Consent - a problematic concept if ever I saw one.

thought not 'though'

I apologise if this is taking the thread off topic, but it's a question that keeps coming up in my head and I just wondered what others though.

Do you think one of the reasons so many relationships fail or are miserable is due to the issue of consent? (I'm not sure I can explain this properly, so sorry if this makes no sense.)

It's just struck me that sex seems to be treated as the primary feature of so many relationships. The initial 'courtship' seems to be all geared up to the 'act' of sex, and once the relationship is established, sex seems to be used by many as a barometer of how healthy it is. It just seems to instantly launch men into the position of wanting it, and women into the position of deciding whether or not it's going to happen (although often they have no choice) and it's so adversarial.

I don't get it. I like sex and think it's important. And I accept that it' an important characteristic of a romantic relationship. But it seems to dominate rather than just be one characteristic. When you think about it there are so many things that define human relationships and intimacy. Why is sex so important? I'm sure people will say bit's because it's what separates their relationship with their partner from their relationship with family/friends, but is it? Really? If you really think about it, isn't a relationship about so much more than that?

And this all stems from the idea (as we all seem to agree on) that men want sex and women fight off the advances. I wonder what would happen if sex was genuinely not a weapon co-opted by patriarchy. What if sex went back to genuinely being about desire and being desired. Would the issue of consent disappear or be reduced?

Yes, perfect sense.

I suspect it's also important that, until very recently, homosexual relationships were not legal, so ideas about consent (and especially legal ideas) are incredibly fixed on the idea of heterosexual, monogamous relationships.

I've appreciated this thread very much, it's clarifying a lot of ideas for me. Thanks.

In that case, then: do you think consent is becoming more problematic as a concept, beach, or has it always been problematic but we didn't notice fully?

I'm wondering as it seems - despite marital rape having been criminalized within my parents' married life, so quite recently - that it is getting more fraught and mroe problematic as a concept, and not because we're coming to accept it frames women as passive, but because there are so many myths about how women behave when they want sex.

I find it really sad.

So ... correct me if I'm wrong ... everyone on this thread reckons it's important sex be consensual? And everyone reckons it's important that women not be the only ones who're focussed on when we discuss consent?

Yes?

If we can all agree on that could we carry on with the thread maybe? It was interesting and I know it's useful to check we're all on the same page but we've been trying to do that for a while and it seems a bit OTT.

I think instead of putting the emphasis how it is riskier for women, it would make more sense to remind men of their own risks - women are more suspectible to STD transmission, but even if the statistical risk is lower for men, there is a risk of contracting serious STDs, including HIV in every episode of having sex for someone with unknown serostatus. And it's impossible to predict which episode will not result in transmission and which will.

If the message you broadcast is that the onus should be on men to be sure because it's riskier for women, then those men who are arses, won't care on bit more. If you emphasise the message that it's risky for both parties, and don't downplay the risk for the privilieged side, brains might hopefully be engaged more.

Of course there's also the risk of pregnancy where no or insufficient contraception is used, but then again, I think the message that that's less of a problem for men because they can just walk away doesn't really challenge status quo. Don't emphasise they can walk away, but the opposite.

Fwiw, whether you agree with the blog post or just use it as a starting point for debate, this discussion is helpful, imo.

MoreBeta
InAnyOtherSoil linked to a good blog earlier with a good list of verbal and non-verbal signs of consent and non-consent.

What I would say to my son (when he is of that age) is that it is not enough to not hear a "no", you have to be sure that the girl is willing to go ahead.

Do you have to have a clear "Yes" every single time, even after 30 years marriage - I think that depends on the marriage, but presumably if your wife was not responding or was showing reluctance, you would stop and ask if she was ok.

If my DH is distracted and not "with the programme" then I notice.

I think the non-verbal clues are very important. It is too easy to get hung up on whether she said "yes" or "no" when it should be absolutely clear when a woman does not want sex, or is just going along with it.

Beachcomber

I was replying to this posting by Nyac

"People don't consent to eat food, or undertake other bodily functions, why sex, and why is it only women?"

X post. What Beachcomber said based on Nyac's post.

WW, yes that makes sense and I agree with it theoretically. However, I think it's important to separate the drive for sex from the act. Men and women may have equal desire, but sex is not an equal act for them. The risks for women are much, much higher than for men and that should not be ignored. It makes consent a vital issue and does place the onus on men IMO.

Also, while you could argue that getting women to take equal responsibility for ensuring men are consenting is levelling the playing field, I would argue that it ignores the patriarchal background against which all this is playing out. Taking 'equal' responsibility actually means that women are taking more responsibility because of male privilege.

I do think it's a good point that it's important consent doesn't just refer to women.

I agreed with nyac when she said it, and several people had been talking about it before. I don't have this set to page numbers, but nyac's post was at 15.23 today and others made the same point less explicitly before that.

sunshine - didn't try to derail and do a whataboutthemenz - just thinking that the emphasis should be in any sexual situation both partners should be sure about consent, no matter whether it's a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

The actual underlying idea that sex is something that men do to women, I think also gives support to the idea that sex is something that men should do to women, i.e. it is expected of them to want it, which then in turn leads to men pressuring women and boys pressuring girls into sex, possibly neither of them really wants.

So basically, by making this gendered, the situation is perpetuated, and that's damaging for everyone involved.

Hope it makes a little more sense now.

WW, I don't think you're thick .. I never got the sense you thought you were either. Has something happened?

I don't think anyone is saying anything very academic, they're just disagreeing with you. It's fairly normal and it doesn't necessarily mean you're missing anything.

Beachcomber My bad, maybe I'm just to thick to understand enlightened radfem analysis.

Maybe, instead of only turning onto those who don't get what is said, it might be worth whether this lack of understanding might be also based in the ways those ideas are expressed.

WW I wouldn't disagree with that and I'm not trying to deny that women can sexually assault men.

However, I think getting sidetracked by that misses the point. More women are raped by men than men are sexually assaulted by women. The physical damage sustained by women is usually more severe because it involves penetration. Penetration and what that involves is a key concept in any discussion of rape.

Eh? What is wrong with that WW? Of course, surely we all agree that a man needs to be 100% positive thaat a woman wants to have sex? And so do all participants in all sex acts.

Are you taking issue with the general proposition (the bit you don't strike out), or the specific one (that you do strike out)? I think both of them are obviously correct.