Dr. Harry Brod, a philosophy professor at the University of Northern Iowa delivered his presentation yesterday entitled “The Ethics and Erotics of Sexual Consent: Beyond ‘But We Were Both Drinking’” at the University of Massachusetts.

The purpose of the lecture was to deliver an anti-sexual assault message without preaching an anti-sex message; a message that in our society often misunderstood according to Brod.

His claim was that consent is needed and that even though consent can sometimes come as an awkward or clumsy gesture, it opens the doors for relationships and sexual activity to be more erotic and fulfilling for all parties involved.

Brod opened his lecture in the Mahar auditorium with a series of questions posed to the audience. He opened the lecture with the statement “No means ‘no’ and yes means ‘yes’.”

This provoked the question initially posed by Brod of when does yes mean yes and when does no mean no in regards to consent in a sexual encounter.

The audience responded to both these questions before Brod continued his lecture by asking the question “What if there is no “no” and no “yes”? How do we then determine consent?”

One audience member answered that body language was a determinant of consent in a situation where there is a lack of direct consent. However, as a result of his studies, Brod argued that “The only thing that means yes is a ‘yes’. Just because there is not a ‘no’ does not mean that there is a ‘yes’.”

Brod further went on to explain the affirmative consent standard, meaning that consent must be given in a specific, explicit manner; basically that sexual activity requires a blatant verbal statement of consent.

Brod explained that relying on  body language is too ambiguous in a situation where consent is required.  These reasons may be such as emotions, or a situation that is “hot and heavy.”

While Brod acknowledged sometimes body language can be interpreted, he argued that unless an action was crystal clear, body language is too vague to assume that a partner is consenting to any further sexual activity.

According to Brod, “Consent is not something you have. It is something the other person gives you, regardless of what you think the rules and regulations are.”

Brod added, “Body language must be so assertive that it will give consent… and cause us to question the other person’s consent.”

As a philosopher, Dr. Brod discusses the importance of epistemology, an age-old question of how we know what we know, both collectively and individually.

He claims that every initiator must have epistemological responsibility, or the responsibility to have the knowledge of the other person’s consent. In most situations, Brod argued we are held accountable for having a basic knowledge of the situation around us.  Brod provided the example of driving a car and knowing the speed limit.

Some in attendance blatantly voiced their opinions throughout the lecture, as well as in the discussion following the lecture. There was much debate over vocabulary used within the lecture as well as definitions that Brod provided to clarify the vocabulary of his choice.  Some audience members were so frustrated that they left Mahar.

However, Brod thanked the audience for their criticism and also invited anyone to speak with him after the lecture to further discuss their concerns.

Brod explained the situations when sexual assault is gender neutral; stating that the principles are always the same. But he addressed that it is more likely to report a male perpetrator.

One of the major points in the lecture was the dilemma of how alcohol affects the ability to ask for and gain consent. He compared impaired judgment to driving a motor vehicle, in the sense that even if you are driving inebriated but have not killed or hurt anyone yet, you are not smart just simply lucky.

In comparison, he said, if you have not explicitly gained a partner’s consent, you have not committed a sexual assault, but are simply lucky that it has not been reported yet.

“If you’re too drunk or high to know if you have consent or not and you initiate sexual activity, then you don’t know if you have committed a sexual assault. The only honest answer you can give when asked is ‘I don’t know’,” Brod said.

He adamantly explained that the initiator has the responsibility to know.

In order for his viewpoints to be put into action, Brod addressed that their needs to be a change of the way masculinity is viewed, presented and performed in society. According to Brod, men have generally been seen as the more dominant and powerful of the genders because of our historical societal structure.

He added that throughout history, there has been a known power balance between males and females as well as distinct cultural subordination of women.

He said that this is not the only instance of sexual assault, but is known most often in history.

Brod presented his personal opinion, believing that men have more of an obligation to gain a woman’s consent. He also offered that for social and legal safety, it should be assumed that everyone wants their consent to be acknowledged.

Brod made a series of philosophical remarks rather than providing statistical information to support his points.

Consent is a very delicate thing according to Brod, but it must be obtained before assuming, starting or continuing sexual activity.

Whether it is clumsy or awkward, he said, “When you ask, you don’t know what will happen but you know that there won’t be a rape or sexual assault. You know you are much safer.”

Ashley Berger can be reached at [email protected].