This is day fourteen of the Blogging “Yes” project, and today I decided to read two essays back-to-back because they have a common theme. One was “Reclaiming Touch: Rape Culture, Explicit Verbal Consent, and Body Sovereignty,” by trans feminist activist Hazel/Cedar Troost. The other was “An Immodest Proposal” by Heather Corinna, the founder of Scarleteen.com. I picked these two essays to blog together because they both carry the idea of enthusiastic consent out to a not-yet-commonly-realized conclusion and consider what a world with normalized enthusiastic consent might look like.
For the third day of the Blogging “Yes” project, I read Rachel Kramer Bussel’s “Beyond Yes or No: Consent As Sexual Process.” I can’t agree more with the main idea of this essay: that consent shouldn’t just be the absence of “no,” or even a simple “yes,” but a conversation between sexual partners about desires, fear, likes, dislikes, and all the rest. However, I did have some discomfort in parts of the essay as someone who doesn’t find it easy to ask for what she wants.
Note: the below is crossposted from my book journal. No Tati Tuesdays this week b/c I didn’t actually have much to report, though I do recommend Jon Stewart’s interview with Barney Frank on Monday.
I’m reading an anthology on date rape, edited by Leslie Francis, and I was particularly struck by the first two articles. The first, by Lois Pineau, proposes a new communicative model of sexuality to replace the contract model frequently used in understanding sexual relations in rape cases. According to the contract model, the idea is that if the victim consented, then a contract was established and the perpetrator did nothing wrong. Pineau argues that this allows perpetrators (males) to get away with a lot because the evidentiary standard for showing consent is relatively low. The alternative she suggests is a communicative model, where sexuality is thought of not as a contractual relationship but as something akin to friendship or conversation. Under this model, the presumption would be nonconsent in the case of any noncommunicative, aggressive sexual interaction. The defendant would then have to offer a reasonable explanation for his belief that the victim was consenting, despite the lack of communication between the two. I like this idea, because it encourages communication and makes it more difficult to argue “I thought she was consenting.” I also think, based on some psychological pieces I’ve read, that many men would be less likely to rape if the situation was not “blurry,” as I’ve read quite a few accounts of men who seem to honestly believe that their behavior was okay, based on certain actions or words of the victim. In an open, honest, complete dialogue, they would have more trouble convincing themselves that it was okay to force sexual contact on the victim.
The second piece in the anthology, then, is David M. Adams’ critique of Pineau’s piece. He has two main objections. One is that verbal communication is not always necessary – that men might reasonably rely on other indicators such as body language and that given the difference in how the genders communicate we should not dismiss these indicia – and the other is that verbal communication is not always sufficient – in other words, a woman might say one thing and truly feel another. I think that both these two objections could be met by a look at BDSM sexuality.
In arguing that verbal communication is not always necessarily, Adams points out that erotic communication is often complex and that a “checklist” would take away from the sexiness of it; that the most unambiguous form of expressing desires, literally writing them down and checking them off, takes all the romance out of the equation. In fact, this isn’t true at all. Many BDSM couples in fact use a checklist – before the fact. This establishes some reasonable assumptions, because partners are aware of likes and dislikes in advance. Further, the partners are not bound by these preferences – they are free to use a clear verbal communication, in the form of a safeword, to say no. This kind of verbal system makes it very clear when non-consent is established. The “she said no but I thought she meant yes” strategy doesn’t fly, because there is one word that means “I no longer consent, and this is not up for debate.” Though it’s unlikely that all couples would establish a safeword, I do think a similar model of communication both before and during erotic encounters can make the experience both sexy and mutual. I’m also bothered by Adams example of a man establishing consent based on a look in the woman’s eye versus the example of a woman deciding not to physically resist based on a look in a man’s eye that provokes fear. He uses this example to argue that feminists can’t have it both ways – if option B is allowed, then so too option A. I think this is absolutely ridiculous. There’s a big difference between establishing consent based on a look in someone’s eye, and making the decision not to affirmatively ask, and feeling instinctive, gut, fear based on a look. Any look at the way women are raised in this society, and the fears men instil in us from a young age, would prove this point.
Finally, I also think the BDSM model is instructive on Adams’ other argument, that someone can say one thing and mean another. In any communicative system of sexuality, part of the deal is an implicit agreement to be open and honest in communication. This may mean that things move slower, and one or both parties may have some issues to get past in developing trust and an ability to be open. But I think such a model entails responsibilities for both partners – first, to ask questions and affirmatively establish the partner’s desire, which includes paying attention to any red flags that come up, such as discomfort in the conversation itself; second, to be open and honest about one’s own desires, and to refuse to go forward with a sexual encounter if one is unable to do so. Of course, without such a system, the fact is that there will be cases where a person says “yes” in an affirmative, enthusiastic way, not really wanting a sexual encounter. In such a case, it’s hard to blame the other party – and I think the communicative model accounts for this, in that when genuine communication and affirmative assent is established, there is no rape. But I think what it means for the big picture is that as sexual partners we need to pay close attention to how our partners communicate consent, and be on the lookout for signs that it is not enthusiastic. At the same time, as a culture, we need to work on making it easier for women, especially, to say “no,” and not make genuine feelings about sex something that women need to be embarrassed about or feel a need to keep secret.
As you know if you read this blog, I’ve been doing research on sadomasochism and consent, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the law is bordering on pathology in its obsession with protecting masculine subjectivity, while using the other hand to perpetuate feminine objectivity just as much as it damned well pleases.
Case in point: I read a law review article arguing that Laskey, the European Court of Human Rights case where prosecution of several homosexual men who were practising consensual sadomasochistic sex was upheld on the basis of public morality, was all about protecting the masculinity of the male “victim” by not even allowing him to consent. This makes a lot of sense to me. Ideally, what we want is a system of informed consent, where yes means yes and no means no. What we get is, on the one hand, the legal system refusing to let men say yes to erotic pain in order to “protect” them, and on the flip side, refusing to acknowledge women who say no to date rape because they “accepted a risk” – ignoring the fact that true informed consent means they accepted the risk of what actually happened, not just the risk that consensual sex might occur. Consent, essentially, doesn’t mean anything in the legal system – it’s just another tool of sexism. Grand.
Consent is something that we obviously value very greatly in modern Western society. Consent is often the difference between a crime and an unpunishable act. In the realm of sexual acts, consent (sometimes) is what makes activity acceptable to the law. When we talk about sodomy laws, we frequently repeat the phrase “consenting adults.” These are consenting adults in the privacy of their bedroom, therefore the state shouldn’t interfere. Consent is one way to mark a line between activity protected by the right to privacy and activity into which interference by the criminal system is justified. If there isn’t consent, then at least one of the parties’ privacy rights – or more broadly, right to individual autonomy – is not being respected. Autonomy is to right to do as we will with our own lives, as bodily integrity is the right to do as we will with our bodies. When these rights are breached, the other party can no longer say that he or she was justified by autonomy – the limit to autonomy is where it interferes with someone else’s.
Of course, this is all well and good, and as a general rule I agree to consent as the line we should use. I don’t think, for example, that the government should interfere due to some overriding “public interest” when consenting adults participate in sadomasochistic activities. I don’t believe that the public morality, when people are having sex in private, all consenting, and therefore not harming anyone else’s autonomy, can override the autonomy interests of the participants. But that said, I found an interesting paradox in an essay I was reading for a paper I’m writing on sexual autonomy. The author gave the example of two gay men kissing in the street. The men argue that they have an autonomy interest in being able to express themselves affectionately – and indeed, autonomy goes behind a mere geographic sense of “privacy,” so that the interest exists on a public street as much as in a private home. But then some bystander argues that her autonomy interest is being violated because she doesn’t want to see men kissing. Where do we draw a line? If autonomy only goes so far as the limits of others’ autonomy, then they men shouldn’t be able to kiss – but do we want to go this far? I certainly don’t. Does everyone in the neighborhood have to consent, or only the “reasonable” ones? What is reasonable? A member of the moral majority? An interesting paradox.
Cara at the Curvature recently wrote a very thought-provoking post about what she calls “real sex education.” I’m not going to talk a lot about the post, because I think you should just read it – she makes some really interesting points – but I would like to share some thoughts about sex ed. Cara’s real sex education involves teaching young people that sex is supposed to be consensual + pleasurable for both parties. At first I looked at that statement and thought “hey, no brainer.” Then I thought wait a minute, I may be progressive and all but I don’t want to be teaching kids about sex. Then I thought, well, you know what, she has a real fucking point.
The big focus now for sex education is on teaching about how to prevent STDs and pregnancy. There’s a big debate, I gather, between abstinence-only folks and comprehensive sex ed folks, but when they say comprehensive they still mean focusing on disease and pregnancy and how to prevent them. It never really occurred to me what kind of a role sex ed could have had in my unfortunate early experiences, but now that I think of it, yeah, that’s a good way to start.
I’m not sure if my own sex education would be considered “abstinence only” or not. In fifth grade, we took a course called “Human Growth and Development.” It was a one-week part of the science curriculum that required parental permission, and of course everyone was very excited about it because of the sense of taboo that surrounded the course. We essentially learned about anatomy – I dutifully labelled charts of male and female anatomy, though I know for a fact that a clitoris appeared nowhere on those charts (the focus being “the reproductive system”). We had a quiz on the anatomy, then for the last class period we were huddled into a separate room from the boys and a female teacher told us briefly what a period is and what a sanitary pad is – my first introduction to the subject. And that was that.
In eighth grade, we very briefly heard something about AIDS in health class, as part of a list of various diseases that we should be able to identify, but nothing about other STDs or how to prevent them. In high school, there was a brief unit on the family in health class where we learned that a family is a married man, woman, and children, and though other families can and do exist they are technically dysfunctional.
And then out into the world I went!
So when I thought about my nether regions, I mainly associated them with periods and reproduction. My mother taught me that sex was appropriate in a loving relationship. When I started college and did have a sexual relationship with a man, though, she was uncomfortable talking about oral sex and felt that it was something very intimate, something that while it was not necessarily to be saved for marriage, was only for special relationships and was not to be discussed. It certainly wasn’t, as my friends had informed me, foreplay, something that you do before intercourse.
I never ended up having oral sex. Oh, I was on the giving end plenty, as that was something he needed almost every time to have intercourse, but there was never any touching or anything like that for me. It was very clothes off, let’s go. I knew how to masturbate, but orgasms were something for alone time. He asked if it was all right (the intercourse), but never offered to do something in addition. I did finally get the courage to ask after about six months of sexual activity, and he said matter-of-factly that he “wasn’t interested in that.” That’s fine. Maybe he wasn’t. But it was still disappointing.
I don’t know that any of this is directly related to the lack of sex education in my life, but I can’t help but wonder if it might have helped. I’m just now learning about safe sex for lesbians, and even there all the sources wildly conflict. I think a few things could help. 1) Comprehensive safe sex information for gay and straight sex in high school. 2) Include the clitoris on the damned diagrams. 3) Teach the consent + pleasure model that Cara advocates. 4) Be realistic about sex.
I think that a huge problem with my education is that I masturbated from the age of eleven or so, but I always assumed that sexual intercourse would be this big things with fireworks and even more amazing orgasms. When I learned that it’s kind of all right, and no orgasms whatsoever, I was disappointed. I can’t imagine what it’s like for a woman who’s waited until marriage and then suddenly realises “fuck, I signed on for this?” I also assumed that the actual process would be easy, tab A into slot B. It was actually a little difficult, and clumsy, and took a lot of maintenance on my part to keep the guy ready to do his job. This was a bit of a let down. After sex with men, I started feeling that sex was pointless. I mean, nothing can be better than the orgasms I give myself, so I should just give up. Sex with women is basically going to be masturbation with someone nice to look at. Then I started re-thinking it, and realising that it doesn’t have to all be orgasm driven. A lot is about the touching someone, tasting someone, kissing someone, and loving someone. I think the same could be true for heterosexual couples, especially if the woman doesn’t enjoy intercourse. But you’d never know that from sex ed. I think they should be frank. Ladies, you deserve to enjoy sex. You might not enjoy intercourse. That’s okay. You should search together for other ways to derive pleasure. Etc, etc. I think just re-framing the norms about sex that we all carry around with us would make for a much more enjoyable experience when the time comes.