Say "yes": the nature of consent in sex

I have said more than once (and I will say it again), that many problems in sex arise from people's conviction that there is supposedly nothing to discuss here, and the question of consent seems to many to be a wild invention.

Meanwhile, stories of sexual violence (domestic and otherwise) have flooded the Russian-language press. It turns out that the question is more relevant than ever. The topic, of course, is heavy and raises many uncomfortable questions. It provokes shame and guilt. What counts as rape? What is worse: to be labeled a heartbreaker or to grit your teeth and endure for five minutes? What does it mean that “the husband raped the wife”? How does that even work?

In fact, all these murky stories are usually not murky at all. And the question of consent is not rocket science. In most cases (not all, but usually), it is elementary to establish whether consent was received or not.

Four criteria of consent:

• clear "yes";
• active physical participation;
• equality of partners;
• ability to withdraw.

1. Consent is a clear, confident "yes"

We are primarily talking about a situation where two people are just starting to have sex with each other, although in other cases (long relationships, marriage) the same points apply with slight modifications.

So, the biggest misconception regarding consent is that it is considered given if no one says "no". As an option, "silence is a sign of consent". One can understand how terrible this idea is by looking at the number of books (not about sex, mostly about business) where adults are specifically taught to say "no", to refuse requests, not to agree to what they are not comfortable with or only partially comfortable with. If it were that simple for everyone, they wouldn’t be teaching this and millions of copies of such books wouldn’t be sold, right?

For many, "no," "don't" and "please stop" are no longer just the territory of unwanted sex, but a signal that something entirely beyond the limits is happening. People fear those words and do not throw them around casually, but their absence does not mean that what is happening is pleasing to everyone equally.

»
The phrases from the last column are what we almost expect from men. This does not seem unacceptable, it is not condemned, and sometimes even rewarded. "Didn't give up, pressed through" — in that spirit.

In fact, these are banal manipulations and psychological pressure. It is not the crime of the century, of course, but there’s nothing good here, and resorting to such tactics can only be done from a position of weakness, not strength. The person needs it so much, is so starved, so afraid of rejection, that they are ready to ignore responsibility and roughly, brazenly push through someone else's boundaries just to get inside.

Consent obtained in this way is not consent. It is the capitulation of an opponent who can no longer resist. Even in the CIS, where the culture of consent and ethics in sex is poorly developed, for such actions one can sometimes end up in jail (for example, if there were threats or if the girl was drunk).

I am not trying to instill fear. You just need to understand that a person who genuinely wants to have sex with you will say "yes" in one form or another. They will say it with enthusiasm. And if they do not say it, they are either unsure, do not understand what they want, or simply do not want to.

Compared to real consent, these phrases are like “Doshirak” next to a chef's pasta. You wouldn't even go to the movies with a person who shrugs and mutters something under their breath at your offer. Why do we apply such low standards to ourselves and others in sex?

2. Consent is not just words, but also actions

This point often comes up when one or both participants have had too much alcohol or substances. A brain clouded by alcohol vapors can produce a prolonged "yeesss" in response to a spicy suggestion, but if the girl is unable to move, there can be no talk of consent.

A little alcohol isn’t dangerous (many do not imagine sex without it, but that's a separate topic). The cheap and angry rule here is this: if a girl is so drunk that you wouldn’t trust her to drive your car while you’re in the passenger seat, she cannot give consent.

One may be more active than the other, I agree, but if your partner is lying completely still, there are two possibilities: either she is completely drunk, or she does not want to be here. I do not consider the "log" option: even very passive people in sex show some signs of life.

3. Consent is only possible between equal partners

Consent becomes complicated (or impossible) if one partner has power over the other. This includes pairs such as teacher and student, boss and subordinate, adult and teenager, doctor and patient, star and fan.

Here lies that murky territory, where it is quite challenging to understand whether consent was given voluntarily or under pressure (sometimes only in the mind of the one consenting). The boss suggested sleeping with the employee (let’s assume, with no ulterior motives, just found her attractive), and she agreed, thinking it necessary, otherwise, she might get fired.

I am not saying that such situations never lead to pleasurable and desired sex for both, but it’s a gray area, and this should be understood, especially if you are in the "upper" position.

When offering sex to someone who is dependent on you, consider that your "proposal" 90% of the time sounds like a command. Moreover, a command for which there is punishment for non-compliance.

Do not put yourself or others in such a position. It is just a few steps away from real abuse.

4. Consent can be revoked

We are not robots and do not act according to a precisely outlined algorithm. "I wanted to, and then I changed my mind" is completely normal human behavior, but in terms of sex, "flip-floppers" (most often women) are particularly harshly judged.

Thus come familiar phrases like “it’s easier to give in than to explain why you don’t want to” (many women experience true neuroses around this, not understanding how to refuse to sleep with someone if the guy wants to) and “dynamo”. The latter epithet is often applied not only to women who directly promised sex but then refused at the last moment (which is certainly disappointing, but does not cancel her right to do so), but also to those who promised nothing, while the "let down" suitor has made all the assumptions himself.

For example, when a girl's sexy outfit, her attention to her appearance, simple friendliness, or pleasant relaxed communication is interpreted as a guarantee of something more.

Not even flirting. Not even if you are both already naked. Not even sex with the same person in the past. Or what is called marital duty.

By agreeing to have sex, whether with a new partner or an old one, a person is saying: “Yes, I want to have sex with you now” (and later confirms this consent through active participation — see point 2), not “Yes, I will go along with whatever you want, and this sex will be brought to the point you need, by any means necessary.” The latter resembles slavery or the result of successful blackmail, don’t you think?

In summary

Consent is not only valuable, it is necessary, it is the alpha and omega of sexual relationships. The foundation upon which everything else is built. If it is strong, you can allow yourself much. The most risky and delicate games become exponentially safer with it, even if in the end you do not enjoy it. You (both) can always say: “Well, that wasn’t enjoyable — okay. We both wanted this, now we know what it’s like.”

When you are sitting with a new partner and passionately kissing, do not jump on her right away, but first ask: “Do you want to continue?” She will appreciate the gesture of respect. And the answer will likely please you.