I suspect there's a certain amount of reducto ad absurdum going on in most people's heads when they rush to "we'll need lawyers to write the contract and witness our signatures" view of the suggestion. Which probably relates to fear of the unknown (of which more below). But the (understandably) strident way that "Only Yes Means Yes" tends to get initially presented seems almost designed to lead people to rush to that conclusion. The "softening" words and description, suggesting it can be part of seduction (or in some descriptions doesn't even have to be a verbal yes, an action that clearly means "yes" is also sufficient) all come late in the piece, often as vague, almost throw away lines (and well past the TL;DR boundary). So it doesn't surprise me that people assume that "legalistic" approach is being suggested. Particularly when it's suggested with tones of This Is A Big Deal (tm). (As I noted in my first comment, my emotional reaction to such a presentation is also along those lines, even though I know intellectually that the "cold, legal document" connotations aren't intended literally.)
The "only one direction" assumption comes from two places: one that the stereotypical relationship model is that initiation only happens in one direction, and the second that most presentations tend to use a gendered description ("men need to...."). The latter being why I went out of my way to invent new terms -- Initiator/Recipient -- to make it more distinct from that stereotype, and more obviously egalitarian. (Although possibly only Computer Scientists would love the "another layer of abstraction"...)
All of which ties into the "fear of the unknown" comment above: my impression (and personal experience) is that very few people are taught how to negotiate, let alone negotiate consent, in any non-business scenario. (And the business negotiation tends to be of the "Getting to Yes"/"Getting past No" variety, which is hardly desirable here.)
There also appears to be little written about good (respectful, direct, clear, non mood-breaking, etc) negotiation (or communication) in this sort of "intimate" situation. Or at least if there is anything good written, I'd love to find it -- I've been keeping an eye out for several years. (Suggestions welcomed!) So maybe that's another aspect to be addressed early on: more (much more!) about how to seek consent in a "not spoiling the romance" sort of way. (It seems to me that the various "condoms for reducing spread of disease" programs started making progress once they focused on talking about making it part of the romance, rather than a "break in the action for safety's sake".)
The BSDM/kink communicators seem to have gone further with this than most, both in making such communication explicit and in creating ways for clear communication to happen. Which is one reason I've read/talked to a fair number of people about it. But not all of the things used in that context are directly translatable to "vanilla" situations (especially with people unfamiliar with them). And as recently discussed events illustrate, even in some kink such negotiations do not always seem to be completely honoured as negotiated. (The observation, somewhere in that context, that a sub was grateful for not being penetrated in contrast to their negotiated position because they had been by every other dom struck me as particularly damming.)
(And yes, I agree, many people are willing to put up with all sorts of less desirable things merely because it seems "less bad" than the alternatives they can think of/believe are possible. To which the only solution I've ever found is helping them to realise that there are other realistic options.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Re: Only Yes means Yes
Date: 9/8/11 10:02 am (UTC)From:The "only one direction" assumption comes from two places: one that the stereotypical relationship model is that initiation only happens in one direction, and the second that most presentations tend to use a gendered description ("men need to...."). The latter being why I went out of my way to invent new terms -- Initiator/Recipient -- to make it more distinct from that stereotype, and more obviously egalitarian. (Although possibly only Computer Scientists would love the "another layer of abstraction"...)
All of which ties into the "fear of the unknown" comment above: my impression (and personal experience) is that very few people are taught how to negotiate, let alone negotiate consent, in any non-business scenario. (And the business negotiation tends to be of the "Getting to Yes"/"Getting past No" variety, which is hardly desirable here.)
There also appears to be little written about good (respectful, direct, clear, non mood-breaking, etc) negotiation (or communication) in this sort of "intimate" situation. Or at least if there is anything good written, I'd love to find it -- I've been keeping an eye out for several years. (Suggestions welcomed!) So maybe that's another aspect to be addressed early on: more (much more!) about how to seek consent in a "not spoiling the romance" sort of way. (It seems to me that the various "condoms for reducing spread of disease" programs started making progress once they focused on talking about making it part of the romance, rather than a "break in the action for safety's sake".)
The BSDM/kink communicators seem to have gone further with this than most, both in making such communication explicit and in creating ways for clear communication to happen. Which is one reason I've read/talked to a fair number of people about it. But not all of the things used in that context are directly translatable to "vanilla" situations (especially with people unfamiliar with them). And as recently discussed events illustrate, even in some kink such negotiations do not always seem to be completely honoured as negotiated. (The observation, somewhere in that context, that a sub was grateful for not being penetrated in contrast to their negotiated position because they had been by every other dom struck me as particularly damming.)
(And yes, I agree, many people are willing to put up with all sorts of less desirable things merely because it seems "less bad" than the alternatives they can think of/believe are possible. To which the only solution I've ever found is helping them to realise that there are other realistic options.)
Ewen