Their ideas of “yes” were so elastic
Peggy Orenstein in the Times notes that men tend to define “consent” to suit themselves (which misses the point by quite a large distance, doesn’t it, since the whole point of consent is that it involves the not-self).
The truth is, men are not the most reliable arbiters of whether sex was consensual. Consider: When Nicole Bedera, a doctoral candidate in sociology at the University of Michigan, interviewed male college students in 2015, each could articulate at least a rudimentary definition of the concept: the idea that both parties wanted to be doing what they were doing. Most also endorsed the current “yes means yes” standard, which requires active, conscious, continuous and freely given agreement by all parties engaging in sexual activity. Yet when asked to describe their own most recent encounters in both a hookup and in a relationship, even men who claimed to practice affirmative consent often had not.
When they realized that their actions conflicted with that benchmark, though, they expanded their definition of consent rather than question their conduct. Their ideas of “yes” were so elastic that for some they encompassed behavior that met the legal criteria for assault — such as the guy who had coerced his girlfriend into anal sex (she had said, “I don’t want to, but I guess I’ll let you”). She then made it clear that he should stop. “He did, eventually,” Ms. Bedera told me, “and he seemed aware of how upset she was, but he found a way to rationalize it: He was angry with her for refusing him because he thought a real man shouldn’t have had to beg for sex.”
So pretty much the opposite of consent, then. Thinking you are entitled to sexual access to another person as a matter of right is not a good set up for consensual sex.
A “good guy” can’t possibly have committed assault, regardless of the mental gymnastics he has to engage in to convince himself of that (“20 minutes of action,” anyone?). Even men who admit to keeping sex slaves in conflict zones will claim they did not commit rape — it’s that other guy, that “monster” over there, that “bad guy” who did. In fact, one of the traits rapists have been found to reliably share is that they don’t believe they are the problem.
In my own interviews with high school and college students conducted over the past two years, young men that I like enormously — friendly, thoughtful, bright, engaging young men — have “sort of” raped girls, have pushed women’s heads down to get oral sex, have taken a Snapchat video of a prom date performing oral sex and sent it to the baseball team. They all described themselves as “good guys.” But the fact is, a “really good guy” can do a really bad thing.
That last item – the photo sent to the baseball team – what’s that about? What is that other than shared misogyny?
A few of them admit it if pressed.
Sometimes, boys I talk to acknowledge having willfully crossed lines. One college sophomore had repeatedly ignored his partner’s hesitation during a hookup, despite his own professed scrupulousness about consent.
“I suppose there was something in the back of my head that I wasn’t fully listening to,” he admitted. “I guess when you’ve been flirting with someone the whole evening and you feel close to what you’ve been wanting to happen, it’s difficult to put on the brakes. And — I don’t know. I was enjoying myself. I was having what in the moment was a positive sexual experience. I think I just wanted to. Which is scary.”
It is, yes, as well as very common. Be afraid.
The excuse often used for blaming women for their rapes. You led him on, you made him think he was going to get sex, you telegraphed that you wanted it…all the damn things people say to blame the woman for the fact that the man is unable – or unwilling, really – to exercise control.
I mean, you could just as easily note that bakeries often put extremely appealing pies, cakes, etc, in the window, and say that the person who went in and stole product simply was so close to what they were wanting, it was difficult to put on the brakes. The bakery was asking for it by telegraphing their wares.
I have been fortunate with my actual dates. I tend to have the opposite problem, that I am unable to telegraph even when I do want sex, so men have hesitated to move forward until I take the initiative. That might be the best way, to allow women more freedom and give them more permission to take the initiative. Then men would have less excuse.
In men I am not dating, however, I haven’t been so fortunate…they have assumed that merely being a female walking around in the world, I am telegraphing my desire for them. Fortunately, few of them ever got the opportunity because of my anxiety disorder that kept me at a distance from people I do not know (and actually from most people I do know).
In Francois Truffaut’s 1971 film “Two English Girls”, the male lead Claude and one of the title characters, Anne, are moving toward sex, but Anne is clearly nervous and unsettled.
When Claude asks her why, she, a virgin, admits that she is afraid of having sex right now.
His gently spoken response is “If you’re afraid, then we’ll wait” — meaning for some other time, which eventually arrives, when Anne is no longer fearful and is now ready for her first sexual encounter.
This episode irresistably floated up from my memory bank because it resonates beautifully with the topic of what does or should or definitely does not constitute consent in sexual and other relationships
A “real man” shouldn’t have had to beg for sex? That just sounds so pathetic. And entitled. A “real man” doesn’t get upset when a woman says no.
Two autonomous beings, sharing an activity they both want. We aren’t even close.
50% of the supposed participants aren’t even permitted to want or act for themselves. ‘Consent’ doesn’t mean much if women are property, or sex is a commodity being purchased or coerced.
‘His gently spoken response is “If you’re afraid, then we’ll wait” — meaning for some other time, which eventually arrives, when Anne is no longer fearful and is now ready for her first sexual encounter.’
I’m sure that was the perfect line for the movie…but one point I’ve heard people make is that it’s often the case when men choose to stop insisting on sex, it’s temporary; they wait for as long as they feel it’s appropriate to wait, then start insisting again. No means no, forever, unless it comes to mean yes–but that eventual yes is not guaranteed, and is not some kind of contract that the man will eventually get sex if he’s ‘nice about it’. (There is all kinds of response to this, about women saying no, men acknowledging that, then women waiting in vain and unhappily for men to ‘take up the chase’ again–but I, personally, believe people should be taken at their word. If you say no, it’s up to you to go back and say ‘I’ve changed my mind’ (full disclosure; I’ve done that).)
Well, yes, but there’s room for nuance, I think. It could be “Ok I’ll let you off for now but you’ll have to let me sometime,” but that’s not what Michael described. (I haven’t seen the movie.) It’s not unusual for virgin girls to be both fearful and impatient to get the virgin part out of the way. Backing off until she’s not fearful, and doing so kindly, seems pretty textbook to me.
I guess the point I was making is that a) as other people talking about this have pointed out, when women say ‘no’ it is much more common for men to hear not ‘no’, but ‘later’ (and to be fair sometimes we feel like we have to phrase it that way to attempt to ensure our physical safety) and b) the phrasing of Michael Dempsey’s description leaves it unclear who gets to decide when Anne is ‘ready’, Anne or Claude, and if it is Anne, how Claude knows. As far as I’m concerned, nothing short of Anne saying directly to Claude ‘OK, I’m ready’ is acceptable.
In “Two English Girls”, it is Anne who totally decides when she is ready to lose her virginity; she makes this clear verbally. Claude never pressures her in any way. This is in keeping with the kind of men he portrayed in several Francois Truffaut films.