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?

Ps I should add that fine tuning is all it can do, I agree that those likely to rape cannot be 'taught' not to. Their problem is not that they don't understand consent imo.

By fine tuning I mean more clarifying for those who would not rape but might have developed misconceptions about interpreting others.

In Germany in the 1930s, ordinary German citizens treated Jews appallingly - from spitting on them in the street to reporting them to authorities so they could be taken away and shot/gassed. Do we conclude from that that Germans have no empathy? Or do we say that actually something had gone really wrong in their society to make otherwise normal human beings start to see Jews as non-human, lesser?

Now imagine a situation where you see a group as lesser, but you also desire them and want to have sex with them. Imagine the fucked up behaviour that can lead to.

The sex industry? I think this is how many men compartmentalise prostitution.

Still fairly new to feminist any thinking. Might take me a while to get my head around that Sparrowhawk!

The whole thing - sex, sexual assault, rape, prostitution, is situated in an unequal society and that inequality seeps into absolutely everything. Like I said, there's no great mystery about it. If you have a culture that divides a society into two and makes one half more powerful than the other, the relationships between those two halves are not going to be healthy. It is a basic principle of human psychology, very neatly demonstrated by the awful Philip Zimbardo prison experiment, but also illustrated by countless real-world events. We can see it clearly when it comes to racism or Nazism but everyone seems slightly perplexed when it comes to gender, for some reason.

Yes I did start out wondering if I'm expressing something obvious! And it's starting to feel clearer. I suppose maybe I'm thinking around the culture isn't something that exists separately too, and happens to men. Or is it?

'I suppose maybe I'm thinking around the culture isn't something that exists separately too, and happens to men. Or is it?'

I don't quite get this sorry - could you clarify?

We can see it clearly when it comes to racism or Nazism but everyone seems slightly perplexed when it comes to gender, for some reason.

I don't want to rehash the same old arguments - but this is not a good comparison. I think that for most men and women, they actually have the strongest bond throughout their life with a member of the opposite sex.

Well yes and that's the issue I suppose girl. Jews and non-Jewish Germans could and did stay separate, but for the most part women and men form bonds and have relationships. This complicates things. But it doesn't remove the fact that society is built on inequality and this inequality also infiltrates personal relationships.

When I was a teenager (over 20 years ago), the general feeling seemed to be that if a boy groped you you should be flattered, flattered that you were worthy of his attention hmm. The idea that you should be angry or humiliated meant that you had 'no sense of humour' or were 'too full of yourself'.

Was that the girls' opinion too? In my experience, that didn't happen. At least, the majority of us clearly condemned it. But what would you do? Even if you slapped them, thinking they would learn a lesson, sometimes they would just laugh . And although most people considered groping a bad thing, they found it normal because 'it's normal that kids do stupid things'.

There are many factors that contribute to rape culture and the "that wasn't rape" instant position without reflection.
There will be cultural factors. Imagine a boy raised around men being "the boss". Women running around after them,being treated like a second class citizen,there only to satisfy the man's needs..be it dinner on the table or sex.
There will be social factors /conditioning . How a man acts to be a real man,boys will be boys, no means yes(I've seen women saying "oh,but i do sometimes say no in a cheeky way,when i mean yes so maybe the poor guy was just confused")buy her a drink or ten(and often advice for women when they are weary of trying something sexually is to have a glass of something for "courage") and so on.

In many of these cases said boys/men won't even consider that what they are doing is wrong,and sexual assault/rape. They never been thought. If a girl/woman does complain,their behaviour is dismissed,minimised,excused. It's no excuse ofc or a valid defence in a trial.
In the same way,many women raised in the same way have no idea they have been sexually assaulted/raped. Even if they might have a feeling something is not quite right the realisation that what happened to them was a crime always comes as a massive shock. That's why consent,body autonomy,empathy,respect etc is essential to be taught for both sexes and taught early.

Then there are the ones that know it's wrong but simply don't care,or worse enjoy it. The power, breaking a person,owning them,hurting them etc.

Imagine a boy raised around men being "the boss". Women running around after them,being treated like a second class citizen,there only to satisfy the man's needs..be it dinner on the table or sex.

I would imagine that 99.9% of boys have no idea of and utterly appalled by the idea that anything sexual happens between their parents at all actually.

when they are weary of trying something sexually is to have a glass of something for "courage") and so on.

I think this hits on something interesting Rebel - why do men typically have to persuade women to pressure women into things they don't want to do ? why is it not the other way around ? Is it just porn culture ? where did that come from ?

This is a thing that actually frightens me to some extent, because the narrative goes that only women with no self respect or prostitutes will allow men to do things to them that no other women would. Why do men want to do these things (they don't require listing out here I don't think). ?

I would imagine that 99.9% of boys have no idea of and utterly appalled by the idea that anything sexual happens between their parents at all actually.

Are these boys
a - rather dim?
b - living in very large houses with very thick walls?

Because as a rule, when you strip the cultural baggage away those things are generally more pleasurable physically for the man than the woman. There is often a degrading or uncomfortable element to them. So men are more likely want it, and women are encouraged to give it to them. The fact that in most sexual intercourse women are penetrated and men penetrate is important.

And women are largely socialised not to give away sex too freely, that it's dirty etc. So any sexual act can feel degrading in the wrong circumstances, it's not just a physical act.

Sorry Sparrowhawk. I'm posting terribly which doesn't help at all explain what I'm thinking.

I suppose I want to understand and feel better about how things are and the changes that are needed. It doesn't help me "feel better" about men that I understand the cultural influences or the historical context. Because men are responsible for those aren't they? The circumstances wouldn't exist if not (at least) propped up by most men?

I sometimes feel like my eldest son is at the beginning of turning into a "man". Which is where I started, thinking about the need to educate, to try and build resistance to the inevitable developments. And it is a little depressing. Unless he too is a victim of culture, socialisation etc.

You can feel better about the fact that women have fought and fought to change things. Without feminism women would still be entirely subject to men. Things have improved and could still improve if we keep fighting.

FWIW, while I think patriarchy gives definite material benefits to men in practice, on a personal level, it is also detrimental. There are some men, obviously, who hate women and will abuse them no matter what. But I think a lot of other men are acting on their socialisation. I've seen first hand what it's like for a man to realise how badly he's been taught by society. It's not a fun process.

So men are more likely want it, and women are encouraged to give it to them. The fact that in most sexual intercourse women are penetrated and men penetrate is important.

So is there an imbalance there or are there at least an equal number of sexual acts that women would prefer that are not comfortable for men ? If not - can such an imbalance ever be entirely socially corrected ?

Trills

None of the above. Personally I have no idea of the sexual dynamics between my parents, nor what either of them expected or desired of the other. Perhaps you find this unusual, but you will find that it is entirely typical.

I remember a conversation with a guy,where he kept insisting that making love is missionary only (maybe candles and music and all that shit) and having sex is anything else "adventurous" (his example was doggy style). Even if with the same person,with whom you are in a committed relationship etc. Sex was the dirty one. It's a really fucked up way to look at things.
Another guy was massively impressed(best night of his life) by my very active participation and moans. Which brings us back to the way of thinking that a woman actively enjoying sex is out of the normal. How do you look for enthusiastic consent when it's not something you expect?
Ofc most of these mentalities,hopefully are outdated now,but it just shows how many factors affect men and women when it comes to sex and consent. Once again..ignorance is no excuse (stating that just in case).

I wonder if the problem is just the word - we shouldn't teach kids they need to get "consent" - we should teach them that sex should be mutually enjoyable and they should only engage in it with it someone who is equally keen to participate.

This.

The issue is not one of consent per se, but the whole attitude of the person who sees another persons' body as a thing to which they seek access.

Imagine if a stranger walked up to a woman and said: "Excuse me, is it alright if I grab your breasts? It's just that I wanted to get your consent first".

While that might be preferable to him just groping the woman, it would still be utterly insulting and humiliating to her.

There is too much focus placed on a very technical, legalistic notion of consent rather than on the character of the person committing the sexual assault and the moral context of the situation.

So is there an imbalance there or are there at least an equal number of sexual acts that women would prefer that are not comfortable for men ? If not - can such an imbalance ever be entirely socially corrected ?

In my eyes the imbalance comes mostly from the fact that men are more likely to take what they want whether given freely or not,while at the same time women are conditioned to think that that is expected and it's their duty to "give" it.

In my mum's words sex is something you do "after a long,hard day at work,sit on your back staring at the ceiling with your legs spread." Only after marriage of course.

The biggest con that the patriarchy pulled on women was to put them in position of artificial dependence on men and then convince them to be grateful that men support them.

The biggest con that the patriarchy pulled on women was to put them in position of artificial dependence on men and then convince them to be grateful that men support them.

I find this language difficult to engage with.

"The patriarchy" is a description of our culture that has evolved over millenia. No one is to blame for it, nor is it some gigantic con that has been played on unsuspecting women who all this time were just waiting for modern feminism to elucidate their plight.

The fact is that women do depend on men as men depend on women. In early societies women were indeed dependant on local groups of men to protect them from other men. This is still the case today, we expect rapists and murderers to be arrested and locked away and controlled, by other men. It's obvious to say "if men weren't violent none of this would matter" but some men are and always have been wishing they weren't and admonishing them for it is no basis for a society.

This is still the case today, we expect rapists and murderers to be arrested and locked away and controlled, by other men

Because there aren't any female police officers,prosecutors,judges etc?