Young UK and Ireland Programme 2008

Body Politic
The winning paper
by Mairi Clare Rodgers

What do you hear when I say 'no'?
     Do you all hear a refusal?
     'I'm just waiting for a friend but I'd love a drink! Make mine a gin and tonic – in fact, make it a double. That's so funny, I'm a Virgo too, we've got so much in common. I think that's last orders but I'd love to continue this back at yours, why don't you order a taxi while I get my coat?'
     What do you hear now?
     Is it still 'no' – or do some of you hear a coy 'maybe'?

Sexual consent: 'a person consents if he agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice'. That's the legal definition, laid down only five years ago in the Sexual Offences Act. Until then there was no formal definition of sexual consent contained in law. As vague and weak as this definition is, it was of at least some symbolic importance. It provided a public acknowledgement that the clear-cut stereotypical depiction of rape by a stranger wasn't the whole story – that many, many rapes happen between acquaintances, friends and partners where the question of consent is paramount. But why should there be a need for a legal definition of consent? Surely it is simple – yes means yes and no means no. Isn't this universally understood? Wasn't this unnecessary governmental interference in the most simple and basic of human interactions?
     I think not. I don't think it goes far enough.
     In the simplest of terms sexual consent is permission or agreement that is – or should be – clearly established prior to a sexual act. While this appears a straightforward concept, it becomes muddied when the belief in consent differs between those involved. Women are more likely to be sexually attacked by men who are known to them: 22% by acquaintances and 32% by their partners. The understanding of what consent really is becomes extremely pertinent, if not central, to any criminal proceedings.
     So in reality what constitutes consent? Does it always have to be a verbal affirmative? What about the physical? Human beings are complicated creatures, we communicate with each other in myriad ways. It's true that often we transmit interest through our actions rather than our words. But relying on a purely physical indication of consent has its own perils – used, as it often is, as part of the fiction found in rape trials. The myth of the female tease who doesn't explicitly invite but instead transmits a non-verbal consent. She communicates this through a whole host of non-verbal actions: by the way she's dressed; by how much alcohol she's drinking; perhaps by laughing at her prospective partner's jokes.
     Does this sound archaic? Perhaps these attitudes were acceptable years ago, but not now in the metrosexual noughties? Recent polling by Amnesty showed that 26% believe a woman is at least partially responsible if she's wearing revealing clothing when she's raped; 30% if she's drunk; and 34% if she's flirtatious.

Despite the apparent glaze of sexual sophistication we flaunt, scratch the surface and our attachment to prehistoric gender roles is still strong. Men are the initiators, the aggressors; women are still expected to be the moral gatekeepers, holding the uncontrollable male libido in check. The default position is that a woman consents if she does not vocally and physically demonstrate non-consent. Yet this stereotype – that requires women to actively set the limits of sexual interaction – contradicts another which dictates that women are ultimately expected to be compliant and obliging. Surely this contradiction suggests that consent needs to be more than mere agreement through silence.
     With convictions of rape at an all-time low and reporting rates stagnant, where do we go from here? The legal definition is fuzzy and elusive but still it is a start. But only a start. The law should be aspirational, it should be a lever, forcing change. But we need more than this. We need a foundational culture shift. We need to return to the fundamentals of what makes us cognisant beings. At some point we have neglected to integrate the most basic demonstration of respect into our collective unconscious: the importance of actively seeking another human being's permission for any action that affects them.
     It is our duty to gain consent from another: not assume; not speculate; not presuppose. We have to go back to the very basics, begin at the root. From our earliest interactions with others we must learn where our space ends and where another's begins. We have to teach our children at the earliest opportunity that the violation of another person's bodily integrity without permission is a transgression of the highest order; that sovereignty is sacred and there is no right to take that which is not freely given, be it from a stranger or a lover. And that it is every man and woman's responsibility to achieve that consent without coercion or ambiguity.
     Consent is a mighty tool. With it we wield power over our own bodily sovereignty. It protects our autonomy. It allows individuals to control and make decisions about their rights and responsibilities. It is imbued with a 'moral magic' which can transform an illegal act into a legal one. The right to grant permission to our bodies is not undone or revoked because we have transgressed some social norm or standard of femininity or masculinity. Consent doesn't happen to a person and we cannot accidentally consent to an act; instead it is a product of pure will. My actions may signpost acquiescence but consent devolves from me, not from someone else. By consenting to one action I am not consenting to a whole raft of others.
     We are not animals. It is one of the most basic attributes that makes us human – by seeking consent for our actions we demonstrate our regard for each other as equals.
     This isn't just about men or just about women – it's about all of us. It is time we moved on from this notion of the battle of the sexes – he said/she said – and took a long look at how casual we've become in our treatment of each other. Men and women aren't the same, but we are not so different either. We all understand that to take another's property without permission is stealing and is wrong; we need to work together with each other to promote and reinstate the understanding that invading another's body without consent is the worst kind of theft. A theft of something which can never be returned. We have to reconnect with each other on a more fundamental level and before we see a man or a woman, see another human.

So I hope you will forgive me if i ask you again: what do you hear when I say 'no'?

Forthcoming events
2010

Young
Scotland Programme October
2010
[click here] to download brochure
[click here] to book online
[click here] to apply for a
free place

Young Ireland Programme and Young Northern Ireland Programme
October
2010
[click here] to download brochure
[click here] to book online

Young Public Sector Programme
September
2010
[click here] to download brochure
[click here] to book online

UK Universities Young Thinker
of the Year
June 2010
[click here] for information

Young Local Authority
of the Year
March 2010
[click here] for information

The 2010 final

[click here] for the day in photos
[click here] for the winning paper
[click here] for the runner-up paper

Winning papers

2010:
Kris
Anderson
[click here]

2009:
Anthony
Silkoff
[click here]

2008:
Mairi Clare Rodgers
[click here]