Consent is about helping, respecting and empowering people. Gender shouldn’t be part of the equation.
—
There are new videos going viral about consent, involving happy animated genitals, a butt, and even a hand. These dancing, giggling, and inexplicably mascara wearing sexy parts were even featured on Huffington Post. Their inspiring message? “If it’s not yes, it’s no!” Which is great.
But these videos seriously miss the mark. Here’s why:
All of the potentially-raping, non-consensual touching appendages portrayed are male. And all of the violated appendages are female. All of them.
♦◊♦
Let’s break this down:
It implies that only men can rape or sexually assault, and only women can be raped or sexually assaulted (and only by men).
This is based on a few things. The tradition definition of rape held that only women could be raped, and only by men. Mary Koss, a feminist researcher whose work has been very important to our societal understanding of rape today, relied on this definition of rape to exclude male victims who are forced to penetrate. In other words, she stuck with the patriarchal definition of rape to exclude male victims of women (or other men) who are forced to penetrate. These men had ‘unwanted contact’, according to Koss; they didn’t suffer sexual assault or rape.
Some will say that if a man’s aroused then it can’t be rape because he wants it, and the definition of rape is sexual contact when someone doesn’t want it. However, if we switch the genders, we see how absurd that is: “if a woman’s aroused, she wants it” is obviously no justification for non-consensual sex. Why should it be for men, then?
Essentially, this view of masculinity removes agency from men’s sexuality. This is based on a toxic view of masculinity—a toxicity that is not inherent in men, but forced upon them—in which men must prove their worth through their virility. In which men aren’t men at all until or unless they engage in frequent sex, are always physically able to respond to sexy stimulus, are always ready to penetrate. If a man is a man because he is always ready and willing for sex, then he can’t be raped.
And if men can only be raped if they aren’t really men, aren’t strong, virile, potent men, then those who are forced to penetrate will be much less likely to come forward and report the assault against them. Koss stated that men experienced less shame at being assaulted than women, to justify this redefinition. But what if those men simply couldn’t communicate their shame, because even to do so, as a man, could be understood as shameful according to this toxic standard of manhood?
Implying that women can only be raped by men also excludes transgender victims and aggressors, as well as women who are victims of same-sex assault.
There’s a lot more to say about this topic. The basic message is that there are many people who suffer when consent is presented as a gendered issue: those with penises, those who fall outside rigid gender dichotomy, those who were assaulted by women. Are there any benefits?
♦◊♦
Aren’t women raped more often than men?
A common argument here is that men commit sexual violence much more frequently than they are victims of it. That’s based on a few studies, one of which coincidentally by Koss, which used highly criticized methodology (and the exclusionary definition of rape above) to claim that men aren’t raped by women, and women are raped a whole heck of a lot by men (that’s one of the sources that gives us the famous 1/6 will be raped statistic). Other statistics, for example by the CDC, show that men make up as much as 38% of sexual assault victims when a more inclusionary definition of rape and different methodology is used.
So there are statistics for both ‘sides’ of this argument. The fact is that these statistics cannot capture the full extent of this issue. They are tools only, and frankly of limited use: anyone who has been assaulted can tell you that. This isn’t about statistics, or which gender has it worse: it’s about real human suffering, that affects all people. Men too. It doesn’t matter how often compared to women. It matters that it’s happening and it needs to stop. There shouldn’t be‘sides’ to this issue.
All people’s suffering is important and valid. This shouldn’t be about who is victimized more often. It should be about helping those who need it.
Acknowledging the struggles of others doesn’t diminish our own. Acknowledging that men can be forced to penetrate, by women, and that this is rape does not mean women who are raped are less worthy victims, or that they should be helped any less.
No one’s experience is any more or less important than another’s. We all deserve immense compassion and empathy, especially when we’re hurt. Gender shouldn’t enter into that equation at all.
♦◊♦
These videos imply that women are the gatekeepers of sex.
This is a profoundly disempowering message for women, and men.
- Men are just horndogs whose desires are always legitimate, simple and straightforward, but women?
- Women are responsible for disconnecting from their desires to keep their butt cheeks clenched because… Why?
- Because women are pure innocent flowers that must protect themselves from the stain of sex, implying that female sexuality is somehow tainted?
Or worse, because women’s bodies are inherently sexualized and men must gain access to our sexy parts, by somehow circumventing the gatekeeper that is the human women who are inconveniently attached to these disembodied parts?
That’s a free ticket to Nopeville on the Big Old Nope express, as far as I’m concerned.
If women are the gatekeepers of sex, and men need sex in a straightforward way, the way that we all need food and water, then women are unnecessarily cruel when they don’t provide sex for men. This makes sex antagonistic.
And if women are the gatekeepers of sex, then their own desires and sexual autonomy aren’t important: what’s important is keeping that gate closed, until or unless a man says the magic word that ‘makes’ her open her legs. This makes sex a transaction. A transaction in which men must do whatever necessary to get what they need. A one-sided transaction in which what men have to offer is in exchange for sex with women… meaning that having sex with a man is somehow unpleasant, something that a person should be compensated for in some way.
This is false. Men are beautiful, and being sexually intimate with one is an incredible gift. Full stop.
So thanks anyways, ‘cheerful dancing vagina’, or as I like to think of you, ‘inexplicably mascara wearing vulva’. I’m not interested in a model of consent based on antagonistic relations between the genders. Consent isn’t a one-way street, and sex is never a transaction.
Sex is a gift that we give to each other, regardless of our gender. It must be given freely, and enthusiastically; which is the only thing that these videos got right.
—
This post is republished on Medium.
***
The Good Men Project gives people the insights, tools, and skills to survive, prosper and thrive in today’s changing world. A world that is changing faster than most people can keep up with that change. A world where jobs are changing, gender roles are changing, and stereotypes are being upended. A world that is growing more diverse and inclusive. A world where working towards equality will become a core competence. We’ve built a community of millions of people from around the globe who believe in this path forward. Thanks for joining The Good Men Project.
Support us on Patreon and we will support you and your writing! Tools to improve your writing and platform-building skills, a community to get you connected, and direct access to our editors and publisher. Your support will help us build a better, more inclusive world for all.
***
Photo credit: iStock
A very excellent read. I’m glad there are people out there who are asking these questions and questioning these types of videos and campaigns.
Is that, Karen Straughan? Thee Karen Straughan? I’ve been reading you, listening to you, referencing you in many discussions. I hope that you fully understand the importance of your contribution. I suspected that our paths would cross at some point, and I’m pleased that they have. Please stick around. Please submit your research in the form of articles. Post often, impart your knowledge and wisdom. Your voice would be a great addition to this conversation that no one else is having. Balance of this sort will be tantamount to theirs, and all of our success in this impossible endeavor of… Read more »
Thank you <3 this made my day!
While I applaud your bravery in getting this issue out in the open as many have tried and failed before, there is one additional culprit that motivated the exclusion of male victims. Toxic gender roles play a part. But there’s also a political motivation. Some groups in the domestic violence and sexual abuse field depend rigidly on the narrative that only women can be victims and men the perpetrators. If that narrative is threatened, their beliefs are threatened and THEY are threatened. So any attempts to challenge it are met with extreme opposition and even slander that would ruin careers… Read more »
Hi John, Thanks for the feedback! I’m glad you liked it. I too was surprised with the attention the giant genitals got… as important as the message of consent is, presenting it in a gendered way oversimplifies the issue, ensuring it will not be resolved. That’s a very insightful question you ask about genital mutilation. It’s a topic that I haven’t done much research about, beyond a basic understanding that any genital mutilation is wrong and dangerous. One thing that comes to mind is the idea that men — and penises — are tough. Sure, male genital mutilation hurts, but… Read more »
You should do some research into John Harvey Kellogg, who popularized MGM in the US. His goal was specifically to reduce male sexual function and repress male sexuality. This was during the era in which the “nervous excitation” theory of disease was dominant. It was this same period in which Ignaz Semmelweis was fired from his job for reducing childbed deaths by instituting hand washing (he subsequently died a social and professional pariah, penniless and friendless, in a mental institution, for daring to challenge the idea that disease was caused by something other than getting too excited). Kellogg promoted MGM… Read more »
This *is* fascinating, and horrifying. Thank you again, Karen. I really admire your dedication to these issues and the respectful, thorough way that you share this important information. Thanks for this great information about a topic that I intend to learn a lot more about!
“This is based on a few things. The first is Mary Koss, who redefined rape academically, and then legally, to exclude male victims who are forced to penetrate. In other words, she changed the definition of rape to exclude male victims of women (or other men) who are forced to penetrate. These men had ‘unwanted contact’, according to Koss; they didn’t suffer sexual assault or rape.” Mary Koss did not change the definition of rape. She is sticking with the old-school common law definition of sexual assault, which has always excluded male victims of female perpetrators, and which has defined… Read more »
Hi Karen, thank you so much for your comment!
This is a very helpful clarification, thank you. I will update the article.
Kathryn
PS: lines like “patriarchy in lipstick” are why you’re so respected in this field. Fantastic! Thank you again for reaching out 🙂
I’m respected in some circles, sure. Not sure about here. Hickey reached out to me and asked to reproduce three of my personal blog posts here a couple years ago, and as far as I can tell, they’ve all subsequently been removed. But thank you for the compliment! I do want to point out something else in your article while I’m here. “Because women are pure innocent flowers that must protect themselves from the stain of sex, implying that female sexuality is somehow tainted?” I don’t think that’s what it is. The idea of a soiled woman depends on the… Read more »
Excellent points 🙂 Thank you again. I’m really impressed with the depth of your thought into this. I’m glad that I was able to put something out there in response to these videos, however cursory and limited my investigation of the topic is. It’s too bad that your articles were taken down — I would think they would drive a lot of traffic for GMP. But this is a very political area, and I suppose that politics therefore plays it’s part.
It’s great to connect with you Karen!
This is a good article. I’m somewhat surprised that GMP ran it instead of the giant genitalia. I will ask one thing. What do you think of the legalization of MGM (male genital cutting) and the legal banning of FGM? Men have never had a right to their own genitals. How does this influence people’s perceptions when it comes to consent?