Sex Contract: Can Consent Prevent Passion
"The principle of consent kills passion even among pansexuals",The Times columnist Eleanor Mills confidently states, and social networks are torn from jokes and memes about official requests for sex and erection taxes. There is a feeling in the air that now any manifestation of desire will now be punished, if not according to the law, then exactly on the Internet: "What if the girl I slapped on my bottom in the second year will now remember this?"
The old order breaks down, and many do not know how to adapt to the new, even if in the series the heroes embarrassingly discuss the upcoming sex without a condom, and do not merge in a passionate kiss and in a sudden rush. Pop culture demonstrates: we are generally afraid to ask - this is simply not accepted. And romcoms are only an ironic reflection of a strict prohibition, which lies deep inside.
Magic and duality
In traditional culture, sex is both tabooed and sacred, which seems to be a contradiction, but in human history there are enough examples where the sacred were simultaneously excluded from the discussion - take at least a mention of God in vain or a king’s body, which, unlike the usual, could not be attacked animals. The French philosopher Rene Girard in his main work "Violence and the Sacred" cites the example of the traditions of ancient civilizations, where ordinary people could not touch the body of their ruler not for reasons of reverence, but to avoid sin, desecration.
Sex, says Natalya Malysheva, a specialist in narrative psychology, is still interpreted in culture as something irresistible, as a force that descends from above and for inexplicable reasons pushes people to each other: "When we think of sex as something sacred and not requiring discussion, it becomes a phenomenon that we control rather poorly, which does not belong to us at all. " Any old-fashioned epithet to passion somehow refers to its “superhuman” nature. Passion is understood as insane, diabolical, insatiable, insurmountable, unbridled, and some not. With such an attitude to sex, there really is no place for communication in it, because it desacralises sex and translates it into the category of rational. This is like meeting a believer with aggressive blasphemy.
That is why the principle of consent is alarming not only men from the "Weinstein Detachment", but also many others. They are uncomfortable to part with illusions deeply rooted in culture and language. Society has learned to discuss sex when it comes to trying to preserve passion, for example, between regular partners. But at the same time, the first phase of sexual relations (it is understood that during this period people want each other especially unrestrainedly) is perceived as magical, and therefore unfettered.
Old order
It would seem that such a perception of sex does not stand up to criticism, but Natalya Malysheva explains that for many it paradoxically turns out to be more convenient than communication: “We are involved in a very small number of practices where we encounter refusals - and therefore we are very afraid of them. Even parents try not to expose children to such stress. "
This is especially true for men - the system of stereotypes encourages them not to accept refusal, but to take an active position: the word "no" becomes only a reason to show perseverance."In a system where there are no questions, the partner gets what she wants, in the extreme case, the girl will remain dissatisfied and scared, but she is unlikely to hurt him, "says Malysheva. In turn, for women, sexuality is subconsciously associated with condemnation, and details, and, in principle, the conversation may seem to them something shameful. Each of the parties has a desire to avoid direct communication - it turns out that people prefer to deal with the consequences of failure, rather than with him directly.
It’s not just gender issues, continues Malysheva: “Refusing to talk is a way to cope with vulnerability, to avoid direct dialogue. If we don’t talk, we will never find sharp contradictions, or even reasons to refuse to have sex with this person” .
However, the risks are too obvious to allow the myth of wordless passion to continue to exist. It is enough to recall the golden triad of BDSM: security, rationality, voluntariness. Practitioners that many would call "insane" are built on a hyper-rational approach and constant communication. The paradox is, but as long as people who practice alternative sexual practices, are in full agreement, classic heterosexual sex remains a bastion of silence and traditionalism.
In almost the most popular social video about the concept of consent, sex is compared with a cup of tea: "You will not pour tea into a person’s mouth if he is blacked out!” Metaphor, of course, not the most romantic, but it can not be challenged.
Silent body
Opponents of consent love to talk about body language, which supposedly can replace verbal communication when it comes to sex. For a start, we recall that passionate kisses and a short skirt do not mean unconditional readiness for sex. On the whole, “body language” is often read by the receiving party in free translation - now there is scientific evidence for this. Recently, American scientists have investigated how well men understand the principle of consent. The experiment involved 145 white heterosexual students from the United States who first filled out questionnaires, where they answered questions related to gender discrimination, masculinity, and level of aggression, and then described their likely behavior in modeled situations using a scale of 1 ("completely disagree" ) to 7 ("absolutely agree"). Students were offered different options for the development of events, according to which they had to determine whether the girl wanted to have sex with them.
The results were disappointing. For example, the average score for scenarios when a girl stopped responding to words or movements of a man, but did not resist at all, amounted to 3.71. In the case of a clear verbal refusal, the score was 2.34. At the same time, the “good guys” were also mistaken, not inclined to demonstrate masculinity: they too relied too much on body language.
Research confirms the fact that active learning principles of harmony in schools and universities improves the quality of sex, and does not make it boring. Most Dutch schoolchildren and students (who were told a lot about consent) describe their first sexual experience as pleasant and desirable, while 66% of American teenagers (unfamiliar with this concept) in 2004 said they would prefer to wait a little more.
Contract sex
After the “Weinstein case”, jokes about access to sex through contract or through an official statement to the authorities flooded. Moreover, the collective twitter was not so far from the truth. In 2015, American activists launched the “Consent Kits” for students. For only two dollars it was possible to buy a bag with a condom, a pen, a chewing gum and a sex contract, equipped with the frankly mocking inscription “YES! We agree to SEX!” and space for signatures of the parties.
Application developers have gone even further: SaSie, We-Consent and (now no longer working) Good2Go offered students to read contracts, attach photos of their passports and sign. All of this was stored in a password-protected file and could potentially be used in court. Not only can this process be honestly described as the most nonsexual in the world, contracts did not capture the idea that proponents of the principle of consent speak of. He is needed not to slip away from potential rape charges, but to make sex itself more pleasant and fun.
The principle of consent implies not only the cherished "yes" at the start, but also constant communication. “People present the agreement as something as dry and formal as possible, like on-duty checks every half minute,” says psychotherapist Ekaterina Sigitova. At the same time, in her opinion, the right approach can either increase arousal, or not affect in any way, but certainly not “kill the mood,” as many fear. It is possible to think about the absence of constant conversations in a long healthy relationship, where a common non-verbal language is developed over time and there are no problems in order to say “no” to a partner without additional questions. For one night of sex, a completely different manner of interaction is provided - an ardent passion, its participants mistakenly believe, simply does not allow a caring question to go in.
Alcohol and love
Recall that the discussion on the principles of consent began when universities in the United States and Western Europe were faced with the need to eradicate the practice of sexual violence on campuses. Numerous trials, frightening statistics (in 2014, Barack Obama said that every fifth student faces sexual violence) and attempts to discover the causes led to an obvious conclusion. Blame it on the alcohol, as Jamie Fox sang.
If you look at things soberly (although a person after four bottles of beer is much less rational), no one can prohibit drunk sex - many people like it. There is no exact answer to the question, where is the ethical boundary, after which sex is no longer necessary to initiate. Half a bottle of wine or a half? And what if it already vomited? And if you are not familiar? It all depends on the circumstances. The Layhhaker edition offers a simple version. Ask myself: are I ready to entrust a potential partner to drive my car? How many will follow the rule when they get a no answer? The difficulty is that drunk sex in this case just have to cancel.
However, there are a couple of tips that you can easily navigate. First, you should not have sex with a man who would not do this sober with you (you were told about it directly, or the answer "no" was at least implied). Secondly, it is worth thinking about how active your partner is. If enthusiasm is mutual and you have already agreed to have sex - the answer is yes. In other cases - an unambiguous "no." Any passivity (not to mention unconsciousness and sleep), even with verbal consent, is a red light. In cases of violence, intoxication does not become a mitigating circumstance. On the contrary, and here the example of drunk driving is quite appropriate, it aggravates guilt.
Of course, the matter may be in the temperament of the participants in the process, but it’s certainly worth checking it out. If we are talking about a regular partner, consider whether he has not drunk nine cocktails instead of the usual four, and if he drank, it is better to leave the person alone. Instead of a slightly more passionate lover, you can get at least offended and dissatisfied.
The beauty of agreement is that it is intended not only to save us from violence, but also to improve our lives in principle. There are a lot of patriarchal ideas in the concept of romantic love (its necessity, clear separation of roles, refusal of individuality), and we have long agreed that relationships are not only euphoria and self-sacrifice, but also quite everyday work. Surprisingly, sex continues to be the holy grail in a world where it seems that all stereotypes are destroyed except one: good sex will not work if you do not slap your colleague on the pope without permission.
Cover:Etsy
