Uncomfortable feelings about the teaching of "consent"

I think it's simple to tell people that they should make an informed choice to have sex and that it isn't something that you just agree to do - it has to be something you want to do.

However maybe it isn't just word - whatever bar was set, men who rape would claim that they had it. Ched Evans did this - he made out the girl in his case was enthusiastic and was actively directing proceedings, so changing the word wouldn't help in a legal sense - it really is about teaching human decency and not framing sex as something men can get from women if they tick all the boxes.

This is the real problem which is that there (certainly used to be) the message that women were gatekeepers of sex, men want it more and it's therefore up to them to win the female over, once they feel they have expended the necessary energy in this pursuit then they can get the reward. It is a difficult topic since both sexes naturally present a "best version" of themselves in order to appear like the sort of person the object of their desire would like to have sex with - I don't think that this counts as coercion but I dare say some people would not agree with that. So the problem I think is the perceived imbalance of sexual desire and coupled with that the idea that men need to be the ones to convince the women to do something she otherwise would not have any interest in. Even this though is complex since there are clearly many examples of persistence or "winning over" that have been successful which if the initial rebuff was accepted would never have happened. Literature and film are full of this stuff. I know women, and I see it on here, who say they would never chase a man - by which they mean they think the man should always be the one to pursue a relationship.

I think it would also make it harder for the gropers to rationalise away or minimise their behaviour.

I think Venus is right - of the men who commit sexual assault, some men act the way they do because they don't see what they do as assault (though, IMO, ignorance of the law is no defence!) and some act the way they do because although they know full well what they're doing is sexual assault, they don't care (and think - with good reason - they won't get caught or punished).

Classes about consent might have an impact on the first category - and (possibly equally importantly) on the people who eventually sit on juries in the cases of the men from the second category (in the rare instances when they get caught). They might also help the teenage girls who've been so swamped by porn-culture that they themselves don't realise that their own sexual desire and pleasure should be a prerequisite for sex, and that in fact consent and silent acquiescence are a million miles apart.

I think that many men don't get it, as it's not something they have a frame of reference for. And some of them don't care as it's not important to them. But some of them actively like to make women feel that way. They are often the gropers etc.

You've made an interesting point there girl about use of the word consent, reminding me of "tolerence awareness" re immigration.
Tolerance meaning "something you have to endure which itself is not great" which instantly frames immigration in a bad light, semantically. (Although the premise is in good faith).

Enthusiastic participation might be a more useful phrase? BUT then you get assuming that you have to act like a porn star, and muddied thinking as to how to behave generally, if you are up for it with a partner but don't want to embarrass yourself if you're a reserved sort.

"consent" is probably suitable enough. But I'd want to know the context and what exactly is being taught.

Definitely the difference between consent and coersion is hugely important, especially in young adults. Even some women need to know that the word "yes" is meaningless under coersion and to not feel guilty or blamed in any way.

I agree that it's wider than consent.

Kids need to learn that they aren't always going to get what they want when they want it.

They need to know that no means no whether it's a biscuit at age 2 or a sex act at age 22.

If they learn that they can coerce another person into giving them what they want they will continue this behaviour throughout their life.

*Humiliated

In my experience of talking to men about sexual assault and rape, they don't really get that it is a violation of bodily autonomy and how humiliating and powerless and small it makes you feel.

Women sometimes, but most women have been made to feel like that by men at some point or another in their lives, so they tend to understand it better, but they can be guilty of minimising it, especially if they have minimised their own experiences, which I think is very common. And in my experience they are more likely to victim blame, which I think is because it makes them feel safer - that it only happens if you are a bit stupid or bad.

not teasing the cat

Yes, the old saying about treating others as you would wish to be treated yourself. Teasing animals doesnt work as a metaphor because a lot of people apparently think that man become dogs when faced with a women in a tight dress and it's the womens fault of course for "cock teasing".

Anyway - interesting topic, i agree with PP that the issue is mostly social, it's probably unfair to expect high schools to sort it out. But basically making sure that people are aware that the other person has "agreed" to have sex with them is itself problematic IMO.

I wonder if the problem is just the word - we shouldn't teach kids they need to get "consent" - we should teach them that sex should be mutually enjoyable and they should only engage in it with it someone who is equally keen to participate.

Consent implies agreement to let someone do something to you, i really think that is the problem. i.e. you give consent to a doctor to put a camera up your bum.

We still parent in a very controlling way, seeing children as property, demanding respect from them, dismissing their feelings

In my view, the problem is that we do not do enough controlling. Many children are not raised to be moral agents with respect for others. They are more shaped by a culture which teaches them to prioritize their own selfish gratification, sexual or otherwise, over moral norms.

We haven't yet moved away from generations of people not recognising body autonomy, or a culture where it's ok for men to try and get their leg over as often as possible. Where seduction is romantic. We still parent in a very controlling way, seeing children as property, demanding respect from them, dismissing their feelings.

I'm hoping the next generation is the one where consent is not a difficult issue. At the moment, it is like a prejudice which is so ingrained those who have it can't see the issue. And I sort of do feel a bit sorry for guys who have failed to understand that the world does not revolve around them, women do not exist for their sexual gratification, they can't have whatever they want as long as they want it enough. They are like badly socialised dogs who can't be allowed out off lead or without a muzzle. Dangerous to everyone around them.

Colemans what a horrid experience. My sympathies. I think you're right some that some men only think of sexual assault in its legal definition as a violent act in which the victim is physically overpowered. But whether they fail to understand groping someone is wrong or not, I don't know. Did the person who assaulted you know he was doing something that would cause you huge distress but didn't care? Our did he do so actually believing you wouldn't mind? The latter is quite hard to believe.

Looking back I think that although none of the people in the room thought that I should have given consent to be touched that way, or thought that I was entitled to be angry, they would all have understood my boyfriend's anger. No one would have thought it was out of place if my boyfriend had hit him.

^this.

It's perfectly culturally acceptable for a partner to get arse with a man who is staring at you, but it's not on your behalf! It's on their own behalf.

I think it's a cultural issue Too.

My lovely boyfriend was furious and wanted to go and speak to the offender. Not to hit him I might add, just to give him a piece of his mind.

I didn't let him, I didn't want to risk a fight (for my boyfriends sake).

Looking back I think that although none of the people in the room thought that I should have given consent to be touched that way, or thought that I was entitled to be angry, they would all have understood my boyfriend's anger. No one would have thought it was out of place if my boyfriend had hit him.

Because women are still property. Culturally.

It's the reason that "I'm married" works to dissuade the persistent man trying to chat you up but "I'm not interested" doesn't work at all.

So yes, it's an educational issue. We need to teach our children about consent in order to change our culture.

I think one of the issue Too is that lots of people think of rape as something that happens in a dark alley. They think of sexual assault as necessarily violent. They don't think if it as something a friend/boyfriend can do. They don't think it can be non violent.

I was sexually assaulted as a student at a party. A classmate walked up to me, out of the blue, grabbed both my breasts without a word and then walked back across the room to rejoin the group he was talking to.

The general reaction was laughter. The worst anyone, including my friends, thought of him was that he was an arsehole. Not one person asked if I was ok, or said the words sexual assault. No one spoke up for me or remonstrated with him.

I was distraught and quietly left the bar to call my boyfriend to come and pick me up. I stood outside for 30 minutes weeping while I waited. It never even occurred to me to tell the bouncer.

On the Monday morning there was general surprise that I should still be uspet about it. When I expressed anger that people still thought it was funny and threatened to report it to the university the entire class was angry with me. It would be my responsibility if I'd ruined his career you see.

I didn't report it. I didn't tell my parents. It's been 20 years and I'm still upset about it because I felt so powerless, so degraded and so disregarded. It wasn't violent, I wasn't frightened, though I was shocked to my core. I can't even begin to imagine how women who've been raped feel.

The man that assaulted me was a "nice boy", an intelligent 22yo graduate and it absolutely didn't occur to him or anyone else there that touching my breasts required my consent. That's why we need to teach consent - to everyone.

He married his girlfriend at the time, took a job at a city firm and now has a daughter. I wonder what his view on it now would be - but to be honest I bet he doesn't even remember.

I have both a son and a daughter both in Prinary School. I'm already teaching my DD that she has bodily autonomy. I'm already teaching my DS that if they are playing a rough and tumble game that the instant she says "no" or "stop" he stops immediately.

When they are older I'll tell them this story. And I'll tell that that I've been regretting not calling the bouncer and not reporting him for 20 years.

ymmv

That was an interesting link. Part of me wanted to say to the author well you didn't really think those things did you? But then I can totally see how all those messages seep in.

Nowadays if you get somebody drunk in order to have sex with them, it is considered rape but it wasn't very long ago when it was considered a completely normal seduction technique. Attitudes are definitely changing. Also helped by these high-profile rape trials. You get the usual MRAs spouting off, but social attitudes are definitely changing.

I very much like previous posters' techniques regarding unwanted hugs, not teasing the cat and not snatching toys that don't belong to you. Teaching children, particularly boys as they grow into men, that they should not have a sense of entitlement is enlightening.

My view is that as tooth said the an appreciation consent should naturally develop as part of an individual's wider moral socialisation. If you are raised to treat others will respect, then you will not be a rapist. Maybe there are some very socially challenged men who have difficulty reading cues, but the majority of men who commit sexual assault do so in the full knowledge that they are forcibly depersonalising a women into a discardable receptacle: they just don't care. in fact, for some sex offenders the thrill comes from the very fact that the victim does not consent. They are sadists and enjoy her lack of consent.

In pornography violent themes are not inadvertent but central. Much porn does not obscure consent so much as present its absence as arousing. The growing popularity of BDSM attests also a normalisation of violence as a feature of sexual fantasy. Boys and young men do not ejaculate on a girls face out a kind of innocence, but because they have been taught by porn culture that degrading women is arousing, and mutuality is boring. They know it's wrong, and they don't care.

The left are fixated on wooly education about consent as a corrective to the sexual nihilism of our times, because they want to distance themselves from all the institutions that used to instill people with moral values. These institutions were often questionable, but without them there are no morals at all. Just do as you please.

Tooticky - it's possibly an area of crime where immaturity meets a lot of opportunity. It's quite unique in terms of crimes because it relies so heavily on mutual respect and trust of two people whose emotions and physical states can be changing minute by minute. and that's why it can be a problem particularly to those who are already lacking in observing personal boundaries, impulse control and so forth.

Good point teeth