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'.

Ditto playswell

Also, if my DC were offered them I would give my permission and expect them to go.

Same here.

Don't wait to be offered one - seek one out and enrol.

That help ?

I will do.

Happy now, or want to continue to be all snarky for no apparently good reason?

If it helps at all, DH tells me that had to attend one every year as part of his job, so I'd guess that DS1 does too, given that they do the same thing. Pretty sure neither of them thinks anyone believes they're rapists. I've no doubt that, when I go back to uni next year I'll be offered one then, and will still have no problem with it.

Maybe you might let us know how it went.

Lolling at the 'well you go then' line of debate.

Quality.

"Again, the man's feelings / choice / entitlement, is prioritised over helping women. Same old same old."

No it isnt. The mans choice not to go has no impact on women, what do you care if a stranger you've never met before doesn't go to a class? It doesn't, his choice not to do doesn't impact women being helped.

"But don't there are so many times in life that we have to attend courses, or accept advice, on things that we don't think we need."

Agreed, I'm saying that it shouldn't be compulsory.

"If you are a woman in hospital having had your second baby, you are still expected to accept advice on how to breastfeed a baby/change a nappy/hold a baby etc. I didn't feel like I needed that advice, but I listened to it and let the midwife tick a box on my discharge papers, rather than protest vehemently that I didn't need it. "

Surely if you're confident that you know the subject and don't need the advice you can just say as much? It's not like they are going to cart you off to jail for saying no, or take your baby away until you listen to their advice. Not saying that people should dismiss the advice by default, it could be that you appreciate the advice as it's been a while since your last baby, just that the choice is yours and you shouldn't be thought negatively of for either choosing to listen/choosing not to listen to the advice.

The odious man on the 5Live programme was Mike Buchanan "leader" of the "political party" Justice for Men & Boys (and the women who love them).

The problem, apparently, is "rad feminists" who dislike men so much they can't imagine any woman wanting to have sex with men.

Thanks for clearing that up, Mike

So you feel that any 18 year old who feels totally informed around consent should be allowed to decline the course?

Because an 18 year old professing themself to be utterly informed about consent is going to be really really reliable ?

ah, I thought he sounded middle aged when I heard him, that makes more sense than him being one of the younger men mentioned here.

I did hear him trot out the well worn lie about feminists hating men.

But the thing is, honestly, that even if he was right and radical feminists hated men and couldn't imagine wanting to have sex with them...what then? Does he believe that women have no right to not want to have sex with men?

The bizarre and utterly man hating thing here is actually the vocal body of men who think that they represent ordinary young men in not wanting to ensure their partner enthusiastically consents.
Most men I know absolutely want to know that their partner very much wants sex. They would rather know if there was any possibility that they were misreading signals or inadvertently applying pressure.

These weasel worded wankers do proper men such a disservice. I suspect they like there to be as much ambiguity about consent as possible.

No it isnt. The mans choice not to go has no impact on women, what do you care if a stranger you've never met before doesn't go to a class? It doesn't, his choice not to do doesn't impact women being helped.

Of course it does (or men, might also affect men, I have no idea of his preferences).

Because if he thinks he knows all about consent, but really doesn't, then it's anyone he sets his sights on who will be affected.

When he puts on a puppy dog face, and repeatedly mentions how much effort he put into cooking, how it's still early, have another glass of wine, come and sit next to me on the settee etc to someone he's invited round, tops up their drink a bit more, until they're just that touch to squiffy to feel they should walk home now it's 1am, they should stay over, it's fine, they'll just share a bed - the couch is really uncomfy and his housemates will be up early, and somehow, despite not really wanting to, they end up having sex.

That's happened to me with creeps, I've also been with decent blokes who have slept next to me after accepting no, and I've been with blokes where enjoyed where it went - but there's no doubt that's a dodgy consent situation - and one that bares thinking about - I wonder how much thought the consent refusers have put into that?

link if anyone wants to listen to 5Live discussion starts approx 1 hr 21 mins. The woman who is debating with Mike Buchanan is excellent.

Treacle - woman (not rad fems) are willingly having sex with men but in the morning claiming they didn't give consent. He also says most 'incarcerated' rapists are serial rapists who were sexually abused as kids by women - often their mothers. Mike thinks we should run courses telling women not to abuse young boys.

Mike Buchanan - of course. A knob of the highest order with a chip on his shoulder the size of a redwood tree. Well, he would say that wouldn't he?

He's the rentaquote go to for any media wanting an MRA view.

Oh it was Mike Buchanan! Well, that doesn't half explain it.

Do you think he knows how chillingly creepy he is, and he loves the fact that he is sinister and frightening, and the power it gives him?

Or does he really think that he is a decent man and can't understand why all us man hating feminists can't understand that?

What's his story other than his hilarious blog? I imagine him to be bitter because no woman ever went near him, always getting lower grades at school than the girls in his class, frustrated that he didn't amount to what he felt he was entitled to be, wholly inadequate in the sack and has shit patter, but thinks he is great company and everyone else just Doesn't Get It.

Am I close?

"Because if he thinks he knows all about consent, but really doesn't, then it's anyone he sets his sights on who will be affected."

I appreciate your concerns but speculating that everyone who doesn't go doesn't know about consent is just wrong. What about the man who definitely DO know what consent means, but still decide that the workshop is not for them?

The man talking on R5 was deranged claiming that most rapists have been abused by their mothers?? Where the fuck did that come from?

The man who attempted to rape me at University wouldn't have called himself an attempted rapist, I'm quite sure. He would've have called it 'trying his luck' or something, no doubt. He was my (then) boyfriend's best mate, who took advantage of a situation, and the fact that I trusted him. He only stopped because my boyfriend came back unexpectedly.

Everyone can benefit from this sort of education, but it shouldn't be left until University, it should be tackled long before this.

Everyone in my office has to do compulsory equality and diversity training. This is partly because management think it is genuinely a good thing and partly because Investors in People accreditation requires it and evidence of having a policy is needed for public sector tenders.

We also have compulsory annual training on money laundering. I'm not aware of anyone taking offence at either of these.

In both cases much of what we get told is obvious and common sense but that doesn't stop there being the odd "Oh I hadn't thought of that" moment.

Yes, the health and safety/diversity/money laundering training is a very good point.

I also had to do money laundering training when I worked at an investment bank (even though I was in HR, never had any dealings with money/investments). Funnily enough, I didn't feel the need to stand with a placard saying "This is not what a money launderer looks like."

Well, he's ensured that the thing he's most fearful of (a false accusation of rape) is not going to happen. Because he's not getting near any of his fellow female students. Because he doesn't get it - that he made that sign says everything. Because, of course, he is what a rapist looks like.

Women have been trained to know more about consent because they are the ones whose boundaries are more frequently crossed. I'm not just talking sexually, either. So, in the interest of appeasing the equalists (are they an actual group yet?), there could be sessions for each sex. However, I think the focus of any Q&A would be massively different.

And I am not a bit surprised that it was MB on the phone in. He's another one to stay away from.

Each year at my work, every one of us, from most senior management to most junior probationer, regardless of age, sex, race or religion is REQUIRED to attend these 1-2 hr courses:

. Equality & diversity (but I'd never discriminate and I'm a BME woman)
. Integrity in business (I'd never accept or offer bribes, or break laws)
. Emergency evacuation procedure (I knew most of this by age 10)

Similar content each year, mostly common sense & ethical behaviour, but noone seems to feel insulted.

An employer, like mine, can make attendance at such annual courses mandatory for continuing employment.
So, all educational establishments should have mandatory annual age-appropriate training and refresher classes for:

. Consent & respect
. Equality & diversity

The problem is in the title. Basically this is a course in how not to be a criminal. Would any of you attend a course on how not to be an abusive parent?

Relabelling the course as a positive relationship course and opening it up to both sexes would allow the same message to be delivered without condescending to intelligent young men.

And most young men do not spend their life agonising over consent. They have merely had mutually enjoyable sexual relationships, Good parents and schools have ensured this.

Courses like this can be useful if properly marketed. However assuming that an intelligent young man is a bit 'rapey' if he does not want to be preached and condescended is an incorrect assumption.