being at 4 (or a high 3 but is willing to fudge it), it's unlikely Sandy is at a non-consenting 0. The notion of "enthusiastic consent" makes it less likely that if Sandy's 0 looks like a 1 or 2 through that same haze, Pat will do something zie oughtn't.
Outside the hookup context, of course, there are other safeguards for that. When Pat and Sandy know each other fairly well, there's body language and other clues. In the sex worker example, consent is explicitly negotiated: what the client is paying for, after all, is real (or genuine or sincere or good or whatever) consent.
*I really wish there were a non-pejoritve word for "selfish".
Dammit, I said the same thing Irene did, a minute later.
DeleteThis. Wonderful.
DeleteI tend to use the phrase "explicit consent." I can't remember if I read it when I first started researching BDSM or something unrelated, but I wanted something that would do away with the idea that consent can be vague (or a "grey area", as Janet Hardy appallingly put it).
ReplyDeleteJanet Hardy is horrid at most things involving. One thing though that was in the Ethical Slut (so I can't tell if it was her doing or Dossie Easton) might relate to this post's topic. There was a section called "Finding your Turn-on", which is about initiating sexual activity when you're not necessarily aroused and playing around for a bit until you are aroused.
DeleteThere is an article by Emily Nagoski (found here: http://www.thedirtynormal.com/2010/02/27/do-you-know-when-you-want-it/) that, while annoyingly gender essentialist, does identify that some people tend to get turned-on in response to sexual activity, rather than spontaneously. Personally, that seems true of me during long-term relationships. I need to 'find my turn-on' rather than full on wanting to jump my partner's bones upon looking at him all the time.
While Nagoski's view seems to peg the response pattern on gender differences, I'd say it's more to do with how human sexuality seeks out novelty, and you get a lot of hormonal attachment and spontaneous desire to someone at the beginning of a relationship, the threshold for arousal drifts upwards as you're expected to respond sexually to the same person over a long period of time, and this is normal and not detrimental. For me, it means I need to make out with my partner longer before I'm ready for genital contact. If my partner asks me if I want to have sex while we're lounging around reading, my answer is usually "no." Often if he asked me "do you want to make out?" the answer is "not particularly, but I'll try it for a while and see if I change my mind." Paradoxically though, if there's less expectation that the act leads to genital contact I find it easier to get in the mood for it, probably because the thought of someone touching my genitals before they're wet is profoundly unpleasant and unarousing. I don't know where that falls on the enthusiastic consent model. On the one hand, I'm making sure I'm actually aroused before progressing to some more intense forms of sexual activity, but on the other hand I'm consenting to lower intensity activity that I don't necessarily desire. Also I hate the "baseball" metaphor for sex, and the separation of real sex (which, surprise surprise, usually means exclusively penis in vagina or penis in anus) from "foreplay," but I do need to prepare for penetration with other activities.
First sentence should read "Janet Hardy is horrid at most things involving consent"
DeleteYeeeeeaaaah, Hardy lost me when she once mentioned that a sub is obligated to safeword when things are bad because otherwise they've made the top a rapist without their consent.
DeleteLike, safeword, sure... but seriously, what the fuck, HOW MANY RAPISTS WOULD CONSENT TO BEING CALLED A RAPIST??? I can just IMAGINE getting my rapist's "enthusiastic consent" for being a rapist...
--Rogan
LBT - I've heard the "made me a rapist without my consent" line before, and yay (?), now I know where it's coming from.
DeleteIt's pretty much the most vile possible form of victim-blaming; not only is the victim held responsible for their own victimization, but also for "victimizing" their rapist.
Even in a scenario where someone gives no indication that they're not consenting and no one could have known (and those scenarios don't happen nearly as often as rape apologists would like us to believe), it's still disgusting to tell them that this was something bad they did to their rapist.
I don't know if rapist is the right word to use but I think I get where she's coming from - that one has a responsibility to let people know when they remove consent. And I agree with this.
DeleteIn a much, much milder example I had a friend one time who was obviously upset over something, wouldn't tell me what it was (I tried to let her know I was listening and then outright asked multiple times - just got, "I'm okay just tired/hungry/whatever) and finally months later she told me what it was I was doing that was making her angry - by that time, I was ending the friendship. Her circumstances had changed and something that had previously been okay was no longer okay, but she never told me this while I was doing it and I couldn't figure it out (and honestly, stopped trying to after two or three months). So I was crossing boundaries and I felt really awful about it once I found out - but I also felt angry and betrayed. I had a responsibility to her to not cross boundaries, which I didn't live up to, but she definitely had a responsibility to me to let me know her boundaries had changed, which she didn't live up to. So we both ended up hurting each other.
Now, obviously, this sentiment doesn't count if consent was never given in the first place or if it was communicated as revoked as some point (safeword, in the example given) - and certainly if one senses something is wrong, I believe they have the responsibility to check in and re-judge the situation. But (having not read the context of the quote) I don't think those cases are what Hardy is referring to.
OK, one specific consent-related scenario that bothers me (Trigger Warning, I guess?):
ReplyDeletePat and Robin are partnered. Pat greatly desires sex act A, which Robin very much Does Not Want. Obviously, Pat has a right to say to Robin, "Look, I need sex act A from a relationship, and if we can't do it we're probably not right for one another." And Robin has a right to either say, "OK, guess we're not meant to be," or to say, "OK, let's try sex act A anyway".
Suppose Robin chooses option #2. When is this and when isn't this sincere consent? I mean, if Pat is an emotionally abusive asshole who has convinced Robin that nobody but Pat will ever love them, and they whip out "Sex act A, right now, or we're done!" that's no kind of consent at all. But even if Pat is a considerate partner who has simply come to a decision about their needs and stated it clearly, how can you call that a lack of pressure? I mean, presumably Robin knows zir own mind, but I still don't see that as a 100% precent free choice. How does one deal with that?
This was actually posed as a hypo in my crim law class last year--not the abusive case, and not with a specific sex act, but with A saying to B "Have sex with me or I'll break up with you." The professor was intending it to illustrate the absurdity of a certain definition of rape, but a surprisingly large number of people in the class said that that *should* be considered rape, which struck me, then and now, as not a defensible position to take.
Delete(Obviously not directly in response to you--I think the ethical dilemma is there even if "rape" never comes into it.)
I think there are two ends to this spectrum.
DeleteAt one end, if it's a thing that Robin doesn't enjoy or finds boring, then they could trade off eg doing something Robin enjoys or only doing sex act A occasionally or mix it up with something else that changes how Robin feels about it.
At the other extreme, if it is something that Robin finds painful or unpleasant or triggering, then I would seriously wonder whether Pat can be a 'considerate partner' if zie can enjoy something that zir partner hates.
In between, there is no universal answer because there is a basic incompatibility that you can work round but not talk away. If both people are acting in good faith and equally committed to the relationshio, then it's not necessarily abusive but there are likely to be power dynamics that complicate that.
I would seriously wonder whether Pat can be a 'considerate partner' if zie can enjoy something that zir partner hates.
DeleteSuppose that whatever Pat needs is essential for zir to enjoy sex, period - saying Pat's inconsiderate because zie needs something their partner cannot supply strikes me as... wrong.
(It's important to me to make the distinction, not between "boring" and "painful", but between, "kinda meh about" and "no seriously I DON'T WANT THIS", for whatever reason. Because as Cliff mentioned - some people *do* stuff that's painful and unarousing, but still worth it to them. And you can Not Want stuff even if it's perfectly benign.)
I agree that there's no universal answer; I think I came to the conclusion about one extreme - if Robin says yes, but is visibly, obviously distressed, Pat's only moral choice is to take that yes as a de-facto "no".
But to complicate things: somebody might feel extremely distressed in a situation... and yet still mean their consent. I mean, when I'm having a panic attack and my partner holds me, and he's asking me if I want to be held and I say yes - while crying and mock-resisting him, because it makes me feel better - is he obligated to take my physical cues over my verbal assent?
I think there's three factors here:
DeleteA) How much of a jerk Pat is about this. Because I think it is okay to leave someone because they won't do a particular act--but it's not okay to use your willingness to do so as leverage on them. There's a big difference between "we've tried to negotiate this act a few times and it seems like it's always a sticking point between us, sadly I just don't think we're sexually compatible" and "do it or I'll leave you." (And I realize the first quote could be a more passive-aggressive way of saying "do it or I'll leave you," but, um, just imagine Pat said something really gentle and sensitive here.)
B) What the ties are between Pat and Robin. Leaving someone early in the dating process is something I think you can do for petty reasons and not really have to justify yourself. But if they have a kid together, own property together, if Robin is financially dependent on Pat... well, there's no situation where I can tell someone they aren't allowed to leave, but I'd encourage Pat to think really hard if this is something zie can't possibly live without. (I'd also think Pat should have brought this up earlier so zie didn't have to make this decision.)
C) How much and why Robin doesn't like this. If it's just something that doesn't really turn zer crank, I don't have a problem with zer deciding to think of England now and then for the sake of the relationship. If it's something that zie hates, like cry-barf-hide-in-corner hates, Pat needs to think really hard about allowing zer to offer to do it.
So I guess the short answer is I think it's really complicated. I don't want to vilify Pat for having this need and for deciding this need is really important, but I do think it falls on Pat to handle the situation with as much delicacy as possible.
Suppose Robin chooses option #2. When is this and when isn't this sincere consent? I mean, if Pat is an emotionally abusive asshole who has convinced Robin that nobody but Pat will ever love them, and they whip out "Sex act A, right now, or we're done!" that's no kind of consent at all.
DeleteI'm not sure that this needs to be considered a consent failure. If Robin is in a situation that consent cannot be unambiguously given, then the relationship is inherently abusive and that's the broader and larger problem.
Since the failure happens up the chain, so to speak, then consent being given or not is the wrong problem to look at.
There's a big difference between "we've tried to negotiate this act a few times and it seems like it's always a sticking point between us, sadly I just don't think we're sexually compatible" and "do it or I'll leave you." (And I realize the first quote could be a more passive-aggressive way of saying "do it or I'll leave you," but, um, just imagine Pat said something really gentle and sensitive here.)
DeleteI don't think it's the politeness or sensitivity, but the ultimatum. There's "do this [now] or I'll leave you," and there's "I'm leaving you because you're not doing this."
In fact, isn't this exactly the situation faced by mono-asexual relationships (between an asexual person and one with a more normative sex drive)?
@5:29 Anon: I would seriously wonder whether Pat can be a 'considerate partner' if zie can enjoy something that zir partner hates.
DeleteUm. Obviously it's inconsiderate at best (in most relationships, usual BDSM caveats) to enjoy one's partner hating something, or to enjoy something because one's partner hates it. It's inconsiderate to do it anyway, which might be what you meant. But there's nothing inconsiderate about two people in a relationship happening to have tastes that don't fully overlap.
@Cliff: Because I think it is okay to leave someone because they won't do a particular act--but it's not okay to use your willingness to do so as leverage on them.
Agreed. Think about what the opposite of the first would mean: that there are some circumstances under which a person is simply not permitted to end a relationship!
"But even if Pat is a considerate partner who has simply come to a decision about their needs and stated it clearly, how can you call that a lack of pressure?"
DeleteI'd say there's a difference between "being pressured" and "allowing oneself to be persuaded." The former, I think, is when you agree to something because it's the last possible option and the only way to get the other person off your back. The latter is keeping an open mind and allowing the other person to change it. That distinction applies to other areas of life as well - if you vote for a candidate you hadn't originally planned to because their advertisements persuaded you, you haven't been unlawfully coerced, you've considered other factors and changed your mind. Pressures of all kinds exist in daily life: we're never 100% into all the things we do, and I think it's unrealistic to expect that sex will be somehow exempt from this fact of human interaction.
I've struggled with this in more than one relationship, where I end up having sex I don't really want in order to please my partner...or, more accurately, in order to not have them unhappy/sulking/sad. And it has always eventually gone badly; I end up feeling like sex is a chore I have to do, and any desire I *did* have for them is permanently extinguished. So while that wasn't rape, and I did consent, I think that kind of pressured consent has the potential to make problems worse. Especially when the problem with sex is symptomatic of any other problems in the relationship; it's like trying to fix a sprained ankle by running on it. Is this just me, or is this true for anyone else?
DeleteSame anon from 5:29 "At the other extreme, if it is something that Robin finds painful or unpleasant or triggering, then I would seriously wonder whether Pat can be a 'considerate partner' if zie can enjoy something that zir partner hates."
DeleteThis was a bit badly worded. I don't think it's a problem to enjoy BDSM scenes where one person consents to something zie otherwise finds unpleasant. I also don't think it makes you a bad person to need something sexually that your partner hates. However, I do think if they hate it, you need to find an alternative solution, which might be breaking up or giving up that activity or finding another partner for that activity.
TRIGGER WARNING FOR DISCUSSION OF BLACKMAIL RAPE.
DeleteAs a law student, I'm going to bypass all the discussion that we civilized people are accustomed to, and scream about the shittiness of the law for a moment.
There's the legal definition of consent, force, and coercion, and then there's the definitions of consent, force, and coercion that civilized people who respect other people's sexual autonomy adhere to. Sadly, the law maintains that blackmail doesn't equate to coercion, that coercion MUST involve a threat of imminent physical force.
Let's assume worst-case scenario. Robin is, for instance, disabled or long-term unemployed or otherwise dependent upon Pat for basic sustenance, and would face problems of survival if Pat left hir. Pat tells Robin, "If you don't perform Sex Act A, I'm going to leave you." Because it's not a threat of immediate physical force, that's still not considered coercion under the law, even though Robin may not survive if Pat left hir. My crim prof and I went around and around on this. My argument was that if a person coerces another person into sex they do not want via blackmail that would, if carried out, severely negatively impact a person's very survival, that that is a threat of force. As someone who was lesbian-baited and blackmailed by another troop for sex I did not want, thanks to Don't Ask Don't Tell, I have some experience in dealing with this. If I did not perform, I would be outed to my chain of command, be dragged through the mud, and kicked out of the military. I would lose my income, my only career, my healthcare, and all my education benefits. This, to me, was a threat of physical force. Unfortunately, the courts, with all the biased shit that comes with them, do not see it the same way. Because I was never told, "Perform or I'll hurt/kill you," it didn't count as actual rape. I was severely hurt, triggered, and went through a LOT of mental and emotional shit when I learned that, "Oh, the rape that happened to you and went on for months? Wasn't really RAPE-rape."
Contrast that with the view of consent and coercion and force that civilized people have. If you're blackmailing someone into sex they don't want, THERE IS NO REAL CONSENT AND IT'S FUCKING RAPE. END OF STORY.
The bitter, angry survivor-cum-law-student in me is cynically saying, "So, next time you're faced with blackmail rape, better make sure you piss off your rapist enough so that zie physically attacks you, or else you won't be able to bring charges. Up to you."
I fucking hate the (in)justice system. Why am I in law school?
To fix the system from the inside?
DeleteThere are -- I think inevitably -- situations in which one party legitimately feels victimized but that it is impractical or unjust to cover under the law. The example I always give is Pat inviting Robin to have sex in such a way that it's clear the only responses that will be heard are "yes" and "ask again in a few minutes." Now, when on the third round the answer is "yes," Pat
a) cluelessly concludes Robin has changed zir mind, or
b) has a poor understanding of consent and assumes a "yes" however motivated counts, or
c) pretends to have a poor understanding of consent and/or actually has a poor understanding of partnered sex.
Especially in a and b I'm not sure I'd say mens rea exists. In any case, wherever we draw the line for "this much nagging invalidates consent," whether by statute or common-law, someone will nag their partner just shy of that line and get assent that still doesn't represent consent.
And bear in mind that down the hall from Robin and Pat, Sam really did exercise a person of unspecified gender's prerogative the third time Chris asked.
In jurisdictions that recognize infliction of emotional distress as a tort, that may be the way to go for the relative handful of survivors who can avail themselves of it.
I'm pretty okay with enthusiastic consent even if it's not an accurate description of consent. Here's an analogy with CPR training: (also holy shit please do not use this post as medical advice).
ReplyDeleteIn a first responder class, people are taught how to distinguish between choking, cardiac arrest, etc, and treat unconscious victims accordingly. In a very basic first aid class, people are just taught to always do chest compressions and give breaths. In some cases, this might actually hurt the victim. (Someone can break the victim's ribs doing chest compressions when the victim didn't need chest compressions.) In an ideal world, everyone would take a first responder course, and this would never happen. However, in the real world, it makes sense to give simplified and less accurate training to people just so there are more people who are trained at all. It's better to have some ribs needlessly broken than have people die because nobody with even basic training is around.
Likewise, in an ideal world, everyone would read Cliff's blog and be totally clear on the nuances of consent. But barring that, it's better for people to follow a simplified and less accurate notion of consent than to not follow any notion at all. Sure, people requiring enthusiastic consent and their partners might miss out on some consensual sexytimes, but there definitely won't be rape.
Sometimes I think the focus on consent above all else muddies things. Saying things like "enthusiastic sex is often the best sex" or "making sure your partner is comfortable and pleased helps ensure repeat performances" are good advice, but shouldn't be mixed up with the need for clear and unencumbered communication. Being a good person/partner can be treated as its own issue outside of the consent discussion.
DeleteThe real problem young people face is something I like to call nonexplicit consensual nonconsent. Explicitly prepared rape play is one thing, since the partners are likely to have communicated and planned ahead of time. (Going in deliberately without a safeword is an interesting corner case, but that's its own discussion.) When you take the number of messages out there saying that talking about sex is Icky and Wrong and combine them with the messages that girls should put up token resistance to avoid appearing easy or slutty, the result is almost custom made to explode in the messiest way possible.
Although in general I agree with what you're saying, in this case it doesn't really make sense. The very definition of "consent" is all that's needed here - if the person isn't consenting freely, without coercion or duress, then they're not really consenting. Throwing in bits about how much they desire it, or their/your/whoever's sexual needs and wants, or ANYTHING else just complicates the issue. The important parts are simply to ask every time and be willing to stop if the answer's not "yes."
DeleteThe important parts are simply to ask every time and be willing to stop if the answer's not "yes."
DeleteOkay. I have your phone number. I call you once every two hours to ask if you want to have sex. I'm asking, not threatening or intimidating, so I'm respecting your consent, right? No matter how many times I ask or how inconvenient or annoying it is? Your need to sleep and your want not to be annoyed are your problems, not mine.
On the other hand: So I'm just not supposed to think about my wife's sexual needs? She gives me a blowjob, and then she asks me to reciprocate (she asks, because she respects my consent!) and I say "No" (because I have the right to refuse to do stuff), and this happens every time, and this is a healthy relationship?*
The standard Sex-Positive Brand response to that is to tell her to leave me and go find someone who will be more considerate. But for some reason it's verboten to tell me to be the more considerate partner that she needs. I think this is a reaction against a culture where "you're not taking care of your partner's needs" is a common tactic for pressuring/shaming women (mostly) into doing sexual things that they don't want. But if her response to me being selfish is always to run away to someone else, it's hard to see how this relationship is going to last more than about ten minutes, or how either of us will become better than we are.** More likely we'll just become bitter.
The problem with this "consent plus nothing" mindset is that it offers very little guidance on what to consent to, or what to desire, or why, other than "I have a very specific fetish." It's a very good rule for not hurting people, but seriously deficient as an ethos.
* Though in our actual relationship it's more likely that I'd offer and she'd refuse. Which is still not very likely at all.
** I'm talking about empathy failure, not abuse.
I think your examples are too extreme. Anyone who did those things would deserve to have people say, ew, weirdo, run away. Certainly no one would continue to consent to your calling them every two hours -- they'd tell you not to do that, or just block your calls. And who says no one is allowed to tell you to be more considerate? As I read the comment, elmenora was talking about what constitutes consent and what doesn't, not what constitutes a good relationship and what doesn't.
DeleteMark Z., I think the only way to resolve your objections is through the don't be a dick ethos. Which may be too complicated to reduce down to a few simple rules.
DeleteAll you seem to be proving is that you can rules-lawyer anything to be terrible.
Also, people can break up. If your partner does something that you hate (even if there's no rule against it) or won't do something that you really really want (even if there's no rule that they should), you have the right to end the relationship. That's how these things tend to end in real life.
elmenora, I don't think that consent is so easy to judge in all situations. You can't always tell if someone is consenting freely without coercion or duress. On the other hand, it's very easy to tell if someone is enthusiastic.
DeleteHere's a fairly reasonable example: I am chatting with person A, and then I start to cuddle with them. A doesn't reciprocate, so I ask if I shouldn't be doing this. A tells me that I'm being silly. I tell A that I find their answer ambiguous and unclear. A repeats that I'm being silly, and doesn't clarify.
So, is this consensual cuddling? If A feels threatened by me, then it's obviously not consensual. If A wants to cuddle but for whatever reason doesn't want to admit it, then it obviously is consensual. If A wants to cuddle with me for some reasons but doesn't want to cuddle with me for other reasons and isn't sure which matter to them more, then it's sorta maybe consensual.
Also, what counts as coercion? What if we're alone, and that makes A feel intimidated? What if there are other people around, and that makes A worried that a no will lead to a public argument? What if I know about these fears and am exploiting them? What if I don't know about these fears? What if I won't be friends with A if they say no? What if I will be friends with A if they say no, but A worries that I won't?
If you've spent some time thinking about these issues, I'm sure you can come up with answers, but it's sure as hell not simple. (OK, at least it's not simple to me. If it's simple to you, you can go ahead and call me an idiot.)
On the other hand, it's obvious that A is not consenting enthusiastically, and I think the right thing to do in this situation is to leave A alone. Give them some time to figure out what they want, and then ask again.
I'd add "consent when you're not really in the mood at the moment, but you know you will be once things get underway, and be glad you said yes."
ReplyDeleteThis is how I consent to going to yoga pretty much 90% of the time. :)
"This is how I consent to going to yoga pretty much 90% of the time. :)"
DeleteOMG me too. Especially 8am yoga...
Another thought strikes. Perhaps in addition to "enthusiastic consent" we should consider the possibility of "reasoned consent?" It turns the dichotomy into a trichotomy:
ReplyDelete[*] Enthusiastic consent is wanted. Enthusiastically consenting to sex would mean that the consent-er actively desires it. As
[*]Reasoned consent is not necessarily wanted, but is agreed to after considering the pros and cons. Most of Cliff's examples in the post fall into this kind of category. All other things being equal the consenter would perhaps rather not have sex, but the benefits are ultimately worth it. Provided the consenter is in an uncoerced position, the duty of a bystander is to respect that choice, but the lack of coercion is necessary. This type of consent is best seen in established (romantic) or formalized relationships (sex work, bdsm play), since doing it properly requires some real negotiation that a casual relationship won't stand.
[*]Finally, nonconsent, in all its varied forms.
I like this division, but it seems to me enthusiastic consent is a subtype of reasoned consent. That's why we urge people doing hookups to look for enthusiastic consent in the first place -- not because unenthusiastic consent is necessarily not genuine ("reasoned" in this system) but because enthusiastic consent is always genuine.
DeleteI like this division, but it seems to me enthusiastic consent is a subtype of reasoned consent. That's why we urge people doing hookups to look for enthusiastic consent in the first place -- not because unenthusiastic consent is necessarily not genuine ("reasoned" in this system) but because enthusiastic consent is always genuine.
DeleteI don't think it's a strict subtype, just because of that hookup situation. My initial view is that enthusiastic consent is the only category that is appropriate for impulsive situations. (That doesn't always make the resulting sex -wise-, but it would definitely be consensual)
I was understanding it as "reasoned" = "this is not unwanted, for whatever reason" and "enthusiastic" = "this is not unwanted, because horny".
Delete"The problem is that this doesn't respect the agency of the person consenting. It ignores the ability of a sober adult to say 'I don't want this with my crotch, but I'm agreeing to it with my brain.' It tells people 'You say you're consenting, but I know better, you poor dear.' And that's pretty shitty. As someone who consents to things most people would consider gross or unpleasant (I've heard way too many times a woman can't really *want* to be punched black and blue) I'm in no position to tell someone else their consent isn't real."
ReplyDelete"Grown-ups can decide why they want to have sex, and judging those reasons and whether they're 'enthusiastic' enough is, frankly, none of my damn business. All that matters is that they get to decide."
You've taken the thoughts right out of my head and elucidated them perfectly. Thanks so much for this.
So much yes right here.
ReplyDeleteEspecially the part about grown ups being able to decide things for themselves. Sometimes grown ups make foolish decisions, but that's part and parcel of the ability to make choices for themselves. It sucks sometimes, but it's a vital part of being a responsible adult.
Agreed. I take issue with the kind of feminism that seeks to protect women from themselves. In my opinion, it's more feminist to let a woman make a hundred bad decisions that are authentically hers. We aren't children. Maybe I'll regret it in the morning. If I do, I'll pack up and move on. It's not the worst thing in the world.
DeleteI see it more as helping people work out how to know what they want and go for it. I'm not telling them what to want. Many of the bad decisions I've made were bad because they WEREN'T authentically mine. They were coming from little cultural voices in my head that I should have just told to shut up.
DeleteIt's great that you worked that out for yourself, and we all should, but my general point is that we're not in the position to tell *others* whether their decisions are authentically theirs or not. We should all analyze and scrutinize our own decisions, yes, but we should also allow others the freedom to figure theirs out in their own ways.
Delete"I take issue with the kind of feminism that seeks to protect women from themselves."
DeleteEspecially because they send the implicit message that women need to be protected from themselves in general. If a man needs to act as a gatekeeper to understand whether or not a woman is sufficiently enthusiastic for sex, shouldn't he also stand as a gatekeeper asking whether or not a woman is sufficiently enthusiastic about getting an abortion?
But then, feminism as a bludgeon, feminism as a disavowal of responsibility, and feminism for social position are sadly too common. (The same applies if you substitute something like christianity. Whenever you have something that sounds vaguely positive, you have people trying to twist it towards their own ends. Spotting and dealing with these memetic parasites is a vital skill for any movement that doesn't want to deal with some spectacular crash&burns.)
If a man needs to act as a gatekeeper to understand whether or not a woman is sufficiently enthusiastic for sex
DeleteEr, no one said anything remotely like that, as far as I can see. There are about four assumptions in that line that no one made except you.
Irene, I see Anon's point. Policing a partner's desire, saying "I don't think you're really into this" because they aren't panting and moaning, can be a slippery slope. Trusting your partner to know their own mind is a key part of consent, and it applies to all aspects of our lives.
DeleteAnon, I love you.
One more thing: Anon, while I agree with you, I don't understand what you mean by "feminism for social position". Elaborate?
DeleteBut who was even talking about policing a partner's desire? I didn't see that anywhere in the discourse. As far as I could see it was outside judgments that Cliff was talking about, not judgments coming from the other person in the relationship. Moreover, it's not just about heterosexual situations, and it's not just about whether the woman in a het-sex scenario has true agency.
DeleteCliff wrote a while back about abstaining from sex if you don't think your partner's really into it, even if they say they are, and that's what I had in mind while reading this. I agree that it's not just about the woman in a het-sex scenario, but that's the most common permutation of the anti-agency argument. I don't see it applied to other kinds of pairings nearly as often.
DeleteOrgasmia is spot on. The implied context of most of these discussions is het. If you pay close attention, you'll notice that peoples attitudes change depending on context; the person who insists that one drink nulls consent when talking about hetsex will often make jokes about spaghetti bisexuals (because bis default to female and all). People do notice that sort of thing.
Delete----
Feminism for social position is basically when someone spends more time and energy projecting the idea that they're a (whatever) than they do trying to improve things. Think anybody who cares more for self-aggrandizement than they do for getting things done. I don't want to single feminism out for something that happens in all sorts of causes, but at the same time, they don't deserve a free pass either.
The implied context of most of these discussions is het.
DeleteWhich I object to, and which seems a little ridiculous on a blog like this one. I thought Cliff did a pretty good job in this post of NOT implying that it was all about the het-sex.
What does "spaghetti bisexual" mean? Google gets me nothing useful.
Re "feminism for social position": why include the name of the cause in the sneer at all, if the specific cause isn't relevant?
It's definitely not all about het-sex on this blog, and Cliff is great about establishing that. However, in much of the wider culture, the anti-agency argument IS mostly about het-sex, specifically the woman's role in it. The patronizing statement that Cliff mentions - "[y]ou say you're consenting, but I know better, you poor dear" - is leveled at women far, far more than at men. The denial of female agency and autonomy - that's what I object to, and I gleaned that objection from Cliff's piece as well.
DeleteAs a queer trans women I found this to be a really big thing when I was being sexual while recovering from bottom surgery. I really struggled with my partners assuming that because I was experiencing physical discomfort that I was withdrawing consent.
ReplyDeleteFor me I really struggled to get across "Hey I'm not enjoying this, but I want you to do it anyway because this is really, really helpful in figuring out how everything works and helping me enjoy things better".
My rapist was a consent lawyer. As long as I said 'yes,' no matter how reluctant or dissociated or hell, even if I was crying and otherwise completely unresponsive, that was consent, and ergo, everything he did was fine. Because I said YES and how could he possibly know I meant no if I was crying, I was giving mixed messages! (All the while as he did everything he could to gouge a yes out of me.)
ReplyDeleteAs a result, I have only recently felt safe actually saying yes, because I'm so accustomed to 'yes' meaning 'you may now do whatever sexual thing you want to me to completion.'
Urgh.
At the same time, I'm on the ace spectrum, so sometimes I choose to have sex for nonsexual happy-making reasons. And it's not abusive or horrible at all. At the same time, I still sometimes (not so much anymore, but still sometimes) have brief meltdowns after sex where I cry and shake and pretty much have all the emotional reactions I wasn't really allowed to have during the abuse itself, while at the same time completely feeling that the sex I just had was not abusive. Obviously my husband requires a LOT of reassurance on that front; over the years, I think he believes me these days when it was NOT HIS FAULT, but I try to hammer that point home anyway.
This is something that should be obvious. After all, we don't consider a contract binding if it was signed under duress... why is consent to sex any different? Being coerced/pressured/threatened into saying "yes" isn't consent - it's self-defense. At the same time, people can want to HAVE sex even if they don't want SEX. If that makes sense. Kind of like how people may want to eat vegetables for the healthiness even if they hate how brussel sprouts taste.
ReplyDeleteThere's a difference between saying "yes" because you have no other options and allowing your mind to be changed. It's a slippery line, and it's different for every person, but I think it's important to note that pressure is not necessarily rape. If I take a trip I was originally against because my travel partner convinced me it would be fun, I'm not being kidnapped. Just as it's important to acknowledge a person's right to change their mind from "yes" to "no" during sex, it's important to acknowledge that sometimes minds change the other way, and it's not necessarily coercion.
DeleteThis is something that should be obvious. After all, we don't consider a contract binding if it was signed under duress... why is consent to sex any different? Being coerced/pressured/threatened into saying "yes" isn't consent - it's self-defense.
DeleteAs the other replies in this thread go into, it's difficult to look at a situation -- especially from the outside -- and draw a firm line as to what's coercion and what isn't. Especially in a long-term relationship, the gestalt matters. Less so for casual flings, but that's exactly where the common definition of rape is most clear-cut. That's also why it took a victory of feminism for the law to even acknowledge that marital rape existed.
Kind of like how people may want to eat vegetables for the healthiness even if they hate how brussel sprouts taste.
Fry them in a bit of oil (just until the get greener and wilt slightly), toss in dried cranberries and toasted nuts (pine works well but is a bit expensive, almond slivers also work great). The classic "bad taste" of brussel sprouts (and other green vegetables) isn't their intrinsic taste, it's that most old-family-recipes cook the crap out of otherwise benign vegetables, triggering all sorts of unaesthetic chemical reactions.
Fry them in a bit of oil (just until the get greener and wilt slightly)
Delete(Pseudonymous, so can't edit) Forgot to add that the sprouts should be chopped in half first, so that they fall apart into their constituent leaves. That's pretty much like mini-cabbage.
There really is a chemical in brussels sprouts that only some people can taste. I know at least one person who can happily eat almost any sort of greens but them.
DeleteThere really is a chemical in brussels sprouts that only some people can taste. I know at least one person who can happily eat almost any sort of greens but them.
DeleteReally? That's kinda neat, should it ever come up irl I'll be extra-sure to be understanding.
It's called PTC, and its in all of the brassica vegetables (broccoli, brussel sprouts, etc). There are "tasters" and "non-tasters", and those who can taste it often find these vegetables very bitter.
Delete'Bitter' describes how those greens tasted to me when I was younger - I love them now, but when I was a kid I absolutely hated them. Is there a thing where 'tasters' can become 'non-tasters' as they grow up?
Delete~TJ
I think there are several different things going on with tasting bitter stuff -- definitely kids find greens more bitter than most adults do, as well as the PTC thing. And of course some people just like a certain amount of bitter taste -- tonic water that wasn't at all bitter wouldn't be much good to me, for instance. I don't find brussels sprouts at all bitter, though, nor broccoli, so presumably I'm a non-taster of PTC. Collards and kale and such, yes, but bearably so unless they're badly cooked.
DeleteYou are fucking awesome. That is all. Please carry on.
ReplyDeleteI think knowing your partner is important. I've said before in other conversations that a big part of a long-term sexual relationship is knowing when one person's desire for sex is greater than the other person's lack of desire to have sex, and obviously vice versa. That kind of symbiosis in a relationship is a good thing to have.
ReplyDeleteThat having been said, I really enjoy it when I'm like, "Meh, I'm apathetic about sex" and my husband physically dominates me and forces me to participate. The topping itself is a turn-on, obviously, that plus the other things he knows to do means that by the time we get to the actual intercourse I'm pretty enthusiastic. But we know each other so well after, geez, 10+ years.
I have no experience to speak of with casual sex, but I'd think you'd want to be more careful about "explicit/enthusiastic" consent with someone you just met.
It makes me so uncomfortable and unhappy when someone, whether a person I know or a stranger on the internet, tells me and/or the world that consent can only truly be consent if it's an uppercase 'YES PLEASE YES DO THIS WITH ME NOW PLEASE YES' and that '...okay' can't really be okay.
ReplyDeleteWhen I was 18 I had a relationship with a rather older man who I knew I had to always say 'yes' to or he would hit me, yell at me, rape me, break up with me, or all of the above. '...okay' wasn't good enough for him, either (which is hopefully the only thing he has in common with the 'only YES means yes' commentators); I always had to beg for it even if all I wanted was to scream and run. Thinking about that situation does make me understand why there's debate over which kind of consent really counts as valid consent, and to a certain extent I can very much agree with the statement that '...okay' might not be good enough.
But.
A few years after that relationship ended - years spent scrupulously avoiding sex, relationships, and even friendly hugs - a dear and trusted friend made it clear that he wanted to hook up with me for a casual one-night-stand. I was terrified, and I wanted once again to scream and run. I didn't do either of those things though, because he also made it clear that if I didn't want to hook up we could just hang out, gossip, and play really geeky card games. There would be no consequences either way; either we had friendly sex and then stayed friends and probably played geeky card games afterwards anyhow, or we skipped the sex and went straight to the games and still stayed friends. He wouldn't hit me or yell at me, or reject me, and I knew he had too much grace to act hurt or disappointed if I said no. (I also knew that he'd had a vasectomy and recent negative STI tests and wouldn't have sex without a condom anyway, so I didn't even have to worry about pregnancy or infections - it was truly a consequence-free situation in every possible respect.) So I said yes. I didn't say it because I wanted to have sex with him; I didn't want to have sex with anyone then. I said it because I could have said no, and I'd never been given the option of saying no before, and because nothing bad could happen whether I chose the yes option or the no option. It wasn't a 'YES PLEASE' yes, it was an '...okay, because you want it' yes. And it wasn't very good sex, although he was careful and considerate and kind and kept checking in to make sure I was still okay with it. I didn't really enjoy it, but I also didn't hate it, and that was absolutely a first - and I did like being able to give something nice to someone who wanted it, and have that something nice be mine to give rather than having it taken from me. Because of that situation I learned that sometimes, rather than being purely a source of terror and pain, sex could be nothing more or less than a nice thing you do with someone you like if you want to. It can be scary and bad, it can probably be wonderful in the right context, but it doesn't have to be as big a deal as either of those things - and that realization changed so many things for me in so many parts of my life.
For the most part, I think that an uppercase 'YES' is probably a lot better all around than a 'yes' or the much-maligned '...okay.' But because I chose to say '...okay' that time, a truly sincere though not enthusiastic '...okay' rather than a forced 'yes,' and everything actually turned out to be completely okay, someday I might be able to say 'YES PLEASE' and mean it. It's more than irritating when supposedly sex-positive and understanding friends/bloggers/whoever try to take that away from me and invalidate the choice I made just because I wasn't very enthusiastic about it; it was my choice, and what's more, it was the right choice, and it changed my life for the better.
That's a very moving story. But it's also about a really special case, because your capacity for enthusiasm had been essentially taken away due to bad experiences. You were, in a way, practicing your sexual agency, kind of like practicing walking with a physical therapist after an accident. The fact that practicing with a trainer is hard work and often not entirely pleasant wouldn't invalidate a general article about getting enough exercise that said chirpily that people should find some kind of exercise they really LIKE to do, so they'll stick with it.
DeleteP. S. Thank you, Cliff, for being the kind of sex-positive writer who never, ever makes me as a reader feel invalidated or like I don't really know my own mind. Your blog is such an excellent source of no-nonsense common sense, the kind of humour that makes me laugh and feel less tense about my personal sex and gender hangups, and also a lot of really great thought-provoking material.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read the comments, so forgive me if I'm repeating something, but another you might have missed is consent when you want to try something but you're really, really nervous. Like, scared nervous, but it's sommat you want to do/try.
ReplyDeleteThat's an excellent point! I hadn't thought of that, but there have definitely been times when my partner and I have tried something experimental, and I've said yes because I did want to try it, but I was also quite nervous.
DeleteI wouldn't count that as necessarily unenthusiastic, though -- not at all. Oftentimes it works out that the things I'm most scared to talk about are the things I most deeply want.
DeleteIrene - That is true for me as well, but I get very close to the scared end of nervous - as in shaking, wide eyes, etc. It definitely doesn't mean I don't want to do it, and it doesn't mean it's going to stop me doing it, but, I dunno. I guess a large part of it for me is that I'm too busy being nervous/scared and forcing myself to do it because I want to. I dunno, it just seems different to "enthusiastic/horny" to me, more like a negotiation with myself?
DeletePretty much just what Anon 10.48AM said. But I see your point about how it is something you're enthusiastic about, but it's just not necessarily something you're enthusiastic about at the time. Actually, that.
If I recall correctly, there was a very similar article on NSWATM about this... I think it was called "good consent"? I liked both articles though.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, personally I always get a bit of a guilty feeling if I know my partner isn't really 100% into it but is still willing to have sex with me... I always feel kind of like I'm taking advantage of her, even if she assures me that she's totally ok with it, and that she wants to make me happy.
I don't know, I guess it's partially that I worry she feels obligated to do it, and partially some kind of "you shouldn't accept any favours from anyone" issue, some mental baggage from my upbringing or something that tells me I'm not "worthy" of being "serviced" by another person like that... I don't know if I'm explaining this well...
Yes, all of this. Thank you for putting this out here. I'm asexual, and I am really, REALLY sick of watching people(/feminists mostly) debate about whether I'm capable of consenting. I can want sex for reasons other than my body's demands, and my enthusiasm is really my own business. Hopefully your post will get some people thinking about that.
ReplyDeleteThank you for this.
ReplyDeleteI've always likened it to when you're at work and someone says, "Do you want to help that customer over there?" Frankly, no. No I do not. That person is going to call me a liar or a thief or something else, insinuate I don't care about them, and generally treat me like shit. They're going to make my day miserable and I'd rather go up and tell them to fuck themselves those self-entitled bastards.
But I don't.
I say "yeah, I'd love to!" and then wear my biggest smile and say "hi."
As much as we like to pretend that relationships aren't transactions, they kinda sorta are in a way. Each relationship has give and take: some days I'm going to be very grumpy and irritable and insecure, and those are my "take" days. Those days I'm hard to be around. Other days I'll be trying to make up for it or just generally feeling affectionate and caring, snuggling with you all the time and just being a happy little puppy for you to play with. Those are my "give" days.
Similarly, sex in relationships is often "give and take" just like anything else... and "enthusiastic consent" removes the "sure, why not?" side of consent. "Sure, why not?" is a perfectly valid way of having sex... as is, "I'll give you a blowjob if you agree to make dinner tonight." As is "Man I don't really enjoy going down on women, but my girlfriend/wife really enjoys it when I go down on her... so occasionally I go down on her."
*It's ok to choose to do things you don't enjoy.* We're humans. We're farther thinking than that. I fucking HATE going to work, but I do enjoy making rent every month and affording food. I enjoy making rent and affording food considerably more than I dislike going to work. Welcome to the economics of life.
Your list of types of consent that are real, but not enthusiastic, leaves out the one that is most common in my experience.
ReplyDelete"I'm not feeling horny enough to be enthusiastic right now, but if we start, maybe this will generate the arousal and enthusiasm I'd like to be there."
I've had lots of amazing experiences that started from this point, and reached the point of mutual enthusiasm, and the plan of "can't try unless there is mutual enthusiasm from the start" would have excluded these experiences.
If things don't work out as hoped, this can seque into either "You know, just not feeling it right now; let's stop", or "not feeling it right now, but would like to continue anyway, since you're enjoying it so much", and it's important to create an environment where the first of these is just as easy to say as the second.
I think really the right way to look at things is that the really important thing is *unambiguous* consent. Enthusiasm is one way to avoid ambiguity, but there are others, and they are OK too when there is real consent without enthusiasm. "Only enthusiastic consent is OK" is a way better approximation than "any utterance of the word 'yes', or any failure to utter the word 'no', is consent", and I think the "enthusiastic consent" idea exists to push things from the latter to the former, but with good communication, one can do better.
Great article. There is definitely a case, as I see it, for real if unenthusiastic consent to be treated as a conversation starter rather than "cool, she said yes . . ."
ReplyDeleteIf sex is only ever tolerated by your partner, there's something going on that you need to talk about. If you can.
One thing - And obviously consent that's withdrawn or never given at all isn't real consent.
I can see what you're trying to say, but this might be put more clearly. If you withdraw consent, the consent WAS real. It just no longer applies. If someone acts on you in any way under your explicit and real consent, those acts cannot retrospectively be downgraded.
And "giving consent" isn't carte blanche. It surely must be given for each distinct act that's intended, so in reality consenting to something doesn't mean consenting to ANYthing or EVERYthing. And rescinding your consent for something, anything or everything applies just as surely to whatever it is you're discussing.
Interesting (and correct) article. I just wanted to say how interesting the capitalization was in "D/s." Is it common to capitalize "Dom" but not "sub" when writing about BDSM?
ReplyDeleteNew anon, here.
ReplyDeleteI haven't read all of the comments, so I'm sorry if this is a redundant point, but I take offense at the "consenting to sex work is real consent" thing. I have never been in sex work, and would never, ever want to, in fact I would find it completely horrible and unpleasant for myself, considering I have had lots of sex for other reasons than for my own pleasure, so I guess that has to be taken into account.
But I find it difficult to imagine a sex worker wanting to have sex with every single "client". It's their job, how they make money, and, yes, maybe they were forced into that work in some way. Whether poor circumstances or being kidnapped by a pimp and doing it out of fear that your pimp will harm them in some way (I think this applies to younger people moreso, and people under the age of 18. Ugh, leaves a vile taste in my mouth!) There's an anti-porn activist who is an ex porn star named Shelley Lubben, and she has made several youtube videos about how terrible porn is for female porn stars, and her own story about essentially being forced to do sex work/porn because of poor circumstances, being picked up off the street when very young, and that it's a widespread thing, if not an...allspread? thing. It's the cultural semi-norm (I say semi- because it's a bit extreme and isn't a norm for many (most?) people, but I think it is sort of a common theme in this sort of media. I am wording it in the most extreme way.) that women are sexual objects and don't need to consent and are submissives who you can do what you want to and they will like it. (I don't have much experience with pornos and these are the only ones I've heard about.) She said that female porn stars don't LIKE making porn; she (and many others she knows) had to be drunk and drugged up during filming to be able to do it. They have to do it to make money, or they FEEL they have to. Even if you're trapped by your own mind, it's still being trapped, and not consent. Cultural (semi-)norms can trap you, they can be unhealthy and wrong.
ANYWAY, I think that sex work (porn and prostitution) doesn't apply here because I think it's perpetuated by cultural semi-norms (I'm thinking of female sex workers, here) that encourage non-consensual sex, women don't need to consent, it's for the guy in question's pleasure.
I just think that it's a different animal, and I'm rather offended that you consider it a consensual thing.
What are you thoughts on this, Cliff? I'm interested.
I think that sex work can be coerced, and that's horrible, and sex work is not always coerced, and it's not okay to claim it is.
DeleteIt's like saying "sex in relationships is sometimes horribly coerced, therefore sex in relationships can't be consensual." The problem isn't the kind of sex. (And believe me, cultural norms get all up in relationship-sex as well.)
But there are people, male and female, who do sex work entirely by their own decision, or at least as much a decision as people have in any other job, and to ignore the consent they give is disrespectful and (inasmuch as it fails to acknowledge forced sex work as a real and separate problem from "all sex work") dangerous.
Oh jeeze.
DeleteAs someone who is an actual sex worker, lemme just say that you are completely off the mark here.
I write a little about Lubben here- http://stripforthis.blogspot.com/2012/01/some-brief-musings-on-childhood-sexual.html. Most sex workers who know about her acknowledge that she had a uniquely horrible experience in sex work, that she got into it for the wrong reasons, etc., but completely disagree with her conclusions and solutions to these issues
"But I find it difficult to imagine a sex worker wanting to have sex with every single "client". It's their job, how they make money"
Um, isn't that the point of this article in the first place?
"maybe they were forced into that work in some way. Whether poor circumstances or being kidnapped by a pimp and doing it out of fear that your pimp will harm them in some way"
So all wage-labor is slavery? Cool, I'm an anarchist too! But why single out sex work? Are a migrant laborer picking tomatoes in Florida, a couple selling veggies from their garden at the local farmers market, and a black slave in the 1800's all the same? I mean, they're all being "forced" to do agricultural work through economic circumstances OR kidnapping/fear. Should their social positioning and working conditions be conceptualized similar to one another?
"but I take offense at the 'consenting to sex work is real consent' thing. I have never been in sex work, and would never, ever want to, in fact I would find it completely horrible and unpleasant for myself,"
Ok, stop appropriating others' anger. As someone who would NEVER EVER DO SEX WORK EVER CUZ ITS SO HORRIBLE you really don't have any place to be so righteously offended at this. Believe me, sex workers ARE critical of the industry,but probably not for the same reasons you are, and not within the same framework from which you're operating.