Tag Archives: touch
I have a friend who, I discovered, likes petting my hair.
This is very good because I like it very much when people pet my hair.
Fun fact, when I was first exposed to consent seminars and deliberate education on that kind of thing, I was a little wary of it at first but also quickly impressed with it as a good idea, because prior to that point in my life (college), people just didn’t talk about this stuff. So I remember having a tentative positive impression of the whole thing. Because I believed “people in my culture just don’t know how to communicate about this, or that it’s okay and good to communicate about it explicitly.” That’s what I believed. And maybe that still is partially true.
But the more I’ve grown and the more I’ve developed my thoughts on the subject, the more I’ve become dissatisfied with their surface approach toward basic communication templates instead of underlying values, because the actual larger problem at hand is that American masculinity is a cult of violation.
5 Comments | tags: American culture in general is a cult of violation but y'know, consent, gender, masculinity, relationships, sex, sexual relationships, sexual violence, sexuality, touch, violation, violence | posted in Asexuality Talk
[cw: sex, in specifics]
BD wrote in:
A post on relationship asymmetry, whether long-term or situational, because everything else written on the subject drains me and apparently if you want something done you have to do it yourself.
Recently someone asked “Are you two dating?” because I was cuddling my new friend at the game table.
At an ace meetup a couple weeks back, when I brought up the pros and cons of Fiona as autistic representation on Elementary, one thing I failed to mention was that her second episode featured an instance of revoked/suspended consent.
I’m not sure if there’s a better term for that (probably is) but what I’m getting at is the idea of taking a step down on the physical touch escalator — offering consent to something at one point, then refusing it later.
It’s two short snippets of separate scenes, just a small slice of the overall episode, but it was… it was nice. It was nice to see that depicted and respected. Served as a reminder as to how infrequently it’s normalized, but still. It was nice.
Season 4, episode 12. “A View With a Room.” At one point, out of the blue, Fiona asks Sherlock, “Would you like to kiss me?” There’s a pause. Fiona adds, “Asking ’cause I’d like you to.” Sherlock continues to hesitate, and it doesn’t happen. It’s around that point that Fiona leaves.
The two see each other again, later, when he visits her. Sherlock doesn’t take long to ask, “Does the offer to kiss you still stand?”
And she says, quite bluntly, “No.”
She clarifies, a second later, “I mean it does, just not right now.”
What’s interesting to me about that, besides the fact that it was written at all, is that it’s not presented as bad or rude or stingy or an end to her interest in him — and Sherlock accepts it with a look on his face that’s just like “oh.” Not super disappointed or angry or indignant or mopey or any of that. Just sort of… “oh, okay.” And the conversation proceeds. And I found it all surprisingly cute, both that part and the part that follows (“I’m a little afraid” “I’m a little afraid, too”).
It’s a small, small thing. But I’d love to see more of that kind of small thing.
edit: I found clips of the two scenes I was talking about.
To make you feel good — a post by swankivy about touch & coercion and her personal experience with a manipulative boyfriend. I feel like this could provide some context for why I have misgivings about the phrase “enthusiastic consent.” I know what it’s trying to get at — genuine consent, non-coerced actual consent, consent consent and not begrudging uneasy hesitant agreement to cave — but I feel like tacking on “enthusiastic” just creates the expectation of emotional performance, which hits a nerve for me as someone who’s been put in that position a lot as a kid. Maybe more on that another time.
Why “Just Leave” Doesn’t Work — an explanation for those who take the “just leave” approach to abusive relationships. Really important stuff to understand. Also relevant to the simplistic “it’s not abuse if they accept it” excuse I kept encountering as a way to handwave critical thinking about D/s.
There’s a War On (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7) — an old series on BDSM and abuse (!). I’m excited to have found (re-found?) these posts because I’ve been looking for something adequate on this topic for a while now. Trigger warnings on this like whoa; it’s about harm and consent violations (of sexual & nonsexual kinds) and at times gets pretty graphic; there’s discussions of and mentions of basically all the terrible stuff you can think of. I’m pleased to know this series exists, because it’s needed and the commentary ranges from actually decent to even good, but I’ll also note that the main point can be basically summed up as “There is abuse that happens within BDSM contexts and the community is crap at dealing with it.” It seems to be written for an audience who wouldn’t agree or take that statement at face value, or who are seeking more details about what exactly goes on and how exactly the community is failing. Important writing, but again, it’s rough.
This post by aceadmiral and the recent reblog chain discusses representation of nonsexual relationships and same-gender relationships as a site of conflict. I have Thoughts and I want to write a whole post on them but that may or may not have to wait, and for now I’m just linking one of the posts here.