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'.

"What if the person who feels they know all there is to know about consent is actually wrong and doesn't know as much as he/she thinks they do?"

"But potentially the fallout isn't for him at all. If he is mistaken, and his interactions fall into the category where he thinks he is just 'trying his luck' and 'having a bit of fun' and another person finds his behaviour threatening and coercive, then it is the other person who suffers the fallout, not him."

Speculation is pointless, we can't act in the present in a certain way based on the potential for someone to become a criminal in the future. We don't lock people up because we think they might become a killer or rapist in the future. We shouldn't assume that they need to go to a course because they might become a rapist if they don't. We deal in facts and what we know. And what we know is that his refusal to do the workshop hasn't impacted on you, the only person it has negative consequences for is him. So if he wants to take a course of action where the only person affected by the fallout is himself, that's his lookout.

So you think things like drugs education, education about stds, contraception etc should just be stopped because some of these kids might already know all about it and they might not get pregnant so, hey, why should we get involved?

I think your position is bollocks. I think you have no way of justifying why an 18 year old should refuse these compulsory classes so you have moved on to 'but hey, it's a free country and we can't be sure he might end up raping someone '

It is really lame but you have rather brilliantly articulated the self serving, egotistical and contemptuous attitude of 'this is not the face of a rapist' dude.
Well done.

I'm now off to watch the rugby.

"Your position is that an 18 year old might well know all there is to know about consent and should decline the course. I think most 18 year olds are smart and considerate enough to want to educate themselves as much as possible, because they are not afraid of being exposed to a topic which calls upon them to listen to and absorb different view points."

No my position is that it should be up to them whether they take the course or not. Deciding not to go to a course where you already know everything there is to know about the subject matter doesn't mean you aren't smart or considerate. Nor does it mean you are afraid of being exposed to a specific topic, it's more that you see no point in going over the same ground.

Not sure what you mean when you talk about absorbing different viewpoints. Consent is not a subject matter where there are acceptable alternate views, it's a subject with a very clear right and wrong answer. You can have your own beliefs on the subject but it's not one of those abstract courses where there is no right answer and where opinion and different beliefs are paramount.

With each lecture there comes a fire drill, it's compulsory. With each air flight you take there is a drill, it's compulsory. If employers, i.e. lecturers and flight staff didn't do this, it would be deemed negligent.

I went to a major shareholders meeting recently and the Chair didn't do the fire drill. It was flagged up by members of the audience. Just because it was a private sector meeting didn't mean the drill shouldn't have taken place.

This is a one off lecture (though I think it should be yearly). When students progress from halls to private residency, they are given a code of conduct leaflet regarding neighbourliness, and are asked to read and abide by it. I don't see anyone complaining about that.

We do E & D courses though, under the assumption that if we don't people will express racist/homophobic/sexist/ableist views and potentially break the law I.e. commit a criminal act. Why is this any different?

It is shit that so many people have racist/homphobic etc views and unconscious bias that we have to have E & D courses. It is shit that so many men feel the need to sexually harass, assault and cross women's boundaries and have unconscious bias that consent courses are needed.

"So you think things like drugs education, education about stds, contraception etc should just be stopped because some of these kids might already know all about it and they might not get pregnant so, hey, why should we get involved?"

No I don't, I've not even mentioned any of those subjects. I think all the things you've mentioned there should stay, so I'm not sure why you think that I feel they should be stopped.

"I think your position is bollocks. I think you have no way of justifying why an 18 year old should refuse these compulsory classes so you have moved on to 'but hey, it's a free country and we can't be sure he might end up raping someone "

This is the thing, you seem to think he has to justify his choice not to go, but he doesn't. He's the only one who suffers if he doesn't go to this workshop, why is it any of our business, and why do you think he has to justify his personal life to you?

I already gave a justification why some might refuse the compulsory classes, but you dismissed it out of hand. So your statement that I have no way of justifying it is incorrect. I did give a justification, you just ignored it or decided it was wrong.

No, he isn't the 'only one who suffers' if he doesn't go to the course. He doesn't suffer at all. Any women that cross his path could potentially suffer though.

And if the course is compulsory, he does have to justify his position.

There is such a sense of entitlement coming through in your posts, Dont. It's quite worrying.

"Any women that cross his path could potentially suffer though."

So if he doesn't go to the course he'll become a rapist? Unlikely. I'd say that its just as likely he could go to the course, not pay attention during it but still get an overinflated sense that he knows everything just because he went, and end up missing a sign from a woman that she isn't consenting to something and she suffers, because this guy went on the course. That's very unlikely, but so is your suggestion that he might rape someone because he wasn't at the workshop. Not going is unlikely to turn anyone into a rapist who doesn't know what consent means.

E&D courses are absolutely necessary as are drills.

Recently in the USA a flight was abandoned due to fire in the engines. Despite most of those on board being long term flight users, a sizeable portion proceeded to ignore the rules of evacuation and take their possessions from the overhead. Unbelievable. I'm sure all of them knew the rules and everything there was to know about the subject matter of evacuation from an aircraft.

So if he doesn't go to the course he'll become a rapist? I didn't say that. But he's certainly fido,acing certain characteristics which would make me think he wouldn't take a woman's wishes into consideration over what he wants.

Of course there is always that risk Don't, that the course gas no affect on certain people we would it have an effect on. I went on an E & D bloke who spent the whole time bemoaning the fact that as a white, heterosexual male he was being discriminated against. He was beyond saving. However, I learnt never to be in a room by myself with him.

But it's far far better to acknowledge the problem, name it for what it is and try and do something about it. It also allows women to understand consent and that they don't just have to put up with this shit.

Great post Buffy.

"What you don't seem to realise, DontHave is that the ultimate purpose of this course is to protect young men, as well as young women. "

I do realize that. I know there are many young adults out there who don't have a sufficient understanding of consent, and I see how this course would help them. But it won't help the young adults who do have a sufficient understanding, it would just be covering the same ground for them. So I understand why someone might refuse to go to it in the same sense that I understand why someone wouldn't want to attend the annual workplace training courses. It's compulsory so people do just get on with it and go even though they don't learn anything they didn't know, and I feel it isn't worth losing your job over, but I understand why someone wouldn't want to go.

Fido,acing is supposed to be 'displaying'. Interesting autocorrect there

"But he's certainly displaying certain characteristics which would make me think he wouldn't take a woman's wishes into consideration over what he wants."

Can you develop that point further because I don't understand what characteristics make you think that?

Nasty feminists, how dare they suggest that it might help men to have some clear direction on this.

Or even better, how dare they suggest that young people who are embarking on quite possibly their first sexual relationship dare to equip themselves regarding consent and thereby safeguard themselves.

His desires coming above the needs and rights of women to go around in a safer environment free from sexual harassment and assault.

Just like those not wanting to take compulsory courses at work are putting their wants above the rights of others to work in a fair environment.

Other people have explained this up thread, Don't. Not sure why you are needing it again and again.

Oh and good post Buffy.

And I might well be digressing, but the airplane evacuation is an excellent analogy in that the majority of the passengers knew that those trying to get their stuff out from the overheads was going to endanger them. They assisted the flight crew in stopping this.

Outrage is the position of the privileged when those less privileged ask to be taken into consideration in their interactions.

"His desires coming above the needs and rights of women to go around in a safer environment free from sexual harassment and assault."

But his desires aren't coming above the needs and rights of women, it's a separate thing. His decision not to go to the course doesn't mean that women can't go around in a safer environment but you're talking as though there's a direct link between the two.

It might.

He is displaying a lack of care about the problems women face. Just like he would if he refused to go on an E&D course. It makes you wonder why that would be (and ergo, is there in fact a correlation).

That aside, it is the responsibility of men to not harass and assualt women. Women don't get to opt out of being harassed and assaulted. Just like black people don't get to opt out of being racially discriminated against. The very least men could do is to try and understand how their behaviour impacts women.

He should not get to decide though, that's the problem. He is not the server. He is the receiver.