adventures-in-asexuality:

A lot of the times when I am reading people’s writings on sex-positivity, they will cite the model of enthusiastic consent - that is, of someone being excited and positive about the sex they are about to have. This is often also presented through the lens of sexual attraction, and the assumption that any two people who are having consensual sex are sexually attracted to each other - thus, being sexually attracted, aroused, excited, desperate, and so forth.

This obviously produces some problems in the asexual community, since if we go by that model of consent, we cannot consent to sex at all, not being sexually attracted to people - or, in the case of demisexuals and grey-asexuals, can only consent occasionally, and probably not when it’s actually wanted.

The issues of excitement, arousal, etc, may well also be issues for other people: for example, those on medication which prevents expression of high-stimulus emotions. The proposed approach may well be useful for such people also.

However, as anagnori writes about here, the asexual community is particularly at risk for being shamed into sex or otherwise coerced, due in part to compulsory sexuality and heterosexism; thus, the need for a model of consent more precise than ‘yes is yes; no is no’ is needed, to draw distinctions between ‘yes, I guess I will have sex with you if that will make you stop guilt-tripping me’, for example, and ‘yes I want to have sex with you; that would be enjoyable’.

This problem of the lack of scope of the model of enthusiastic consent seems to have also been noticed by the allosexual community, as evidenced by this post by pervocracy here; many of his points reflect points I would also make, but I think that there are also some other points which may well concern asexuals and asexual-spectrum people more than allosexuals. For example, his introduction/preface to the post regarding the necessity for holding out for ‘YES FUCK ME NOW’ consent until both people know and trust each other isn’t and can’t be a relevant part of any asexual model of consent; mutual trust must be assured, and a safe space in which to say ‘no’ and the ability to say it are vitally necessary.

So, given that consent predicated on sexual attraction/allosexual experiences is not viable in an asexual-community model of consent, but that a more in-depth model than ‘yes’/’no’ is needed, what next?

I think that one of the most vital components to this model of consent - to, indeed, any model of consent, but most specifically one for asexual-spectrum people - is the fostering of an environment in which both people feel free to say ‘no’ without fear of negative consequences.

Does that seem obvious? Maybe. But it also seems often overlooked, and, in a way, the model of enthusiastic consent seems to have been developed to remove the need for talking, for safe communication; to establish consent without building a platform for nonconsent to be expressed. (Incidentally, I am not sure how many of the people who will respect that only enthusiastic consent should be viewed as consent would refuse to develop an environment in which nonconsent is expressed; thus rendering a lot of the point of the model of enthusiastic consent null.)

Am I saying that asexual or asexual-spectrum people can’t have casual sex? Not at all! I am merely saying that, ideally, it would be with someone who would foster an environment in which nonconsent could be expressed without fear of harm - whether due to long association or merely to basic respect.

If the space exists in which to express nonconsent without fear of harm or disparagement, then the next assessment point is the ability to say ‘yes’ for reasons unrelated to (internalised) coercion (this supposing that such a space, as it should be, is free from externalised coercion). Examples of this would be ‘oh I ought to have sex else it is unfair on my partner’ ‘oh I ought to perform that act since they like it so’ etc. If that ability does not exist, it is then necessary to acknowledge that: either to be aware of it and assess whether a putative ‘yes’ in any given scenario is motivated mostly by internal coercion or mostly by free choice, and give or withhold consent accordingly; or to communicate this to the other person involved, in order to facilitate understanding and hopefully root out the internal coercion. If that ability does exist, then congratulations: you have created a safe space in which you can talk about sex and give and withhold consent freely.

This should, of course, extend in both directions: there’s no point in one person acquiring the ability to give consent and withhold it without the other doing so.

I also suggest that a name for such a process might be ‘reasoned consent’ - consent that someone can give because they can consider the implications of the request, whether or not they want to do it, and proceed based from there, without fear of what refusal may bring.

In addition, I would venture that this model of consent might also bring about a greater degree of freedom to talk about sex and sexual preferences: this is of marked importance in both allosexual and asexual spaces. For allosexual people, it’s important, and encouraged in principle if not in practice, to talk about sexual preferences freely to avoid coercion, guilt, avoidable frustration, etc. For asexual people, all of these are important, but in addition it’s of vital importance to be able to discuss asexuality and how that pertains and alters those views and preferences. I think that the explicit inclusion within this model of consent of a space in which talking about sex is acceptable in terms of refusal would foster a space in which talking about sexual preferences is acceptable.

In conclusion, the idea behind the model of enthusiastic consent is commendable, but the execution proves problematic for many communities and subsets of people, of which the asexual community is one. I suggest the model which I have here termed ‘reasoned consent’ may eliminate some of these problems.