| |
| META TOPICPARENT | name="FirstEssay" |
|---|
| | | -- By JenniferDayrit - 27 Feb 2018
INTRO | |
<
< | Sexual assault and consent are recurrent topics in academic, educational, and cultural spheres. Although difficult to accurately assess, one RAINN study reported that occurrences of sexual assault and rape has fallen by over half since 1993. Assuming these numbers are correct, this is good news. However, the issue is still a pervasive and complicated one. At the moment, it has been brought to the forefront of media attention by several accusations against high profile and powerful men, not only in Hollywood, but also in the highest offices of the American government. These incidents prompted national response and general support of the victims, notably in the "Me Too" and "Time's Up" movements that were visible on social media and in the coverage of several prominent Hollywood events. In the arguably fading momentum of this mobilization, it is difficult to predict whether any legal action or cultural uproar will have a real impact in the long run. Assuming the end goal is the eradication of sexual assault, I posit that in order to truly make a lasting impact, we need to readdress the nature and discussion surrounding "consent." We can do this by focusing less on whether the "Rules of Consent" were followed and more on why in a sexual encounter the ROC are generally ignored. | >
> | Sexual assault and consent are recurrent topics in academic, educational, and cultural spheres. Although difficult to accurately assess, one RAINN study reported that occurrences of sexual assault and rape have fallen by over half since 1993. Assuming these numbers are correct, this is good news. However, the issue is still a pervasive and complicated one. At the moment, it has been brought to the forefront of media attention by several accusations against high profile and powerful men, not only in Hollywood, but also in the highest offices of the American government. These incidents prompted national response and general support of the victims, notably in the "Me Too" and "Time's Up" movements that were visible on social media and in the coverage of several prominent Hollywood events. In the arguably fading momentum of this mobilization, it is difficult to predict whether any legal action or cultural uproar will have a real impact in the long run. Assuming the end goal is the eradication of sexual assault, I posit that in order to truly make a lasting impact, we need to readdress the nature and discussion surrounding "consent." We can do this by focusing less on whether the "Rules of Consent" were followed and more on why in a sexual encounter the ROC are generally ignored. | | |
ROC and GREY AREAS | |
<
< | By ROC I am referring to the current general embrace and teaching of continuous affirmative consent throughout a sexual encounter instead of the previous mantra "no means no." This typically is most important in a "grey area" sexual encounter where people may disagree on whether sexual assault took place. The ROC have been outlined so that anything less is not consent. I think it is fair to say that the general population is at a point where they recognize and outwardly condemn obvious forms of sexual assault. After the stories of Harvey Weinstein's numerous instances of sexual misconduct were revealed, he was universally denounced and ostracized. After receiving a 6-month jail sentence for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman, Brock Turner was ripped apart on social media and in the news cycle. In cases like these, the sequence of conclusions is clear. Was there consent? Obviously not. Therefore, they are rapists. They are evil. They should go to jail. On the other hand, some sexual encounters are easily identifiable as consensual. Perhaps the two participants knew each other, had an open and honest conversation about what they were comfortable with, and gave affirmative consent every step of the way. Was there consent? Obviously yes. All is well! | >
> | By ROC I am referring to the current general embrace and teaching of continuous affirmative consent throughout a sexual encounter instead of the previous mantra "no means no." This typically is most important in a "grey area" sexual encounters where people may disagree on whether sexual assault took place. The ROC have been outlined so that anything less is not consent. I think it is fair to say that the general population is at a point where they recognize and outwardly condemn obvious forms of sexual assault. After the stories of Harvey Weinstein's numerous instances of sexual misconduct were revealed, he was universally denounced and ostracized. After receiving a 6-month jail sentence for sexually assaulting an unconscious woman, Brock Turner was ripped apart on social media and in the news cycle. In cases like these, the sequence of conclusions is clear. Was there consent? Obviously not. Therefore, they are rapists. They are evil. They should go to jail. On the other hand, some sexual encounters are easily identifiable as consensual. Perhaps the two participants knew each other, had an open and honest conversation about what they were comfortable with, and gave affirmative consent every step of the way. Was there consent? Obviously yes. All participants are good. | | | | |
<
< | When the situation is more complicated and nuanced, we enter trickier consent territory. What if both participants were conscious, but slightly intoxicated? What if someone stayed silent and still, but did not leave? What is someone used nonverbal cues to indicate their discomfort, but their partner misunderstood? What is someone said "okay," but only because they were afraid? In these "grey" area interactions, where the ROC would be the most beneficial, the sequence of conclusions no longer takes a linear form. When it is unclear whether there was unequivocal consent (or non-consent), we abandon out previous mantra of "yes means yes" and focus on the perceived character of the actors. Why? Because someone is either guilty or not guilty. Intuitively, we struggle to reconcile how good people can do bad things, especially in the realm of sexual assault. So the sequence conclusions becomes: Does the "perpetrator" seem like a bad person? No. Then, they are not a rapist. It doesn't matter that the ROC were not followed. They are not a mind reader. | >
> | When the situation is more complicated and nuanced, we enter trickier consent territory. What if both participants were conscious, but slightly intoxicated? What if someone stayed silent and still, but did not leave? What if someone used nonverbal cues to indicate their discomfort, but their partner misunderstood? What if someone said "okay," but only because they were afraid? In these "grey" area interactions, where the ROC would be the most beneficial, the sequence of conclusions no longer takes a linear form. When it is unclear whether there was unequivocal consent (or non-consent), we abandon out previous mantra of "yes means yes" and focus on the perceived character of the actors. Why? Because someone is either guilty or not guilty. Intuitively, we struggle to reconcile how good people can do bad things, especially in the realm of sexual assault. So the sequence conclusions becomes: Does the "perpetrator" seem like a bad person? No. Then, they are not a rapist. It doesn't matter that the ROC were not followed. They are not a mind reader. | | |
THE PROBLEM | | |
SOLUTION | |
<
< | Just as I do not believe that thinking that requiring affirmative consent will eliminate sexual assault, I do not think that there a great alternative. However, I do think we should be asking more questions. Instead of only asking was there affirmative consent, we should also ask why was there not affirmative consent. If there are truly misunderstandings, why is verbal consent sometimes not enough? Why do people struggle with reading non-verbal cues? Why do some people stay silent or not walk away? Though there are not simple answers to these questions, I do think answers exist. Whether it is a lack of education in emotional awareness, unequal power dynamics, cultural emphasis on appeasement, or the way we view sex in general, the answers are worth exploring. Rejecting the false choice of consensual vs. nonconsensual and stepping away briefly from ROC may allow us to explore these questions. | >
> | Just as I do not believe that thinking that requiring affirmative consent will eliminate sexual assault, I do not think that there is one grand solution. However, I do think we should be asking more questions. Instead of only asking was there affirmative consent, we should also ask why was there not affirmative consent. If there are truly misunderstandings, why is verbal consent sometimes not enough? Why do people struggle with reading non-verbal cues? Why do some people stay silent or not walk away? Though there are not simple answers to these questions, I do think answers exist. Whether it is a lack of education in emotional awareness, unequal power dynamics, cultural emphasis on appeasement, or the way we view sex in general, the answers are worth exploring. Rejecting the false choice between strictly consensual and nonconsensual and stepping away briefly from ROC may allow us to explore these questions. | | | |
|