Consent needs full disclosure, right?

[PeoplesNet]

Twice now I've had to deal with men who don't last longer than two minutes in bed (or 6 seconds) and they knew about their problem beforehand but didn't think it relevant to warn me or check I was okay with it.

Is it unreasonable to consider this a failure to get informed consent? I would never have agreed to waste my time getting done up, spend hours with them on a date, get naked with them etc if I'd known there was no possibility of enjoyment for me, just them.

No relationship involved, so it was obvious I was expecting to enjoy myself as well.

At this stage, I'll confirm: they couldn't do anything to satisfy me - clearly not interested in working on any skills to satisfy the woman.

20 years ago, I would have felt obligated to accept this and feel sorry for the bloke and his issues. But at this enlightened stage in my life, I feel angry and used. I explained to the most recent guy that he has an obligation to warn any potential partner so they can make an informed decision about whether or not they want to have sex with him. To his credit, he did agree and said he hadn't considered that. But why not?? Why isn't this info reaching men?

I've been reading on here about issues with men taking too long to share kinks and I know people would be furious if STDs / HIV status weren't discussed beforehand.

I think it's time for men/people to recognise that consent isn't just a general 'yes' and then people have to deal with whatever cr*p you throw at them in bed.

I suppose I have learned now to be explicit about what I'm consenting to. So if any men start wondering why they're suddenly being asked for girth, length and stamina. This is why. Haha jokes.

I mean this arrogant douche hadn't even considered viagra, and tried to tell me no other sexual partners had complained! What?! Then they were being typical, polite, agreeable women, because no way is shifting your weight every 5 seconds and climaxing after 2 mins acceptable bedroom behaviour!

Actually ...

Sexual consent is ongoing, enthusiastic participation.

If you're a premature ejaculator with no foreplay skills, you aren't even giving your partner a chance to consent!

As I'm suffering from insomnia I decided to come back and read the rest of the OPs posts, which has certainly taken up some significant time. I really don't understand why she has requested feedback on MN when she clearly doesn't have the slightest desire to take onboard any comments or criticism, constructive or otherwise, except for a couple of later posts. These posters were heartily congratulated for giving her some degree of the justification that she desired.

The distress that this thread has caused people who have really suffered non-consensual sexual abuse is shocking. All she needed to do was to apologise and reword some of her post rather than repeatedly trying to quantify and justify. Op seems to suggest that she is new to MN. Let's just hope that this experience will be her last.

A bit about me. I have been very lucky in life to have had some wonderful men in my life. I certainly haven't had to suffer the hardship that OP has, and tbh having 3 (or was it 2?) failures in the bed department would make me start to wonder if I was doing something wrong, or more likely, attracting the wrong type.

For the record, I have a history of sexual violence beginning from childhood and stretching through my teens, and I didn't take offence to OP's initial post. The wording was a little clumsy, yes, but the general sentiment I agreed with:

When men withhold information because they know it would cause a woman to revoke consent, then they're using those women in an unethical and misogynistic way.

OP's later posts seemed rather defensive, which I can understand given the initial backlash, but they weren't particularly helpful to her overall point. Sometimes it's better to give way and clarify on accurate language in order to communicate a point, rather than dig deeper.

I really appreciate that - I'm glad you got closure with that guy! I'll definitely be more explicit going forward. No doubt about that.

When it comes to use of language and sharing opinions, I find it perfectly okay for people to be offended. That's the price of freedom. Some people will be offended sometimes. I'm happy that I expressed my views how I wanted to and I don't mind if people disagree. Some agreed with me, by the way. But that's not relevant because I'm entitled to express myself regardless. We're allowed to disagree with each other. It's a shame some can't do it without insulting others but again: price of freedom. People have the option of unfollowing a thread so they don't even have to continue to be offended.

When it comes to use of language and sharing opinions, I find it perfectly okay for people to be offended. That's the price of freedom. Some people will be offended sometimes

So you don't mind offending people? So many of the people on this thread who were offended, that's fine? People disagreeing, yes, of course, but offending?

... perhaps this is another bad word choice.

This is a strange comment. Many men are very concerned with the sexual pleasure of their partner even if it's a casual situation because they also enjoy making a woman satisfied not just getting their end away!

Not pp, but I think it's fine to cause offence in some contexts.

For instance, people have been offended that I think 'trans women' are men, that I think god isn't real, and that I think men shouldn't be nursery workers.

They're offended that I disagree with them, or perhaps offended by what my disagreement might indicate I believe. That's not my problem, however.

I’m certainly not offended by your statements. I just don’t agree with them all, which is an entirely different response.

Thanks for a sensible reply. They both wanted to build something more. I made it clear from the start that I didn't. I know they both had this PE issue long-term (after discussions and we were friendly and close enough to talk about it). And these guys were a couple of years apart.

Nice you asked actually, instead of making assumptions. I think it's better to find out earlier on.. than build a deeper connection making it harder to leave them / more painful. But yeah, definitely need to be direct in future. Will be a weird conversation for sure, but maybe that's what progress looks like(!)

That's your reaction, as you say. They said other people were offended by their statements. I absolutely do not mind if people are offended - this is inevitable. With 8 billion people on the planet, how will you go through life not being blamed for someone feeling offended? Entire countries find us offensive(!) I didn't offend anyone. Someone took offence to something I said. I can't control that and I don't agree that the answer is censorship (or bullying / rudeness).

I totally understand that - but I think my point is more that if someone takes offence, it's not always the speaker's fault. Sometimes it's the inability of the listener to disagree without reacting emotionally.

Of course, that's all very subjective - if someone says they think marital rape should be legal as they think it's a moral good, then I'll be offended, and so will most people! Whereas other opinions might not be considered to merit such strong feelings, and taking offence would be considered over the top.

In this case, who can say whether offence was merited? It could go either way, really.

Sex without consent is rape.

Rape is a crime.

There are lively debates on whether all sex without mutual, enthusiastic, ongoing participation should be defined as a crime. As things stand in the UK, however, rape is the crime of inserting one's penis into another person's bodily orifices without their consent.

This does not mean all sex without full consent is a crime.

I was just going to point out the same! No drawers involved😂

I was responding to OtterlyAstouding.

However.

I would be horrified to find that I had offended someone, and would do my utmost to put it right, although I appreciate that sometimes you just have to let it go.

You can of course control it. Being more selective with your vocabulary would most definitely be a good step. You can control it by not being offensive initially. Nobody's talking about censorship, just common courtesy and using words wisely.

Simple.

No I agree. It's the same with people having affairs but not telling the affair partner.

It's coersion. They know you won't have sex with them if you know what you're getting yourself into. So they lie. And now men are getting angry because women are twigging on that most of them are, in their own words "low value males" and not worth the time of day. And now they're all lonely, and angry.

You need to find somewhere better to find casual sex. And you need to talk about sex more in advance. You know you're meeting people for casual sex, so you need to be a bit more open and confident about it.

My DH was originally a casual sex arrangement. We talked abouts the ins and outs of our history and desires before agreeing to meet, we're rather "extreme" in comparison to most people so it saves coming away feeling unsatisfied and the other person feeling not enough or uncomfortable. I knew what he liked, he knew what I liked and we knew each others staminas. It meant we both came into it on top form knowing what to expect and knowing what to give the other person. It went rather well.

But you obviously also get men who, in their fantasies, can throw you around a room for 8 hours but fall short of their own expectations. Like the blokes at the footy shouting at the football players as though they'd even be able to run a length of the field and kick the ball into an open goal.

@PeoplesNet because you didn't get your rocks off, you consider you were assaulted in some way.
You need a sex therapist and some.

Wow @amylou8 and @HelmholtzWatson are really going hard with the misogyny.

WTF

Haven't read on, not sure of what you hoped to achieve in that a crap shag was (let's be generous) on the same spectrum as rape/sexual assault.

Worrying about where the endgame is that you hoped to achieve, that people could be prosecuted for there performance or lack thereof?

Potentially watering down actual rape cases which already (if they even get to prosecution) is 2% that are prosecuted.
The great opportunity for defence lawyers to water down significantly that rape victims just had unsatisfactory sex?

So cool and edgy.

It’s pretty crass really.

No, unbelievably crass. You don’t mind offending women who’ve actually been raped because….?

Odd.

It’s your choice to get dressed up etc. If all you are interested in is sex then it’s on you to ask specific questions. If they lie then you have a right to be aggrieved (although “consent” is not the issue, hiding that you are crap in bed is not sex by deception!).

Imagine if a bloke posted saying he bought a girl dinner and he complained she disappointing in bed. He would have his arse handed to him.

It sounds frustrating, but you can talk beforehand about your expectations for sex and how you commuicate during sex. If you like a certain thing or for things to go a certain way, you can tell your partner upfront, and same for them. It might be a little awkward, but no more awkward than having disappointing sex and then informing the guy afterwards how bad they were.

I understand your frustration, but the reality is that they are not mind-readers and if no woman has given them honest feedback before, how would they know what your expectations are?

Sex doesn't have to be a guessing game. Tell your partners what you want and give them a chance to deliver. If they're still not doing it for you even after you've told them what you want, that's a different story.

OP is very good at one sided arguments .. only ever answers what she wants, ignores all other, very valid points.