Contract sex? Tatyana Nikonova on the documents of consent
TEXT: Tatyana Nikonova, author of the blog Nikonova.online ANDIllustration: Dasha Chertanova
Weekly news throws all new occasions for a hot discussion. Our permanent author and owner of an excellent sense of humor Tatyana Nikonova argues on how the rethinking of morality will change society and how ideas about sex and relationships evolve.
More and more people are thinking about what forms the principle of consent can take, some of them are Dutch start-up LegalFling. The company began to develop a blockchain application with which it will be possible to consent to sex, so much so that everything will be legalized. The launch is expected in the spring of 2018, but for now screenshots and explanations of how it will work are available. The idea came after the reform of Swedish law, which obliged the inhabitants of the country to give consent to sex. CEO LegalFling Rick Schmitz explained that since signing documents before sex is not very convenient, the application should come in handy. What has been so often written in the discussions of flash mobs of the last two years has happened: "We will have to sign documents before sex!" Question: Is it really necessary?
At first glance, it seems that the confirmation of consent removes many questions. For example, in a contract you can indicate whether you are ready for BDSM, rude language, use of condoms or rejection of them, whether you can take a photo or video, and it will be convenient to confirm the absence of sexually transmitted infections (or not to touch the topic at all). This is done with a few taps on the touchscreen, that is, faster than you can find the condoms in the bag. However, even such seemingly concrete and formal actions may be perceived differently by the participants.
A simple example: what will consent to "erotic photos" mean? Each of us will understand the situation in his own way: one will consider that we are talking about funny staged shots naked, the other will get the camera during anal sex; at the same time, according to the contract, will be in its right. Thus, confirmation of several extremely generally described options would rather provoke misunderstandings and conflicts, than distant consensual sex. The contract, simply because of its nature, leaves no room for discussion. To change the opinion, to agree in the course of what suits anyone, will not work - after all, everything has already been signed. This is the most significant drawback of this approach: it makes you think about sex not as a process that changes every minute, but as a mysterious whole subject. It completely misses the point that it is impossible to give a full, unconditional and irrevocable consent to something that has not happened to you yet. In fact, sex includes the freedom of expression, improvisation, and unexpected body reactions that you won't put into any document.
The initiative is not like an attempt to reduce the level of violence, but a trick to cover the asses of those who do not want to negotiate
In addition, even if the contract contains a per-minute scenario of what will happen, any person still has the right to change his mind and leave. We may be frightened, tired, bored, lose arousal, or remember that getting up early tomorrow. We can feel the pain or the need to eat a couple of meatballs. We may want another person who is not around, or be interrupted by an alarm. The reason is not important - it is important that the ability to refuse to continue sexual activities, even if they began at will and consent, is an inalienable human right. By agreeing to sex, we agree to communication, show confidence and rejoice at the intimacy that arises, every minute expressing agreement with actions - but the contract says that once this consent applies to everything that happens, even if the mood is gone.
Moreover, the first thought that arises when you read the description of LegalFling and other ideas about legal confirmation of consent to sex: all this is not started in order to protect those who can be forced to sex. Rather, to protect those who are afraid to be on trial for violent acts, they therefore need to be confirmed that they didn’t want anything bad - here is the certificate in stock. The fact that during sex a partner or partner could change their mind is not taken into account. Not to mention that your smartphone can easily be used by anyone: drink, select a gadget, click on the right buttons - voila. The creators of LegalFling are already claiming that there are no women in the startup team who are more likely to suffer sexual abuse. So, the initiative is not like trying to reduce the level of violence, but as a trick to cover the asses of those who do not want to negotiate.
Talking, listening, negotiating and compromising is the only way to have sex by mutual consent and without fear of becoming a rapist. We need not legal crutches and detailed lists of confirmed options, but sexual education, communication skills, openness, free conversation about our desires, respect for the opinions of partners and the ability to determine our own. We need skills to detect violence and respond to it accordingly, rather than confirming agreement on a situation where violence can be dragged. We need sensitivity, empathy and permission for everyone to determine the limits of their own sex life. And then we will have almost any sex you want - without contracts and certificates, because sex is not a pool for you.