Consent, Redux
Jun. 25th, 2012 04:58 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sparrWhen you are doing something to or with another person, you need to know if it is something they want. A broad division of approaches to this sort of thing is the matter of whether the default answer is considered to be "Yes" or "No" to questions of acceptable behavior. There are various terms for this, and many different scenarios in which the questions arise. My previous writing on the subject of consent dealt with the broad spectrum of possible types and degrees of consent, as well as some general details on my own proclivities. This one narrows the scope a bit, aiming for the middle ground in between explicit consent and explicit dissent, the gray area surrounding more implicit situations, as well as updating the insight into how this applies to my personal behavior.
The common approach to consent is one of "No Means No", which is an assumption that if the other person doesn't explicitly reject an activity then they accept it. This approach involves having boundaries or limits as the primary deciding factor in what is acceptable. You tell your partner what you DONT want them to do, or you say "NO" (or some other safe word) or physically reject them when they approach or cross a boundary. The benefits of this approach include allowing more spontaneity as well avoiding awkward or even triggering discussions about things that wouldn't have come up otherwise. The problem with this approach is that it fails horribly if one party is somehow rendered unable to "Just Say No", by fear or intimidation or otherwise.
An approach that is espoused by many communities with more deliberate relationship and sexual norms is that of "Yes Means Yes", which is an assumption that only explicit acceptance of an activity will suffice. This approach involves having wants/desires/likes as the primary deciding factor in what is acceptable. You tell your partner what you DO want them to do, or you say "YES" or "Please" or physically guide them towards your desired activity. The primary benefit of this approach is that it provides very strong and usually wide safety margins. The problems include requiring potentially long discussions that one or both parties might not want to have.
Of course, these two extremes are rarely encountered in practice. There is a very broad gradient, across multiple axes, between them. Every possible sort of consent-oriented preference and behavior exists somewhere in that spectrum. And every person has different (subtly or extremely) needs or desires regarding what parts of that spectrum are acceptable to them when they are the one doing as compared to when they are the one being done to. It is unfortunately the case that not every possible pairing of expectations and behaviors are compatible with each other, and while some of them only lead to disappointing results, some of them can lead to exceptionally bad outcomes.
I have previously written about my approach to consent from the point of view of being very careful with relationships and personal interactions. In most cases, I would prefer to find out about boundaries before reaching them, through communication and negotiation. My primary reason for this preference is that finding a limit through experimentation can often have negative side effects, especially if it is traumatically triggering. However, as time has progressed, I have found myself in a significantly higher number of spontaneous situations, and with more partners who prefer things the other way around, so I thought I should address both sides of the coin and how they apply to my personal approach now. It would be dishonest and misleading of me to leave only that other writing online for potential partners to read when my behavior is far less absolute than it was when I first wrote that.
First and foremost, No still does mean No (unless you tell me something else means No, which may be appropriate depending on what we are doing). I'd rather not get that far, and hope to feel my way along the Yes side of the line by way of communication, negotiation, reading your reactions, and predicting what you want. If, after all that, we still end up doing something you don't want to do then all you need to do is tell me that.
If we start with discussing what we want to do, in the context of planning or negotiations, the tenor and result of that conversation will depend a lot on how you answer my questions. I'll aim for something closer to Yes Means Yes, unless you tell me otherwise. I'm going to ask you want you want me to do. If you aren't sure, I'm going to suggest things. I'm going to ask you what you want me to not do. We might end up with a list of things you do want and a list of things you don't want and many other things in between. The lists might be incomplete if you want to proceed quickly, or if you're uncomfortable having the conversation. How far we venture from that first list into the more gray area is up to you.
If we start with something more physical or spontaneous, you'll find that I tend to proceed in a manner more in line with No Means No. An occasional "may I" whispered in your ear will accompany significant departures from what we have already been doing (especially if we are crossing any baseball-analogy bases). I'll try to gauge your non-verbal responses, but I would rather have verbal feedback, even if it's just "Yes" or "More" or "Right there". Coherent verbal responses mean far more to me than physical responses because they are intentional and deliberate. Arousal is not consent.
Regardless of how we start, I will try to establish that when it comes to things being done TO me instead of BY me, I am a No Means No sort of person. I am quite capable of saying No when necessary, and encourage you to explore the giving side of the equation thoroughly, regardless of your preferences in receiving. If you aren't comfortable with that, I'm always happy to provide a list of likes or limits.
The common approach to consent is one of "No Means No", which is an assumption that if the other person doesn't explicitly reject an activity then they accept it. This approach involves having boundaries or limits as the primary deciding factor in what is acceptable. You tell your partner what you DONT want them to do, or you say "NO" (or some other safe word) or physically reject them when they approach or cross a boundary. The benefits of this approach include allowing more spontaneity as well avoiding awkward or even triggering discussions about things that wouldn't have come up otherwise. The problem with this approach is that it fails horribly if one party is somehow rendered unable to "Just Say No", by fear or intimidation or otherwise.
An approach that is espoused by many communities with more deliberate relationship and sexual norms is that of "Yes Means Yes", which is an assumption that only explicit acceptance of an activity will suffice. This approach involves having wants/desires/likes as the primary deciding factor in what is acceptable. You tell your partner what you DO want them to do, or you say "YES" or "Please" or physically guide them towards your desired activity. The primary benefit of this approach is that it provides very strong and usually wide safety margins. The problems include requiring potentially long discussions that one or both parties might not want to have.
Of course, these two extremes are rarely encountered in practice. There is a very broad gradient, across multiple axes, between them. Every possible sort of consent-oriented preference and behavior exists somewhere in that spectrum. And every person has different (subtly or extremely) needs or desires regarding what parts of that spectrum are acceptable to them when they are the one doing as compared to when they are the one being done to. It is unfortunately the case that not every possible pairing of expectations and behaviors are compatible with each other, and while some of them only lead to disappointing results, some of them can lead to exceptionally bad outcomes.
I have previously written about my approach to consent from the point of view of being very careful with relationships and personal interactions. In most cases, I would prefer to find out about boundaries before reaching them, through communication and negotiation. My primary reason for this preference is that finding a limit through experimentation can often have negative side effects, especially if it is traumatically triggering. However, as time has progressed, I have found myself in a significantly higher number of spontaneous situations, and with more partners who prefer things the other way around, so I thought I should address both sides of the coin and how they apply to my personal approach now. It would be dishonest and misleading of me to leave only that other writing online for potential partners to read when my behavior is far less absolute than it was when I first wrote that.
First and foremost, No still does mean No (unless you tell me something else means No, which may be appropriate depending on what we are doing). I'd rather not get that far, and hope to feel my way along the Yes side of the line by way of communication, negotiation, reading your reactions, and predicting what you want. If, after all that, we still end up doing something you don't want to do then all you need to do is tell me that.
If we start with discussing what we want to do, in the context of planning or negotiations, the tenor and result of that conversation will depend a lot on how you answer my questions. I'll aim for something closer to Yes Means Yes, unless you tell me otherwise. I'm going to ask you want you want me to do. If you aren't sure, I'm going to suggest things. I'm going to ask you what you want me to not do. We might end up with a list of things you do want and a list of things you don't want and many other things in between. The lists might be incomplete if you want to proceed quickly, or if you're uncomfortable having the conversation. How far we venture from that first list into the more gray area is up to you.
If we start with something more physical or spontaneous, you'll find that I tend to proceed in a manner more in line with No Means No. An occasional "may I" whispered in your ear will accompany significant departures from what we have already been doing (especially if we are crossing any baseball-analogy bases). I'll try to gauge your non-verbal responses, but I would rather have verbal feedback, even if it's just "Yes" or "More" or "Right there". Coherent verbal responses mean far more to me than physical responses because they are intentional and deliberate. Arousal is not consent.
Regardless of how we start, I will try to establish that when it comes to things being done TO me instead of BY me, I am a No Means No sort of person. I am quite capable of saying No when necessary, and encourage you to explore the giving side of the equation thoroughly, regardless of your preferences in receiving. If you aren't comfortable with that, I'm always happy to provide a list of likes or limits.