Kobe, consent, and enthusiasm

This is a disorganized little rant:

Last night, I watched as the Los Angeles Lakers won a thrilling game over the Detroit Pistons in the finals of the NBA playoffs. (I know I have a few foreign readers who are not at all acquainted with professional basketball). The highlight of the game came when Kobe Bryant hit an extraordinary three-point basket to send the Lakers and the Pistons to overtime. We had gotten home from the gym just in time for me to turn on the TV and see the shot; I shouted with joy and cheered wildly for Kobe. (I think I unnerved Matilde in her nearby cage). But it hasn't been easy to cheer for him this year.

For those unfamiliar with the case, almost a year ago, Kobe was arrested in Colorado and charged with raping a 19 year-old employee of a hotel at which he was a guest. Kobe has pleaded not guilty, though he has confessed to adultery (he is married with a baby daughter). Trial is scheduled for this fall, and during the past few months, the news media has treated us to a near-constant barrage of updates (and gossip) about the pre-trial machinations of both the defense and the prosecution. The name of the victim is widely available on the Internet, and various rumors about her sexual past and emotional health are also public knowledge.

One thing I have come to learn in working on issues around consent and sexual violence: two people can construct strikingly different but equally sincere narratives about what happened during a single encounter! I think it is entirely possible that Kobe Bryant believes in his heart that he is innocent of rape, while all the while being guilty of that very crime. This is where the Kobe case has become a teaching moment in the classroom. We've had some truly enlightening discussions on the law, victimhood, and women's voices. (Main point to drive home over and over again: A prior "yes" does not vitiate a subsequent "no", even if the "yes" came but a moment before the "no".).

I don't know when or if that young woman said "no" to Kobe in the hotel room last summer. But like many feminists, I find the whole framing of the rape discussion around consent to be troubling. What I try and show my students is that in our culture, the very idea of consent is problematic for many young women. Almost from birth, what it means to be a girl in our culture is to be someone who says "yes" when she'd rather say "no". "Yes" to her chores, "yes" to her parents' requests, "yes" to her teachers and peers. We raise our young women to be pleasing, and to silence the "nos" that well up inside. It's ludicrous to think that that habit of "people-pleasing" does not often get carried over into sex, especially in adolescence and in the early twenties.

In a workshop I took a few years back, the facilitator said that he felt we should move the discussion about rape from focusing on "consent" to focusing on "enthusiasm". I've always liked that idea. There are any number of cultural factors that lead women to consent to things they don't want, the desire to be pleasing chief amongst them. One of the hardest things to teach young men -- but one of the most important -- is that not only does no always mean no, but a tentative "yes" that isn't backed up by obviously positive body language ALSO means NO! When I lead workshops now, I talk about how we need to see a real "yes" as something that goes beyond mere verbal assent. Rather, an authentic "yes" is manifested in genuine, clear-cut physical enthusiasm. If the "yes" seems tentative, I tell my guys, you need to follow up with more talking until things are clearer.

At first blush, this seems to put far too much of the burden upon men. Yet it's remarkable to me how well both young men and women (in the workshops I've been involved with) respond to this shift from "consent" to "enthusiasm". I'm sure there are some young women out there who tonight will say "no" when they'd really rather say "yes." But I'm pretty damn confident that their numbers are dwarfed by the girls who are saying "yes" when they'd rather say "no". I'll be darned if I'm going to blame those young women for being insufficiently assertive, either; rather, I'm committed to challenging the men in my life to rethink consent, and more importantly, to take the initiative to -- gently -- ask the hard questions of the women with whom they find themselves.

Whatever happened in that hotel room, I'm pretty sure Kobe didn't ask the right questions.

Comments

[Camassia]

I've thought about this question a lot over the last 15 years or so. When I was in school in the '80s, there was a big campaign on to educate women about rape, which generally meant to scare the crap out of them. I think it did me a certain amount of psychological damage, actually, even though it was well-intentioned.

It's helped me to realize two things. One, nobody, male or female, makes decisions in a vacuum. There is no such thing as an uninfluenced decision or perfectly free consent. And you know what? That's OK. That's part of being a human being. We're social animals. But there are certainly societies that can encourage human flourishing and ones that can oppress it.

Two, there's a difference between law and morality. I think a lot of people have turned the legal "consenting adults" concept into a moral definition of what sex is OK. Conversely, some feminists who realize the problematic nature of "consent" want to legislate the definition of good and bad sex. I don't think either approach is helpful. Legislating personal relationships is not really possible, but legal sex that's selfish and exploitive is still immoral. It would be nice if society could get clearer on that.

[candace]

It's ludicrous to think that that habit of "people-pleasing" does not often get carried over into sex, especially in adolescence and in the early twenties.

Painfully true, Hugo.

And almost any girl can tell you that the bigger shot the guy, the tougher it is to reject him. Not because of what you want or don't want, but because there's a sense that a female just owes it to that kind of man, that he should be able to get what he wants from you, that it's a privilege to be the one he wants something from. I'm just in college, but I can tell you that the first-string football players I know think they have the right to sex with any woman they want, a culture encouraged by recruiting practices along those lines (maybe there won't be 72 virgins, but at least a handful of willing young bodies!).

Relatedly, my biggest frustration in this whole trial has been the treatment of the girl. "She probably just slept with this guy looking to get money out of him" -- that's the kind of thing I hate to hear the most. It's like women aren't even human beings, like sex means nothing to them. Like they aren't subject to pressures, like they're just doing it all instrumentally. Maybe that's possible in some cases, but I feel that with a person that corrupt, it would be so obvious.

Here's the bottom line on my frustration with society's reaction to this case: women are not the ones who see their bodies instrumentally, and it's not out of character for a big star to think he deserves whatever he wants. Yet, rather than honestly assessing the situation, we jump to the conclusion that that little "slut" is guilty of some horrible accusation, while we lovingly forgive Kobe when he comes out about his adultery. Aww, look at that big ring he gave his wife. Money makes everything okay!

Eh, this was rambling too. The whole thing makes me want to vomit. I think I'm done here.

[andi]

As someone who did a lot of work with domestic and sexual violence in college, and having been one of those girls who was raised to yes whether she wanted to or not, your post really struck a chord/nerve in me.

I'm tempted to rant, as well. It's a terrifying and frustrating thing realize that, for all the educating I did/do for other people, for all the times I've stood up for other women, I still can't do it for myself. I've described it as "deer in headlights." Every bone in my body knows I should say no--to my boss, to my friends, to the stranger, to my partner--for all sorts of reasons, usually not related to sex. But I don't. My brain, stuck in a frenzy of "I should say no, I can't do this, this is ridiculous, I don't want to/I should't have to, this is unfair" etc., spins its wheels while my tongue, trained to acquiescence, condemns me again: "Yes. No problem. I can do that."

Yikes. The hardest thing to do is untrain yourself. Even if you know what you should do, women of my generation are caught in a particularily painful place: knowing what we are doing to ourselves, and yet still being unable to undo our own habits.

[Amy]

Wonderful post Hugo. I've never thought about "consent" versus "enthusiasm", but I like the idea. I think that too much emphasis is placed on vocalization, however. In my experience that's not the way things happen. Guys don't ask along the way or sometimes even initially. Often, things just happen and it can quickly turn from completely consensual to uncomfortable to beyond what one wants to engage in. Seems like often the mindset is to go until there's a flag on the play. A big red one.

I have to add that I completely disagree with Candace as far as "the bigger shot the guy, the tougher it is to reject him." Then again, I'm a militant believer in the idea that no female "owes it" to any male, football player or not. Whether or not they think they're entitled to whatever woman they choose, I'll not go there, except to say the football players at our university seem to have trouble with the concept. It's the "big shots" that I most avoid, watch the closest, and ensure that I am as clear as possible about what I want.

[joe]

liberals don't like moral dilemmas. it would be too easy to just say they were both wrong based on the moral issue of premarital sex. folks like to blame one another, and blame tends to lie on the one not perceived the victim. i.e. "If the "yes" seems tentative, I tell my guys, you need to follow up with more talking until things are clearer." and "I'll be darned if I'm going to blame those young women for being insufficiently assertive"

now if this were a moral issue, consent would be the issue and both would be to blame for "being insufficiently assertive". however, i need to remind myself this is a liberal issue and morals are only a convience; hence, consent is transformed into enthusiasm.

your rant blames Kobe because he didn't "ask the right questions"!? take the feminist blinders off! your assumption is, even if he is found innocent- he's guilty?

your premise is all rapped up in the these deceptive statements "consent is problematic for many young women" and "It's ludicrous to think that that habit of "people-pleasing" does not often get carried over into sex, especially in adolescence and in the early twenties"

first the easy one. "people-pleasing" revovles around more then just sex(which you admit, but the rhetoric is pursuasive to the contrary)and most assuredly adolescence are not a special perpetrator. i would think an equally valid arguement of "people-pleasing" could be given for the adult male seeking an amorous relation (blush) with his flaccid wife.

secondly, "consent is problematic for many young women". will this ever fall out as an excuse? when will they be responsible? when can they stand on their own two feet? when do they stop being victims? it seems to me, folks like your self, keep perpetuating this victimization. you write about it and people just keep soaking it up. why can't women be taught self-reliance, self-respect or self-worth outside the scope of men. because... i really don't remember in male adolesence 101 being taught that my masculinity was predicated on female submissiveness.

didn't anybody ever tell you workshops are for people who cannot think for themselves

enough of my rant in your space

Peace

[Anonymous]

Still think that the timberwolves shouldve of been the ones in the final :( Sadly the lakers probly have this one in the bag.

If you ladies and gent's dont mind, i would like to regurgitate some information i've recently learned. Mostly basics and yet surpisingly im barely learning about it.

1 in 10 women in america is raped, usually by someone they know. The women might not know the rapist per say... but its usually somoene they have met once or on a daily bases yet without knowing. Random rape occurs but its usually intended, the rapist know their "victim"--overall they are an acquittance with the women at least.

Rape is also higher in the states for some odd reason. Its a wonder why rape is so common.
It can be linked to how men ususally tend to view women as sex objects, the media is certainly not shy and are actually generous in objectifying women.

But mainly i think its because really, men often believe that "no" means "yes".
Why does it have to be the hardest thing to teach young men?
Why do we have to teach them that in the first place?

A reason behind why men tend to think that "no" means "yes" can be basically they raised that way by a society that gives the impression that it is generally ok. Old classic movies such as "Gone with the Wind", you can see in the movie how the guy and the girl are fighting and the next minute the guy rushes up to the girl, kisses her forcefully and then SWEEPS her off her feet and into the bedroom. WOW, so that must be some kind of "hollywood romanticism" that women actually want to be taken by force, its a romantic thing that women everywhere yearn for.
That it makes it ok for a man to step up and force a woman into it.

I was suprised by how there is even such a thing as marital rape. But stepping back for a moment and thinkin about it... just because the woman is your wife, doesnt justify the man being able to get "any" anytime and anywhere he wants to. After being married, the woman doesnt become apart of a mans property and im glad there are such laws in place.

A fellow classmate was really supirsed by all this, in fact a few males were, by the fact how women can "easily" say no out of the blue and they can be charge with a rape case and even labeled as a rapist... which is disgusting... because many of them were something along the lines like: "Oh man i should really becareful next time, why does the law favor them so much? i mean sometimes you cant really know... just one word? 'No'? and im screwed (pun intended)"

Im thinking... why are you even in such a relantionship in the first place? why hasnt the girl dumped you even or whatnot... if you arent in a comfortable relantionship or have gotten past that barrier yet, why are you even trying to sleep with the girl? what are you doing to make the girl feel uncomfortable? in fact are you forcing the idea that you two should have intercourse in order to prove some kind of stereotype "love"?

I dont know... sorry for ranting on. Thats just my two cents.

[Serena]

Almost from birth, what it means to be a girl in our culture is to be someone who says "yes" when she'd rather say "no". "Yes" to her chores, "yes" to her parents' requests, "yes" to her teachers and peers.

Oh I don't know about that ... I've always made sure my brother has to do as many chores as me!!!

On a more serious note, I'm obviously not saying that Kobe is innocent, because I have no way of knowing. But as well as some women not giving consent, some withdrawing consent and being ignored, there is also the problem of women denying consent once a relationship doesn't go the way they want it to, as an act of revenge. I've no idea which this is, but just thought I'd throw that into the mix.

[Stentor]

I know I have a few foreign readers who are not at all acquainted with professional basketball.

Some of us domestic readers know precious little about professional basketball as well.

[annika]

Great post, Hugo. A while back, i wrote a poem (not autobiographical btw) on that very subject. Saying yes when one means to say no. Intoxication is often a big factor in a lot of this, too.

[Lawrence Krubner]

"At first blush, this seems to put far too much of the burden upon men. Yet it's remarkable to me how well both young men and women (in the workshops I've been involved with) respond to this shift from "consent" to "enthusiasm"."

I'd react to this post, but I'm under the impression that it is not meant very seriously. The opening sentence frames it as "a disorganized little rant", which is certainly what it is. I'm going to assume that Hugo Schwyzer isn't really interested in a full critique of the ideas here presented, since it doesn't seem like he thought them through very much before posting.

I do agree with the gist of the post here - it would be wonderful to get away from the (legalistic) framing of rape cases as being about consent. The world would be a better place if female enthusiasm played a role in determining how men act toward's women. If the discussion is largely about ethics, then I think the case here presented can be fleshed out and made solid.

However, what is here in the post can not be fleshed out and made solid, because it seems to start off talking about rape as a crime, which involves the legalalistic understanding of rape, and then proceeds to talk about female enthusiasm. Surely female enthusiasm is not a standard that can be legally enforced? What would the standard be? There is, of course, a difference between morals and law - we can say that morally men should only have sex with women who are enthusiastic, but legally we have to provide a benchmark that courts can enforce. The "yes" and "no" thing has it problems, but is a clear enough standard for men to understand and courts to enforce.

This line is deeply troubling:

"It's ludicrous to think that that habit of "people-pleasing" does not often get carried over into sex, especially in adolescence and in the early twenties."

Is there any violation of women's freedom that can not be justified on this ground? Women are too much given to people pleasing, therefore their sexual choices can't be trusted. Women are too much given to people pleasing, therefore it is pointless to give them the vote - they'll only vote how their spouse/boyfriend asks them to. Women are too much given to people pleasing, therefore they should not be allowed checking accounts - they may get conned by a womanizer into signing over all their money. Women are too much given to people pleasing, therefore they should not be allowed to choose their spouse - we can't be sure they really love the person they are with or are merely saying so to keep the person happy.

You get the point? If there is a natural limit on this doctrine you suggest, which I'm missing? If so, please make it clear to me.

Finally, enthusiasm is a pointless thing to aspire to if your concerns are more moral than legal - women who were sexually abused at a young age sometimes become wildly promiscious - catch then at age 20 and you will see wild enthusiasm for sex, but are they engaging in sex for the right motives?

[Lynn Gazis-Sax]

First, I agree completely with Camassia about the importance of distinguishing between law and morality (and am glad to see you clarify later that you're talking about the latter). This also addresses Lawrence Krubner's point about women and people-pleasing; women should be allowed to make all kinds of decisions, but if you suspect a woman may be people-pleasing against her real desires, you shouldn't, morally, take advantage of her. Especially if it's something she's likely to regret later.

Second, I found this, especially, to be so true: 'I'm sure there are some young women out there who tonight will say "no" when they'd really rather say "yes." But I'm pretty damn confident that their numbers are dwarfed by the girls who are saying "yes" when they'd rather say "no".'

[Lawrence Krubner]

"Second, I found this, especially, to be so true: 'I'm sure there are some young women out there who tonight will say "no" when they'd really rather say "yes." But I'm pretty damn confident that their numbers are dwarfed by the girls who are saying "yes" when they'd rather say "no".'"

It occurs to me now that there is also the "slow no" where a woman is trying to make up her mind about whether she wants to have sex while having sex, and only too late (afterwards, perhaps) is she certain that she wants to say "no". This is the best argument for using a clear "yes" as the standard, even the legal standard, rather than mere abscense of a "no." I've been thinking of this lately because of something terrible that happened to a female friend of mine quite recently. She'd been allowing a male friend of hers to share her bed, and then one night, rather suddenly, they had sex. She'd never thought of him romantically and was, at first, simply puzzled and dismayed, but then, afterwards, increasingly depressed and angry. Clearly, the incident wasn't anything close to legal rape since she was merely ambivalent at the time, not opposed. But nonetheless, the harm is real. She has been having a rough month.

[Lawrence Krubner]

She still friends with the person in question, just angry with him.