Follow us on social media! Twitter - @staffsunion Instagram - @staffsunion Facebook - Staffordshire University Students Union Tiktok - @staffsunion www.staffsunion.com
ye, yes is not an yes. so someone can say yes to make someone comfortable without actually wanting to. that's stupid. say no if your not interested. youre only adding to the hurt by saying yes and then no
i suspect you were distracted by something/someone else around 1:20 and i respectfully suggest you rewatch that bit of the video and fully engage with it
I just saw this video in a therapy group this week. Excellent points to bring up which while missing from the "tea" video were also discussed in the group. Also, something to remember is that the statutory age of consent is not static from place to place. Some may have it set for 16, while others may be set at 18, and some may have different standards if both parties are under a certain age but within reason of each other's age. Still another consideration is that if both parties are "FRIES" you need to think of what the "Package" is. Ie, what environment are they in? School? Employment? Church? Sports team? If any person is in a position of authority over another person with whom they are having a otherwise FRIES relationship with, there are still ethical boundaries that could cause the relationship to be non-consentual for the subordinate even if they would be outside of the "box" their FRIES came in. But that was discussed in the group as well. Thank you for putting this together, very well done.
Re-writing tea.. If you offer someone tea, and they say yes, make them tea. If you offer someone tea, and they say no, do not make them tea. Please note that some will say yes out of fear that they’ll miss out, or get scolded. If someone says I don’t know, you can make them tea or not. Please note that if you make tea, they might not drink it. Do not force someone to have tea. Consent is EVERYTHING. There is caffeine in tea, so anyone under the age 18 cannot have tea. If someone is under the influence of drugs, they are not in a good state to have tea. If someone has a disability,they are not in the state to have tea. Do not add ice cubes in tea to only take them out later. No one is your slave. Do not make others drink tea.
As a person who was coerced and a minor, and with a friend who was under the influence and a minor, I took the “yes is consent” as “when it’s given genuinely, without pressure, convincing, and by someone in a state of mental stability and rationality, then it is consent”, and the “unconscious” person as anyone mentally unstable or irrational, anyone under the influence, anyone too young, anyone physically disabled, anyone sleeping, anyone trading sex in exchange for being pulled out of an unfortunate situation (someone abducted, broke, homeless, stalked, etc), and of course anyone who is unconscious
"[A]nyone physically disabled," Physically disabled people often do want sex but FRIES needs to be adhered to. Even mentally disabled people can have sex and should not be restricted from what they genuinely want. Otherwise that would be infantilizing every kind of disabled adults. We are not children.
I have a lot of respect for this video, I am glad it exists. I made a similar video once for Brighton Council Child Protection Services as a personal narrative of a parent of a disabled child with mental health issues to teach staff a personal story to give an example of when services can go wrong. I happen to also studied for a PhD researching trauma, and the phenomenological experiences that can go with it. But I needed this video, as years later I was then on the receiving end of a psychologically manipulative hate crime, and two years down the road my body still (for example) bucks out when i meditate and other trauma I still carry in my body. I needed this video today because I already knew the rules and needed reminding on a bad day that they still exist. This video is very good at explaining simply what I can guarantee is spot on. Much respect to the confidence of the woman who presents this.
I'm going to nod, and say, "yeah, maybe someone will say "its interesting that Staffordshire U-SU made this eloquent and informative media", as opposed to Sussex, but, I am not that crass, (haaaah, ok, I am that crass), however, I can see this being made by people in Hereford/Worcestershire as well, the basic message remains the same. Anyhow, I hope you recover from that.
Consent- it's not easy as Consent - it's not easy as tea You and the original video talked about the problems by the point of view of who has to decide but not who propose.
So, one note on the topic of drugs and alcohol: To me, the waters get really muddy when both participants are so intoxicated that they do not have the capacity to consent, but both of them appear to want it during the act. Would one person be justified in accusing the other of assault in that situation? I am deliberately not specifying genders, because not all intercourse happens between people on opposite, binary sides of the gender spectrum and you do not need to be male to be a perpetrator, nor do you need to be female to be a victim. It's just a very specific hypothetical that my neurodivergent brain is curious about.
Consider. If one party were to accuse the other of assault, they could argue innocence by virtue of incapacitation. At least, in the US. Basically, if you are not capable of making rational decisions due to mental health or substance influence, then you are innocent. It's the same principle that underlies being incapable of consent: you are not capable of making rational decisions while intoxicated.
@@FractalFeline ah, that is very different here. A severe impairment like psychosis might exonorate someone, but if someone commits a crime after taking alcohol or other substances, that can actually increase your punishment, because you chose to drink or take drugs. But our legal system is pretty good at recognizing nuance in cases like my hypothetical.
I'm not sure how accurate a reflection of US law this is. If someone kills someone after getting in a vehicle drunk, they are still charged and punished for this behavior (i.e., they're not innocent). It doesn't matter that you were drunk and not capable of making rational decisions, you still killed someone. It may not be murder (i.e., intention + responsibility), but at least in the driving drunk case, someone would still be responsible for the harm perpetrated while under the influence of drugs/alcohol (i.e., negligent manslaughter (responsibility - intention). Not sure how much this type of reasoning plays out in sexual assault cases in the actual judicial system, but at the very least, we don't give people free passes just because they were intoxicated.
Is consent enough? I mean, the tea video is good and covers important stuff, but what I think a lot of the discussion about consent misses, including this video, is that mere 'consent' just seems like too low a bar to be aiming for. To my ear, 'consent' is broad enough to include 'oh, go on then" and the like. I think about when else we talk about consent, and medical procedures come to mind. "Yes, I give consent to undergo this procedure, but man I wish I didn't have to go through with it". I feel like when teaching about consent we should be telling people consent is just a step along the path - what you should really be looking for is *enthusiasm*.
Yeah, when things go right for us we assume that it's of our making. My thought out, deliberate actions and the correct assessment of others keeps me from making mistakes. But yet, when you think about it, you're just a fraction from disaster the same as anyone else.
Great video to complete the message from the popular tea consent video! Interesting how we can coherently apply all the same arguments to see how problematic our governments are: they coerce, they expect consent given once (e.g. at an election) to be valid for years, etc. Real democracy means being free from coercion and able to retract our consent at any time!💚
I think this is better than the "healthy boundary pushing versus toxic boundary pushing" video I just saw. But it has similar limitations and I have concerns because the final section of affirming bodily autonomy puts the onus back on saying no rather than responsible caution of anyone pushing for sex or making other requests to make good requests. Disabled adults must have their capacity to consent to sex and relationships supported and respected. Balanced affirmation is required there, as well as saying you can't always tell for example who is autistic or dealing with selective mutism, trauma, anxiety or extreme rejection sensitivity. So non categorical and responsible sensitivity is required to find out enough about people to know. Also there's nuances to enthusiasm and fresh consent - some kinds of say solicitous touching might be ok with an established partner whilst not with a member of the public in the street and the law I think has room for that nuance though it should always be revokable. Similarly whilst enthusiasm is a good rule of thumb, especially the less intimacy and trust there is developed, it can be missing whilst there is true consent say during attempts to get pregnant or say an asexual or lower libido partner may consent but not want to call it enthusiastic. I liked the Robot Hugs webcomic. Though despite all that pro-consent and sex positive attitude I'm not sure that some requests like for nude photos can ever be made in good faith. I think they're always more risky red flags than risqué without judgment or blame. Risk management is an important part of the process.It's essentially a sensitive high risk act, required ongoing feedback, trust and consent, with potentially big payoffs: like gymnastics, circus skills, cheerleading, dance and figure skating holds and tumbling.
Consent is the absence of the violation of trust. Anyone's trust. It's not about yes or no, but about the expectations you create and live up to, or not. So be aware of the messages you send out into the world around you. Your mask and attitude may very well be making promises you never intended to keep.
I see how the point about disabled people not being able to fully express consent might be awfully misread (especially with the "deaf" icon used here) and and lead to gatekeeping and discrimination. Even in case of neurodivergent and mentally or intellectuallly disabled people it is a very nuanced theme that deserves a thoughtful analysis on its own.
The thing I noticed in the tea video was them saying you can make a cup of tea and leave it out for them......what does that mean in relation to consent?
It essentially means that even if you might expect consent - it is not consent. E.g. if you invite someone to come to your house, they agree, they agree to come with you to the kitchen and you start to prepare the tea, they still might decide no to tea and you don't have consent until they agree to the tea. Equally, someone can show you they are interested in tea because they consentingly send you pictures of their teabags. They might even ask to see your teaspoon. However, they then decide that they actually don't want the tea. There is no assumed consent to have tea because of other actions that might lead up to drinking tea.
On the flip side of the reversible nature of consent, you can't withdraw consent after the act you consented to is completed. This should be obvious, but it doesn't stop it from happening, or from being valid in court.
But that's the whole thing of it can be taken away and it can be withdrawn, if I was kinda there but then no longer there guess what? My consent has been revoked and the action stops, that's how it's reversible.
So if a wife is bending over loading the dishwasher and her husband walking by gives her a playful slap on the behind without asking her first, is that sexual assault? (Assume she has never called him out for it before, but perhaps it is a new marriage and he has never done it before.) I think even she would agree that him stopping and asking "Is it OK if I give you a gentle tap on the butt?" beforehand is probably _even creepier_ than just doing it in that case, and not very romantic. (Anticipating the "He should..." responses: Of course he should _consider_ how she might feel about it, but that doesn't mean he is an expert mind-reader, especially since her feelings may change from hour to hour.) Oh yeah and now reverse the genders and see if you come up with the same answer!
Good video, but again here the responsibility is put upon the person saying "yes". The point of the tea video is teaching about the person _serving_ the tea, and how to properly act as "host". Maybe FRIES need to be offered along with the tea.
Except if you coerce someone into saying "yes" or that person is incapacitated while saying "yes" or that person is not fully informed about what they are saying "yes" to, then it's not consent.
I was coherced into sex by my first girlfriend. We were both 12. I did say 'yes', but it was a weary, 'fine whatever just get it over with' sort of yes. She had asked me about 100 times to do sexual stuff, she wore me down. It wasn't her fault as she had been abused and thought this was normal, and she probably didn't realise what she was doing was psychologically wearing me down, but no she didn't 'tie me up' but it was just as damaging because I felt like I had no choice, if I didn't do it she would be mad or leave me and I liked her.
Christ, a lot of these issues would be resolved if people weren't so promiscuous, stupid and indulging enough to get batshit drunk to pass out or to be so drunk to barely be able to understand each other to begin with.
you are part of the problem, re-evaluate your stance regarding what you think of as an "acceptable level of xxxxx" with promiscuety as the xxxx in this case, from my, and many others viewpoint, you are trying to absolve things like rape due to "oh, we were drunk" when, actually, its rape; "stupid" its still rape. "induging" "hi, rape again". "whatever other bullshit excuse you dream up" is, irl, not an excuse to take advantage of, and use, another person for sexual, or otherwise, gratification. if you disagree, its actually not my problem, but it is a problem for anyone around you. what steps they decide to take, may be Your problem.
@@staberind Doesn't matter if it's an excuse or not, it's gonna happen more frequently because people are horny, people abuse power and drunkeness makes you weaker and lowers both sides ability to take decisive action and know what they are doing.
@@ActionableFreedom more frequently than when? the history of homo sapiens sapiens is the history of nonconsentual sex. its also nott a "both sides" thing, its an agressor and a victim thing, you are trying to shift the onus of responsibility from one party to the other, thats kind of deplorable, I'd step back from this and do a little introspection.
@@staberind Stop assuming things about me I only see the world around me. Don't dress as a whore and you won't be seen as easily approachable nor will you ellicit the same urges from aggressive men. Don't get batshit drunk and you'll be able to fight off the criminal better and the potential criminal should get less drunk as well so as insane decisiosn as to rape someone. Stop being part of a culture that glorifies sluts or for men "players", stop looking for one night stands that then disappoint and turn into morning-was-I-or-wasnt-rapes. I do none of these things, I'm extremely apprehensive about who I have and dont have sex with or intimate contact overall and have tried to influence my peers of both directions to no avail. I've also been approached by pushy women trying to screw me and not taking a no as an answer. It's not the end of the world even though it was uncomfortable. But the difference is you're weaker and Im stronger, so you need to adapt different strategies for the 1-5% of men that will go that extra mile to forcethemselves on you given the situation and % of alcohol. If not suffer the consequences, no matter how "little" they are justified.
Oh well, but if you don’t have sex before marriage, you kind of cannot even hypothetically come to the point where consent almost has to be certified in writing…
Ohhh..... but what if the opinions of the followers of weird modern cults don't actually change the fact that your esoteric view, among many other esoteric viewpoints, of the present status of "marriage"* is absoutely meaningless? *subject to change, like the rest of reality.
