Consent Issues! Party Time! Excellent!
Sep. 2nd, 2009 12:44 pmHey so! Consent issues!
So![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
renay recently read and reviewed David Inside Out, by Lee Bantle. The book includes an incident she found very problematic in terms of consent, so in deference to possible triggering (this is your warning!) and spoiling people, I refer you to that review rather than summarizing it here. Please note also that the author himself commented and offered quotes from the book to contextualize the event; you should read his whole comment as well.
The particular comment and subsequent discussion also includes accusations of homophobia againstrenay, which I am not going to focus on. Full disclosure: renay is my friend and I feel compelled to publicly defend her. I find these accusations inappropriate and have many reasons for this assessment. However, further in the spirit of full disclosure: I had planned, before Bantle posted his response, to read David Inside Out myself and review it, because renay's review piqued my interest. I am hoping that Mr. Bantle will regard my review as I intend it, as my own personal opinion, and would prefer not to engage with him (yet, right now) about his behaviour and instead focus only on his book.
I'm also not going to address the flaws inrenay's review; others, including Bantle himself, have pointed out other things she could have included in her review. And it's true, she didn't talk as much about the writing, the female characters, etc. She focused instead on an issue she found personal and important, at the expense of everything else the book had to offer. I'm not here to examine that.
There are so many other issues I will not have time or space to discuss in detail here, including serious gender issues, the divide between the experiences of straight women and gay men, alcohol as a factor in our society in general even outside consent issues.
That said, I'm going to talk about consent issues here. Specifically, consent in established relationships, consent once vs. consent always, and consent under the influence. On a related issue, I want to also discuss realistic portrayals and how realism is handled in media.
( Yes Means Yes. Only. Ever. )
( 'Realistic Portrayal' is Not a Defense )
I wish I could be more articulate. I wish I could say this more beautifully, more clearly. In fewer words. (Heh.) But this is all I have.
Only "yes" means "yes". Consent once does not mean consent always. Consent to one sex act does not mean consent to all sex acts. Portraying the quite realistic situation of grey-area or lack of consent does not give you a free pass for props, does not make you a hero for daring to address reality. You have to keep going. You have to keep working. You have to think, examine, re-present. I expect more.
So
renay recently read and reviewed David Inside Out, by Lee Bantle. The book includes an incident she found very problematic in terms of consent, so in deference to possible triggering (this is your warning!) and spoiling people, I refer you to that review rather than summarizing it here. Please note also that the author himself commented and offered quotes from the book to contextualize the event; you should read his whole comment as well.The particular comment and subsequent discussion also includes accusations of homophobia against
renay, which I am not going to focus on. Full disclosure: renay is my friend and I feel compelled to publicly defend her. I find these accusations inappropriate and have many reasons for this assessment. However, further in the spirit of full disclosure: I had planned, before Bantle posted his response, to read David Inside Out myself and review it, because renay's review piqued my interest. I am hoping that Mr. Bantle will regard my review as I intend it, as my own personal opinion, and would prefer not to engage with him (yet, right now) about his behaviour and instead focus only on his book.I'm also not going to address the flaws in
renay's review; others, including Bantle himself, have pointed out other things she could have included in her review. And it's true, she didn't talk as much about the writing, the female characters, etc. She focused instead on an issue she found personal and important, at the expense of everything else the book had to offer. I'm not here to examine that.There are so many other issues I will not have time or space to discuss in detail here, including serious gender issues, the divide between the experiences of straight women and gay men, alcohol as a factor in our society in general even outside consent issues.
That said, I'm going to talk about consent issues here. Specifically, consent in established relationships, consent once vs. consent always, and consent under the influence. On a related issue, I want to also discuss realistic portrayals and how realism is handled in media.
( Yes Means Yes. Only. Ever. )
( 'Realistic Portrayal' is Not a Defense )
I wish I could be more articulate. I wish I could say this more beautifully, more clearly. In fewer words. (Heh.) But this is all I have.
Only "yes" means "yes". Consent once does not mean consent always. Consent to one sex act does not mean consent to all sex acts. Portraying the quite realistic situation of grey-area or lack of consent does not give you a free pass for props, does not make you a hero for daring to address reality. You have to keep going. You have to keep working. You have to think, examine, re-present. I expect more.