The other day a friend sent me a link to a male feminist writing in The Guardian, “in case you could shed light on its creepiness”. Trying not to think too closely about the various ways this could be interpreted, I read the piece – called “What every guy should know about dating: consent counts” – and ended up agreeing with her that it somehow hit the wrong note. The basic message seemed uncontroversial, since it seemed to be arguing that consent is very important in our sexual lives, but that we should expand our notion of where “consent” matters. It had even received the online accolade of being totally trashed in the comments, with braying self-congratulatory contributions about “feminist sex contracts” from commentators who were at pains to make clear how much sex they were having without recourse to such legal instruments.
This is a topic which I can recall being kicked around at Pervocracy, Feministe and Another Angry Women, without strikingly different conclusions being reached. But something still seemed a bit…off. I think perhaps this piece is an example of how decent conclusions can be undermined by getting to them via questionable arguments. It also highlights some ways in which male feminists should be careful about the rhetoric we employ, and be aware of using feminist-sounding principles to shore up a sexist state of affairs.
The first alarm bells rang at the point where the author considered what affects people’s behaviour when dating:
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
This reads, as my friend remarked, rather like wanting points for being enlightened. As so many other writers have pointed out, it doesn’t count as basic human decency if you expect to be paid for it in admiration or indeed cookies. The problem for me is the nebulous forces lurking in the words “supposed”, “should” and “have”. The author doesn’t make it clear who is doing the supposing, whose norms inform the should, and what sanctions are brought to bear on those who don’t do what they have to. This is particularly significant as two of those forces are apparently opposed: men are “supposed” to be chivalrous yet “should” not have a patriarchal attitude.
Given that this paragraph is about the dating scene, there’s a strong implication that women are the ones imposing these demands upon men, that in order to be attractive to potential dates a man is in the difficult position of being both chivalrous and non-patriarchal. In other words, this article seems to be echoing the complaints of Men’s Rights Activists and misogynists all over the world: that women have jointly made impossible demands of men, wanting both the benefits of liberation and the comforts of benevolent sexism. The other option is that “supposed” refers to the assumptions and norms of a sexist society, and that men are in a difficult situation because they must be macho to be respected as a “real man”, but do not wish to treat women badly during that process. In which case the putative man on the dating scene really does want it both ways. He apparently wants women to understand that he’s a sensitive, non-patriarchal guy who merits their attention, whilst acting otherwise because he wants the respect of his sexist male peers. He wants a sexual pay-off which he feels his ideals entitle him to, whilst failing to live up to them because women don’t understand how hard it is to be a man. He is, in other words, a classic internet Nice Guy.
I’m not accusing the author of being this guy. But I am suggesting that if we are going to have the discussion which this article calls for, about shifting norms around consent, sexual ethics and gender roles, we need to be more rigorous than this. We need not to start from a position which seeks to solve social problems because they are getting in the way of men’s romantic and sexual fulfillment. We also need to be clear that feminist men benefit from the structural sexism in society even whilst they try to work against it. And we need to consider the possibility that some men feeling disorientation, anxiety about their place in the world and dislocation from their previous sense of self, might be signs that feminism is doing some good, not signals that it must be reversed. This passage demonstrates how easy it is for the discourse to fall into echoes of pick-up artistry, men’s rights activism, and anti-feminist backlash. The language of resentment against women (which articulates the same essential message as “Look what you made me do”) suffuses our media and we need to think clearly, and listen carefully, to keep it from poisoning the discussion.
The other section I had most trouble with was the quotation from “Consent Is Sexy”, next to the line “Sexual power is also communicative power”. Again, I don’t disagree with the basic point, but the way it is expressed frames the issue badly. As male feminists, we need to be terribly careful about loud declarations that ethical conduct is “sexy”. Asking first is sexy, treating someone as an equal is sexy, taking people’s feelings into consideration is sexy, “killing the mood” is implicitly sexy (because if it was a truly high-level sexy mood it wouldn’t have been killed by verbalization). All of these statements – particularly when they come from men – suggest that sexiness is the value criterion by which we are judging things. It installs “sexy” as the standard against which actions are evaluated. I think it was Cliff over at Pervocracy who said that we have to stop telling people that enthusiastic consent is the gateway to sexual plenty and nirvana, because that implies that the basis for our actions is how much sex will accrue to us, whether on a short-term or long-term basis. Cliff also pointed out that acting ethically, holding out for informed and enthusiastic consent, means you sometimes won’t have sex when you’d quite like to. Unless our putative modern man on the dating scene finds not having sex really turns him on, then “consent is sexy” has sprung a leak at this point. Sexiness as the standard for ethics concedes too much ground with pick-up artists and the kind of frat boy you don’t want to leave your friends alone with at parties.
This may sound like rhetorical pedantry, which misses the point of the article. But our society has already installed “sexiness” – the extent to which an imagined typical white heterosexual man finds something sexy – as the standard by which massive swathes of our culture are judged. Significant aspects of films, politics, business, advertising and social spaces are already calibrated according to the possibility of giving that white heterosexual man an erection. Male feminists whose rhetoric works to elide the difference between “good” and “sexy” risk signalling that they would like society not to change in any way which inconveniences them. We’re back to the image of the Nice Guy again. He’d like people to be happier and things to be more fair, but in a way which gets him personally plenty of sex. We need to resist the system of value which equates women’s sexual availability to men with a just society. Guys getting laid is not a test of feminism’s validity.
quiteirregular 
I think you’ve put your finger on the problem with “consent is sexy”. For the idea of consent to be worth anything, refusal of consent has to be in the contemplation of the person asking. (Even Mr Darcy gets this one wrong:
“He concluded with representing to her the strength of that attachment which, in spite of all his endeavours, he had found impossible to conquer; and with expressing his hope that it would now be rewarded by her acceptance of his hand. As he said this, she could easily see that he had no doubt of a favourable answer. He spoke of apprehension and anxiety, but his countenance expressed real security.”)
Consent is only “sexy” to the extent that refusal of it is a titillating possibility which never actually eventuates. And no-one likes to be thought of as a rubber-stamp mechanism, particularly in the bedroom.
I’ve never really understood which bit of ‘consent’ is meant to be sexy: ‘consent is sexy’ seems to vary in meaning between ‘women will be more likely to have sex with you if they’re fairly sure you won’t rape them’ and ‘negotiating consent is, in itself, sexy’. Those are pretty different things. And when it’s the latter, it always seems to be used in a context of ‘well I enjoy this, but don’t want to do that’ rather ‘no thanks, I don’t want to have any type of sex with you ever under any circumstances.’
(Consent is, perhaps, always going to be ‘sexier’ for women, because most women are still considerably more scared of being raped than most men are of being rapists. So working in an atmosphere where consent is a pre-requisite might make women feel more comfortable expressing their sexuality. That’s not what people (particularly male feminists) seem to mean by the phrase, though.)
I suspect they’re borrowing advocacy strategies from early AIDS-era adverts. Back then, the actual message was “Wear a condom or you might die” but it had to be dressed up a bit, eg as “Have you ever told someone naked to put something on, so he looked hot?” because “might die” is in the future, whereas the relevant sexual encounter (with or without condom) is in the present, so the “safe” route has to be designated as the “sexy” route.
The problem with “I’m sorry, but I’m washing my dog” approach to an offer of sexual intercourse, compared to the condom PSA, is that both parties in the latter set up were already wanting to have sex (by definition) but in the latter case one party emphatically didn’t (at least, not with the person enquiring). But it’s set up as if provided you actually ask, you actually get so anyone who doesn’t say yes when you ask is breaking an (implied) promise.
My big problem with the piece was that it was a little mealy-mouthed. Poor lad lacks confidence, so makes the whole business sound more fraught and complicated than it is – which makes it easier for the idiots to chirp up about needing a lawyer at the end of the bed. It also does make it sound like this is something men have to work at – part of the masculine work of getting into someone’s knickers. There’s mention of male sexual assault, but a story about the friend who innocently misread *his* signals and the embarrassment that followed might help. Uncertainty is normal, for everyone.
And yes, with both yourself & legionseagle with “consent is sexy”. Consent is the minimum necessary condition for physical contact with someone outside of an emergency. That’s not sexy. Enthusiastic consent can be asked for and expressed in all kinds of sexy ways, but as you say, nothing sexy about the “No” that the principle has to make room for.
“Consent is necessary but not sufficient.” isn’t so catchy.
Completely agree with “Consent is sexy” being entirely the wrong phrase; puts my back up in the same way as “Save second base!”/”Save the boobs” being used as a slogan to raise awareness for breast cancer. Seems to suggest that that the idea of treating a woman’s body with respect has to be sexualised, a contradiction within itself…
http://queerguesscode.wordpress.com/2013/03/22/un-memorizing-the-silence-is-sexy-date-script/ This is a brilliant article that is related to your argument. Something of a tangent, but a good read.
Would be interested to know your take on Blurred-Lines-gate. Harmless pop music or chilling perpetuation of rape culture?
Absolutely – I can’t stand that aspect of the breast cancer campaigns, and I think you make a really compelling link between the two forms of rhetoric. That article is great, thanks for posting it.
I have actually had a bit of a rant on this very site about Blurred Lines, to be seen here… https://quiteirregular.wordpress.com/2013/08/23/blurred-lines-and-rape-culture-seeing-whats-in-front-of-us/
Having given this a bit more thought overnight, I think the faintly creepy note is set by the headline, which admittedly is presumably the sub-editor’s fault not the author’s.
The headline is: “What every guy should know about dating: consent counts”
Normally advice framed in the “What every [ ] should know….” format presupposes that what follows will come as news to at least a significant portion of the intended audience, the intended audience being the group qualified by the adjective “every”, and that they will be grateful for being rescued from their previous ignorance.
Which, when it comes to the importance of consent to sexual relationships, is really quite a disturbing assumption: “In the first of his chatty advice posts to men who might be rapists and would prefer not to be, Andy Fitzgerald explains….”
It reminds me of when the American Bar Association changed its rules on client/attorney ethics. The specific change was reported in one of the legal magazines in the UK as “Under new rules published today, the ABA say lawyers may not engage in sexual relations with their clients, even when the client consents.”
Incidentally, I also felt like slapping the author around the head and neck with a wet fish while chanting “Paternalism is a branch of patriarchy, they come from the same bloody root.”
And (sorry for spam) it also occurs to me that emphasis he puts on the need for “open communication” and “emphasising verbal communication” is laying the groundwork for that tiresome dance that always happens whenever there’s a case of sexual assault or harassment at a SF convention or wherever. It’s always portrayed as a “socially awkward” guy either misreading or having his signals misread, although as the paper referenced here points out, the sexes have no difficulty understanding non-verbal refusals when the subject of the discussion is, say, “Shall we go out for curry?” as opposed to “Shall we have sex?”
Missing link, sorry: http://yesmeansyesblog.wordpress.com/2011/03/21/mythcommunication-its-not-that-they-dont-understand-they-just-dont-like-the-answer/
“All of these statements – particularly when they come from men – suggest that sexiness is the value criterion by which we are judging things. It installs “sexy” as the standard against which actions are evaluated. ”
There’s a parallel between this and the way some of the conversations about ‘rebranding’ feminism have been going. While it’s obviously true that you can be sexy and a feminist, it seems a bit odd to be quite so concerned about sexiness being the standard used to judge things.
Oh honestly get your head out of your arse. Some people want to get laid – even some women, believe it or not. When two people want to get laid at the same time, that’s when the sex happens. Why are male feminists all so fucking dull? The female variety do not generally suffer this affliction.
Reblogged this on feimineach.com and commented:
Example: This reads, as my friend remarked, rather like wanting points for being enlightened. As so many other writers have pointed out, it doesn’t count as basic human decency if you expect to be paid for it in admiration or indeed cookies.
“Given that this paragraph is about the dating scene, there’s a strong implication that women are the ones imposing these demands upon men, that in order to be attractive to potential dates a man is in the difficult position of being both chivalrous and non-patriarchal.”
It made me wonder why an attempt to be chivalrous as well as non-patriarchal is regarded as somewhat as a struggle by men, or indeed women? Chivalry of course comes with its own connotations. Knight in shining armour springs to mind. I doubt however that any woman on the dating scene expects to be saved, so what other options of being chivalrous does our man-about-town have?
Open the door? Well, if they happen to be the first reaching it then it is mere politeness. Just make sure not to add the cringing “Ladies first” and I doubt even the fiercest of feminists would have a problem with that. If the woman reaches it first and opens it, then he’ll do well to get through it without commenting.
Offer to pay the bill? Again, it must depend on the circumstance. Most often two people dining together will split it. Offering to pay it, as long as it is not insisted upon if the other would rather pay half, again is mere politeness. If the invitation came from the man then it might make sense for him to offer. If the invitation came from the woman, it would equally make sense for her to offer to cover the bill. I would personally always opt to go Dutch. I’m not sure whether this is chivalrous or not.
Walk/drive/accompany the said woman to her door? Certainly if it is late at night, there is safety in numbers. It may be a nice opportunity to continue a conversation interrupted by the end of a meal. Again, offering it does not appear to me either particularly chivalrous or non-patriarchal.
Beyond this, I do wonder whether we have exhausted the issue…
Is it truly that difficult to do/be both? So many men manage it without either bellowing about their achievement all over town or expecting some payback for behaving like decent human beings.
I do accept that when I say that it costs nothing to be well mannered, the manners side of things come themselves with non-neutral content, and perhaps I am somewhat optimistic when it comes to these issues. I always assume we can figure it all out as we go along, and do rather well by it as long as our behaviour towards one another is grounded in healthy mutual respect.
Isn’t part of the problem with chivalry that it implies a hierarchical structure in which the person on top of the heap (the knight) is voluntarily foregoing his right to treat those beneath him on the pyramid as (quite) the inferiors the entire system knows they are?
Manners are different, because they don’t come with the in-built assumptions of structural inequity which chivalry does.
I like your analysis of the original article. It did not feel right, and still is very male-centric/patriarchic (while the author seems to have good intentions).
I may be very idealistic, but why not open this up to dating in general, no matter the gender. In that case it is no longer about feminism, or the man/woman divide, but is about communication between people. And that is _always_ hard. I am pretty sure when two guys date, and hope for sex, or two girls date and hope for sex, that there will be akward moments. Are we just flirting, could this be more, should I attempt to be kissing now, is s/he in to me or not? That is general. Likewise it is everybody’s right to still have an awesome date and not feel like sex or kissing. It should be obvious.
Of course it clearly isn’t, but to change things: shouldn’t we start from the ideal?
People on a date are obviously equal, please just be yourself (do not attempt to be what you think what the other person will like), be upfront about your expectations, in short: be honest. And listen to and respect your date.
Pingback: Links 12 – 24/10/13 | Alastair's Adversaria
I thought your post was brilliant. But I wanted to add something else I noticed about the article in question: the author seems to attempt to elicit men’s empathy and persuade them to abide by the consent ethic by suggesting that “innocent, and good faith flirtation,” might be traumatic to victims of sexual assault.
I’m not sure what any particular man out there might define as “innocent flirtation,” nor the situation(s) that make it innocent (for instance, a boss “innocently flirting” with a subordient is different than “innocent flirting” with one’s date), but it gives a sense of trying to explain why some men might encounter a “crazy” response to his “innocent” flirtation. It conveys that men’s common means of making sexual advances can’t continue, not because it’s wrong and creepy, but because a women might be triggered. In other words, the author coveys that the only justified reason for a woman responding negatively or feeling inconvenienced by “innocent,” but extremely ambiguous, flirting behavior is that victims of sexual assault can be triggered.
It doesn’t challenge men’s concept of chasing sex or seeing women’s as sex object, in my opinion, but merely tries to teach men how to perhaps elicit the response men want while by and large maintaining status quo.
While ensuring one has consent to engage is a worthy goal, he seems to want to directions as how to fundamentally operate the same–seeing women as potential targets for fulfilling male sexual desires, without breaching any faux pas. In other words, his main concern and mode of operation is how to attain some form of sexual access to women. It tries to seem as if it is about how to treat women respectfully, but it never contradicts the presumption of the social setup in which men ultimately persue and view women on sexual terms.
Pingback: Why “Choreplay” Makes No Sense: On Housework and Sex | quiteirregular