The Washington Post

When it comes to sex, teaching consent isn’t enough

Cicely Marston is a senior lecturer in Social Science at London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.

University of Iowa junior Patrick Took gathers with friends during a rape and violence awareness rally on the Big Ten school’s campus in Iowa City, Iowa. (David Scrivner/AP)

We often talk about educating young people about consent, but what does this mean? Does it simply boil down to teaching young men not to rape? If this is the case, it’s a depressingly low bar.

Instead of talking about consent, we should be aiming far higher. We should be encouraging young people to think about “mutuality.” This means challenging the notion that women are always “giving” consent (and men always demanding sexual access) and promoting mutual decision-making — where both partners listen and respond to each other’s desires and concerns.

Risk of coercion

The need to promote this mutual process is a key message that is emerging from our research into how young people have sex in England. Our latest BMJ Open paper focuses on anal sex between young men and women and reveals an oppressive social environment in which women’s pleasure and desires are neglected, painful sex for women is seen as normal and there appears to be a real risk of coercion.

We looked at the expectations, attitudes and experiences of anal intercourse between opposite-sex partners and any implications these might have for health. The findings come from the sixteen18 project, a wider piece of research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council on the sex lives of 16- to 18-year-olds, where we interviewed 130 men and women in that age range from diverse locations in England, both one-to-one and in groups.

Of course, it’s important to note that not all men coerce their partners (some men said they did not want to have anal sex because they were worried they would hurt their partner); that some young women may wish to have anal sex; and that both partners may find it pleasurable.

But our interviewees described an oppressive environment in which some men compete with each other to have anal sex with women, even if they expect women to find it painful. Coercion seems to be seen as normal: Women reported being repeatedly asked for anal sex by their male partners, and men’s and women’s accounts also raise the real possibility that young women are sometimes put in situations where they are penetrated anally without their explicit consent.

We urgently need more open discussion to challenge the culture and attitudes surrounding anal sex — a subject that is often seen as unmentionable. It might then be possible to start highlighting the importance of sexual mutuality and challenging ideas about coercion being “normal” in anal sex, as well as providing more information to both men and women about how to recognize and acknowledge coercive behaviors for what they are.

Not just about porn

Previous research has shown that a significant minority of young people have had anal sex. Our study suggests that even those who aren’t having anal sex may nevertheless be talking about it with friends, building an environment where, at present, harmful expectations are set. While our interviewees mentioned young men wanting to copy what they saw in porn as an explanation for anal sex, the interviews suggest other factors are more important. Those include in some cases a lack of concern about young women’s consent or the levels of pain they might experience and competition among young men to have anal sex with women.

Current debates about young people’s sex lives often seem to focus narrowly on the impact of porn. But our study suggests we need to think more widely about the lack of importance society places on women’s rights, desires and concerns. While anal sex might not be the easiest topic to raise, we cannot afford to ignore attitudes that help normalize coercion and negatively affect both women and men. Anal sex is part of some young people’s sexual lives, and we believe our study makes a powerful case for more open discussion and a focus on mutuality more than “consent” alone.


This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.

Show Comments
Most Read
Next Story
Stephen T. Fomba · August 14, 2014

To keep reading, please enter your email address.

You’ll also receive from The Washington Post:
  • A free 6-week digital subscription
  • Our daily newsletter in your inbox

Please enter a valid email address

I have read and agree to the Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.

Please indicate agreement.

Thank you.

Check your inbox. We’ve sent an email explaining how to set up an account and activate your free digital subscription.