Simple explanation of consent

[fourquenelles]

www.upworthy.com/dont-know-what-consent-is-let-this-animation-of-a-cup-of-tea-clear-it-up-for-you?c=ufb1

I came across this today and I thought it was a very clear, simple explanation of consent. I wanted to share and was interested in whether it is something that could be very useful when talking to young people about sex and consent.

Do people feel that generally young women (so those now starting to have sexual relationships, say 15-21 yrs) have a greater understanding of consent than those of us old'uns?

I'm 42 and when I started having consensual sex, certainly all of my friendship group expected our male partners to pressure and coerce us into sex, we anticipated at some point that we might need to use violence to get them off us, if you snogged a guy at the disco he was entitled to get at least tops under, and if you went back to his house then you definitely had to have sex with him. Plus of course he paid for dinner and drinks = shag.

Is it better now? Do women understand their right NOT to have sex?

I know now that my own views may have been off-centre because I was sexually abused for years at home, but my friends attitudes were in line with mine.

My son is 19 and seems to understand consent perfectly, but I'm not sure if that's the way I brought him up or whether education at school is also much better.

*than those of us old'uns when we were that age

More so nowadays, I hope and believe, but it's patchy.

Pocketsaviour I don't think it is better, unfortunately. There was a recent survey of young people which found that there was an expectation that anal would be part of a relationship- both men and women expected it to be painful/not enjoyable for the woman, but it was something that young women were expected to do for the sake of their partners.

But Annie, when people post to say that they did drink the tea but they really didn't want to, people say they were coerced and forced, just not physically. If that 'force' is actually their social construct, is that the fault of the tea maker?

It's about the little voice in your head that says "you're not being a good guest!"

Which is equivalent to that little voice that says "you need to be a good wife/girlfriend/partner." or "he bought me dinner so I'd better show my gratitude."

MrsK interesting, do you have a link to that study?

If the force is inside their own head and the tea maker had reasonable belief in consent, then I see no reason to attach blame for going through with it. However that is rarely the case. Nobody posting to say they had a straightforward ONS in which they (apparently) enthusiastically participated then regretted it in the morning is going to be told they were coerced. (The only thread I can think of where that very thing happened everyone was very sympathetic but nobody blamed the bloke. Can't remember who it was now and she probably wouldn't thank me for dredging it up if I could!) The threads I've seen where coercion was mentioned have generally been the case of being worn down and sulked at until they give in, often by a regular partner who should know all about their "head forces", or being afraid they would be attacked unless they went along with it. The article does cover this! (Not the Kermit one in the OP, the longer one I posted further down.)

survey about sexual attitudes

Thanks.

Remember in The Philadelphia Story, when Tracey drinks too much champagne on the eve of her wedding and comes on strongly to the nice reporter? (James Stuart in that movie, rather less credibly Frank Sinatra in the musical.) In the morning when she finds out he didn't take advantage of her and is paradoxically a little miffed, asking whether she was unattractive, he replies "Not at all. But you were a little worse, or rather better, for the wine and there are rules about things like that." Now that's good manners. And not being a rapist.

I agree with babycham.

Here is the original blog post: rockstardinosaurpirateprincess.com/2015/03/02/consent-not-actually-that-complicated/

I've been friends with the author of it for over 10 years and it was crazy and brilliant when it went viral.

Some of you may be interested to read her comments to some of the same points made on this thread and also her follow-up post: rockstardinosaurpirateprincess.com/2015/03/08/tea-myths-and-sympathy/

That one's lovely too :)

One of the comments on the blog I think is worth repeating here, if that isn't against some kind of blogiquette? (I probably made that word up.) It kind of answers some of the questions asked on this thread more neatly than I was able to. My heart bleeds for the woman who wrote it, but at least it has a happy ending.

I was used to be married to a man who wanted to ‘drink tea’ – a lot. He didn’t understand that I didn’t want to drink tea with him every waking moment: “You will have a cup of tea, now won’t you? Ah, go on. Go on. You know you want to. Ah, go on. Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on…” (think Mrs Doyle from Father Ted). Saying I wasn’t thirsty didn’t help. “Ah, go on. Go on, go on, go on…” And it wouldn’t stop until I’d had some tea. After a while I learnt it was easier to just drink the tea quickly than to try to persuade him I wasn’t thirsty. I gave in, and by doing so, I gave up on me.

But I was lucky, and I got out. I know I don’t have to drink tea now if I don’t want to, but it was hard to see that at the time. Understanding consent isn’t just something we need to teach tea makers. It is also about educating tea drinkers – helping them recognise that they are never under an obligation to drink tea, no matter how many cups someone makes them, and no matter how many times someone says “but everyone else wants tea”, or “if you loved me, you’d drink it”.

Your blog is so simple, and I wish I could have read it years ago.

This analogy sucks. It's crass and lame and serves no purpose whatsoever, expect to excessively simplify a complex and important issue
You are of course welcome to your opinion, although I would point out that an awful lot of people DO think it serves purpose, amongst them: BUZZFEED, The Independent, Huffington Post, Cosmopolitan, Metro, George Takei, the list just goes on. It's been translated into a lots of different languages, read out on the radio in New Zealand and she has received thousands and thousands of comments and emails saying it's served great purpose to the people reading it, then "no purpose whatsoever" is demonstrably false. Parents have found it useful to use it to explain consent to their children. One day saw a Christian blogger, Muslim blogger & BDSM blogger all write about how it applied to them.

I'd suggest the day that you receive an email from a sexual investigator in the US army asking you if she can use your contribution to this complex and important issue in the briefings given to 500 new recruits each week in sexual assault education is the day you can call this analogy useless.

I am still hopeful that the doubters can come back with a better analogy

I don't know if there could be a better analogy. I think it's sad we need an analogy to explain something as simple as consent (should be).

I know I'm going to regret posting this but -- the tea analogy is not applicable to this subject. It's almost ludicrous! (Sorry!) It creates other layers of confusion (etiquette within host/guest relationships, consumption of "tea" that too "hot," etc.) that just aren't, well, analogous. Surely everyone can see that one might (and quite rightly so!) still brew tea and and offer a cup a second time in real life to a guest who initially didn't care for one. Young women, please think for yourselves! (Really, this is getting embarrassing.) Stop the groupthink! Employ reason and logic! Create your own vocabulary and definitions! It's really a pretty simple and straightforward subject.

This subject of consent has jumped over into the realm of the Middle Age's "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" speculations so reviled by the modern mind. (But it does provide topics for many research papers, dissertations, articles, grants, etc. -- so there's that!)

Er... what?

I got a bit obtuse. (Coming from a specific point of view and entertaining, well, basically myself!) But I stand by the fact that the analogy, as stated, is very faulty and, while it may seem fairly apt at first glance, I don't see it clarifying the issue. Yes, it can be added to the vast amounts of information already out there, but I don't see it as an improvement upon what's been produced over the past many, many years.

behold !

someone to give us a better analogy has arrived !

except, er. ....