Ampersand of Alas, a blog has a very cool contrast and compare post about consent as seen through the filter of nominally “mainstream” anti-feminism and nominally “edgy” BDSM. Read the original post, which I heartily endorse, to get the full eye-opening point. Read this post, though, for a quick dissection of the intentional misunderstanding common to anti-feminist descriptions of feminist principles.

Here’s Ampersand quoting a gee-I-just-don’t-get-it date-rape apology post from Cathy Young

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.”

Read the quote in context here.

In terms of the ordinary transition from neutral to lusty to actively sexual I can only think of a couple of circumstances where the kind of showstopper conversation Young frets about would ever be necessary. And since I think, speak, and write about sexual relationships all the time if I can only think of three then it’s really rarely necessary.

Before you get sexual? Sure, that’s a great time to have the conversation — it can even be an integral part of flirting. (Think of the game “I never…” only slightly more seriously.) Sometimes after sex? Sure, conversations to refine or clarify boundaries based on previous experiences together make perfect sense.

But during? While seamlessly transitioning from, say, dining and dancing, to maybe kissing in the cab or car, to standing at the door deciding whether one will ask the other in, to heavily petting on the couch, to slowly undressing each other, to slipping into something more comfortable… like a bed, couch, shower, or (heck!) even dungeon? Sorry, that’s usually pretty silly.

It’s silly first because there’s usually some lull in the action — while parking, say, or settling the bill, or while fumbling for keys at a doorstep where if a serious conversation is needed it can happen pretty naturally.

Even more importantly Young is being silly because (as Clarisse Thorn’s example makes amply clear in Ampersand’s post) you usually don’t have to have the sort of long, drawn out, and no-doubt earnest, detailed, and possibly stridently dialectical discourses Young implies when she says “clear and rational … discussion.” Instead there’s checking in. As in “May I?” or “Are you ok with this?” and “Not so fast” or “Mmm, more!” Repeated as necessary. Instead of being assumed, taken for granted, or ignored altogether.

Point being that once you get what consent is all about it really doesn’t take much to keep enthusiasm going… and if there’s not enthusiasm? Well what the fucking hell are you doing pushing ahead anyway without checking in anyway, right? If somebody’s just said “stop,” or “no,” or even just stiffened up and stopped responding then… um… yeah, you probably need to start a conversation but it’s probably going to be about more than “consent.” Sheesh!

-==-

BTW, the three instances I can think of where stopping in the middle of a “mating dance” for a full-on negotiation of consent would be

a) When, without prior agreement, the non-initiating party appears to be playing around with “no doesn’t really mean no.“

b) When, without prior agreement, the initiating party doesn’t appear to be getting the message that no actually means no!

c) When both parties have erotic negotiation kinks such that stopping, possibly repeatedly, to discuss minutiae about what exactly will and won’t happen.

-==-

See also:Guess What Else? Sometimes Drunk Students Commit Rape and Then Claim They Aren’t Rapists In the Morning | Figleaf’s Real Adult Sex