I claim that most women have a “deep” preference for nonconsent in dating/mating. It’s not just a kink; from the first approach to a date to sex, women typically want to not have to consent to what’s happening.
...I would like to say that, in my capacity as just-some-guy, this has not been my lived experience interacting with women, and I disagree with a lot of the framing in this post. (I don’t mean to contest what you’ve experienced; I would interpret these events pretty differently though.)
I’m writing this mostly because I’m finding it horrifying that it appears the LessWrong consensus reality is treating “nonconsent” stuff as a cornerstone of how it views women. This somehow seems to increasingly to be the case, seems wrong to me, and contributes to the erasure of some things I consider important.
Definitely hasn’t felt like a part of any of my relationships either. Though I have heard various women and people I have dated say things like this resonated with them, so who knows. My guess is there is definitely something real here, but I feel pretty confused about the centrality people ascribe to it.
Maybe it’s related to being on the autistic spectrum, or something like that? Normies have their complicated social games; aspies complain about people “playing mind games” and would prefer to communicate things explicitly. Then people form bubbles where they find their opinions “obvious”.
There are bubbles where women upvote/retweet things like “if he stops when you say ‘no’, he clearly doesn’t care about you”. I was never in such bubble, but my wife was horrified to find similar things when she randomly checked some profiles of her former classmates.
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.
I’m writing this mostly because I’m finding it horrifying that it appears the LessWrong consensus reality is treating “nonconsent” stuff as a cornerstone of how it views women.
A fair portion of the most visible bits are John downstream of I think something like https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qGMonyLRXFRnCWSj6/generalized-coming-out-of-the-closet. From what I gather from a distance the bay has a pretty intense BDSM scene, which I’m sure is great for many people, but it’s something with sharp edges that don’t look like they’re being sufficiently respected or understood by all participants.
Almost every woman I have known well enough that they would have told me about it has showed psychological harm from previous unwanted sexual advances or, very often, worse. This is regularly the largest trauma they have, and some of the stories are pretty shocking and consistent in a way that lets you trace it the way minds in general are shaped around this.
One of the core cultural adaptations to the fact that the male sex drive can be expressed destructively is normalising consent as a required feature of sexuality. @johnswentworth’s arranging language here seems to reduce the potency of that bright line in a way which looks to me likely to increase the rate of serious harm and generate legitimate feelings of unsafety in a large number of women.
Additionally, normalising nonconsent as a way to get sex tilts desperate or inexperienced men towards terrible, life ruining, mistakes when the person they advance on doesn’t have this specific kink AND the unstated consent to not need verbal consent with this person at this time.
I’m also curious about other observations, from James or others who agreed. (I’m not against the claim, but haven’t noticed it, and can’t think of examples. Bad if true.)
(… I guess there is a social-and-memetic cluster around Aella that rubs me the wrong way, for reasons that kinda rhyme with this? But I wouldn’t describe it the way James did, and definitely don’t see that cluster on LW itself much or see it as LW consensus reality.)
On the overall note of the post:
...I would like to say that, in my capacity as just-some-guy, this has not been my lived experience interacting with women, and I disagree with a lot of the framing in this post. (I don’t mean to contest what you’ve experienced; I would interpret these events pretty differently though.)
I’m writing this mostly because I’m finding it horrifying that it appears the LessWrong consensus reality is treating “nonconsent” stuff as a cornerstone of how it views women. This somehow seems to increasingly to be the case, seems wrong to me, and contributes to the erasure of some things I consider important.
Definitely hasn’t felt like a part of any of my relationships either. Though I have heard various women and people I have dated say things like this resonated with them, so who knows. My guess is there is definitely something real here, but I feel pretty confused about the centrality people ascribe to it.
Maybe it’s related to being on the autistic spectrum, or something like that? Normies have their complicated social games; aspies complain about people “playing mind games” and would prefer to communicate things explicitly. Then people form bubbles where they find their opinions “obvious”.
There are bubbles where women upvote/retweet things like “if he stops when you say ‘no’, he clearly doesn’t care about you”. I was never in such bubble, but my wife was horrified to find similar things when she randomly checked some profiles of her former classmates.
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.
Can you elaborate/give examples of this?
A fair portion of the most visible bits are John downstream of I think something like https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/qGMonyLRXFRnCWSj6/generalized-coming-out-of-the-closet. From what I gather from a distance the bay has a pretty intense BDSM scene, which I’m sure is great for many people, but it’s something with sharp edges that don’t look like they’re being sufficiently respected or understood by all participants.
Almost every woman I have known well enough that they would have told me about it has showed psychological harm from previous unwanted sexual advances or, very often, worse. This is regularly the largest trauma they have, and some of the stories are pretty shocking and consistent in a way that lets you trace it the way minds in general are shaped around this.
One of the core cultural adaptations to the fact that the male sex drive can be expressed destructively is normalising consent as a required feature of sexuality. @johnswentworth’s arranging language here seems to reduce the potency of that bright line in a way which looks to me likely to increase the rate of serious harm and generate legitimate feelings of unsafety in a large number of women.
Additionally, normalising nonconsent as a way to get sex tilts desperate or inexperienced men towards terrible, life ruining, mistakes when the person they advance on doesn’t have this specific kink AND the unstated consent to not need verbal consent with this person at this time.
I’m also curious about other observations, from James or others who agreed. (I’m not against the claim, but haven’t noticed it, and can’t think of examples. Bad if true.)
(… I guess there is a social-and-memetic cluster around Aella that rubs me the wrong way, for reasons that kinda rhyme with this? But I wouldn’t describe it the way James did, and definitely don’t see that cluster on LW itself much or see it as LW consensus reality.)