![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Things (not politics) I'd rather not think about
This post will discuss rape and sexual assault. If you're not OK with reading that, it's under a cut tag. If you're wondering why I (cis, able, white guy) am writing about this topic at all it's because I am determined that my children (male-bodied) are going to go out into the world with a lot more awareness and understanding of both their privilege and responsibility than my parents gave me.
As with other such posts I am particularly interested in responses from my female-bodied and -identified readers but all respectful comments and discussion are welcome.
This starts from one of the legal blogs I read, on which Professor Sherry Colb recently posted her piece on "stealthing" - https://verdict.justia.com/2017/05/10/stealthing-secret-condom-removal-akin-sexual-assault
In case you (like me) had no idea men were behaving in this specific shitty manner, let me inform you that "stealthing" is a term referring to the practice of lying about one's condom use during sex. Either asserting that one is wearing a condom when one is not, or starting off with it on and then removing it. Let us all agree that this is despicable behavior and I need to make sure that my kids understand this is seriously-bad-no-don't-even-think-about-it. (Really, who mis-parents their kids enough that they WOULD think this is a good or even OK idea? But I digress.)
Colb's column poses the question of whether this practice is best characterized as sexual assault and it repeats the phrase "rape-adjacent" apparently coined by Alexandra Brodsky. That phrase has stomach-turning similarities to a variety of excuse-making phrases such as "real rape" or "rapey rape". So my instinct was to go "Hell yes, this is sexual assault."
Except... Professor Colb points out that this might lead to some undesirable side-effects and we ought to think hard about this. Start with the presumption that the two people involved (who I'll call Pitch and Catch to avoid gender references, though Pitch is presumed to have a penis) have agreed to penetrative sex. Colb argues that there's a fundamental distinction between "I agreed to sex but not $CIRCUMSTANCE" and "I did not agree to sex." The latter is absence of consent, and we all agree that's rape/sexual assault; the former is something like lack of informed consent and arguably can be handled by other legal regimes.
To distinguish "consent" and "fully informed consent" brings up the question of exactly what Pitch is required to disclose to Catch as part of obtaining consent, plus questions of what it means if Pitch doesn't disclose certain things, or turns out to have misled Catch about them. Consent is 'table stakes' - if you don't have that you don't get to play at all, and I can convey that in no uncertain terms to my teens. But they're clearly aware of the idea of "informed consent" - they encounter it in medical procedures, for example. So I want to be able to have a helpful discussion with them and not go all arm-flailing, which is sort of how I feel now.
Since the emergence of HIV in the 1980s I've been aware of arguments about requirements to disclose one's HIV status. Extend that to the rest of the STDs we live with. I've certainly kissed people and received oral sex from people who did not disclose their HSV status. So there's that. Then there's the question of to what degree is Pitch obliged to disclose other statuses. Imagine a situation in which Pitch was not born with the body parts they have now. I think I'd say that Pitch was not compelled to disclose that, nor perhaps that Pitch is a war veteran whose injured body has been enabled to function again with mechanical implants. On the other hand, if Catch consents to sex and instead Pitch uses a non-attached mechanical object I'd say that was sexual assault.
This also overlaps with the realm of expectations. Let's say that Catch agrees to sex and afterward notices that Pitch is circumcised. Inquiry reveals that Pitch is Jewish and Catch cries foul saying that they didn't consent to sex with "a filthy Jew". I think most of us would want to smack Catch in that situation and not be sympathetic to their complaint about not being fully informed. But I can't think of a good way to draw the distinction between that case and other cases, particularly in a way that I can explain to (my) teenagers who are notorious for exploring the corners of things. Thus the arm-flailing.
Anyone have any useful thoughts to share in this regard? Are you also having problems explaining "informed consent" to kids/teens/young adults?
"What does that mean" is the teenage equivalent of the preschooler's "why".
As with other such posts I am particularly interested in responses from my female-bodied and -identified readers but all respectful comments and discussion are welcome.
This starts from one of the legal blogs I read, on which Professor Sherry Colb recently posted her piece on "stealthing" - https://verdict.justia.com/2017/05/10/stealthing-secret-condom-removal-akin-sexual-assault
In case you (like me) had no idea men were behaving in this specific shitty manner, let me inform you that "stealthing" is a term referring to the practice of lying about one's condom use during sex. Either asserting that one is wearing a condom when one is not, or starting off with it on and then removing it. Let us all agree that this is despicable behavior and I need to make sure that my kids understand this is seriously-bad-no-don't-even-think-about-it. (Really, who mis-parents their kids enough that they WOULD think this is a good or even OK idea? But I digress.)
Colb's column poses the question of whether this practice is best characterized as sexual assault and it repeats the phrase "rape-adjacent" apparently coined by Alexandra Brodsky. That phrase has stomach-turning similarities to a variety of excuse-making phrases such as "real rape" or "rapey rape". So my instinct was to go "Hell yes, this is sexual assault."
Except... Professor Colb points out that this might lead to some undesirable side-effects and we ought to think hard about this. Start with the presumption that the two people involved (who I'll call Pitch and Catch to avoid gender references, though Pitch is presumed to have a penis) have agreed to penetrative sex. Colb argues that there's a fundamental distinction between "I agreed to sex but not $CIRCUMSTANCE" and "I did not agree to sex." The latter is absence of consent, and we all agree that's rape/sexual assault; the former is something like lack of informed consent and arguably can be handled by other legal regimes.
To distinguish "consent" and "fully informed consent" brings up the question of exactly what Pitch is required to disclose to Catch as part of obtaining consent, plus questions of what it means if Pitch doesn't disclose certain things, or turns out to have misled Catch about them. Consent is 'table stakes' - if you don't have that you don't get to play at all, and I can convey that in no uncertain terms to my teens. But they're clearly aware of the idea of "informed consent" - they encounter it in medical procedures, for example. So I want to be able to have a helpful discussion with them and not go all arm-flailing, which is sort of how I feel now.
Since the emergence of HIV in the 1980s I've been aware of arguments about requirements to disclose one's HIV status. Extend that to the rest of the STDs we live with. I've certainly kissed people and received oral sex from people who did not disclose their HSV status. So there's that. Then there's the question of to what degree is Pitch obliged to disclose other statuses. Imagine a situation in which Pitch was not born with the body parts they have now. I think I'd say that Pitch was not compelled to disclose that, nor perhaps that Pitch is a war veteran whose injured body has been enabled to function again with mechanical implants. On the other hand, if Catch consents to sex and instead Pitch uses a non-attached mechanical object I'd say that was sexual assault.
This also overlaps with the realm of expectations. Let's say that Catch agrees to sex and afterward notices that Pitch is circumcised. Inquiry reveals that Pitch is Jewish and Catch cries foul saying that they didn't consent to sex with "a filthy Jew". I think most of us would want to smack Catch in that situation and not be sympathetic to their complaint about not being fully informed. But I can't think of a good way to draw the distinction between that case and other cases, particularly in a way that I can explain to (my) teenagers who are notorious for exploring the corners of things. Thus the arm-flailing.
Anyone have any useful thoughts to share in this regard? Are you also having problems explaining "informed consent" to kids/teens/young adults?
"What does that mean" is the teenage equivalent of the preschooler's "why".
no subject
A tangential thought: any time the phrase "rules-lawyering" might even possibly apply, you've already failed.
It's probably impossible to come up with a comprehensive set of clear rules, but there *is* a clear guideline: open, honest communication is everything. It is each partner's individual responsibility to disclose anything that seems like it might be questionable, and it is their *ethical* responsibility to not kid themselves about that. Similarly, it is their ethical responsibility to not resort to weaselly interpretations of the letter of the discussion -- you have to honestly ask yourself, "To the best of my reasonable understanding, is my partner on the same page as me?"
I don't know the teens in question, so I don't know how effective an approach this is likely to be. But in general, it seems like framing the question in terms of ethical responsibility instead of rules is likely to produce a better outcome. To me, the question of, "is this sexual assault?" is a semantic distraction -- it is *unethical* by any reasonable standard.
no subject
That heuristic is a fine one but doesn't apply to children (at least, not the ones I've ever dealt with) nor to legal frameworks.
To the best of my reasonable understanding
Again, fine guidance for a fully adult individual. The question is how to teach someone to develop a reasonable understanding.