General News On the difficulty of being a heterosexual male in college

Ah, poor frat boys. Where would they be without their constant casual sex? It's just so unfair

 

We all need more education and more education from an earlier age when it comes to topics concerning sex (including consent).

I dont know what its like in other places but here in the UK sexual education in schools generally consists of learning how to put a condom on a model penis and then learning about two or three sexual diseases. The classes are even divided in to male in one class and female in the other... because apparently theres some things boys shouldnt know and girls shouldnt know (WTF, right?). Its wholly inadequate.

 

You're totally right. It's gotta be everyone learning about sex and consent and safer sex methods and gender stuff and all kinds of things. And it's gotta be young enough that they'll learn it in time to make informed decisions about their own sexual and emotional health. And that everyone will understand boundaries, not feeling entitled to someone else's body, how to give and understand consent, how to talk about sex with your partner(s).

Some places in the US, they aren't even allowed to teach the basic anatomy and condom banana class that y'all have over there in the UK. They instead teach "abstinence only" "sex ed" programs

Those are the states with the highest rates of teen pregnancy. Suprise

 

“They have to give you a better understanding of what’s right and what’s wrong.”

This article is... :eusa_doh:

 

Well you had more than us! We were just taught about erections and masturbation being unhealthy (yay, Catholic school!). No mention of condoms, and I think girls just learned about tampons - definitely no birth control talk.

In terms of the OP's article, I'd agree to an extent that some colleges have gone a little too far. To say that "affirmative verbal consent" is the only true consent and anything other is rape is utterly ridiculous. Likewise I think its unfair to categorize all heterosexual men together and talk about them as if they are all potential predatory rapists - I don't think that sends a good message to men or to women.

Also, I think in situations where both parties are equally intoxicated and there is no obvious withdrawal of consent, that is not necessarily rape as some colleges would say (i.e. it may or may not be rape depending on circumstances). I certainly remember from my uni days you would have women heavily intoxicated propositioning similarly drunken men (them taking the lead) - if the two mindlessly have sex, wake up and regret it I don't think the presumption of guilt should go straight on the male participant purely because the drunken woman "could not consent". Its not black and white.

 

poor heterosexual men and their privilege are slightly incovienced in university.

Excuse me while I shed a tear and play the violin.

 

We had a very vague class in year 6 (when we were 10/11) about sex and how a baby is born but as of yet have had nothing like what you described, I really feel this should be taught from early in secondary school when students are more likely to take note and not just snigger at it.

 

How is it a blurred line to offer beer or ask a girl on a date?? Or *gasp* hang out like friends? Does anyone remember like, normal dating?

I understand it's hard being at the top of the privilege chain, but-- oh no wait, I don't understand.

 

Poor heterosexual males with their heterosexual privilege getting charged with raping someone when they actually do rape someone.

 

Umm are all human males supposed to be made of Unfeasiblydensium? It's like they feel like they need a damn contract. I feel like you must be a little rapey to worry about your not-rape activities getting confused for rape. Even like some of the time.

 

This is obviously ridiculous, but it's understandable why they'd feel that way. Our culture - and in particular straight culture - doesn't really discuss or think about consent at all. Then when it does it puts all the focus either on the male or the female in a relationship. Either men are portrayed as aggressive and predatory (turning females into meek and subservient victims), or it portrays women as manipulative liars who cry rape at the drop of a hat.

It's utterly ridiculous. The problem we have in our culture is not a gender problem, it's a communication problem. The issues surrounding consent impact EVERYONE regardless of gender. Consent isn't the responsibility of one gender or another, it's the responsibility of everyone.

Consent is, simply put, not the absence of a no, but the presence of an enthusiastic yes.

Too often consent is painted as some black and white situation, where someone is screaming "No! Stop!" or they're otherwise willing participants. Which of course actively ignores all the aspects of human sexuality that are directly and indirectly coercive.

People might engage in sexual activity for any number of reasons when they don't really want to do it. The most obvious comes from pressure. Sometimes this pressure is self-constructed and other times it's created by others.

For example, someone might believe if they don't have sex with their spouse that it's going to increase the likelihood that they cheat on them. So they have sex with them just to keep them sexually monogamous.

Another example, created by culture, is someone who is gay or lesbian having sex with someone of the opposite sex not because they want to, but because they're afraid to say no because they fear people will start to suspect their true sexual orientation.

Another example is taking advantage of people after they've been drinking heavily. (Good rule of thumb to live by: If you're too drunk to drive, then you're too drunk to have sex. This same rule should be applied to whomever you're thinking about having sex with.)

Then to understand consent you have to realize that just because you or someone else consents to one thing, it doesn't mean you consent to something else. Just because you consent to making out, it doesn't mean you consent to oral sex. Just because you consent to oral sex, it doesn't mean you consent to penetrative sex.

On top of this, just because you said yes a few minutes ago, it doesn't mean that the yes still stands. You always have the right to say, "No, stop."

This brings me back around to my main point. This is a COMMUNICATION problem. Understanding what consent looks like isn't hard. People can be taught everything they need to know very quickly. The hard part is understanding how to set boundaries, communicating those boundaries, and dealing with the potential for rejection. When it comes to sex it's often easier to say yes than it is to say no, especially within the confines of a relationship. It's often easier to just go with the flow of things, even when you don't want to, simply under the guise of "Well, I kissed him first."

It takes a certain amount of courage to tell someone that you're uncomfortable with what is happening, and that you don't want to do it. It then takes a certain amount of maturity to deal with that and not take it as rejection. These are things that have to be taught and developed as life skills, because they are applicable to more than just what happens in the bedroom.

And perhaps most importantly, these are life skills that are not the responsibility of one gender or another, but the responsibility of everyone.

In the end, ask for permission, and then wait for it to be granted. After that pay attention and if you start getting the feeling that something is off or wrong with the other person, ask them what's wrong and seek permission again giving them the opportunity to voice their feelings. This is called treating people with respect and dignity, and this is what consent looks like.

 

And what about those who suffer unnecessarily due to ambiguity. Would you see yourself as a rapist if you don't ask your partner "darling, do you fully and completely consent to intercourse right now"? Of course not, but that is the direction we are moving with college's requiring nothing less than affirmative verbal consent. Is a tipsy male college student an automatic rapist for hooking up with an equally tipsy female college student? Well some colleges would say so (those that disregard any consent given under the influence). In those scenarios I would question why the female would not also have committed a sexual offense (as surely the male would not be able to consent either) - but of course the man "must have" been the one initiating.

Also, I am sorry but I find it disgusting how people in this thread refer demeaningly to "heterosexual males with heterosexual privilege". Its generalizing. Its hypocritical for us as a group to demand respect and understanding if we speak about all heterosexual people with such contempt.

 

Great post Aldrick.

 

But technically under that scenario and the idea of affirmative consent the opposite sex partner would have committed rape/sexual assault, by having sex with someone who was not fully consenting?

Or are partners expected to ask "do you consent to having sex, or are you just doing it to hide your homosexuality/because you feel pressured/because you want something?" "Yes? But are you sure?". Bit of a mood killer and its unlikely the other person would answer truthfully.

Of course I think people should use reasonable judgment and where consent is not obvious ask. If a woman rips off her trousers and jumps on a man I think thats usually a reasonable indicator of consent. I'm just playing devil's advocate here as 1. its a very murky area, 2. these arguments always seem to centre on the rather sexist presumption that men are the only ones who need to determine consent. Women also need to equally be confident that a man (or woman) they are with are consenting.

 

Let me start by saying that if that's your idea of how a college sexual assault goes down, you're very, very mistaken. In most cases the rapist is either completely sober or sober enough to make a judgement on whether or not to engage in sexual relations with the person they are assaulting, who in many cases is either too inebriated to consent or is drugged. Of course, if a woman uses DRDs to alcohol to get a guy wasted enough to where she can take advantage of him I would want them to face the full extent of the law as well.

I will repeat again for anybody who doesn't understand me. There either needs to be a VERBAL yes or a nod of the head or something for sex to be consensual.

And if you believe that I am generalizing about all heterosexuals you are mistaken. I was calling out the college frat guys who rape drunk girls left and right and get away with it because they either "asked for it, dude." or it was consensual because "you KNOW she wanted THIS". That is the biggest reason MRAs and frat guys make me mad.

 

The people you are describing there are actual sexual predators...I think its naive to think people who act like that "just don't understand consent" or aren't aware what they are doing is wrong.

People are well aware of the definitions of murder and understand that it is a crime...does that stop people doing it? Nope. Why? Because bad people do bad things. Now of course we can increase the sentencing to provide a deterrent, but treating the vast majority of people who aren't criminals as latent predators is not the answer.

The majority know that rape is wrong and are already well aware about consent (and get on fine without verbal consent). The people who choose to ignore it will likely do so regardless.

Well if thats the case the vast majority of the population and married couples are unequivocal rapists, right? You are saying there is no such thing as consensual consent without verbal confirmation and ergo anything without would be non-consensual sex/rape? Or do you believe that every person has asked verbally everytime they have sex? Its quaint but thats not always how things go down in the real world.

Well it was very easy to be mistaken, you weren't exactly specific with the "Poor heterosexual males" sarcasm thing. I'd hazard a guess the men in the article aren't predatory rapists, more likely just men paranoid of rules and regulations that may lead to them being branded as such.

 

I never understood why we were split into male and female classes because it's not like they were educating us on sex between two genders, if you really want one gender to respect the other then they need to know as much about each other as they do about themselves. Unfortunately it is never that simple because teachers don't want to talk to students about a subject like sex, and most of the time students don't want to hear about it from a teacher.

The sad thing is that most people learn more about sex from porn than anything else, which is about as healthy as educating a police officer by giving them am box set of CSI.

 

Yes, you should ask if they're interested in having sex with you, and what they're interested in doing. If you sense that they are uncomfortable, or that something is off about the situation, you should check in with them to see what's going on. If you notice that something is off and they aren't being communicative, then it should make you feel uncomfortable enough to stop out of respect for the other person.

No one expects anyone to be a mind reader. Yes, things can be a very murky area. That's why you communicate and figure out what their intentions are, and you communicate your intentions as well. Then have enough respect and empathy for the other person to allow them to change their mind without judging them or taking it personally.

You're correct that consent goes both ways. As I said, this isn't a gender issue it's a communication issue. If you're making every effort to communicate with someone, and are actively trying to create opportunities for them to back out then you aren't engaged in rape. Now, that doesn't always mean that you'll have sex with people who honestly and confidently want to have sex with you - such as the example you quoted.

That's why I made my definition of consent bold: Consent is not the absence of a no, but the presence of an enthusiastic yes.

The points I underlined there are the most important. Consent is murky, as you pointed out, and as we are not mind readers we have to communicate with one another. There may be situations as I outlined, that people seemingly consent but it's under some form of pressure. That pressure can either be internal or external. Internal pressure comes from the thoughts and feelings that we have about the situation, such as the person having sex with a spouse to keep them sexually monogamous. It could also arise out of a fear of making someone angry. External pressure comes from the outside, such as being with a sexual partner that tells you things like, "Come on, it really won't be that bad." "All the other people I've been with have liked it." Etc. Basically, they're saying and doing things that are trying to manipulate you into doing things that you've indicated that you're uncomfortable with doing.

All of those things dealing with coercion? They can largely be cleared up with an enthusiastic yes. The key word there is enthusiastic. They are not only saying they want to have sex with you, they're acting like they want to have sex with you.

Yeah, that means you might have to ask, "Are you sure?" They still might say yes, and you still might not really get the sense that they're really interested or into it. At which point you should actively call them out, "Look, if something's up and you don't feel comfortable you can tell me, I'm not going to get mad or anything." If you're still getting the feeling that something is off, then you should pull back out of respect for them. "Hey, look, I'm starting to feel uncomfortable here. I'm getting the sense that you're uncomfortable, and I want you to have sex with me because you want to not because you feel like you have too."

You're drawing a line and making it clear. You're showing respect to the other person. At a minimum the other person needs to learn to communicate better, and really good sex only comes along with good communication. Whether that's telling someone what feels good or what doesn't, sharing your sexual desires with someone, or simply trying to make sure you're both on the same page with what you're interested in doing.

One of the major problems is that people's primary source of knowledge about sex comes from movies and porn. Movies and porn are, of course, fantasy. It becomes problematic when people try to apply what they see in movies and porn to real life.

 

I think thats something that sounds good in theory, but in reality can be the start of a very dangerous precedent. Like I have said there are probably millions who have had sex without an "enthusiastic yes" being given...are all those cases rapes? No, but by your definition they would be (as they would all be sex minus consent).

You can take the viewpoint that a small minority of those cases might be rape, but that leaves a hell of a lot of innocent and consensual sexual practice falling under the same category. Once we define rape as an "enthusiastic yes" it will only create further technicalities and ambiguities in the law. Is "sure" enough? If a person nods enthusiastically out of fear or pressure enough? It begins to get to the point where only a legal contract signed under the presence of witnesses and every five minutes thereafter is enough to deem sex fully consensual.

I think a better measure of consent is "lack of no, be it verbal or through body language, with no reasonable doubt as to consent".

Its a matter of degrees at the end of the day. If a woman screams no or resists in any way that is clearly 100% rape and the aggressor needs to be punished with the full of extent of the law. If a woman says yes but doesn't mean it and the man who doesn't personally have any doubts misreads this as consent thats not quite as clear. Its non-consensual sex or by definition "rape" sure - is it definitely "criminal" though? Would he deserve as harsh a sentence as in the first example, I would say no. I think that is a problem in the law and why the move to making rape more of a strict liability offense (where the defendant's mindset is irrelevant) is worrying.