Consent - a problematic concept if ever I saw one.

[Beachcomber]

I find the concept of consent, and how it is defined and applied in patriarchy, very problematic.

All sorts of misogyny and abuse is perpetuated against women under the flag of 'but she consented'. Why are we having to put up with this? And why is consent used as though it is some sort of final word on an issue, regardless often of any other factors?

When it comes to rape, I broadly agree with Twisty Faster's wacky consent scheme. I think the whole concept needs an overhaul, and critically examined with regards to all sorts of other issues too.

(For people unfamiliar with Twisty's writing style, she is being a little tongue in cheek and she writes unapologetically for a female radfem audience. Can we try not to get too hung up on semantics - it is the concept that interests me.)

I'm interested in what others think. Thanks.

Stewie, i was really just thinking out loud, those were questions not statements, i absolutely agree with you on two of those. Less so on the relationship one, i have been with my partner 20 years, i would think that consent, in the grander scheme of things is a given. That means, for me at least, that if he really wants it, he is perfectly entitled to have a bloody good try until such a point where i say, fuck off DP im really not in the mood. There have been times when i have given in (he doesn't take long bless him, so easier to get it done and get some sleep! i have done that in the past), that doesn't make my DP a rapist. Because if i really hadn't wanted it i would have told him to fuck off (as politely as possible). If i were in a relationship with a controlling man, that would be starkly different and that would clearly be rape.

im not an idiot, but unless the words no are uttered, it is not cut and dry. i didnt say that as a defence for men who push themselves on women, jesus.

But its not rape inanyothersoil is it. I adore my partner, i love having sex with him, there are times when i might not want to to start with, but my DP can be very persuasive (in a good way - lots of stroking, etc etc) I often want sex more than he does, i have been known to just take his cock out and put it in my mouth, even when he has not wanted it. Sorry if that is blunt, but i have dont it.

I'm sorry, this is very rude but frankly, if anyone - man or woman - who believes that he is 'entitled' to have a 'bloody good try' to have sex with you right up to the point where you either 'give in' or have to resort to telling him to 'fuck off' ... I'm sorry, I think that is sick, controlling, massively entitled and disgusting.

And I can see you may feel it 'works for you'. But it gives me the cold shivers. It really really does. Mainly because, now you've felt the need to come and tell everyone how you're fine with this situation, you've given a great big gift to the sick people who do want their wives and girlfriends to be ok with this kind of thing. Some nasty bloke or vulnerable woman reading your post is going to think 'ah, she's saying it's ok for a man to pester for sex, and a woman doesn't really have to give consent every time. And that is wrong.

I know that is a really harsh post, btw goaway, and I promise you I am not saying it to try to upset you or hurt you - it's a measure of how strongly I feel about this. I can't mince my words and pretend what you describe doesn't sound appalling to me, I'm sorry, but I can't.

So let me get this straight then.

I am in a loving relationship, we have a good sex life.

If my partner wants sex, but i don't at that particular time, he is not entitled to try and persude me? No, stroking, not massage, no nothing? and my stating that makes me malicious and unkind? Really? I LIKE being persuaded to have sex.

Malicious and unkind is accusing my partner of being a rapist because he will have persuaded me to have sex when i might not have been in the more AT THE START!

I don't think you are being malicious, but I don't know how else to answer you: no, of course he's not 'entitled'. Why would he be? Marital rape is a crime.

He's not 'entitled' to do anything with your body - it's your body.

Right then, so we are both rapists then I really wanted to contribute to this conversation. I can see that i wont be welcome on this board because i don't share your viewpoints? I was pretty much trying to say what you said, that it is such a very vague concept. Where is the line between a partner persuading another partner to have sex and rape. There are too many if buts and maybes. I have never in 20 years of a very active sex life had sex when i didn't want to, EVER. I wouldnt feel very desirable actually if my DP had to wait for me to initiate sex every time, because that is how it sounds it has to be.

I like this quote from Catharine MacKinnon:

"The deeper problem is that women are socialized to passive receptivity; may have or perceive no alternative to acquiescence; may prefer it to the escalated risk of injury and the humiliation of a lost fight; submit to survive. Also, force and desire are not mutually exclusive under male supremacy. So long as dominance is eroticized, they never will be. Some women eroticize dominance and submission; it beats feeling forced. Sexual intercourse may be deeply unwanted, the women would never have initiated it, yet no force may be present. So much force may have been used that the woman never risked saying no. Force may be used, yet the woman prefer the sex - to avoid more force or because she, too, eroticizes dominance. Women and men know this. Considering rape as violence not sex evades, at the moment it most seems to confront, the issue of who controls women's sexuality and the dominance/submission dynamic that has defined it. When sex is violent, women may have lost control over what is done to them, but absence of force does not ensure the presence of that control. Nor, under conditions of male dominance, does the presence of force make an interaction nonsexual. If sex is normally something men do to women, the issue is less whether there was force than whether consent is a meaningful concept."

You know 'entitled' means 'given the formal, legal right', don't you? It's a very strong word. People used to think men were 'entitled' to rape their wives because they had, quite literally in the marriage contract, gained a legal entitlement over that woman's body, just as they might gain an entitlement of land or goods.

WHERE did i say he is entitled to have sex with me.

'If my partner wants sex, but i don't at that particular time, he is not entitled to try and persude me? No, stroking, not massage, no nothing? and my stating that makes me malicious and unkind? Really? I LIKE being persuaded to have sex.'

That's what you said, goaway. And the answer is still no, he is not 'entitled' to any of this. It is your body.

As a wider point I think the terminology here that's being used - the term 'entitled' is part of that same problem of how male-female sexual relationships are understood. It's still the language of written contracts, as if women can't speak up for themselves. Marriage used to be a contract that was legalised by a man having sex with a woman - her body is the object on which that contract is effected, and the marriage isn't fully binding until it's consummated. I know now we have moved beyond that but I think the shadows of that old idea are still behind a lot of our assumptions.

So hang on then, just because im not read up on feminist literature or i don't have a PhD in women's rights i am not entitled to post my annecdotaal thoughts?

I'll just stick to posting in relationships with the rest of the plebs! I am sorry but i am entitled to my opinion. I am as against rape of any sort and to suggest taht i am defending it is deeply offensive and i actually feel quite sickened.

The thouht of my loving partner, cheekily, lovingly, persuading me to have sex being thought of as rape is disgusting.