Yes, but it's a pretty simplistic picture, and it misses the population I'm the most interested in: people who understand and support consent culture, but nevertheless sometimes violate consent to various degrees.
This. Which also includes people who would never knowingly/intentionally violate consent, but that doesn't mean that they can't screw up and violate consent, and the simplistic view makes it a lot harder to reach those folks and help them see what to change, because the only term currently in use is Rapist, which to most people implies someone who knows damned well there is not consent.
I agree the model is overly simplistic (and I'll see if I can track down a better one)!
But I don't think that the category of Rapist only includes people who know damn well there's no consent. I'd like it to mean that eventually, but we're so far from consent culture at all in our society that I think it's totally possible -- easy, even -- for someone not to realize that they don't have their partner's consent. It's SHITTY. It's a problem. And it's also muddy.
Over in moominmolly's recent post I made a somewhat more coherent reply to oneagain. But kinda what I mean is that yes, many rapes are committed without understanding the lack of consent, but that when most people hear "so and so is a rapist" the meaning of that phrase is that that person is someone who has deliberately violated consent.
And I think consent culture could be advanced better with some sort of linguistic recognition of it being possible to rape without being a rapist.
Am on an iPad and CNN in this waiting room is making it impossible to concentrate, so might be better to look at the other comment.
Thank you for clarifying, and I think you're spot on. We have a cultural cognitive dissonance around sexual assault (and, actually, other bad actions as well) that makes it difficult or impossible to have [I like this person] coexist with [this person did something shitty]. It's a problem here, and it's ALSO a problem in smaller ways, such as, people are afraid to be honest with each other about their faults, because our sense of being liked is so fragile.
We MUST -- individually and systemically -- get to the point where we can see clearly into both our strengths and our flaws. It's the only way to move forward, and we're so far from it.
Great! Since we seem to all be in agreement that people who would never knowingly/intentionally violate consent sometimes do violate consent (or facilitate or stand by), I'm left feeling frustrated that you posted a graphic that, to me, appears to specifically refute that idea.
Does it? It seems to me that people can move in between categories at different points in their life, depending on the situation. I don't think this is intended to suggest that the dividing lines between "bystander," "facilitator" and "core sex offender" are hard and permanent.
I've been in all of the outside categories; I'm the bystander far too often and I've been the facilitator more than I'd like to admit. I hope I have never been at the core. But acknowledging that it's a possibility is, for me, an essential part of getting better.
Thanks for helping me think more about this. I think that as it turns out I'm mostly chafing at the characterization of the center circle—"core sex offenders"—that ignores the much larger group of people who are well-meaning and believe in consent culture, but sometimes cross boundaries and violate consent anyway. Looking at this chart, I'm given the stark alternative between being a facilitator—shitty, but at least I didn't violate anyone's consent—and being a core sex offender. Well gee, I don't want to be a core sex offender, so I must not have violated your consent. You were just confused. You didn't state your boundaries clearly. You changed your mind. You're crazy.
My point is that I think it's really important to hold a place for situations in which consent was violated but there can be a positive, restorative outcome, and drawing a circle labeled "core sex offender" around everyone who's crossed a boundary or violated consent doesn't help.
(I believe that there is a legit category of core sex offenders.)
(And I'm not proposing that all instances of sexual assault can be remediated restoratively.)
(And also, I believe that keeping victims safe is more important than engaging transformatively with aggressors.)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
branchandroot
(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-11 01:35 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-11 05:29 pm (UTC)Which also includes people who would never knowingly/intentionally violate consent, but that doesn't mean that they can't screw up and violate consent, and the simplistic view makes it a lot harder to reach those folks and help them see what to change, because the only term currently in use is Rapist, which to most people implies someone who knows damned well there is not consent.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-11 05:36 pm (UTC)But I don't think that the category of Rapist only includes people who know damn well there's no consent. I'd like it to mean that eventually, but we're so far from consent culture at all in our society that I think it's totally possible -- easy, even -- for someone not to realize that they don't have their partner's consent. It's SHITTY. It's a problem. And it's also muddy.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-11 07:14 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-11 07:26 pm (UTC)And I think consent culture could be advanced better with some sort of linguistic recognition of it being possible to rape without being a rapist.
Am on an iPad and CNN in this waiting room is making it impossible to concentrate, so might be better to look at the other comment.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-11 07:31 pm (UTC)Thank you for clarifying, and I think you're spot on. We have a cultural cognitive dissonance around sexual assault (and, actually, other bad actions as well) that makes it difficult or impossible to have [I like this person] coexist with [this person did something shitty]. It's a problem here, and it's ALSO a problem in smaller ways, such as, people are afraid to be honest with each other about their faults, because our sense of being liked is so fragile.
We MUST -- individually and systemically -- get to the point where we can see clearly into both our strengths and our flaws. It's the only way to move forward, and we're so far from it.
So, in conclusion: totally agree.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-11 08:22 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-11 09:18 pm (UTC)I've been in all of the outside categories; I'm the bystander far too often and I've been the facilitator more than I'd like to admit. I hope I have never been at the core. But acknowledging that it's a possibility is, for me, an essential part of getting better.
(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-16 01:00 pm (UTC)My point is that I think it's really important to hold a place for situations in which consent was violated but there can be a positive, restorative outcome, and drawing a circle labeled "core sex offender" around everyone who's crossed a boundary or violated consent doesn't help.
(I believe that there is a legit category of core sex offenders.)
(And I'm not proposing that all instances of sexual assault can be remediated restoratively.)
(And also, I believe that keeping victims safe is more important than engaging transformatively with aggressors.)
(no subject)
Date: 2014-07-12 04:23 am (UTC)