The problem is that men are socially conditioned to view sex not as a mutual expression of affection between two (or more) people, but as a thing they do to someone else. And perhaps more disgustingly, a "deal" they have to "close." They must overcome the objections of their target and turn that "no" into a "yes." You can see this ridiculous mindset at play in David Wong's Ayn-Randian manifestos on Cracked, particularly this one (which I've torn apart here).
And men are conditioned this way because up until very, very recently, their partners didn't exactly have a say in the matter. Particularly straight men. If you were a woman? As a member of the nobility/aristocracy, you were flat-out assigned a man to have sex with (the husband chosen for you by your father). If you were a peasant, you simply married the first man who asked because you needed his salary. Ergo men never had to worry about being worthy, so much as first. The woman wasn't ever going to turn him down. She wasn't allowed to.
Up until even more recently, sexual assault and rape were in the same category as property crimes. Raping a woman was no different than vandalizing a piece of merchandise. Rapists literally paid a fine to the husband of the victim if she was married. If she wasn't, he could either pay a fine to her father or marry her; you broke it, you bought it.
Hell, just for perspective? Ancient Greece (on which nearly all of Western society is based) had no separate word for "rape."
For men, particularly straight men, sex is viewed through the lens of a sales transaction. He offers strength, protection, and wealth, and he gets sex and children as payment for his services as a husband. His objective is to turn any potential "no" into a "yes."
Thus, to him, sex is something his partner is letting him do. And if they let him do it, whether they want him to or not, that's all that matters. He closed the sale.
On the contrary, when victims -- especially women -- talk about consent, they mean "sex that is wanted, with this particular person" rather than simply letting sex happen out of a sense of obligation or being too under-confident to refuse. And that's a concept that we can't seem to get through men's heads.
Comedienne Margaret Cho outlines the issue perfectly in this post on her site:
But the sex I am talking about having, the kind I didn’t want, is sex I initiated with people I wasn’t attracted to so that I could get finished faster, or so I didn’t have explain whytowherefor I wasn’t into it or into them, or I loved them so much, but the chemistry wasn’t there, and I felt bad for them and so I would leave my body temporarily for them to do what they wanted, like “take what you want, I’ll be over there” and then return at the end for cuddling and the nice warmth of sleeping in a bed with another person.Women have been conditioned by and large to agree to sex we don't want to have because it's presented to us as our end of the bargain. Something we let men do to us in exchange for him providing financial security and physical protection.
Why is this not consent? Okay, you remember Lumbergh from Office Space? Star of the That Would Be Great meme? Would you say Milton/Peter/Porter/Slydell consented to anything he asked for? Of course not. They did it out of unspoken obligation.
They acquiesced. They relented. They did not, in any way, consent.
Now picture being expected to have sex in the same way you're expected to go to work on Sunday. Specifically, picture being expected to have sex you derive little, if any, pleasure from because your partner does not know or care if you're enjoying yourself. Picture this and you're starting to scratch the surface of the problem with the male definition of "consent" with regard to what it means for women.
The difference between consent and acquiescence can be summed up in one word: desire. "Lie back and think of England" isn't consent. You don't "let" people do things to you out of desire; you do it with them as a willing and enthusiastic participant. Consent is having sex out of desire. Acquiescence is having sex because it's easier than refusing. Particularly when it comes to the power dynamics between women and the powerful men they work for. If they're "letting you do it" because "you're a star", that's not consent. That's a person too afraid of what might happen if they say no.
So if you could take no for an answer and keep your hands and dicks to yourselves unless you're double-damned pinky-swear sure the other person is into you (or wants you to be into them), yeah, that'd be great.
