Greenscreen analysis of consent culturefrom @glass__museum

Transcript

Consent culture is not enough, and the recent Hockey Canada verdict is proof of that. Four days ago, five hockey players accused of sexually assaulting a woman in 2018 were acquitted on all charges, primarily because of evidences of consent. According to reports, there are videos taken of the victim, EM, where she says that all activities were consensual. Now I'm not gonna get into the details of the trial in this video. If you're interested, you can look it up yourself. What I do wanna focus on is a discussion of how consent culture has become the pinnacle of our conversations around safe sex, but this trial is just another example of how this is not enough. Author and academic, Catherine Angell, explores this idea in her book, Tomorrow Sex Will Be Good Again, where she talks about how consent alone cannot define good and safe sex. Initially, rape prevention campaigns in the nineteen seventies focused on a no means no idea of safe sex, but the issue with this is that it positioned women as gatekeepers who were responsible for refusing sex outrightly and clearly. Over tier, as the sex positivity movement progressed, we evolved towards an enthusiastic consent model where women were encouraged to loudly and confidently express their sexual desire. Women's sexual liberation was encouraged, and they were told to express their liberation by desiring sex in the same way men do. Now this might sound girl best and sex positive and empowering, but Angel points out a clear issue with this. The thing is when women embrace their sexuality openly, just as society encourages them to do, this often backfires on them tremendously. In Angel's words, woman's sexual appetite is often the very means through which male violence is exonerated. Once a woman is thought to say yes to something, she can say no to nothing. In the case of I. M, she consented to sex with only one man. She expressed consensual desire in one specific scenario, and yet this expression of desire was used against her to prove that she wanted it. Not only that, but by focusing on consent culture, it assumes that equality exists in sexual dynamics, when in reality, there are huge power imbalances. Angel amounts are attachment to consent culture as holding on to the fantasy of liberalism in which equality simply exists. In reality, much sex that women consent to is unwanted because they agree to it under duress. Women are socialized to prioritize men's feelings, often softly rejecting advances to avoid conflict or danger. Yes, these subtle rejections are twisted into mixed signals, and any expression of enthusiasm is used to discredit survivors. By focusing on securing a single yes in any sexual interaction, we are completely ignoring the power dynamics at play. Is the man trying to coerce a yes out of her? Is he abusing the greater physical and social power he has over her? These are all questions that Angel raises that need to be considered. In the case of I am, she was, quote, naked, drunk, and scared in a hotel room when four men she did not invite showed up. She said she feared what they might do if she did not go along with their sexual demands. I'm honestly surprised that anyone is giving this consent video any weight because it is literally equivalent of the blink twice if you're being held at gunpoint meme. By focusing on consent, obtaining a single yes, it feels like willful ignorance towards all the systems of coercion at play. It feels like we've reduced all the complexities and nuances of sexual interaction into a semantic one, wherein a single word grants immunity from any wrongdoing. We seem more focused on simply checking the box and getting a yes instead of what that yes is supposed to represent. That is a sexual experience that is continually safe and positive for all parties involved. The absence of a no is not a yes, and the presence of a single yes does not guarantee a continuous yes. Anyway, I am disappointed better not surprised at the verdict, and my heart goes out to the victim.