# Consent ... What about my feelings???



## EllisRedding

Based on the article below... First off, if this is what "consent" is supposed to look like, I am sure glad I am not dating anymore, but oh man are my kids in for it when they get older ...

The funny thing about this article, the author basically met a guy on Tinder and had sex with him on their first date. If you read further though, she goes on to mention how sex makes her feel unsafe b/c her partners often disappear afterwards. Well, you go on Tinder to meet guys to have sex with, what did you expect???

She then goes on to compare sex with strangers as a sacred act, no different than donating to charity or praying with strangers in church 

The reality, when it comes to consent (or the more relevant affirmative consent), it is about covering your ass (literally if you say no  ), plain and simple. However, the author wants consent to go beyond sex to genuine caring about the other person and their feelings... Kind of sounds like something you might actually expect from a relationship, not from a Tinder hookup.

The author is 6 years older than the tinder dude, yet it seems like he was the smart one here. He met someone on Tinder who wanted to have sex with him right away. He said all the right things to cover his behind, got what he wanted, and moved on ... The author should probably look more closely about why partners keep disappearing on her after sex, but hey, she is sexually liberated so its our culture that should change and not her...




> For our first date, he took an Uber to my apartment through a winter storm. As the snow fell outside, we sat close on my couch while he talked touchingly about poetry. Two hours in, I was hoping he would kiss me, and he did.
> 
> He was a sweet kisser. For an hour we sat with his hand cupped behind my ear, kissing and talking.
> 
> We had met on Tinder. I was nearly 30 and he was 24, but our age gap somehow seemed a lot larger than five years. Not because he acted especially young. It was more that when it came to sex and foreplay, he acted so differently from guys my age, asking for my consent about nearly everything.
> 
> “Is it O.K. if we go to the bedroom?” he said.
> 
> I smiled and led him there.
> 
> He tugged at the hem of my sweater and said, “Is it O.K. if I take this off?”
> 
> I nodded. Underneath I was wearing a thin tank top.
> 
> “Can I take this off, too?” he said.
> 
> I laughed. “Of course!”
> 
> Off it went.
> 
> He kissed my collarbone. I breathed into his neck and pulled off his shirt. He fingered the clasp of my bra.
> 
> “Is it O.K. if I take this off?” he said.
> 
> I think I snorted. “When you asked about the sweater, that was my yes from the waist up.”
> 
> He looked scared. Somewhere in our five-year age gap, a dramatic shift must have taken place in sexual training. I sensed this would be a different kind of hookup than I was used to, but I couldn’t predict how.
> 
> I lay down on my bed, and he lay beside me.
> 
> “Is this O.K.?” he said.
> 
> “I invited a guy from Tinder to my empty apartment on a snow day,” I said. “Let’s just assume you have blanket consent.”
> 
> “I’m not comfortable with that.”
> 
> I looked at his earnest eyes, hair flopping into his face, stubble that was already reddening my skin (I had already decided I didn’t mind). Hadn’t I already said yes several times? Wasn’t I lying there with him, my leg tossed over his, my whole body arcing toward him?
> 
> Then he raised my arm above my head, put his lips to the soft skin of my inner arm, and licked me from armpit to elbow.
> 
> I pulled my arm away.
> 
> “Is that O.K.?” he said. “Are you O.K.?”
> 
> I had been single and sexually active for more than a decade and considered myself to be sexually liberated, but I could not remember anyone having done that to me. “It’s just really intimate,” I said.
> 
> Now he was the one who laughed. “That’s intimate?” he said.
> 
> “Yes,” I said. “It is.”
> 
> He and I seemed to have such different understandings of which acts were assumed to be acceptable and which required voiced consent.
> 
> At one point, he put his hand on my throat and asked if the pressure was O.K.
> 
> “I’ll tell you if I die,” I joked.
> 
> At another point he kissed me from forehead to toe and said, “I think that’s everywhere.” And I almost told him that was unfair; he hadn’t asked my consent. Although I would say yes to all manner of sexual touching, that much sweetness had the power to break my heart.
> 
> At the end of the night, he said, “See you soon,” and took an Uber back to his apartment through the snow.
> 
> Afterward I sat in bed, thinking about the encounter. I knew I had been a little dismissive of all of his asking, but in fact I had liked it as a form of caretaking. I just wasn’t used to being taken care of in that way.
> 
> Sex makes me feel unsafe, not because of the act itself but because my partners so often disappear afterward, whether I waited hours or months before the first time. So it’s after sex when I feel truly vulnerable.
> 
> Yet something else about his asking also made me uneasy. It seemed legalistic and self-protective, imported more from the courtroom than from a true sense of caretaking. And each time he asked, it was as if he assumed I lacked the agency to say no on my own — as if he expected me to say no, not believing that a woman would have the desire to keep saying yes.
> 
> Still, I liked that he was trying to keep from hurting me unawares. He texted that night, reassuringly. I decided I would call his asking lovely. I decided I would try to learn.
> 
> The second time he was in my bedroom, he paused with his hand at the zipper of my dress. “Is this O.K.?” he said.
> 
> I looked him in the eye. I didn’t laugh. I said, “Yes.”
> 
> He unzipped it, and I slid on top of him, kissed him, started unbuckling his belt. His hips were arcing toward me, but I paused. Learn, I told myself. I said, “Is this O.K.?”
> 
> He was taken aback. “I ask you that,” he said.
> 
> “Why?”
> 
> “Because I’m the one who could make you do something you don’t want to do,” he said. “Not vice versa.”
> 
> This was likely true, physically speaking. He was a head taller than me and probably twice as strong. If he wanted to hold me down against my will, he could have.
> 
> But that wasn’t what he was trying to do. He and I were enjoying a mutually desired sexual experience, and by making that distinction he was importing the language of coercion and assault into sex that was healthy.
> 
> Given our wholly consensual interaction, did it matter who was stronger? Couldn’t we treat each other as two equal human beings, each of whom had invited and agreed to intimate acts? Wasn’t that the beautiful thing he was teaching me, that we could be fully human to each other, checking in, honoring yes and respecting no?
> 
> My hand hovered above his belt. Finally he smiled and said yes, and the evening continued.
> 
> If I could go back in time, I would have urged him in that moment to really think about why asking for consent even matters. Because the answer, I think, is basic: We want people we’re intimate with to feel good, not bad.
> 
> While he was waiting for his Uber to arrive, he said he would cook me dinner next time: steak with sautéed mushrooms and a fig-balsamic reduction.
> 
> “I mostly make scrambled eggs,” I said.
> 
> He laughed, kissed me and said, “See you soon.”
> 
> I did not see him soon. I texted him a few times in the days that followed, playfully at first, then more pressing. He ignored me.
> 
> At first I couldn’t believe he didn’t answer, and then I was devastated. My roommates didn’t understand why I was so much more hurt than usual.
> 
> “Because he kissed the soft part of my arm,” I said. “And then he disappeared.”
> 
> They looked at me blankly.
> 
> “Because he asked for my consent, over and over. So sex felt like a sacred act, and then he disappeared.”
> 
> “A sacred act?” one roommate said, laughing. “Girl, you sure don’t treat it like one.”
> 
> But I do. We perform sacred acts for, with and among strangers all the time. We give charitably to people we don’t know. We pray in churches with people we don’t know.
> 
> When he asked so many times about my desires, when he checked to be sure he was honoring and respecting me, then sex, however short-lived, became a reciprocal offering. But the moment we pulled on our jeans, that spell of reciprocal honor and respect was broken.
> 
> “Which is fine,” my roommate said.
> 
> And she was right, in a way. Asking about my feelings during sex didn’t extend to caring about them after sex. Consent is not a contract of continuation.
> 
> But in the days and weeks after, I was left thinking that our culture’s current approach to consent is too narrow. A culture of consent should be a culture of care for the other person, of seeing and honoring another’s humanity and finding ways to engage in sex while keeping our humanity intact. It should be a culture of making each other feel good, not bad.
> 
> And if that’s the goal, then consent doesn’t work if we relegate it exclusively to the sexual realm. Our bodies are only one part of the complex constellation of who we are. To base our culture of consent on the body alone is to expect that caretaking involves only the physical.
> 
> I wish we could view consent as something that’s less about caution and more about care for the other person, the entire person, both during an encounter and after, when we’re often at our most vulnerable.
> 
> Because I don’t think many of us would say yes to the question “Is it O.K. if I act like I care about you and then disappear?”


https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/...ked-permission-to-touch-but-not-to-ghost.html


----------



## minimalME

It just baffles me that this is a surprise to any woman. 

The last guy I dated (and others before him) would say similar things. They'd tell me that if I wanted sex, I'd need to make the first move, so I'd say 'okay' and then not do anything except kiss them.

I was even given a command a couple of times - 'Touch IT'. And I'd say, 'No - I told you I wasn't having sex with you.'

So, they'd eventually move on when they finally got that I meant what I said, and I really wasn't going to have sex with them anytime soon.

No mystery. No confusion. No feeling used and discarded.

I was seen as acceptably ****able, but nothing more. Their interest wasn't me - it was sex. And I gave them nothing.


----------



## personofinterest

This story isn't about consent. This is about a woman who doesn't know how Tindr works and who had unrealistic expectations.


----------



## minimalME

personofinterest said:


> This story isn't about consent. This is about a woman who doesn't know how Tindr works and who had unrealistic expectations.


Well that goes without saying. Unrealistic expectations are the standard at the moment - from both genders.


----------



## EllisRedding

personofinterest said:


> This story isn't about consent. This is about a woman who doesn't know how Tindr works and who had unrealistic expectations.


It is scary though how she somehow equates this all to consent, and really in her situation, throws it back further at the guys who need to go a step beyond. I am not really sure what she means by being "sexually liberated".

IDK, the whole dialogue she portrayed with that guy seems odd ...


----------



## minimalME

EllisRedding said:


> It is scary though how she somehow equates this all to consent, and really in her situation, throws it back further at the guys who need to go a step beyond. I am not really sure what she means by being "sexually liberated".
> 
> IDK, the whole dialogue she portrayed with that guy seems odd ...


This isn't really all that confusing, is it?

Women want to believe that they can behave like men and have sex with no limits and no consequences. They want to believe that there's no difference in a man being sexually liberated and a woman being sexually liberated. 

It's a fairy tale from sci-fi movies where everyone has sex with everyone else, and everyone feels free, and no one gets attached or gets their feeling hurt.

Unfortunately, our humanity is what's being taken out of the equation.


----------



## EllisRedding

minimalME said:


> This isn't really all that confusing, is it?
> 
> Women want to believe that they can behave like men and have sex with no limits and no consequences. They want to believe that there's no difference in a man being sexually liberated and a woman being sexually liberated.
> 
> It's a fairy tale from sci-fi movies where everyone has sex with everyone else, and everyone feels free, and no one gets attached or gets their feeling hurt.
> 
> Unfortunately, our humanity is what's being taken out of the equation.


Most sci fi shows I watch involve demons, shape shifters, vampires, etc... fairy tale sex is with actual fairies 

It is confusing (maybe confusing is not the right word) for someone such as the author to claim that sex is sacred, even with strangers, and then draw crazy comparisons ... expecting everyone else to view it the same way. She has convinced herself to act a certain way in order to fit the "sexually liberated" label, and those who don't feel the same way are the ones that need to change. 

Even more confusing, a news source such as the NY Times would even post such an article lol


----------



## minimalME

EllisRedding said:


> Most sci fi shows I watch involve demons, shape shifters, vampires, etc... fairy tale sex is with actual fairies
> 
> It is confusing (maybe confusing is not the right word) for someone such as the author to claim that sex is sacred, even with strangers, and then draw crazy comparisons ... expecting everyone else to view it the same way. She has convinced herself to act a certain way in order to fit the "sexually liberated" label, and those who don't feel the same way are the ones that need to change.
> 
> Even more confusing, a news source such as the NY Times would even post such an article lol


Watch Logan's Run or Star Trek.  I'm sure I can come up with others.

But I agree with you - sex with strangers isn't sacred. We put more effort into buying a car or a house than we do getting to know a new person.

The fact that she believes she's treating it as sacred is more along the line of fairy tale thinking, where it's all about a fictitious sort of love that doesn't really exist.

If allowed to, most men will use a woman for sex. Why women refuse to take this into consideration is beyond me. 

Men and women are not the same. They don't think of sex the same way. They don't bond the same way. 

It's as if women think that by saying it over and over and believing it enough, the reality about the differences between men and women will just not exist anymore.

Her whole mindset, from beginning to end, is based on a romantic fantasy. 

And regarding the NY Times - sorry to go off in a different direction, but I spent yesterday morning reading articles and watching videos about ethical photojournalism, and a good portion of what we're often given as 'true' and 'real' and 'authentic' by the well respected, simply isn't.


----------



## 2ntnuf

I think when she says sacred, she means in the context of a ceremony where certain things are said and done during. Before and after, life goes on as it always has. At issue is, she doesn't understand that much of what she lives or has experienced in the realm of truly considered sacred, is not supposed to start and stop with the ceremony. It is supposed to be a way of life. It's just that so many don't live that life, can't or don't know how and are continually allowed to perform or attend these sacred ceremonies, the meaning has been watered down to just a romantic, fantastic, fictional, other-worldly experience like a movie we are really into. Before and after... meh, whatever. 

She seems to want a romanticized life and she wants it to be a law or laws like consent. When that happens, I bet you'll be glad you bought stock in sex bots. lol


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Because I don’t think many of us would say yes to the question “Is it O.K. if I act like I care about you and then disappear?”
------

This girl if she exists is very naive. They met twice, screwed in her apartment both times, he screened her (overzealously) for consent and she equates that to caring? Why would he care? He doesn't even know you! He just didn't want to get 'metooed' and they both used each other for sex. He probably sensed crazy town and ghosted her.


----------



## Mr. Nail

She had n idea what sacred was. He had no idea what intimacy was. They contracted to use each other for sex. She misinterpreted careful for care. He failed to notice that an intimate bond had formed. Total Cluster. 

When I was that young we called it casual sex, which I didn't understand then anymore than I understand this. If you want it casual you need to keep your expectations Casual.


----------



## I shouldnthave

Yeah the author certainly has some interesting interpretations of how this stuff works.

Fro what she said, he didn't say anything to indicate he care about her as a person.... He cared that the sex was consented to. That's it. 

It comes down to communication. He did a good job communicating physical steps / boundaries.

What they didn't clearly communicate was the nature of the relationship - they should have talked clearly - this is sex, and just sex. Then perhaps she wouldn't have gone off the deep end when he ghosted her.... Which to us readers sounds part for the course.

She is all mixed up - asking before taking your pants off doesn't mean he cares much at all about your feelings, it means he wants consentual sex, nothing more.

I can be.... A bit more sexually agressive than many women. When I was young and single, it was common place for me to be the initiator and to escalate things.... It was before the me too movement - but even then, "checking in" always seemed lik the right, and honestly natural thing to do.

Start to slide hand down his pants - is this okay? I am going to get a condom, is that okay? Can't recall a laugh, but surely many smiles and "yes! of course that's okay". Honestly I found it nice to have both of our intentions verbalized and made perfectly clear.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Once again, this reminds me of a Law & Order SVU episode. 

This woman consented to sleeping with this man, but she seemed to think that was based on his interest which she expected to be more than it was... in essence, she consented to sleeping with a man who was committed to her, not one who wasn't. (for the moment we'll set aside the incredulity of expecting commitment out of a tinder hookup)

In the L&O SVU episode, a low level administrator at an exclusive school had been posing as a member of the admissions board and he was using that ruse to get moms to sleep with him by promising a favorable look at junior's application. Eventually he was discovered, and the good folks in law enforcement thought he should be tried for rape as these women had not consented to sleep with a mere clerk. Of course there were lots of twists, as the women themselves could be accused of prostitution (trading sex for something of value, i.e. college admission), whether the man had committed something that could be called rape, or mere fraud, and of course, the very definition of "consent" itself was put to the test. 

It was all quite a stretch, but it seemed like a rather interesting thought exercise.


----------



## EllisRedding

I shouldnthave said:


> What they didn't clearly communicate was the nature of the relationship - they should have talked clearly - this is sex, and just sex. Then perhaps she wouldn't have gone off the deep end when he ghosted her.... Which to us readers sounds part for the course.


See, I don't think there was an issue with communication, at least on his part. They met on Tinder, which really is nothing more than an App for people looking to get laid. If either were looking for an actual relationship, there are much more appropriate dating apps out there. She invited him over to her place with the purpose of having sex. They had sex, he eventually moved on, case closed. He doesn't owe her anything more, nor does she owe him anything more. I would say, assuming this whole story she wrote is true, she needs to clearly rethink her whole "sexual liberation". She even stated that her partners often disappear, which means she should take a closer look at herself instead of expecting others to change.


----------



## Rowan

EllisRedding said:


> See, I don't think there was an issue with communication, at least on his part. They met on Tinder, which really is nothing more than an App for people looking to get laid. If either were looking for an actual relationship, there are much more appropriate dating apps out there. She invited him over to her place with the purpose of having sex. They had sex, he eventually moved on, case closed. He doesn't owe her anything more, nor does she owe him anything more. I would say, assuming this whole story she wrote is true, she needs to clearly rethink her whole "sexual liberation". She even stated that her partners often disappear, *which means she should take a closer look at herself instead of expecting others to change*.


But that's not how many, especially younger, people in our society think the world works. Many believe that if something offends you, that something should be changed. If someone says something you disagree with, then they're wrong and they should change. If you dislike someone's political or sexual or moral views, then they need to change to be more in compliance with your comfort. The entire foundation of recent moves toward safe spaces on college campuses is predicated on the belief that anything you disagree with is automatically offensive, even dangerous, to you and your personhood. And things that are offensive in that way should not be allowed to exist. 

Sadly, far too many people today actually believe that to be true. Because feelings are given the same weight, often more weight, than reality based rational thought, civil discourse, or even provable facts in general. My guess is that you would have a rather hard time convincing someone like the author that it is she who might need to change her viewpoint. I suspect she would be offended at the concept. And that she fully believes she is entitled to not just her beliefs, but to having other people cater to and change around those beliefs.


----------



## Deejo

I'd argue that the concept of consent is simply not the same 'ecosystem' for college age young adults hooking up, contrasted with post divorce 40 and 50 somethings.

When I was dating, I _did_ ask for consent ... but I also already knew damn well what the answer was going to be.

Flat out had women laugh and say, "You don't have to ask." I was even told that asking kills the mood.

All I got out of that article is a young female who is giving voice to her struggling with the concept of sex and intimacy. She wouldn't have felt short-changed if he DIDN'T ask for consent, but he did ... which ticked a few items in her thought box adding value to how she felt about this particular individual. It was still a hook up ... he didn't stay.

If you are drunken bumbling 20 something, and the object of your affection is a drunken bumbling 20 something, the whole scenario and accompanying emotions she lays out is entirely moot.


----------



## Girl_power

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Because I don’t think many of us would say yes to the question “Is it O.K. if I act like I care about you and then disappear?”
> 
> ------
> 
> 
> 
> This girl if she exists is very naive. They met twice, screwed in her apartment both times, he screened her (overzealously) for consent and she equates that to caring? Why would he care? He doesn't even know you! He just didn't want to get 'metooed' and they both used each other for sex. He probably sensed crazy town and ghosted her.




Sometimes it’s hard to think beyond how you think. In my head, if a guy just wants sex he acts in a way that he just wants sex. But some guys who just want sex surprise us because they ARE caring, and gentle, and sweet, and more romantic or intimate than we believe they need to be to just have get sex. So it throws us off and we think wow he really cares about me. Also we are fed romance, love at first sight stuff since we are born. Also for example there were many people on tam who said they had sex on the first date then married them. So I don’t think she is naive. I think she is a women being a women and thinking like a women, and men don’t get that. Just like it’s hard for women to understand that men will do and say anything just to get some.


----------



## Girl_power

Mr. Nail said:


> She had n idea what sacred was. He had no idea what intimacy was. They contracted to use each other for sex. She misinterpreted careful for care. He failed to notice that an intimate bond had formed. Total Cluster.
> 
> 
> 
> When I was that young we called it casual sex, which I didn't understand then anymore than I understand this. If you want it casual you need to keep your expectations Casual.




And I would argue that you should keep your technique and sex/relationship casual. I know sometimes I just want casual sex and the guy is like kissing me so intimately and like making love to me like I’m the love of his life. It’s like whoa too much tone it down. Like slap my ass and talk dirty to me, don’t softly kiss me and play with my hair while looking into my eyes. It sends the wrong signal.


----------



## Girl_power

I enjoyed the article and I totally get where she is coming from. She put herself in this vulnerable situation, and she let her emotions get the best of her which isn’t a crime people and it happens. Maybe she’s naïve, but she’s honest. She is not blaming anyone. 
The problem imo is that he was too intimate, and personal, and sweet and it made it seem like it was more than just sex. If it’s just sex, then have sex. Don’t be cutesy and romantic and sweet, THAT sends the wrong signals.


----------



## personofinterest

Girl_power said:


> I enjoyed the article and I totally get where she is coming from. She put herself in this vulnerable situation, and she let her emotions get the best of her which isn’t a crime people and it happens. Maybe she’s naïve, but she’s honest. She is not blaming anyone.
> The problem imo is that he was too intimate, and personal, and sweet and it made it seem like it was more than just sex. If it’s just sex, then have sex. Don’t be cutesy and romantic and sweet, THAT sends the wrong signals.


We already expect men to read minds, know whether we're interested, ask for consent repeatedly "but don't make it weird," and read ever changing body language. Now they are supposed to know which kiss or touch each girl we think is too intimate.

This is ridiculous.

We expect consent. He got consent. The writer of the article is whining.

I'm so glad I'm not a man in 2018!


----------



## Broken at 20

If it wasn't the fact the ages are slightly off, I would almost think this author was writing about me. 

My biggest question though is what does she want!? 

After navigating the murky waters of consent without killing the mood, how am I expected to know what to do so I won't send the wrong message? 
The sex I enjoy the most is generally intimate, much like what it sounds our author got. If something else is requested I'll change, otherwise it's my go-to style. Because of its intimacy, does that mean I'm unintentionally sending certain messages? That would actually explain quite a lot...

So should guys have sex in ways that make it really obvious how we feel about the partner? A 'I am only interested in the sex' style, then a 'I might be interested in seeing where this goes?'


----------



## personofinterest

Broken at 20 said:


> If it wasn't the fact the ages are slightly off, I would almost think this author was writing about me.
> 
> My biggest question though is what does she want!?
> 
> After navigating the murky waters of consent without killing the mood, how am I expected to know what to do so I won't send the wrong message?
> The sex I enjoy the most is generally intimate, much like what it sounds our author got. If something else is requested I'll change, otherwise it's my go-to style. Because of its intimacy, does that mean I'm unintentionally sending certain messages? That would actually explain quite a lot...
> 
> So should guys have sex in ways that make it really obvious how we feel about the partner? A 'I am only interested in the sex' style, then a 'I might be interested in seeing where this goes?'


Exactly. This author and her sentiments are RIDICULOUS


----------



## SpinyNorman

She was disappointed it didn't mean to him what it meant to her, that has been happening to both genders since long before any of us were around. Most of us have some expectaion about implications in this regard, hers were different from his. This has been happening about as long. The author didn't publicly accuse the guy of anything that would ruin his reputation or get him locked up, she just wrote an article about how she thinks people ought to treat the subject, so I don't see any harm in it.

Maybe the guy's asking for consent was just about staying out of jail, maybe he really cared about not crossing any lines that would upset her.


----------



## SpinyNorman

Deejo said:


> I'd argue that the concept of consent is simply not the same 'ecosystem' for college age young adults hooking up,


I get the feeling 50 or so years ago women were expected to appear reluctant/say no initially and let the man wear them down, or else they were considered tramps. This was bad in that some women who really didn't want to have sex were mistaken for ones who were playing the part nicely.


----------



## Girl_power

personofinterest said:


> We already expect men to read minds, know whether we're interested, ask for consent repeatedly "but don't make it weird," and read ever changing body language. Now they are supposed to know which kiss or touch each girl we think is too intimate.
> 
> This is ridiculous.
> 
> We expect consent. He got consent. The writer of the article is whining.
> 
> I'm so glad I'm not a man in 2018!




She’s writing an article on her point of view with her genuine emotions. Emotions aren’t right or wrong.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Girl_power said:


> Sometimes it’s hard to think beyond how you think. In my head, if a guy just wants sex he acts in a way that he just wants sex. But some guys who just want sex surprise us because they ARE caring, and gentle, and sweet, and more romantic or intimate than we believe they need to be to just have get sex. So it throws us off and we think wow he really cares about me. Also we are fed romance, love at first sight stuff since we are born. Also for example there were many people on tam who said they had sex on the first date then married them. So I don’t think she is naive. I think she is a women being a women and thinking like a women, and men don’t get that. Just like it’s hard for women to understand that men will do and say anything just to get some.


The article wasn't about a man saying or doing anything to get some. 'OK if I do this? OK if I do that?' Sounds about as romantic as a Doctors Office checkup. Why would you confuse that for feelings? 

Only thing I'd recommend is if you get attached during sex and don't want to get feelings hurt, best to stay out of the sack long enough to get to know someone. I would never have a serious relationship with someone I had sex with on a first date, but some will. Its really hit or miss. The guy has zero emotional investment at that point, so I'd hazard to guess most will simply move on. Afterall, he already got sex. Not much mystery left.


----------



## happiness27

I just think that either person needs to be able to say yes or no whenever at whatever point they want.

As for Tinder, one-night-stands, swingers and random hookups, this is why I'm not into those scenarios. Anyone going into any of them should expect things not to be the same as a loving, caring monogamous relationship. Longterm monogamous relationships aren't perfect but they involve commitment through the ups and downs - not just walking out the door at the first sign of a glitch.

Yeah, a whole bunch of people have feelings. Go figure.


----------



## Buddy400

I didn't get the feeling that she thought that 'consent' should include a requirement that sex include a commitment.

I read it more as her pointing out that affirmative consent was kind of useless because it can't solve the most important problem.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Deejo said:


> I'd argue that the concept of consent is simply not the same 'ecosystem' for college age young adults hooking up, contrasted with post divorce 40 and 50 somethings.
> 
> When I was dating, I _did_ ask for consent ... but I also already knew damn well what the answer was going to be.
> 
> Flat out had women laugh and say, "You don't have to ask." I was even told that asking kills the mood.
> 
> All I got out of that article is a young female who is giving voice to her struggling with the concept of sex and intimacy. She wouldn't have felt short-changed if he DIDN'T ask for consent, but he did ... which ticked a few items in her thought box adding value to how she felt about this particular individual. It was still a hook up ... he didn't stay.
> 
> If you are drunken bumbling 20 something, and the object of your affection is a drunken bumbling 20 something, the whole scenario and accompanying emotions she lays out is entirely moot.


But the both bumbling 20yos, - in today's society perhaps more than in times past, there's an increased risk the young girl may change her mind the next morning and cry foul?

I believe this has been gone over ad-nauseam but as I read this post it reared its head again in my mind.

Nevermind.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11

Buddy400 said:


> I didn't get the feeling that she thought that 'consent' should include a requirement that sex include a commitment.
> 
> I read it more as her pointing out that affirmative consent was kind of useless because it can't solve the most important problem.


_Because I don’t think many of us would say yes to the question “Is it O.K. if I act like I care about you and then disappear?”
_

She is equating asking for affirmative consent with caring for someone...when its far more likely he was using it to avoid any ambiguity that might land his ass in the slammer the next morning. I guess this is what young men are taught these days.

I guess he could have went more old school, ripped her clothes off, threw her on the bed and left some cabfare on the nightstand to let her know that it was a casual hookup.

To each their own I guess.


----------



## Deejo

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> But the both bumbling 20yos, - in today's society perhaps more than in times past, there's an increased risk the young girl may change her mind the next morning and cry foul?
> 
> I believe this has been gone over ad-nauseam but as I read this post it reared its head again in my mind.
> 
> Nevermind.


Well yeah ... but that circumstance could occur regardless, even with enthusiastic consent granted at the time, when booze is a factor.

I presume that folks aren't naive to the scenario you describe. It is no doubt, very real. But of course, so is the frightening circumstance of young women finding themselves in, and subject to, non-consenting sexual encounters precipitated by overzealous, or predatory men.

The below is a pretty recent story that I think sums up how an encounter can either go south, or be completely misunderstood. 

Aziz Ansari and the Paradox of ‘No’


----------



## Broken at 20

> I guess he could have went more old school, ripped her clothes off, threw her on the bed and left some cabfare on the nightstand to let her know that it was a casual hookup.


OOOHHH

That's what I've been doing wrong...

So is the modern version of this is to have an Uber ready for her? 

But then I can't impress the pretty girls with my cooking skills in the morning. 

Can't win no matter what I do.


----------



## Deejo

Broken at 20 said:


> OOOHHH
> 
> That's what I've been doing wrong...
> 
> So is the modern version of this is to have an Uber ready for her?
> 
> But then I can't impress the pretty girls with my cooking skills in the morning.
> 
> Can't win no matter what I do.


No, no, you actually use your cooking skills as an avenue for setting the expectation and being granted consent.

"Would you prefer eggs florentine, or pork belly and shallot frittata in the morning?"


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson

Deejo said:


> Well yeah ... but that circumstance could occur regardless, even with enthusiastic consent granted at the time, when booze is a factor.
> 
> I presume that folks aren't naive to the scenario you describe. It is no doubt, very real. But of course, so is the frightening circumstance of young women finding themselves in, and subject to, non-consenting sexual encounters precipitated by overzealous, or predatory men.
> 
> The below is a pretty recent story that I think sums up how an encounter can either go south, or be completely misunderstood.
> 
> Aziz Ansari and the Paradox of ‘No’


No doubt. 

But remember, here, it's already a given that no obvious rape/forced participation is approved/given a pass, in this thread. That's again been reiterated ad-nauseam in this thread.

The topic is how to educate participants where there are both no false accusations AND no rapes/forced participants, with clear/respected approvals or no approvals regarding an encounter moving into a sexual encounter. 

That is the subject young Jedi.


----------



## Deejo

Indeed.

My point is that the rules of engagement are quite obviously fuzzy to both participants in the equation, and subject to change without notice, especially in the case of lack of standing rapport, or more simply, having a history of knowing one another for a matter of hours, rather than setting the groundwork over a number of phone calls and dates.

In general, I believe most men who already have a few relationships under their belt no very good and well what consent is without having to verbalize the question. And women often give their consent without ever verbalizing 'yes'.


----------



## Deejo

So, how many women participants here can say they would actually prefer to be asked, and in turn provide enthusiastic consent, when in the


----------



## minimalME

Deejo said:


> So, how many women participants here can say they would actually prefer to be asked, and in turn provide enthusiastic consent, when in the


Well, that depends.

If you're a stranger, and I'm casually dating you, I don't need to be asked, because I won't be having sex with you. I'm direct about this, yet boundaries are pushed.

In a significant relationship, no I don't want to be asked. Just take. But even that will have been communicated clearly during discussions prior to commitment and prior to sex.


----------



## EllisRedding

Deejo said:


> So, how many women participants here can say they would actually prefer to be asked, and in turn provide enthusiastic consent, when in the


I would actually amend your question though. The point with the OPs article, the guy literally asked for consent over just about every little thing.


----------



## heartsbeating

...speaking of poetry...


To The ***** Who Took My Poems
some say we should keep personal remorse from the 
poem,
stay abstract, and there is some reason in this,
but jezus;
twelve poems gone and I don't keep carbons and you have
my
paintings too, my best ones; its stifling:
are you trying to crush me out like the rest of them?
why didn't you take my money? they usually do
from the sleeping drunken pants sick in the corner.
next time take my left arm or a fifty
but not my poems:
I'm not Shakespeare
but sometime simply
there won't be any more, abstract or otherwise; 
there'll always be money and *****s and drunkards
down to the last bomb,
but as God said,
crossing his legs,
I see where I have made plenty of poets
but not so very much
poetry.

—Charles Bukowski


----------



## ConanHub

EllisRedding said:


> I would actually amend your question though. The point with the OPs article, the guy literally asked for consent over just about every little thing.


I love Nacho!!! Just sayin...

:grin2:


----------



## EllisRedding

ConanHub said:


> I love Nacho!!! Just sayin...
> 
> :grin2:


----------



## Deejo

EllisRedding said:


> I would actually amend your question though. The point with the OPs article, the guy literally asked for consent over just about every little thing.


I actually believe the guy was full on, running a script. His requests for consent were strategic, not practical, and given the author's response; it worked.


----------



## minimalME

Deejo said:


> I actually believe the guy was full on, running a script. His requests for consent were strategic, not practical, and given the author's response; it worked.


What worked?

She was going to have sex with him regardless.


----------



## EllisRedding

Deejo said:


> I actually believe the guy was full on, running a script. His requests for consent were strategic, not practical, and given the author's response; it worked.


Well, I think part of why I started this thread, having not been in the dating world for decades (actually, I have probably never been on a date per se lol), is whether or not this line of "consent questioning" was now becoming the norm.



minimalME said:


> What worked?
> 
> She was going to have sex with him regardless.


Yup, she said several times she gave him the green light early on.


----------



## personofinterest

Basically he practiced "affirmative consent," and he's still the bad guy.

Surprise surprise lol


----------



## Deejo

EllisRedding said:


> Well, I think part of why I started this thread, having not been in the dating world for decades (actually, I have probably never been on a date per se lol), is whether or not this line of "consent questioning" was now becoming the norm.
> 
> 
> 
> Yup, she said several times she gave him the green light early on.



Plainly stated, I have no issue with demonstrating behavior, that influences the interaction without anyone being harmed as a result. Yes, she was going to have sex with him anyway, but his _behavior_ in seeking consent made him distinctively different from other interactions she had experienced, and importantly, _more attracted to him_. It heightened her experience and evaluation of the entire exchange, wouldn't you agree?

I wouldn't say it's the norm. It's situational, as I tried to highlight in some of my earlier posts. I sought consent when it was rather apparent to me that the woman would acknowledge, or appreciate it. In the case where I was with a woman who has already thrown me on the bed and is removing my clothes without ever so much as saying a word ... I'm also a big supporter of non-verbal communication.



EllisRedding said:


> The author is 6 years older than the tinder dude,* yet it seems like he was the smart one here. He met someone on Tinder who wanted to have sex with him right away. He said all the right things to cover his behind, got what he wanted, and moved on ...* The author should probably look more closely about why partners keep disappearing on her after sex, but hey, she is sexually liberated so its our culture that should change and not her...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/07/...ked-permission-to-touch-but-not-to-ghost.html


You are absolutely correct.


----------



## Deejo

personofinterest said:


> Basically he practiced "affirmative consent," and he's still the bad guy.
> 
> Surprise surprise lol


Not in my eyes. Makes him the 'smart guy'.

I'll bottom line it from my perspective. This guy approached this entire scenario with confidence ... he wasn't asking for consent because he was unsure or coy. He knew damn well she wanted to have sex with him. He did so either out of his own personal belief that it is respectful, and makes the expectations very clear, or he had previously found that such behavior was received favorably, and reflected favorably on him with other partners.


----------



## minimalME

Deejo said:


> Yes, she was going to have sex with him anyway, but his _behavior_ in seeking consent made him distinctively different from other interactions she had experienced, and importantly, _more attracted to him_. It heightened her experience and evaluation of the entire exchange, wouldn't you agree?


This totally might have been the case for her, but asking once is sufficient. Asking over and over again is unsettling, and actually would've produced the opposed effect - for me.


----------



## Deejo

minimalME said:


> This totally might have been the case for her, but asking once is sufficient. Asking over and over again is unsettling, and actually would've produced the opposed effect - for me.


I see it as flirting, minimalME. He was almost teasing her. I can certainly recognize reading it in print as she outlines can look redundant or creepy. I just see it as part of the game they were playing, and both obviously enjoyed.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

minimalME said:


> This totally might have been the case for her, but asking once is sufficient. Asking over and over again is unsettling, and actually would've produced the opposed effect - for me.


I'm not saying you are wrong but look at what we are taught. A woman can take back consent at any time and that should be respected. Why can't he reaffirm consent at any time? To be turned off by that seems like you don't respect his ability to empathize with the crap many women have had to deal with. There are still things about some women that I just don't understand but I am open to learning. Teach me.


----------



## minimalME

Deejo said:


> I see it as flirting, minimalME. He was almost teasing her. I can certainly recognize reading it in print as she outlines can look redundant or creepy. I just see it as part of the game they were playing, and both obviously enjoyed.


Ah - true! I can see what you're saying. I didn't even consider that.


----------



## EllisRedding

Deejo said:


> Plainly stated, I have no issue with demonstrating behavior, that influences the interaction without anyone being harmed as a result. Yes, she was going to have sex with him anyway, but his _behavior_ in seeking consent made him distinctively different from other interactions she had experienced, and importantly, _more attracted to him_. It heightened her experience and evaluation of the entire exchange, wouldn't you agree?


See, but that is why when I responded to one of your last posts I felt the question about women liking enthusiastic consent really should be amended to cover more of how this guy approached. As you can see below from @minimalME , there is already one female who would find this a turn off having permission asked for every single action. I agree that universally every woman is going to say that yes, they do want consent. The question though, is this "over the top / affirmative" consent necessary, or something that more women (aside from the author) want to see or expect.



minimalME said:


> This totally might have been the case for her, but asking once is sufficient. Asking over and over again is unsettling, and actually would've produced the opposed effect - for me.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EllisRedding said:


> See, but that is why when I responded to one of your last posts I felt the question about women liking enthusiastic consent really should be amended to cover more of how this guy approached. As you can see below from @minimalME , there is already one female who would find this a turn off having permission asked for every single action. I agree that universally every woman is going to say that yes, they do want consent. The question though, is this "over the top / affirmative" consent necessary, or something that more women (aside from the author) want to see or expect.


Who cares as long as one gets it right with the woman they are with?


----------



## personofinterest

Deejo said:


> Not in my eyes. Makes him the 'smart guy'.
> 
> I'll bottom line it from my perspective. This guy approached this entire scenario with confidence ... he wasn't asking for consent because he was unsure or coy. He knew damn well she wanted to have sex with him. He did so either out of his own personal belief that it is respectful, and makes the expectations very clear, or he had previously found that such behavior was received favorably, and reflected favorably on him with other partners.


That's not what I meant. I meant, here is a woman who is no doubt part of the new, modern feminist movement - the segment of females who suspect all men could be rapists and push for affirmative consent on all campuses, etc. Because affirmative consent will solve everything.

This man practiced affirmative consent.

Yet she still manages to paint him as a bad guy because he didn't have the right "feelings", or he made her feel, or some such nonsense.

It's both predictable and laughable.


----------



## EllisRedding

NobodySpecial said:


> Who cares as long as one gets it right with the woman they are with?


Well, glad to hear you don't. The question is do other women, especially if this becomes more of the expectation.


----------



## minimalME

PigglyWiggly said:


> I'm not saying you are wrong but look at what we are taught. A woman can take back consent at any time and that should be respected. Why can't he reaffirm consent at any time? To be turned off by that seems like you don't respect his ability to empathize with the crap many women have had to deal with. There are still things about some women that I just don't understand but I am open to learning. Teach me.


Well, in this day and age, my perspective on things is a little different than some (most?) women.

As I've taught my daughters, you _are_ responsible for what you wear, and what you drink, and where you go, and who you're with. I don't believe that women can do whatever they want and men are to behave like white knights. I don't think that's realistic at all. 

Of course - any man has the freedom to set whatever parameters he chooses, anytime he wants. And I'm free to walk away if they make me uncomfortable. Just like he's free to walk away if he wants sex within whatever absurd timeline he's established, and I refuse to give it to him.

And, in a way, you're right. My empathy is limited, because I think the hookup culture is ridiculous.

Most of the problems that we're dealing with right now are rooted in a consumer mindset where people feel the freedom to use and discard one another.

_Strangers_ are meeting up and expecting 'instant'. Instant chemistry, instant rapport, instant sex, instant love, instant commitment.

This isn't the way that I personally do things. I get to know someone first. What this means is that I talk _a lot_ about sex waayyy before it actually happens. And even then, there are absolutely no guarantees as to how someone will behave.

So, for all those willing to engage in casual encounters with people they don't know _at all_, well, I guess they'll sort it out in whichever way works for them. On an individual level, it's not my problem.


----------



## Deejo

This goes back to my distinction between dating in your 20's versus dating after divorce. Generally ... my experience was that there were women who if dating, was going to be plenty of adult conversation about relationships, boundaries, and sex, prior to finding yourselves naked with one another.

That just isn't remotely the same thing if you are hooking up on Tinder.

I genuinely don't think either side fully understands the rules of engagement.

Despite all of the talk about consent, most men and women simply do not have the tools to eloquently demonstrate that level of awareness. 

If you are a young guy on Tinder, I'm assuming, that they are assuming ... that their female peers are going to make it known if they are looking for partners or casual encounters. And regardless ... they are still going to try to have sex with them. 

I know MY rules worked for me, and I operated under a fundamental prospect of, 'do no harm'.


----------



## PigglyWiggly

minimalME said:


> Well, in this day and age, my perspective on things is a little different than some (most?) women.
> 
> As I've taught my daughters, you _are_ responsible for what you wear, and what you drink, and where you go, and who you're with. I don't believe that women can do whatever they want and men are to behave like white knights. I don't think that's realistic at all.
> 
> Of course - any man has the freedom to set whatever parameters he chooses, anytime he wants. And I'm free to walk away if it makes me uncomfortable. Just like he's free to walk away if he wants sex within whatever absurd timeline he's established, and I refuse to give it to him.
> 
> And, in a way, you're right. My empathy is limited, because I think the hook up culture is ridiculous.
> 
> Most of the problems that we're dealing with right now are rooted in a consumer mindset where people feel the freedom to use and discard one another.
> 
> _Strangers_ are meeting up and expecting 'instant'. Instant chemistry, instant rapport, instant sex, instant love, instant commitment.
> 
> This isn't the way that I personally do things. I get to know someone first. What this means is that I talk _a lot_ about sex waayyy before it actually happens. And even then, there are absolutely no guarantees as to how someone will behave.
> 
> So, for all those willing to engage in casual encounters with people they don't know _at all_, well, I guess they'll sort it out in whichever way works for them. On an individual level, it's not my problem.


Thank you for taking the time to explain your perspective.


----------



## personofinterest

PigglyWiggly said:


> I'm not saying you are wrong but look at what we are taught. A woman can take back consent at any time and that should be respected. Why can't he reaffirm consent at any time? To be turned off by that seems like you don't respect his ability to empathize with the crap many women have had to deal with. There are still things about some women that I just don't understand but I am open to learning. Teach me.


Exactly. I mean, if we are saying a man can have his penis 1/2 inch inside the woman and she has the right to scream stop, take out a stopwatch, and call him a rapist if his retreat isn't fast enough (okay that is a bit hyperbolic.....or maybe not), then if I were a man, I'd set a timer for every 60 seconds to ask just to make sure.

Wow, what a marvelous solution!


----------



## EllisRedding

personofinterest said:


> Exactly. I mean, if we are saying a man can have his penis 1/2 inch inside the woman and she has the right to scream stop, take out a stopwatch, and call him a rapist if his retreat isn't fast enough (okay that is a bit hyperbolic.....or maybe not), then if I were a man, I'd set a timer for every 60 seconds to ask just to make sure.
> 
> Wow, what a marvelous solution!


I think I am going to create an app. You enter in your fingerprint (or maybe other bodypart :moon: ) as well as your partners before any hanky panky starts. Once you hit "Go" every 60 seconds an alarm goes off, and each person must scan in their fingerprint to shut off, thereby giving their consent for the next 60 seconds of pleasure. Rinse and repeat


----------



## NobodySpecial

EllisRedding said:


> Well, glad to hear you don't. The question is do other women, especially if this becomes more of the expectation.


The point is, this, as well as your response to Deejo above, indicate that you view "women" as some kind of hive minded thing. You even presume what kind of woman she is. She is ... shoot I can't remember what you called her, something like a new fangled feminist who wants to make college campuses hell (sarcasm mine). Women aren't that. Affirmative consent is not something that All Women Everywhere Demand. It is a proposal for changing the dialog in a rape culture. When it comes to dating, there is not one grand expectation.


----------



## personofinterest

minimalME said:


> Well, in this day and age, my perspective on things is a little different than some (most?) women.
> 
> As I've taught my daughters, you _are_ responsible for what you wear, and what you drink, and where you go, and who you're with. I don't believe that women can do whatever they want and men are to behave like white knights. I don't think that's realistic at all.
> 
> Of course - any man has the freedom to set whatever parameters he chooses, anytime he wants. And I'm free to walk away if they make me uncomfortable. Just like he's free to walk away if he wants sex within whatever absurd timeline he's established, and I refuse to give it to him.
> 
> And, in a way, you're right. My empathy is limited, because I think the hook up culture is ridiculous.
> 
> Most of the problems that we're dealing with right now are rooted in a consumer mindset where people feel the freedom to use and discard one another.
> 
> _Strangers_ are meeting up and expecting 'instant'. Instant chemistry, instant rapport, instant sex, instant love, instant commitment.
> 
> This isn't the way that I personally do things. I get to know someone first. What this means is that I talk _a lot_ about sex waayyy before it actually happens. And even then, there are absolutely no guarantees as to how someone will behave.
> 
> So, for all those willing to engage in casual encounters with people they don't know _at all_, well, I guess they'll sort it out in whichever way works for them. On an individual level, it's not my problem.



This is amazing. I love everything about this post.


----------



## EllisRedding

NobodySpecial said:


> The point is, this, as well as your response to Deejo above, indicate that you view "women" as some kind of hive minded thing. You even presume what kind of woman she is. She is ... shoot I can't remember what you called her, something like a new fangled feminist who wants to make college campuses hell (sarcasm mine). Women aren't that. Affirmative consent is not something that All Women Everywhere Demand. It is a proposal for changing the dialog in a rape culture. When it comes to dating, there is not one grand expectation.


Lol, serious, whatever stuff you are taking I want some of... I never said anything about her regarding feminism or college campuses here. These conversations are usually more useful when you don't make crap up ...

Likewise, nowhere did I indicate that women have a hive mind lol. I asked a question about whether or not this level of affirmative consent would be viewed as a positive (or I guess is somehow asking a question now an indication that everyone must have the same answer).

Seriously, whatever you are smoking, pls share.


----------



## NobodySpecial

EllisRedding said:


> Lol, serious, whatever stuff you are taking I want some of... I never said anything about her regarding feminism or college campuses here. These conversations are usually more useful when you don't make crap up ...


I was paraphrasing. What you said was:

"here is a woman who is no doubt part of the new, modern feminist movement - the segment of females who suspect all men could be rapists and push for affirmative consent on all campuses, etc. Because affirmative consent will solve everything."




> Likewise,* nowhere did I indicate that women have a hive mind lol*. I asked a question about whether or not this level of affirmative consent *would be viewed as a positive *_(or I guess is somehow asking a question now an indication that everyone must have the same answer)_.


Oh, ok. For my part, I can't say how it would be viewed absent an actual interaction with the human being in question.


----------



## EllisRedding

NobodySpecial said:


> I was paraphrasing. What you said was:
> 
> "here is a woman who is no doubt part of the new, modern feminist movement - the segment of females who suspect all men could be rapists and push for affirmative consent on all campuses, etc. Because affirmative consent will solve everything."


Kindly link to where i said this. I don't see anywhere in this thread this dialogue...


----------



## personofinterest

EllisRedding said:


> Kindly link to where i said this. I don't see anywhere in this thread this dialogue...


I was the one who actually said that, and I stand by it.


----------



## EllisRedding

personofinterest said:


> I was the one who actually said that, and I stand by it.


Haha, no problem, I know it was you  Like I said, she must be smoking some magical stuff ...


----------



## NobodySpecial

EllisRedding said:


> Haha, no problem, I know it was you  Like I said, she must be smoking some magical stuff ...


Quote fail. My bad.


----------



## minimalME

personofinterest said:


> This is amazing. I love everything about this post.


Gosh. Thank you so much!


----------



## red oak

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> . I guess this is what young men are taught these days.


For some men I believe it to be true. A young man from out of town was at a local business, could tell he was in a hurry, and asked woman behind the counter if their happened to be a salesman for the floor. 

He started apologizing to the point of groveling, saying he hoped he didn't offend her, and that he meant "sales person." Please pardon me, I am so sorry." Etc. The one he asked had to reassure him several times it was okay.

I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it with myself.


----------

