Crosswords0 min ago
Consent/assault
38 Answers
My son's been doing the sex education part of the year 9 syllabus and they were discussing consent this week. We were talking about the mental repercussions, primarily for women as this is more common, of being touched inappropriately. As we delved deeper I was at a loss as to explain why some scenarios are so mentally damaging. For example, you're a sexually active female who enjoys physical contact. If you are on the street and somebody was to put their hand up your shirt, you are not concerned about the action, as you enjoy being touched, so is it the fact that it was a stranger doing it? If the stranger is the problem, why isn't it OK for somebody you know to do it? So then you have the 'I just didn't want them to do that' argument, which obviously misses the point. It was easy to explain in a scenario where there are fear and physical harm resulting from the incident, but other than saying 'just because' I couldn't really get the reasoning across so appreciate any help with the explaining.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by ck1. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
pixie, I too know of an example where (so I am told - I know her father) she became pregnant and then left the distant area to which she had moved to have and raise the child at her home location. This tells us that if two people (you and me), sort of a random sample of two, know of this sort of thing there must be at least thousands (tens, hundreds of thousands ?) of similar examples nationwide. It also tells us that this is a very calculated move.
There is a very low uptake of pregnancy from anonymous sperm donation (it seems it is mostly lesbian couples who avail themselves), why should that be ? There are more than one possible answers and one is that before disappearing once success is assured, the mother wants to know something about the father. Another presumably does not apply in our two stories, and that is that without a named father it is impossible to get support from him (in many countries, although not reliably in the UK, it is not possible for the father to disappear, a few months at best).
But you are quite correct that many men are woefully careless. Is it just biology ? With men I think yes, because they are so overwhelmingly driven simply toward copulation as a goal - the majority gives some thought to the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy, but it is (certainly outside a long term relationship) not at all their aim to make the woman pregnant. With women biology comes into it (hormones again) but there is another factor. There is pressure on women which men are completely free from: It is a life objective, and quite an urgent one (as many women past 20 feel it) to become a mother. Men see it more as something approaching an inevitable part of life, eventually, to become a father, not at all an imperative, and many would not say they would feel a failure if they never had any children whereas almost all women would.
It is a cultural thing that women have the mindset in question, they measure themselves by their fertility - as they have done for millennia although other criteria have been squeezing in on the action. Our culture increasingly no longer requires men to feel they must produce an heir for any reason at all. Men are still brought up in the culture of the importance of "scoring" but, as for millennia past, they should not produce an offspring in the process.
There is a very low uptake of pregnancy from anonymous sperm donation (it seems it is mostly lesbian couples who avail themselves), why should that be ? There are more than one possible answers and one is that before disappearing once success is assured, the mother wants to know something about the father. Another presumably does not apply in our two stories, and that is that without a named father it is impossible to get support from him (in many countries, although not reliably in the UK, it is not possible for the father to disappear, a few months at best).
But you are quite correct that many men are woefully careless. Is it just biology ? With men I think yes, because they are so overwhelmingly driven simply toward copulation as a goal - the majority gives some thought to the possibility of an unwanted pregnancy, but it is (certainly outside a long term relationship) not at all their aim to make the woman pregnant. With women biology comes into it (hormones again) but there is another factor. There is pressure on women which men are completely free from: It is a life objective, and quite an urgent one (as many women past 20 feel it) to become a mother. Men see it more as something approaching an inevitable part of life, eventually, to become a father, not at all an imperative, and many would not say they would feel a failure if they never had any children whereas almost all women would.
It is a cultural thing that women have the mindset in question, they measure themselves by their fertility - as they have done for millennia although other criteria have been squeezing in on the action. Our culture increasingly no longer requires men to feel they must produce an heir for any reason at all. Men are still brought up in the culture of the importance of "scoring" but, as for millennia past, they should not produce an offspring in the process.
Karl, for women to want babies, is not just cultural pressure. It is biologically programmed in as well. That doesn't mean that it is every woman's life goal, but you are hugely underestimating them, if you think women have children because they are taught to, or feel pressured to. If that was the case, no other female animal would ever bother... you seem to be excusing men for their biology, but not women for theirs.
I have no doubt it happens an awful lot, and actually, one couple I was referring to, is a lesbian couple... they wanted neither the expense or inconvenience of IVF, and found men very willing to participate...
This is not really something you can only blame one half for, as it, obviously, takes both.
I have no doubt it happens an awful lot, and actually, one couple I was referring to, is a lesbian couple... they wanted neither the expense or inconvenience of IVF, and found men very willing to participate...
This is not really something you can only blame one half for, as it, obviously, takes both.
pixie, I completely agree that hormones also drive women toward copulation (having re-read my earlier post, it is what I already said) and that they are cognisant that this is how they can/may/will become pregnant. That is, yes, also the way biology works in other species although to what extent other creatures link the two is very unclear and often animals show surprise at what birth produces. What I have no doubt about is that human females are additionally under social pressure to produce, it is a social tick-box and in earlier times that pressure came from society in general (that was what women were for) but nowadays it comes to a very substantial degree from their peers (similar age, Jane is pregnant. All the girls have a child now, why not you too ?).
Fathering a child with a guarantee of no responsibility will not be much of a thing for very many males, after all the deal comes with maybe several attempts (whoopee). They will be fixated onto the copulation aspect since pregnancy is not an issue. Normally the male wishes for no conception, usually the female feels the same but sometimes she actually wishes for conception and she will on occasion unilaterally decide to go for it.
All I am saying is that, yes, no male should behave toward a female in a way she does not care for, especially if she has made her position clear. Is it too much to ask that the reverse should apply - that no female should become pregnant unless she knows that the male is content for that to happen ? Females have full control over their fertility before and beyond conception, men do not. Even if an "accident" is claimed, that accident can be reversed very, very early on. Is it unreasonable to ask women to at very least not deliberately induce an accident ? Is it acceptable to throw it onto the male and in effect say "More fool you, you should have had a vasectomy" ? And maybe, "You wanted to and enjoyed it didn't you" into the bargain ? Is female responsibility for this one nil and the onus entirely on the male to at all times totally mistrust the female - very many (most ?) of the (by males) unwanted pregnancies occur in long term relationships, including when she is (at least supposedly)on the pill ("oops").
From the way you write, I feel there is not a lot of difference between our perceptions on these things but such as it is it goes to the heart of the matter. Maybe it is that men would like more consideration for their position and women want to keep theirs intact. A reliable long term male contraceptive analogous to the contraceptive pill for females would do it, in the absence of which there is vasectomy. With things as they are would you join me in getting a campaign going for vasectomy for all males aged 16 and above on the NHS plus a heavy promotion of the procedure to get at least 75% uptake ? Sperm banks for depositing seed in the event of reversal not working for later procreation when that is wished for would have to be included.
On reflection, that is probably not a viable plan but you understand what I mean. This is not an insignificant issue because the next generation is being thrown a spanner from the start. Have the children no right to know who their father is, and along with it (sperm donation excepted) that the offspring was unintentional ? What about the effects on the next generation - I know examples where the selfish "accident" resulted in untold misery in the adolescent and adult offspring. Are we content for that to go on just so the mother can prove she can produce, basically for the sake of her vanity ?
Fathering a child with a guarantee of no responsibility will not be much of a thing for very many males, after all the deal comes with maybe several attempts (whoopee). They will be fixated onto the copulation aspect since pregnancy is not an issue. Normally the male wishes for no conception, usually the female feels the same but sometimes she actually wishes for conception and she will on occasion unilaterally decide to go for it.
All I am saying is that, yes, no male should behave toward a female in a way she does not care for, especially if she has made her position clear. Is it too much to ask that the reverse should apply - that no female should become pregnant unless she knows that the male is content for that to happen ? Females have full control over their fertility before and beyond conception, men do not. Even if an "accident" is claimed, that accident can be reversed very, very early on. Is it unreasonable to ask women to at very least not deliberately induce an accident ? Is it acceptable to throw it onto the male and in effect say "More fool you, you should have had a vasectomy" ? And maybe, "You wanted to and enjoyed it didn't you" into the bargain ? Is female responsibility for this one nil and the onus entirely on the male to at all times totally mistrust the female - very many (most ?) of the (by males) unwanted pregnancies occur in long term relationships, including when she is (at least supposedly)on the pill ("oops").
From the way you write, I feel there is not a lot of difference between our perceptions on these things but such as it is it goes to the heart of the matter. Maybe it is that men would like more consideration for their position and women want to keep theirs intact. A reliable long term male contraceptive analogous to the contraceptive pill for females would do it, in the absence of which there is vasectomy. With things as they are would you join me in getting a campaign going for vasectomy for all males aged 16 and above on the NHS plus a heavy promotion of the procedure to get at least 75% uptake ? Sperm banks for depositing seed in the event of reversal not working for later procreation when that is wished for would have to be included.
On reflection, that is probably not a viable plan but you understand what I mean. This is not an insignificant issue because the next generation is being thrown a spanner from the start. Have the children no right to know who their father is, and along with it (sperm donation excepted) that the offspring was unintentional ? What about the effects on the next generation - I know examples where the selfish "accident" resulted in untold misery in the adolescent and adult offspring. Are we content for that to go on just so the mother can prove she can produce, basically for the sake of her vanity ?
Karl, yes, I think we more or less agree, except you don't seem to be relating female (in any species) sex drive to actual pregnancy, because men don't have that. The two are very strongly related and procreation is a "need" for many women too.
The sex drive of females is based around their fertility. It often decreases on the Pill, or other hormone contraception, after menopause, etc, because the body doesn't need sex, if it knows it won't "work". People obviously aren't quite that straightforward and have other reasons too. But you are still suggesting that men can't help but listen to their bodies, women can a bit, but the desire for a child is a "rational" one.
I agree it is best for children to know and have relationships with their fathers, (providing they are safe to), but I think men can also be more aware of what they are doing too, instead of leaving it all in somebody else's hands.
A male Pill was made, which was equally effective to women's, the side-effects were about a third of the female one, and it never made it to market, because from the trials, men were not willing to take those risks.
The sex drive of females is based around their fertility. It often decreases on the Pill, or other hormone contraception, after menopause, etc, because the body doesn't need sex, if it knows it won't "work". People obviously aren't quite that straightforward and have other reasons too. But you are still suggesting that men can't help but listen to their bodies, women can a bit, but the desire for a child is a "rational" one.
I agree it is best for children to know and have relationships with their fathers, (providing they are safe to), but I think men can also be more aware of what they are doing too, instead of leaving it all in somebody else's hands.
A male Pill was made, which was equally effective to women's, the side-effects were about a third of the female one, and it never made it to market, because from the trials, men were not willing to take those risks.
pixie, I simply want women to have the same respect for men's preferences/wishes/intentions as women now (rightly) demand of men for theirs. It does not at all cut it to say that women's hormones acceptably lead to abuse of men (and mutual offspring) while men are castigated for forcing an unwanted (figurative) cup of tea on women (double standards). Will women acknowledge that they have made suffering victims of men as well as men have made suffering victims of women - differently but hitherto women have enjoyed impunity ? Doing so would allow better discourse.
Both genders' hormones are designed to lead to procreation but both genders are equally intelligent. To knowingly/deliberately and crassly ignore a sexual partner's (either sex) wishes and plough ahead unilaterally is deplorable. Women's hormonal drive is no nobler than men's just because they more often aim for conception (doing God's work perhaps ?) while men generally do not, that is surely emotional/romantic nonsense. Neither gender has a viable excuse for selfishly forcing their aims on the other and they should both stop.
There are several long term contraceptive systems "in development" (info by googling) and, yes, none of them have come to market. I don't believe the story that men turned them down any more than the one that there are fears that men would in catastrophic numbers ensure they get the sex without children. In fact I saw a survey (among students if I remember correctly) where a substantial majority said they would take/have the pill/injection. Also, I recently saw that control over their fertility (a major plank in women's freedom iconography) is right at the top of men's list of priorities/aspirations - as much as I have looked, I cannot find it again. I also saw a statement by some social health expert/campaigner saying a reliable long term male contraceptive must urgently become available. I remain unclear exactly what, other than licensing, is holding things up - pharma companies' priorities perhaps (antibiotics is another neglected area we are told) ?
We probably owe ck1 an apology for taking his thread off on something of a tangent.
Both genders' hormones are designed to lead to procreation but both genders are equally intelligent. To knowingly/deliberately and crassly ignore a sexual partner's (either sex) wishes and plough ahead unilaterally is deplorable. Women's hormonal drive is no nobler than men's just because they more often aim for conception (doing God's work perhaps ?) while men generally do not, that is surely emotional/romantic nonsense. Neither gender has a viable excuse for selfishly forcing their aims on the other and they should both stop.
There are several long term contraceptive systems "in development" (info by googling) and, yes, none of them have come to market. I don't believe the story that men turned them down any more than the one that there are fears that men would in catastrophic numbers ensure they get the sex without children. In fact I saw a survey (among students if I remember correctly) where a substantial majority said they would take/have the pill/injection. Also, I recently saw that control over their fertility (a major plank in women's freedom iconography) is right at the top of men's list of priorities/aspirations - as much as I have looked, I cannot find it again. I also saw a statement by some social health expert/campaigner saying a reliable long term male contraceptive must urgently become available. I remain unclear exactly what, other than licensing, is holding things up - pharma companies' priorities perhaps (antibiotics is another neglected area we are told) ?
We probably owe ck1 an apology for taking his thread off on something of a tangent.
A slight tangent, maybe, but just a step forward. I think it's still relevant. I agree that men should take their rights and responsibilities for their own fertility as well. But I don't agree that they are forced or tricked, as if they just can't help themselves and have no idea of the possible consequences.
When a man knowingly takes a risk he must accept the consequences. If the woman refuses to discuss contraception yet encourages intercourse then she is an obvious risk. When a woman claims to be infertile through contraception and deliberately is not she is being dishonest. Give men the control and any discussion of mistreatment by women will end, meanwhile men must be re-educated, as is now under way, regarding their treatment of women when it comes to inappropriate behaviour. Let's encourage discussion of the whole picture, not just one aspect of it.
For me the bottom line is probably this:
A man has to get a YES from a woman if/when he wishes to satisfy his "needs", right down to touching her. A woman has to get a YES from a man if she wishes to satisfy her "needs", not least if she intends to become pregnant. Unless she has already obtained a YES she must, as soon as she discovers she is pregnant, obtain a YES from him to proceed with the pregnancy if that is her wish. If she wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy she can, and he can insist on termination of an unwanted pregnancy - male and female must have equal rights. If she wants to override his wishes then she can but then a legal process should become involved to define the father's (reduced ?) responsibility (to voluntary involvement ?) but protect the right of the child to interact with the father.
I would go further and ask for a discussion about how society deals with cases where the prospective father has made it clear in advance that his intention is not to become a father but nevertheless a pregnancy has come about, to establish the above legal process. As things stand (under the "her body principle") he firstly has no control over his fertility and also no say regarding what is almost always referred to as an altogether unintended event, unintended by both parties (even when that is only half true).
If a house is left unlocked and a thief enters and steals, the insurance company will likely refuse to pay out on a claim but, the theft is still a crime morally as well as in law and before the courts. A man can find himself in court for saying/writing things which offend a woman but a woman expects congratulations (and support) for arranging to produce a child which the father never intended (but not in any way wishing it away now that it is there). There is a serious imbalance if/when people turn to the father and say it is his fault for having taken a risk - discussion of that imbalance is way overdue. Presently the implication is that no man should place trust in a woman (any woman) respecting his intentions in life - that is clearly a bad formula for society's prospects.
A man has to get a YES from a woman if/when he wishes to satisfy his "needs", right down to touching her. A woman has to get a YES from a man if she wishes to satisfy her "needs", not least if she intends to become pregnant. Unless she has already obtained a YES she must, as soon as she discovers she is pregnant, obtain a YES from him to proceed with the pregnancy if that is her wish. If she wants to terminate an unwanted pregnancy she can, and he can insist on termination of an unwanted pregnancy - male and female must have equal rights. If she wants to override his wishes then she can but then a legal process should become involved to define the father's (reduced ?) responsibility (to voluntary involvement ?) but protect the right of the child to interact with the father.
I would go further and ask for a discussion about how society deals with cases where the prospective father has made it clear in advance that his intention is not to become a father but nevertheless a pregnancy has come about, to establish the above legal process. As things stand (under the "her body principle") he firstly has no control over his fertility and also no say regarding what is almost always referred to as an altogether unintended event, unintended by both parties (even when that is only half true).
If a house is left unlocked and a thief enters and steals, the insurance company will likely refuse to pay out on a claim but, the theft is still a crime morally as well as in law and before the courts. A man can find himself in court for saying/writing things which offend a woman but a woman expects congratulations (and support) for arranging to produce a child which the father never intended (but not in any way wishing it away now that it is there). There is a serious imbalance if/when people turn to the father and say it is his fault for having taken a risk - discussion of that imbalance is way overdue. Presently the implication is that no man should place trust in a woman (any woman) respecting his intentions in life - that is clearly a bad formula for society's prospects.
No, I don't agree with any of that, karl. Maybe this deserves a thread of it's own, to get other views too?
Since time began, women have coped with unwanted pregnancies, and as far as I'm aware, don't take men to court for gbh or whatever... all adults know that it is a risk they take.
A pregnancy may be deliberate, an accident or an "accident" and I don't see any way of proving between them. Or why men don't wish to be responsible for their own fertility but are willing to leave it to women. Yes, it is a shame that not everybody everywhere is entirely trustworthy and honest, but you do have the choice of what risks you are willing to take.
I don't agree that men are helpless to the drive of their own hormones and need women to think ahead for them. It is nearly always women that end up with the responsibility for any mistake, and even if payments are made towards the child, she doesn't get compensated herself, for injuries, death, loss of earnings etc. I think if you really wanted to play a blame game, that would have massive consequences, but would benefit women more, in general.
I think you should maybe do this on a new thread, as it seems to me, that it is one-sided, as you are seeing it now x
Since time began, women have coped with unwanted pregnancies, and as far as I'm aware, don't take men to court for gbh or whatever... all adults know that it is a risk they take.
A pregnancy may be deliberate, an accident or an "accident" and I don't see any way of proving between them. Or why men don't wish to be responsible for their own fertility but are willing to leave it to women. Yes, it is a shame that not everybody everywhere is entirely trustworthy and honest, but you do have the choice of what risks you are willing to take.
I don't agree that men are helpless to the drive of their own hormones and need women to think ahead for them. It is nearly always women that end up with the responsibility for any mistake, and even if payments are made towards the child, she doesn't get compensated herself, for injuries, death, loss of earnings etc. I think if you really wanted to play a blame game, that would have massive consequences, but would benefit women more, in general.
I think you should maybe do this on a new thread, as it seems to me, that it is one-sided, as you are seeing it now x
I agree we have exhausted the usefulness of our discussion. I want a level playing field where neither gender has a distinct advantage over the other - no option to say, well you shouldn't have taken the risk and joined me only to find I won't use my options (which you don't have) to reset to no downside, tough. You don't, and that is as I find quite a bit of on the subject. I would like to see this whole thing given at least as much exposure as touching of a thigh or bottom - that is an uphill struggle.
Thank you for the discussion, it has helped me crystallise/sharpen/focus my understanding/opinions.
Thank you for the discussion, it has helped me crystallise/sharpen/focus my understanding/opinions.
Thank you, karl, I found it interesting anyway. I can only add that pregnancy and childbirth never has been 50/50. So, while men "get away with it" a lot in some ways... the downside is that that is their one and only chance really, to make their decision.
I am ignoring your idea that a man should be able to force a pregnant woman to abort her own foetus, because he regrets his actions, as I don't believe you mean that.
I suspect it is quite a personal subject for you, but if you ever wanted to be more specific and start your own thread, I would be there.
Meanwhile, I think all of us need to take responsibility and accept the risks, without blaming everyone else, but ourselves x
I am ignoring your idea that a man should be able to force a pregnant woman to abort her own foetus, because he regrets his actions, as I don't believe you mean that.
I suspect it is quite a personal subject for you, but if you ever wanted to be more specific and start your own thread, I would be there.
Meanwhile, I think all of us need to take responsibility and accept the risks, without blaming everyone else, but ourselves x
