this post was submitted on 13 Oct 2022
9 points (100.0% liked)

Men's Liberation

83 readers
1 users here now

This community is first and foremost a feminist community for men and masc people, but it is also a place to talk about men’s issues with a particular focus on intersectionality.

Rules

Everybody is welcome, but this is primarily a space for men and masc people

Non-masculine perspectives are incredibly important in making sure that the lived experiences of others are present in discussions on masculinity, but please remember that this is a space to discuss issues pertaining to men and masc individuals. Be kind, open-minded, and take care that you aren't talking over men expressing their own lived experiences.


Be productive

Be proactive in forming a productive discussion. Constructive criticism of our community is fine, but if you mainly criticize feminism or other people's efforts to solve gender issues, your post/comment will be removed.

Keep the following guidelines in mind when posting:

  • Build upon the OP
  • Discuss concepts rather than semantics
  • No low effort comments
  • No personal attacks


Assume good faith

Do not call other submitters' personal experiences into question.


No bigotry

Slurs, hate speech, and negative stereotyping towards marginalized groups will not be tolerated.


No brigading

Do not participate if you have been linked to this discussion from elsewhere. Similarly, links to elsewhere on the threadiverse must promote constructive discussion of men’s issues.

Recommended Reading
Related Communities

!feminism@beehaw.org
!askmen@lemmy.world
!mensmentalhealth@lemmy.world

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Kokomheart@lemmy.ca
spaduf@slrpnk.net
Veraticus@lib.lgbt
9
Guide to Consent (www.healthline.com)
submitted 2 years ago by thursday_j@lemmy.perthchat.org to c/mensliberation@lemmy.ca
9 comments fedilink hide all child comments
top 9 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] MadgePickles@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

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==

[–] graphito 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Indeed, behaviour might be inappropriate and potentially dangerous for both partners but it is present and quite prevalent.

Consider the act of flirtation: it's conscious projection of ambiguity aimed to see oneself as desireable partner. In that regard, it's self gratifying -- people might not even want any relationship/friendship. They just like the act itself. Which makes it even messier -- people flirt in any age, not matter how mature they could be in other areas of life.

If you take it at face value, you'd see what it is: a dating game. We implicitly project our enthusiasm (consent?) to a stranger and yet given plausable deniability if things go south. We play pretend and wear masks all the time. It's been this way for thousands of years -- and that alone throws consent theory out of wack.

On top of that no matter age, maturity, or any other characteristic, noone is rational 100% of the time, some people are unable legally to consent at all. Are we going to be that kind of society that jails (both of) 17 y.o. teenagers for few years just because they slept together? Or married couple who each sipped a glass of wine before sex? -- they're no longer able to consent therefore technically it's a double rape

Lastly, many cultures (not talking about individuals here) even within one society are very different. For some asking about consent is a sign of weakness, for others expressing sexual consent (especially publicly) is associated with promiscuous behaviour. Simply enrolling this theory on such people may cause a lot of turbulence between\within generations and cultures.

[–] MadgePickles@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Define flirtation? How do you separate it from just having a nice conversation with someone? I'm also not sure how the ambiguity of interest when talking to someone is related to the conversation about consent surrounding sexual activities.

The law also doesn't criminalize consensual sexual activity between similarly aged minors. Certainly not a couple 17yo's. Sipping wine doesn't mean you can't drive a car so it doesn't incapacitate you from making a consensual sexual decision. Besides the fact that the law is not really what we're talking about here. The law will always be imperfect. We're talking about being real here. Being a real human being who sees other people as human beings and wants to do the right thing.

And to your last point, I can't speak to different cultures. But I would be against sexual acts that don't confirm enthusiastic consent no matter what culture someone is from. Ultimately your language comes across like that of someone who has studied dating academically without much practical experience. I'm not really sure what your point is after all of this. That we shouldn't worry about consent from our partners? It feels a little trollish to expect anyone to just be like yeah ok

[–] graphito 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Define flirtation? How do you separate it from just having a nice conversation with someone? I’m also not sure how the ambiguity of interest when talking to someone is related to the conversation about consent surrounding sexual activities. The law also doesn’t criminalize consensual sexual activity between similarly aged minors. Certainly not a couple 17yo’s. Sipping wine doesn’t mean you can’t drive a car so it doesn’t incapacitate you from making a consensual sexual decision. Besides the fact that the law is not really what we’re talking about here. The law will always be imperfect. We’re talking about being real here. Being a real human being who sees other people as human beings and wants to do the right thing. And to your last point, I can’t speak to different cultures. But I would be against sexual acts that don’t confirm enthusiastic consent no matter what culture someone is from. Ultimately your language comes across like that of someone who has studied dating academically without much practical experience.

With your permission, I'll ignore this bc I feel I cannot address the actual core point of what you're saying in there. I can write thousands of words and most likely you won't be convinced.

I’m not really sure what your point is after all of this. That we shouldn’t worry about consent from our partners? It feels a little trollish to expect anyone to just be like yeah ok

I think the theory of consent is a bad tool for the job. Instead of contextual, implicit, natural, inherently risky decision making, it is trying to assign the blame for breaking "the rule of consent". Rather than worrying of your partner's consent, I suggest listening to your partner's state. I invite people to acknowledge and embrace risks of communication; to carry the burden of potentially being wrong; to learn how to be more in-tune with your partner.

Specific words and general rules of thumb just don't cut it for that purpose. Chances are your partner is complicated person with her/his own ways of expressing oneself; And as a good partners you both need to learn emotional languages of each other.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] graphito 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

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?

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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."

[–] graphito 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That's moral stance of the author, I wish them the best of luck applying it in reality

[–] oshitwaddup@lemmy.antemeridiem.xyz 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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?

[–] graphito 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)
  1. 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
  2. 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?

  1. Malicious agents don't care about consent
    Contract metaphorHave 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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