first draft - fleshing out the conversation on consent and care
I've written criticisms before of the dialogue regarding rape culture in progressive and left-leaning social networks. In the past, it's been about the placement of consent before desire and excitement ("no means no" vs. "yes means yes") in the social relations we carry out--mostly a failure of framing, I now believe. Recently, though, I've been having conversations about consent which do not necessarily have to do with sex at all, but which are heavily informed by the orthodoxy prescribed by media experts who are trying to teach the public how not to be rapists.
To be sure, the first goal of teaching consent is to protect people who are frequently marginalized or silenced in our culture--closely followed, I would hope, by the goal of growing individuals and a culture of empathy and care. This is where I see media creations, and the general dialogue, falling short. I seldom hear people talking about the culture they wish to replace 'rape culture' with. I think that's partly because there's an assumption of shared values, but in my eyes it does us a disservice to talk only about what we don't want. The model of consent played out then, thus far, looks something like this:
Perp (removing partner's clothes)
Survivor: Hey, I don't want this, stop!
Perp (either stops or does not, earning our approbation or righteous dismissal)
or even
partner 1: Hey, can I go down on you?
partner 2: Umm...
partner 1: Are you okay? We don't have to.
partner 2: Thanks, I don't think I'm ready to yet.
Does anyone see the problem here? It's not in the question of consent itself. It's not even heterosexism or cis-genderism, although those do come up in many conversations and media campaigns. The problem I see is that the conversation stops after the question of whether a sexual assault will occur is assumed to be resolved. No means no. Yes means yes. It's that simple, right? What I see lacking in the cultural conversation is how to not only not dehumanize someone, but how to fully humanize all people. Even a rapist is harmed by the patriarchy (though I wouldn't choose the word 'victim' to describe them), but what of those truely caring partners who stumble across another's traumatic past, or who simply ask for something their partner is not prepared to give?
To take a step back, let's look at the consent issue I've been facing lately: In having some long, difficult conversations with someone, they've asserted their right to withdraw from the conversation at any time, and I agree that they never have to talk with me, or continue a conversation past their point of comfort. That gets us as far as the consent model goes. What happens next? Well, in the case of a phone conversation, the phone gets hung up, leaving me with a disjointed, uncomfortable feeling, plus all of the accumulated emotion of said conversation. This is the conversational equivalent of running out of the room, which is an appropriate response if the person is trying to rape you, but might not be the best response if the person is actually listening to you in a caring fashion.
Back in the land of sex, what would it look like to build a culture of empathy and care, including and beyond the prevention of sexual assaults? Let's imagine a couple, including at least one man in this case, with most of their clothes off...
partner 1: Hey, I have a condom, and I'd really love to get closer--
partner 2: (observing their own state of undress) Oh, whoa. Whoa. I got a bit carried away. I didn't mean to go this far...
partner 1: Oh shoot, damn, I'm sorry--
partner 2: Oh no, no, it's okay, you don't have to apologize. I was really into it, too (smile). I just want to take a step back.
--somewhere around here is where the normal consent model stops. Let's keep going, though--
partner 1: Can we talk about it? Did I do something wrong?
partner 2: Oh, well, I don't want to talk about it right now, but it's not your fault. Can we talk about it in the morning? I just want to cuddle right now.
partner 1: (fixing their clothes) So you still want to spend the night?
partner 2: I'd love to, if that's still okay.
partner 1: Sure. I love cuddling with you. I'll just need to pee and have some water first...
This could have gone many different ways, of course. I'm imagining one possible positive outcome of a potentially damaging situation. Of course, to achieve this, both sides needed to check in with themselves, have good awareness of their needs, ask for what they want. They also exhibited a sensitivity to each others' feelings and needs: The one who asked to go farther isn't viewed as a potential rapist after accepting a no. These are people who have some kind of relationship and wish to continue to have one after tonight, which requires that they practice good consent *and* after-care. Partner 1 is concerned that they acted inappropriately and checks in. Partner 2 has good boundaries, not talking about something before they're ready, but doesn't leave partner 1 hanging, either. They both check in about spending the night, and partner 1 takes care of their physical needs before coming back to cuddle partner 2.
There are plenty of variations and other details that could be thrown in, but I think this illustrates my point, leaving room enough, I hope for others to raise their own questions and responses. The question of consent does not end, of course, with the bedroom, and the question of how to continue to build relationship after a 'no' requires much more attention than it generally receives.
To be sure, the first goal of teaching consent is to protect people who are frequently marginalized or silenced in our culture--closely followed, I would hope, by the goal of growing individuals and a culture of empathy and care. This is where I see media creations, and the general dialogue, falling short. I seldom hear people talking about the culture they wish to replace 'rape culture' with. I think that's partly because there's an assumption of shared values, but in my eyes it does us a disservice to talk only about what we don't want. The model of consent played out then, thus far, looks something like this:
Perp (removing partner's clothes)
Survivor: Hey, I don't want this, stop!
Perp (either stops or does not, earning our approbation or righteous dismissal)
or even
partner 1: Hey, can I go down on you?
partner 2: Umm...
partner 1: Are you okay? We don't have to.
partner 2: Thanks, I don't think I'm ready to yet.
Does anyone see the problem here? It's not in the question of consent itself. It's not even heterosexism or cis-genderism, although those do come up in many conversations and media campaigns. The problem I see is that the conversation stops after the question of whether a sexual assault will occur is assumed to be resolved. No means no. Yes means yes. It's that simple, right? What I see lacking in the cultural conversation is how to not only not dehumanize someone, but how to fully humanize all people. Even a rapist is harmed by the patriarchy (though I wouldn't choose the word 'victim' to describe them), but what of those truely caring partners who stumble across another's traumatic past, or who simply ask for something their partner is not prepared to give?
To take a step back, let's look at the consent issue I've been facing lately: In having some long, difficult conversations with someone, they've asserted their right to withdraw from the conversation at any time, and I agree that they never have to talk with me, or continue a conversation past their point of comfort. That gets us as far as the consent model goes. What happens next? Well, in the case of a phone conversation, the phone gets hung up, leaving me with a disjointed, uncomfortable feeling, plus all of the accumulated emotion of said conversation. This is the conversational equivalent of running out of the room, which is an appropriate response if the person is trying to rape you, but might not be the best response if the person is actually listening to you in a caring fashion.
Back in the land of sex, what would it look like to build a culture of empathy and care, including and beyond the prevention of sexual assaults? Let's imagine a couple, including at least one man in this case, with most of their clothes off...
partner 1: Hey, I have a condom, and I'd really love to get closer--
partner 2: (observing their own state of undress) Oh, whoa. Whoa. I got a bit carried away. I didn't mean to go this far...
partner 1: Oh shoot, damn, I'm sorry--
partner 2: Oh no, no, it's okay, you don't have to apologize. I was really into it, too (smile). I just want to take a step back.
--somewhere around here is where the normal consent model stops. Let's keep going, though--
partner 1: Can we talk about it? Did I do something wrong?
partner 2: Oh, well, I don't want to talk about it right now, but it's not your fault. Can we talk about it in the morning? I just want to cuddle right now.
partner 1: (fixing their clothes) So you still want to spend the night?
partner 2: I'd love to, if that's still okay.
partner 1: Sure. I love cuddling with you. I'll just need to pee and have some water first...
This could have gone many different ways, of course. I'm imagining one possible positive outcome of a potentially damaging situation. Of course, to achieve this, both sides needed to check in with themselves, have good awareness of their needs, ask for what they want. They also exhibited a sensitivity to each others' feelings and needs: The one who asked to go farther isn't viewed as a potential rapist after accepting a no. These are people who have some kind of relationship and wish to continue to have one after tonight, which requires that they practice good consent *and* after-care. Partner 1 is concerned that they acted inappropriately and checks in. Partner 2 has good boundaries, not talking about something before they're ready, but doesn't leave partner 1 hanging, either. They both check in about spending the night, and partner 1 takes care of their physical needs before coming back to cuddle partner 2.
There are plenty of variations and other details that could be thrown in, but I think this illustrates my point, leaving room enough, I hope for others to raise their own questions and responses. The question of consent does not end, of course, with the bedroom, and the question of how to continue to build relationship after a 'no' requires much more attention than it generally receives.