What every guy should know about dating: consent counts

I’m a firm believer in ‘no means no’ when it comes to sex, but consent should be relevant long before the bedroom

I’ve never been particularly forward when it comes to romance. Much of this probably stems from the usual impediments we all face: fear of rejection or embarrassment. Going through the various stages of: is this person interested in me, or do they just want to be friends? Oh, she’s right there, I could talk to her … but (insert excuse here).

But my hesitancy is also about not wanting to make people feel uncomfortable. It can be a minefield for men navigating the dating scene today. We’re supposed to exhibit some chivalry, yet we – rightly – should drop any notions of patriarchy. We have to be sensitive to cultural, religious, socio-economic and sexuality issues. Once, after spending an evening out with an acquaintance, I attempted to make a move. I had totally read the situation wrong, and the flustered reaction not only left me with a bit of a bruised ego, but also feeling guilty. As I’ve grown older and more confident – and thought more about sexuality and consent – I’ve embraced what I like to call the “non-presumptuous approach”.

Still, I find myself grappling with some issues in today’s dating world: when does consent actually kick in while interacting with someone you’re attracted to? And what form should consent actually take? I’m a firm believer in “no means no” when it comes to sexual intercourse, but consent should be relevant long before the bedroom.

As a legal concept, consent varies widely by jurisdiction. It’s definition can range from needing a freely expressed and clear “yes”, to anything other than a clear “no”. But the focus in the courts is on intercourse and the worst cases of rape or sexual assault.

As a young man today, I would find it immensely helpful to have an expanded notion of consent. It would encourage us to overcome our puritan-era sensibilities that make sex something that is both wrong to discuss or, worse, owed by one person to another. Instead of physical pleasure feeling like a duty owed by a wife, boyfriend, lover, or that person you danced with, it should be about treating someone reciprocally and as an equal with legitimate opinions and emotions.

It also opens the space for negotiating boundaries and interests before things get physical. No one should have to experience unwanted physical advances, especially people who have experienced sexual violence before.

Far too many people I care about are survivors of sexual assault, including some I’ve been interested in romantically. Navigating my interactions with them required a high level of sensitivity and thoughtfulness. For many victims, intimate relationships are difficult. Another person’s innocent, good faith attempts at flirtation can trigger horrible flashbacks, making much conventionally accepted courtship behavior suspect and undesirable, even hurtful.

Statistics show the epidemic is widespread. One in three women will be sexually abused over the course of their lives in America, while one in four women and one in six men will be sexually assaulted before turning 18. To reiterate the terrible significance of these numbers: someone is sexually assaulted every two minutes in the US. The onus should not be on all of these sexual assault survivors to preface their dates with a detailed background history and justification for their request at taking it slow.

I’ve heard it said that emphasizing explicit verbal communication as part of consent takes away spontaneity. It can “kill the mood”. But the best retort for this comes from the website Consent is Sexy:

If the mood can be ruined with a question, it probably wasn’t so hot to begin with.

Sexual power is also communicative power. As Anna March has written in Salon, “The more we learn to claim our own sexual power [by articulating and negotiating wants and desires], the more we will contribute to changing the landscape of sexual violence.” She goes on to add:

Let us encourage a culture where everyone – regardless of gender, orientation, etc – does so openly, honestly, respectfully.

This isn’t to say that we should abandon efforts to enshrine a more appropriate definition of “consent” within our justice system; in fact, we should pursue it all the more rigorously. But most of our relationship issues don’t end up in court. It’s the day-to-day choices we all make that have the biggest difference on our happiness and others’.

Negotiating romantic encounters without presumption and with an emphasis on establishing boundaries openly and verbally is ultimately about treating other people as no less than oneself or one’s own desires. Consent – and indeed all of romance – should be about mutual affection and respect.

• Dating


• Gender


• Relationships

Andy Fitzgerald

theguardian.com © 2013 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

Comment is free | theguardian.com

What every guy should know about dating: consent counts

‘Gitmo Clock’ counts seconds since Obama’s unfulfilled pledge to free prisoners

Published time: August 09, 2013 09:58

Activists calling for closure of Guantanamo Bay prison have launched an online clock, which counts the time since President Obama’s latest promise to set free inmates whom the US cleared for release. So far all of the 86 men remain incarcerated.

The clock is a symbolic reminder of the fate of the 166 people who are currently kept in the controversial US facility.

Dozens of detainees are continuing their so-far six-month hunger strike, a gesture of despair from the people, who have little hope to ever be free, says Andy Worthington, a human rights activist who has been advocating for Guantanamo prisoners for years.

The promise to close Guantanamo prison was one of the key points of Barack Obama’s 2008 election campaign. One of his first moves as the president was an order to do so, yet the facility still remains active.

The latest pledge from the president regarding Gitmo inmates came in a key security policy speech in May, which came in response to the concerns over the hunger strike voiced by some international bodies, including the UN, the EU and the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Obama said that 86 inmates, who were cleared for release in January 2010 by the inter-agency Guantanamo Review Task Force, would be given freedom. The majority of those on the list – 56 – are Yemenis. The number of people released so far is 0. In the last three years seven prisoners have left Guantanamo.

With a few exceptions, Guantanamo prisoners were never charged with any crimes or tried. Of the 80 inmates not cleared for release, 46 were recommended for indefinite detention without trial, because there was no sufficient evidence against them. The majority of those recommended for prosecution has not been put forward for trials, and are unlikely to be, according to General Mark Martins, the chief prosecutor of the military commissions.

US lawmakers demand that the presidential administration certifies that any Guantanamo prisoner released would not be able to engage in any terrorist activities against the US. Worthington argues that such a certification is almost impossible to make.

While Guantanamo inmates remain in legal limbo, a terrorist threat has returned to the frontline of the public discourse in the US this week. Washington issued a major alert and shut down dozens of its diplomatic outposts, mostly in the Middle East, Persian Gulf region and Africa. The US also evacuated non-essential staff from two facilities in Yemen and Pakistan, also warning its citizens that those countries are not safe for travel.

The terror alert came after an intercepted Al-Qaeda communication indicating a major plot against America, US officials explained. Some skeptics voiced their doubts, saying that the threat may have been blown out of proportion and that the alert is being used to justify the massive surveillance methods used by the US National Security Agency.

The existence of programs for dragnet collection of electronic data, which was made public by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, sparked a major scandal. The US maintains that the programs are lawful, efficient and morally justified methods to provide national security. Critics see it as a major violation of privacy.

RT – USA

‘Gitmo Clock’ counts seconds since Obama’s unfulfilled pledge to free prisoners