Big Al.

I think we've over-shot in destigmatizing mental illness, to the point of valorizing it.

Let's not forget, Mr. Mitchum is a racist.

Also, one wonders why, in these enlightened times, it's only men that have to do this "checking in."

That said, if anyone, male or female, is too craven to assert themselves, especially over the most intimate of all expressions, they have no business having sex.

Regarding the idea that women have been "conditioned all [their] lives to prioritise [sic] men's desires," I wonder why men are constantly being harangued that they must overcome their supposed conditioning, but women's conditioning must be accommodated and adjusted for.

Consent is enough legally, but you're still an asshole if someone's clearly not into it and you keep pushing for it (this goes for more than just sex)

And it would be a major turn-off if someone kept saying:

Is this okay?

Is this okay?

Is this okay?

Is this okay?

Is this okay?

phew, how about YOU speak up if something is NOT okay?

And it would be a major turn-off if someone kept saying:

Is this okay?

Is this okay?

Is this okay?

Is this okay?

Is this okay?

phew, how about YOU speak up if something is NOT okay?

The problem is these days is a lot of people can't seem to distinguish between being an asshole and being a criminal and seem to think the former should be dealt with in the same manner as the latter.

Well said, NicoleK. Both times.

This is the right approach. These sanctimonious busy bodies need to be mocked at every turn.

"... women have been conditioned all our lives to prioritize men's desires."

Where are these women? Is there some secret cellar where The Patriarchy (TM) is warehousing them? There are actual nations where this is true. I suggest Jessica go visit one of them. A few years in Saudi Arabia being unable to drive or leave the nation without male consent might balance her out.

A man who loves his woman does all he can to please her. In fact, her pleasure comes first. There are lots of signs of enthusiasm that indicate that you as a man are doing a good job. Signs you are not are if the woman goes limp, stops talking, stops moaning, stops running her hands through your hair. All this crap about verbal consent is insane. Nothing will ruin the moment faster than asking if this is ok over and over. There is such a thing as body language. Women can actually ask the guy to stop also.

Any normal human in a marriage or relationship knows that verbal asking for sex almost never happens and that if you ask it is likely to spoil the mood. Who are these weirdos pushing the verbal consent standard?

The "consent is not enough" is a very dangerous idea. What would be enough? Mind reading? Consent is not enough is what allows women who actively participated in sex (went back to his place, took off their own clothes) to retroactively say they didn't really want it.

Back in the college days, a woman confided in me that she felt safe WITH her boy friend. Nothing was going on that I knew of which would make going around with a big bruiser an advantage. But, okay, she felt safe.
Then she said she also felt safe FROM him and that was boring and she was thinking of ending the relationship.
One in a million? One in ten?

you're still an asshole if someone's clearly not into it and you keep pushing for it

Unless it includes actual words like "Stop" and "No", your "clearly" might be my "clueless", even if I'm not an asshole.

“Consent model”?

YGBFKM, whattah panty-waste.

Clueless is not the same thing as pushing on when someone is clearly not interested.

And yes there are clueless people out there.

There are also assholes who play the clueness card even when they aren't.

There's an easy way for men to circumvent this supposed responsibility for checking in.

"Did you just assume my gender? I am a woman with a penis!"

> There are also assholes who
> play the clueness card even
> when they aren't.

What exactly do you want to do about it?

Posting tweets about how they shouldn't do that seems reasonable.

"Posting tweets about how they shouldn't do that seems reasonable."

Pretty sure that isn't a winning strategy against an asshole but if it makes you feel better...

From 2014:

http://www.thenation.com/article/181911/why-yes-means-yes-so-misunderstood

By Katha Pollitt.

(Last third of column - and you may be pretty surprised by the first two thirds of the column)

"...Indeed, Canada already requires voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity, and sexual assault hasn’t gone away. But at the same time, Rhode notes dryly, 'the sky hasn’t fallen in.' Nor has it collapsed in New Jersey, where, as the sociologist Susan Caringella writes in her book Addressing Rape Reform in Law and Practice, a state Supreme Court decision in 1992 'upheld the affirmative consent rule and defined that in the absence of "freely-given permission of the victim" sexual penetration was sexual assault.' Nota bene: as with 'yes means yes' on campus, consent in New Jersey can be expressed through behavior or actions. Variations of the same idea are law in Washington and Wisconsin, and courts in those states are hardly overwhelmed with newfangled sexual assault complaints. In 2012, according to the FBI, New Jersey had the lowest number of reported rapes per capita of any state (Washington was thirty-fourth; Wisconsin, ninth). The highest number of reported rapes, by the way, were in decidedly old-school South Dakota and Alaska.

"What’s good about 'yes means yes' is less how it will change what takes place in courtrooms or campus disciplinary proceedings, and more how it will become part of our evolving understanding of appropriate sexual behavior. Basically, affirmative consent means both partners have to express their wishes in a way that the other partner can grasp. Men can’t simply have at a passive, silent woman—and women have to assert themselves instead of, for example, drinking to avoid taking responsibility for sex they actually want.

"So, pundits, hold the jokes about sex contracts and the hysteria about most sex now being rape. In a couple of decades, affirmative consent will seem quite normal. And that will be a good thing. Not so long ago, after all, husbands could legally force sex on their wives: that a wife provided sex on demand was part of what 'marital duties' meant. Some called laws against marital rape a denial of human nature and an invasion of privacy. Even Camille Paglia doesn’t argue that anymore."

(end)

And, I said to those who seem to think that parents shouldn't have to talk to their teen sons about rape laws - or that doing so wouldn't make a big difference:

What DO you believe parents should teach teen boys about the law, etc. - not just for their pre-21 years, but for when they've finished school and are living on their own? Nothing? How can you be sure what your sons know or believe, if they don't tell you?

What seems like common sense to adults very often isn't, to teens.

Not to mention that plenty of adults still seem to think it's outrageous that a woman can convict a man if she says no but doesn't try to fight him off. Well, being legally required to resist is a great way to get seriously injured.

From elsewhere:

Mallery Ortberg: "One of the dangers, I think, of depending on passive consent — the idea that all conditions are Go unless you are met with a swift, stern “NO MEANS NO” or a slap to the face — is that it conditions sexual aggressors (particularly men) to ignore or deflect or attempt to wear down perfectly clear rejections. As long as a No is plausibly deniable, it isn’t really a No; and if she didn’t really say No then you can’t possibly have done anything wrong."

(Note that she didn't say anything about what should be actually illegal or not; she was just talking about ethics.)

And, in all the media debates, there's an inconvenient truth that never gets mentioned.

Many like to sneer that "what is sex really about, if not losing control?"

Well, contrary to what movies and novels usually suggest, "losing control" is a great way to catch/spread a disease. Or to start an unwanted pregnancy. So I don't really understand what they're saying.

There is nothing very spontaneous about using condoms, even if you brought them in advance.

Bottom line: Even if you save sex for marriage, you STILL have to find a way to ask your partner the horribly awkward question "are you clean? Where's your doctor's note to prove that?" Not to mention the need to discuss, beforehand, which contraceptive to use.