surprising POV?

[Bluegoat]

So, witnessed an online conversation today that struck me as odd.

It was about sexual consent in marriage/long term intimate relationships.  As in many discussions like this, people expressed that there can be rape in these relationships, and that seemed generally uncontroversial. There was also the POV that it would be rape to have sex, or maybe even caress intimately, a drunk or sleeping spouse, or caress without first asking.  I've heard this POV before of course though it seemed a somewhat strong version of it.

What really surprised me though was that following on from this came a claim that even if both spouses wanted and were happy with the sex, because there was not consent it was rape, and women who were ok with this were just participants in their own oppression in some way.  This game me real pause - I've always taken the idea of consent as important only in so far as it is a signal of willingness to have sex. It seems that in this POV it is the thing itself, as a sort of abstraction, that is the issue?  That seems very odd to me, I can't figure out how to make that work out in a consistent way.

I'm curious about people's thought - I can kind of see, given where talk about this has been going, over the years, how this view came about -  but it seems completely unworkable and just odd to me.  Have people heard this before?

[Terabith]

That seems weird to me, as well.  I don't know how that would work in a long term relationship.  Of course rape can exist, but I don't think failure to get written or oral explicit consent is necessary for consent to be genuinely given?   

[SquirrellyMama]

It always creeps me out to wake up to my dh touching me. Same thing with a previous boyfriend. I did not like waking up to him touching me either. I felt very violated.

If both spouses were fine with the contact even without verbal consent then I don't see that as a violation.

Kelly

Edited December 10, 2018 by SquirrellyMama

[Farrar]

I think I see what you're saying. And I do think that there are lots of situations in which that does actually happen. As in, person 1 in relationship initiates sex in such a way that does not take consent into account. Person 2 might have objected, but instead participates because it's too late to object without admitting to oneself that they've been violated. It's a lot easier to say, "I wanted it, it was good" than "Stop. Now I feel violated." So people fool themselves all the time. Or go along when they don't want to because it's the only way to have any sense of power about something that they don't have power over. Or refuse to define things that are even much more blatant assaults as "rape" because it's so difficult to think of oneself as a rape victim. A lot of women would strongly prefer to tell themselves and others that it was "bad sex."

That said, oy to people who take it too far. I like defining consent as an active thing. It's not just that "no means no" it's also that "yes means yes" and you need a yes. But after years of happy marriage with lots of active consent given, if I tell dh I'm okay with him touching me without explicit permission in the moment, then I'm okay with it. No one else gets to redefine that for me either.

Edited December 10, 2018 by Farrar

[gardenmom5]

30 minutes ago, Bluegoat said:

 

What really surprised me though was that following on from this came a claim that even if both spouses wanted and were happy with the sex, because there was not consent it was rape, and women who were ok with this were just participants in their own oppression in some way.

if both parties are happy with  it - consent was given by participating.  sheesh.

reminds me of the feminists who claim all sex is marriage is rape (and yes - there are some)

[katilac]

I agree that one should never intimately caress or engage in sexual activities without asking first, even with a spouse, unless it's something that's been discussed and agreed upon. Beginning a sex act when you don't know if the other person is going to be scared, startled, or upset by it is just rude. 

If the participants have no problem with somewhat drunken sex, then I don't either. If the other person is so drunk that they can't object if they want to, then don't be a jerk. Go to sleep even if you otherwise have blanket permission. 

Edited December 10, 2018 by katilac

[gardenmom5]

17 minutes ago, SquirrellyMama said:

It always creeps me out to wake up to my dh touching me. Same thing with a previous boyfriend. I did not like waking up to him touching me either. I felt very violated.

Kelly

why is this a continuing thing?  have you made it clear you don't welcome it?  I'm confused.  My dh would be in the dog house if he was *repeatedly* doing something that I didn't like.   besides, he respects me too much to do something that makes me uncomfortable, and to which I'd object.  he might try once, but once he knew it was a no-no, it wouldn't happen again.

[marbel]

40 minutes ago, SquirrellyMama said:

It always creeps me out to wake up to my dh touching me. Same thing with a previous boyfriend. I did not like waking up to him touching me either. I felt very violated.

If both spouses were fine with the contact even without verbal consent then I don't see that as a violation.

Kelly

My first husband would sort of "get started" without me, while I was asleep.  One of the many reasons he was the first husband and not the permanent one. 

22 minutes ago, katilac said:

I agree that one should never intimately caress or engage in sexual activities without asking first, even with a spouse, unless it's something that's been discussed and agreed upon. Beginning a sex act when you don't know if the other person is going to be scared, startled, or upset by it is just rude. 

<snip>

I'm having a hard time thinking of how an otherwise respectful, loving husband could scare, startle, or upset me with caressing or other wordless sort of engaging, assuming I'm awake. I have the opportunity to deflect or say "hey, how about tomorrow" or whatever.  Just trying to picture what that would look like.  

[gardenmom5]

42 minutes ago, katilac said:

I agree that one should never intimately caress or engage in sexual activities without asking first, even with a spouse, unless it's something that's been discussed and agreed upon. Beginning a sex act when you don't know if the other person is going to be scared, startled, or upset by it is just rude. 

If the participants have no problem with somewhat drunken sex, then I don't either. If the other person is so drunk that they can't object if they want to, then don't be a jerk. Go to sleep even if you otherwise have blanket permission. 

you're too kind.  I'd say it is downright mean if they KNOW their partner will be scared, startled, or upset - and they do it anyway.  It is extremely disrespectful and demonstrates a significant lack of respect for their spouse.

did I mention I think trust and respect are more important in a marriage than love?

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

you're too kind.  I'd say it is downright mean if they KNOW their partner will be scared, startled, or upset - and they do it anyway.  It is extremely disrespectful and demonstrates a significant lack of respect for their spouse.

did I mention I think trust and respect are more important in a marriage than love?

Right on. 

If I ever woke up being pawed on or worse by ANY person, even long-term mate or spouse, said person will be left without the slightest doubt of my displeasure. If I’m cold asleep, you better wait until morning or take matters into your own hands and don’t involve me. If I’m *sleepy*, but not asleep, he could make a bid, but no taking without asking. That would be awful to me no matter how permanent our status. 

[Scarlett]

I think this sort of thing really has to just be defined and agreed upon by the two people in the marriage. 

Dh and I both wake each other up often....  less as we get older. Ha , but the response is either let me sleep or yes this is a good idea, 

[Bluegoat]

Ok, so this is more or less along the lines of my thinking too.

It is true of course that people can think themselves into certain mindsets.  I am really hesitant though to dig down too far into that though, without some clear evidence that something is going on with a particular individual.  It seems really presumptuous somehow, for one in terms of treating other adults like they are less aware, even concerning their own experience.  But also, in terms of the assumption that there is only one right way to organise relationships, that they should all look the same.

[TABmom]

I think that asking before every.single.time. For years is ridiculous. My dh does not ask every time, but if he were to initiate and for some reason I didn't want him to, I would feel comfortable shutting him down. But we're pretty in tune with each other, it's rare that we would initiate when it wasn't welcome. I mean, if I've had a n emotional day, he most likely knows that and isn't going to initiate then. He often smacks my butt. Like 50 times a day. Sometimes it startles me, but I do not feel violated or like he's done something without my consent. Sometimes he kisses my neck to wake me up in a good mood, but I don't feel violated them either. He's never tried to "start" with me while I'm asleep. I would feel violated then. 

 

 

[DesertBlossom]

2 hours ago, Scarlett said:

I think this sort of thing really has to just be defined and agreed upon by the two people in the marriage. 

Dh and I both wake each other up often....  less as we get older. Ha , but the response is either let me sleep or yes this is a good idea, 

I agree.  It would be nearly impossible to come to a consensus on how things "should" be done because marriages and relationships and people can be so different.  Both DH and I would say our love language is "physical touch" so we're touchy feely people in general with each other. (Until I want to fall asleep and then he needs to get his hot body to the other side of the bed where I can't feel his radiating heat. :) ) But if DH regularly verbally asked me if I was up for tEa it would be a mood-killer. Just kiss me already.
Years ago, when pregnant with #4 my hormones resembled that of a teenage boy's and I would be the one waking DH in the night. He never had any problem with it. :P

[Farrar]

I think some things, when we talk about them as general issues or trends or whatever, in the abstract, can be true in some way... but can become weird or nonsense or even offensive when applied as if they're true for individual situations.

[sassenach]

Just now, Farrar said:

I think some things, when we talk about them as general issues or trends or whatever, in the abstract, can be true in some way... but can become weird or nonsense or even offensive when applied as if they're true for individual situations.

 

But I kind of feel like that's how everything is trending right now. It's getting absurd.

Like, seriously? If this person wants to hold there own marriage (if they have one) to that definition, fine. Have fun. But trying to redefine everyone else's marriages? Stop. 

Also, how insulting to all of the women (and men) who have actually been raped. 

[Farrar]

6 minutes ago, sassenach said:

But I kind of feel like that's how everything is trending right now. It's getting absurd.

Like, seriously? If this person wants to hold there own marriage (if they have one) to that definition, fine. Have fun. But trying to redefine everyone else's marriages? Stop. 

Also, how insulting to all of the women (and men) who have actually been raped. 

I think it's useful to be able to talk about abstractions and theories. Like, in the case of this issue... in an abstract marriage between two people, what should consent mean? And maybe it should mean that people have to actively say yes. Or maybe not. Or, we should be able to talk about the problem of women dismissing their own agency in refusing sex once it's been initiated - we know that this is a real problem from studies and so forth. Like, those are real things that are useful to discuss. They can even be useful to discuss for women who have, in the past, denied that sexual experiences they didn't want were actually a problem. Like, talking about this stuff can empower people to realize that they don't like the way consent in treated in their relationships or the way it was treated in the past.

But in the specifics of a marriage or any relationship... yeah, for real. Two people are empowered to together define how they want to deal with each other. And just because there's a problem with one thing doesn't mean it applies to everyone. I mean, if it's allergy season, that doesn't mean you don't have a cold. If statistically everyone's favorite TV show is This Is Us, that doesn't mean you like it.

[Farrar]

I would argue that saying to a long term, stable partner, "Feel free to initiate sex with me when ___," is a form of giving consent. No one can give consent for a situation where they can't be roused to participate so I don't buy that you can give your spouse permission to have sex with you when you're passed out. But getting woken up by foreplay? Engaging in sex when you're a little drunk? I mean, that seems totally okay. Consent can be withdrawn. And a lack of consent could go the other way. It would absolutely be sexual assault or rape if a partner said they did not like it when sex was initiated when they weren't totally aware and in control. And the whole "long term" and "stable" parts of that are kind of key. If your relationship is a hot mess and there have been issues with consent in the past, then maybe you can't realistically give that sort of blanket consent without it getting dicey fast.

I think for us, as slightly older fuddy duddies... the idea of saying "I give you consent to ___" is awkward and weird. We're used to nonverbal cues and established patterns. And there's something to those. For this younger generation, the language of consent is a little bit more of a native tongue. I think it's likely that "I give you explicit permission to wake me up with the following forms of foreplay..." might be a thing that our kids would potentially say to their future spouses, for better or worse.

[DesertBlossom]

21 minutes ago, StellaM said:

Idk.

I don't think marriage automatically confers ongoing consent in all situations. Obviously; rape in marriage exists. 

I'm not a wife, but even if I was, I don't think I would be happy without consent being sought and given. My consent is not always a given.

If sex was consensual, or the woman considers herself to have given prior consent which she did not later withdraw, and she was capable of consent, and she was content to have had sex, then I struggle to view it the interaction as rape or sexual assault.

Plenty of sex in marriages and other relationships, though, which do not meet the above requirements, and which involve elements of psychological, physical and other coercion. 

 

 

 

It feels like some are trying to narrow the definition of consent. And also trying to narrow down what "asking for sex" looks like.  IMO, one can ask for sex or give consent in a hundred different ways, most of which do not require any spoken words.

I wonder if this confusion over what consent should look like is the result of so much casual sex in early relationships or hookups.  If you haven't gained the trust and respect of your partner and been with them long enough to read and understand their non-verbal cues, I can see why explicit, verbal consent would be so important. But when you've been with a person long enough and understand each other, and genuinely care about the other person's well-being, there are a lot of things that don't necessarily need to be said out loud. You just know.

Edited December 10, 2018 by DesertBlossom

[DesertBlossom]

7 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

I think requiring verbal consent is also useful when a partner isn't particularly respectful of non-verbal cues. Plenty of relationships where one partner or the other likes to push their luck, no matter how well they know the other's non-verbal cues.A verbal 'no' is harder to push past. IMO. 

 

 

 

 

But in that case getting verbal consent is not the problem-- it's not taking no for an answer that's the problem. Saying no doesn't necessarily require words either, unless your partner is willfully ignoring previously understood non-verbal cues. That's not a consent problem. That's a your-partner-is-being-a-selfish-punk problem.

Edited December 10, 2018 by DesertBlossom

[Scarlett]

29 minutes ago, StellaM said:Idk.

I don't think marriage automatically confers ongoing consent in all situations. Obviously; rape in marriage exists. 

I'm not a wife, but even if I was, I don't think I would be happy without consent being sought and given. My consent is not always a given.

If sex was consensual, or the woman considers herself to have given prior consent which she did not later withdraw, and she was capable of consent, and she was content to have had sex, then I struggle to view it the interaction as rape or sexual assault.

Plenty of sex in marriages and other relationships, though, which do not meet the above requirements, and which involve elements of psychological, physical and other coercion. 

 

 

 

Really?  I did not know that.

but I think regardless...if a person is regularly in the bed with a particular person then they have to think sex might be wanted. 

[Scarlett]

28 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yeah, I live in sin, sorry Scarlett 😞 
(I hope you don't think worse of me now, but you probably do. That's OK.)

Yeah...it might be wanted...doesn't mean a 'yes' can be taken for granted. IMO. I really don't carehow other people manage their relationships - that's up to them.

For me, my consent is not for all time. If I woke up to find dh - ahem - engaged - without my explicit consent, I would consider that to be assault. For me.

Don’t say that! I don’t think less of you.  I just didn’t know. You have grown kids, I just assumed you were married. My bad.

personally my HUSBAND gets more of a pass than some stranger on the street.  I might say, leave me alone,I want to sleep, but I would not feel asaulted.

[Scarlett]

4 minutes ago, StellaM said:

 

Yeah, it makes sense in a marriage in which you consider yourselves, husband and wife, to be one flesh.

For me it doesn't make sense. I just don't provide blanket consent, whether to the person whose been in my bed for 23 years, or to a hypothetical stranger. 

To be clear, I do consider my husband to be a special category....and yet there are things I would NOT be happy with if I woke up to find him doing...obviously we all have our comfort levels.....my dh snuggling up to me and running his hands over my body....not assault to me.  And for the record....I was in a situation where a 21 year old kid climbed into my bed while I was sleeping And pressed up to me and ran his hands over my body.  I felt 100% violated and traumatized.  

[KungFuPanda]

I'd be more offended if every encounter began with a weird CYA questionnaire. That seems tedious.  Put some time into learning to read other people's signals or become a hermit.  We don't need to bring paperwork, even if it's mental, into everything.  

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, Scarlett said:

Really?  I did not know that.

but I think regardless...if a person is regularly in the bed with a particular person then they have to think sex might be wanted. 

most married couples don't have separate bedrooms.   sure, I share a bed with my husband.   just because we share a bed - doesn't mean we want to have sex at the same time as the other person, or that we should have to have sex just becasue the other person wants it.  

being  married - we can generally safely assume a pass will be welcome - even if the response is "can I take a rain check?"

[Carrie12345]

I attended a little session on rape culture at my kids' cc, with my kids, produced by kids at the cc. Though it was only one example, the interactive audience was fixated on the marital aspect. On one hand, I think it's very important to acknowledge that even our most intimate loves are entitled to the rule of enthusiastic consent. But there is shorthand in established relationships.   Dissecting and analyzing the dynamics of someone else's established adult sexual relationship without serious cause seems rather icky! My boundaries may not be right for everyone. Other people's boundaries may not be right for me.

Raise kids to set their own boundaries and respect those of others.

 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

Yeah, it makes sense in a marriage in which you consider yourselves, husband and wife, to be one flesh.

For me it doesn't make sense. I just don't provide blanket consent, whether to the person whose been in my bed for 23 years, or to a hypothetical stranger. 

I don’t know...I’m literally a wife and I still give consent or not at all times. It’s not necessarily an explicit discussion, but there’s still specifically either agreement or a turn down/put off for later. 

[maize]

8 hours ago, StellaM said:

 

 Yeah, plenty of selfish punks out there. I don't know what the answer is. For myself, I prefer to have my consent explicitly sought each and every time. But - I'm not a wife. So. Idk.

Verbally? 

That would be weird and awkward to me, definitely not something I want.

Different approaches of course is fine for each of us in our relationships. It would be a problem if I told you you were wrong to insist on verbal consent or you told me I was wrong not to.

Reducing human communication to words only is pretty darn limiting and not the way most of us live our lives. Living with a spouse who is hard of hearing and doesn't wear his hearing aids to bed may make the idea of needing to communicate verbally about bedroom activities particularly laughable to me.

[maize]

3 hours ago, Quill said:

I don’t know...I’m literally a wife and I still give consent or not at all times. It’s not necessarily an explicit discussion, but there’s still specifically either agreement or a turn down/put off for later. 

Is it always verbal?

I expect to have complete freedom to consent or not consent but don't see why words would be always necessary.

Edited December 10, 2018 by maize

[Farrar]

Requiring that everyone primarily use verbal communication or assuming that verbal communication is the only way to do it isn't right to me.

But also, I think sometimes we who are a bit older are dismissive of the need for verbal communication around consent. It removes the assumptions to a much greater degree. It doesn't have to be as awkward as some people seem to make it out to be.

I think removing the need for it and relying on non-verbal consent depends on being in a long term, healthy relationship - which is something that applies to a lot of us here, so of course we're used to being able to give our partner cues without having to say, "stop trying to initiate sex" or "yes, I'd love if you'd kiss my neck" or what have you.

[SquirrellyMama]

13 hours ago, gardenmom5 said:

why is this a continuing thing?  have you made it clear you don't welcome it?  I'm confused.  My dh would be in the dog house if he was *repeatedly* doing something that I didn't like.   besides, he respects me too much to do something that makes me uncomfortable, and to which I'd object.  he might try once, but once he knew it was a no-no, it wouldn't happen again.

It's not a continuing thing. I told him very early in our relationship. It confused him but he did stop.

I may have worded my first post badly.

Kelly

[Guest]

38 minutes ago, maize said:

Is it always verbal?

I except to have complete freedom to consent or not consent but don't see why words would be always necessary.

I certainly don’t presume it has to be verbal for all couples - actually, I presume nothing about what other long term couples must do - but for me, verbal is the way it works out. My dh is a concrete thinker and I have learned that subtle is not useful in communicating anything with him. 

[Farrar]

You know, SquirrellyMama's post makes me think about something else too...

I feel like everyone is allowed to react to things how they want. So, is it "okay" if someone touches someone without their permission? Of course not. But also, it's okay for the person being touched to say, I see you didn't mean to make me uncomfortable and I'm happy to let this go now that I've had a chance to explain what I want clearer. I mean, it's also okay for the person to say, that was assault and I feel really violated. But not every "bad touch" feels like it's some sort of assault. Sometimes it just feels like you got your wires crossed.

[SKL]

Well I do think a lot of those are wrong, though I don't know that I'd call them criminal rape.  I mean I've never been drunk or married, but I don't think I would want even a spouse having sex with my body if I was not with it enough to respond.  Obviously if I said "no" it would be "no" even if we were married.

But the idea that you have to ask for consent every time from the person who agreed to marry you or to share your bed romantically?  Is there no concept of blanket consent within reasonable boundaries, e.g., we are both awake enough that if one wanted to say "no" they could?

Maybe some people like to speak everything they are thinking and feeling, but many of us are more non-verbal communicators when it comes to intimacy.  In my long-term-relationship days, I might hold his hand and scootch close, he might do whatever he knows I am likely to be OK with and so on.  Or he might test the waters within reason and watch for my response, and respect my response.  IMO there is nothing wrong with that; I have indicated I am interested in being close, and part of a relationship is exploring what each person likes, up to the bounds of comfort.  Yes, someone is going to say, that amounts to consent since it is mutually understood what I am OK with.  But communicating consent, understanding it, and especially proving it are not black and white matters.  And I'm not sure it's good for us to insist they become more black and white.

[maize]

I also think that for me and for many other married people there is a really huge difference between the sort of consent that applies in marriage and out. Within my marriage, consent is mainly about timing--now or not now.

Outside the bounds of my marriage I give no consent ever and it would be a major breach of boundaries for someone who knows me well enough to reasonably consider me a potential partner to even ask because they would know that is a solid NONOTEVER boundary. 

 

[shawthorne44]

I think in a marriage the presumption is that consent is given unless stated otherwise.  
Which is the opposite of the first time.  

I like when DH starts things when I am asleep.  Sometimes I say no I go to sleep much before DH.  There have even been times that he started something while I was asleep, then we were both very active, then I realized that he was STILL asleep even while being active.  

[Farrar]

16 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

I think in a marriage the presumption is that consent is given unless stated otherwise.  

I totally disagree with that. I think the presumption should be that partners - married or not - need to define their own boundaries. End stop.

And consent is never all encompassing. There are always other things that could be done during sex that partners probably haven't done or don't usually do. Consent is never for everything. So when partners have a long term enough situation that they don't feel they need verbal consent to initiate sex, then that's fine. But it doesn't mean everything is on the table.

In my marriage, it is the case that dh or I can try to initiate sex or can touch each other without explicit verbal consent in the moment. We've established those boundaries. But if I wanted to (insert creative sex act here) then I'd probably need verbal consent. In someone else's marriage, maybe there would be a reason that someone wouldn't feel okay about being touched without consent in the moment. Like, maybe there's abuse in one partner's background or maybe someone is just really touch sensitive or considers themselves gray sexual or something and verbal consent is required every time. That's their prerogative.

[Faith-manor]

8 minutes ago, Farrar said:

I totally disagree with that. I think the presumption should be that partners - married or not - need to define their own boundaries. End stop.

And consent is never all encompassing. There are always other things that could be done during sex that partners probably haven't done or don't usually do. Consent is never for everything. So when partners have a long term enough situation that they don't feel they need verbal consent to initiate sex, then that's fine. But it doesn't mean everything is on the table.

In my marriage, it is the case that dh or I can try to initiate sex or can touch each other without explicit verbal consent in the moment. We've established those boundaries. But if I wanted to (insert creative sex act here) then I'd probably need verbal consent. In someone else's marriage, maybe there would be a reason that someone wouldn't feel okay about being touched without consent in the moment. Like, maybe there's abuse in one partner's background or maybe someone is just really touch sensitive or considers themselves gray sexual or something and verbal consent is required every time. That's their prerogative.

I agree with this. It is also how our marriage operates.

But I think that the issue we fight in modern times with marital consent is that we are still shaking off the concept of "women as property". For most of human history, female consent was a "non thing" and especially when it came to marriage because marriage was an economic contract in which a female was bartered off for some monetary, political, or status gain. Men were entirely in control. Whatever he wanted he got whenever he wanted it. I think that an awful lot of men, while not actually thinking overtly in this way, still have a little bit of this mentality when it comes to marriage. They figure they got married which means sex whenever they desire, and are baffled by the concept that they don't own the woman's body.

As a nation, we are still working to shed our puritanical roots. 

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, Faith-manor said:

I agree with this. It is also how our marriage operates.

But I think that the issue we fight in modern times with marital consent is that we are still shaking off the concept of "women as property". For most of human history, female consent was a "non thing" and especially when it came to marriage because marriage was an economic contract in which a female was bartered off for some monetary, political, or status gain. Men were entirely in control. Whatever he wanted he got whenever he wanted it. I think that an awful lot of men, while not actually thinking overtly in this way, still have a little bit of this mentality when it comes to marriage. They figure they got married which means sex whenever they desire, and are baffled by the concept that they don't own the woman's body.

As a nation, we are still working to shed our puritanical roots. 

I don't think there are many men who would continue to think this way if their spouse expressed that they felt differently.

On the other hand, there are probably some number of women who *could* say "no" but feel like they aren't supposed to in a marriage / long term relationship.  In fact I believe I've seen some women teaching that women should not do so in general.  So rather than blame men for having old-fashioned ideas, I think it is often on the woman to speak up.

[DesertBlossom]

I have been trying to figure out how "blanket consent" would work, or this idea that consent is always a given unless otherwise stated-- something about that feels off to me. Icky, even.

In marriage there is an assumption that there is an ongoing sexual relationship. But the whens and wheres need to be agreed upon each time. In my marriage, that rarely involves words. And after 15 years we read each other incredibly well.  But still, consent is always given in a way that is understandable to the other person.

[gardenmom5]

1 hour ago, shawthorne44 said:

I think in a marriage the presumption is that consent is given unless stated otherwise.  
Which is the opposite of the first time.  

I like when DH starts things when I am asleep.  Sometimes I say no I go to sleep much before DH.  There have even been times that he started something while I was asleep, then we were both very active, then I realized that he was STILL asleep even while being active.  

that works for you and your dh - it shouldn't be assumed it works for everyone. 

[shawthorne44]

7 minutes ago, gardenmom5 said:

that works for you and your dh - it shouldn't be assumed it works for everyone. 

Definitely the second part.  
It seems insane to me that in a marriage you can't assume consent for a given activity that you've done before. 
The assumed consent goes away when someone says, "I don't like it when ABC happens"  or "I'm only sometimes interested in DEF."   
In the moment, assumed consent goes away when someone says 'No'.   

 

[DesertBlossom]

26 minutes ago, shawthorne44 said:

Definitely the second part.  
It seems insane to me that in a marriage you can't assume consent for a given activity that you've done before. 
The assumed consent goes away when someone says, "I don't like it when ABC happens"  or "I'm only sometimes interested in DEF."   
In the moment, assumed consent goes away when someone says 'No'.   

 

I think one can assume that their partner will likely be giving consent in a particular moment based on a shared history or pattern of behavior. DH and I know each other well enough that if either of us is initiating sex, we're doing it in a moment that we're almost certain the other will consent. I mean, DH isn't going to be initiating when he can tell I'm exhausted or if I'm grumpy with him. Because he's a gentleman like that. And after 15 years we have certain patterns in our marriage that make the probability of tEa pretty easy to guess. But consent is still being given even if it feels like it's already implied.

Edited December 10, 2018 by DesertBlossom

[Faith-manor]

17 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

I know the thread has gone down other roads, but just addressing this... I would assume that that came from one of the "all heterosexual sex is rape" people and leave it in the ca-razy folder where it belongs. 

If I was feeling extra generous I might spend some time considering that a lot (a lot!) of women have never, not once, had sex that felt good to them. Even after years of marriage. NOW all of a sudden, there are these new-to-most people ideas like consent and marital rape. It stands to reason that some of these women might latch onto these ideas as ways to explain their own own personal situations. 

Aside from the above, addressing more of the rest this thread, a lot of men don't walk around fully understanding that their wives are people. I know that for people whose dads and husbands always treated them like they had thoughts in their heads and feet in their shoes it can really hard to grasp a relationships that are not that way. Women in those situations, as above, might be newly getting familiar with the idea that they can say "no." Like all new converts, I'd assume they'd be more zealous than long-time believers and cut them some slack, even though they're selling crazy folder stuffers.

I can see that. I have an acquaintance that has gotten out of a bad marriage, and she is adjusting to the idea that she is a person with full bodily autonomy.

[Violet Crown]

2 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

As a nation, we are still working to shed our puritanical roots. 

I don't want to join in on this topic (though did anyone note that there's already been a case of a husband being prosecuted for raping his wife, who apparently gave actual consent, because authorities and adult children from her first marriage decided the wife was incapable of consent?).

But I do want to make a historical objection here: the Puritans were in fact noted for their theology of "companionate marriage." Like "the Dark Ages," "Puritanism" sometimes gets reflexively blamed for things of which it's guiltless. The acme (or nadir) of "the woman belongs to the man" legal concept in the West was arguably the Napoleonic Code of 19th-century France.

[gardenmom5]

37 minutes ago, OKBud said:

 

I know the thread has gone down other roads, but just addressing this... I would assume that that came from one of the "all heterosexual sex is rape" people and leave it in the ca-razy folder where it belongs. 

If I was feeling extra generous I might spend some time considering that a lot (a lot!) of women have never, not once, had sex that felt good to them. Even after years of marriage. NOW all of a sudden, there are these new-to-most people ideas like consent and marital rape. It stands to reason that some of these women might latch onto these ideas as ways to explain their own own personal situations. 

Aside from the above, addressing more of the rest this thread, a lot of men don't walk around fully understanding that their wives are people. I know that for people whose dads and husbands always treated them like they had thoughts in their heads and feet in their shoes it can really hard to grasp a relationships that are not that way. Women in those situations, as above, might be newly getting familiar with the idea that they can say "no." Like all new converts, I'd assume they'd be more zealous than long-time believers and cut them some slack, even though they're selling crazy folder stuffers.

the bolded was my first thought when I saw it.

I think there are a range of ways sex can be uncomfortable/not-enjoyable.  having her own hang-ups from various things (previously molested/assaulted to being overtly taught enjoying sex was sinful but she must suffer through it ((my grandmother's attitude)). - mindset is important.) where her body is reluctant to be aroused all the way through  to a wham-bam--thankyoumam jerk who doens't give one thought to his wife's enjoyment even if he otherwise takes some consideration of "not tonight dear, I have a headache", to true violent rape as one more method of control in a DV  marriage.

as for the second bolded - I think much of that depends on the subculture where you live.  most of the men we hang out with have obvious respect for their wives as a true partner. (I can only assume that percolates down).  otoh: my brother - the golden child (with his own narcissistic tendencies) - certainly treated wives #1, & #2 like extensions of himself - and from what I've heard from his daughter, his treatment of wife #3 is right up there. (so, I wouldn't be surprised it if extended to the bedroom.)   but he was already a sob, so this is par for his course.

[Momto6inIN]

8 hours ago, Faith-manor said:

But I think that the issue we fight in modern times with marital consent is that we are still shaking off the concept of "women as property". For most of human history, female consent was a "non thing" and especially when it came to marriage because marriage was an economic contract in which a female was bartered off for some monetary, political, or status gain. Men were entirely in control. Whatever he wanted he got whenever he wanted it. I think that an awful lot of men, while not actually thinking overtly in this way, still have a little bit of this mentality when it comes to marriage. They figure they got married which means sex whenever they desire, and are baffled by the concept that they don't own the woman's body.

As a nation, we are still working to shed our puritanical roots. 

I'm not sure about this. I hesitate to post because my thoughts are still not fully formed, so please bear with me ... I almost certainly won't word this right.

I realize that it is historically accurate to say that women were considered property legally and, in many cultures, culturally for a lot of recorded history. But I wonder how that actually played out in most day to day real life marriages. I've seen enough of human nature to know that a certain percentage of men - of any age or historical period - are just plain mean and narcissistic and will lord their power over the women in their lives. That's fact. But I also think that most men - again, of any age or historical period - are decent and capable of truly loving and respecting the women they share a life and a bed with and I find it difficult to believe that most men would completely disregard their wives' s@xual preferences and demand s@x whenever and wherever they want, even if the cultural practices of the day that they participated in and perhaps even worked to perpetuate tell a different story about what they thought a woman's role was in society. I mean, seriously, humans have known about the female org@sm for a loooooong time. And I don't know any men who have experienced their partner having one who prefer s@x without one. Even King Solomon in the Songs of Solomon in the Bible is pretty explicit about how pleasurable his wife found s@x to be 😉

So I guess what I'm saying is that although in a broad cultural sense the subjugation of women is a very real thing both now and historically, I have a hard time visualizing how that plays out in the majority of individual marriages when a very common sentiment through the ages boils down to "she who rocks the cradle rules the world". Regardless of what a man and his culture think a woman's role in society should be, I'm not convinced that that attitude carried over into how most of them treated their wives in the bedroom.

I feel like I explained that very poorly, so feel free to disregard. 

Edited December 11, 2018 by Momto5inIN

[Rosie_0801]

A lot of men can't tell the difference between being attracted to women and actually liking them; as though being heterosexual and being a misogynist are mutually exclusive.

[Violet Crown]

Well, while I'm lodging historical objections....

"Western Civilization" covers about 2500 years and, maximally, the continent of Europe plus non-European parts of the Mediterranean and, from the 17th century, North America. When and where, exactly, were women considered "property" qua women (excluding chattel slavery, which didn't distinguish sexes)?

And to make that question meaningful, what precisely is meant by "considered property"? A normal reader I think would take it to mean enjoyed the same legal status as, say, a horse or dog or tree or other living thing that we would speak of as property in the legal sense.

I would like primary sources on this, as I can find links to people making the claim easily enough.

[Amy in NH]

I haven't read the entire thread here, but some people have a relationship dynamic where they have given blanket consent to their partner. 

I think in old traditional marriages it was implied that the husband had blanket consent just by the fact of marriage, until the social more' changed.  Now the consent pendulum has swung opposite so that many people believe every encounter requires consent.  However, an open conversation with one's partner can ensure that both parties have the same understanding.  The problem is that many people have a communication taboo when it comes to sexual topics.