The Gender Con-Sent Sex Equality Away

I am always angered by images like this. I have nothing against the message of safety and consent, of course. What I object to is how it is assumed that consent is something that BOYS should be taught because it suggests that girls and women are any more entitled to confirmation of consent than boys or men.

It perpetuates the idea of a female monopoly over victimhood and makes a huge mistake of labelling men as the abuser. It is true that statistically, when looking at reported cases of assault or rape, that there are more cases of the men as the abuser. But the word "reported" is important. If women worry about being believed about reporting a sexual assault, just think about how men feel when it happens to them.

Firstly, let's stay in the realms of heterosexual, two-person sex for the time being. Some people will try to argue that due to the physical mechanics of sex it is simply not possible for women to be the aggressor, the abuser, or the attacker. Those same people will try to argue that if a man doesn't want sex then it is impossible for a women to force him - after all, there's surely no way she can make him have or sustain an erection if he doesn't want, is there?

Only a truly naive mind would think that. And just as women will mock men for not knowing about the female body and their special buttons to push, when it comes to men - and I am one, so I can talk with authority on this - it's worth knowing a few facts about the that plumbing, too. The penis is able to be erect from the very beginnings of its creation (yes, newborn babies are physically able). Boys don't suddenly start getting erectioins at puberty when the hormones kick in. It is a physical response right from birth that later gains a hormonal and sexual awareness. The only difference is the connection to sexuality that comes as part of the development of secondary sexual development. That and the onset of the ability to procreate.

A man's "little fella" - or whatever name he wishes to attribute to it - really does have a mind of its own. Given that it comprises one of the most concentrated collections of nerve endings in the body, think of it like this: if you can't prevent a gentle touch of the skin result in the erection of tiny hairs, then touching a man's "never-regions" will also result in the same reaction. It really is nothing more different than a physiological response that does not NEED a psychological impulse. It is absolutely not restricted to sexual desire or arousal (something that causes adolescent boys much confusion and embarrassment for a few years!).

So it is entirely plausible for a woman to deliberately physically stimulate the physiological response and sustain that in order to pleasure themselves. Given that sexual reproduction is one of the most base purposes of the human body, every man knows that when the little soldier wants to stand to attention there is nothing (besides a serious loss of blood, perhaps) that can prevent it. Even in violent deaths (such as hangings) it is quite well documented that the man's personal tool kit will attempt one final plea for populating the planet.

So with that myth busted, we then go onto the other part of this nonsensical gender bias. Consider a homosexual relationship. Surely with two women equal consent should be sought? Yes. Morally and legally. Two men? Yes - again morally and legally. What about if there is a group (come on, let's not be coy about this now) - all parties in that group must be 100% consenting in order for it to be morally right and legally right.

To be safe.

And that is the key point. Sex is only safe when it is fully consented to from both (all) parties involved. Irrespective of age* , yes means yes, and no means no. "I am not sure" also means "no". And boys and men have as equal right to say "no" or "I'm not sure" as girls or women. And boys and men have the equal right for that to be immediately respected.

After all, women have been fighting for equal rights (totally rightly, of course) for so long. So if women do indeed want to be given equal rights it is incumbent on them to be prepared to afford equal rights in return. You can't have it both ways. You cannot say that girls should be taught about saftey and boys should be taught about consent, because boys have as much right to feel safe, and girls have as much responsibility to seek confirmation of full consent from their partner (or group). As a society more needs to be done to protect this equal right. I will won't deny that there are of course sexually aggressive men who abuse women; and that there are both inexperienced boys, and ignorant men who think that their desires outweight a woman's right to say no. But we would go so much further if we supported the male victims too, and did so as fervently and noisily as we do for women. Should we deny this issue just because there are more (reported/recorded) cases of men assaulting women? No. Not at all. But that's no excuse to dismiss it as any less importance. After all, that is one of the most dangerous attitudes to have. To assume that men are "okay" with sex no matter how their get it, or when, or from whomever may give it to them.

Consent is about permission, and permission is about power - never about gender. As soon as power is allowed to be uneven in sex then all notions of consent have been lost. Even if 50/50 slips to 49/51 - consent has vanished. Men are equally entitled to say no (=no), to feel uncertain (=no), to feel nervous (=no), and to stop or change their mind (=no). Men are as equally entitled to feel scared (=no), regardless of their physical size which is on average greater in comparison to women. (...don't get your unisex underwear in a twist...just think of Tennis, Golf, and so on...) Men are equally entitled to feel offended, affronted, or abused/assaulted. An unexpected slap on his backside is as bad as one on her backside. And, dear angry feminists: if you don't like builders wolf-whistling you from the scaffolds, and you feel so affronted by it that you scream and shout about the sexual discrimination and the sheer trauma it causes you...just remember your rightetous indignation next time you gawp at a fireman, or the builders on the Diet Coke adverts. The hyprocrisy is as ridiculous as claiming to be offended when someone uses an Indian accent, but being fine when people make humour of the Irish, Welsh or Scottish accents. So, the poster at the top could do with a simple bit of improvement that would serve to benefit everyone. Below, A is the eoriginal image and B is my suggested improvements (although I must admit to still shivering over the use of text-speak).

Whether your children are male or female, and straight, gay or bisexual, the most important things they can learn about sex are safety and consent. To do anything other than B is wanton act of utter ignorance.

The law has been changed recently making it even more important that consent is clearly given, and not assumed. In a practical sense how one attempts to achieve this any differently is still a little unclear (should we use forms countersigned by a witness?) but it is nonetheless important. Sadly, most of the examples given have sounded like this: a girl cannot fully consent to sex when she is drunk, so the man would have to prove he had consent.

It is wrong to fall upon the stereotypes to say that HE must "make sure SHE has given consent" and "be able to prove it" any more than requiring a woman to do exactly the same. The law itself does not specifically require men to provide more evidence of a woman's consent, so neither should a society that wishes to apply those laws in order to protect everyone. Requiring an addition burden of proof of consent on the shoulders of men plays into the additonal problem we have in society. At the same time as claiming that far more men assault women than women assault men. Perhaps this is true. But at the same time, far more women shout "rape" after a night of sex that the did consent to but later regretted. By increasing the law of the burden of proof that consent was given plays right into the hands of those who make false allegations and destroy llives.

I have written a little short story called "Con-Sensual" to illustrate this point, and invite you to view it on Scriggler HERE - and I will add it to this site soon, too.

CW

* For the purposes of this blog I have assumed that everyone understands that it is impossible, legally, for ANYONE under 16 to give consent. More discussion needs to be had with the complexity of the new consent law and how there is an imbalnce when it comes to consent between, for example, a 15yr old boy and a 17 year old girl. Although entirely possible to commit a sexual offence at age 15, one must not forget that entering into any kind of sexual relationship with a boy under 16 is by definition a sexual (and criminal) offence and whereas that would not in any way justify instances of offensive behaviour from an underage boy, the tendancy for society to lean towards the boy/man as the agressor seriously risks male victims being un-reported due to this bias. I might blog about that some other time!