Ok, confession time. I consider myself reasonably well informed about the issue and yet still struggle with and don’t fully understand some of the concepts of consent. This article with its vague...
Ok, confession time. I consider myself reasonably well informed about the issue and yet still struggle with and don’t fully understand some of the concepts of consent. This article with its vague and absolutist statements doesn’t help either, especially if the goal of it was to educate. E.g.
Peckham added that there’s also a misconception that consent is only needed for penetrative sex — but it actually applies to any case when you are touching someone’s body.
”Each new encounter requires expressed consent by both parties, and can be withdrawn at any time,” she explained.
I understand most of this, that consent is required for more than just penetrative sex and that consent can be withdrawn at any point... However, IMO those are not the issues that the vast majority of people, myself included, find confusing and hard to understand. What it all really boils down to is, what constitutes expressed consent, especially in regards to flirting in social settings and what constitutes withdrawal of said consent?
Are body language, situational context and nonverbal cues considered expressed consent to touch someone? I would certainly hope so because requiring expressed verbal consent for every instance of physical contact is patently absurd. Dating, flirting and even non-amorous social situations are already awkward and difficult enough to navigate without having to ask for verbal confirmation of consent before engaging in physical contact every single time. And yet I have heard on multiple occasions “experts” express that verbal consent is always required before any physical contact can occur. So what is the litmus test here?
Now, I understand there are many people out there who are terrible at reading nonverbal cues and taking into consideration situational context.
E.g. Bosses who don’t understand power dynamics at work making it always inappropriate to engage in flirtatious behaviour, both verbal and physical, with their employees and that even verbal consent from said employee may not be enough to determine consent because of potential duress issues.
However the whole issue of consent, even in equal power dynamic situations, taking place in social settings where context dictates flirting is appropriate, still feels like a minefield these days with very a nebulous, unclear and poorly defined (often contradictory) set of rules for consent... even for people that understand power dynamics and wish to respect other people’s boundaries, rights and have attempted to take the time to understand consent.
Add alcohol, drugs or other external cognitive impairing factors into the mix, so now not only do you need to understand consent fully but also have to be able to determine if said person you’re physically engaging with is considered of sound mind enough they can actually give consent even when they express it verbally and it’s no wonder only 28% of people feel they understand it.
Honestly, it’s starting to feel like at some point all physical contact (platonic and sexual) is going to require physical contracts, signed by both parties in the presence of a public notary with independent doctor verification of sound body and mind beforehand. I joke... but to some people it probably does feel like that already.
It's simple. Don't touch people unless they say you can touch them. If people aren't interested, don't keep pushing them on it. If someone is drunk and you aren't, don't touch them. I'm not a...
It's simple. Don't touch people unless they say you can touch them. If people aren't interested, don't keep pushing them on it. If someone is drunk and you aren't, don't touch them.
I'm not a touchy sort of person. In my line of work, I've had a lot of touchy feely kids who want to give hugs and stuff. It's a boundary and expectation I have to set, to ask first.
Honestly, verbal confirmation is hot as hell. That shows that a person respects me enough to care what I want done with my own body.
It's really not. Many, many situations may require you to touch someone platonically. Each requires express verbal consent? Even sexual contact... you didn't answer one of my primary questions,...
It's simple. Don't touch people unless they say you can touch them.
It's really not. Many, many situations may require you to touch someone platonically. Each requires express verbal consent? Even sexual contact... you didn't answer one of my primary questions, what constitutes withdrawal of said consent? Because in a few already tried cases, where no verbal or reasonably outward expression of withdrawal of consent was given to the other party (after verbal consent was initially given), have been decided in favor of the accuser. So does sexual contact require continually asking for consent?
If someone is drunk and you aren't, don't touch them.
And if both parties are equally so? Most rape statutes are incredibly vague about consent if both parties are drunk especially those used by disciplinary boards on College/University campuses.
IMO, you're greatly oversimplifying the issue and the real world implications and consequences of the complex issues related to consent are already showing to have far reaching, potentially detrimental consequences as result of oversimplification.
E.g. Students engaging in verbally consented sexual contact, initiated while both parties were inebriated, where no verbal or reasonably outward expression of withdrawal of consent was given during said contact, and yet when one party came to reassess the situation upon sobering up and lodging complaint, the other Student was expelled.
Anytime there's a discussion about consent, drinking seems to always come up. My 2 cents, a drunken intention is still an intention. If both people are drunk and want to have sex, they can both...
Anytime there's a discussion about consent, drinking seems to always come up. My 2 cents, a drunken intention is still an intention. If both people are drunk and want to have sex, they can both consent. Consent has to be given throughout the act, so the moment someone starts passing out for example, consent can no longer be given. The other party has to stop.
There is no need for an "outward expression of withdrawal of consent", though there can be. Consent must be actively given.
I would say passing out is an outward expression of withdrawal of consent, even if it may be involuntary. However that is not really the issue. Many College/University disciplinary review boards...
I would say passing out is an outward expression of withdrawal of consent, even if it may be involuntary. However that is not really the issue. Many College/University disciplinary review boards are often treating accusations of sexual misconduct, even when there was no apparent outward expression of withdrawal of consent (including passing out), as enough evidence of sexual misconduct to expel students.
That is a problem and something the #metoo movement (which I fully support) is also making worse and not taking the time to address. A single accusation being treated as enough evidence to destroy someone's career is problematic. Multiple accusations is entirely different and adds significant merit to them. However a single one being enough to destroy someone's career, life and reputation is dangerous. This is especially true for teachers. Here in Ontario, Canada the number of male teachers currently employed in our public school system has dropped significantly over the last five years because of that. The mere mention of potential sexual misconduct is enough to get a teacher fired and men are getting increasingly wary of seeking employment in that field as result. Why put 5 years into getting your Masters when all it takes is one vindictive student to end your entire career?
And again, to be clear, I think most people understand consent at an intuitive level, however our implementation of it at a policy/legal level is problematic right now and overly simplistic opinions in articles like this certainly aren't helping. That is likely why only 28% of people think they understand consent... because at a policy/legal framework level it's a bloody inconsistent and poorly defined mess.
I do think there are issues right now, but I think I'm actually on the other side on this one. Reporting rates for sexual assault and rape are low, and convictions rights even lower. And of cases...
I do think there are issues right now, but I think I'm actually on the other side on this one. Reporting rates for sexual assault and rape are low, and convictions rights even lower. And of cases that find convictions, sentences are usually laughably light, almost never more than 2 years.
Maybe there is an issue with how we view sex offenders (or those accused), but that's a separate topic from consent.
I don't know how much I buy this argument's causal element. The proportion of male teachers in the US school systems has also dived over time, and I can assure you it wasn't because of a vague...
This is especially true for teachers. Here in Ontario, Canada the number of male teachers currently employed in our public school system has dropped significantly over the last five years because of that. The mere mention of potential sexual misconduct is enough to get a teacher fired and men are getting increasingly wary of seeking employment in that field as result.
I don't know how much I buy this argument's causal element. The proportion of male teachers in the US school systems has also dived over time, and I can assure you it wasn't because of a vague fear that someone would accuse them of sexual harassment.
I see this sort of concern all the time being brought up as a ghost in this type of discussion. Yes, due process is important and yes, one accusation of wrong doing is fairly write-off-able (even in today's #metoo moment, if you can believe it. You might also ask Dan Rather). I don't think you'll find even many women disagreeing with those stands, but the idea that men have so much more to fear now because they might be falsely accused and treated as guilty of sexual harassment is a little horseshit.
Let me be clear on this: One accusation of conduct like grabbing a boob without consent (hello, Al Franken) or not caring all that much about whether your partner is interested in sex (hello, Aziz Ansari) isn't enough to blow up a career. It wasn't enough to blow up either of their careers, and it won't be enough to blow up some schmuck in a high school unless it involves one of the students (in which case, the claim has to go viral first before a school is going to throw anyone under the bus like that).
It is, and has always been, habitual misconduct that gets people in trouble. Al Franken wasn't pressured to resign from one saucy night horribly treating a woman on the same trip. There were several different serious allegations that had documented merit corroborating the idea that he was a serial abuser of women.
This fear is a boogeyman that scares men because they see guys around them being held accountable for probably being assholes. We have a huge, long-standing problem in this society with how we treat women, and it's likely that if you were a professional man in the 1960s and still are working for some reason, you've come through some pretty drastic changes to workplace expectations regarding how you should be treating women. Where first you might have been hazed for treating a women fairly, now you might lose your job for dropping your pants and asking her if she likes what she sees.
Really, you can assure me of something that the research says otherwise on? Interesting. New report looks at male teachers in primary-junior grades. - Link to study PDF Primary schools are losing...
and I can assure you it wasn't because of a vague fear that someone would accuse them of sexual harassment.
Really, you can assure me of something that the research says otherwise on? Interesting.
Like it or not abstract fears, even of the "boogeyman" of false allegations (which I would argue it is not anyways given how many false allegations have already resulted in life and career altering consequences already) have real world consequences (particularly in early childhood education) and our society is potentially suffering as a result.
So two things: First, when I "assured" you about the trends in US education, it wasn't to say Canada was necessarily exactly the same. It was to compare the two and to suggest alternative...
So two things: First, when I "assured" you about the trends in US education, it wasn't to say Canada was necessarily exactly the same. It was to compare the two and to suggest alternative pressures at play than fear of sexual misconduct accusations. Alternative pressures like the power of a teacher compared to the power of a parent (which has shifted dramatically in the past few decades), or the importance of expectations about male roles in an increasingly female-dominated industry (which your own research heavily sites as a contributing factor here).
I think it's pretty simple to point out that these expectations in the workplace (along with finances in the US case) probably have more to do with men leaving the field than vague fears of sexual misconduct accusations (though to be sure, the issues are not wholly separable).
Second, my response here is more about smacking down the perception that a single sexual harassment charge can upend a career. Of course people will see things how they do, but the fact is that research does not show that a single accusation of misconduct gets people thrown out of their jobs. In the US, teacher unions ensure that accusations go through an appropriate investigative process before a teacher can be fired (though they can be put on leave while that investigation happens). Other industries treat single accusations in their own ways (usually acting to dismiss after a cursory investigation shows it's hard to prove).
Do you happen to have any of those handy? Because anecdotally (just google "teachers false allegations") there sure does seem to be a fair few all over the world where that was the case.
but the fact is that research does not show that a single accusation of misconduct gets people thrown out of their jobs.
Do you happen to have any of those handy? Because anecdotally (just google "teachers false allegations") there sure does seem to be a fair few all over the world where that was the case.
It's hard to prove the could-have-beens. Every link I pulled up from googling "teachers false allegations" was about how rare it is that a teacher is punished for a false allegation, how every...
It's hard to prove the could-have-beens. Every link I pulled up from googling "teachers false allegations" was about how rare it is that a teacher is punished for a false allegation, how every accusation is investigated and should be treated seriously, and how teachers can take a few steps to mitigate risk but that sometimes a teacher who has been investigated and cleared resigns anyway after feeling they haven't been protected in the process.
So I'm not sure what boogeyman we're trying to be talking about here. Successful allegations that lead to criminal convictions are breathtakingly rare. In the UK, 11 (0.002% of the entire UK teaching population) convictions have been handed down. And while that is not a complete picture in how many cases resulted in any form of internal disciplinary action, it is a good indicator that the entire system realizes false accusations are the norm, but they must be investigated anyway.
what situations require you to touch someone platonically that a person would not expect to be touched in? If both parties are drunk, idk if they can be held responsible, as they were both...
what situations require you to touch someone platonically that a person would not expect to be touched in?
If both parties are drunk, idk if they can be held responsible, as they were both impaired, decisionally.
It's actually incredibly simple. I don't understand how people don't get it.
Well first off, what do you consider to be situations in which people expect to be touched; where do you draw the line on that? As for examples: In a work environment where you need to physically...
what situations require you to touch someone platonically that a person would not expect to be touched in?
Well first off, what do you consider to be situations in which people expect to be touched; where do you draw the line on that?
As for examples: In a work environment where you need to physically assist someone in completing a task (e.g. someone about to drop something). When attempting to pass someone who can't see you coming in a noisy public environment. When attempting to assess the condition of a physically incapacitated or injured person. When attempting to comfort someone after an accident or injury. In an emergency where they are potentially in imminent danger. Etc. Etc. Etc.
All of those require express verbal consent? How long does the consent last, does the person have to re-ask every single time they make physical contact even in a repetitive task?
And according to your "simple" rules, no flirtatious touching of any kind is allowed under any circumstances whatsoever without express verbal consent, regardless of non-verbal cues or situational context?
Do you seriously expect people to need to both ask and give consent to every single instance of non-platonic physical contact regardless of non-verbal cues or situational context? E.g. Every time someone wishes to hug their wife they need to ask for consent. So according to you no surprise or spontaneity is allowed under any circumstances ever if it involves physical contact?
And again you still haven't answered my question of what constitutes withdrawal of consent?
All of the situations you describe are places where yes, people would expect to be touched. One of them is a workplace expecting, the second is a harmless accident your can apologise for, and the...
All of the situations you describe are places where yes, people would expect to be touched. One of them is a workplace expecting, the second is a harmless accident your can apologise for, and the third is a medical emergency. However, even in a medical emergency, a conscious patient can refuse treatment.
This is all about learning people's boundaries, and knowing your own. There's a difference between your wife and some girl at a bar. I assume you talked to your wife a few times before marrying hey, and learned what she's comfortable with. You probably can't say the same for a stranger.
Actions change based on how well you know a person.
Look, I am not saying people can't intuitively understand consent. We both clearly do and I suspect are generally in agreement on most thing related to it, however intuitive understanding doesn't...
Look, I am not saying people can't intuitively understand consent. We both clearly do and I suspect are generally in agreement on most thing related to it, however intuitive understanding doesn't work when you need to codify law and policy, which is the point I am getting at and probably why only 28% of people think they understand consent.
Your simple rules (Don't touch people unless they say you can touch them. If people aren't interested, don't keep pushing them on it. If someone is drunk and you aren't, don't touch them.) may work at an intuitive level but not at an institutional policy one. For those you need to fully consider the nuance of the subject and use precise wording and consideration to account for all the potential pitfalls. Many of which I pointed out and you still haven't really addressed.
IMO, this is precisely why there are so many issues that come up and injustices that occur in relations to enforcement of said consent related policies. You say it's simple but the codifying and enforcement of those "simple" principals is anything but and has proven rather disastrous in many cases so far.
There's inconsistencies because there always will be. People are inconsistent beings, and we have legal systems that are biased. There's so much grey area that just don't have a good answer. and...
There's inconsistencies because there always will be. People are inconsistent beings, and we have legal systems that are biased.
There's so much grey area that just don't have a good answer. and probably never will. Mostly related to intoxication.
Exactly... so why do you keep saying things like "It's simple" and "I don't understand how people don't get it"? Do you not see how dismissive that is towards people struggling to understand the...
Exactly... so why do you keep saying things like "It's simple" and "I don't understand how people don't get it"?
Do you not see how dismissive that is towards people struggling to understand the complex issues involved in consent? Especially when you yourself admit there is a considerable grey area.
Because I literally don't understand it. Again, I don't drink, either. So it doesn't affect me. And I can understand that. How is it dismissive to say that I don't understand?
Because I literally don't understand it. Again, I don't drink, either. So it doesn't affect me. And I can understand that.
How is it dismissive to say that I don't understand?
a - Okay, so here are the very specific, nuanced problems I am having. Anyone care to help explain? b - "It's simple." Just follow these incredibly oversimplified rules. a - Okay, fine, thanks......
How is it dismissive to say that I don't understand?
a - Okay, so here are the very specific, nuanced problems I am having. Anyone care to help explain?
b - "It's simple." Just follow these incredibly oversimplified rules.
a - Okay, fine, thanks... but that doesn't address any of the specific problems I am having.
b - "It's actually incredibly simple. I don't understand how [you] don't get it."
Sorry, maybe that's what you meant but that is certainly not how it came off. None of which address any of the questions I specially asked in the comment you replied to. I literally just copied...
Sorry, maybe that's what you meant but that is certainly not how it came off.
It's simple. Don't touch people unless they say you can touch them. If people aren't interested, don't keep pushing them on it. If someone is drunk and you aren't, don't touch them.
None of which address any of the questions I specially asked in the comment you replied to.
It's actually incredibly simple. I don't understand how people don't get it.
I literally just copied your exact words there but since I am presumably included in "people" (since I struggle to understand something you see as being so "simple"), I changed it to [you] to illustrate my point.
I just want reply again and apologize if I offended you or came off as aggressive, by the way. So I'm sorry if I did upset you. That was not my intent. Honestly.
I just want reply again and apologize if I offended you or came off as aggressive, by the way. So I'm sorry if I did upset you. That was not my intent. Honestly.
Ok, confession time. I consider myself reasonably well informed about the issue and yet still struggle with and don’t fully understand some of the concepts of consent. This article with its vague and absolutist statements doesn’t help either, especially if the goal of it was to educate. E.g.
I understand most of this, that consent is required for more than just penetrative sex and that consent can be withdrawn at any point... However, IMO those are not the issues that the vast majority of people, myself included, find confusing and hard to understand. What it all really boils down to is, what constitutes expressed consent, especially in regards to flirting in social settings and what constitutes withdrawal of said consent?
Are body language, situational context and nonverbal cues considered expressed consent to touch someone? I would certainly hope so because requiring expressed verbal consent for every instance of physical contact is patently absurd. Dating, flirting and even non-amorous social situations are already awkward and difficult enough to navigate without having to ask for verbal confirmation of consent before engaging in physical contact every single time. And yet I have heard on multiple occasions “experts” express that verbal consent is always required before any physical contact can occur. So what is the litmus test here?
Now, I understand there are many people out there who are terrible at reading nonverbal cues and taking into consideration situational context.
E.g. Bosses who don’t understand power dynamics at work making it always inappropriate to engage in flirtatious behaviour, both verbal and physical, with their employees and that even verbal consent from said employee may not be enough to determine consent because of potential duress issues.
However the whole issue of consent, even in equal power dynamic situations, taking place in social settings where context dictates flirting is appropriate, still feels like a minefield these days with very a nebulous, unclear and poorly defined (often contradictory) set of rules for consent... even for people that understand power dynamics and wish to respect other people’s boundaries, rights and have attempted to take the time to understand consent.
Add alcohol, drugs or other external cognitive impairing factors into the mix, so now not only do you need to understand consent fully but also have to be able to determine if said person you’re physically engaging with is considered of sound mind enough they can actually give consent even when they express it verbally and it’s no wonder only 28% of people feel they understand it.
Honestly, it’s starting to feel like at some point all physical contact (platonic and sexual) is going to require physical contracts, signed by both parties in the presence of a public notary with independent doctor verification of sound body and mind beforehand. I joke... but to some people it probably does feel like that already.
It's simple. Don't touch people unless they say you can touch them. If people aren't interested, don't keep pushing them on it. If someone is drunk and you aren't, don't touch them.
I'm not a touchy sort of person. In my line of work, I've had a lot of touchy feely kids who want to give hugs and stuff. It's a boundary and expectation I have to set, to ask first.
Honestly, verbal confirmation is hot as hell. That shows that a person respects me enough to care what I want done with my own body.
Here's a good video on the subject. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZwvrxVavnQ
It's really not. Many, many situations may require you to touch someone platonically. Each requires express verbal consent? Even sexual contact... you didn't answer one of my primary questions, what constitutes withdrawal of said consent? Because in a few already tried cases, where no verbal or reasonably outward expression of withdrawal of consent was given to the other party (after verbal consent was initially given), have been decided in favor of the accuser. So does sexual contact require continually asking for consent?
And if both parties are equally so? Most rape statutes are incredibly vague about consent if both parties are drunk especially those used by disciplinary boards on College/University campuses.
IMO, you're greatly oversimplifying the issue and the real world implications and consequences of the complex issues related to consent are already showing to have far reaching, potentially detrimental consequences as result of oversimplification.
E.g. Students engaging in verbally consented sexual contact, initiated while both parties were inebriated, where no verbal or reasonably outward expression of withdrawal of consent was given during said contact, and yet when one party came to reassess the situation upon sobering up and lodging complaint, the other Student was expelled.
This is not so simple as you make it out to be.
Anytime there's a discussion about consent, drinking seems to always come up. My 2 cents, a drunken intention is still an intention. If both people are drunk and want to have sex, they can both consent. Consent has to be given throughout the act, so the moment someone starts passing out for example, consent can no longer be given. The other party has to stop.
There is no need for an "outward expression of withdrawal of consent", though there can be. Consent must be actively given.
I would say passing out is an outward expression of withdrawal of consent, even if it may be involuntary. However that is not really the issue. Many College/University disciplinary review boards are often treating accusations of sexual misconduct, even when there was no apparent outward expression of withdrawal of consent (including passing out), as enough evidence of sexual misconduct to expel students.
That is a problem and something the #metoo movement (which I fully support) is also making worse and not taking the time to address. A single accusation being treated as enough evidence to destroy someone's career is problematic. Multiple accusations is entirely different and adds significant merit to them. However a single one being enough to destroy someone's career, life and reputation is dangerous. This is especially true for teachers. Here in Ontario, Canada the number of male teachers currently employed in our public school system has dropped significantly over the last five years because of that. The mere mention of potential sexual misconduct is enough to get a teacher fired and men are getting increasingly wary of seeking employment in that field as result. Why put 5 years into getting your Masters when all it takes is one vindictive student to end your entire career?
And again, to be clear, I think most people understand consent at an intuitive level, however our implementation of it at a policy/legal level is problematic right now and overly simplistic opinions in articles like this certainly aren't helping. That is likely why only 28% of people think they understand consent... because at a policy/legal framework level it's a bloody inconsistent and poorly defined mess.
I do think there are issues right now, but I think I'm actually on the other side on this one. Reporting rates for sexual assault and rape are low, and convictions rights even lower. And of cases that find convictions, sentences are usually laughably light, almost never more than 2 years.
Maybe there is an issue with how we view sex offenders (or those accused), but that's a separate topic from consent.
I don't know how much I buy this argument's causal element. The proportion of male teachers in the US school systems has also dived over time, and I can assure you it wasn't because of a vague fear that someone would accuse them of sexual harassment.
I see this sort of concern all the time being brought up as a ghost in this type of discussion. Yes, due process is important and yes, one accusation of wrong doing is fairly write-off-able (even in today's #metoo moment, if you can believe it. You might also ask Dan Rather). I don't think you'll find even many women disagreeing with those stands, but the idea that men have so much more to fear now because they might be falsely accused and treated as guilty of sexual harassment is a little horseshit.
Let me be clear on this: One accusation of conduct like grabbing a boob without consent (hello, Al Franken) or not caring all that much about whether your partner is interested in sex (hello, Aziz Ansari) isn't enough to blow up a career. It wasn't enough to blow up either of their careers, and it won't be enough to blow up some schmuck in a high school unless it involves one of the students (in which case, the claim has to go viral first before a school is going to throw anyone under the bus like that).
It is, and has always been, habitual misconduct that gets people in trouble. Al Franken wasn't pressured to resign from one saucy night horribly treating a woman on the same trip. There were several different serious allegations that had documented merit corroborating the idea that he was a serial abuser of women.
This fear is a boogeyman that scares men because they see guys around them being held accountable for probably being assholes. We have a huge, long-standing problem in this society with how we treat women, and it's likely that if you were a professional man in the 1960s and still are working for some reason, you've come through some pretty drastic changes to workplace expectations regarding how you should be treating women. Where first you might have been hazed for treating a women fairly, now you might lose your job for dropping your pants and asking her if she likes what she sees.
Really, you can assure me of something that the research says otherwise on? Interesting.
New report looks at male teachers in primary-junior grades.
- Link to study PDF
Primary schools are losing more and more male teachers, so how can we retain them?
- Link to PhD research paper by author Abstract
Like it or not abstract fears, even of the "boogeyman" of false allegations (which I would argue it is not anyways given how many false allegations have already resulted in life and career altering consequences already) have real world consequences (particularly in early childhood education) and our society is potentially suffering as a result.
So two things: First, when I "assured" you about the trends in US education, it wasn't to say Canada was necessarily exactly the same. It was to compare the two and to suggest alternative pressures at play than fear of sexual misconduct accusations. Alternative pressures like the power of a teacher compared to the power of a parent (which has shifted dramatically in the past few decades), or the importance of expectations about male roles in an increasingly female-dominated industry (which your own research heavily sites as a contributing factor here).
I think it's pretty simple to point out that these expectations in the workplace (along with finances in the US case) probably have more to do with men leaving the field than vague fears of sexual misconduct accusations (though to be sure, the issues are not wholly separable).
Second, my response here is more about smacking down the perception that a single sexual harassment charge can upend a career. Of course people will see things how they do, but the fact is that research does not show that a single accusation of misconduct gets people thrown out of their jobs. In the US, teacher unions ensure that accusations go through an appropriate investigative process before a teacher can be fired (though they can be put on leave while that investigation happens). Other industries treat single accusations in their own ways (usually acting to dismiss after a cursory investigation shows it's hard to prove).
Do you happen to have any of those handy? Because anecdotally (just google "teachers false allegations") there sure does seem to be a fair few all over the world where that was the case.
It's hard to prove the could-have-beens. Every link I pulled up from googling "teachers false allegations" was about how rare it is that a teacher is punished for a false allegation, how every accusation is investigated and should be treated seriously, and how teachers can take a few steps to mitigate risk but that sometimes a teacher who has been investigated and cleared resigns anyway after feeling they haven't been protected in the process.
So I'm not sure what boogeyman we're trying to be talking about here. Successful allegations that lead to criminal convictions are breathtakingly rare. In the UK, 11 (0.002% of the entire UK teaching population) convictions have been handed down. And while that is not a complete picture in how many cases resulted in any form of internal disciplinary action, it is a good indicator that the entire system realizes false accusations are the norm, but they must be investigated anyway.
what situations require you to touch someone platonically that a person would not expect to be touched in?
If both parties are drunk, idk if they can be held responsible, as they were both impaired, decisionally.
It's actually incredibly simple. I don't understand how people don't get it.
Well first off, what do you consider to be situations in which people expect to be touched; where do you draw the line on that?
As for examples: In a work environment where you need to physically assist someone in completing a task (e.g. someone about to drop something). When attempting to pass someone who can't see you coming in a noisy public environment. When attempting to assess the condition of a physically incapacitated or injured person. When attempting to comfort someone after an accident or injury. In an emergency where they are potentially in imminent danger. Etc. Etc. Etc.
All of those require express verbal consent? How long does the consent last, does the person have to re-ask every single time they make physical contact even in a repetitive task?
And according to your "simple" rules, no flirtatious touching of any kind is allowed under any circumstances whatsoever without express verbal consent, regardless of non-verbal cues or situational context?
Do you seriously expect people to need to both ask and give consent to every single instance of non-platonic physical contact regardless of non-verbal cues or situational context? E.g. Every time someone wishes to hug their wife they need to ask for consent. So according to you no surprise or spontaneity is allowed under any circumstances ever if it involves physical contact?
And again you still haven't answered my question of what constitutes withdrawal of consent?
All of the situations you describe are places where yes, people would expect to be touched. One of them is a workplace expecting, the second is a harmless accident your can apologise for, and the third is a medical emergency. However, even in a medical emergency, a conscious patient can refuse treatment.
This is all about learning people's boundaries, and knowing your own. There's a difference between your wife and some girl at a bar. I assume you talked to your wife a few times before marrying hey, and learned what she's comfortable with. You probably can't say the same for a stranger.
Actions change based on how well you know a person.
Look, I am not saying people can't intuitively understand consent. We both clearly do and I suspect are generally in agreement on most thing related to it, however intuitive understanding doesn't work when you need to codify law and policy, which is the point I am getting at and probably why only 28% of people think they understand consent.
Your simple rules (Don't touch people unless they say you can touch them. If people aren't interested, don't keep pushing them on it. If someone is drunk and you aren't, don't touch them.) may work at an intuitive level but not at an institutional policy one. For those you need to fully consider the nuance of the subject and use precise wording and consideration to account for all the potential pitfalls. Many of which I pointed out and you still haven't really addressed.
IMO, this is precisely why there are so many issues that come up and injustices that occur in relations to enforcement of said consent related policies. You say it's simple but the codifying and enforcement of those "simple" principals is anything but and has proven rather disastrous in many cases so far.
There's inconsistencies because there always will be. People are inconsistent beings, and we have legal systems that are biased.
There's so much grey area that just don't have a good answer. and probably never will. Mostly related to intoxication.
Exactly... so why do you keep saying things like "It's simple" and "I don't understand how people don't get it"?
Do you not see how dismissive that is towards people struggling to understand the complex issues involved in consent? Especially when you yourself admit there is a considerable grey area.
Because I literally don't understand it. Again, I don't drink, either. So it doesn't affect me. And I can understand that.
How is it dismissive to say that I don't understand?
a - Okay, so here are the very specific, nuanced problems I am having. Anyone care to help explain?
b - "It's simple." Just follow these incredibly oversimplified rules.
a - Okay, fine, thanks... but that doesn't address any of the specific problems I am having.
b - "It's actually incredibly simple. I don't understand how [you] don't get it."
That isn't what I said at all. I said "I find that simple, and I don't understand what isn't my experience".
Sorry, maybe that's what you meant but that is certainly not how it came off.
None of which address any of the questions I specially asked in the comment you replied to.
I literally just copied your exact words there but since I am presumably included in "people" (since I struggle to understand something you see as being so "simple"), I changed it to [you] to illustrate my point.
I just want reply again and apologize if I offended you or came off as aggressive, by the way. So I'm sorry if I did upset you. That was not my intent. Honestly.