Consent for women

Arabella Scott

Totally, no is the default. Most people when they walk into a crowded room wouldn't look around and think mmm yes, do all of them. It's generally no to the majority. After that it may be more instinct than a examination of preferences and prejudice. No-one has to talk themselves into sleeping with someone. Anyone that tries to talk someone into sleeping with them deserves a loud ' fuck off' shouted right down their earhole.

When it comes to our bodies and consent this sums it up -

You are not an employer, you are under no obligations to be 'inclusive'. No is a complete sentence.

Thank you notyourhandmaid

I'm gobsmacked Errol had to spell that out so explicitly.

It's like last week how often on most women centred threads did we have to continually repeat "Yes NAMALT. We're discussing those who are". F's sake

And who called the Sexual Preference Police?

exactly! There are plenty of men that tick all my boxes on paper but do nothing for me when I meet them. Not dating someone because you dont fancy them is not being bigoted

You can meet someone who 'ticks every box' of what you find attractive and still just not fancy them for whatever indefinable reason. If someone is demanding that you explain to them why you don't want to date them, it's sheer entitlement along the lines of 'but I'm a nice guy/girl!'. You don't have to have any particular reason - you just don't want to. Framing this as the person refusing being a bigot is very depressing.

But not being attracted to someone doesn't mean you are prejudiced against them or something about them.

Which is part of the reason why it should never be the case that you have to explain why you don't fancy someone because it can be turned against you - especially if you are female.

The article I am referring to is on the Bunbury thread. Sorry for the confusion.

The endgame of bekind/no debate seems to be boundaries are bigoted, saying no is bigoted, safeguarding is bigoted, bigots must be “re-educated” and if that doesn’t work then do what you want to them because bigots don’t deserve human rights.

So now this applies among young people consent as a concept is weakened. Young women are at risk of being shamed (did shaming of young women actually ever stop) now if they are not liberated enough to say yes to any and all propositions from anyone. Is that where we are at?

I think I get your point TedMullins and to some extent, we should examine our prejudices if we have them. Because it may be preventing us from making meaningful connections and it may make us less pleasant to be around.
However, people who have the emotional maturity to do that are not really where the problems lie.
I think the extract from the Harvard article was interesting. The phenomena of people actually thinking and behaving in a more conservative (small c) way than they say is very well known with voting patterns for example.
I think with dating this is the realm of the white lie. You tend not to say, I won't date you because you are unattractive to me, or are out of work, or have had a vasectomy and I want kids, or any other range of reasons that might be hurtful for the person hearing it - you say something bland. This is manners and respect. You may not wish to pursue intimacy but you have the grace to let people down kindly.
Has this become the wrong thing to do? I am genuinely curious.

"Nobody gets to demand sex or attraction by right"

@DaisyWaldron this really isn't a sentence that can be followed with a "but". There are no ifs and buts in this situation.

Why on earth should anyone have to justify saying no? Particularly to people who want you to justify yourself. It is entitlement and not sexy!

I don’t recall seeing gay men threatened online for refusing to date transmen with a vagina?

Things have been changing.

Originally it was lesbians being targeted:
imgur.com/a/x2IzjTF
This screenshot is from 2012.

The targeting broadened to included transmen in LGBT groups. They are young, isolated, vulnerable, and in a potentially unsafe space.

In the past few years gay men were also being targeted:
oursuperstories.com/wall-of-coercion/

Eventually, a few weeks ago, straight men were targeted:
twitter.com/swayzys/status/1366428174339477508
That video went viral and the Internet was full of straight men declaring themselves #superstraight creating the #superstraight movement and moving the conversation about this rapey stuff more into the mainstream (ish).

It's fair to assume straight women have also been targeted.

The worst impact has been on lesbians and transmen. Some transmen though have been using the same tactics on gay men. However, the consent issue only came to broader interest once straight men were targeted.

Yes. You are not an employer, you are under no obligations to be 'inclusive'. No is a complete sentence.

Women do not need to be told to examine their consciences for any signs of prejudice if they do not want to have sex with someone. Ever. In the context of women being groomed and socialised into being nice and kind and thinking of others for all of recorded history, it is abhorrently coercive to suggest that they do.

Thank you ArabellaScott for this thread.

I don’t personally think sexual preferences are the same as sexuality. That’s a question of semantics, the words don’t mean the same thing to me. Sexuality I absolutely agree, this isn’t up for questioning, but there are also certain expectations and societal constructs around sexuality, in particular heterosexuality, that do merit analysis in my opinion. Like monogamy: heterosexuality doesn’t stop at simply being attracted to the opposite sex, there is a societal expectation about what those relationships look like with some (such as a long term monogamous relationship) deemed superior for others). I personally find it very interesting and insightful to think about where these things come from, but at the end of the day, whether you’re interested in the sociological constructs of sexuality or not, it’s still your absolute right to refuse to have sex with anyone you don’t want to.

Preferences to me mean specific things within your sexuality, or things that could apply across all sexualities, like body types, race, hair colour, lifestyle etc. Again, I don’t think questioning the reasons these arise in a cultural context is a bad thing, and it doesn’t override your right to complete autonomy over your body.

Is it really ableism to say you don't want to date a blind person? I have a disability, my DH is very accepting of it. But, it wouldn't be wrong for him not to want to have dated me in the first place and have to deal with all the complications that come from being with me. To me, that's just him knowing his limitations and preferences and I'd much rather be with someone who feels able to deal with my disability and support me than someone who doesn't. I don't know, maybe it is ableism and I'm just okay with it on a personal level?

You are not obliged to explain your sexual preferences to anyone.

Absolutely. Nor do you need to relabel your sexual orientation should your partner be questioning who they feel they are.

You do not become straight or bisexual if you are a lesbian, and your female partner wants to be something other than female.

I don’t recall seeing gay men threatened online for refusing to date transmen with a vagina?

Just musing: has anyone ever seen a gay man told by a female person that all he needed was a good 'seeing to' with her vagina and he'd forget all about fancying men. Or gay men threatened with/told about corrective rape?

It is ok to talk about women's experiences and women's issues without immediately having to demonstrate thinking about men too. It is ok to talk about the issues of cancer without having to include mention of saving the rainforests. It doesn't help women's equality or moving things forward to perform the 'I'm a good person here's the proof that I have mentioned and thought about men as my ticket to be allowed to talk about women a bit' gesture.

I like the tea consent video very much and always has; plain good English around consent. It is ok to not want tea. It is ok to be picky about brands and flavours: you don't have to be inclusive of flavours you don't like as a social duty. It is ok to not like tea at all. You are not obligated to accept tea from some people in ways that you are not obligated to do from others: you have the right to just not want or like tea.

The problem is extending the "group" onto the "individual". You don't want to go down that route when it comes to sexual attraction and sexual activity. It's simply bad.

I'm not sure that I agree. With the Alabama shootings having happened so recently, I think there is definitely an argument for examining the assumptions and prejudices behind sexual attraction or lack of it.

Nobody gets to demand sex or attraction by right. But I think that people, especially from groups which are often either hypersexualised or seen as non-sexual can have valid points about prejudice towards them as a group. Like, it's fine to not be attracted to an individual who is blind. Nobody is attracted to everyone. But if you join a dating site and specify "sighted people only", or get chatting to someone and really like them only to change your mind when you discover they are partially sighted, then your attraction is almost certainly influenced by ablism. You still don't owe anyone a date, but it's probably worth being aware of your prejudice because you're probably not great to be around for anyone who is blind.

The thing with sexual attraction is that it doesn't always follow what you think you are attracted to IYSWIM.

A person may tick every box but they just don't do it for you or a person may not tick any box but they are just irresistible.

Saying you are only attracted to X then opens the door to but I am X

What it boils down to really is that I don't fancy you and I dont have to justify or provide any kind of reasoning as to why.