Maybe it would be useful to discuss a variation on the claim from the OP? Something like: “Given the choice between a smooth, slow, gradual escalation, where a woman feels comfortable pausing or stopping at any point in time, vs being put on the spot with a yes-or-no question, most women prefer the former.”
If the objective is to minimize her discomfort, one could argue that a yes-or-no question is less than ideal. If she says “no”, she might have an unhappy man on her hands. If she says “yes”, changing her mind later may become awkward. Communicating that you behave in a predictable way, and can be trusted to continuously check in for discomfort, creates ongoing optionality for her.
This hypothesis could explain some of the observations in the OP, while being less vulnerable to harmful misinterpretation. It’s still potentially controversial, insofar as the approach conflicts with verbal-consent absolutism which is trendy in some circles. But in terms of minimizing female discomfort, this approach might work better than verbal-consent absolutism in practice. It also accords with conventional dating wisdom to some degree (successful guys tend to be men who “make women feel safe”, who are “smooth”).
Another way to frame this is that you should aim for lots of micro-consents rather than one big consent. The most successful guys are said to have an incredible ability to read their partner, combining masculine leadership with emotional safety which allows her to collapse into her feminine. Perhaps best to scaffold with a lot of discussion as this becomes more intuitive?
A related idea from Mark Manson is that women deeply want to be desired, and both rape fantasies and marriage proposal fantasies are facets of this. If you’re going to carry a man’s child for 9 months, you’d like him to be sufficiently obsessed with you that he won’t get bored with you during that time. The takeaway for guys would be to focus on the women that you truly desire most, and let her know what you like about her in a way that is suave, contextually appropriate, and forthright without being threatening, overbearing, pathetic, or unpredictable.
To elaborate on this, I think one of the arguments for verbal consent was along these lines: “Some women panic freeze and become silent when they’re uncomfortable, they aren’t capable of saying no in that state.”
I think it’s worth considering the needs of such women. However, I suspect they are a minority of the population, and it seems like common sense to stop if your partner is unresponsive. I feel we may have prematurely decided that verbal consent is the best way to address this situation. Maybe a better approach, especially with subdued women, would be asking something like: “Can I trust you to let me know if you’re becoming uncomfortable?”, then adjust going forward depending on her answer. This approach doesn’t put her on the spot in the same way the “big consent” approach does.
Another thing. I think consent discussion is hotter when framed in terms of desire. Either “Do you want to make out?”, or “I want to make out with you” (and waiting for her verbal reply/nonverbal makeout initiation). Asking “May I make out with you?” puts the man in a subservient petitioner position which is not as erotic in my view. (Of course, if that’s what you’re into, then go ahead.)
I’ve also heard it claimed that the “big consent” approach can actually be a bit of a masculine power play. I think the idea is that a typical man will say something like: “Would you like to come up and see my etchings?” But if instead you say: “Would you like to come up and have sex?” That’s hot because you’re being direct, assertive, virile, and demonstrating a willingness to violate a (mild) taboo. This approach seems best to me if you feel fairly certain she will either assent in some manner (“maybe let’s see”), or be comfortable rejecting you. It seems like a worse fit for subdued or anxious women.
Very interested to hear feedback on all my thoughts in this thread, especially from women.
To elaborate on this, I think one of the arguments for verbal consent was along these lines: “Some women panic freeze and become silent when they’re uncomfortable, they aren’t capable of saying no in that state.”
This should be an argument for affirmative consent, which isn’t the same as verbal consent (like, you mention “waiting for… nonverbal makeout initiation”). I do see people conflate them or background-assume that the one must be the other, which I think makes these conversations a lot worse.
Maybe it would be useful to discuss a variation on the claim from the OP? Something like: “Given the choice between a smooth, slow, gradual escalation, where a woman feels comfortable pausing or stopping at any point in time, vs being put on the spot with a yes-or-no question, most women prefer the former.”
If the objective is to minimize her discomfort, one could argue that a yes-or-no question is less than ideal. If she says “no”, she might have an unhappy man on her hands. If she says “yes”, changing her mind later may become awkward. Communicating that you behave in a predictable way, and can be trusted to continuously check in for discomfort, creates ongoing optionality for her.
This hypothesis could explain some of the observations in the OP, while being less vulnerable to harmful misinterpretation. It’s still potentially controversial, insofar as the approach conflicts with verbal-consent absolutism which is trendy in some circles. But in terms of minimizing female discomfort, this approach might work better than verbal-consent absolutism in practice. It also accords with conventional dating wisdom to some degree (successful guys tend to be men who “make women feel safe”, who are “smooth”).
Another way to frame this is that you should aim for lots of micro-consents rather than one big consent. The most successful guys are said to have an incredible ability to read their partner, combining masculine leadership with emotional safety which allows her to collapse into her feminine. Perhaps best to scaffold with a lot of discussion as this becomes more intuitive?
A related idea from Mark Manson is that women deeply want to be desired, and both rape fantasies and marriage proposal fantasies are facets of this. If you’re going to carry a man’s child for 9 months, you’d like him to be sufficiently obsessed with you that he won’t get bored with you during that time. The takeaway for guys would be to focus on the women that you truly desire most, and let her know what you like about her in a way that is suave, contextually appropriate, and forthright without being threatening, overbearing, pathetic, or unpredictable.
To elaborate on this, I think one of the arguments for verbal consent was along these lines: “Some women panic freeze and become silent when they’re uncomfortable, they aren’t capable of saying no in that state.”
I think it’s worth considering the needs of such women. However, I suspect they are a minority of the population, and it seems like common sense to stop if your partner is unresponsive. I feel we may have prematurely decided that verbal consent is the best way to address this situation. Maybe a better approach, especially with subdued women, would be asking something like: “Can I trust you to let me know if you’re becoming uncomfortable?”, then adjust going forward depending on her answer. This approach doesn’t put her on the spot in the same way the “big consent” approach does.
Another thing. I think consent discussion is hotter when framed in terms of desire. Either “Do you want to make out?”, or “I want to make out with you” (and waiting for her verbal reply/nonverbal makeout initiation). Asking “May I make out with you?” puts the man in a subservient petitioner position which is not as erotic in my view. (Of course, if that’s what you’re into, then go ahead.)
I’ve also heard it claimed that the “big consent” approach can actually be a bit of a masculine power play. I think the idea is that a typical man will say something like: “Would you like to come up and see my etchings?” But if instead you say: “Would you like to come up and have sex?” That’s hot because you’re being direct, assertive, virile, and demonstrating a willingness to violate a (mild) taboo. This approach seems best to me if you feel fairly certain she will either assent in some manner (“maybe let’s see”), or be comfortable rejecting you. It seems like a worse fit for subdued or anxious women.
Very interested to hear feedback on all my thoughts in this thread, especially from women.
This should be an argument for affirmative consent, which isn’t the same as verbal consent (like, you mention “waiting for… nonverbal makeout initiation”). I do see people conflate them or background-assume that the one must be the other, which I think makes these conversations a lot worse.