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.

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.

Yes, that it is Nyac. That has helped clarify my thoughts immensely, thank you.

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

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.

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.

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.

forgot to link to my blog

Would welcome your thoughts on this.

Man as submissive/masochist in BDSM is just parodying/fetishizing the female subjugation that really exists in wider society, for kicks.

It is an insult.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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).

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.

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

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.

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....

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

Nyac no men shouldn't be using tactics to push women into doing things they don't want sexually, but assuming that women do want to have sex we cannot set up a system in which sex is always illegal.

The idea behind enthusiastic consent is that if someone is quiet or not partipating and saying "yes I want this" and "don't stop" then they are not consenting even if they aren't saying "no". This is also important from the male side, and part of the problem is the education women are given to behave passively in a sexual envirnoment and men to push for things to go further. Somehow educating men and women that unless both parties are particpating enthusiatically that what is going on is rape and they should stop seems like the best possible compromise. Especially if as suggested above the question changes from "did she say no?" to "how could you tell she wanted sex?" in trials.

Surely that's the point- rape isn't sex, but rape myths and rape apologists assume that rape is a sort of 'sex gone wrong' due to misunderstanding.

In order to change attitudes to rape, we need to change our understanding of sex- it isn't a woman passively consenting to be penetrated, it is a couple jointly and enthusiastically entering into a series of acts. Both people need to participate, and both have the responsibility to ensure that the other is happy to proceed.

That's what I'm understanding from the wacky consent scheme- if everyone assumed non-consent until convinced otherwise, then we'd suddenly all be much more considerate and the 'rape is sex gone wrong' argument would be obvious nonsense.

This is a very interesting subject and I think that the legal system which insists that it has to be proven beyond doubt that a crime has been committed is a big problem for women because there are relatively few false rape accusations. I don't know what the answer to that is because I don't think anyone would argue that it is a perfectly reasonable basis for other crimes? We are left though with a system which allows many men guilty of a serious crime to get off scot free and women unable to have the freedom they should.
On another point about rape in marriage I would never argue that if a wife doesn't give her consent it is still rape whether they are married or not. I'm not sure about arguing though that if a partner is persuaded to have sex then that is rape. I think we all go through times when our sex urge flags a bit. I've seen it advised that women whose sex urge is higher than their husbands should dress in sexy clothes and basically seduce him. Is that rape? Personally I think that sex between consenting adults should never be called rape and to do so clouds a very serious issue. I'm not talking about where the partner feels under any threat if they refuse. Luckily most of the time my wife's sex drive is in sync. with mine but I'm sure we have both sometimes done it because we want to please the other one. Shouldn't marriage be about give and take and sometimes doing things you to please your partner?

Yes, I take your point pozzled.