Plan to teach sexual consent in school

[darleneconnor]

here

They are about to discuss on TWS (sans Mr Wright).

Dittany: the articles quoted are saying that if people understood sex as a collaborative performance then they wouldn't think it was ok to have sex on the body of a person who wans't enthusiastically participating. That it's not OK to have sex with someone who is clearly not participating, not enjoying it, that you can't get away with claiming it's all right to do so because the person didn't actually say No and push you off.
What on earth is wrong with encouraging this attitude - that sex is pleasurable, and there's something wrong with you {generic you, of course} if you think there is any benefit to be had in doing sex to someone who is not enjoying it and doesn't want to be doing it.

So, to use a hypothetical example:
A man fucks a woman who is very drunk, so drunk that she's just lying there. The woman, the next day, makes a complaint that the man raped her (which, of course, is exactly what he did) In the current, widespread, commodity view of sex, the man could say, 'well, she didn't object, she didn't say no' and some people would go, oh that's all right then.
If the performance view of sex was more widespread, the police interview would go along the lines of, 'hang on, did she put her arms round you, did she say 'Oh yes darling that;'s wonderful? No? What did she do?'
And the man says, well, nothing, but she didn't say no.
ANd the interviewer would say, but she wasn't participating, wasn't showing signs of enjoyment, why didb't you ask her if she was having a good time?'

Dittany: I don't think it's a vague pointer to tell people that you should only have sex with someone who is participating. Also, acceptance of the performance model stops other people going oh but, if she didn't want sex why was she there, why was she drunk, why was she wearing a short skirt? My understanding of the whole performance-model thing is that it's a way of busting rape myths. Getting it widely accepted won't entirely stop rape (murder is illegal but still happens) but it ought to reduce acquaintance rape and 'date rape' once more men understand that sex is not a matter of 'getting something' or 'winning the game'.

How about 'Assume it's No until you actually hear otherwise'? Same goes for the 'small incidents' on that thread -- assume no woman or girl wants to be groped. Then you have to get to the point of respecting woman or girls enough to take that seriously.

But I think you are right, Dittany, about the planning, and about the lying.

One thing that might make rapists think twice is really heavy sentences for convicted rapists. Minimum 25 years, the kind of sentencing that gives the message that this injury to women is taken seriously.

true... the article is imlying men truly don't know the difference between rape and sex, when we all know they do. It's implying that if we would just teach men this itty bitty difference between a) rape b) sex then things would get better.

BUt they wouldn't. Lots of women have sex when they're inebriated, for example, but that's drunk sex, nothing to do with rape, and they and their partner know they consented, because it was sex

Rape is not sex. By a long shot. No matter how the rapists and rape culture try to pretend it is.

OTOH, I do think that if it was taught that sex is pleasurable for women, then men would less of a leg to stand on in court. Like that language barrier idiot FFS

Sakura: Exactly - that's the key thing to get across with the performance model - that sex is supposed to be enjoyable for women, not an asset that they will trade to men under the right conditions. The commodity model is so deep rooted that even some non-rapist men still think of sex as something they have to obtain from women by offering something whether that's dinner, jewellery, cash or doing the washing up, not something a woman would agree to engage in for sheer enjoyment, it sets women up as gatekeepers.

yes I can't abide the gatekeeper nonsense

Performance is in the eye of the beholder though, for legal purposes, just as consent appears to be. Very hard to pin down what constitutes enjoyment a man might say the woman smiled or whatever; she might say otherwise. Unless you fill out a questionnaire afterwards rating your level of satisfaction, how can you use enjoyment as a measure of rape vs. sex? And what about instances where a man is genuinely crap in bed is he raping his partner every time she doesn't really enjoy it? Or have I read it wrong...

The gatekeeper idea is really where all the stuff about consent comes from though. At some point a woman has to consent to sex if it's a man initiating the experience.

i like the performance model, but don't think it would stop rapists, as they are not raping because they are confused

BUT

it would make a jury more likely to convict/less likely to believe rape myths so would be a v v v positive step

I don't think any alternative would convince a jury that men don't have a right to 'have sex' with any woman. The peers of the woman and the man in any given case are likely to have the mindset that feeds the rapist's sense of entitlement unfortunately.

Yes I'm a bit dubious about performance and sex. It makes it sound like going to the theatre. I once had a lover who was obsessed with his performance and used to give himself marks out of 10 for each shag (that particular relationship didn't last long ). Thing is, he was actually spectatularly good in bed, would make me come in about 3 minutes flat and had a recovery time of about 4 minutes and was then ready to be up and at it again - but it was actually very intimidating and lacking in intimacy, because it felt as if it was all about him showing me what a terrific fuck he was (which he didn't need to, I had realised it already...) Not that I'm sayng a spectacularly good lover = no intimacy, that would obviously be stupid. But sex isn't about performance afaic. It's about fun and joy and laughter and passion and two people trying to give each other pleasure adn comfort, not performing for each other as if they're in a porn film or a show like Strictly Come Dancing, where a panel of judges are going to hold up marks out of 10.

yes I also have a problem with the word performance. Agree with Mathanxiety: not every shag is a good shag, not every man is a good lover (or compatible with that particular woman), and that might mean a woman sometimes having to just have to count sheep until it's over. Her "performance" rating would be quite low, I should imagine, but none of that has nothing whatsoever to do with rape.

I do think that young women are increasingly being influcenced by culture and porn to believe that sex is a performance, and they have to perform, no matter what their own personal sexuality may look like. Some women may like the "lie back and think of England sex" : if they're enjoying it, who's to judge that they're not getting better sex than a more forthright woman?

But as chibi says, it will do a lot to explode rape myths, we have to get rid of this "no means no" gatekeeper idea that's in place.

my count sheep until it's over comment was just that I meant sometimes , for compassion's sake (on a one night stand for example) a woman might think that's the best option.Some men look like they're going to be great shags, and they're not, and vice versa

I can see what you mean about issues with the word 'performance', anyone got any better suggestions? (hungover brain here) for a word that implies something collaborative rather than having something done to you.

I think Dittany is right in that it's a rocky road when you talk about sex and rape in the same breath as though they are in any way similar. Again the emphasis is on the woman, when rape is always about the intentions of the rapist.

The other worry is that it simply cannot be measured realistically and will just be another stick to beat women with ( her performance rating, for example)

But the judges and court system are idiotic so forcing society to view sex as collaborative is the most efficient path of exploding some rape myths.
It's just so bizarre because society has finally accepted that men can be good or bad in bed depending on how considerate they are as lovers. So why is it that when it comes to a crime, society at large suddenly does an about turn and believes in the gatekeeping concept and that men "aren't to know" whether a woman was up for it or not? It makes me think there' more to it. What Dworkin called "A steadfast refusal to know "

I can't think of a better word than collaborative.

I do think that with some rapists it's not so much a matter of an active wish to harm a woman, it's more a matter of not caring what the woman thinks as long as they can stick their dicks in. This is not excusing it in any way, just another reason for wanting the 'collaborative' model of sex to be the one taught and emphasised in sex education.