Many Canadians aren’t clear on the definition of sexual consent

[escapefromstress]

More than one in 10 Canadians believe spouses and long-term partners don’t need to bother getting consent from each other before having sex, according to a troubling new survey from the Canadian Women’s Foundation.

Conducted last month, the online poll of 1,500 Canadians suggests many aren’t clear on the definition of sexual consent. In this country, consent is defined as both affirmative and ongoing during sexual activity, a point only a third recognized throughout the survey.

“The idea that you need ongoing consent when you’ve been together for 30 years – this is where some people have an information gap,” says Anuradha Dugal, director of violence prevention at the foundation. “Yes, even after 30 years, it has to be consensual.”

The survey showed that some Canadians view consent as less and less important the longer couples remain together. While 97 per cent of Canadians surveyed believe consent is required between people on a date or between new partners, 12 per cent didn’t think it was always needed between spouses. Some 11 per cent didn’t think it was a must between long-term partners.

In counselling survivors of rape within marriage – a subject that remains greatly taboo – Dugal says there are cultural and generational factors at work, and also a false sense of marital entitlement.

“I’ve spoken to women who described husbands who expected sex every day, who come back at lunch time and demand sex in the middle of the day. They think that’s what wives should do. There are men who have used pressure tactics: if a woman says she doesn’t want to have sex, he turns off the heat or threatens their children.”

Dugal pointed to retrograde attitudes around “wifely duty,” saying, “There may be a sense of, ‘Why would I ask this person? That’s one of the reasons why I’ve married them.’”

For some couples, intimate familiarity may mean they’ve started taking consent for granted, failing to check in or communicate their boundaries. Dugal underscored that consent is always required, regardless of the longevity of the union: “It’s a way of showing your care, concern and respect for another person.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/relationships/many-canadians-arent-clear-on-the-definition-of-sexual-consent-survey/article24327510/

 

[Fullhouse]

Gee, it may be time for me to start looking for another hobby. It's bad enough that under Bill C-36, I am now considered a criminal for purchasing sex from an SP, but I didn't know that I also had to get consent from the SP to having sex before the act actually takes place, and then, ... heaven forbid, I have to get 'affirmative and ongoing consent during the sexual activity'. ......
That may work with some Caucasian SPs, but what 'de hell do I do when I see an Asian lady that doesn't speak English. Do I have to bring an interpreter to get the SP's consent before we even start ????? .......... Gee, and having the interpreter present so I can get affirmative and ongoing consent during the sexual activity really is going to be a mood killer..
Not getting consent could make me a 'double criminal', ............ and could possibly land me in jail. And there, I could wind up in a situation where some big dude wants to have sex without my consent.................:fear:

 

[Cappa]

Well, I'm on the fence on this one. On one hand, yes, sex should always be consensual. On the other hand, marriage is about being with someone you desire for and wish to be one with each and every day. I mean, if I was married, I would like reciprocate her feelings for me and vice versa without explicit communication.

 

[Cappa]

Sorry, I don't think you quite got my message. I agree that sex should be consensual. No question there.

My dilemma is why it's even a consideration in a marital setting given that it means a devotion to your significant other.

Maybe Canadians aren't clear of the definition of marriage. Thoughts?

 

[clu]

Gee, it may be time for me to start looking for another hobby. It's bad enough that under Bill C-36, I am now considered a criminal for purchasing sex from an SP, but I didn't know that I also had to get consent from the SP to having sex before the act actually takes place, and then, ... heaven forbid, I have to get 'affirmative and ongoing consent during the sexual activity'. ......

In this context it is saying that consenting once does not imply consent is irrevocably given for life. It is not saying you need to ask "are you still ok with this?" every three seconds during the act once you've got consent. It is saying that if you get consent and then try something she doesn't want or continue if she falls unconscious, that's a problem.

The tea analogy that's been circulating is rather effective at demystifying this:

If you’re still struggling, just imagine instead of initiating sex, you’re making them a cup of tea.

You say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they go “omg fuck yes, I would fucking LOVE a cup of tea! Thank you!*” then you know they want a cup of tea.

If you say “hey, would you like a cup of tea?” and they um and ahh and say, “I’m not really sure…” then you can make them a cup of tea or not, but be aware that they might not drink it, and if they don’t drink it then – this is the important bit – don’t make them drink it. You can’t blame them for you going to the effort of making the tea on the off-chance they wanted it; you just have to deal with them not drinking it. Just because you made it doesn’t mean you are entitled to watch them drink it.

If they say “No thank you” then don’t make them tea. At all. Don’t make them tea, don’t make them drink tea, don’t get annoyed at them for not wanting tea. They just don’t want tea, ok?

They might say “Yes please, that’s kind of you” and then when the tea arrives they actually don’t want the tea at all. Sure, that’s kind of annoying as you’ve gone to the effort of making the tea, but they remain under no obligation to drink the tea. They did want tea, now they don’t. Sometimes people change their mind in the time it takes to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk. And it’s ok for people to change their mind, and you are still not entitled to watch them drink it even though you went to the trouble of making it.

If they are unconscious, don’t make them tea. Unconscious people don’t want tea and can’t answer the question “do you want tea” because they are unconscious.

Ok, maybe they were conscious when you asked them if they wanted tea, and they said yes, but in the time it took you to boil that kettle, brew the tea and add the milk they are now unconscious. You should just put the tea down, make sure the unconscious person is safe, and – this is the important bit – don’t make them drink the tea. They said yes then, sure, but unconscious people don’t want tea.

If someone said yes to tea, started drinking it, and then passed out before they’d finished it, don’t keep on pouring it down their throat. Take the tea away and make sure they are safe. Because unconscious people don’t want tea. Trust me on this.

If someone said “yes” to tea around your house last saturday, that doesn’t mean that they want you to make them tea all the time. They don’t want you to come around unexpectedly to their place and make them tea and force them to drink it going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST WEEK”, or to wake up to find you pouring tea down their throat going “BUT YOU WANTED TEA LAST NIGHT”.

from http://rockstardinosaurpirateprincess.com/2015/03/02/consent-not-actually-that-complicated/

If you make the tea and give it to the person, you don't have to keep asking "are you sure you want tea?" as they continue to drink it, but you also don't get to insist they finish it (or drink coffee too) if she puts down the cup only half empty.

 

[clu]

Sorry, I don't think you quite got my message. I agree that sex should be consensual. No question there.

My dilemma is why it's even a consideration in a marital setting given that it means a devotion to your significant other.

Maybe Canadians aren't clear of the definition of marriage. Thoughts?

Devotion to your significant other should include consideration that your SO may not be wanting to engage in sex for whatever reason and respecting their choice. The notion of wifely duty treats the wife more as property than an equal. And while that may be the true definition of "traditional" marriage it does not meet the standards of modern society.

 

[apl16]

That is terrible. Sex should always be by consent. Many women are scared to say "NO" to their partner due to cultural/religious sense of duty or outright fear. Anyone that would take advantage of this is a complete fuckup.

 

[johnsmit]

the problem is that in so many relationship .sex is used by either partner.. Yes the guy want sex... and depending on how dependent the women is on the guy for financiaL support or living accomodstion .there is a perception by her and an expectation by him that he is entitled. . It wrong of course..But never the less so often sex is taken by threats of .. kicking them out .. not paying for their phone.or taking it away.. and constant arguments or complaints about any thing..
Some women think this is normal ..that's how they see others treated and saw it that way in their own family . It a sad comment of men and there manipulative ways..

But then women are guilty of the same.. they use the giving and with holdING of sex as power over men to get things they want .....so if guys get the wrong idea some time it is understandable ...but we as men still have to realize what is right behavior in any relationship with women

Living with some one .. marriage and commitment . Loving and caring for our partner .none of those things make sex aj entiltlement. Nor should it be the sole reason for any one actions in tgat relationship .Everyone and all time are individuals. ..not some one property..and should be treated with equal respect for their wishes...Coursion and treats should never be tolerated or used to get sex..because you actually are raping the person if it was no freely given consent and desire.

 

[sybian]

When two people get married, no matter from what culture , race, or belief system they derive their genetics from, nobody would agree to give up their respective self worth, or their humanity.

 

[alcxd]

I've been married a few times now.
First time we were too young.
Second time long distance working does not always work, especially when one is not in the "mood".
Currently I've been married 25 years & I've seen the consent thing go both ways.
When first married it, hard to say, was too much. But I had a hard time saying no, hey I'm a guy.
Over the years the role has now become reverse, to a point where I basically wait to see if she is in the mood & or makes the first move ��. Hey don't get me wrong, we are still a, how to word it, great couple & enjoy our time together, it's our sexual drive / energy that has changed.
Hence my involvement with perb & the great ladies on here. With an SP I guess consent may be taken for granted, but when u show up at their .... They still can say no & send u on your way. Or invite u in, but for either party, NO is always an option. Just my two cents.
Cheers

 

[Cappa]

Devotion to your significant other should include consideration that your SO may not be wanting to engage in sex for whatever reason and respecting their choice. The notion of wifely duty treats the wife more as property than an equal. And while that may be the true definition of "traditional" marriage it does not meet the standards of modern society.

I hate to admit, but I am stuck on the traditional values of marriage and therein lies my argument. It's sad though because the values are trivialized. I now understand why the modern married man needs to seek escape (I was taught men that cheat on their wives are despicable people).

 

[Fullhouse]

....... It is not saying you need to ask "are you still ok with this?" every three seconds during the act once you've got consent. It is saying that if you get consent and then try something she doesn't want or continue if she falls unconscious, that's a problem.........

Well Mr. Clu, I am only interpreting with my limited mental capacity of what I read, which is : " In this country, consent is defined as both affirmative and ongoing during sexual activity..."
To me "during sexual activity" means --- 'while having sex',--- but probably doesn't include activities such as a hand job under the table at a fancy restaurant, while she's slowly sipping on a delicate wine...................But what 'de hell do I know, I don't have a clue,..... not like you, Mr. Clu.

And what's with the : "if she falls unconscious" bit ??? ..... Trust me, I don't have any equipment that would render her unconscious.
Mind you, I've had a few ladies that pretend to be unconscious, and awaken only about 5 minutes before 'time is up', or they hear the sound of a few extra dollar bills being rubbed together as a 'snap out of it' inducement.....Amazing how quickly the eyes open - - - it works every time.......

 

[huggzy]

I hate to admit, but I am stuck on the traditional values of marriage and therein lies my argument. It's sad though because the values are trivialized. I now understand why the modern married man needs to seek escape (I was taught men that cheat on their wives are despicable people).

Seriously dude. Give your head a shake. If your wife doesn't want to have sex with you...whether it be at that moment, that hour, later that day, week, month, year or ever - she does not have to have sex with you and you are not entitled to impose your will upon her.

Expectations of sex within a marriage is one thing - if you expect that your wife must make herself available at your beck and call whenever you want if she marries you then I hope that you have made these expectations quite clear before getting in to your relationship. But that said - if she decides at any point she can't or won't live up to that expectation in part or in its entirety she has every right to change her mind.

If she doesn't put out like you wanted, hoped, expected - you have every right to walk away, dissolve your marriage and go find someone else who will. If you're that bothered because you think you were somehow wronged by your partner because your expectations weren't met and she isn't living up to the vows of your "traditional" marriage contract then make sure you let the judge know during the divorce proceedings. But to think that "traditional values" somehow allows you to just impose yourself upon your partner in any way, shape and form is delusional and is part of the problem that studies like this outline.

I find it hard to believe that people in this day and age still don't grasp this concept. Your wife is not your chattel.

 

[escapefromstress]

Seriously dude. Give your head a shake. If your wife doesn't want to have sex with you...whether it be at that moment, that hour, later that day, week, month, year or ever - she does not have to have sex with you and you are not entitled to impose your will upon her.

I attended a very traditional Christian church for 25+ years. They taught that husband and wife had a 'right' to each other's bodies and that wives were not to refuse their husbands. I endured years of marital rape because I didn't think I had the right to say no, and he thought he had the right to take what he wanted against my will.

 

[Cappa]

Seriously dude. Give your head a shake. If your wife doesn't want to have sex with you...whether it be at that moment, that hour, later that day, week, month, year or ever - she does not have to have sex with you and you are not entitled to impose your will upon her.

I find it hard to believe that people in this day and age still don't grasp this concept. Your wife is not your chattel.

Seriously dude, I shouldn't have to repeat this but I believe that sex must always be consensual whether it's with your wife or a SP you paid money to see. If the other party does not want it, then nothing happens- period. I understand this concept.

I even conceded to clu that my argument does not hold true anymore. Stop using me as a strawman to get your point across.

 

[Tugela]

I think what a lot of us are struggling to articulate is that we expect sex to be a part of our marriages. Sex is a wonderful and healthy part of couples being happy and healthy. But just because I expect sex to be a part of my marriage does not mean I expect or deserve sex when I want it and as much as I want it. I need consent... Each time. Hell I need her to be boiling the kettle to refer to a previous analogy in order to really feel fullfilled.

Here's the flip side, I'm not going to say sex has to be a part of a marriage but intimacy certainly does; often the two go hand in hand. So I think it's fair that if either side doesn't think they're getting the intimacy they need, that they both work to change that; be it talking, brining back date nights, seeing a counsellor, whatever.

My wife can go for months without feeling profoundly "in the mood." When she does it tends to be at 1am on a work night after I've already fallen asleep. I don't particularly want sex but I can consent to it because I love her, want her to feel fullfilled, and want to encourage her to be in the mood more often.

My two cents anyways. And now you all know my reason for participating in this hobby, helps to let off steam every so often.

It is reasonable to expect sex in a marriage. But if it is not freely given, it is unreasonable to simply take it or to coerce it emotionally or through some other threat. Then it is rape, no ifs or buts. If a marriage is sexless, and one party still wants sex while the other doesn't, the correct course of action is to either (a) end the marriage, or (b) come to an agreement where such needs can be met through a third party, or (c) abstain in deference to the other. There are no other honorable courses of action.

 

[escapefromstress]

Editorial: The Supreme Court adds to our understanding of what consent means

MONTREAL GAZETTE EDITORIAL BOARD
Published on: May 25, 2015
Last Updated: May 25, 2015 2:35 PM EDT

The issue of sexual consent — how to define it, teach it, communicate it — remains in the news after several high-profile scandals, from the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons after she was tormented with images of two boys having sex with her while she was drunk to reports of rampant sexual misconduct in the military. On campuses across North America, there have been campaigns to make students better aware of what constitutes consent — and what does not. On social media, the hashtag #BeenRapedNeverReported has shone a light on the tragic ubiquity of sexual abuse.

Into this context dropped a particularly instructive decision from the Supreme Court of Canada on Friday. It should serve as a reminder both in the law courts and society at large that even when consent may appear to exist, the circumstances may be such that it is not being freely given, and is thus invalid.

The case concerned two Alberta men who were charged with making child pornography with two 14-year-old girls. The men offered up the “private-use exception” as a defence — which allows such material to be considered legal under very narrow circumstances. Those criteria include that the content be the product of “lawful” sexual activity and that the recordings be for private use only.

The trial judge acquitted the men after determining that the two teens had consented to the videotaped encounters with each other and with the men. Another mitigating factor was that at the time the charges were laid the age of consent in Canada was 14. (It has since been raised to 16.)

The acquittals were overturned on appeal, but the case made its way to the top court. And on Friday, the Supreme Court ordered a new trial for the men, ruling that the trial judge failed to properly weigh whether the sexual activity constituted exploitation — which would have made it unlawful and therefore nullified the private-use defence.

The case essentially turns on the definition of sexual exploitation. The legal test for determining whether a minor is a victim or a consenting party involves: the age of the young person; the age difference between the youth and the adult; the evolution of the relationship; and the degree of influence or authority exerted by the alleged perpetrator. In this case, the teen girls were runaways with a history of drug addiction, homelessness and family issues, and one had a history of prostitution. They took shelter in the domicile of a 60-year-old drug dealer who was often visited by his 41-year-old friend.

The Supreme Court found that the lower court took too narrow a view of consent: “The trial judge failed to consider the extent to which the appellants ― two older men ― may have exercised control over two vulnerable, deeply troubled and runaway girls” who were dependent on one of the men for shelter and drugs.

“The trial judge’s analysis focused primarily on the voluntariness of particular activities, instead of on the nature of the relationship between the parties. While the voluntariness of sexual activities is an important aspect of lawfulness, it does not end the inquiry,” the decision found.

The Supreme Court ruling adds to our understanding of consent, and is an important affirmation that consent can be nullified under certain circumstances, such as exploitation.

http://montrealgazette.com/opinion/editorials/editorial-the-supreme-court-adds-to-our-understanding-of-what-consent-means