Did your folks ever sit you down and, in the conversation about sex, talk about consent? Cuz that certainly wasn't part of any communal sex ed that I had in school, but I can't speak for what went on at home.
Yes, they did. In fact, my church's course on sexuality taught about consent, as well. Then again, we were pretty damn progressive for church in Texas. In 8th grade a doctor in our church led, with other adults helping, a weekend course on sex and sexuality. Topics included: anatomy, clinical terms vs slang, birth control (condoms, pills, IUDs, implantable methods, etc. not just abstinence), and the importance of communication about sex.
But you seem to have missed my point that the very issue
is that
consent is not taught. I fully recognize that my experience is outside the norm, and even then what I was taught was a piss-poor excuse compared to what needs to be conveyed about the subject. I agree with all that you said, that we teach that stalking is romantic, that forcing a kiss is a good way to break the ice (w
omen are actually more likely than men to initiate unwanted sexual touch*), that objectification is acceptable, etc. etc. To me the issues all boil down to not teaching consent, and what rights people have to control their own bodies. We teach that rape is wrong, but we teach that rape is some lunatic leaping out of the bushes and grabbing a woman.
*From the linked article:
"The study also found that males and females carried out sexual violence at strikingly similar rates after the age of 18 -- 52% of males and 48% of females.The study classified sexual violence into a few categories: foresexual or presexual contact (kissing, touching, etc. against their will), coercive sex, attempted rape, and completed rape. Women were more likely to instigate unwanted foresexual contact."
We don't teach what consent is, so our individual understanding of rape varies with our understanding of consent. If stalking is romantic, and approval can be won by persistence, then that follows that being persistent about sex is an acceptable method as well. Well, actually, that's not just implied, that's explicit in a lot of media. You get the girl by stalking, and then you get her to sex by pushing a little further each time. Because we don't teach about consent, this erosion of boundaries just becomes an accepted form of seduction, and it doesn't register as rape or sexual assault. We have to teach a better understanding of consent if we want people to understand what constitutes rape. Saying that someone shouldn't have sex without permission doesn't accomplish much if people don't understand what constitutes permission.
Imagine if, as a society, we taught that stealing is wrong, but never clearly defined what it means to own property. If we had only vague ideas of the lines between what is mine, and what is yours (and those vague boundaries tended to harm some groups more than others) we'd quickly run into problems of people saying "I didn't steal from you, that wasn't yours to begin with" or "How could that be stealing, I thought you wanted me to walk out without paying." The problem wouldn't be that we don't teach people that stealing is wrong, it would be that we don't teach people what ownership is, who owns what, and what acceptable methods of transferring property are.
In other words, the lunatic who jumps out of the bushes to grab a random woman is not going to listen to the lesson "don't rape" because he's crazy and crazy don't care. Individuals who are teachable need to understand what consent is in order to fully understand what rape is. Teaching positive concepts often works better than negative ones. Teaching people about how to respect others bodies and sexuality will go a lot further than trying to tell them to not violate others bodies and sexuality.
EDIT: I forgot something. The argument that 'we teach people to not rape, and they'll do it anyways' is problematic. For the primary reason that is leads oh so nicely (and often is used this way) to the claim that 'you can't expect them to restrain themselves' which is victim blaming at it's finest and I will have none of it. Because I very much do expect people to behave at least as well as a trained dog, who when told 'no', abides by that.
I disagree about this. We teach people to not steal, but we also recognize that people will always steal, because there will always be criminals. Despite this we still expect people to refrain from stealing. The fact of the matter is that society has yet to come up with a way to form each and every citizen into a healthy member of society. We do our best to teach people, but we don't know how to stop at least a portion of the population from becoming criminals. It happens. We must acknowledge this and take reasonable action to promote safety. We teach people about how to be safer getting money from ATMs, tell them to carry their wallet in a front pocket, carry traveler's checks instead of cash, etc. None of this leads to blaming victims of theft. Nor do we claim that all people are unrestrained monsters who cannot resist stealing money. Acknowledging that some are criminals is merely truth, and that is what rapists are, part of the sub-section of the population that are criminals.
