3 ms·

In answer to your initial questions, yes? To all of them? If you're sitting close to someone you're attracted to and you turn to stare into their eyes and they

by Steuard 10y ago

In answer to your initial questions, yes? To all of them? If you're sitting close to someone you're attracted to and you turn to stare into their eyes and they don't smile back or snuggle closer or lick their lips or do something to indicate that they appreciate the increased attention, it seems like a no-brainer that the right move at that point is to back off at least to the level of interaction that they last seemed happy about. If you're not sure about the signals you're getting, that's when you need to ask out loud. To put that another way, yes, many non-verbal cues are easily misunderstood. Many others aren't. (Most behaviors involving eager smiles and reciprocated action are unambiguously positive. Most behaviors involving uncomfortable frowns or attempts to reduce contact are unambiguously negative.) When there is ambiguity, you absolutely need to ask for clarification verbally before continuing what you're doing or escalating anything. That's especially common with a new partner: you'll probably learn each others' main cues pretty quickly, but nobody's going to complain about extra care to avoid misunderstandings under those circumstances.

nailer 10y ago
> If you're sitting close to someone you're attracted to and you turn to stare into their eyes and they don't smile back or snuggle closer or lick their lips or do something That's afterwards. I was asking about the general explicit consent concept, which is one must ask explicitly before escalating.
- Steuard 10y ago
  I feel like you're framing this as enormously more complicated than it needs to be. As I understand it, within the affirmative consent framework it is fine to move toward escalating as long as your partner has sufficient chance to signal their comfort before you actually cross any lines. In a lot of the essential cases, those lines are reasonably well-defined. So (e.g.) if you want to touch someone's bare skin under their clothes for the first time in a given encounter, signal that intention somehow and then pause a moment to catch their eye or to give them a chance to react. If their reaction isn't unambiguously positive, back off, and don't be the first one to signal that interest again without checking in verbally. (If their reaction is positive, cool.) In other cases, like many of your examples, the lines are fuzzy. Merely looking at someone briefly isn't any more intimate than "sitting close" (which we're assuming they've already signaled they're happy with), but eventually a long gaze might become pretty intense (pro or con). So as you approach that fuzzy border, it's your job to pay attention to their reaction. If they smile and gaze back, awesome, keep it up. (Hey, maybe they're gearing up to lean in and offer that kiss.) If they turn away or look annoyed, then of course you should ratchet back rather than maintaining your stare all the way to the creepy point. I feel silly spelling all of that out so explicitly! It seems like any person who's paying attention to whether their partner is having a good time would just automatically pick up on these reactions as a matter of course (and at that point only a real twit wouldn't adjust their own behavior accordingly). And when there's any uncertainty, yeah, you've got to touch base verbally. But in practice I think that's pretty rare. Honestly, based on my own limited experience in these situations, people who want a sexual encounter to progress are usually entirely unambiguous about that fact, with or without words. If they're not actively encouraging you (and you don't know them really well), why push it if they're not into it?
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]

by Steuard 10y ago

nailer 10y ago

> If you're sitting close to someone you're attracted to and you turn to stare into their eyes and they don't smile back or snuggle closer or lick their lips or do something That's afterwards. I was asking about the general explicit consent concept, which is one must ask explicitly before escalating.

Steuard 10y ago
I feel like you're framing this as enormously more complicated than it needs to be. As I understand it, within the affirmative consent framework it is fine to move toward escalating as long as your partner has sufficient chance to signal their comfort before you actually cross any lines. In a lot of the essential cases, those lines are reasonably well-defined. So (e.g.) if you want to touch someone's bare skin under their clothes for the first time in a given encounter, signal that intention somehow and then pause a moment to catch their eye or to give them a chance to react. If their reaction isn't unambiguously positive, back off, and don't be the first one to signal that interest again without checking in verbally. (If their reaction is positive, cool.) In other cases, like many of your examples, the lines are fuzzy. Merely looking at someone briefly isn't any more intimate than "sitting close" (which we're assuming they've already signaled they're happy with), but eventually a long gaze might become pretty intense (pro or con). So as you approach that fuzzy border, it's your job to pay attention to their reaction. If they smile and gaze back, awesome, keep it up. (Hey, maybe they're gearing up to lean in and offer that kiss.) If they turn away or look annoyed, then of course you should ratchet back rather than maintaining your stare all the way to the creepy point. I feel silly spelling all of that out so explicitly! It seems like any person who's paying attention to whether their partner is having a good time would just automatically pick up on these reactions as a matter of course (and at that point only a real twit wouldn't adjust their own behavior accordingly). And when there's any uncertainty, yeah, you've got to touch base verbally. But in practice I think that's pretty rare. Honestly, based on my own limited experience in these situations, people who want a sexual encounter to progress are usually entirely unambiguous about that fact, with or without words. If they're not actively encouraging you (and you don't know them really well), why push it if they're not into it?
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]