Uncomfortable feelings about the teaching of "consent"

[Tootickyandsnufkin]

I hope I explain this ok. I'm not entirely sure this makes sense, or if I'm expressing something obvious.

Consent comes up a lot on here/MN. Usually the discussion is around whether consent is confusing etc. Everyone is familiar. I hope isn't is prompting the usual debate. But I guess maybe that where it goes.

The idea of teaching "consent" to boys/young men bothers me. I wonder what it says about men that they have to be taught. Then i think about what else we teach our children. Thinking on the go....I guess we work to develop empathy in many areas but how do they develop naturally otherwise? isn't there some sort of innate compassion that stops people, eg, committing acts of violence? Or is it consequences that shapes behaviour. Which of course there is generally a lack of in terms of non consensual sex/sexual acts.

And if we try to teach our sons about consent, are those who have ignored a lack of consent simply those who weren't adequately educated?
Is it depressing to think there are a huge group of boys/men for whom its an educational issue? Or is that a very negative way to think?

Well, except of course that women as a class can drive, cause fewer major accidents and cost the tax payer less money due to driving convictions, so that is empirically incorrect. So, men as a class can't drive.

Men as a class are dangerous to women.

Men as a class are more dangerous to children than women as a class.

Men as a class can kick an air filled bladder about better than women as a class.

Fixed it.

You don't expect anyone to actually spend their time explaining what's wrong with those statements

Of course not we all know what's wrong with them, which is why no one would say them - unless they are talking about "men" in which case it's fair game.

Xeno

Yeah - well known that all the best drivers are women, that's why they command such high fees etc and beat the men...oh wait, they don't

Depends what age xeno - but women as a class are dangerous to children, so the sentence is OK with you I take it ?

Growapear, do you want to actually engage with what's being discussed?

I think men can do loads to work towards the end of sexual violence, growapear if you are willing to engage.

No, grow has never wanted to engage with what's being discussed, hence his endless straw manning and whataboutery.

Grow, if you were being specific to a certain kind of driver, then maybe you should have said, because your answer just looks petulant and ridiculous. Anyway, back to the military, you were telling us all about them in your expert way, perhaps you'd care to expand.

I didn't think so, somehow.

I suggest we stop wasting our time dealing with a racist imbecile, and get back to the discussion, which was actually quite interesting before this person of subnormal intelligence barged in.

Sorry I missed an opportunity because I was worried about being rude. At some point I had the power to say who could and couldn't post apparently!

growapear you're benched for the ridiculous military answer to NotCitrus. Obviously there's more but that was enough in itself.

Job done.

Don't apologise for something that's absolutely not your fault tooticky!

Too

Sorry you feel my answer was ridiculous - it isn't meant to be. If there is some means by which men could stop other men from being violent - without an even bigger threat of violence, then it has thus far eluded humanity. There is a reason that only governments are allowed to form armies - because they control organised violence, and this is not something i just made up - it's Noam Chomsky. This idea that military forces are nothing to do with controlling and directing violence is laughable.

Does this mean that men are inherently violent ? I don't know about that, but the evidence suggests it does. Having millions of unemployed young men for example would generally be of great concern to most countries I would imagine. You asked in your OP about "innate compassion". I don't think it exists, hunter gatherer tribes used to hit their old people over the head when they became too old to keep up apparently. Ideas of compassion and morals are things that we make up in order to cooperate on larger scales, but they aren't real or innate things. That doesn't mean people cannot be made to believe them, obviously they can.

lol shove

You reckon the evidence suggests that men are inherently violent, but at exact same time you also reckon that it's offensive to say men are a danger to women?? Really??

I don't get whats confusing you. As i've pointed out - saying "men are dangerous to women" is not useful information. What are women to do now that you have pointed out that men are dangerous ? Avoid them ? Perhaps we should segregate men and women until this problem can be fixed ? That would surely be best in the short term.

Saying "men are dangerous to other men" is equally true but no one goes around saying that. If men are incapable of treating each other in such a manner that one could state "men are not dangerous to other men" then what on earth makes you think that it is ever going to be possible to state authoritatively "men are little danger to women". The point is - that you would never be able to say that, and I think you know it.

So you're saying men are a danger to women, but I'm not allowed to say it for some reason?

'What are women to do now that you have pointed out that men are dangerous ? Avoid them ? Perhaps we should segregate men and women until this problem can be fixed ? That would surely be best in the short term'

Yes, women do avoid men, by not walking out alone at night, but walking in groups with other women, but using segregated bathrooms and changing rooms etc. Total societal segregation would be almost impossible to achieve and when feminists float is an idea they're called man haters so clearly that's not going to work. I'm surprised you think it's for the best.

BTW it doesn't ever have to be pointed out to women that men are a danger to them, they are taught that from the time they can first understand 'stranger danger.'

So you're saying men are a danger to women, but I'm not allowed to say it for some reason?

I've never said that you can't say it. I'm saying that it serves no purpose other than to demonise all men (and boys).

Yes, women do avoid men, by not walking out alone at night

You may do this, many men may do it as well. But the idea that anything like the vast majority of women exist in some sort of self imposed curfew because of their terror of strange men is entirely false.

Also as I am well aware, your intention is not to provide women with knowledge about how dangerous men are in order that they can take steps to make themselves safe from them, so now you are being disingenuous.

'I've never said that you can't say it. I'm saying that it serves no purpose other than to demonise all men (and boys).'

So women aren't allowed to talk about the reality of their lives because it might be bad for men and boys?

'You may do this, many men may do it as well. But the idea that anything like the vast majority of women exist in some sort of self imposed curfew because of their terror of strange men is entirely false.'

Well, yes, some women live under a state-imposed curfew. Women elsewhere don't necessarily stay at home but they do generally plan their lives around 'staying safe' ie avoiding dangerous men.

'Also as I am well aware, your intention is not to provide women with knowledge about how dangerous men are in order that they can take steps to make themselves safe from them, so now you are being disingenuous.'

I don't think you understand what the word disingenuous means.
But anyway, I never had the intention of 'providing women with knowledge about how dangerous men are in order that they can take steps to make themselves safe from them.' There are two reasons for that:

1. Women are fully aware that men are dangerous, so I don't need to provide them with any knowledge on that score. All women have to do is to refer to their own experiences of assault and rape or talk to their friends about their experiences of assault and rape, or look at the news to see how dangerous men are. No knowledge provision needed from me.
2. I have no interest in telling women to keep themselves safe from men. Women are told that all the fucking time. Why would I add my voice to that nonsense? Anyway what could I tell them to do, besides staying at home permanently and never letting a man into their house?

I have a question for you - why is it that you think women should be given advice on how to stay safe from men? Why aren't men given advice on how to stop hurting women? Or is it always women's responsibility to deal with these things and men have no responsibility at all?

What you seem to be saying growapear is:

Men are inherently violent
Men are a danger to women
However, we're not allowed to talk about the fact that men are a danger to women, because it's really important that the people we protect are men and boys. We don't want men and boys to be 'demonised' so women have to be quiet.
If we do talk about danger, it should only be so that women can make more effort to stop themselves getting raped and murdered, not so men can do anything about it, because it's not men's problem.

Is that it in a nutshell?

Oh and also forgot your other point: there's nothing at all we can ever do about male violence, it's absolutely inevitable, so women should just shut up about it for fear of upsetting men and boys.

You seem to be missing the point.

so women should just shut up about it for fear of upsetting men and boys.

Women, by your own account, already know that men are dangerous. Of course, this is a minority of men, but you don't want to say that because your intention is to demonise all men and teach boys to be ashamed of the fact that they will apparently frighten people by their mere existence. Apart from this being palpably false - again what purpose does it serve to repeatedly and doggedly refuse to narrow the scope of your missives ?

So by your own admission, you are repeating stuff that all women apparently already know anyway.

And if you genuinely believe that men are such a grave threat to women, then it would indeed be perfectly rational to advise women not to enter into personal relationships with them. Good luck with that.

Men do not have a good track record at getting other men to do what they would like them to do. If you are hoping a rapist is reading this and will change his ways then good luck with that.

If you are suggesting there are things that I can do to make men not dangerous to women so that your favourite line of man bashing would be obsolete - then I am all ears.

Consider the difference between "men are potentially a danger to women" and "men are a danger to women". Also, either statement always has and always will be true and there is nothing that anyone can do about.

'Women, by your own account, already know that men are dangerous. Of course, this is a minority of men, but you don't want to say that because your intention is to demonise all men and teach boys to be ashamed of the fact that they will apparently frighten people by their mere existence. Apart from this being palpably false - again what purpose does it serve to repeatedly and doggedly refuse to narrow the scope of your missives ?'

I actually don't give a fuck about demonising men and boys, because you know what? The world doesn't revolve around them and it's not actually about them. I want women to be able to acknowledge the reality of their own existence without men getting all emotional about being 'demonised.' If they're so worried about being demonised, why don't they do something about the MEN who cause them to be demonised, rather than the women who are simply stating the reality of their lives?

'And if you genuinely believe that men are such a grave threat to women, then it would indeed be perfectly rational to advise women not to enter into personal relationships with them. Good luck with that.'

If women didn't have personal relationships with men, two fewer women a week would die and thousands upon thousands of women would not be raped or sexually assaulted. So in principle it is good advice for women not to engage with men. However, in spite of everything, women like men, which is fucking amazing really and segregating society is not a solution, even though you're so in favour of it.

'Men do not have a good track record at getting other men to do what they would like them to do. If you are hoping a rapist is reading this and will change his ways then good luck with that.'
I have no idea why think that's my aim.

'If you are suggesting there are things that I can do to make men not dangerous to women so that your favourite line of man bashing would be obsolete - then I am all ears.'

I find it utterly utterly bizarre that you say I'm 'man bashing' when it is YOU who said men are inherently violent and it's YOU who thinks nothing can be done about it.

'Consider the difference between "men are potentially a danger to women" and "men are a danger to women". Also, either statement always has and always will be true and there is nothing that anyone can do about.'

Again, I'M the one who's man-bashing???? You are the one who thinks that men are irredeemably violent!

Why are you bothering to discuss it at all if you believe that male violence is inevitable and unstoppable? Surely you're wasting your own time if that's what you think. Why would it matter to you what we discuss here?

I would point out that many of the women posting here are in relationships with men, have sons and male family members and friends. Do you think that we hate them and want to "bash" them, demonise them and make them permanently ashamed of their existence?

I would point out that many of the women posting here are in relationships with men, have sons and male family members and friends. Do you think that we hate them and want to "bash" them, demonise them and make them permanently ashamed of their existence?

Precisely why I posted here. For discussion that allows me to work out a useful approach to my feelings from women who have thought/studied/read around the issues and yet don't hate men. Which from where I am right now isn't actually the logical conclusion.

It's typically a board where fumbling around with ideas is tolerated, even though I expect it's tedious at times. No one tries to out-intellectualise each other.

My negative feelings do not come from feminism but from life experiences. Feminism gives me a way to feel more positive. I expect you're not interested though. It feels like its about winning the discussion (although only in your head) and obsessively picking apart Sparrows wording.

And your posts reminds me so much of my stbxh which doesn't help! He likes to bombard with info that I am too weary to pick apart rather than hearing what anyone has to say. I suspect half of it is irrelevant but you forget what the point is anyway. It does not make you right. Frankly I don't know where Sparrow gets the will to keep going with it.