This thread is for people who believe that when it comes to feminism it's important for men to listen to women and to talk to men.
In this thread we assume Feminism is something you wholeheartedly support or want to support. Questions about the validity of Feminism are for somewhere else.
Thank you for sharing the article, Hypatian. I'll respond to it, if I may. I know I've crossed a few wires and this provides an opportunity to unpack things a little better. Hopefully.
A little while back I was talking with a man I knew about consent. He was commenting on an article I had shared earlier that day on men who get women drunk in the hopes that it will increase their chances of getting laid. He sat in my living room and told me that he took issue with the essay’s insistence that this behavior was predatory or abusive.
This behavior is predatory and abusive. Always has been. Always will be.
I decided to ask him a few questions.“Hey, so if you know a dude at work and you think it’s cool and you want to hang out but he doesn’t really want to — he wants to go home, but you just keep buying him beers so he’ll stay — would you say that he really wants to hang out with you?”
I query the person who chooses to hang out with someone just to get something from them. This is predatory and abusive.
I query the person providing the something to entice someone to stay when they otherwise would not. This is predatory and abusive.
Be better human beings. Don't play each other.
“Okay, and so if you kept buying him beers, knowing full well that if you did not buy him beers he would leave because otherwise he wouldn’t want to hang out with you, and at the end of the night he felt sick and angry and liked you even less...
Don't drink past your limits. Don't use those buying you the drinks as an excuse. Willpower. Respect. Responsibility. Being drunk doesn't absolve any of this.
Doesn't mean anyone deserves anything, either. The goal is to preserve human decency and have better experiences. Alcohol minus moderation can greatly impinge on this. Enter at your own risk.
Again. No one deserves anything. Doesn't mean you should not safeguard against risk. Sometimes it makes no difference. Sometimes it does.
Chances of me waking up minus my wallet, keys, and cellphone, if I drink myself to oblivion? Higher than if I leave able to walk straight.
Chances of intruders gaining access to my home if I leave the door unlocked? Higher than if I don't.
Would I deserve either? No. Is there worth to the responsibility track? Yes.
Feeling sick and angry at too much alcohol consumption? That's on the individual doing the drinking.
As I watch countless men (and sadly, quite a few women) jump to the defense of other men who have been outed for their coercive, demeaning, and abusive behavior towards women; as I watch them debate the fine points of whether or not a woman said no loud enough, whether her “I’m not comfortable” was strong enough, whether she was at fault for being mistreated...
No is always loud enough.
No one is ever at fault for being mistreated.
You aren’t just defending an individual in these debates. And you are not defending men as a whole. You are defending this behavior. You are fighting for its continuation, and the continuation of the harm that it does to countless women.
People can define what they are defending and what they are fighting for. Or even just what they're saying. For themselves. Too often it's others taking this upon themselves to provide this as a service.
Querying the details of any case is always the same. It's thrown out there that you disrespect all women. You defend perpetrators of sexual assault. You don't understand.
Aziz Ansari, for example. Some of us suggest how he could have got the wrong impression. Some draw attention to the lack of force. The moments where consent was sought. To traverse the situation. To dig into societal pressures. Without saying Grace deserved any of it. Without saying Aziz Ansari is a saint.
Grace, as a human being, has the right to define the encounter however she so chooses. Not everyone is going to agree completely. That doesn't automatically default support to Aziz Ansari.
(It can and has branched into other areas such as enthusiastic consent, and non-verbal cues. Having never saw what the negatives of these look like I shouldn't have tried to presume on their effectiveness.)
There is no fighting for the continuation of such behavior. Not here. There is a desire to bring clarity to situations, to intentions, and to aftermaths, from a male perspective. To be involved in discussions pertaining to men rather than on the sidelines.
* Framing it as "getting sex" is, of course, part of the problem.
True. I think a big part of the story is that we don't have the vocabulary to talk about sex as something (edit) that is both good and is more than just raw pleasure. A while back on here, we had a discussion about female cosplayers choosing sexy characters. That choice couldn't just be a coincidence, but it wasn't a choice made to titillate the audience either. It became more and more clear that the explanation that was missing was the concept of self-expression.
That conversation has stuck with me ever since. It seems like so much of human behavior needs that vocabulary of self-expression to capture why something is important to us in a good and complex way. Especially sex. I wonder if toxic explanations for the negative feelings that come from lack of sex would be less convincing if that concept of self-expression was more available as an alternative answer.
I'm way past worrying about dating women (married for 20 years) so I'm not personally affected much by this issue. I do applaud the conversation, however, it is much needed and many men have been acting horribly and will hopefully now be called on it.
One thing that I am a bit confused about is the issue of alcohol. Clearly having sex with a woman who is too drunk to give consent is rape. But is there a middle ground? My wife and I were discussing this and we remember very fondly having "drunk sex" when we were dating - going out and getting tipsy and coming home and tearing each other's clothes off. Now if we drink too much we basically come home and go to sleep but I digress.....
This is a tricky issue as when is it something that is mutually enjoyable and when is someone's ability to give consent impaired? I've read that some colleges now have a policy that a woman who has consumed any alcohol is not capable of providing consent (was referenced in an article in NYT but no reference so I don't know if that is really true). Maybe the best policy is that alcohol and sex is like alcohol and driving - they just don't mix.
Now that I'm much more mature, looking back it's probably not a good idea for young people to drink and have sex (although man was it fun). They need to have clear heads when making decision about something that serious.
Maybe we'll return to more conservative sexual norms - ideally save it for marriage or at least for a committed relationship after you have had a chance to talk it through with a clear head. Old fashioned but probably not a bad thing.
One thing that I am a bit confused about is the issue of alcohol. Clearly having sex with a woman who is too drunk to give consent is rape. But is there a middle ground? My wife and I were discussing this and we remember very fondly having "drunk sex" when we were dating - going out and getting tipsy and coming home and tearing each other's clothes off. Now if we drink too much we basically come home and go to sleep but I digress.....
This is a tricky issue as when is it something that is mutually enjoyable and when is someone's ability to give consent impaired? I've read that some colleges now have a policy that a woman who has consumed any alcohol is not capable of providing consent (was referenced in an article in NYT but no reference so I don't know if that is really true). Maybe the best policy is that alcohol and sex is like alcohol and driving - they just don't mix.
Now that I'm much more mature, looking back it's probably not a good idea for young people to drink and have sex (although man was it fun). They need to have clear heads when making decision about something that serious.
And of course there are lots of other sub-issues that are intertwined with all of this. What about people who want to end the night with sex with their crush, but wants the alcohol to build up the courage, or just have fun prior to that point? If you are unaware of the other person's drinking habits that night, are you at fault? And this issue is so closely tied to females, but alcohol and consent is obviously also an issue in less hetero relationships too. But will we hold male-male relationships to the same standards--because men can be raped too. I only bring these questions up, because in my group of friends that I drink a lot with, I would be wondering these things if I wasn't already married. We drink regularly and sometimes a lot, including the women, but safely and respectfully luckily. We all take care of each other.
Now if we lived in a society where more people actually had empathy, we wouldn't have to set up hard lines and say "don't cross these specific things." A decent person should be able to recognize when they are abusing someone and when they are not, and be able to move slow enough when they are not sure to allow consent to be given or revoked every step of the way. "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you" should be the only guideline needed, but that's not really the society we live in. People hardly have any empathy at all these days, in any situation.
Docjoe,
My view personally? Traffic light check-ins. We don't drink and drive for a reason. It impairs performance and increases risks to those around us. Same thing in the bedroom context. When you mix alcohol and sex though, there's no traffic cop to pull you over. That's a good enough reason not to do it, although I can accept in a long term relationship there is trust built up so lines are less frequently crossed [to be clear I am not saying drunken rape cannot happen in a marriage, because it can].
Now, turning to Hypatian's linked article.
As a teen, I got into reading women's trashy romance novels, thinking it would enlighten me on what women want (and therefore what I should be). Go to your local library. There will be a whole section dedicated to this genre. It didn't really clarify the courtship ritual, perhaps made it worse because a lot of those books centre on power fantasies. No, I am not a dark swashbuckler or fallen knight or plundering Viking with rippling muscles reeking of sweat and horse flesh. No, in reality, women do not ordinarily enjoy having their will overpowered.
I don't drink. My friends who drink know this and respect my position. I respect their decision to get wasted. Salam baskur. Respect yourself and respect others.
It's not just about who we as men want to be (we don't even know what this is and as I said in my first post we are being sold a false promise of demigod status by venture capitalists). It's also about acceptance for who we are and what we stand for. This is, to me, a major issue for men.
It's well known boys and men mentally mature slower than girls and women. Generally, boys just aren't ready for dating and respectful relationships by the time girls are already young women mentally. Docjoe, I think if anything the courtship cycle will accelerate as the next generations grow up with tablets and smartphones as infants. Therefore we can't expect abstinence as a remedy. We have to educate early. Boys need to be in greater tune with their mental rhythms and be able to sense the same for their partners. Hiding from each other isn't going to make it any better. Teaching our sons that crying is healthy and failure is learning is a good start. So is teaching responsible drinking.
It's a nice article making the case, but I don't think it does enough.
For all its harms and toxic effects, pick up culture does a helluvalot things right, which is why it appeals to a lot of men. It establishes technique, timing, and application. It teaches which results are acceptable and which are not. And it's open to many ways of interpreting its horrible ethos.
So while I like that there are words and the concept is there, the article doesn't go into details about when and where you can use a specific check in, and the number of acceptable responses is limited.
This is an article about Kino - which is using physical interaction to escalate an encounter. The reason this works (and it does) is because it's kind of like a check in, though it is also absolutely is not. Note that this particular article is very big on establishing and maintaining trust. It's almost there, but not quite.
I use similar methods, and I haven't stopped just because I'm married. Marital rape is a thing and I never want to be in a position where I'm entertaining that I may have done something like that. No, no, no. The idea is too horrible to even contemplate.
One of my earlier check-ins is of the Kino variety, and they involve a group of methods that both initiate contact and receive reciprocation.
For instance, I might touch the outside of a woman's elbow while clothed. I don't go straight for the inner arm because that's very intimate personal space. It's not okay for a check-in with a date partner, though it is for my wife. If she's okay with that, then I might proffer reciprocation by using an escort maneuver - taking her hand and putting it on the inside crook of my own elbow while we're walking. She is free to remove her hand, or keep her distance respectfully. At the same time, she can snuggle in close and maybe even rub a little sideboob on my arm. That's reciprocation. If she doesn't reciprocate, that's a red and I deescalate.
Though escorting a woman this way COULD be sexual, it is also nonsexual but intimate. I escort my mother similarly and she sometimes leans on me or puts her hand further into my inner arm. It is intimate, but not sexual, and it fulfills touch requirements for both of us, which we need because we're human.
Enthusiastic consent is your barometer here. Women have agency in sexual encounters too. Women are entitled to get drunk, hook up, and maybe regret it later. It's not your job to make that determination, it's your job to ensure that you're ensuring you're continuing only as long as she is wholeheartedly consenting.
"Enthusiastic Consent" keeps on getting passed around in the meta conversation about this. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that "enthusiastic" is a word that is subjective. I'm not sure what I consider enthusiastic is what a lot of people consider enthusiastic (including my wife - I'm emotionally expressive and my wife internalizes everything).
Saying that it is only one side's job to determine consent does not seem correct - it takes two to have a consensual relationship. It is both sides jobs to express what they want and what the limits are and both sides job to follow through on this. Saying one side has the job to express consent and the other to read it correctly is exactly where we were and the cycle that needs to be broken.
Maq wrote:Enthusiastic consent is your barometer here. Women have agency in sexual encounters too. Women are entitled to get drunk, hook up, and maybe regret it later. It's not your job to make that determination, it's your job to ensure that you're ensuring you're continuing only as long as she is wholeheartedly consenting.
"Enthusiastic Consent" keeps on getting passed around in the meta conversation about this. What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that "enthusiastic" is a word that is subjective. I'm not sure what I consider enthusiastic is what a lot of people consider enthusiastic (including my wife - I'm emotionally expressive and my wife internalizes everything).
Saying that it is only one side's job to determine consent does not seem correct - it takes two to have a consensual relationship. It is both sides jobs to express what they want and what the limits are and both sides job to follow through on this. Saying one side has the job to express consent and the other to read it correctly is exactly where we were and the cycle that needs to be broken.
This is why I think we need to move away from consent. Consent is what doctors solicit from patients. We are actors, and the patient is usually more or less less than comatose. The document is extremely legal and the patient quite obviously has absolutely no power to change their minds while they're completely unconscious. What we can do is codified in very exacting terms and we can do no more than that even if we think it might be beneficial for the patient.
Sex is something people should actively do together and it should be an ongoing conversation.
What I think is meant by "enthusiastic" is that women or more passive actors in general (bottoms for instance) should express buy-in participation in unequivocal ways. These ways do not need to be overly dramatic or showy, but they do need to be free choices and the communication of what is meant needs to be absolutely clear.
This is something that needs back and forth interaction. I initiate or escalate something, and her reaction may or may not be clear, but then I step back and offer reciprocation on the same physical level, and if she doesn't reciprocate, I've clearly overstepped and I need to step it back pronto. This is also why I do not recommend high steps for initiations. If anything, reciprocation maneuvers are safer things for men to elicit escalation, purely because we are more powerful in many interactions.
It's both sides that need to express it and read it correctly. But you are not both sides, so when someone says something to you about enthusiastic consent, they only mention your part because that's all you can control.
Just tagging.
Perhaps he's talking about how we express consent as men? Or refuse it, as the case may be. I confess that I have had absolutely no problems in this area, though women are sometimes shocked and usually disappointed when their advances are not met with enthusiasm. Just because I wanted sex yesterday and you didn't doesn't mean I must want sex now. And I don't owe you sex.
But once again, usually not a problem.
Maq I was quoting you more about "enthusiastic" consent and that you indicate that it is "your" job to determine consent. As this is a thread about men talking to men I was assuming you were talking specifically about men.
To me feminism is about equality which ends up being more than decoding many of these individual cases and making broad changes to societal norms. When a some of these stories comes up many people on both ends start splitting the details to say one is bad and one was wronged - then we get away from the larger issue.
The question of drunk sex seemed a lot simpler a long time ago when it was explained to me as the difference between lowered inhibitions where there is plenty of capacity for consent and enthusiasm for what's about to happen, and impaired judgement.
These days, though, I'm not sure there's such a bright line between the two. Or at least whether we're asking a more complex question these days that needs a more developed answer.
I think the 'drunk sex' thing is getting tougher because we're asking what *is* the "enthusiasm" we mean when we say "enthusiastic consent."
The question of drunk sex seemed a lot simpler a long time ago when it was explained to me as the difference between lowered inhibitions where there is plenty of capacity for consent and enthusiasm for what's about to happen, and impaired judgement.
These days, though, I'm not sure there's such a bright line between the two. Or at least whether we're asking a more complex question these days that needs a more developed answer.
I think the 'drunk sex' thing is getting tougher because we're asking what *is* the "enthusiasm" we mean when we say "enthusiastic consent."
I think that for practical purposes, the thing to do on a personal, actionable level, is to think about where your particular breakpoint is and how to determine that operationally. So one man's standard might be "no alcohol period." The advantage to that is that he's absolutely safe and there is simply no danger of going into an encounter with problems. The disadvantage is that he may not be as available to many potential partners.
A more forgiving standard might be, "If she can't walk straight, then sex is off for the night." This is an eminently sensible breakpoint because it's also a standard for determining competency for driving, and it's quite far away from falling down drunk let alone unconscious. If you need to assist your date down a hall because she's grabbing the walls, just put off sex. Safer for both of you.
On a broader policy level, well that's a thing for statesmen to decide though we can weigh in with our opinions.
Maq I was quoting you more about "enthusiastic" consent and that you indicate that it is "your" job to determine consent. As this is a thread about men talking to men I was assuming you were talking specifically about men.
It is your job to determine consent. I think the confusion is around what do you do when things aren't crystal clear (which is, let's face it, an awful lot of the time).
There are only two options if you aren't completely certain: continue or stop. That's it. When talking about consent, the message is "in the absence of complete certainty, stop". If you're not positive that your partner wants to do the thing that you want to do, don't do the thing. Enthusiastic consent is the way in which people can eliminate that uncertainty. If she takes your pants off and puts your dick in her mouth, you can be pretty certain that she wants to do that. If she say, "I want to put your dick in my mouth", you can be fairly certain that she wants to do that. If you say, "I want you to put my dick in your mouth" and she says yes, or if you try to guide her head to your crotch, you should be able to determine how enthusiastic she is about the idea - if not, you have not eliminated the uncertainty, and you do not have consent. If she tells a joke about a blowjob, or tells a story about friends and oral sex, or puts her hair back, she may or may not want to; you have not eliminated the uncertainty, and you do not have consent.
I think the 'drunk sex' thing is getting tougher because we're asking what *is* the "enthusiasm" we mean when we say "enthusiastic consent."
The legal standard in most states is, indeed, impaired judgement. It isn't super well defined, which doesn't help. But the legal standard is a pretty low bar to clear anyway.
I'm not really fond of the "what about drinking in my long-term relationship" because you've presumably got ongoing communication where you hopefully either already have a pretty good idea how receptive your partner is or are comfortable communicating about that. It's not that an existing relationship gives you automatic consent or something. (It doesn't.) Rather, this one encounter is part of a long cycle of mutual feedback.
For all its harms and toxic effects, pick up culture does a helluvalot things right, which is why it appeals to a lot of men. It establishes technique, timing, and application. It teaches which results are acceptable and which are not. And it's open to many ways of interpreting its horrible ethos.
I see where you're going with this, but I'd urge caution. Yeah, the tragedy is that sometimes they're the only ones reaching out to lost young men to explain how to have a sexual relationship, but it takes a lot of work to untangle the bad intent they've injected into everything.
The goal behind PUA attempts to understand consent are basically to find ways to subvert consent. They talk about "overcoming resistance" by which they mean recognizing when someone is hesitant about consenting and putting her in a situation that makes it harder for her to resist. This ranges from trying to make her feel more comfortable (mostly, alas, only in the short term) to outright skipping past her boundaries and hoping she feels swept along and unable to protest.
Come to think of it, boundaries are probably an important part of this discussion that we haven't touched on.
I'm only saying that their content is practical, concrete, and actionable. Women advising us decline to give such advice for obvious reasons. We can, however, establish these things for our own use and share them here.
Flintheart Glomgold wrote:Maq I was quoting you more about "enthusiastic" consent and that you indicate that it is "your" job to determine consent. As this is a thread about men talking to men I was assuming you were talking specifically about men.
It is your job to determine consent. I think the confusion is around what do you do when things aren't crystal clear (which is, let's face it, an awful lot of the time).
It is everyone's job to determine consent. It is everyone's job to communicate consent. It is everyone's job to comply with the other's wishes.
A lot of this is just being human and the problems of communication. What IS enthusiastic consent? It is something determined by both parties - each and every one of us has a different definition of that even as we have seen here in the thread if it be letting the other person initiate; a verbal communication, how a body reacts, waiting for the other person to take their clothing off. Each of these are different. I find the idea comes from a good place but avoids many of the actual structural problems.
If a woman is really shy and speaks softly and tells me yes that she wants to, that certainly doesn't seem "enthusiastic." to me (and many others) even if it is for her enthusiastic and concenting. If a woman is tipsy drunk and goes all porno on me that certainly is "enthusiastic" but is it consent? If a man invites a woman up for "drinks" and for years has had great enthusiastic consensual sex that entire time he will likely (in absence of contrary information) believe that acceptance of that invitation is enthusiastic consent.
What I am trying to say: We need to have better conversations about consent and what is acceptable, and most importantly to have women (and some men) feel that communicating their desires clearly and feel comfortable in doing so. To have men (and some women) feel comfortable in communicating that they are comfortable with the expectations set by the other partner. Yes, it is important for men to get legitimate consent - but the problem will continue if women do not feel comfortable communicating clearly their limits and expectations.
One thing that I usually see is people straw-manning talk about getting enthusiastic consent by bringing up spouses & long-term partners. I've always read the advice about it as being primarily aimed at casual hook-ups and when still in the early stages of a relationship. That's not to say that it's not important for long-term couples, but by then you should be a lot more aware of your partner's non-verbal reactions and comfort levels so it should be easier to gauge their enthusiasm, plus maintenance sex becomes a thing.
I've been engaged in maintenance sex for a few years now. It's something I feel I need to fulfill for my partner. There are long periods between. I know my partner would prefer more frequent. As a man I've often wondered if there is something wrong with me. We're supposed to think about it, want it, crave it, daydream about it, be driven by it. Whilst I just don't care.
Granted. I have issues that may be affecting such desires. I've never known of another man to feel this way about sex, though.
Chumpy_McChump wrote:Flintheart Glomgold wrote:Maq I was quoting you more about "enthusiastic" consent and that you indicate that it is "your" job to determine consent. As this is a thread about men talking to men I was assuming you were talking specifically about men.
It is your job to determine consent. I think the confusion is around what do you do when things aren't crystal clear (which is, let's face it, an awful lot of the time).
It is everyone's job to determine consent. It is everyone's job to communicate consent. It is everyone's job to comply with the other's wishes.
A lot of this is just being human and the problems of communication. What IS enthusiastic consent? It is something determined by both parties - each and every one of us has a different definition of that even as we have seen here in the thread if it be letting the other person initiate; a verbal communication, how a body reacts, waiting for the other person to take their clothing off. Each of these are different. I find the idea comes from a good place but avoids many of the actual structural problems.
If a woman is really shy and speaks softly and tells me yes that she wants to, that certainly doesn't seem "enthusiastic." to me (and many others) even if it is for her enthusiastic and concenting. If a woman is tipsy drunk and goes all porno on me that certainly is "enthusiastic" but is it consent? If a man invites a woman up for "drinks" and for years has had great enthusiastic consensual sex that entire time he will likely (in absence of contrary information) believe that acceptance of that invitation is enthusiastic consent.
What I am trying to say: We need to have better conversations about consent and what is acceptable, and most importantly to have women (and some men) feel that communicating their desires clearly and feel comfortable in doing so. To have men (and some women) feel comfortable in communicating that they are comfortable with the expectations set by the other partner. Yes, it is important for men to get legitimate consent - but the problem will continue if women do not feel comfortable communicating clearly their limits and expectations.
It's really not as hard as you're making it out to be. People are only saying it's your job because they're talking about a generic "you." It's your job to determine if you have enthusiastic consent from your partner. It's your partner's job to determine if they have enthusiastic consent from you. If either of you are ever unsure if it's enthusiastic consent, maybe try asking. The above examples seem a little sketchy, like you're asking for guidelines for when it's okay to have sex with someone with the smallest amount of interaction possible (edit: That wasn't very fair of me, sorry for the accusation that this is what you're doing. It is something I see from people who push back against enthusiastic consent, but you're not pushing back against it so much as saying it's not enough). Shy girl? Ask her, she'll tell you if she's enthusiastic or not sure herself. Tipsy girl? Ask her, her answer's coherency will give you a better idea of whether she's too drunk to consent. Repeat lover? Ask her each time, consenting to a drink doesn't mean consenting to sex no matter how many times it's happened in that order.
Granted. I have issues that may be affecting such desires. I've never known of another man to feel this way about sex, though.
It's slightly less common for men to be more about responsive desire rather than spontaneous desire, but still pretty common.
I've been engaged in maintenance sex for a few years now. It's something I feel I need to fulfill for my partner. There are long periods between. I know my partner would prefer more frequent. As a man I've often wondered if there is something wrong with me. We're supposed to think about it, want it, crave it, daydream about it, be driven by it. Whilst I just don't care.
Granted. I have issues that may be affecting such desires. I've never known of another man to feel this way about sex, though.
I don't know how old you are, but my libido/desire/thoughts about sex have drastically decreased over the last few years (I'm 43). I can go a couple of weeks without it even crossing my mind. My wife has gone the opposite, so we are basically reversed from where we were 20 years ago. I find myself indulging her far more often these days than the other way around. I don't feel like there's anything wrong with me, just aging.
Thanks for the article Stengah.
I'm in this same boat so I especially perk up for this point in the thread.
This has been a long time issue for my relationship as we both end up in this guilt cycle that just adds to the pressure and anger/grumpiness/whatever for both of us.
I’m of the opinion that maintenance sex is an essential tool in your long-term relationship toolbox. Stay with someone long enough, you’re going to find yourselves with mismatched sex-drives at some point. Maintenance sex is how you opt-in to manage that situation, and in my opinion, it’s usually a lot preferable to pretending the problem doesn’t exist.
I realize that intuitively, it stands at odds with the notion of *enthusiastic* consent, but I like to think of it as enthusiastically consenting to a contented partner, even if the mechanism by which you do that doesn’t generate a lot of enthusiasm.
It's not at odds with enthusiastic consent. It's at odds with the notion that enthusiastic consent always means passionate high energy sex. You still want enthusiastic consent with maintenance sex, but like you said, it's enthusiasm for your partner, if not the sex itself.
I’m of the opinion that maintenance sex is an essential tool in your long-term relationship toolbox. Stay with someone long enough, you’re going to find yourselves with mismatched sex-drives at some point. Maintenance sex is how you opt-in to manage that situation, and in my opinion, it’s usually a lot preferable to pretending the problem doesn’t exist.
I realize that intuitively, it stands at odds with the notion of *enthusiastic* consent, but I like to think of it as enthusiastically consenting to a contented partner, even if the mechanism by which you do that doesn’t generate a lot of enthusiasm.
This was a good post.
Pages