Digital Distortions: Consent in News and Entertainment Media
By Nikita Guelmer and Urmi Suhkla, 10/6/2020
The History of Consent and the Meaning of Boundaries
#MeToo, a phrase coined by Tarana Burke, gained massive traction in 2016 as a movement aiming to shed light onto the veil of secrecy around sexual assault and empower victims to come forward about their experiences with sexual assault and sexual harassment. The movement, among other things, helped bring discussion of consent into the mainstream. For years, the common perception of sexual assault had been limited to physically forced sexual intercourse, but suddenly, people who had been coerced, manipulated, or taken advantage of began to feel comfortable coming forward and sharing their experiences, prompting sex occuring without consent to also be widely labeled as sexual assault.
Although consent is a broad term used in context of any sort of agreement between two or more parties, it’s more commonly used in reference to sexual relationships. Consent is about setting and respecting boundaries, and making sure both you and your partner are okay with what's happening. Planned Parenthood uses the acronym FRIES: freely given (no manipulation or intimidation), reversible (if someone changes their mind at any point, you need to stop), informed (you need to know what you’re consenting to), enthusiastic (if you’re consenting, you actually want to do something), and specific (consenting to a kiss does not mean you’ve consented to having sex). Also, it’s important to note that some people legally cannot consent to sex. Depending on the state you live in, the age of consent currently varies between 16 to 18 years of age, meaning it is a crime to have sex with anyone under that age. Additionally, if your partner is drunk, high, or unconscious, they can not consent either.
The social and legal definitions of consent have changed dramatically over the past 100 years. In the early 19th century, women’s suffrage leaders finally managed to get the age of consent raised from 10, to between 14 – 18 (depending on the state you lived in). Although this was a huge step forward, leaders of the suffrage movement still were not satisfied because prosecution was only possible if the victim could prove she was a virgin before the attack. Defense strategies like the “resistance test,” which stated that it wasn’t rape unless a woman could prove she physically resisted her attacker, and a woman’s past sexual experiences and history were often evaluated to determine the extent of the crime. These policies make it evident consent was not valued, required, or even clearly defined until the latter half of the 20th century. In fact, it wasn’t until 1993 did all U.S. states outlaw marital rape, because legislators argued that you were always entitled to sex with your spouse.
As the definitions of consent change, we see sexual assault in a new light. Men and women who were physically forced into sexual activity are being given platforms and taken seriously for the first time in history. Sexually suggestive remarks or behavior in the workplace can be means for termination, getting someone drunk at a party in hopes that they’ll become more receptive to your advances can actually get you jail time, and companies and organizations beginning to understand how power dynamics can be used as tools to take advantage of people. The discussion around sexual consent is becoming increasingly relevant as stories continue to emerge. As more and more women join this dialogue, lawmakers may enact legislation to address these problems head on.
However, the music and film industries routinely blur, or even cross, these lines of consent. By romanticizing the tropes of the obsessive, aggressive man who relentlessly pursues his love interest until she agrees to go out with him, the boss who falls for his employee and uses his position to coerce her into going on a date with him, or even the rapist who is eventually forgiven, leading to a serious relationship. They build onto the narrative that this kind of behavior is okay, or even romantic. Even movies or shows where the relationships weren’t explicitly violent played into the idea that “true love” means never taking no for an answer.
Although consent is a broad term used in context of any sort of agreement between two or more parties, it’s more commonly used in reference to sexual relationships. Consent is about setting and respecting boundaries, and making sure both you and your partner are okay with what's happening. Planned Parenthood uses the acronym FRIES: freely given (no manipulation or intimidation), reversible (if someone changes their mind at any point, you need to stop), informed (you need to know what you’re consenting to), enthusiastic (if you’re consenting, you actually want to do something), and specific (consenting to a kiss does not mean you’ve consented to having sex). Also, it’s important to note that some people legally cannot consent to sex. Depending on the state you live in, the age of consent currently varies between 16 to 18 years of age, meaning it is a crime to have sex with anyone under that age. Additionally, if your partner is drunk, high, or unconscious, they can not consent either.
The social and legal definitions of consent have changed dramatically over the past 100 years. In the early 19th century, women’s suffrage leaders finally managed to get the age of consent raised from 10, to between 14 – 18 (depending on the state you lived in). Although this was a huge step forward, leaders of the suffrage movement still were not satisfied because prosecution was only possible if the victim could prove she was a virgin before the attack. Defense strategies like the “resistance test,” which stated that it wasn’t rape unless a woman could prove she physically resisted her attacker, and a woman’s past sexual experiences and history were often evaluated to determine the extent of the crime. These policies make it evident consent was not valued, required, or even clearly defined until the latter half of the 20th century. In fact, it wasn’t until 1993 did all U.S. states outlaw marital rape, because legislators argued that you were always entitled to sex with your spouse.
As the definitions of consent change, we see sexual assault in a new light. Men and women who were physically forced into sexual activity are being given platforms and taken seriously for the first time in history. Sexually suggestive remarks or behavior in the workplace can be means for termination, getting someone drunk at a party in hopes that they’ll become more receptive to your advances can actually get you jail time, and companies and organizations beginning to understand how power dynamics can be used as tools to take advantage of people. The discussion around sexual consent is becoming increasingly relevant as stories continue to emerge. As more and more women join this dialogue, lawmakers may enact legislation to address these problems head on.
However, the music and film industries routinely blur, or even cross, these lines of consent. By romanticizing the tropes of the obsessive, aggressive man who relentlessly pursues his love interest until she agrees to go out with him, the boss who falls for his employee and uses his position to coerce her into going on a date with him, or even the rapist who is eventually forgiven, leading to a serious relationship. They build onto the narrative that this kind of behavior is okay, or even romantic. Even movies or shows where the relationships weren’t explicitly violent played into the idea that “true love” means never taking no for an answer.
American Laws Regarding Consent and Their Portrayal in Media
There is no doubt that America is currently going through a period of increased vocality, a situation fueled by the protests surrounding the BLM movement and the months leading up to the presidential election. There have been many headlines spreading rapidly across social media regarding sexual consent laws throughout the country. However, the viral news circulating social media is often incorrect.
Many headlines have been circulating across social media sites claiming that North Carolina recently passed a ruling claiming that consent cannot be revoked after sexual activity begins. This is false. North Carolina did not recently pass such a law, and in fact, they made this ruling way back in 1979 with the case of State v. Way. In addition to the fact that this ruling is more than 40 years old, it was finally overturned in 2019, when North Carolina was the last state to do so. Consent is very much an issue in today’s America, and as is the case with every issue, it deserves to be reported accurately.The viral headlines common on social media are misleading and harmful as the spread of out of date and inaccurate news harms the validity of the fight against non-consensual awareness, despite the importance of raising awareness to this very urgent issue.
Viral social media headlines are based on some accuracies; however, and the power of media as a tool in the fight against sexual assault is growing by the day. Some circulating headlines turned out to be as true and bizarre as they seemed. One such headline was as revolting as it is dystopian: ‘Republican politician says rape and incest part of God's will’. This is, unfortunately, true. Oklahoma Republican George Faust said, “If you read the Bible, there’s actually a couple circumstances where that [rape and incest] happened and the Lord uses all circumstances.” It should be noted that this quote was made in an argument for creating a fine of up to $100,000 for “any person who performs an abortion solely because of a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome or any other ‘genetic abnormality.’” This headline was true and is an example of social media’s use of using multiple stories, all with different degrees of factual accuracy, in one cluster to raise maximum awareness. The intention of such posts is good, and of course, these issues deserve all the attention they can get. The problem arises when facts are skewed and sensationalized. While it may be effective to gain attention and outrage, it is also important to retain factual accuracy when dealing with sensitive issues.
Social media is changing the way news is presented. We now have an infinite amount of knowledge at our fingertips and can share everything with the world, but with all the positive aspects of such knowledge come some challenges. Not everything is presented accurately, and in the long term, no matter how well-meaning the intention, the validity of the news and facts shared remains of the utmost importance.
Many headlines have been circulating across social media sites claiming that North Carolina recently passed a ruling claiming that consent cannot be revoked after sexual activity begins. This is false. North Carolina did not recently pass such a law, and in fact, they made this ruling way back in 1979 with the case of State v. Way. In addition to the fact that this ruling is more than 40 years old, it was finally overturned in 2019, when North Carolina was the last state to do so. Consent is very much an issue in today’s America, and as is the case with every issue, it deserves to be reported accurately.The viral headlines common on social media are misleading and harmful as the spread of out of date and inaccurate news harms the validity of the fight against non-consensual awareness, despite the importance of raising awareness to this very urgent issue.
Viral social media headlines are based on some accuracies; however, and the power of media as a tool in the fight against sexual assault is growing by the day. Some circulating headlines turned out to be as true and bizarre as they seemed. One such headline was as revolting as it is dystopian: ‘Republican politician says rape and incest part of God's will’. This is, unfortunately, true. Oklahoma Republican George Faust said, “If you read the Bible, there’s actually a couple circumstances where that [rape and incest] happened and the Lord uses all circumstances.” It should be noted that this quote was made in an argument for creating a fine of up to $100,000 for “any person who performs an abortion solely because of a diagnosis of Down’s syndrome or any other ‘genetic abnormality.’” This headline was true and is an example of social media’s use of using multiple stories, all with different degrees of factual accuracy, in one cluster to raise maximum awareness. The intention of such posts is good, and of course, these issues deserve all the attention they can get. The problem arises when facts are skewed and sensationalized. While it may be effective to gain attention and outrage, it is also important to retain factual accuracy when dealing with sensitive issues.
Social media is changing the way news is presented. We now have an infinite amount of knowledge at our fingertips and can share everything with the world, but with all the positive aspects of such knowledge come some challenges. Not everything is presented accurately, and in the long term, no matter how well-meaning the intention, the validity of the news and facts shared remains of the utmost importance.
