Twenty Two Years And Counting.
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Consent/assault
38 Answers
My son's been doing the sex education part of the year 9 syllabus and they were discussing consent this week. We were talking about the mental repercussions, primarily for women as this is more common, of being touched inappropriately. As we delved deeper I was at a loss as to explain why some scenarios are so mentally damaging. For example, you're a sexually active female who enjoys physical contact. If you are on the street and somebody was to put their hand up your shirt, you are not concerned about the action, as you enjoy being touched, so is it the fact that it was a stranger doing it? If the stranger is the problem, why isn't it OK for somebody you know to do it? So then you have the 'I just didn't want them to do that' argument, which obviously misses the point. It was easy to explain in a scenario where there are fear and physical harm resulting from the incident, but other than saying 'just because' I couldn't really get the reasoning across so appreciate any help with the explaining.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ck1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
To break it down like that into 'the action', 'the person', 'the location' etc. is not helpful because as those change so does the overall situation - even though in isolation each one has some level of acceptability.
It's enough for someone not to be happy with 'not being touched by strangers on the street' in totality and if it happens to feel violated in some way if they did not consent. The reasons why people set (the same) particular boundaries can be many and varied and will be individual to that person - but it's impossible to know them unless we are told so it's not worth speculating on that or the effects on the person - the main lesson is about consent and not about why consent may not be given.
It's enough for someone not to be happy with 'not being touched by strangers on the street' in totality and if it happens to feel violated in some way if they did not consent. The reasons why people set (the same) particular boundaries can be many and varied and will be individual to that person - but it's impossible to know them unless we are told so it's not worth speculating on that or the effects on the person - the main lesson is about consent and not about why consent may not be given.
This has by now become at once a clear, simple matter and a very complicated one. The simple form is that a man should never act on his hormone driven thoughts or impulses without having a prior and unambiguously indicated OK so to do, and then only to the extent mandated. The implication is that the female is required to in effect issue an invitation - otherwise he is liable to be transgressing and thus accused of harassment. He is to have a clear "Yes", maybe not written as at one stage was suggested somewhere, but something that entirely excludes any accusation of inappropriateness, especially in the case of actual intercourse. How this is to work between a couple in an established relationship has not been covered to any real degree that I am aware of.
The complication comes if/when the reality that very few if any female is going to clearly indicate to any man that she wants him to touch some part of her body (she is not a *** after all), he is supposed to "read" her inclination through "signals".
What (so far as I am aware) has not received any discussion/coverage is to what extent this works in reverse. Unlike men and if they choose to, throughout their lives women can have full control over their fertility. There is no indication that the expectation has now become that a female should have a clear Yes from her male partner (maybe preferably in writing, given the possible implications) before deliberately making him a father (which, anywhere, he will not legally have any right to stop after conception has taken place). Imagine a scenario of #hetoo leading to a court case where a woman ends up in court accused of deliberately making men fathers. Impossible, right ?
The complication comes if/when the reality that very few if any female is going to clearly indicate to any man that she wants him to touch some part of her body (she is not a *** after all), he is supposed to "read" her inclination through "signals".
What (so far as I am aware) has not received any discussion/coverage is to what extent this works in reverse. Unlike men and if they choose to, throughout their lives women can have full control over their fertility. There is no indication that the expectation has now become that a female should have a clear Yes from her male partner (maybe preferably in writing, given the possible implications) before deliberately making him a father (which, anywhere, he will not legally have any right to stop after conception has taken place). Imagine a scenario of #hetoo leading to a court case where a woman ends up in court accused of deliberately making men fathers. Impossible, right ?
The vast majority of humans enjoy physical contact. the 'I just didn't want them to do that' argument is the absolute only one that's important, and i rather think YOU have missed the point.
Your argument seems to be that if someone puts their hand up your shirt or down your trousers in the street, you should enjoy it (or at the very least not object), which frankly i find ridiculous! Let's turn this round to men (as you have used a woman example). Imagine a man sitting on the bus, and another man puts their hand down his trousers. As a human, he enjoy being touched, so therefore should accept it? i've been married to my husband for a good few years, and if he tried to put his hand up my skirt and i didnt want him to he would stop!
Your argument seems to be that if someone puts their hand up your shirt or down your trousers in the street, you should enjoy it (or at the very least not object), which frankly i find ridiculous! Let's turn this round to men (as you have used a woman example). Imagine a man sitting on the bus, and another man puts their hand down his trousers. As a human, he enjoy being touched, so therefore should accept it? i've been married to my husband for a good few years, and if he tried to put his hand up my skirt and i didnt want him to he would stop!
16.04, You know that is not how the particular scenario works. It may also be for that reason you suggest it because it is the refrain used (including silently) to pacify/deflect/disguise the guilty conscience. Let's be clear, women (some, not all) deliberately become pregnant knowing full well he/they is/are not expecting/intending to.
pixie, It needs said but isn't except mostly in despair and not a little agony and always strictly in private. I am quite certain not only men but women too know this happens and pretty often but it is probably mostly (almost exclusively, only ?) women who are those who deny it ever happens. I know several women who openly (to me at least) agree that it happens - they know the examples. As for men being dim and careless - quite possibly so, add intoxicated too (with hormones). Abstinence, hah, heterosexual men simply won't/can't stick to that as a lifelong rule. I think it likely that the vast majority ending up in the predicament we are discussing fervently wish the hormones had left them alone, and maybe even wish they didn't have them at all, ever (at least for a while). Give men the same freedom/control over fertility (genuinely, not in that proven failure of the condom, being "equipped" and all that - it doesn't work) as women and I am absolutely certain that not only would the birth rate fall but there will be quite a few women who will feel that development reduces their freedom.
Karl, it certainly does happen. I know of three examples myself (at least). And while I wouldn't do it myself, I can also say that every one of those fathers was willing and knew the risks. In fact, one doesn't even know he is the father of two teenage girls... so that is how much attention he paid...
You say men can't be expected to abstain, they have hormones. But so do women, they also get pregnant without planning to. So the problem for you, seems to be mostly biology?
It's swings and roundabouts really. If a man gets someone pregnant, he has made his decision and has no further say. But also, he could just run away, and (or not) return several years later.
I disagree that women don't acknowledge it, all know they could do it if they wanted to, although most don't. But let's be honest, many men are not too shy or bothered about who they give it away to...
You say men can't be expected to abstain, they have hormones. But so do women, they also get pregnant without planning to. So the problem for you, seems to be mostly biology?
It's swings and roundabouts really. If a man gets someone pregnant, he has made his decision and has no further say. But also, he could just run away, and (or not) return several years later.
I disagree that women don't acknowledge it, all know they could do it if they wanted to, although most don't. But let's be honest, many men are not too shy or bothered about who they give it away to...
I think the "tea" video is quite good. Just cos I wanted tea yesterday and enjoyed it. Doesn't mean I fancy tea today.
http://
http://
