Look, at this point we seem to have reached an understanding (see the Tikkun Olam thread) that the real requirement involves clarity, and that it matters that everyone discusses sex honestly and respectfully, and clearly consents, not that either party reads the other’s emotions. So I like to think we have clarified the issue.

And to put it simply, nobody has ever suggested we let anyone get away with actual rape.

“The fact that people with Asperger’s have trouble intuitively reading body language or picking up on social cues doesn’t mean that we either have to let them be rapists or insist they be celibate.”

Nobody said that. You’re acting as if we’ve already accepted Hugos skewed definition of rape…WE HAVEN’T

Nobody here is trying to argue that people with Aspergers don’t KNOW when they are really committing rape.

This is flatly untrue. The fact that people with Asperger’s have trouble intuitively reading body language or picking up on social cues doesn’t mean that we either have to let them be rapists or insist they be celibate.

But the fact that we don’t want to hold accidental miscommunication to be an ethical fault doesn’t mean the ethical standard of honesty should be watered down to the point where only literally false statements count as deception.

In other words, ethics depend on intent. I agree with that. And we can express the ethical obligation of honesty elegantly this way: it means not intending to deceive, either with direct falsehood or with misdirection.

By the same token, we also have an obligation to express the standards of ethical behavior we assert clearly and honestly. The criteria we use for ethical behavior need to satisfy two objectives: they need to capture the underlying moral imperative, and they need to avoid making the normal, natural, and healthy variability of human beings into ethical violations.

But people who are thinking of how to somehow manipulate or wear down another person into having sex, without regard for the other person’s desire or joy, aren’t showing any sort of respect….

I absolutely agree with you here, but I note this has nothing in common with the situation that concerns me, and here I come back to Hugo’s formulations, which I consider problematic on both heads: he doesn’t really address manipulation, which (given a talented and skilled manipulator) can often produce a genuine, if deeply misguided “hell, yes”, and he doesn’t address the situation of a person with Asperger’s, who has no choice but to take the “yes” they hear at face value.

Lynn Gazis-Sax wrote: And tons of people would be prevented altogether from having sex, if forced to wait for a partner who actually wanted it. Sex being such an intrinsically unpleasant and arduous activity.

“Tons of people” could not have sex if you forbid them to rely on their partner’s verbal indication that they consent and actively want to have sex. They can hear yes, they can hear not yes, but they can’t hear enthusiastic.

Generally, someone actually asking you for sex is a good indication that she’ll be enthusiastic about it.

And this means you should have sex? Even if you think it might damage the long-term relationship you want to have? See, I disagree with Hugo on two heads: he makes discerning an emotional state (enthusiasm) a moral/quasi-legal requirement for having sex, even though many people can’t do it, and at the same time, by making “enthusiasm” the key issue, he ignores matters such as respect. Sometimes respect and caring means not having sex, even if the other person gives every indication of wanting it.

Let me make an analogy. I hold to an ethical principle that people should be honest. That means, not just that people should not outright lie, but that we should make our words plain and truthful, and not try to deceive and mislead others. A person who says things that are technically truthful, but are framed in a way that he/she knows others will misinterpret and be misled by, is not being honest. And an ethical standard that only finds fault with outright lies, and accepts every other variety of deception, is a broken ethical system.

But people differ in their ability to clearly communicate, and in their ability to anticipate how others may read their words. Sometimes, we all mislead without intenting it. Some people may do this more frequently than others, because they are poor communicators. That is not an ethical flaw, because what you do by accident, with no wrong intention on your part, isn’t something for which you’re culpable. But the fact that we don’t want to hold accidental miscommunication to be an ethical fault doesn’t mean the ethical standard of honesty should be watered down to the point where only literally false statements count as deception.

It certainly doesn’t make them legally suspect.

And there are many statements which, though dishonest, would not be legally perjury, even if made under oath, because they’d be technically true. Doesn’t mean your husband or wife wouldn’t be entitled to be royally pissed at being misled by one of these technically true statements. What’s ethically wrong should always be a broader category than what’s legally suspect, since laws involve throwing people in jail for a limited set of harmful acts of a type that can be proven beyond reasonable doubt to a jury of peers.

The problem doesn’t end there, because emotional signals depend to a significant degree on cultural codes and expectations.

And evaluating cultural codes and expectations is where preferring an “enthusiasm” and “mutual longing” standard to a mere “consent” one comes in really handy. It keeps the standard from being “how far can you go and get away with it.” Just how drunk can she be and have it not count as rape? What kinds of abuse of authority situations do you still get to count as being largely her fault? Should an undergraduate faculy advisor be able to have “consensual” sex with his barely legal and much less powerful advisee? Etc.

Sex means connection, and a connection made without mutual respect can only do harm.

Absolutely. And mutual enthusiasm shouldn’t be the only ethical criterion for sex, since there are ways of disrespecting and mistreating your partner even where you’re both enthusiastic (such as, for example, deception). But people who are thinking of how to somehow manipulate or wear down another person into having sex, without regard for the other person’s desire or joy, aren’t showing any sort of respect, even if they somehow manage to get someone to say yes under such circumstances.

But here we part company: people differ, across a wide spectrum, in their ability to detect the emotions of other people. A substantial number of people have those abilities to a limited degree, even not at all. They know that “no” means no. They know the absence of “yes” means no. But they can’t reliably detect the emotions behind that yes or no. They can tell you she (or he) said ‘yes’. Ask them to tell you whether or not “longing” lay behind that “yes”, and you ask them to make a determination they just don’t have the equipment to make. That doesn’t make them ethically suspect. It certainly doesn’t make them legally suspect. It doesn’t even make them defective; it makes them different.

The problem doesn’t end there, because emotional signals depend to a significant degree on cultural codes and expectations. In a society with significant cultural and neurological diversity, basing a legal and ethical claim on the ability to perceive emotions will not do. The ethics of sex do not depend on a neurological feature not all people have; it depends on mutual respect, which includes honesty and clear communication.

Which leads to the bar you set: it leaves out the word “respectful”. Someone good at “negotiating” sex can easily manipulate someone into “mutual longing”. Sales people can make you “long” for anything. But we don’t treat sex as a commodity. Desire, even mutual desire, doesn’t justify sex. Sex means connection, and a connection made without mutual respect can only do harm.

Your blog is just terrific and I have added it to my blogroll. Your commentary on “nice guys” and “sensitive new age guys” is so dead on accurate, it makes my head hurt. I’m all too familiar with that brand of passive aggression. Very insightful. Thanks.