On men . . .

This is a somewhat random post - not that these thoughts are ever far from my consideration – but I suppose this is random given the content and nature of the previous posts (I thought I’d let CNN off the hook for the moment).

I believe that men need to make conversation about healthy masculinity and healthy relationships as common as they might talk about sports, or work, or the weather. I believe that men need to find it easy to show signs of affection and care as easy as passing a beer to a good friend.

I had an amazing conversation with a co-worker this week, a male who I'm not very close to but we've been working on a project and I'm learning a great deal from him.

His father is sick. Now I know when my Dad was in the hospital I brushed it off a bit - my fathers condition was serious but when asked I would minimize the impact of the events on my life. Perhaps, in part, it was because I didn't want to think of the worst that could happen to him but I know in part I was keeping up with that bizarre tough guy image I think men ‘should’ have. Men, after all, should be able to carry their burdens, right? Wrong . . .

Understand I'm not suggesting that at the slightest sign of emotional distress men need to cry. But I do believe emotional honesty is more 'healthful' than not. In this situation with my co-worker I saw a man who was able to share this experience in a measured but open manner. He was being real. Not hiding.

I don't know how emotional honesty can be measured. I'm sure there is a test somewhere to measure one’s ability to be emotionally open. What would interest me to know is if men who are more emotionally honest are living healthier lives. Not just physical health but do these men have less abusive relationships, are these men incarcerated at a lower rate, is drug use/abuse down among these men, are they happy.

We so often connect being emotionally honest to a less aggressive life, to less aggressive behaviors. I'd like to think that's true. I think from what I've witnessed it's true.

I was watching "A History of Violence" - more to the point I was watching the extras to the movie. There is a piece in the extras about the films trip to the Cannes. And there is this moment at the Festival de Cannes, after the film is shown and the audience is applauding, that Viggo Mortensen walks over to the David Cronenberg and Mortensen gives Cronenberg a kiss.

I don't traditionally think of myself as surprised or shocked by men kissing men. But in this moment I was surprised, I was shocked, excited and sad to see the two men share this moment. It seemed so real, so honest, so genuine. So much like something I've not been open to. Again I'm not suggesting that men kiss every man they meet but the emotional openness, the ability to express oneself was what astonished me. The honesty in it all, the expression of care and affection was startling. I was not ready for that.

And it seemed so natural, commonplace - like talking about a soccer game on any random afternoon.

I believe if men could act so openly or talk so naturally as I cite above we might actually be less violent and less destructive. And not only less violent to women and children but to other men and ourselves, maybe even to the planet.

And I don't have the 'hard' data to support this position but I do have this hunch that things would be better. I’ve been going at it the ‘old way’ for a long time now – maybe it would be okay to explore a ‘new way’.

the word is: CONSENT

Here are two more articles brought to you by CNN:

Tutor says sex assaults are sacred ritual

Polygamist gets 45 days for sex with teen bride

There is this idea in the area of sexual assault prevention and crisis services that I'd like to share with you - it's called: CONSENT.

Here's the short of it . . .

A person must be of a particular age and mentally able to understand choices and understand the consequences for choices they are making before engaging in sexual activity.

A person must not only be able to make a choice for themselves - a choice that is not forced or coerced - but they must actually make the choice for themselves before engaging in sexual activity.

To be of an age where a person is able to understand choice and to have the mental and emotional faculties to understand choice and then make a choice freely are inherent in this concept of CONSENT.

CONSENT is an active process - it is not an assumed process – I cannot assume that you want me to go into your home and take your television. That would be wrong.

If you had a young child in the house and I asked the young child, "Can I take your television?" And they say, yes. And I took the television - that would be wrong.

It would also be wrong for me to take the television from a person who is under emotional duress or extreme emotional stress, drunk, mentally handicapped, or is other wise being lied to, misled, misdirected, threatened, forced or coerced in anyway.

Why is it when I talk about taking a television we all understand what's 'right and wrong', but if I talk about 'sex' if I talk about my want and desire to have intercourse with another 'things seem to get murky' - why is this???

Some people think CONSENT is about the younger persons age only, that's not always true, laws vary state to state, country to country - the age of the older person is also a factor many times. Understand why this is . . . an older man has certain advantages over a child of sixteen - mentally, emotionally, physically (an older person is often more mentally adept, can be more emotionally literate and physically larger/stronger) - an older man (or woman for that matter) should never, ever use these advantages to take advantage of a child sexually - not ever.

An older man (or woman) should never, ever have sex with children who are mentally or physically disabled. Do I really need to go on with that one?!

There is a independent consultant, Alan Berkowitz (check out his web site for more information: http://www.alanberkowitz.com/), who helps colleges, universities, public health agencies and communities design programs to address health and social justice issues. He has an article on CONSENT that's worth a read - here's a brief excerpt:

Determining Consent

Consent can be defined as present if four conditions are met. These conditions are not absolutes, but the greater the degree to which they are present, the greater the chance that both parties are consenting. They can be used as guidelines for achieving mutual, uncoerced consent in intimate relationships. The four conditions are the following:

1. Both parties are fully conscious;
2. Both participants are equally free to act;
3. Both parties have clearly communicated their willingness/permission; and
4. Both parties are positive and sincere in their desires.

Edited from an article by Dr. Berkowitz (http://www.alanberkowitz.com/articles/consent.pdf).

No CONSENT = NO sexual activity.

Under age, under the influence, never gave CONSENT = NO sexual activity.

It's a pretty easy formula. It's time we educate others about this. Or maybe I'll just come and 'borrow' your television some evening while you're out . . .

the word is: CONSENT!!