If you don’t get an enthusiastic consent, this person is not ready for sexual activity with you. Whether that be because they aren’t ready for sexual activity with you, or they are not emotionally mature enough to know not to play hard to get games. Our society may have taught them that playing hard to get is appropriate or even important - if not their parents then look to basically every rom com ever made 🙄, but it’s 2023 and a half now and it’s past time for our culture to grow up. Playing hard to get, saying no when you really want to say yes is not appropriate. The correct response to this behavior is to not engage with this person.
I would question if the commenter here talking about the numbers of women he has met engaging in these behaviors is being fully honest. If yes, Expect better of your potential partners.
Here’s a song that’ll help https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cu4zAwNMZql/?igshid=MTc4MmM1YmI2Ng==
I mean the guide is helpful for someone who views this all in theory but in real life consent is slippery and intangible. It’s own can of worms once dig into it
Many women take certain joy from playing hard to get and then get very offended they’re left alone. They’ll blame the guy for being not passionate enough, not decisive enough etc. Even more confusingly they might decided and straight up lie about consent in the past basically creating blackmail (criminal charge) out of thin air.
For both parties such bad agents erode the value of consent but in my experience it’s quite common. Not because of ill intend but simply because it’s fun for the girl.
Moreover, asking for consent from a person who’s not ready to engage in the whole consent game is confusing to both parties.
In live in a society where so much stuff relies on people not giving explicit consent it’s baffling when audio player asks you “would you like to listen the next track after this one?”. In my experience, for the people not introduced to consent, asking for one looks like some special kink or disorder.
Also if you take consent as a serious issue then it’s a show stopper for shy and introverted people. They are simply not be confident enough to engage with consent even if they want to. Should they be left alone or is there any framework for them in the consent theory?
From the article: “You might worry that asking for consent is going to be a total mood killer, but the alternative — not asking for consent and potentially sexually assaulting someone — is unacceptable.”
That’s moral stance of the author, I wish them the best of luck applying it in reality
You haven’t actually responded to the idea. Is that risk acceptable to you? If so, why? Would you be ok with that risk if you were the physically smaller/less strong person in the interaction? Assuming you’re a straight man, would you be ok with a gay man using your approach to consent with you?
- Risk is inherent to human communication: risk of miscommunication, risk of someone dropping you midsentence, risk of violence if you unknowingly and deeply offended the opponent, etc
- When adding extra layer bureaucracy over human interaction we must ask ourselves “will it actually solve the problem?”
Now let's consider a metaphor of consent theory -- contract
When you sell or buy stuff, you can request a contract where the terms are going to be explicitly stated. Yet in ordinary life contract is used only in special circumstances when parties don’t know each other and stakes are relatively high.
Now imagine you’d have to make this contract every time you interact with your friends. They buy you food? Can’t accept it until the contract is signed. They give you a ride? can’t have before the contract. etc etc That’s very inconvenient, isn’t it?
Theoretically you can create all encompasing contract that will provision to do anything by anyone in accordance with law. So, what’s the value of such contract then? why do we have it in the first place if it doesn’t actually protects parties from abuse?
- Malicious agents don’t care about consent
Contract metaphor
Have you been ever tricked into signing contract that’s not beneficial to you? I certainly have. More knowledgeable agents are always at the advantage in signing and creating contracts.
Example: Every day I agree to cookie agreement I didn’t read, so what’s the point of the contract that’s impractical to read and understand?
So, striving to protect the user, GDPR actually forced users to agree to random agreements they cannot be ever expected to read, let alone to understand.
And that’s just bits of data. Imagine you could become a sexual slave to someone just because you unknowingly consented?
For better or worse, in personal relationships people rely on vibes. There’s a reason for that: not everyone (in fact Idk who actually) has the capacity to solve moralistic riddles every time there’s communication ambiguity.
-
Theory of consent is assuming that morality can be objectified
Well, bad news, morality is not objective. So if you force your own moral vision as objective one, governing body actually not respecting consent of people. -
Lastly, this theory is only an idea. There’s no real implementation structure as of now, there’s no clarity how it supposed to work and what will be the actual result. Once it progresses let’s talk about that particular implementation.
Now, fast and loose:
Is that risk acceptable to you? If so, why?
I am responsible for my own actions and ready to defend those actions according to state’s law
Would you be ok with that risk if you were the physically smaller/less strong person in the interaction? Assuming you’re a straight man, would you be ok with a gay man using your approach to consent with you?
This person is also responsible for his own actions and legally we’re on similar grounds regardless of weight. In fact, usually physically smaller person has legal upper hand: he’s risking by years in prison while I am (the victim) risking by half an hour of humiliating experience. Yes, it could be traumatizing experience but it’s nowhere near as traumatizing as post-con life
