How to Teach Consent

[New England and The Maritimes]

How can we go about teaching consent, NSG? What are your thoughts on the matter? I want to hear and discuss, but first I'm going to rant a little.

So, consent is the process of willing, informed, enthusiastic participation in a given activity. This matters in sexual ethics because, well, nobody has a right to another person's body, and so we need to all be voluntary participants. We all understand basically what consent is, but very few of us think about certain nuances, and most get defensive when they are brought up. I want you to try your hardest to drop the defensive attitude. Caring about the safety and mental wellbeing of everyone involved is not a personal attack, and it never will be.

So, with that in mind, I want to talk about implicit coercion. This is a very real, very important phenomena in our society. To describe it, it is best to illustrate it, so I will give a scenario.

Say you are a man(most NS'ers are, so this is what I choose to discuss,) and you are trying to talk to a woman. First off, where are you? If you are outside, you need to think about something, and that something is very important: How does that woman know, in any way, that you will not become violent toward her if you sense rejection from her? Answer: She doesn't. She has no way of knowing that you won't attack her, or that you won't follow her around trying to talk to her even more. If you do follow her around, she doesn't know if you're going to become violent at any point, or if you are going to keep following her for five minutes or for five years. This is a justified fear, because these things DO happen. Disregarding that is disregarding the value of her perspective and in that case you are just being an asshole.

If you are indoors, you have to think about the context. Are you at a bar? If so, how do you approach someone? I'm not here to give PUA tips, I'm here to kind of do the opposite. If someone does not engage with you very well, say she looks around, tries to kill the conversation, etc without saying directly that she isn't interested,, odds are that someone is not interested and doesn't know how to say "no" without harassment, as above. So what do you do in that scenario? It's simple: You err on the side of caution, and you try not to make her uncomfortable with your presence. It sucks, yeah, but imagine if a woman you were completely not attracted to and didn't know just came up to you and started trying to lock you into a never ending conversation? Let's say in that scenario that there is also a long-standing, highly publicized history of women in bars assaulting men for not having sex with them? Then you start to feel that discomfort, unless you totally lack either empathy or imagination, in which case, well, no discussion will help you, but try to keep a solid rule of not talking to anyone you can't tell is interested in you after your initial attempts.

So what if things seem to go well, and she responds to your conversation positively, and the two of you trade numbers, etc? Can things still get scary for her? Of course. She still doesn't know you that well. For all you know, she is one of the many women who have thought things were going well right up until the minute the person she was talking to harassed, assaulted, or even raped her. You do not know. So what do you do? Follow that same logic of erring on the side of caution. When someone doesn't seem up to some activity or another, ask. If she's in your bedroom, alone with you, do you think she can be completely confident that you'll respect her decisions without you saying anything? Do you understand that, maybe, being alone in someone's bedroom can give her the feeling that saying no is not the safest option when she feels uncomfortable? That is implicit coercion. That is what I'm trying to describe. You can feel respect for someone, you can be willing to back away when she is uncomfortable, most people(I would hope) are, but she does not know that you are. As far as this woman knows, there's a chance you will ignore her, will push her, will threaten her, if she pulls back or voices her discomfort. So you need to make the first move in this situation and ask. Because your intentions do not matter if she has no clue what they are. If your intent is to have a mutually enjoyable experience, you can't assume things that aren't there. You need to have the conversation. If you think that's going to be awkward, imagine how fucking awkward it will be for her if you are sexually assaulting her and she doesn't know how to safely tell you to stop?

The key point here is this: Think before you act. Think about the other person's situation. Think about how they might feel. Try to understand that sexuality is not always a safe space for women. That historically and currently women have been intimidated and coerced and pushed and pulled into sexual situations that men want because those men did not care about their feelings enough to ask. Think about how scared you would be to tell someone know if you thought they could kill you and might.

So, let's discuss. How can we convey this important and under appreciated aspect of consent and respect for each other's sexual boundaries effectively to others? What strategies could we use? I want to know!

[New haven america]

I'm personally for rearranging the education system to teach things like sex ed. and consent from the start of 4th or 5th grade, then supplementing it in middle or high school.

Doubt this is gonna happen though.

[The Joseon Dynasty]

I dunno. From what you've written, it seems to extend pretty trivially from a general ability to - and a general understanding of when it's important to - put yourself in someone else's shoes. Making sure people have those skills seems sufficient. If someone knows how to - but chooses not to - care how the other person is feeling, then that's more an issue of character than knowledge.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I dunno. From what you've written, it seems to extend pretty trivially from a general ability to - and a general understanding of when it's important to - put yourself in someone else's shoes. Making sure people have those skills seems sufficient. If someone knows how to - but chooses not to - care how the other person is feeling, then that's more an issue of character than knowledge.

It seems to me that the definition is something people seem adamant they know better than the person they're trying to apply it to. "I know what consent is, I don't need to ask the other person!" is a ridiculous position that, through my experience in college as a sociologist in training and in participating in groups like Man Up, etc. is actually somehow popular among young men.

[Avenio]

I've always been a proponent of using the Canadian Criminal Code's definition of consent (and the lack thereof) as a good baseline;

The principles of consent that apply to assault also apply to sexual assault. The victim of sexual touching must freely consent to the act, and must understand the nature of the act being consented to. The courts have applied the definition of consent to mean that a person cannot consent to having serious bodily harm done to himself or herself (R. v. Jobidon (1991, S.C.C.)).

Consent means the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.

No consent is obtained when:

The agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of another person other than the victim (complainant)
The complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity
The accused (by abusing a position of trust, power or authority) induces the complainant to engage in the act
The complainant expresses by words or conduct a lack of agreement to engage in the act or
The complainant, having consented to engage in the sexual activity, expresses (by words or conduct) a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity

[New England and The Maritimes]

I've always been a proponent of using the Canadian Criminal Code's definition of consent (and thel ack thereof) as a good baseline;

The principles of consent that apply to assault also apply to sexual assault. The victim of sexual touching must freely consent to the act, and must understand the nature of the act being consented to. The courts have applied the definition of consent to mean that a person cannot consent to having serious bodily harm done to himself or herself (R. v. Jobidon (1991, S.C.C.)).

Consent means the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.

No consent is obtained when:

The agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of another person other than the victim (complainant)
The complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity
The accused (by abusing a position of trust, power or authority) induces the complainant to engage in the act
The complainant expresses by words or conduct a lack of agreement to engage in the act or
The complainant, having consented to engage in the sexual activity, expresses (by words or conduct) a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity

See that's fuzzy. That implies that you can use a "She didn't say no!" defense and that's not the case. Consent requires a yes, not silence.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I've always been a proponent of using the Canadian Criminal Code's definition of consent (and the lack thereof) as a good baseline;

The principles of consent that apply to assault also apply to sexual assault. The victim of sexual touching must freely consent to the act, and must understand the nature of the act being consented to. The courts have applied the definition of consent to mean that a person cannot consent to having serious bodily harm done to himself or herself (R. v. Jobidon (1991, S.C.C.)).

Consent means the voluntary agreement of the complainant to engage in the sexual activity in question.

No consent is obtained when:

The agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of another person other than the victim (complainant)
The complainant is incapable of consenting to the activity
The accused (by abusing a position of trust, power or authority) induces the complainant to engage in the act
The complainant expresses by words or conduct a lack of agreement to engage in the act or
The complainant, having consented to engage in the sexual activity, expresses (by words or conduct) a lack of agreement to continue to engage in the activity

The accused (by abusing a position of trust, power or authority) induces the complainant to engage in the act

Is overly broad. This should be better explained. But otherwise it makes sense.

[Avenio]

I've always been a proponent of using the Canadian Criminal Code's definition of consent (and thel ack thereof) as a good baseline;

See that's fuzzy. That implies that you can use a "She didn't say no!" defense and that's not the case. Consent requires a yes, not silence.

Presumably that would be covered under 'expresses by word or conduct a lack of agreement'. Unwilling silence would, one would think, be covered under 'conduct'.

[Atlanticatia]

I've always been a proponent of using the Canadian Criminal Code's definition of consent (and thel ack thereof) as a good baseline;

See that's fuzzy. That implies that you can use a "She didn't say no!" defense and that's not the case. Consent requires a yes, not silence.

It says "No consent is obtained when:
The agreement is expressed by the words or conduct of another person other than the victim (complainant)"

So, that seems to say that there must be expressed consent under the criminal code. (If there was no expressed consent from the victim, it would be illegal. So, "she didn't say no!" would be an invalid response in Canada.)

That's how I interpreted it, at least.

[New England and The Maritimes]

I've always been a proponent of using the Canadian Criminal Code's definition of consent (and the lack thereof) as a good baseline;

The accused (by abusing a position of trust, power or authority) induces the complainant to engage in the act

Is overly broad. This should be better explained. But otherwise it makes sense.

Here, I'll explain it. If you are a teacher, a professor, a supervisor, a police officer, a fireman, a parent, a therapist, a case worker, etc etc etc. you are not permitted to sexually assault your underlings, because that is an abuse of your position of trust, power, or authority.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

Is overly broad. This should be better explained. But otherwise it makes sense.

Here, I'll explain it. If you are a teacher, a professor, a supervisor, a police officer, a fireman, a parent, a therapist, a case worker, etc etc etc. you are not permitted to sexually assault your underlings, because that is an abuse of your position of trust, power, or authority.

You're using circular logic. Sexual assault is already sexual assault. Plus, police officers or firemen have no "underlings". This concept of authority is fundamentally flawed.

[Espresso and Insanity]

Sex ed classes in our school system should teach about consent.

[Atlanticatia]

Here, I'll explain it. If you are a teacher, a professor, a supervisor, a police officer, a fireman, a parent, a therapist, a case worker, etc etc etc. you are not permitted to sexually assault your underlings, because that is an abuse of your position of trust, power, or authority.

You're using circular logic. Sexual assault is already sexual assault. Plus, police officers or firemen have no "underlings". This concept of authority is fundamentally flawed.

For example, the age of consent may be 16, but if a teacher has sex with a 17-year old student, the student cannot give consent because the teacher is an adult in a position of power, where they may be able to intimidate the student into agreeing, etc.

[New England and The Maritimes]

Here, I'll explain it. If you are a teacher, a professor, a supervisor, a police officer, a fireman, a parent, a therapist, a case worker, etc etc etc. you are not permitted to sexually assault your underlings, because that is an abuse of your position of trust, power, or authority.

You're using circular logic. Sexual assault is already sexual assault. Plus, police officers or firemen have no "underlings". This concept of authority is fundamentally flawed.

ALL sexual conduct requires consent. Sexual assault, then, is sexual conduct without consent and it includes that scenario. Therefore, abuse of trust, power, or authority to coerce another person into sexual activity is sexual assault.

Authority is a general attitude among the public that you are in charge of certain things. You would listen to a police officer when he told you to do something. Hence, it is an abuse of that power to put someone in a compromising position and sexually assault them. It is just a way to make sure no police officer on-duty can ever claim there was "consent" when he leans into a woman's window and says "I know how you can get out of that ticket" or something along those lines. It is necessary and helpful. Any cop can get laid the minute he takes off his uniform.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

You're using circular logic. Sexual assault is already sexual assault. Plus, police officers or firemen have no "underlings". This concept of authority is fundamentally flawed.

For example, the age of consent may be 16, but if a teacher has sex with a 17-year old student, the student cannot give consent because the teacher is an adult in a position of power, where they may be able to intimidate the student into agreeing, etc.

I don't agree. You're basically saying that if one holds a position of trust (gee, that is broad), authority or power over another no consent may be established?

[New England and The Maritimes]

For example, the age of consent may be 16, but if a teacher has sex with a 17-year old student, the student cannot give consent because the teacher is an adult in a position of power, where they may be able to intimidate the student into agreeing, etc.

I don't agree. You're basically saying that if one holds a position of trust (gee, that is broad), authority or power over another no consent may be established?

That's the point. You don't know if a person is in a position to really say no to someone with that kind of power dynamic. I would rather prevent a million and one hookups until the two are out of that power dynamic than allow one person to be sexually abused.

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

You're using circular logic. Sexual assault is already sexual assault. Plus, police officers or firemen have no "underlings". This concept of authority is fundamentally flawed.

ALL sexual conduct requires consent. Sexual assault, then, is sexual conduct without consent and it includes that scenario. Therefore, abuse of trust, power, or authority to coerce another person into sexual activity is sexual assault.

Authority is a general attitude among the public that you are in charge of certain things. You would listen to a police officer when he told you to do something. Hence, it is an abuse of that power to put someone in a compromising position and sexually assault them. It is just a way to make sure no police officer on-duty can ever claim there was "consent" when he leans into a woman's window and says "I know how you can get out of that ticket" or something along those lines. It is necessary and helpful. Any cop can get laid the minute he takes off his uniform.

WTH. So if someone agrees to have sex with a cop to waive a fine that is rape in your book?

[DnalweN acilbupeR]

I don't agree. You're basically saying that if one holds a position of trust (gee, that is broad), authority or power over another no consent may be established?

That's the point. You don't know if a person is in a position to really say no to someone with that kind of power dynamic. I would rather prevent a million and one hookups until the two are out of that power dynamic than allow one person to be sexually abused.

Isn't a BF/GF or husband/wife a position of trust?? Do you see now what the problem is with such broad wording?

[New England and The Maritimes]

ALL sexual conduct requires consent. Sexual assault, then, is sexual conduct without consent and it includes that scenario. Therefore, abuse of trust, power, or authority to coerce another person into sexual activity is sexual assault.

Authority is a general attitude among the public that you are in charge of certain things. You would listen to a police officer when he told you to do something. Hence, it is an abuse of that power to put someone in a compromising position and sexually assault them. It is just a way to make sure no police officer on-duty can ever claim there was "consent" when he leans into a woman's window and says "I know how you can get out of that ticket" or something along those lines. It is necessary and helpful. Any cop can get laid the minute he takes off his uniform.

WTH. So if someone agrees to have sex with a cop to waive a fine that is rape in your book?

That is an abuse of power, it is coercion in the sense that you don't know how a police officer will react if you state your boundaries, and it is not ok. If they want to get together for drinks later when he is off duty, sure, whatever, but do you seriously think we should just allow police officers to proposition random people they're in charge of protecting for sex while in uniform, carrying weapons, and in a position to arrest them for any number of laws you probably agree shouldn't exist in the first place and are often abused?

[Pandeeria]

How do you know if he/she feels uncomfortable? What if the signs aren't clear enough?

[Lydenburg]

Teach the girl to become cunningly adept at playing the victim.

Then set her up with a kerel who has money. Stage an incident, sue and pocket the winnings.

[New England and The Maritimes]

That's the point. You don't know if a person is in a position to really say no to someone with that kind of power dynamic. I would rather prevent a million and one hookups until the two are out of that power dynamic than allow one person to be sexually abused.

Isn't a BF/GF or husband/wife a position of trust?? Do you see now what the problem is with such broad wording?

No, there is no problem. If an intimate partner reports sexual violation, and it is in the context of a relationship with a power dynamic that makes them unwilling to say no, they deserve to have legal recourse. If there are no problems, the law doesn't come into play because there won't be a report or a prosecution.

[FutureAmerica]

If you don't know the person, you should not have sex with them.
Either side can betray your trust, then you're in for disease, pregnancy, rape accusation, harassment, jealous boyfriend, fights, even death. Get to know someone first before having sex with them or you'll be sorry. Once you know the person, then ask for consent.

[New England and The Maritimes]

How do you know if he/she feels uncomfortable? What if the signs aren't clear enough?

You ask, as I suggested or, if you don't feel comfortable, and you don't get a clear signal that someone is interested, you err on the side of caution and try with someone else.

[Atlanticatia]

For example, the age of consent may be 16, but if a teacher has sex with a 17-year old student, the student cannot give consent because the teacher is an adult in a position of power, where they may be able to intimidate the student into agreeing, etc.

I don't agree. You're basically saying that if one holds a position of trust (gee, that is broad), authority or power over another no consent may be established?

I'll give you an example. The age of consent is 16. Person A is a 17 year old senior in high school, and is in danger of failing a class, meaning they might not graduate high school. Person B is the teacher. One day in school, the teacher says "I'll make sure you pass the year if you do something for me *wink wink nod nod*". Person A goes along with it, because they wouldn't graduate high school. Can Person A really give full consent in that situation?
Even though they're both old enough to consent, there still isn't full 100% consent from the victim. The teacher abused power when they had sex, intimidating the student.