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?

I've read that article before NotCitrus and I think it's very good - thanks for reminding us of it.

NotCitrus it is a good article but I'm torn because I don't think I'm ready to let the author's (my) generation of men off the hook. But I got more from it on second read so maybe my annoyance on reading it is personal. It is important to understand the influences.
I wonder what a similar article in 20-30 years would say about today.

I don't think it's letting anyone off any hook.

I think that both men and women need to recognise the cultural influences on their thoughts and behaviour before they can usefully start to act in ways that contradict that conditioning.

Being aware of the conditioning is an important step, otherwise you are trying to act against "what feels like the natural way to behave".

I know that I do a lot of things, or think a lot of things, that are "not very feminist", because of my conditioning.

When X happens I think/feel Y, and it's not great, but it's just how I am.

vs

When X happens I think/feel Y, and it's because throughout my life so far I have been rewarded for behaving that way and not rewarded for thinking the other way, and I have learned that Y is the correct thing to do.

The second one is hard to accept because we like to think that our thoughts are our own and we like to think that we are not influenced by society/the media/etc.

It'd be nice to pretend that men innately understand consent but evidently they do not.
I'd rather something be depressing but cause a reduction in rape.

I sort of agree Trills. I suppose when I do the second thing the challenge is to slot into the conditioning/influences where my decision making had a role to play. Not see myself as a passive helpless person.

And the author might say he is explaining not excusing but I don't think that is an honest explanation of what he presents.

Nonetheless in terms of understanding influences I find it interesting.

I'm not sure it's evident that men don't understand consent itsbetter but yes of course I'd live with depressing if something reduced rape.

I don't think anyone understands consent innately. We have to teach all children about other people's things and bodies being theirs. It's quite a while before we develop the concept of other people having kinds with thoughts and feelings separate to ours.

We can learn sexual consent implicitly from other lessons in childhood, of course, but I think girls would benefit from being explicitly given the message that their bodies are their own, because as previous posters have expressed, society is constantly sending the opposite message.

I agree that women don't understand consent innately either - it's just that men's lack of understanding has worse consequences.

My understanding of consent and of my own behaviour has certainly evolved over time, and not just from "growing up" but also from things I've read and conversations that I've had (mainly on the internet, and I'm sure many of my peers have not read those articles or had those conversations).

So I can say that to some extent I have had to "learn" about consent, and would have benefited from being "taught" about it.

(I'm a woman, in case that wasn't already explicit)

I agree that women don't understand consent innately either
Consent and also the lack of it,and thus what constitutes rape. So many girls and women have no idea they have been raped,or that what happened to them was wrong and a crime. I know women for example that had to be told by the police that they were raped during a domestic violence complaint. Or girls that believe because x,y,z happened consent was not needed and ofc it wasn't rape. Or that expectations trump their feelings.

That's why I'll always agree to consent "lessons" for both genders.

The way I see it, the reason we have to directly teach sexual consent is because society constantly gives the message that sex is an exception from the rules of consent.

Everyone innately understands consent. Have you seen the tea thing? Where it explains all the ways that you should and shouldn't give someone tea, somewhat ludicrously, which is the point. There's another one which uses various examples like insisting someone finish watching a film they aren't enjoying or just taking someone's car whenever because they let you borrow it before. We know all of this - we completely understand where the boundary lies in almost all areas except sex. Society teaches us that sex has different rules.

ymmv's article on page one was a nice summary of how this happens.

I also had to learn about consent. I'm pretty sure the man who assaulted me believed it was consentual and I was saying no when I meant yes. I had the idea that I was responsible, and felt so ashamed and guilty. Then one day I just thought 'It's not my fault!' and stopped feeling it was anything other than a shit thing that happened to me. Much later I looked into the issue of consent, and thought that I wish I'd discussed those ideas years before.

Society teaches us that sex has different rules.

This. Rape is also the only crime where proving the act has happened(like theft,assault,murder etc) is not proof that a crime has been committed.

Bertie: "We know all of this - we completely understand where the boundary lies in almost all areas except sex. Society teaches us that sex has different rules."

Yes, absolutely this! Deborah Cameron has an excellent chapter on this in The Myth of Mars and Venus.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with anything. But it doesn't all slot together for me which was part of my opening post. I've never seen allowances made here, or understanding shown, for men who have claimed they misunderstood consent. Is that a valid issue to question?

"I didn't know it was a 30 mph zone" doesn't stop you getting a speeding ticket, but will probably have your friends saying "oh bad luck mate".

I think that not having a good understanding of consent can get you some sympathy for "being a bit creepy" if you show remorse and show a willingness to learn. Not for actual sexual assault though.

It's not just "I didn't know it was a 30, officer" though, is it? It's "I didn't know it was a 30 and she just ran out in front of me!" She being a child - and you've just broken her leg.

Sexual assault and rape causes harm. Why should feminists show understanding or make allowances for men who have harmed women? Especially when the men often don't seem in the least bit distressed or concerned about the women they have harmed. They just seem offended that you could possibly be calling their actions into question.

If you hit a person with your car (assume for the sake of argument causing broken leg or similar) and you later found out that you had been driving too fast except you didn't realise that the limit was lower, would you be defensive and just keep insisting that you ALWAYS drive to the speed limit and the signs should be bigger, or would your primary concern be making sure that the person you hit was okay?

That's why I said the sympathy would only be for being a bit of a prat, not for assault.

And only for people who showed the kind of remorse you described

Perhaps we're just seeing the question differently. I was assuming "men who have misunderstood consent" means men who have sexually assaulted, harassed or raped a woman but who don't believe that they have done anything wrong.

Mostlyhet thanks for the recommendation - looks interesting, I've just bought it on kindle.

Is this really any different, in principal, from knowing if someone wants you to be their friend or not? You don't ask for consent to be socially intimate with someone. If you are properly socialised, you just KNOW how to organically form a reciprocal, empathetic relationship. I'm not sure about this focus on consent, because as another poster put it very well, consent implies that a woman's body is a thing to which one-way access is granted. Of course consent IS important, but an understanding of boundaries and reciprocity goes far beyond any kind of codification. Indeed, someone who gives verbal consent can not be as fully consenting as someone who has given only tacit consent - responding to a situation in which both party just KNOW the other is comfortable. The concept of consent makes sexual mutuality very legalistic and technical in a way that can be easily abused. And it almost reinforces a quite ugly idea of women 'giving in' to a man. If you consent to something then there is a connotation of reluctance or capitulation to pressure.

People disrespect other people's boundaries basically because they don't have any respect for them. They just see them as objects to be used. The problem is not so much with the technicalities of consent, but with the person committing the assault.

The idea that you can explain to someone that it's wrong to grab a random woman's breasts and for them to say 'Oh, is it? well I'll be darned - I hadn't realised, sorry' is pretty questionable.

The only exception that should be made is perhaps for people who are seriously impaired. I used to work with young people with severe autistic disorders and learning disabilities who could act out in sexually inappropriate ways. But that was never a peculiarly sexual issue: they just didn't know how to interact with others in any respect, and therefore had to be looked after so they didn't hurt others or get themselves into trouble.

I think we have been seeing the question differently Bertie :) I was thinking about understanding consent as being a sliding scale (as I said earlier, I have definitely not understood it as well in the past as I do now)

Perhaps we're just seeing the question differently.

I meant across the entire spectrum.

Just to be clear, i do not sympathise with men who rape.

But there are numerous posters saying consent does have to be taught, it is confusing. Posters refer to an article by a man saying guys who assault or grope or masturbate to rape porn aren't all monsters. Just a product of their conditioning. And it feels like a disconnect or lack of logic or something to think this and have zero tolerance when men claim they thought they had consent.

I think when it is pointed out to me that rape is harmful I'm clearly not making myself understood. Probably better I stop trying.

Will look up the book recommendation.

The thing is it shouldn't be confusing. In an ideal world everyone would know,acknowledge and respect another person's identity,personal space etc. But this is not the world we live in. And while I know the way I'm going to raise my dd (and son if i would have one), I also know all children won't be raised the same. Girls won't always be taught that they have a voice,they have rights,it's ok to cause a scene,show displeasure,say no and so on. Boys won't always be taught that it's not survival of the fittest,punch first ask questions later,that girls are not beneath them,an object for their personal gratification (be it sexual or otherwise) and so on.

But there are numerous posters saying consent does have to be taught, it is confusing. Posters refer to an article by a man saying guys who assault or grope or masturbate to rape porn aren't all monsters. Just a product of their conditioning. And it feels like a disconnect or lack of logic or something to think this and have zero tolerance when men claim they thought they had consent.

The thing is though, arguably everything everyone does is a result of conditioning.