We Still Think About Sex Like We’re in the Seventies

FEATURE | ISSUE ELEVEN | MAHIMAHI / SEX

Written by Grace Hunter (she/her) | @gracee_hunter | Contributing Writer

It’s easy to judge my participants. After all, 75% of them call themselves progressive yet still hold rigid assumptions about gender, sexuality, and consent. Perhaps they aren’t as evolved as you and I. We’re so evolved – we know not to force tea on an unconscious person. We get consent … right?

Sure, we can pretend we’re immune, or we can do the hard, helpful thing and examine our own minds. We can’t be human without operating on assumptions. Maybe the problem is that we distance ourselves from our flawed world – its marginalisation and misunderstanding – forgetting we hold pieces of it inside us. 

Mainstream culture has long proclaimed that men always want sex while women are far less interested in it. Men are to be assertive, dominant, and preoccupied with their own pleasure. Women should be passive and pursued; they don’t want sex! If they do, they must pretend they don’t. This dynamic is the crux of Sexual Script Theory, born in the seventies.

You and I, evolved, might sit here and laugh – what rudimentary scripts! At least onscreen, everyone’s seen a woman initiate heterosexual sex. And what if you’re gay? Do two men interested in intercourse fist-fight over domination? Do two women sit passive and polite, waiting for the other to make a move? Doubtful. 

But these scripts are more entrenched than we want to admit. To find out how people in this decade navigate gender, sexuality, and consent, participants in my honours dissertation research read a short story and rated how much consent they thought was present. To avoid dry graphs and tables (I wouldn’t do that to you), let’s consider this in terms of Barbie, Raquelle, Ken, and Allan. 

Classic Barbie & Ken

On a first date, Ken and Barbie went back to Ken’s to watch a movie. Barbie lay down between Ken’s legs, on his stomach. But after 20 minutes, Ken obviously didn’t care about Nolan’s Oppenheimer anymore – he reached down and brushed his hand slowly against Barbie’s chest. She was startled, and moved his hand away gently. Yet minutes later, he was back, and she didn’t resist. As per usual, one thing led to another. They kissed, though Barbie wasn’t very enthusiastic. Ken started removing Barbie’s top and unbuttoning his jeans. They missed the rest of the movie. 

Participants, ranking consent levels in this story, painted red flags redder. No, this scenario was not okay. Ken needed ironclad, explicit, verbal consent. This checks out! When participants click open a consent-themed survey, of course they’re on high alert for a predatory straight man. 

When Barbie Wants to Party

Others read the exact same story with one tiny difference. This time, Barbie was the determined seductress. Barbie fondled his abs and Ken half-heartedly kissed back. 

And yet, the alarm bells were hushed. Everyone saw far more consent without Barbie needing a direct answer from Ken. And there’s that old script: the underlying belief that men always want it. A hesitant man isn’t unconsenting – sex is his masculine destiny.

What if they’re gay? 

Enough with the heteros. What if Allan seduces Ken? 

Oh. 

Turns out everyone thought Ken wanted that too. Ignore that Oppenheimer was Ken’s favourite and he wasn’t especially feeling the mood. Ken’s a man, so his consent seemed inherent. People did think that Allan should get a little more verbal consent than Barbie, though. Maybe because Allan might be predatory. He’s a man, and gay – a double-whammy predatory trope. Barbie isn’t, obviously! 

Or Lesbians? 

Well, what if Barbie is actually being pursued again, but this time it’s by Raquelle? People thought this was ‘mostly fine’... much better than when Ken initiates with Barbie (scary). A little bit of caution needed, but women initiating are gentle and compassionate; Raquelle wouldn’t do anything wrong. Still, Barbie is hesitant, and she’s scripted to be a victim. Maybe Raquelle should ask one more time if she’s sure.  

---

With identical scenarios, only gender and sexuality differing, people understood these to be completely different levels of consent. These participants, mainly AUT students, said themselves that they believe we should assume “no” until we hear “yes.” These are the ones who are supposed to know consent by heart. And yet, they defaulted to seventies gender stereotypes the second a real scenario was put in front of them. 

This isn’t to say it’s unfair to be more sceptical of Ken than Barbie. The name swap in the story isn’t without weight; it adds heavy layers of context. A 90kg man ignoring a woman’s boundaries carries a history of power and physical threat that a female counterpart never could. The danger is real and lived for many. But when our brains use stereotypes as a shortcut, we risk missing a wider view. 

These automatic assumptions mean that people can hurt someone or be hurt without realising, just because the coercion didn’t look like a trenchcoat in an alley or someone dropping pills in a drink at a party. Truthfully, we don’t even have scripts for queer people; they’re just squished into hetero boxes. And for gender-diverse people? There isn’t even a box to squeeze into. My research didn’t even begin to untangle the complexities of gender diversity, or even queer subgroups.

We don’t need to spiral in shame about our subconscious biases. Assumptions are adaptive! Our brains are too busy to examine every situation with a microscope. But we can’t assume we’ll never get hurt, and we can’t assume that we’ll never be the one causing harm. Knowing not to force tea is a cute bare minimum, but real life can’t be distilled into a punchy metaphor. We must examine our minds and how the world has shaped them. Do we agree with the scripts culture writes for us? What are your thoughts? Are they actually yours? 

It’s a privilege to know another human intimately, so of course consent requires delicacy and nuance. And that’s good! After all, do you really want to invite the seventies into your bedroom with you and your hot date?