"Can I take off your pants?" (response)"Can I touch your mons pubis?" (response)"Can I remove your lingerie?" (response)"Can I stroke your uncovered labia?" (response)*inserts finger to perform digital stimulation* (NO RESPONSE; RAPE!)
When laid out in a manner that makes it appear as a man acting upon a woman, it barely survives some sexist scrutiny. Is it only men who do the acting on women? Why are these consent laws, such as California Senate Bill 967, mostly framed as a way to protect women by requiring their partners to achieve consent--the clearly stated 'yes'--for the sexual actions the partners desire to engage in? Looking at the small list of questions that I put above, along with this quote from Gloria Steinem and Michael Kimmel's September 4, 2014 NYT article: "While doomsayers lamented that the new rules would destroy the mystery of campus sex, the students took it in stride. Instead of, “Do you want to have sex?” they simply asked, “Do you want to implement the policy?”, really makes it seem like passion is a logical endeavor that people partake in.
Unfortunately, passion and logic do not go together well. It's fine to have the discussion and talk about how explicit "yes" consent on each step up the sexual jungle gym would be grand, but it's similar to talking about how you would act when faced with a gunman who is brandishing a gun at your face. Sure, when drinking whisky with the boys, a guy might come up with an elaborate plan involving physically over-powering the gunman using agility, strength, and tactical know-how, but would that be honestly translatable to what would actually happen when faced with such a situation?
I look at the list of questions and the irony of calling it "implementing the policy" and think about it as a simple program, involving many simple puts and gets to continue along a if/then loop.
Remember, though, that "no" can mean "yes". Mehrabian's theory is that most of our communicative language is done through non-verbal body language (e.g., degree of eye contact, openness of shoulders and arms).
According to Mehrabian,[1] the three elements account differently for our liking for the person who puts forward a message concerning their feelings: words account for 7%, tone of voice accounts for 38%, and body language accounts for 55% of the liking. For effective and meaningful communication about emotions, these three parts of the message need to support each other - they have to be "congruent". In case of any incongruence, the receiver of the message might be irritated by two messages coming from two different channels, giving cues in two different directions.
Congruency is important to conveying a message. However, consider a slightly intoxicated freshman couple in the first week of classes:
Both have drank to the same blood alcohol level. Both have expressed a desire for sex that night. They both go to their desired dorm room, arms around one and other, kissing and fondling. There has been no explicit "yes" on grabbing her ass or breasts, but this does not bother the girl; conversely, there hasn't been an explicit "yes" from the male on the topics of stroking his genitals through his clothes. Now, the couple is naked. The male is standing in the room wearing only a condom. The female is on the bed, laying on her back, legs spread open and knees up. She is gently biting her left index finger as she coyly smiles. Her eye contact is constant. She is lightly moving her knees to and fro. The male approaches. Bending down he crawls on the bed, hand walking himself up to meet her lips. The male, filled with the passion in his voice, asks, "do you want me?", while the female is pushing her hips upwards to have their genitals press together. The female responds sternly, "no."
What now?! Maybe in text the subtly of the moment is lost. There is no way to sense the irony in the moment. You have a verbal message (7% + 38% = 45%) that, if hear from the other side of the dorm room door, would be a clear, concise rejection of the permission to engage in sex. But that's only 45% of the communication! The other 55% (the majority) is clearly indicating that she wants to have sex: allowing him to kiss her, eye contact, smiling, touching of the genitals, grinding of the hips on his penis. There is a lot to be said about this situation. It comes back to the gunman problem: we can claim we know how we'd best the goon, but could we do it in practice? The "no" offered here could be one of jest; after all, in her mind, she might clearly know that her non-verbal communication is speaking (so to speak) far louder than her facetious response.
This is an unedited rant. @nrokchi
No comments:
Post a Comment