Consent condoms: a big fail for the woke

Well, I suppose this product sounds good for about a millisecond when you first hear about it, but another millisecond’s thought proves it to be a dumb and unworkable attempt to solve the issue of consent—and lack thereof—in sexual relations.  The report originates with CNN, which shows the product at issue: a condom in a package that requires four hands to open:

From CNN:

It takes four hands to open this new condom, created by an Argentine company in a bid to highlight the importance of consent.

The “Consent Pack” of condoms was designed by ad agency BBDO Argentina for Tulipan, a company which sells adult toys and condoms.

“If it’s not a yes, it’s a no,” and “Without consent there is no pleasure” says the tagline in the promotional video, along with the hashtag #PlacerConsentido, or “permitted pleasure.”

Another tagline reads: “Consent is the most important thing in sex.”

The pack’s “unique system” requires four hands — or two people — to agree to open it, by clicking four buttons on the top and sides of the box at the same time.

Executive creative directors of BBDO Argentina, Joaquin Campins and Christian Rosli, said in a statement to CNN: “Tulipan has always spoken of safe pleasure, but for this campaign we understood that we had to talk about the most important thing in every sexual relationship: pleasure is possible only if you both give your consent first.”

The condom is limited edition for now and being given to bar customers and attendees of events around Buenos Aires. But Tulipan plans to sell it online in the future.

The article mentions as well that few Argentinian men use condoms, but I’m not sure how making the package harder to open will rectify that problem:

How it works:

¿Por qué esta cajita solo se puede abrir de a dos? Porque así funciona el consentimiento en las relaciones. Todo tiene que ser de a dos. 🤚🤚#PlacerConsentido pic.twitter.com/QEUE5aNAWE

— Tulipán Argentina (@TulipanARG) March 27, 2019

Well, you can think of several problems right off the bat. First, this makes condom use marginally more difficult, not easier, and so doesn’t mitigate the problem of Argentinian men not using condoms. Second, if a guy was planning to have sex with a woman (or vice versa), you can always get a friend to help you open the box beforehand. I can imagine that some people would find this a better solution because it minimizes interruption of the sex act. Third, unless this is the ONLY kind of condom available, of what use is it? People can always buy the regular kind.

I suppose a woman could produce this product and insist that a man use it or there will be no sex, but she can simply produce a regular condom and insist on the same thing. If he refuses and tries to force a woman to have sexual intercourse without a condom and without her consent, that is an act of rape that will not be alleviated by this product.

Finally, by the time a condom is required during sex—right before intercourse—it would seem that there has already been mutual consent. But there lies the rub(ber)! The most common objection is that consent can be withdrawn after even a four-handed condom has been produced, but there are others:

From Cosmopolitan (their emphasis):

I get the idea: The four-hand requirement ensures that there’s been a clear, consensual agreement from two parties who are about to have sex. In theory, these condoms should promote having a conversation beforehand (never a bad thing!), and from what I can tell, are meant to be somewhat of a symbolic product dropped in a few bars around Buenos Aires. Clearly, no harm intended.

The thing is…the assumption behind this new condom completely misses the mark. It presents a fantasy in which sex is always clear cut and naturally egalitarian; where the simple act of two able-bodied individuals opening a box together assures an equally straightforward sexual experience. It believes that people (including rapists and sexual predators or abusers) always wear condoms in the first place and importantly, that once a condom is on, consent cannot be revoked. Ever. It’s a done deal.

. . . Reading #MeToo accounts can be painful, and it’s understandable, even admirable, that people want to help eliminate sexual violence. The problem is: It’s not going to be simple, or easy, or quick. Consent lives in the nuances of human interaction. Consent involves navigating tricky areas—someone saying “yes” because they’re too shy to say “no,” or verbalizing something like, “It kind of hurts, but I think I’m okay?”

Rolling Stone raises issues that I didn’t even think of!

Instead of being applauded for promoting the importance of consent, the Tulipan condom ad was excoriated on social media, for a fairly wide range of reasons. Some argued it was ableist, as it discounted the experience of amputees who would be unable to open the condom; others argued that it was discriminatory against polyamorous people, on the grounds that it assumed that only two people would be having sex. Some people even expressed concern that such condoms would be used as “evidence,” potentially in sexual assault cases, to protect those accused of sexual assault rather than the accusers, as a way to demonstrate that consent had been provided when it in fact had not.

. . . the Tulipan ad fundamentally misunderstood the concept of consent. As one woman wrote, “putting on a condom does not equal automatic consent of all sexual activity.” The ad basically glosses over the fact that consent can be revoked midway through the act — if one partner does something that the other is uncomfortable with, for instance, or simply if one partner changes their mind for whatever reason. Agreeing to use a condom is a step in the ongoing process of obtaining sexual consent, but it is by no means the final one, and some argued that the campaign minimized the need for an ongoing and open dialogue about consent during and after sex, not just beforehand.

And from HuffPost:

But while the product may be well-intended, critics, including sex therapists, say it promotes some misguided ideas about consensual sex: True consent is not a one-time transaction ― press the magic buttons or hear “yes” once and you’re in the clear. Consent is an ongoing conversation.

But how ongoing?

Yes, of course consent—and it’s clear they’re talking about women—can be withdrawn at any time, and if it is then you need to stop. What bothers me about this is the introduction of this product, and the conversation about it, demonstrates an increasing fear of sex and of accusations of forced sex, issues that surely must be affecting young people.  Certainly consent should be there by both partners throughout the act, but it seems to me that constant questioning of the sort like “Now that I have the condom on, can I insert my penis into you?” has to not only take the pleasure out of sex, but make students unwilling to have sex at all. (This is not a joke: Brown University specifies a series of questions like this.) Does consent always have to be verbal, in answer to a question?

It’s a tough thing to be a sexually healthy young person these days, and the idea of making the act of sex into a continual contract, whether that be verbal or written, combined with the fear of a post-coital accusation of “implied lack of consent”, is gong to turn a lot more young folk into celibates.