It surprises me that 1) people tend to assume that changing our culture to accommodate this concept requires a cold, legal-like document exchange of asking & answering, and 2) that it only works in one direction (both as points that you brought up that are potential roadblocks and that are often not addressed).
Before I ever heard of this concept, my relationships were already designed this way, so I don't have any trouble imagining scenarios where getting explicit consent is just a part of the process, not a mood-breaking formality. My relationships were also already designed to require consent in both directions. It just so happened that, with our respective libidos, consent was more often given in one direction than another, but obtaining consent was always a two-way street.
I have known people who do not have this mindset and were not in favor of seeing relationships in this way, who were nevertheless interested in a sexual relationship with me. There is a reason why I am not currently in those relationships. It seems to me that an awful lot of people are willing to put up with the kinds of scenarios that are non-beneficial to both sides of the negotiation because that option seems more appealing than being without that relationship entirely.
In other words, a woman will put up with a man who refuses to get her verbal consent, who dismisses anything but an outright, clear "no", and who uses the Cs from the article I linked to "cajoling, coaxing, charming, etc.) in order to change that "no" to a murky implicit "yes" because if she doesn't, she won't be with that person and, presumably, won't be with anyone. And that doesn't just put her in the bad position, it puts every man she dates in that Initiator/Instigator/Pursuer role, whether they want to be there or not, and it reinforces all the stereotypes that are coercing her to believe this is the way things should be in the first place.
You are correct that there needs to be some pretty big changes made before there is a society-wide willingness to switch to the OYMY concept. But there had to be some pretty big changes made before women were allowed to vote, or blacks were allowed to own property. Personally, I would prefer to make this change without erupting into a civil war over it, but if we could climb such hurdles as giving "property" their own rights, I think we can, over time, get more people to appreciate the value of clear communication and active consent.
It takes individuals talking about it and insisting on it, and it takes dedication to a concept that will probably require more than a lifetime or a generation to see come to fruition.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Only Yes means Yes
Date: 9/7/11 06:08 pm (UTC)From:Before I ever heard of this concept, my relationships were already designed this way, so I don't have any trouble imagining scenarios where getting explicit consent is just a part of the process, not a mood-breaking formality. My relationships were also already designed to require consent in both directions. It just so happened that, with our respective libidos, consent was more often given in one direction than another, but obtaining consent was always a two-way street.
I have known people who do not have this mindset and were not in favor of seeing relationships in this way, who were nevertheless interested in a sexual relationship with me. There is a reason why I am not currently in those relationships. It seems to me that an awful lot of people are willing to put up with the kinds of scenarios that are non-beneficial to both sides of the negotiation because that option seems more appealing than being without that relationship entirely.
In other words, a woman will put up with a man who refuses to get her verbal consent, who dismisses anything but an outright, clear "no", and who uses the Cs from the article I linked to "cajoling, coaxing, charming, etc.) in order to change that "no" to a murky implicit "yes" because if she doesn't, she won't be with that person and, presumably, won't be with anyone. And that doesn't just put her in the bad position, it puts every man she dates in that Initiator/Instigator/Pursuer role, whether they want to be there or not, and it reinforces all the stereotypes that are coercing her to believe this is the way things should be in the first place.
You are correct that there needs to be some pretty big changes made before there is a society-wide willingness to switch to the OYMY concept. But there had to be some pretty big changes made before women were allowed to vote, or blacks were allowed to own property. Personally, I would prefer to make this change without erupting into a civil war over it, but if we could climb such hurdles as giving "property" their own rights, I think we can, over time, get more people to appreciate the value of clear communication and active consent.
It takes individuals talking about it and insisting on it, and it takes dedication to a concept that will probably require more than a lifetime or a generation to see come to fruition.