I am for "enthusiastic consent", maybe even "repeated enthusiastic consent"

All the recent debates about sexual harassment and misconduct made me try to define what I really think would be the “best practice” of men towards women which I could subscribe to and wish everyone else did the same.
And my preliminary conclusion is that the best thing I’ve heard so far is the notion of “enthusiastic consent” as the standard.
I am guided here by 3 principles — what would I today consider in my past behaviours to be OK and something I don’t need to apologize for. And because I have both male and female grown children, what would I consider behaviour that I would wish men exhibited towards my daughter and that my son exhibited towards women.
To make things as clear as possible, “enthusiastic consent” means verbal consent or the woman (apologies to my same sex dating friends — I just feel I am unqualified to opine on your dating mores) initiating physical contact. If an awkward kiss turns into a passionate one, that is fine.
But if an awkward hug turns into a kiss which after a while is not proceeding in the “passion” direction, then just stop. If a woman says “Please don’t” or “I really don’t want this” there is no “I will overcome her reluctance through my sheer awesomeness. I am a terrific kisser”.
And the “burden” here is on the women too — if you mean “I want to see how passionately he wants me” then don’t say “Please don’t” as some kind of a test. It is OK to stop things after they have started and it is OK to change your mind later and tell him or show him that you are happy to resume activities.
Of course, if alcohol or other altered state of mind is involved, things can become more tricky but it is not OK to assume that“after she experiences my awesomeness tonight, she is going to be happy tomorrow she gave in although she had doubts at the time”. If that ever was acceptable, it sure should not be today.
Consider this “affirmative action” in sexual behaviours — there has been so much bad shit going on for so long that it is not enough to just come to some ‘ “fair middle ground”. We have to go beyond that, deep into guaranteed safe territory to correct past mistakes. Some decades from now, when all sexual harassment disappears (!) we can consider dialing it back.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

"Sex Addiction" - give me a break ...

I am getting a little bit tired of the whole "sex addiction" racket out there. Sex is not an addiction any more than skating backwards is. It may feel good to have air blowing up your behind (or to have sex) but that does not an addiction make. And if you feel you are addicted, just stop skating backwards! The problem is that calling it an "addiction" trivializes addictions which are real and substantive. The operative word being "substantive" meaning there is a substance involved (although this may not be the correct usage of the term substantive). With real addictions be it alcohol, drugs, nicotine or prescription drugs, there is always a substance at work which makes us feel a certain way ("good" or at least "better" than without it). From that emerges an addiction to that "feel good effect" and in that sense, yes, food can be an addiction also but sex cannot. Of course sex feels good, it is supposed to and without it feeli...
Read more

Things we can do by ourselves, and things that we can't

Making a list (and not checking it twice) of things one can do by oneself and those which one can only do with somebody else. Please feel to contribute. Things one can do by oneself - read, run, swim, meditate, eat, hike, chop wood, ski, drink, dance, sleep, play chess, cook, sing, practice any number of sports, feel guilt (as opposed to shame). Things that can be done only with participation of at least one other person - hug, kiss, have a conversation, get or give a massage, shake hands, play any number of sports, entertain somebody else with one's dance, singingor writing, feel shame (as opposed to guilt).
Read more

Meeting people is like walking up to a new mirror

Despite what we may think about "knowing ourselves" and knowing who we are, we can only understand who we really are from the reflection of ourselves in other people's eyes. The only way that the Universe perceives us is through observation of others and in that way it's a bit of a Schroedinger's cat going on. The observed is influenced by the observers and it has no other state than the observed one. To put it differently, if there was nobody around us, would we really know who we are? So every new person we meet is like a new mirror that we face and it shows us an image of ourselves that is always to some extent different than any other mirror. Some are more precise reflection of the actual molecules that we are really composed of while others are more "kind" to our imperfections, physical and otherwise. And of course, just for fun, there are the hall of mirrors distorting mirrors that show us grotesquely different than reality and those are just that ...
Read more