Consent for women

[ArabellaScott]

A reminder:

You don't owe anyone your attention.

You have no obligation to 'include' anyone in your 'dating pool'.

Your sexual preferences are yours and yours alone.

Nobody has the right to shame you for your sexual preferences.

Nobody has the right to question your sexual preferences.

When it comes to sex and sexual preferences, nobody has the right to demand your attention, your consideration or your attraction.

Not ever.

@Ereshkigalangcleg

I also don't agree that being gay, straight or lesbian is a "preference" for one type of body. It's a sexual orientation. And I don't think bisexual people have to consider absolutely everyone as potential partners, either.

Thing is that last sentence just proves the point doesn't it. We don't have to consider everyone as a potential partner. And that's okay, we shouldn't have to. There are multiple reasons why we may not want to be with someone. There are also multiple reasons why we may change our opinion on someone if we find something out after we started dating them. It obviously happens quite a lot considering we don't marry or get into a long term relationship with everyone we date.

It's not only personal, Necessary, but the idea that one is 'excluding ' people from ones pool of partners presumes 'yes' as a default. It suggests we should all be open to everyone and can only 'exclude' certain groups for certain reasons.

I say that consent presumes 'no' as a default. This is exerting an expextation, hiwever subtle. In fact, attraction is the exception, not the rule. Silence is not consent. The absence of an explicit 'no' is not consent.

I have been thinking about this, too.

It is that simple.

Yes or no need no explanation.

I still like this video. .

Expextation, autocorrext, seriously? Is this how we ended up with womxn?

I say that consent presumes 'no' as a default. This is exerting an expextation, hiwever subtle. In fact, attraction is the exception, not the rule. Silence is not consent. The absence of an explicit 'no' is not consent.

This.

Expextation, autocorrext, seriously? Is this how we ended up with womxn?

@TedMullins

Nobody has the right to question your sexual preferences.

I don’t fully agree with this - people are free to query where your preferences may stem from or be curious about them. It’s not wrong to ask. Agree with everything else though. Ultimately even if your preference does include an element of prejudice it’s still your absolute right to have 100% autonomy over your body.

Completely disagree with this actually. How on earth would it ever be ok to question someone's sexuality, it really is no-ones business.

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.

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 Alabama shootings were racist misogynist murder. Not something to base one's understanding of consent on.

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 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.

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.

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?

Thank you sane and sensible women of Mumsnet.

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.

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.

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

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.

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!

"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.

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.

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?

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

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.