You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

ChristianKl comments on My new rationality/futurism podcast - Less Wrong Discussion

15 Post author: James_Miller 06 April 2016 05:36PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (129)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 11 April 2016 03:53:00PM *  0 points [-]

I don't think it would be easier, but I think it might be more beneficial if it worked.

I don't know how accurate that statistic really is, but my understanding is that it is a measure (accurate or not) of the number of women who say they had sex in college without consenting to it. The 20% figure is credible to me, taken as measured in that way, and might be accurate, even though I would also not be surprised if the true figure is only 10%.

I would guess, however, that the following situation makes at least some contribution to that situation. A man and a woman have sex. Neither of them mention it explicitly. No one says, "do you want to have sex?" or anything like that. But both of them make positive behavioral contributions, and a reasonable person, judging from the behavior alone, would assume that both are consenting.

Then, the woman feels bad afterwards. This surely does happen in real life, for many reasons. Now as Katja Grace mentioned in a recent post, frequently we do not know our own desires directly, but infer them from signs. So it is perfectly possible for the woman in this situation to reason, "look, I feel bad about this, and although I was cooperating physically, I never actually said I wanted it. So I likely did not give real consent."

You could say that we could repair this situation by requiring that people actually mention it and say yes.

That would repair the situation, in the sense that the woman would no longer be able to complain that she had sex without consenting. But notice that when she felt bad, that probably had little to do with whether or not she explicitly said yes: she could feel bad even if she did. And the yes-means-yes policy would do nothing to fix this.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 April 2016 08:47:18PM -1 points [-]

And the yes-means-yes policy would do nothing to fix this.

The question isn't about yes-means-yes as policy but yes-means-yes as cultural value.

No one says, "do you want to have sex?" or anything like that.

The fact that you don't know anyone who practices explicit consent doesn't mean that nobody practices explicit consent.

In the BDSM community it's standard to have explicit consent. Having sex with a person who's tied up without being explicit about bondaries beforehand is seen there as bad.

In Tantra they consigrate sexual sex before those acts are happening. That's also an explicit act.

Wheel of consent would be another model of how sex works where people engage in explicit consent.

That's three communities who thought about how to make sex work well that all value explicit consent and where people explicitely communicate about it.

Many guys who hasn't thought much about how sex is supposed to work and who take their ideas about the nature of sex from porn on the other hand likely doesn't explicitely communicate about it at the moment. Yes-means-Yes activism is supposed to work against that trend.

Comment author: entirelyuseless 11 April 2016 09:03:43PM 1 point [-]

I did not say that no one practices explicit consent. My statement was in the context of an example.

Comment author: ChristianKl 11 April 2016 09:12:33PM 0 points [-]

Okay then I don't understand the main point.

"No sex without explicit consent before marriage" seems to be a lot less restrictive then "No sex before marriage".

I can't see how you find the second a good norm but don't like the first norm.