Consent - a problematic concept if ever I saw one.

Rape isn't really sex, though, is it?

Comparing rape to murder doesn't hold up....murser is illegal and sex is not...so you can't consent to being murdered...you and the perpertrator would both be guilty of arranging a crime. I do think that her argument that women are in a constant state of "yes" has some interest....

Enthusiastic consent has to be both partners, and include the right for either partner to call a halt, if he/she does not want to proceed.

The onus is on both to ensure that their partner is happy to go ahead.

No, I think 'enthusiastic consent' has to mean both partners, whatever gender, or it doesn't work at all.

The problem with enthusiastic consent is that it still places the onus on the woman and what she's doing.

Men shouldn't be coercing, manipulating, forcing, wheedling, pressurising, threatening or whatever other tactics they use, to push women into things they don't want sexually.

As long as female behaviour and actions are the focus, things will never change.

I'm more of a lurker on this section, but I find this discussion very interesting. I particularly liked mrshoarder's comment that all participants should 'participate enthusiasticly'. I've always thought that consent needs to be a very active thing, and I can see that the word itself has quite passive connotations. Good sex shouldn't be about allowing or agreeing to something, it should be about participating. That doesn't mean we should all be swinging from the rafters, participation can be very low-key- gently moving your partner's hand, or just a couple of words.

I think it would be a fantastic thing if the first question asked after a rape allegation was 'How did she show she was participating in this act?' (Or he, obviously in the case of male rape).

Mme - yes, I agree. I think how we learn about virtually anything to do with sex shapes how we behave later on.

Absolutely SGM. The first term I'd like to see shot is 'foreplay'.

Yes, I agree with that, Dooms. People who are able to talk openly about sex, what they like and how they like it, are less likely to have these "misunderstandings" that the press so love.

If teens are taught that they must seek consent, then there can be no misunderstandings, and no wiggle room for "but I thought she wanted to, she didn't say no".

And how we learn about consent shapes how we behave in our adult lives.

Btw - if we are talking about practical stuff to recommend - I think the best thing is when people get the idea that it's a turn-on to ask someone if they want to have sex and to talk about it. Getting into totally, utterly biased anecdotal stuff now - but men I have known who had enjoyed the whole process of saying 'and do you like this ... oh, do that, I like that', have in general been much more considerate partners.

This is difficult maybe because teens (especially) sometimes feel embarrassed to talk about sex. But I feel something has gone really wrong when young women's first sexual experiences are things like sending home-made porn to their boyfriends, not talking about what they want to do. Because if you talk about it you have set up a context where it is easier to also say 'no, I don't like that' and where you can feel more confident that absence of enthusiastic consent will be very, very clear.

I think - and this is certainly anecdotal so feel free to ignore - that when men are submissive, there is a very different dynamic at work from when women are, because you can't discount the fact that, in wider society, it is men who have the power and the presumption of being active partners. So a man who is submissive is doing something that's transgressing the usual roles that society still clings to, of active men and passive women. I think lots of us get a turn on from transgression and maybe that is what's going on there.

I do think it is interesting (and really, seriously upsetting, and demonstrative of the way that 'consent' is such a fraught concept) that in homosexual relationships I think both gay men and women have had difficulties getting their voices heard when they say they didn't consent, because some bigots still find it difficult to understand that you could need consent from a same-sex partner, or that they could not want to have sex.

I think a lot of the dodgy attitudes you get towards gay men, and men who've been raped, are very, very telling of how we as a society assume consent works - clearly consent is primarily seen as a female activity, which is really really shite.

forgot to link to my blog

Would welcome your thoughts on this.

Interesting discussion.

I have just written a blog post about consent, specifically the teaching of enthusiastic/wholehearted consent to teenagers. I feel that teens should be taught more about consent, not just "if she says no, then she has withheld consent" but that they should ensure that the girl truly is happy to proceed.

MN is continuing the We Believe You campaign to address this issue. I talked to someone on Twitter from a rape crisis centre in London, and she said that they would like to go into schools and teach this kind of thing, but that there is a fair bit of resistance from schools.

One of the readers linked to a blog post she had written on the subject here and there followed quite an interesting discussion.

I agree that there needs to be an open discussion on this, without the appearance that I think that all men are potential rapists.

Goawaybob
I understand where you are coming from, and that you feel the need to defend your relationship, but the kind of relationship that you have with your husband only pertains to your life. You and your DH are ok with the way things are, but many would not be.

Using anecdotal evidence as a reasoning for your stance on consent is flawed, as it is only relevant to your life. For many women, who want their husband to stop and do not want to be persuaded, the actions of your husband would be abhorrent.

I like the concept that to move to a "non-rapist society" what is needed is for all participants to consent enthusiastically to sex. So instead of discussing that "no means no" we need to discuss that everything which isn't a positive and enthusiasitic "yes" means stop.

This can include the idea that a person can begin with hair stroking etc and see if the other person gets into the mood, as long as at all times the other person is keep for the current level of contact to continue.

This fits well with the UK law on rape, without risking criminalising loving relationships where both partners consented.

What about BDSM when the man is the sub?

I am very interested in BDSM, i LIKE the idea of being submissive, and other things i don't want to talk about here, it clearly isnt the place. I have massive double standards about it.

yes one of the probs I have with "no means no" is that it assumes men are the active agent wiht women passive receptacles just waiting for male activity and their only role is to either say yes or no.

That sounds like crap sex to me apart from anything else

In a non-rapist society women wouldn't have to consent to sex. Consent is about men getting women to do things that they don't want to and then claiming that it was wanted so they can claim it wasn't a crime, it's a concept that can only exist in a rapist society. Sex that is wanted is wanted you don't need to "consent" to it.

I think there are some grey areas on consent within relationships, because women (and men) may have sex for complicated motives:

Because even though I'm not in the mood right now I know I'll get into it once we start
Because I know it will be good for our relationship
Because he's had a lousy day and could do with cheering up
Because he's in a foul mood and I wish he'd cheer up
Because I know if we don't have sex he'll be grumpy enough to make my life miserable
Because there may be an unspoken hint of violence if I don't
Because he's specifically threatened me with violence if I don't

And in a work context
Because he won't give me the job if I don't
Because he'll sack me if I don't

Many of these are the sign that you are in a relationship with a selfish bastard, or worse. Some of these are unequivocally rape.

Or am I wrong? - I know "grey areas" is a phrase which is a bit fraught in rape discussions.

I reckon if we think about it, we can all think of women we know who've had sex not because they wanted sex but for other reasons. But I've noticed how when I discuss this sort of thing with mates, lots of women will deny there is a problem and at the same time will refer to 'bad experiences' in the past or to other women who had 'bad judgment with men'. There seem to be lots of ways of splitting the female population into groups ('me in the past'/'my mate X who has rotten judgment with men'/ 'those silly teenagers'), and this allows women to say 'well, I don't think I have any problem with consent, I would never let a man force me or guilt me into anything ...

So yes, I agree proles, I think for a lot of women there is that lurking awareness and that's why so many women make a distinction between themselves and other women/themselves in the past, in order to insist they're not affected by this problem of consent.

Is consent a meaningful concept under male supremacy? I don't think it is, because under male supremacy we don't have the freedom to choose, not really. I agree with IAOS when she said "I don't think it's about choice or consent for many women - it is about survival". Tbh I'd go a bit further and say that I don't think it's about choice or consent for any women, because we're all in the same boat under male supremacy. But I really believe that we (women) very often hold on to our dignity by making a choice out of a necessity. Even if we don't admit it on a conscious level, I think there's a lurking awareness that if we don't acquiesce we will likely be punished for it.