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?

So do you think that's what men are hearing when women talk about male violence against women?

Yes.

'If we moved the needle to a point where the line for the overwhelming majority of sexual encounters was a positive life affirming and pleasurable endeavor for all concerned we wouldn't have quite the same issue naming the problem when it comes to assault/rape.'

How do you think that could be done Dervel?

'I have no trouble accepting the figure that 1 in 4 women have been assaulted/raped'
I think the 1 in 4 figure is bollocks, personally, or at least it's a very conservative estimate based on reported assaults. Every single woman I have ever spoken to about sexual assault (and it's quite a number) has been assaulted. Out of those women, two of them reported it (and both men were convicted).

'I think there may be a problem with this class analysis thing, although I'm not advocating not doing it'
I'm not sure what this means - can you clarify?

Why aren't they hearing what women are actually saying, which is that there's a terrible problem in our society, namely that men are a danger to women, and women would like non-violent men to get involved in trying to make it stop?

Presumably, Sparrowhawk, because they know they are a danger to women. The "nice" ones acknowledge this by, for example, crossing to the other side of the road from a lone woman when walking down a dark street. The not so nice ones deny that it has anything to do with them. Often on internet fora. The even worse ones deny it ever happens.

Well for the avoidance of doubt my points are:

• Better sex education across the board, coming from a secular foundation as opposed to a conservative/religous bias.
• Fostering of empathy amongst boys and men, particularly towards women/girls.

In addition by all means try to guilt men as a class over the issue, but I fear that will be a long wait for a train that isn't coming.

Where did anyone say they wanted to 'guilt men as a class'?

Why aren't they hearing what women are actually saying, which is that there's a terrible problem in our society, namely that men are a danger to women

See - again, I just read this as "Sparrowhawk is saying that I am a danger to woman".

I suppose that's the problem isn't it? Men are focused entirely on the offence caused to themselves rather than the actual bodily harm caused to women.

But i asked you earlier why you thought that men were not interested in ending violence and you said you didn't think that ?

Also - i don't think I am a danger to women, so you telling me I am is offensive. I don't get why you would be surprised by this ?

TBH I'm just confused now. Because you've said you 'prickle' at the implication that male violence against women is anything 'to do' with you. So it's you that seems to be saying that men are upset about their own feelings around male violence rather than caring that much about women.

I didn't say you were a danger to women. I said men are a danger to women, and they are.

Ok by way of example I'll try and convince growapear, but I am fairly certain I'll fail.

growapear contextually we men ALL represent a clear and present threat to women. I've walked countless women home, but honestly they can't open my head up and see what my intentions are. In this equation only I have that information as a certainty. Wether it is a minority of men or a large number is immaterial any woman who spends time alone with me is rolling the dice. Can you honestly not see the dillema women face everyday? Let me put it another way is it women's fault they have to perform this mental cost/benefit calculation on wether to interact with us or is it the fault of rapists?

But in any case this is exactly what I was talking about. Women talk factually about the dangers they face, as women, from men and men, rather than being horrified or wanting to do anything about it get worked up and defensive and start talking about how they're not the problem.

I said men are a danger to women, and they are.

So you just said it again. Men are also a threat to me, but I don't go about expecting my work colleagues to do more to reduce the risk that other men pose to me.

Women talk factually about the dangers they face, as women, from men and men, rather than being horrified or wanting to do anything about it get worked up and defensive and start talking about how they're not the problem.

Given the definition Dervel just gave, short of mind reading, it will NEVER be the case that a man will not technically be a threat to a woman. Never. So what is it that I am expected to do about that ?

I know sparrow and I haven't found the right combination of rhetoric and logic to bypass that block. All I can say is that I have no problem accepting your argument without feeling personally affronted by I think the X factor for me is how is resonates with my own experience.

Where I have had some mileage is in mixed company is that when it comes up in discussion male friends can be bloody shocked when they realize the extent of the problem amongst their female friends. Conversely a lot of women don't bring it up as they don't want to make us feel bad, in the context of a friendship group I mean as we all like each other.

growapear you can be wise and empathic to the problem, and perhaps in this case moderate behavior accordingly. I was trained by my mother (as I was raised to be helpful) if I came across a woman with a car breakdown to maintain a large distance and enquire can I call anyone to assist rather than just wade in like a bull in a China shop. If you were to find yourself on a street walking at night to maybe cross the road to avoid walking behind a lone woman. There are actually a LOAD of small things you can do if you really apply yourself.

You say that it's offensive for me to say men are a danger to women but then you say that men are also a danger to men? Why isn't saying that men are a danger to men offensive?

I don't expect my work colleagues to reduce the risk that men pose to me. I do expect men to at least acknowledge that men are a risk to women, without turning it around to how they're offended and they're also at risk.

'Given the definition Dervel just gave, short of mind reading, it will NEVER be the case that a man will not technically be a threat to a woman. Never. So what is it that I am expected to do about that ?'

Do you think male violence is just inevitable? Something we all have to put up with?

If you were to find yourself on a street walking at night to maybe cross the road to avoid walking behind a lone woman.

Supposing that we accept that there are certain groups of society who alarm or scare other groups, and that those groups should regulate and carefully consider their behaviour and manners for the fear they apparently cause because of their mere existence. What would be the logical conclusion of this ?

Perhaps I should I teach my daughters - cross the street if you see a man and you are alone because he might be a rapist following you ? We can easily imagine how the man who did not cross the street would be perceived as being inconsiderate - even more of a threat.

Why isn't saying that men are a danger to men offensive?

Because it is abstract to the point of banality.

Which is why no one generally says it.

Rigght. I should know better than to engage with you growapear.

growapear I think it's good to cross the road rather than alarm a lone woman. Just because it's not nice to unnecessarily alarm someone.

Not quite sure what your point is here.

We can easily imagine how the man who did not cross the street would be perceived as being inconsiderate - even more of a threat.

And...so...what? He probably is more of a threat than a woman in that context. Of course he quite likely is not a threat - but a woman might feel afraid that he might be one nonetheless. In that context. So if he is empathetic he would cross the road rather than alarm her. That is what I always do in that situation.

Total strawman growapear I'm just saying if there is a voluntary step I can take that make a lone woman feel a mote safer and at ease I'm happy to. You of course don't have to bother it's entirely voluntary you just simply asked what you can do and I answered. I'm not proposing passing any laws dictating what side of the road we walk on. Christ get a little perspective or do you want to just argue for the sake of arguing?