(Note: Comments on this post on “Alas” are open to self-identified feminists. Comments on this post on “TADA” are open to everyone.)
Feminist critic Cathy Young, in the comments of her blog, wrote:
I really can’t think of anything that would kill the moment (at least, for a lot of people) more than stopping in the middle of the mating dance for a clear and rational “consent” discussion.
Feminist and occasional “Alas” guest poster Clarisse Thorn wrote:
Consider the following example: during my last vacation to America, I had an S&M encounter with a dude I’ll refer to as Klark. (It’s not my fault. He requested the pseudonym.) At one point, Klark was experimenting with hurting me, and I had my eyes closed and was whimpering / crying out in a totally glorious way. (The poor overnight desk clerk. He was only one short flight of stairs away from us.) I think Klark was legitimately having trouble detecting whether I was enjoying myself, though — understandably, because we had only just met, and I enjoy sinking myself into dramatic masochistic misery — so he leaned over me and said, in a low dark voice, “Red, yellow, green.” Immediately, I gasped back “Green”. Because he spoke in a gritty and dominant voice, and the check-in was quick, we were able to maintain the mood — and it was actually kind of hot in itself. […]
If you aren’t sure how to read your partner’s reactions and you suspect ze may be uncomfortable with what you are doing, then you might consider checking in even if ze hasn’t safeworded, because your suspicion may be right. […]
So anyway, the biggest moral of the story with safewords and check-ins is that consent does not only happen once. Consent is always happening, and can always be renegotiated or withdrawn. Adapting my understanding of sexuality to reflect this — even in my non-BDSM sex — might have been the best thing that ever happened to my sex life.
Clarisse’s example comes from BDSM, but her point is that the principles she’s learned in BDSM — including how to good communication helps keep sex hot — are applicable to all kinds of sex, including “vanilla” sex.
Okay, now let’s imagine that Alas University offers two sex-ed classes for first-year students. Class “A” teaches how to have sex based on Cathy’s principle — checking for consent during sex kills the moment. Class “B” teaches based on Clarisse’s principle — checking for consent helps keep sex hot. Randomly assign 50% of students to class “A,” and 50% to class “B.” Check back in a year and survey the students and their sexual partners.1
I’d bet a lot of money that the folks in class “B” — and their partners — wind up having hotter, better sex lives.
There’s a myth that communicating about sex ruins sex; and that by emphasizing consent, feminists are in effect opposed to hot sex. I don’t think either myth is true.
- It’s possible that at some point, the University’s committee on the ethical treatment of human subjects will object to your planned study. The solution to this is to have everyone on the committee shot. [↩]
This is part of the reason that I only want to sleep with feminists. Because I’m pretty sure it would /not/ be hot to discover that I had raped somebody. If she’s not in to it, I really really want to know that.
Also, I don’t think our ethics should be much informed by what some people think is sexy. A lot of men find it very unappealing when women speak assertively and confidently.
(edited for tone, and also to register strong agreement with Les)
I know I have linked to this essay before about a relationship I had when I was teaching English in South Korea, but I think it applies here as well. A relevant quote:
ETA: You do need to read the entire piece fully to understand the context of the above.
This is an excellent post Amp. And yes, I agree with you. Enthusiastic participation isn’t just the standard because it’s safer and more consensual … enthusiastic participation is hotter. Feminists have way better sex, and I say this as someone who’s had sex with plenty of non-feminists in my life.
—Myca
I won’t go in to how frustrating I find Cathy Young’s writing – she has a remarkable ability to get very close to right (as I see it) and then plunge into the weeds and keep going – I wanted to throw out an interpretation that might help.
Cathy, and a lot of people that take a position (ahem) like her’s, are speaking about and from personal experience. Just like “us”. But at the same time, Cathy especially is employing an analytic framework that is informed, to some extent, by a particular frame of legal, economic and philosophical analysis – it tends to try to isolate variables and see how they interact when they move, and presupposes a lot of things that lean towards the conclusions she reaches. I know this because it tends to be they way I think, and I see it in her writing.
The problem here is that sex is both primal (in a subrational sense) and ethically complex. Speaking for myself only, the me that is typing this can reason about it, explore things with a variety of methods and frameworks, think about counterfactuals and what-ifs, etc. The me that is having sex engages differently. It is informed by non-horny analysis, but isn’t going to isolate and explore the problem space in the same way and stay turned on.
I think that explains part of the difference – Clarisse is noting how she and her partner incorporate syncing up while keeping things hot, while Cathy is thinking of something very different. Something more along the lines of stopping at second base and negotiating a contract. While I certainly don’t want to presume, I’m pretty sure Cathy is self-knowing and not screwed up enough to not engage in negotiation of her own here; it is just that she does it differently (as we all do), and for whatever reason finds herself shunted into an analytic frame by “our” insistence in talking about it the way we do. All the more so because the topic she was writing about was a third-party (Duke) writing policy about sex. Add in that she has a presumptive bias against third-party interference in general (something I very much share), and suddenly everything starts looking to her like the sort of thing in which one need be wary of promissory estoppel and laches, which most sane people tend not to find terribly sexy. (I’m not going to share here because it is off -point, but will note for variety’s sake that I’m either not sane or not most people.)
There are other things going on here, of course – rather a lot of people find it distasteful to talk about having strong views on how other people have sex, at least if those views don’t conform to their own normative notions. Almost everyone has a pretty strong view that third-parties should stay the fuck out of *their* bedroom, but at some point should certainly become involved, and a huge problem is that line is at very, very different places for different people. Even worse, when we start talking about where that line is drawn, how it is drawn starts mattering – I don’t know specifically where Cathy comes down on this one, but lots of her fellow travelers like the outcome of Lawrence v. Texas, but dislike how it was decided.
I actually take issue with this. Not the second bit, but the first bit. It is the standard only because it’s safer and more consensual. Not because it’s hotter. Any suggestion otherwise really bothers me. Being hotter is a side effect, and should have no bearing on whether it should be the standard. Imagine, hypothetically, that it resulted in not-as-good sex, for example? It should still be the standard in that case. Hot-or-not has no bearing.
This is also why “being feminist makes you attractive, guys!” or anything resembling it bothers me too. It’s completely beside the point. And even using it for marketing purposes is harmful, IMO.
“This is also why “being feminist makes you attractive, guys!” or anything resembling it bothers me too. It’s completely beside the point. And even using it for marketing purposes is harmful, IMO.”
-I honestly don’t see why. I often say that I can only have sex with feminist men because only feminist men know how to be good in bed. Since it’s God’s honest truth, I don’t see why I shouldn’t say it.
Great post!!
@Clarissa:
As long as you keep it about yourself and your own experiences (“I find trait X hot”) and not about women as a monolith (“trait X is hot”), you’re fine as far as I’m concerned.
I’ll point you to the comment thread on Clarisse’s post (linked in the OP) for further discussion, as it is a topic there as well. I’ve written about some of my own personal experiences there regarding “trait X is hot” type comments when I was growing up.
@Les:
Victim blaming, much?
@Cessen: I think that cases of “accidental rape” (pardon the term, I can’t think of one better) that result from unclear communication sometimes get too much attention in discussions of rape. There’s a tendency to forgot or to refuse to believe that a lot of people rape on purpose. I suspect that accounts for the majority of rapes.
Putting an emphasis on consent is useful for all couples because better communication will likely make them happier. But it’s primary purpose is, imo, to remind would-be rapists that they’re doing something wrong. It fights rape culture. When anti-feminists complain that centralising consent “isn’t hot,” they’re essentially defending rape culture and reminding would-be rapists that rape is a normal and possibly acceptable action from them. Hotness is only a secondary concern when the stakes are so high.
My reply was flip and I apologise. I let a rape apologist set the tone.
I love the study idea. And, I think it might have a chance of getting past the ethics committee. After all, both curricula are designed to educate, and outside of the study, neither would be considered unethical. There would have to be some form of consent, as always, but I don’t see why it’s not doable.
Grace
I meant it more like, “It’s not just more nutritious, it tastes great!” Of course enthusiastic consent is the standard because consent is the standard. I just also reject the idea that there’s a trade off between consent and hotness.
—Myca
@Myca:
Fair enough.
I’m just hesitant to “market” it that way, for lack of a better word. I think pushing things for “fun” reasons like that rather than the actual core reasons can sometimes have a backlash effect in the long run.
I’d like to refer you to the comments on Clarisse’s post for more discussion about this sort of effect.
And just to make it clear: I’m not disputing that it does make sex more enjoyable. I totally agree. And certainly I don’t think we should be all hush-hush about it. But I don’t think it’s the way it should be pushed, even if that does make us look like humorless feminists. ;-)
I agree with enthusiastic consent, just not with having to require *verbal* enthusiastic consent at all costs. If I don’t feel like it, I’ll say no and he will listen. If he says no I listen as well. I ask him over the course of the day though, even in non-sexual talks.
Verbal consent, when required, CAN break the mood for some people, even if it was verbally discussed for hours beforehand.
If we want to do new things, we will definitely discuss it, just not at the moment it happens. And we DO BDSM, just not hardcore enough to require a safeword (it’s easy to end if needed, without my ‘stop’ being taken as playful).
It’s frustrating to me that people mischaracterize “obtaining consent” in this way. You can obtain consent many times during the course of a sexual encounter without killing the mood and stopping to write a contract. You can simply ask, “is this OK?”, or, “tell me what you’d like”, or “do you want me to do X to you?” It’s not even very hard to make those utterances sound hot.
Even as a straight woman there have been times when I’ve been unsure of whether the guy was in to what I’m doing. (In other words, yes, not all men are up for everything at every second of the day!) So I asked. If all things were good, things would continue and I wouldn’t have to worry about whether he was into it or not. And if things were not OK, we’d stop and cuddle or watch a movie or something else that was mutually beneficial.
It’s amazing that we still need to argue that its better to spend intimate time doing something fun for both of you than doing something that your partner doesn’t like.
Well, I often do ask if he likes what I’m doing. If I’m doing ‘it’ right etc.
Just not Antioch-like (asking at every step of intimacy, verbally, and explicitly). Because some things (a kiss or a hug) are often better when unannounced and spontaneous (well, with him anyways, I don’t kiss or hug random strangers).
“It’s possible that at some point, the University’s committee on the ethical treatment of human subjects will object to your planned study. The solution to this is to have everyone on the committee shot.”
This is delightful.
:P
The partner and I had sex last night that involved stopping several times to make sure consent was still given. And trust me, there was nothing about that that killed it. If anything, it made it far sexier.
“Are you sure baby”
“Oh gods yes.”
There, verbal consent that was absolutely sexy.
I’m not denying it can be sexy, just that it isn’t necessarily so for all people on the planet.
I work better by signifying non-consent with my boyfriend, but that’s just me.
Say, going to Antioch college (supposed to reopen in 2011) wouldn’t be for me and my boyfriend, if their policy was always enforced. I just don’t want it to become universally enforced. Many would become perpetrators of misconduct for something enthusiastically consented by all parties (just not always verbally), which I find a bit weird to say the least.
Though by all means, educate the younger people who haven’t yet been sexually active that speaking about sex, negotiating acts and consent, explicitly, is for the best. Many will probably take it up.
Older people would probably be more set in their ways and more resistant to a change they perceive as unnecessary (I mean, for non-rapists of course).
Cessen:
This is certainly true! But one of the actual core reasons that I have sex (one that I share with many others I suspect) is for fun and any safewords, limits or other negotiations I do with my partner are there to facilitate that fun I am hoping to have. So, while I understand being wary of setting up situations where consent negotiations should only be continued as long as they are entertaining, I am not convinced that it is a destructive thing to advertise consent negotiations as having the potential to add to the sexy fun. I am inclined to think it is positive.
Even in a situation where people do find that the negotiation is clumsy, or unfun, or unsexy, showing it as a necessary thing that leads to fun (like packing to go camping!) seems like a good thing. Basically I guess, fun (or sexiness, or loviness, or whatever works for you) is key in sex, so why not connect consent to that fun in our minds?
Sigh. The point of the Antioch guidelines was to steer people away from the approach of “it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission”, not to create a rigid tiered system of processing at every step of increased intimacy.
That doesn’t, of course, stop people from Young from playing strawfeminist with it.
I don’t have much to add to the post, but I did want to make it clear who I am, as people in at least one other comment thread have gotten confused. I go by Clarisse Thorn — Clarisse with an E — not Clarissa with an A. My blog is clarissethorn.wordpress.com. While there are many women in the world named Clarissa who are admirable humans, I am not one of them, and anything attributed to a Clarissa is not something I said.
@Schala:
That’s a good point. I don’t think enthusiastic consent needs to be verbal at all.
To be honest, the way I interpret “enthusiastic” also makes me think back to a fair amount of sex I’ve had where my consent certainly wasn’t enthusiastic, but more like, “Meh… don’t really feel like it, but if you want to, sure whatever.” I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that, and I don’t think there’s anything wrong with my partner taking advantage (for lack of a less baggage-laden phrase) of that. Although I do think that kind of sex is more indicative of long-term relationships. I doubt I would get that way with short-term sexual encounters.
But I still think the enthusiastic consent standard is a positive one to push, as long as lacking “enthusiastic” isn’t demonized. Though perhaps I’m misinterpreting the use of the word.
@Denise:
I certainly can’t speak for your relationship, but in my experience it’s very difficult as a guy to say “no” to anything sexual unless I’m really uncomfortable with it, even if I’m asked about it. And I think this is the case for some women as well. But certainly it’s typical of many guys, due to the “men always want sex/sexual touch” stereotype.
One of the things I really liked about Clarisse’s post is that she talks about how being able to say “no” is really problematic for some people. And that’s part of why using safe-words can be useful, because it makes an explicit agreement between the two people that saying no is okay. That doesn’t entirely solve the problem, but it can help.
The idea that feminists have better sex, or are better partners than non-feminists is problematic because it is simply not possible to measure objectively.
Cessen:
Clarissa:
Clarissa, it’s problematic because someone could claim to be a feminist only to get laid. And it isn’t true that only feminist men know how to be good in bed. How are we going to measure ‘good in bed’, even? Besides, you’d need to sleep with all the men in the world to even try out that hypothesis.
This dispute has always demonstrated, at least since I’ve been sexually active, the misogyny of the date rape apologist position. (Besides the fact that they’re looking for ways to excuse men who force themselves on women who don’t want to have sex.) The idea that sex is hotter if it’s shameful, quiet, and someone is really unsure of what’s going on and afraid to speak up? It’s farcical on its face. The only people who really think there’s more steam in the room if one person isn’t having fun and is afraid to say so are scary fucking people.
Sex is infinitely hotter if you feel like you can communicate with your partner. The words “communicate” and “partner” perhaps aren’t hot, but in the bedroom those aren’t usually the words being used to get to those ends. In what world are the words “fuck me right now” not hot? Misogyny Land, that’s what.
@Joy-Mari Cloete:
Agreed. But I would take it further and say that I think this can actually sabotage a person’s ability to be in it for the right reasons, rather than just that some assholes will purposefully adopt it for the wrong reasons.
I’m thinking particularly of some studies done on the nature of motivation. There was one in particular where they put children in a room with a toy. They had three groups:
1. This group was told they would get a reward for playing with the toy. The children did, and they were rewarded.
2. This group was not told of any reward, but were rewarded after playing with the toy anyway.
3. This group simply played with the toy, with no reward given afterwards at all.
What is really fascinating is what happened the next day when they put the children back in the room, with no reward nor promise of any reward for any of the groups.
Groups 2 and 3 happily played with the toy still. But group 1, which had been promised a reward the previous day, refused to play with the toy.
And to be honest, I think this is part of the whole Nice Guy(tm) phenomenon. It’s not necessarily the case that all of them are purposefully adopting these traits to be manipulative. But adopting those traits to be “attractive” sabotages their intrinsic motivation for those traits, and when the promised reward does not present itself, they write it all off.
So yeah, I’m really wary of “better sex!” “more attractive!” etc. marketing of important social issues. I think it can actually hurt people’s ability to get into it for the right reasons.
Granted, this does make it more difficult to sell to people. But I think it’s important anyway.
Why not? It’s true.
When you get into the nitty gritty details of sex education, one thing you learn super fast is the second you start sneering at the centrality of pleasure is the second that your audiences tunes you. Conservatives go with the “non-communicative, mechanical sex where a woman feels like shit afterwards is hotter” argument because they know that people have sex because they want pleasure. If the point of sex is pleasure, then safety standards that interfere with that pleasure will be ignored a lot of the time.
If a conservative says, “Shame-ridden, silent sex is hotter,” and you say, “I refuse to have a discussion about sex that prioritizes pleasure,” you sound like you’re dodging. And dodging an argument that’s easy to win, no less! They’re saying that you have to shut up because talking takes too long and some misogynist dude wants to get off without having to hear some bitch babbling about her desires. We can win this one without too much fussing.
Cessen, that’s a very interesting angle you’re highlighting.
Hrm. Another thought. Marketing it as “better sex!” also is probably just a bad angle even aside from the other stuff I mentioned. It sounds exactly like the “Abstinence until marriage makes sex better!” BS that I (and I suspect many other kids) got growing up. Or pretty much… well… any marketing, for that matter.
So as a sensationalist message just to get the word out, it’s probably likely to just make people write it off as BS. As more noise. Because they’ve been promised better sex so many times before by other people and ideas and products. It just sounds like you’re trying to manipulate them into doing what you say they should do.
I understand the importance of countering the idea that lack of consent makes sex hotter, of course (although I would also be wary of erasing people who find that to be a sexual need in the form of role-playing; although of course that needs consent as well). But I think that’s a separate issue to some degree.
Again, I’m not saying we shouldn’t talk about it and make it known. We absolutely should. But it shouldn’t be pushed as a motivation for enthusiastic consent. I think Clarisse’s blog in general does a good job of striking this balance, at least in the posts of hers that I’ve seen.
This thread puts me in mind of a conversation I had with my 11-year-old son after we watched the movie Super Bad, which I thought was pretty stupid and problematic for a lot of different reasons, but which he thought was hysterical for all of the predictable ones. I asked him what he understood about the end of the movie when the two boys and two girls who are the focus of the we-want-to-hook-up-at-the-party plot meet up in the mall and pair off, finally, as the couples they have wanted to be all along, and my son told me that he didn’t understand it at all. I will not give the blow-by-blow of the conversation my son and I had, but suffice it to say that we ended up talking about the importance of being honest with the people with whom one wants to be physically intimate and of communicating openly about what one wants to do and to be done to. Towards the end of the conversation, I asked him if it would freak him out if I told him about the first time I kissed his mother. When he said no, I told him that I asked her if I could and that asking very clearly made her, and therefore me, feel that much more comfortable. I was not entirely sure how to read the look on his face when I told him that, but it was clear to me that what I said had made an impression.
Please note: I am not saying that there are never cases when a couple who have never kissed before, or who are new to each other sexually, just “know” that the next move is okay, is the right move, or whatever; nor am I saying that there are not ways to communicate consent non-verbally, though it’s interesting to consider whether there are ways of asking non-verbally if “what I’d like to do to you next” is okay that do not involve at least a gesture towards crossing the boundary you are asking about before you have actually gotten an answer.
ETA: Cessen, I think there is a difference between talking about “better sex” as a motivation for seeking explicit, enthusiastic consent and putting “better sex” out there as the, an ulterior motive for seeking such consent. The first is not necessarily cynical (which is what I think your comments are cautioning against); the second, by definition, is.
@Richard:
I don’t think we’re necessarily in disagreement.
When I read Myca’s comment, it reminded me sharply of messages I received as a kid regarding femist-ish ideals. And I certainly feel that it had a sabotaging effect on me, similar to the kind I suggested up-thread in response to Joy-Mari Cloete.
I really do think we need to be careful about how we push this stuff. Perhaps especially with younger people.
I’ll repeat something I said in response to Clarissa up-thread, because I think it’s important, and it’s something I actually see somewhat frequently in feminist spaces:
I’m also skeptical of the argument that asking someone shyly, “Can I kiss you?” is anything short of incredibly romantic.
What are the right reasons? Is good (or, even better, or AWESOME) sex not one of the right reasons?
To that end, would you object to condom advertisements where couples who were clearly into each other say things like “when we know we are safe(r), we can really let loose”? Clearly protection from STDs and unplanned pregnancy are the point of condoms, but does showing how they can enhance the experience hurt?
Certainly, but I do not think that anyone is suggesting that we make an afterschool special or take out a back cover ad in Rolling Stone. So far people seem to be sharing their experiences of obtaining consent being sexy and adding to the experience. Which is pretty nice, and hopefully not something you find very sensationalist.
Even if the ‘marketing’ was more direct (I myself would be excited to see an ‘enthusiastic consent is awesome’ billboard) would you find depictions of sexy (even over-the-top sexy) consent negotiations on TV objectionable or refreshing?
I admire that you take consent so seriously, it is important! It is serious! I totally agree. But I can’t quite see showing, or even advertising, the fun parts as sensationalist.
I’ll add that the “this is very serious, and too serious to entertain discussion of pleasure” thing is why conservatives have a hook at all. Because while you’re not saying you’re against pleasure, you’re also discounting its importance, allowing them to paint themselves as the keepers of the sexy. Which is, of course, the stupidest angle on the planet, since going right is generally about going in the direction of shame and restriction on sexuality.
The difference is that one is true and the other isn’t.
I mean, look, the Catholic Church says that the rhythm method is a perfectly respectable way to not have babies. I say that condoms are a perfectly respectable way to not have babies.
These statements are not equivalent.
—Myca
Cessen,
I wasn’t suggesting that we are in disagreement. I just wanted to point out that there is perhaps a clearer way of saying what you are trying to say. Even your example @25 regarding the study dealing with children playing with toys is, I think, more properly an example of ulterior motive versus motive, at least as I was using those terms above. (I don’t know if the distinction I am making would hold up under rigorous scrutiny; but it is handy for now.)
I also think it would be useful in this context to be more clear about what we mean by “better” in the phrase “better sex.” It is, for example, one thing to imply that obtaining explicit and enthusiastic verbal consent will, in every instance, result in “hotter” sex than would otherwise occur, while it is quite another thing to suggest that sex in the context of such consent is “better” because of the potential for hotter sex that would be if not impossible then certainly compromised in the absence of consent.
Finally, I, of course, agree in general with this statement by you:
However, while I might agree that it is important not to make generalizations that turn classes of people into a “monolith,” this statement, by focusing on individual preference, also elides the fact that “hot” is as socially constructed a trait as anything else. I think there is nothing wrong with trying to construct the responsible, non-cynical obtaining of consent and the explicit expression of such consent as hot. Doing so does not mean that everyone will need to follow the same prescriptive script; but doing so would mean that the human variation you are asserting above would express itself in the context of the idea that consent is hot.
Being asked what colour I’m feeling by my sweetheart sounds pretty hot to me. Green! Green!
I think the extract completely fails to counter Cathy Young’s point because it is obviously not an example of a clear and rational “consent” discussion. I’ll maybe give you clear (green to what exactly?). But ‘rational’ or ‘discussion’? Really?
I’m not sticking up for Young here, unlike her, I’m all for clear, rational discussions. But I think it’s worth point out that the post doesnt contain a single example of one.
Pingback: [litquote] Hot vanilla sex scene includes checking in « Clarisse Thorn: Pro-Sex Outreach, Open-Minded Feminism
Pingback: Meta: Rape Culture, Rights of the Accused, and the Penal System, pt.1 « hepfat
Pingback: Alas, a blog » Blog Archive » Follow-ups: Check-ins During Sex, and a critique of “24 Authoritarians”
I definitely am in the “better safe than sorry” camp here. I feel like this argument is akin to the “putting on a condom stops the fun of sex” argument. Or, in my very queer world, I often encounter women who forgo safe sex practices… whether because they don’t know how to have safe or don’t know how to have a conversation about safe sex or don’t really care. No matter the reason, personally, unsafe sex just isn’t a practice I engage in. It’s a conversation that will be had, must be had. Why don’t we look at consent the same way?
I agree with many of the people who posted previously that asking for consent can be sexy, if handled in the right way. It doesn’t have to be a sterile conversation. It can be a sexy whisper, a sultry question. May I? Can I? How do you like…? What turns you on? Will you…? etc. Good sex involves some communication.
Consent in the news, via a mind-boggling failure in judgement by a jury:
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/article_30865bcc-95eb-11df-9734-00127992bc8b.html
And my favorite commentary about it, with some notes in the comments paralleling some of the comments here about negotiating consent:
http://tigerbeatdown.com/2010/07/27/all-your-boobs-belong-to-us-some-thoughts-about-consent-while-female/
Grace