Skip Navigation
19 comments

  • 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==

    • It's indeed inappropriate, yet, this behaviour is deeply ingrained in dating world.

      For example

    • 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.

      • 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

  • 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?

    • Forgive me for commenting in a men's space, but I can't help but feel as a woman that a you've made a lot of disturbing assumptions about my and other women's views on consent. Can I ask what might have brought on these views?

      It's worrying to me that an answer of 'no, I don't consent' seems to have room for interpretation, be a form of 'playing hard to get', can't be taken at face value because they lie, or don't know what they want from sex, or they may complain that the sex wasnt passionate enough despite them verbally not consenting to it.

      There seems to be this idea that you cannot hold women responsible for what they say, because your interpretation of what they say holds more weight than what they actually said.

      Imagine asking a 3 year old if they want pancakes, and they said 'no'. It's possible that they didn't mean it because they don't know what pancake means, they've shown that they like pancakes before, or they don't know what the word 'no' means and they actually meant to say 'yes'.

      Now imagine asking a 30 year old for pancakes, and they said 'no'. Is there any world in which they meant yes but had language barriers? Let's say, they actually wanted pancakes but said no just to be difficult. Is it your responsibility to magically know what they want and guessed that the actual wanted pancakes?Or is it their responsibility to communicate clearly like an adult?

      If you said that it is your responsibility to know that they wanted pancakes, then you are treating them the same way you would treat a 3 year old. When you take responsibility away from her and give it to yourself, you are also taking agency away from her and giving it to yourself. The removal of agency in making this decision is the revocation of consent.

      Consent isn't about asking a question and receiving an answer. If it were, drunk and drugged people would be capable of consenting. It's about making sure that an option was presented to the other person, and a decision was made by them. When you absolve her of her responsibility to state the truth when asked for consent, you are taking consent away from her.

      And yes, the outcome of playing by the consent rule book might be that neither of you get to have sex, and that's okay. Not having sex because of bad communication is much better thing than having sex without consent (also known as rape). When you miscommunicate, can you always take it back and try again. Once you rape someone though, you can't unrape them.

    • 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."

19 comments