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.

Enthusiastic consent only applies to women in practice and not the male partner, because it is generally women who are forced, coerced, pressured, manipulated into sex they don't want by men. It still places "consent" at the centre of sex which as has already been said is incredibly problematic. Saying it has to apply to men too, when sexual violence is overwhelmingly against women and girls and perpretrated by men, is simply ignoring male sexual violence against women and the context that "consent" currently exists in.

It's also not a coincidence that the "yes means yes" movement has been hijacked by BDSMers.

"I would just love to talk about these men who are having sex with unwilling women. Can we talk about them, and the culture that normalises that?"

Yup me too.

Yes, when I spoke of grey areas, it's the grey area between "he's a very nasty bit of work who you should kick out on his arse" and " he has committed a serious criminal offence and should be banged up". There isn't a "he's an alright guy really it was just an honest misunderstanding" option.

It's a bit like the mugger claiming he didn't know the victim didn't want to give up the Rolex watch, or the looter claiming that he didn't know that Dixons didn't want their tellies stolen.

So it seems that there is a lot of general agreement that 'consent' is problematic in a myriad of ways.

Are we now looking at the patriarchal notion that sex is something men 'get' from women or 'do' to women? Which is a horrible idea because it portrays women as some sort of prey and men as predators. It also concentrates on PIV as 'real sex' and leaves very little space for female sexuality.

OK, now something else I would like to throw into the mix. I have been wondering for ages why sex is such a Big Deal in patriarchy. At the moment I am thinking it is a big deal because it is the means through which women are oppressed. We are oppressed by sex and oppressed for sex.

We are oppressed through sexualised violence, through being the sex class, through being portrayed and treated as sexual prey.

OK for the women. Now what about the men? Why do so many men go along with this? Why is having sex so important to them that they are willing to pressure, pester, rape, beat, drug, traffic, prostitute, pornulate, torture and sometimes kill women to get it?

WTAF is that all about?

I mean when you really look at it, plain in the face, it is a fucking shocking state of affairs. And it is condoned and normalized.

Being a man I am treading on eggshells here and I will butt out of this thread if anybody requests out of respect for the seriousness of this issue to women.
I don't think most of the things you mention are condoned and normalised beachcomber. I think the majority of men feel that the things you mention are evil and disturbing as well. whether we do enough to stop it happening is another issue. I think that in many cases though these men are brought up in families where women are not respected.

Porn also tells men that women are constantly sexually accessible and that they like to be brutalised during sex.

I'm off out just now. Not ignoring anyone.

V v interesting thread. Thank you all from this lurker.

Inanyothersoil
Thanks for that link. It is a bit long, but it certainly covers the topic. I liked the list of verbal and non-verbal signs of consent and non-consent. I might do a follow on post for the blog, linking to that post.

The video that you linked to - I saw that a week or so ago and tbh, I was a bit about it. I am not keen on the fact that it gives the impression that rape (in this case) was a misunderstanding, a guy getting too carried away. He ignored her saying that she did not want to.

I would also like to know about these men who have sex with unresponsive women. How would you get pleasure from that?

"OK for the women. Now what about the men? Why do so many men go along with this? Why is having sex so important to them that they are willing to pressure, pester, rape, beat, drug, traffic, prostitute, pornulate, torture and sometimes kill women to get it?"

I am a bit troubled by this, Beachcomber. Are there so many men who are willing to do this? Although, going by threads on MN there are plenty of men who are willing to pressure and pressure women into sex.

The other thing I have been thinking about this afternoon (what a cheery topic to have going through my mind) is the conditioning of women to be the reluctant virgin - by appearances at least - who turns into a raging sex monster in bed.

Does this fuel the "I just have to persuade her, she wants it really" thinking of some men?

Women who are honest about their sexual desires are derided and called "sluts", but if they refuse sex they are "frigid".

Only read the first page of thread so far.

I really resent the idea that women are only conditioned by patriarchy and incapable of making decisions for themselves and incapable of giving or withdrawing consent.

This view of women is oppressive, denigrating and misogynist.

I don't doubt that sometimes, or even often, some women give consent to things they rather wouldn't do. That's a problem, which needs to be addressed and changed. But declaring that no woman can ever give consent does not help to address this.

I must have missed that post, widowwadman. Point me to it?

I don't think anybody said that WW. We're talking about how consent isn't such a great concept in the first place, which is what Beachcomber's first post was about.

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

What has been talked about is men who like to coerce, force, pressurise, manipulate or use other tactics to get women to do things that they don't want to do sexually. Maybe you'd like to address them.

The article made perfect sense to me, and I think the tongue-in-cheek style actually helped to make it clearer.

I agree totally that we need to make the default position one where lack of consent is assumed. At present, if a woman is raped and reports it, the rapist can claim she consented and then the woman has to prove the lack of consent through her behaviour, vaginal bruising, etc (though the rapist will usually then claim she 'liked it rough' ).

Why not put the onus on him to prove that he got enthusiastic consent? Why is that considered so revolutionary? Why is that any more unfair or demanding than the onus on the woman to prove lack of consent?

THe idea that loads of men will be falsely or unfairly accused as a result of this is a straw man argument. Let's face it, if you took consent seriously and made absolutely sure that you had it before sticking your penis in someone, are they really going to claim rape? The odds are almost non-existent since they will have had enthusiastically enjoyed sex.

I guess sunshine, because as the defendant, he doesn't have to prove anything - the prosecution has to prove he committed the crime.

sorry x posted

Basil - it's a good point though. I think it's why we have to move away from an adversarial system when it comes to sex crimes.

Yes, because atm literally all a defendant has to do is claim it's consensual and the prosecution has to prove it wasn't. And how do you prove a negative?

The fact that they are now encouraged to ask how the defendant ascertained consent, is good, but in practice I'm not sure they're actually asking.