People who oppose affirmative consent are being categorized as patriarchal drones and/or closet rapists by many feminists, and I am aware that by trying to be critical of something the feminist movement is currently championing, I too will be potentially labelled as such. However, I am not writing this for feminism, or to even really challenge proprietors of feminism, but I am writing this for the critical minded gentleman who may or may not agree with the push for affirmative consent. For those who have not heard of the current push for affirmative consent, it is the concept that in order for partners to proceed towards sex, the person engaging in sex (the man presumably) must acquire an explicit yes before the passionate encounter can escalate towards sex. Opposer’s to the affirmative consent movement often cling to the grey area argument, and that is that sexual interactions are not cut and dry, and instances such as ‘heat of the moment’ interactions can lead partners to engaging in sex without much forethought, or mixed signals from both parties can lead to partners engaging in sex without fully verbalizing what is happening and lead to terrible implications (see: rape). Many opponents (see: feminism) of the grey area argument view it as a result of men not understanding women and what women want, and view the grey area argument as an ideology fuelled by rape culture. The issue with the affirmative consent argument is that there are flaws to both sides of the debate. Some men do misconstrue obvious signals when trying to obtain sex and this can lead to devastating consequences for both parties involved, but with that being said, many feminists have a large disconnect between sex and the biological realities that drive it. That is why I cannot support affirmative consent, but I can support some variation of cultural understanding between both parties in regards to sex.
EverydayFeminism.Com has a article entitled Debunking the “Gray Area” Myth, and while there are some valid points to be found within this article, there are also some silly ones that need to be addressed. There are three out of six points I agree with on Everyday Feminism’s write up; I agree with the argument that men should not rape because a woman is dressed a certain way; that is reasonable and certainly should considered rape if a man believes he is entitled to that woman’s sugar walls simply because she is dressed a certain way. In addition, if a woman flirts with you, you are also not entitled to sex based on this factor alone. Lastly, being owed sex simply because you are dating does not entitle you to use your girl’s sugar walls freely, and if done forcefully, it is rape. These three points brought up in Everyday Feminism’s article are all points I can side with. Forcing of sex is not right in any circumstance, and that is infact rape. So, this leaves three points that Everyday Feminism brings up that I do not agree with.
Everyday Feminism’s point that, “They kept saying ‘no’ but eventually said ‘yes'” make sense from a non-critical view of human nature because presumably this could be a product of force and the yes was acquired out of brute deception, but that would be removing ourselves from reality. You see, when I was a budding young gentleman of game I encountered a situation similar to this where the female kept resisting and eventually I stopped, and hoped that we could potentially make sticky at a later date. That date never came. I asked a friend who was closer to this female than I was on why she was no longer interested, and my friend responded, “because you weren’t persistent enough.” Now, we could conclude that this is a small fraction of women that do this and hand Everyday Feminism an award in human enlightenment, but in my experience, and the experience of other men, this is not a small fraction of women. Even more confusing is that these same women, when pushed to eventually have sex, will usually continue to have sex with the same person who pressured them the first time. Now of course, because you need to spell it out for feminists or automatically their minds jump to catastrophe (see: rape), if she is clearly uncomfortable by your advances, – moving away, disgusted when you touch her, pushing you away at the slightest motion towards her, and trying to leave but you won’t let her, etc. – but you still force your dick inside, then you are raping my friend. However, if she continues to stay, and accepts your continuing escalation (by physically responding by appearing aroused) despite verbalizing her disagreement with what is happening, then she is enjoying the escalation. Feminists will instantly pull out the, “you are saying women do not know what they want” card, and well, that is exactly what I am saying. This same scenario has happened to me more times than I can count, and approximately zero times was I accused of rape – the majority of these women actively liked me after.
The second point Everyday Feminism brings up is “They didn’t say ‘no’…” Here is a primer to prevent budding gentlemen from rapism: If you force your dick in without any sort of interaction, then it is rape. The issue with this point is that it does not root itself in reality. I have had several instances where the passion was so high after a night of courtship, and it lead the female and I to making out, and as they say “one thing lead to another,” and we ended up having sex. No where in that process did we communicate active consent, it was just assumed. I guess the intervals where the woman asked me “do you have a condom?” implied that I was a vicious rapist and she was asking me to stop, or maybe I am just socially retarded.
Lastly, Everyday Feminism asserts “We were both wasted, but we both really wanted it.” This is a muddy point because Everyday Feminism half implies that there is a normative process of people engaging in intercourse drunk, but again as my handy little primer states: if you force your dick in without any sort of interaction, then it is rape. If she is passed the fuck out, do not do some scumbag shit and rail her, but if she is drunk but coherent, and you also are drunk but coherent, and passion leads you to potential pussy, then go for it sir. However, the issue here is that feminists have a presumption that men are responsible for sex when drunk and even if equally drunk, he is always the victimizer. So I guess Everyday Feminism believes you can circumvent this issue by giving affirmative consent, but again, refer to points one and two, these ideas have no basis in reality in conjunction with female desire. The logic of making sure you are in the clear to engage in intercourse is sound, but it goes against female desire.
Women want to be desired, and there is a masculine component, that whether or not it is socially conditioned or biologically programmed, that states men lead and women follow. Men asking if they can proceed with the sex that both parties so dearly want is not masculine, that is putting the realm of sexual desire as a power women have control over, and thus this negates their interest in proceeding with sex. The only way I could say that Everyday Feminism is right in their support of affirmative consent is if you as a man are so socially retarded that you cannot decipher a woman being uncomfortable vs. a woman being primed and ready for sex. So, then of course, affirmative consent has a place for a small fraction of socially retarded men, but the majority have a different idea about sex, and the model of affirmative consent does not fit into that idea at all. Alternatively, I should ask Everyday Feminism why the onus is not for women to lead sexual interactions from now on? Why do they not gain male consent? By this logic, I could argue those times a woman pulled my cock out and started riding me, WITH ZERO CONSENT (brb, PTSD), raped me. Such arguments would sound silly, but they fit in line with the eqaulist ideology that affirmative consenters feel is gospel… or maybe feminism has been working towards making women immune to any sort of judgement or punishment when it comes to sexual choices… No, that cannot be it, I’m just crazy.
Safe gaming gentlemen.