Contagious Confusion Concerning Consent

Dear Mr. Bieber,

It has come to my attention, through one of your inexplicably-popular-and-utterly-inescapable songs, that you have some questions regarding the concept of consent.  I speak, of course, of your ode to jazz flute and the crocodile from Peter Pan, “What Do You Mean?” (By the way, I was relieved to note that the song title truly does have a question mark.  This is by no means a given.)

While a good chunk of this song consists of you being whiny and vaguely threatening about receiving mixed signals, in a far inferior (though admittedly titularly superior grammatically) knockoff of Katy Perry’s “Hot N Cold”, the first few lines (which are repeated throughout the somewhat lyrically-challenged song) deserve some special attention and discrete answers.  So let’s break those down, shall we?

What they say/do: Nod their head yes

What they want to say/do: Say no

What they mean: No.

So let’s acknowledge, right up front, that you’re not actually specific here regarding the subject to the putative agreement, which is unfortunate.  However, given the context of the song itself, as well as what that sort of question normally means, I think it’s a safe assumption that this exchange deals with consent to a given level of physical intimacy.

Given that assumption, if you know they want to say no, then what they mean is no.  Period.  I don’t care that they nodded yes; if you somehow know, or even suspect, that they want to say no (for example, previous discussions, obvious reluctance in agreement, etc.), then that’s your answer.  It’s no.  It’s always no.  Enthusiastic consent is the name of the game.  Reluctant consent (especially in the coercive context of ultimatums, as we’ll discuss below) should be treated as a no.

What they say/do: Tell you to go

What they want to say/do: Have you not move.

What they mean: Go.

Before we get into this, I’d like to introduce you to the idea of parallel structure.  Notice how the lyrics are actually reversed in the breakdown?  That’s because you’ve reversed the order of action and desire from the first exchange (yes, I know it’s to make the rhyme work).  You’ve also reversed the intents of the action and desire from the first exchange.  For someone complaining about a lack of straightforwardness, this double reversal is certainly confusing matters.

Okay, so on the surface, it also looks like I’m reversing myself: up above, I told you to go with what they wanted, not what they said, and here I’m changing that.  But that would be because there’s more fundamental concept at play: in matters of consent, always err towards no. Even if you don’t think they mean it, if they say “no” or “go”, then that’s what you get.  Perhaps if you have a really strong indication that they don’t mean it you can get away with one, “Are you sure?”  But that’s it!  Remember, enthusiastic consent.  Being told to leave, even if not really meant, can hardly be construed as enthusiastic.  Plus, you may be mistaken in your belief of what they really want.

And finally, let’s discuss that ultimatum.  It’s okay to not like mixed signals.  Who does?  They’re confusing and frustrating.  It’s also okay to want to leave a relationship over them, if they’re making you unhappy enough.  And it’s okay to tell the other person that this is what you’re considering doing, and why.  (Hey, look!  Parallel structure!)

What’s not okay is to make it an ultimatum to force an immediate decision, because any such decision, especially if they wind up consenting, has to be considered reluctant.  And things like “better make up your mind” and making the entire song sound like a freaking time bomb definitely make this coercive.

So why does this all matter?  It’s just a stupid song, right?

Well, here’s the thing.  That stupid song somehow has nearly 1.25 billion views on Youtube (don’t you people have cat videos to watch?), not to mention, as I said before, that it’s played nearly constantly on the radio.  Clearly, you have a large audience.  And with a large audience comes the responsibility to NOT MAKE THINGS WORSE, YOU JERK.

The issue of consent in sexual situations is already one a frighteningly large number of people struggle with, whether it’s due to a lack of knowledge or a lack of respect.  And then here you come blundering into the middle of it all going, “Huh?  I don’t get it.  What’s going on?  I’m so confused.”  And that confusion is going to spread, or at least be normalized, to the millions of people who made the staggeringly poor choice to watch your video or listen to your song, and who may not know any better because GOD FORBID we teach our kids how to be honest and respectful in matters of sex.  Now, instead of maybe having (what should be but bizarrely so often isn’t) the COMPLETELY NATURAL response of “Well, he/she clearly means no, so that means no”, they’ll wonder.

It’s not your fault that this situation exists, obviously.  But you’re certainly not helping matters.  At all.  Whatsoever.  (And given how your other song that’s getting ever so much airtime, “Love Yourself”, is so utterly banal, petty, and bitter, it’s clear that your public persona, at least, has some serious issues with respect for women.  So yeah, way to put that sort of thing out there.  That’s really gonna help make the world a better place.  Go you.  But there's a quote for that, too.)

So knock it off.

Thank you.