Considering Consent at Stuyvesant

If you’ve opened up Twitter or turned on your television in the last month, you are almost guaranteed to have seen the widespread response to the #MeToo movement. Founded by social activist Tarana Burke, the movement aims to expose the widespread sexual abuse and harassment prevalent in society by encouraging women to share their stories. After initial allegations against Harvey Weinstein, a famous film producer, the movement snowballed as thousands of women and men came out with accusations against many prominent celebrities, including Kevin Spacey, Woody Allen, and now the lovable self-proclaimed feminist Aziz Ansari. The #MeToo movement attempts to expose and condemn not only these individuals, but also the pervasive normalization of the sexual abuse of women in society.

The #MeToo movement gained media attention after celebrities joined in on the conversation, but it began with the stories of regular individuals. It highlights any story of sexual misconduct, not just the most severe cases. In high school, some may feel a sense of detachment from the issue, but it applies to every individual, because at the crux of the problem are the power structures inherent in society, whether physical or social. At Stuyvesant, power structures take the form of upper and underclassmen relations. There is social prestige associated with senior students, and with that prestige comes the power to manipulate underclassmen (e.g. students with less experience and knowledge of the school). When senior and freshman or senior and sophomore relationships develop, it is easy for the younger person in the relationship to be pressured and swayed into false consent, not to mention the physical power wielded by the senior. This abuse of power is one that may not be easily recognized, but is an example of how applicable this movement for awareness concerning sexual misconduct is for Stuyvesant students.

Thus, it is important for Stuyvesant students to recognize the frameworks governing consent within which they act, regardless of whether they are seeking consent or granting it. In an ideal romantic or sexual situation, an enthusiastic affirmation of willingness to participate should not only be expected, but mandatory before matters progress. However, in reality this is not always practiced, and body language is more frequently relied upon as an imperfect measure of consent. When one has the power in a romantic or sexual situation, it is thus imperative to guarantee that the other party is comfortable before proceeding. A forced or clearly distressed utterance of the word “yes” clearly bears no meaning behind it at all and should not be taken as justification to continue. Furthermore, if either party is intoxicated or otherwise under the influence, he or she is in no state of mind to reliably consent.

While we must recognize that the reality of consent is more complex than what we usually describe as safe sex, better standards can and must be established. Although the only completely reliable model of consent is through vocal and enthusiastic expression, it is but an exceedingly small portion of the population that is comfortable enough with their sexuality to say “hell yes” during sex. However, we can move toward having more consensual sex without going too far out of our comfort zones. One can stop and say, “Is this okay?” like an adult.

The reality, of course, is that the majority of the Stuyvesant population isn’t having sex. However, it is still our responsibility to decide what consent looks like in hook-ups and other forms of affection; you still need to ask if things are okay and be sure to not touch people if you don’t know that they are comfortable with it. Hopefully, bringing consent into less extreme forms of sexual activity can normalize consent regardless of the activity.

It is also important to note that these loose guidelines apply to hook-ups occurring both in and out of relationships. If you are dating a person, he or she still has the autonomy to say no to sex or even to physical affection. An enthusiastic yes is still ideal, and a reliable yes is still necessary. You are dating; you have not fused consciousnesses. You cannot push your desire on your partner or read his or her mind.

As high school students, it’s also important to keep in mind New York State statutory laws. The following is from Article 130 - NY Penal Law, section 130.30:

A person is guilty of rape in the second degree when:

“1. being eighteen years old or more, he or she engages in sexual

intercourse with another person less than fifteen years old; or
2. he or she engages in sexual intercourse with another person who is incapable of consent by reason of being mentally disabled or mentally incapacitated.
It shall be an affirmative defense to the crime of rape in the second degree as defined in subdivision one of this section that the defendant was less than four years older than the victim at the time of the act.”

Both partners should be aware of these legal definitions in order to provide a more concrete framework for understanding consent and thus prevent abuse and avoid legal repercussions.

As the #MeToo movement exposes the near-endemic nature of sexual harassment, perhaps the simplest way to conceptualize consent is the California “yes means yes” law. “No means no” is commonly accepted, but (wrongfully) places responsibility on the party being harassed to signal that he or she is uncomfortable before the sexual activity must stop. “Yes means yes” shifts responsibility from the party being harrassed to both parties making “an affirmative, unambiguous and conscious decision” to have sex. As students, we do not yet have the power to pass a similar law, but we can make “yes means yes” closer to our social norm.