Should only an explicit "yes" count as consent to sex?

[noname223]

There is this discussion in Germany. I think in some Scandinavian there is this rule that there is a need for saying yes to a mutal agreement on having sex.

By the way rape in marriage was legal in Germany until 1997. And the current chancellor voted against the criminalization of rape in marriages.

I think there are valid point to both sides. It could sensitize men ro prevent them from crossing boundaries. I think studies show that more women report sexual violence where this law was implemented.

On the other hand side, does this really deter men from raping women? The ones who want to do could make it anyway. Maybe it is the wrong approach. Maybe the more urgent change would be to give more trust victimes who report sexual violence. And make the reporting process easier.

I can say pressuring women on anything makes me very uncomfortable. Or to make women in general uncomfortable. I would not approach a woman on the street. (despite the fact it is s a different issue)I think some men are also insecure how to approach a woman in real life. On the other hand there are many men who act like complete assholes. And I think they are the louder ones. I think about a second date with a woman that I am texting with. And she signaled me to do the next steps. I asked her for a date. She sent me a song that says kiss a girl at the right moment instead of regretting it for the end of your life. Honestly, I don't like this message. I rather would like to ask for consent in anything also in kissing or hugging. Mabye the second date never will happen anyway. I think before trying to kiss her I would wait for the right moment, consider the situation and maybe ask her something like "What is your opinion how literal should one take the lyrics of a song?" We are both on the autism spectrum she should be used to me being weird. We have a really nerdy humor.

More remarks: it doesn't solve problems like he said/she said in court
There is this stupid argument this would kill the mood between partners. Or the question is codifying human intimacy really a good approach for handling human relations?

 

[RwS]

True love is dying, at least for many, now there has to be a time and a place and apparently a written contract for everything! lol. Interesting how many romance novels, movies and the like depict a complete opposite reality when it comes to romance, there it's passionate, impulsive and not interrupted by the need to sign a contract! Wish there was no need for this discussion but it's the world we now live in i guess : (

 

[neurotoxic]

Explicit, enthusiastic consent is absolutely a requirement before initiating anything.

 

[Pluto]

 

[Hvergelmir]

Interesting how many romance novels, movies and the like depict a complete opposite reality when it comes to romance, there it's passionate, impulsive and not interrupted by the need to sign a contract!

One should be careful, comparing fiction to reality. That said, your example largely reflect reality.
I think those new ideas are destroying the social fabric, with good intentions.

If I need to even think about legal compliance in a romantic interaction, I'd rather just avoid it.
Rape should not be possible without abundantly clear opposition.

 

[Lamentice]

Rape should not be possible without abundantly clear opposition.

People can be coerced, manipulated, afraid, react with a freeze response.. this take is just gross and predatory, getting enthusiastic consent isn't an issue when you're having sex with someone who wants to have sex with you.. obviously.

There is long standing, generational cultural conditioning on women specifically to be passive and receptive. Also conditioning (religiously & culturally) that within marriage (or just romantic relationships), it's an expected sacrifice of the woman and duty to pleasure a man despite their own feelings, needs, disinterest, whatever. Not considering nuance is predatory and dismissive of historical oppression & context.


Rape is just rape, the victim lives with the same invasive destruction of body & spirit & catastrophic grief, whether it gets acknowledged legally and punished or not. Morality and legality should never be conflated. Wanting cases with coercion and intimidation and freeze/fawn responses to exist without consequence is.. very exposing, that's all I'll say.

If I need to even think about legal compliance in a romantic interaction, I'd rather just avoid it.

Incredibly hyperbolic & irrelevant.

Victims will certainly not stop advocating for themselves, so no matter people will still fight for justice that is deserved and initiate cultural change--if that scares you, again: exposing.

True love is dying, at least for many, now there has to be a time and a place and apparently a written contract for everything! lol. Interesting how many romance novels, movies and the like depict a complete opposite reality when it comes to romance, there it's passionate, impulsive and not interrupted by the need to sign a contract! Wish there was no need for this discussion but it's the world we now live in i guess : (

So, to be clear, your assertion is that true love is dead because of enthusiastic consent becoming culturally relevant, increased awareness of rape and the visibility of victims, and this (your view) is all based off of fictional media?

Was true love ever real, can you offer nonfictional examples of it?

 

[Hvergelmir]

People can be coerced, manipulated, afraid, react with a freeze response.

This is all illegal and has been for as long as I've been around. We're not in any disagreement there. My statement was not about that kind of people.
Despite disagreements, know that almost everyone agrees on what we want to accomplish. What differs is ideas on how, and at what cost.

getting enthusiastic consent

This is where it becomes a bit too idealistic for me.
First off, enthusiasm isn't always there. Sex is a rather fundamental drive, and sometimes it's given as a service. It can be given with some hesitation, while still being consensual. It can be enthusiastic and amazing, and it can be boring. If you can't satisfy your partners needs, things will most likely fall apart.
This is not about women serving men - it goes both ways. I have little insight into women's pressure to please men, but I do know that there's quite a bit of pressure for men to perform. This is why the Internet has been flooded with Viagra ads and penis extension procedures. It's a major source of insecurity, for men.

It's not pretty, and far from ideal, but it is what it is, and I think it needs be said.
It's further skewed by widespread porn consumption.

We can probably improve parts of it, but I don't think it's something you can legislate yourself out of.

There is long standing, generational cultural conditioning on women specifically to be passive and receptive. Also conditioning (religiously & culturally) that within marriage (or just romantic relationships), it's an expected sacrifice of the woman and duty to pleasure a man despite their own feelings, needs, disinterest, whatever.

I don't know which part of the world you live, but that sounds like the core issue. Having passive women who assumes a duty to please the man, and then punish him through the judicial system, is just confusing!

I would not be able to be in a relationship, requiring continuous and explicit verbal (or written) consent. Not for sex, and not for anything else. Natural communication is much more fluid and dynamic - consents are given and withdrawn all the time.
To me, it's a strict requirement for a safe relationship, that all parties can speak up. Again, not just on sexual matters, but on any important matter.
It's very much not about enabling any nefarious or predatory thing.

I'm not opposing people who want relationships with formalized consent rituals, but I think legislations that demand that all relationships have that are misguided.

What would such a formal ritual even look like? Is it only for intercourse, or anything remotely sexual? What about non-sexual interactions?
To me, it's obvious that consent has to be present throughout a relationship, and not just in sex. Explicit consent for everything simply isn't viable.

Victims will certainly not stop advocating for themselves, so no matter people will still fight for justice that is deserved and initiate cultural change--if that scares you, again: exposing.

Our disagreement is not about whether consent should be required, but whether it must explicit. I argue that implicit consent is part of normal human interaction. Which includes sexual interactions. Let's not skew that.

 

[noname223]

This is all illegal and has been for as long as I've been around.

I don't think manipulating someone into having sex is actually illegal. Blackmailing someone into sex is illegal. But manipulating someone in order to have sex with them is very common also on dating apps and certainly not illegal. And I think the discussion is of this thread centers exactly around that. It is not necessarily illegal to sleep with someone if the other person freezes. In most countries there is no need for an explcit yes as consensus to have sex legally. If the other person freezes this can be interpreted as no objection against having sex under the current laws. And can thus be considered legal.

 

[Hvergelmir]

I don't think manipulating someone into having sex is actually illegal.

There might be some gray areas, but if someone is manipulated without threats, coercion, extortion, or bribes, how would one differentiate that from normal communication?
Wouldn't that same manipulation be able to make someone say "yes" (or even sign a contract)?

I'm not defending sinister forms of manipulation, but I also don't know if it's possible to frame them in law. This is a problem even in areas with extensive formal contracts.

But manipulating someone in order to have sex with them is very common also on dating apps and certainly not illegal.

How? I sincerely don't know what you're referring to, but I think that exposing those schemes helps to protect people.

If the other person freezes this can be interpreted as no objection against having sex under the current laws

Is it really interpreted like that, though?

In what scenario can you expose someone to stress levels so high that they'd freeze in shock, without breaking a law?
"Yes, I threatened her first, but she consented to..." I have a hard time seeing any modern legal system supporting that.

 

[noname223]

How? I sincerely don't know what you're referring to, but I think that exposing those schemes helps to protect people.

I texted with some women. And they told me such stories often. Many men pretend to be interested in a longterm relationship but actually they only want to increase their bodycount o/have sex with the other person. This phenomenon is called "fuckboy". I once texted with a very naive Austrian woman that fell for such men on a regular basis. They use tactics like love bombing to reach their goal.

The woman with whom I had a date a while ago told me the following. (She emphasized that she is impressed that I am seemingly different). The men wanted to have sex with her to check whether the physical component fits between them. And she told me they all sounded like casual sex was their actual goal. Not to see whether a relationship works.
On dating apps it is common that women are confronted with such behavior. This has to do with the logic of dating apps. The top 1-10% of men get a ton of matches because they have outstanding profiles. And by having such a large pool of women they can do whatever they want because if they are ghosted or whatever they can go to the next.
This is probably simplified. But this sums up what women have told me about their dating app experiences. Bottom line: manipulation to get sex isn't uncommon.

There might be some gray areas, but if someone is manipulated without threats, coercion, extortion, or bribes, how would one differentiate that from normal communication?
Wouldn't that same manipulation be able to make someone say "yes" (or even sign a contract)?

Not sure. Probably depends in how we treat sex in general. For some people it is sacred. And extremely important only alllowed in marriage. Whereas there are people who have sex like it is a simply commodity or just for fun with many different partners. Considering sex can be more traumatizing than other interactions I think we have to consider the vulnerability. Actually, I find it pretty insane that many people pretend to be interested in a longterm relationship while actually being interested in casual sex. I judge something that like very harshly. Though, sex often involves seduction and games. That's probably the nature of it. There are a lot of ambivalances I have a hard time to understand all the nuances. I don't think one should break the heart of someone that lightly. But people say love and attraction is also part of the game.

Is it really interpreted like that, though?

In what scenario can you expose someone to stress levels so high that they'd freeze in shock, without breaking a law?
"Yes, I threatened her first, but she consented to..." I have a hard time seeing any modern legal system supporting that.

Maybe I was wrong in this instance. It seems to illegal to have sex with someone if it is obvious it is against the will of the other person. However, in practice men accused of misconduct often pretend that they interpreted the passivity as no objection. After a woman is raped it is adviced to underego a process where the injuries are confirmed. When someone freezes there are no injuries in most cases and one word against another's often ends in no punishment at all.

 

[Dejected 55]

This is tricky because there are lots of manipulative people out there and sometimes that's the only way to get anywhere in life. I'm not advocating or defending assaults of course. So, discounting the horribleness that many have suffered from unwanted abuse...

The trick of "explicit yes" is how would you define it? See, in my experience what I've learned is that if you ask for permission before a touch or before a kiss or whatever... women are turned off. I had a date with a woman many many years ago where I emailed her after the date to tell her I liked her and hoped to see her again. She responded that she thought I must not have liked her because I didn't try to touch or kiss her on that first date when we met for the first time as a blind date from a dating service. So, a woman I barely knew and had never met, was ready to instantly discount me because I did not try to kiss and touch her on that first date.

I've been consistently told that men are not supposed to ask before touching or ask before kissing. IF a woman wants you to touch her or kiss her, she will let you and you're just supposed to do it because asking kills the mood or whatever. Except... IF she doesn't want your touch or kiss, then you've basically assaulted her and she reacts strongly and you (the man) feel like shit unless you're an asshole... so what are you supposed to do?

Again, I'm not talking about forcing sex or assault here... I'm talking basic human contact and we get mixed signals every day on what we are supposed to do and there's almost never any way to be sure you have permission without asking, but if you ask many women will be turned off by the asking.

So, for me, that just translates to I do nothing and maybe have missed opportunities that I didn't know I missed because I err on the side of being a gentleman. I can't and won't change who I am in that regard, but it makes the whole "always get explicit yes" a tricky topic in my opinion.

No should mean no, and that's easy to process. But all too often you don't get an explicit, more of an implied "maybe" and you're expected to take a leap of faith and hope for the best and it can go sideways in a hurry. If you're an asshole abuser, then you don't give a shit because you were going to do what you wanted anyway... but if you're a decent human being you're kind of fucked either way.

 

[Seneca65AD]

I always thought it was fairly obvious if 2 parties (or more - who am I to judge), want to have sex. Enthusiasm, etc. Obviously "wait", "I don't think I'm ready", one partner pulling back, expressing hesitation, are all signs to slow down (i.e. stop) and get some clarification. I hope we are not at the point where each party has to sign an explicit consent form in front of a neutral witness and thereafter the witness must endorse an Affidavit of Execution in front of Notary.

In my experience, mixed signals are not usually that mixed. Of course me being older, the women I used to date were also older and they had no issues with clearly letting me know what was going to happen - or not happen. There was no guessing and that was so refreshing.

 

[DeathSweetDeath]

Tell her you won't do anything unless she asks you to, and then stick to that. Whatever she wants, she's got to actually tell you that she wants it or you won't do it. You can thank me later .