Uncommon Consent

I have been thinking for a while about consent, but it has been on my mind more lately. First I saw a great series of videos made by Planned Parenthood on the subject (not ok for viewing with kids in the room, btw), then of course recent events all over FB. I read the statement by the Stanford rape victim on my lunch break the other day, and a piece on the HP. Anyway, suffice it to say that the subject has been on my mind.

So, tonight before we did our Harry Potter out-loud reading (the great chapter in OotP where Harry has the vision through Voldemort's eyes, sees some of Snape's memories, Trelawney gets sacked and Dumbledore announces the hiring of Firenze - you know, THAT one) I decided to bring up the subject. We hadn't said our bedtime prayer first, so I did so and then told the boys we needed to have a conversation about something very important. I will not be able to repeat it word for word (it lasted about 25 minutes), but I'll share the salient points.

I started by reading from The Family: A Proclamation to the World:

"ALL HUMAN BEINGS—male and female—are created in the image of God. Each is a beloved spirit son or daughter of heavenly parents, and, as such, each has a divine nature and destiny. Gender is an essential characteristic of individual premortal, mortal, and eternal identity and purpose...

"We declare that God’s commandment for His children to multiply and replenish the earth remains in force. We further declare that God has commanded that the sacred powers of procreation are to be employed only between man and woman, lawfully wedded as husband and wife.

"WE DECLARE the means by which mortal life is created to be divinely appointed..."

I asked the boys if the blessings of exaltation were given to us unequally, if God would give some blessings to boys or girls that the other wouldn't get if they made it to the Celestial kingdom. Since they are young and relatively innocent as to the traditions of the world, they replied with slightly incredulous looks that of course boys and girls could get the same blessings and be exalted equally (my words here, of course, not theirs). We talked about how boys and girls are equal in the sight of God. I made sure they knew what "the sacred powers of procreation" and "the means by which mortal life is created" meant (they said yes, it's sex).

Then I told them I would say two sets of statements. They were to see whether the Holy Ghost would say "yes" to the statements or "no," and if they could tell a difference between how the two felt. The "Holy Ghost says yes/no" exercise is a fun one to do with kids, because they don't have a large set of life experiences through news and media, so they answer somewhat instinctively. So, here is a rough representation of the two sets (and please, more liberal readers if there be any, please don't point out that I am reinforcing gender role stereotypes with these. Cut me some slack):

"Girls are beloved daughters of God and have a divine purpose and destiny. They hold special places in our lives as wives and mothers. They have a great capacity for goodness and should be treated with love and respect."

"Girls exist only as objects for boys to use as they see fit. Girls are the property of boys and should do whatever a boy wants them to do. Girls' feelings don't matter. They exist to make boys feel good"

Of course the feeling in the room was goodness and light with the first ones and gross darkness with the second ones. We acknowledged that the first set felt more right, then I pointed out that a lot of what they will see and read and hear in the world is telling them that the second one is true. They were able to come up rather easily with examples of movies in which the only reason why a girl exists is to act as a prize for the boy, or for someone to fall in love with the boy who is the hero of the story (to their credit, they immediately gave counterexamples of strong female protagonists featured in their own movies). I told them that a whole lot of popular music has as its main point "you want to have sex with me." Culture treats girls as objects that exist for boys.

I asked them to imagine that a girl goes to a party and drinks a lot of alcohol - so much that she can't really talk or make decisions - and a boy takes her outside, puts her on the ground by a garbage can, takes off her clothes and starts touching her privates. Is it ok for the boy to do that?

Of course, given the leading question, they said no.

Then I said, what about if the girl is awake and alert and able to make decisions, and says yes? Is it ok then?

Of course, they said no again, since sex is best for people who are married. :) So, after acknowledging that not everybody in the world follows that same standard, I used a couple different examples:

If you try to do something with a girl and she says "stop, I don't like that" it doesn't mean "I really want you to keep doing that even though I'm saying no." If you put your arm around a girl and she tries to move away like she doesn't like it, it doesn't mean she wants you to try harder. If you want to touch a girl's hair and she says she doesn't like it, it doesn't mean she wants you to keep doing it. If a girl is asleep, or has had alcohol or drugs and can't make good decisions (and yes, boys, that may happen to you), that means no. If a girl is asleep, that means no. If a girl pulls away or looks scared or worried, that means no. If a girl says yes, that means yes.

We have previously had a great family home evening lesson based on the idea "My body, my choice." I don't remember the kid-oriented book it comes from, but the basic idea is that we all have the right to say "no" to anything people are doing with our bodies. So this conversation was a natural extension of that lesson. If I am putting my finger in your ear and you say "stop, I don't like that. My body, my choice" and I keep doing it, that's wrong. If you try to hold my hand and I pull away like I am saying "stop, I don't like that. My body, my choice" and you keep trying to do it, that's wrong. If, on the other hand, I hold your hand back, or move in to snuggle under your arm, that looks more like "I am saying yes to that. That's ok." No and yes aren't always said with words.

If I am tickling your feet and you are laughing and enjoying it and then you aren't enjoying it anymore, and you tell me to stop, and I don't stop because I like tickling you, that's wrong. It's your body. It's your choice. You have the right to say no.

Remember how we fought in the pre-existence for the right to agency? How we chose to come here so that we could make decisions for ourselves? Those around us - and we ourselves - have the right to say yes, and the right to say no. We have to grant others that right just as we would want it for ourselves.

This post is feeling sort of rambly at this point (and rather clunky with the details), but you'll have to take my word for it that the conversation had a nice flow to it, and the boys were engaged and thinking.

So, I concluded, here are the main points:

1. We all - boys and girls - are children of God, and we are all equal in the eyes of God.

2. We all have the right to say no to anything others want to do with our bodies, and we need to respect the right of others to say no to the things we want to do.

3. If we want to do something with someone else that that person says "no," or if the person seems like they are saying "no" with their actions, or if the person isn't able to make decisions or isn't awake and alert, that absolutely means "no." Period.

It went over pretty well.

Another letter to my elected representatives (not that you readers care :) )

Senators Hatch and Lee are both on the Senate Judiciary committee, which is responsible for initial hearings for Supreme Court nominees. I am frustrated by the extreme and absolute stance they have taken against even considering a nominee. This is why our government sucks. Anyway, I wrote the following to them both.

 Dear Senator, I am writing in response to the frustrating stance you have taken as part of the Republican party to obstruct the process of Supreme Court nomination and confirmation. You may feel that you are doing your duty to represent your party's interests, but please understand that there are many constituents in your state - myself included - who see this as pointless grandstanding at the expense of the survival of our nation's political system. It is just the sort of move that reinforces the pessimistic view held by many in our country - and reflected by the legislature's low approval ratings - that you care much more about scoring political points than about doing your best to ensure a stable and functional democracy.

 I quote the Senate Judiciary's Web site: "When a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court, the President of the United States is given the authority, under Article II of the United States Constitution, to nominate a person to fill the vacancy. The nomination is referred to the United States Senate, where the Senate Judiciary Committee holds a hearing where the nominee provides testimony and responds to questions from members of the panel. Traditionally, the Committee refers the nomination to the full Senate for consideration."

 Please do your job. We're better than this.

Anonymous Giving

So, I was in line at my credit union to make a deposit at the end of December and I overheard the woman in front of me discussing her payment with the teller. It was clear from the conversation that the woman was several hundred dollars behind in her car payment, and that she paid the past due amount with some degree of struggle. The Holy Spirit told me to give the woman $100.

I immediately started to second guess the feeling. What if the woman was behind because she had gotten in over her head with a luxury car she shouldn't have bought? What if she was a poor manager and had brought the situation on herself? What if she didn't have money for her car payment because she spent her money on a drug or alcohol addiction? I felt a little foolish as I got to the teller and asked her about it.

I said to the teller that I knew she couldn't give me any details, but did the woman in front of me in line seem like the type of person who would appreciate a donation in her account? She said she didn't have any details at all. I asked if she could still access the woman's account and she said yes. So I told her to transfer $100 from my account to hers. I realized that a transfer from my name wouldn't mean anything, so the teller let me write a note on the back of a charitable donation card (apparently they have them for accounts set up to help with medical bills etc). I wrote "I don't know if you need this, but here's a late Christmas gift. Pay it forward someday. Regards, Jordan." As I left the credit union my feeling transformed from one of doubt back into one of assurance that I had done something that was needed. It's hard to explain what it's like to feel that you have been led to be the answer to another person's prayer (it's happened to me a lot of times and always feels great) and I'm sure from an outsider's perspective it might look foolish, but it feels great.

So I saw the woman's name on the donation card, which was probably not a great thing because it let me do just a bit of internet stalking that night. I gather that she has four kids and a husband who may be a bit underemployed. I know her apparent merit shouldn't matter given the source of the inspiration to give, but I admit it was more gratifying to imagine her telling her husband and four kids about the donation. I like to imagine (if this isn't too presumptuous) that the recipients of our anonymous giving thank God for the gifts. I like to think He gets the praise.

As a postscript, I just noticed while doing some budgeting that the $100 was transferred to their auto loan. :P Not as cool.