Radio 5 phone in on consent at 9.00am

[Caprinihahahaha]

They just called to see if I wanted to go on but I have laryngitis .
I'm not feeling well so maybe I shouldn't listen. I have a feeling it's going to give me the rage.

It's such an interesting topic though - they are picking up on the students refusing to go to lectures on consent because they are 'not rapists'.

Yes exactly.
The phone in is better than I feared actually.

www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/a-third-of-male-university-students-say-they-would-rape-a-woman-if-there-no-were-no-consequences-9978052.html

Then there was that - 1/3 of the students surveyed would rape a woman if there were no consequences.

Does no harm to learn about consent at all - even if you think you already know it.

That's like objecting to driving tests because you're already a good driver, why do you have to prove it.

I came on here specifically today to ask if anyone had heard the man on 5live breakfast this morning discussing this? No idea who he was as I only caught part of it but if he was for real he was terrifying.

He was terrifying indeed. He was the reason I contacted the show.
Bullying, aggressive, unable to contemplate any deviation from his view - prime candidate for the courses I would have thought.
The discussion was way better though.

Sadly I missed the discussion as I was at work by that time. But I certainly went off to work in a bit of a lather that there are actually men as awful as him out there. Men who think they are victims. He was much more frightening than any stranger lurking down a dark alley looking suspicious.

I missed this. Who was the man? It wasn't Luke Gittos was it?

I don't know who he was as I didn't catch the introductions at the start.

But he was arguing, amongst other things, that rape is a rare occurrence because there are only 1000 convictions a year, that 'silly' feminists want to be able to decide 'the morning after' that they've changed their minds and for that to then be classed as rape. He denied (I think) that sexual assault can happen within relationships and denied that women being touched and groped without their consent was a form of sexual assault. He was odious in the extreme. Yet he sounded so reasonable, so measured. He was utterly chilling.

Treacle

I don't think I'll listen, blood pressure can't take it.

But he was arguing, amongst other things, that rape is a rare occurrence because there are only 1000 convictions a year, that 'silly' feminists want to be able to decide 'the morning after' that they've changed their minds and for that to then be classed as rape. He denied (I think) that sexual assault can happen within relationships and denied that women being touched and groped without their consent was a form of sexual assault. He was odious in the extreme. Yet he sounded so reasonable, so measured. He was utterly chilling

Is this the guy from Warwick who refused to do a consent workshop? Because if it is, then he is exactly what a rapist looks like. The very picture of one.

I can understand why they wouldn't want to go to go on that course. In their view, they aren't a rapist so what good is a course teaching them not to rape? It's like asking a qualified driver to take the test again. In his mind he's already a good driver, he's proven that to society by driving within the law, so why go on a course to prove the same thing again?

It's not a rape course.
It's a consent course.

Do they really believe that they understand and are fully au fait with every single situation where there could be miscommunication between two people over sexual consent? And they are not prepared to attend one course in the hope that they might just learn something that could make the lives of their co students a little less challenging a given the very high level of reports from female students about unwanted sexual attention.

If they do then they do believe that then they are stupid and there is even more reason why they should go.
Actually those most complaining about attending are those most in need of education. Irony huh.

Garbled last para.
Not well and irritated by the stupid..

That's a good point caprice, but a course in its short time frame is also not going to be cover every possible situation where there might be misunderstanding either. Would we then say they had to take multiple courses until every single variable in every possible situation was extensively covered and remembered? I'd say no, this wouldn't be right.

Right thinking men wouldn't rape a woman and would seek to clarify if there was every misunderstanding or confusion. I dont feel a course would do that particular group of people any good. On the other hand I can see why the people who said they would rape (when rape was described without being called rape) would benefit from a course. They clearly have a thing or two to learn.

So because a lecture can't possibly teach everything it's better to just not hold one at all?
Really?
And the potential that students might just learn something isn't worth potentially irking a few men?

Excellent. That kind of open minded thirst for knowledge and differing views is exactly why I spend a fortune sending my children to uni

My son would happily attend.

He has nothing to feel defensive about, unlike the men howling that they just don't look like rapists - because of course you can spot a rapist just by looking at him.

They are awfully fragile some of these young men.

Right thinking men wouldn't rape a woman and would seek to clarify if there was every misunderstanding or confusion. I dont feel a course would do that particular group of people any good. On the other hand I can see why the people who said they would rape (when rape was described without being called rape) would benefit from a course. They clearly have a thing or two to learn.

The really sad thing about it is that the 2 groups of men seem to have huge overlap.

That's why a consent workshop, which couldn't possibly cover every single situation, but would give food for thought to men who may not have had their preconceptions confronted before is pretty much imperative. Unless you're suggesting that the Freedom Program is of no value because it couldn't possibly cover every single situation which might be a red flag for future abuse or violence within relationships?

My DS would happily do this. He and his brother have been explicitly taught about consent, sexual and otherwise, since they were very tiny. It wouldn't suggest to him that anyone thought he was a rapist, which some of the precious little angels are now doing.

I can understand their defensiveness. Say what you like, this course implies that people on it need to be taught about consent. So a lot of the men who don't need to be, will rightly be defensive on the subject.

From their point of view it's like being a qualified driver, then some stranger telling you you need to go to driving lessons. Why, you are already a driver.

Capri I don't think it's fragile at all to be defensive about this course. The implication of going on one of these courses is that you aren't intelligent enough on the subject so need to be taught about consent. Telling someone who believes they are sufficiently educated in a subject that they ARENT is very likely to evoke a strong reaction. You can't make an implication that someone doesn't know what consent is then accuse them of being fragile when they pull you up on it.

That's nonsense Don't.

At my sons university a bunch of the students - incredibly smart and respectable young men a started a website to rate the female student on their hotness. Many of them knew it was shitty but thought it was harmless. Some thought the girls should be flattered.

Pretending that your average 18 year old really has literally nothing to learn about consent is beyond stupid.

And placing your ego - that you have nothing to learn - above the possibility that you could learn something that would make the women you meet infinitely more comfortable is fragile. Fragile and self involved. Once again exactly the kind of guy who should be going to the courses.

The determination that you shouldn't go is a good indicator that you probably need to.

It reminds me of when my sons nursery offered a talk on dealing with problem behaviours.
Most of us turned up figuring we might find a new strategy or tip. The ones who furiously refused and were noisily offended by the offer had, by a mile, the three most challenging offspring

"this course implies that people on it need to be taught about consent"

The stats and on sexual assault and rape on campuses (and the lives experiences of many female students I come into contact with) indicate that exactly that is needed among students. Particularly among complacent young men who think they already know what consent means.

The driver analogy doesn't work. You don't take a test to show you're not a rapist.

And yes Capri... with the way things have been going, I doubt there's anyone who wouldn't benefit from a bit of a think about what consent looks like, let alone a highly privileged white bloke who seems to not understand the concept... hence his regurgitation of the same tired old rape myths about women drinking etc.

No, it was a bad analogy I admit - Don't response wasn't a good rebuttal either - the analogy would have to go that no-one had to go on driving lessons or take a test, because if they were driving, they were clearly intelligent enough to be good drivers.

I can see that if someone required me to go on a parenting course out of the blue I might be a bit bemused but if everyone at work was sent on one, I wouldn't bother complaining, I would go.

They piloted study skills courses at my Uni for my year, so I went on them. In the end I didn't really learn anything I didn't already know from studying for A-levels, but I still went and there were still people on the course loudly protesting at having to go. They were men, but then most people on my course/in my faculty were, so I don't know if that was significant.

You're at University to learn, that's the whole point, if they require a course, you go. The idea that a 20 year old at Uni is refusing is arrogance at quite a level.