A question on consent culture?

If a two people are on a first date, for this its a Man and a W. W says to M "Why don't we go back to my place and have some coffee?" They get there and she takes off her clothing grabs a condom and opens it.

He asks "So you want to have sex" and she responds "No", please tell me what you think he should do?

I think the answer is clear but from even this sub i don't think most of you do.

For a more simplistic interpretation from ChatGPT (TLDR) it is added at the bottom of the post.

I am going to go ahead and answer, your still having sex. The reason I am making this post is to deal with the insane idea that No means No. No means No is necessary and should be used but its not sufficient to deal with the complexities of reality. People don't act that way in real life, and the discussion on consent needs to meet people where they are not where we want them to be. Most people especially teens don't have any training let alone done any rigorous examination of sexuality or actual sex. Considering that even for most adults sex is a mystery box until we have made drastic systemic changes we need to allow room for especial teens to have messy and possibly even "rapey" (meaning it borders on but is not necessarily rape) sex. Sex is complex and while some of the thinking regarding the consent discourse makes sense its also dumb, avoiding addressing issues by using simplistic narratives. While we need simplistic narratives we need move past that to discuss the complexity it will never cause effective change. We should be teaching children "no means no" but we need to update that as they grow and experience real life. We do a great harm to ourselves by not giving real, explicit, and comprehensive sex education. Things are not going backwards, teens are going to be more and more free to experiment with sex. They will do it with porn, or by sext even if they don't have actual sex with another person.!<

We need to acknowledge there is a reason we don't ask what she was wearing is because it has been misused, it can NEVER be used to affirm or assume consent, but the clothing we wear does set expectations on the things people plan to do or how they plan to behave. You don't were lingerie to work and you generally don't use a pant suit to the bed room. We need to have real and honest conversations about how sex works but we never get past the simplistic consent talk.!<

While I personally have very explicit discussions on exactly what will happen what they are okay with and check in often with newish partners. I don't do this with my wife, because after 12 years i can read her reactions, the first time we had sex I did all of this. I am neurodivergent and into BDSM that can be triggering to many people so I do these things but for the majority of people this is all somewhat taken care of for them. It would be amazing if everyone did this but we have pretty standard dating rituals, if a woman invites you back to her place that means she generally wants to have sex. Sex is way less intimate and way less dangerous than SHOWING SOMEONE WHERE YOU FUCKING LIVE. Again these can't be used to think you have consent but these are general sign posts that when all added together can help you make an inference as to what the other person wants.

You should still have a consent discussion but too often it acts like a check list, Did she say YES? check, now its all good, which is what pushy rapey guys want so they can justify themselves. Yes guys push too hard, but when men are expected to initiate every escalation that's what's going to happen. On the other side women don't initiate for a very good reason, slut shaming is real, and for the Red Pill guys who like sex, I need to say you are fucking morons. A virgin who kicks dogs and has been disowned by their entire family for their behavior is not a better long term partner than a sex worker who has all the same core values on how things like how to raise children or interpersonal relations. These two are self reinforcing, while we do talk a lot to men on their behavior we don't talk about the real things women can do to protect themselves.

Again these are so complex, because sometimes the guy being pushy is right. Some women do want a guy who will "chase and push", before you get triggered look at every single romcom ever made. The central plot is always guy pushes and pushes despite her saying no, but unlike real life this doesn't seem like an issue because we are omniscient and can know this is what she wants. We need to have discussions on this as much as men being pushy. If we lived in a world where only the pushy guys and the women who want to be pushed got together but they unfortunately come into contact with normal people so we need to deal with both sides of this issue rather than dealing with pushy guys only. Sex requires both genders and two or more people so the hyper focus on men side alone will not solve it.

Our discussions on consent hurt women too, by using the no model it fails to deal with the orgasm gap for example. Yes women's orgasm are more complex and affected by more then men's the majority of the time. Ejaculation being a necessity for transferring sperm to egg and that being easy to repeatedly trigger is a biological reality, but we it is also true women are not given the space or freedom to vocalize what feels good or even self explore to learn what works for them.

We have created a world that works first on narrative rather than fact. You can see this in the trans athlete debate. If you think trans women and cis women are generally physically equal then it makes it impossible to explain why women have a valid reason to be cautious around men they don't know. If you think women are sluts and can only enjoy sex in a long term relationship it makes sense you don't understand women who do like casual sex, you're also an actual misogynist not the overused feminist version but like you actually believe women are not full human beings able to encompass the full range of human experience. We need to move past the dog shit "NO means no" and talk about what consent actually looks like for the rest of you who have cis heteronormative sex.

Interpretation:

Critique of Simplistic Consent Narratives: The author argues that the "No means No" narrative, while important, is overly simplistic and doesn't account for the nuanced realities of sexual interactions. They believe that real-life sexual encounters often involve complexities that aren't addressed by this narrative, particularly for teens and young adults who may lack sexual education and experience.

Call for Comprehensive Sex Education: The author advocates for more comprehensive sex education that goes beyond "No means No" to include discussions about the complexities of consent, sexual dynamics, and communication.

Context and Expectations: The author suggests that while "No" should be respected, there are also non-verbal cues and social contexts that play a role in sexual interactions. They imply that these cues are often overlooked in the current discourse on consent.

Gender Dynamics and Social Pressures: The author touches on gender roles, particularly how men are often expected to initiate sexual encounters, which can lead to pushy behavior that might be misunderstood or misinterpreted. They also discuss the social pressures women face, such as slut-shaming, and how these pressures influence sexual behavior and consent.

Complexity of Sexual Relationships: The author acknowledges that sexual relationships are complex and that oversimplifying consent can lead to misunderstandings and potentially harmful situations. They suggest that discussions on consent should evolve to reflect these complexities.