The difference that makes to whether or not she consents -- the "downer" -- is precisely the point.

She’s been standing in line at an ice cream truck, it’s finally her turn, and now you, the guy behind the counter, are asking her whether you should make her some ice cream. ’No, I’m here to get movie tickets!’

This is exactly what I was thinking, but unable to verbalize it so well.

Uh, this is literally the difference between raping someone and not raping someone. A lot of people have different levels of comfort with intimate activity, some people may not want to have more than a certain level of contact. Just going for it and not talking about it puts the burden on your partner, which in our society puts that person in a position of being an uptight downer or just suffering through an experience they don't want (yes this is acquaintance rape and it is a real thing).

If every man followed the methods that you describe here and elsewhere in the thread, the human race would die out in one generation.

The last time I pulled that move, it was met with "uh... we don't need this... yet." Fair enough... we hit the brakes a bit. She's my wife now. :)

In instances of sexual assault, this is not at all true and there are a variety of complicating factors that go into sexual assault situations that negate this statement. Just reading the stories of sexual assault survivors is enough to illustrate how not true this is.

> If every man followed the methods that you describe here and elsewhere in the thread, the human race would die out in one generation.

Ah yes, taking care and being sure of consent certainly means the death of humankind.

Well, yeah, you it is possible do a lightning move. My whole point is that you shouldn't do that. That would indeed be sexual assault.

So if I may ask, do you have personal experience with dating/sex? You don't have to answer if you don't want to. I agree with your position in theory, and I actually did what you suggest at first. The problem is that it doesn't work in practice, which is why I stopped doing that.

To me, those are clear evidence of a desire to progress toward sex. (Obviously, if she says stop, do so.)

The question I'm asking is that if both parties are expressing 'forward motion' in terms of their actions and their body language, is it necessary to have verbal consent?

Or are you violating consent if you assume their apparent physical interest substitutes for verbal consent?

Judging by romance flicks set in modern times, teen pop songs, advertising, and women’s magazines, Western culture says ‘no’ — the guy is supposed to pick up on non-verbal hints and take the wheel. (In reality, she’s already put the car into ‘Drive’, but she wants to give the guy the idea he’s in control)

Now, over time I’ve become fairly religious, and last year I’ve vowed not to have sex before marriage, but even with a girl who shares my faith, she expects me to try something (everything up to actual sex). Otherwise, she thinks I’m not into her (no sexual chemistry = no marriage).

I would agree. Until now, I've always considered the physical fact of the girl being "into it" as consent. I've never been wrong yet.

I suppose it's possible that a girl could physically participate in moving a sexual interaction forward while simultaneously not wanting to do so, but that suggests immaturity, inconsistency, and possible mental illness rather than any kind of behavior that should be recommended for anybody.

Now, over time I’ve become fairly religious, and last year I’ve vowed not to have sex before marriage, but even with a girl who shares my faith, she expects me to try something (everything up to actual sex). Otherwise, she thinks I’m not into her (no sexual chemistry = no marriage).

That's a bit different from "mainstream" culture - it's interesting to hear that expectations are similar (aside from actual PiV sex).