• Cheek

9 things wrong with the milkshake consent video

*In no specific order. Not an exhaustive list. Mentions sexual assault.

1. They made the woman the perpetrator

Before the meninists come for me, no, it's not always women who are the victims of sexual violence or coercion, but it is almost always men who are the perpetrators. So why make the perpetrator a woman? ScoMo, that's not a rhetorical question, I would genuinely like an answer. Is it because men don't have the capacity to relate to the content unless they are represented as the victim? Because if so, 1. We aren't doing men any favours by massively underestimating their capacity and ability to empathise, and 2. In order to achieve genuine equality, we need to stop specifically and exclusively catering to men.

2. The government isn't qualified to make it

If the federal government has shown us anything this year, it's that they are not qualified to talk about consent. There are many men in elected positions and staffers who have been accused of sexual assault, harassment, and misogyny. Of course, many of these accusations are just alleged, but when there's smoke, there's usually fire, and the smoke is pointing to a serious culture problem in Canberra.

3. The pros and cons list

'Bailey' is seen writing a pros and cons list to decide whether to break up with 'Veronica'. On the pros side: she's pretty; kissing; wavy hair. I mean, do I have to say more? If sitcoms have taught us anything it's that you should never ever write a pros and cons list about your partner because they will most definitely find it. Secondly, if hair, prettiness, and kissing are your partners' best qualities, I really don't think there's much need for a list.

4. Moving the line

What the F is that? The 'moving the line' analogy is frankly confusing. Obviously, they are trying to go for a 'just because they say yes to X, doesn't mean they consent to Y, but it makes no sense. What is the 'maybe zone'? Is this a sports analogy? I'm confused.

5. It's out of touch with the demo

The video is aimed at 14-17 year olds Australians. You'd think that the government would have consulted with at least one person from their target age range to develop an engaging and effective video, but it's obvious they didn't, or at least didn't take on any feedback. The first rule of community engagement or creating quality content is to engage and consult with the target market. Surely #ScottyFromMarketing knew that!?

6. 'Not good!'

The voiceover is heard saying 'and that's not good,' in relation to the action zone (??). Something stronger could have been used, like 'that's assault,' or 'that's a criminal offence' for example. Never have I heard someone report an instance of assault and say "and it just was not good!"

7. It cost almost $3 million

This number is contested, but from what we can gather, this amount was spent to make the video and create the accompanying website. We don't know where this website is and frankly are scared to look.

8. Roundabout language

The video doesn't use the word 'consent' and it doesn't really imply it's referring to sex, physical touch, or anything similar, apart from the line 'can I touch your butt'. Yikes BTW. Most 14 to 17 year olds have already received sexual education and are plenty old enough to hear the word 'sex'. Infantalising and watering down the content was absolutely not the answer here.

9. The milkshake

Is it a vegan milkshake? Is it made on oat milk? If not, it's completely out of touch with kids today, and honestly disrespectful to our innocent cows. Nobody drinks cow's milk anymore ScoMo, get with the fucking program.