A very silly debate broke out in a group of friends. One said, "If a man has an erection, he wants it," while another argued that this isn’t always the case. To be honest, I thought it automatically meant desire, but then I realized that the body can sometimes react in unrelated ways. What do men say about this? Is there really such a myth? Could misunderstanding this in a relationship cause problems?
No, it doesn't mean automatic desire. In women, a physical response doesn't always mean desire, and in men, the body can sometimes react on its own.
Consent is a different thing.
But if a man doesn't want it, how can he get aroused? Honestly, it sounds a bit like an excuse to me. If the body reacted, I think the brain must have wanted it too.
What kind of logic is this? Does your nose decide on its own when you sneeze? Mistaking the body's automatic response for a person's will is very dangerous 🫢
As a man, I can say that sometimes you wake up with it there, sometimes it's not there when you're stressed, and sometimes it happens without you even thinking about it. It's not just a simple indicator of desire.
The safe side is this: physical response does not replace consent. Desire and consent are understood through communication, behavior, and boundaries. If your partner says 'I don't want to,' then regardless of what their body does, the answer is no.
I felt a bit embarrassed when I thought about it too. Because I realized I was being very automatic. When someone in the friend group said, 'if he's a guy, he wants it,' everyone laughed, but it actually sounded pretty wrong.
There’s no more lazy a sentence than "if he wants." Then, when men don’t want something, they get mocked; when they do want something, they get blamed. Talking like a human shouldn’t be this hard.
In our society, there is a silly perception that a man must always be ready. I think this pressures men as well. No one is a machine.
The simplest thing in a relationship is to ask directly: 'Do you want to continue, are you comfortable?' This sentence doesn't disrupt the atmosphere; on the contrary, it provides reassurance. Acting on assumptions actually disrupts the environment.
The condition of explicit consent.
When looking at it like Merve does, the detail that seems small here is actually at the center of the issue. If I were in that position, I wouldn't make a definitive decision without asking about that detail.
When looking at it like Ece, the detail that seems small here is actually at the center of the issue. If I were in your place, I wouldn't make a definite decision without asking about that detail.
When looking like the ocean, the detail that appears small here actually stands at the center of the issue. If I were you, I wouldn't make a definite decision without asking about that detail.
