[didibus]

I feel similarly confused by the article. It seems more focused on criticizing sexual education and suggesting alternative approaches, and breaking down old stereotypes and mentalities. And that part I thought was good and I could agree with. But the parts about #MeToo and consent seem to just brush over real sexual violence and abuse that spurred those movements and ideas in the first place.

Maybe if you hang out in the twitter sphere you get a distorted view, but some of the real implications around consent are things like: It's not consensual if one person is blacked out drunk.

I mean just read one of the brochure like this one: https://mcckc.edu/images/ac/counseling/whatisconsent.jpg

Now go back to the article, and where is the part discussing: "Consent cannot be given through physical violence or threat"

The problem is, how are we even at a place where a brochure on consent needs an entire section to explain this? That's what the MeToo movement at least from my impression was about, it's like, hey reality check, more women then you know experience really ridiculous abuse, and we're not talking about their boyfriend cheating on them.

[watwut]

> The problem is, how are we even at a place where a brochure on consent needs an entire section to explain this?

I think it is because some of men who used implied threat of physical violence pretended they are completely unaware of what was going on. And that was treated as serious argument. See, they were just poor naive beings unaware of the situation (despite being highly charizmatic and fully socially aware in other situations).

So, everyone is getting that brochure now.