In thinking about how we can empower women – and really, all people – to feel confident in their gender identities and relationships with one another, it’s critical to look at something that we often hear about in the media, but don’t necessarily talk about: sexual assault.
This was brought to my attention in a recent philosophy class. Sexual assault, and sexuality in general, can be a difficult and uncomfortable topic, but becomes even more so when we lack the language and space for productive conversations. It was pretty cool, difficult, and enlightening to discuss the topic as a class of 20-ish year-olds – some of whom had actually seen forms of assault, but never had the opportunity to share with a group.
Not everyone has the opportunity to discuss sexual assault in a philosophy class, or to have a professor who is eager to initiate such a conversation – or to even be taught by college professors. While college campuses receive regular media attention for sexual assault cases, the demographic most vulnerable to sexual assault is actually women who have never attended college, ages 18-24, according to the RAINN organization.
Our campuses, departments, and professors should be utilizing the classroom as a tool to facilitate conversations about sexual assault and healthy relationships. Beginning these conversations requires analyzing the frameworks under which we identify sexual assault, and how we define consent. Recent attention has been paid toward “Yes! Means Yes!” consent policies, in contrast to the traditional “No! Means No!” model. Although these differences in language might be trivial to some, they are critical for clarifying and strengthening both the discussions and actual convictions of sexual assault.
The idea behind affirmative consent policies, a.k.a. “Yes! Means Yes!”, is to provide a clearer, more unambiguous framework for consent. According to Inside Higher Ed, on California campuses, “consent is no longer a matter of not struggling or not saying no. If the student initiating the sexual encounter doesn’t receive an enthusiastic “yes,” either verbally or physically, then there is no consent. If the student is incapacitated due to drugs or alcohol, there is no consent.” Other campuses have gradually started to implement similar policies, elevating affirmative consent as the most relevant and applicable framework for identifying sexual assault.
Relationships are a fundamental part of college, of being human, and of being a woman in 2018. While each day presents an opportunity to reflect on this reality, International Women’s Day 2018 is an especially poignant day to consider the impact of sexual assault on women. Rarely do we reflect on the subtle insults, misconceptions, or assumptions that perpetuate our hazy conception of consent. But these missteps manifest in our language; our language reflects our culture, and our culture (and legislation) will not change unless our language reflects a perspectival shift on consensual sex. By granting legislative power to the word “no,” potential victims are forced to progress to a stage where they feel their autonomy is threatened before sexual assault can be legally recognized. An affirmative consent policy, in contrast, recognizes the autonomy of both partners to initiate further action, and to mutually recognize their ability to do so.