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.

When I am feeling very cynical, I think those questions just provice another opportunity to complicate the issue. You say, 'why do you think this woman was consenting', and that gives space and time in an approved legal setting for someone to explain how it was this and that and the other, and this interpretation or that feeling ...

We all want a world where no-one is raped. I think we lose sight of that when people get into knee-jerk scare stories about what it might mean to get tougher on rapists.

Actually yes that's true DoomCats.

It prob is just another opportunity for the rapist to claim he just misunderstood the signals and that it was reasonable for him to do so.

That is what I worry about, yeah. I mean, given the way that the legal system works on precedents, it must matter a lot how someone justifies these things, and when that becomes an orthodoxy, people lose sight of the fact that initially the information came from individuals saying why they thought someone consented, and it becomes a blueprint of 'this is what someone does when they consent'. And those are clearly very different things - if they weren't, we would have no ambiguity about rape.

There is no place in our legal system for a rape victim to put her or his view forward, except as witness.

sunshine Baroness =stern also said that the adversarial system is not so god For this...

" An inquisitorial system deals better with rape, it was said. We don't know if that is true but we do know that someone is trying to find out. The New Zealand Law Commission is funding New Zealand academics to study rape trials in Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Austria. The findings are not yet public but the researchers have concluded their preliminary findings suggest the inquisitorial approach has certain advantages.

For example, they note that the judge is in control of all aspects of the case once charges are laid, can direct further investigations and decide what witnesses are to be heard. This, they conclude, can give the proceedings a more neutral and balanced flavour and reduces the extent to which the subsequent questions of witnesses by prosecution or defence are confrontational and aggressive.

They say that there is much more opportunity for defendants, and potentially victims, to participate in the process and to feel involved. But they urge caution. There are also flaws in the inquisitorial system.

I remain, I must say, doubtful about the possibility of mixing systems of justice that are based on such different legal philosophies. But I am sure we should keep in touch with this work as it emerges to see what we can learn.

Maybe another answer is to take more seriously the state's obligations towards victims of violence and reflect on what that might entail."

From www.cps.gov.uk/publications/others/baroness_stern_speech.html

You know its funny. InAnyOtherSoil put a link to the trauma bonding topic which has been a subject of much controversy on several threads now. When its come up in conversation a whole bunch of rad fems came up saying it was being a bad representation of rad feminism and that the response on the original thread was that has been that everyone thought it was extreme.

Then I see this thread.

And I see it quoted. And I see it being taken very seriously.

So which is it girls?

Do you think that all women are just totally powerless to men as they are trauma bonded to them and are helpless? Unless of course they are mighty radfems and understand this.

Or is it an extreme viewpoint and example of treating all men as abusers that no one takes seriously?

Either way, every time that blog comes up, it destroys feminism a little more. If you can't see why that blog will be repeatedly used against radfems then it really shows how disconnected from normal relationships the movement has become. I find that extremely sad for anyone who identifies and believes it. It says far more about them than anything else.

hmm - I dunno about anyone else. Frankly, I didn't read that link, just like I don't read every single link on every single thread.

'Rad fems' aren't a homogeneous group, any more than women (or 'girls') are.

Perhaps if you think individuals are contradicting themselves, you should address those individuals, instead of accusing all posters on a thread of something they haven't done, eh?

inde no need to butt out AFAIC as long as you keep being aware that this is a difficult issue for women - you seem to be though. I disagree with you when you say that all manner of shit is not condoned and normalized when it comes to sexually abusing women. Porn and prostitution are global human rights travesties, and practically nobody speaks out against it apart from radical feminists. (And then we have TV, pop culture, cinema, magazines, etc).

As InAnyOtherSoil brilliantly puts it society-wide grooming.

MmeLindor it troubles me too. Yes I think there are a lot of men who sexually abuse women - I refer to porn and prostitution again. Also BDSM, domestic violence, rape, sexual assault, flashing, groping, etc. Either that is one busy man or it is a whole bunch of men. As we all well know from MN, pestering for sex, having sex with a nonconsenual sleeping woman are not uncommon behaviours.

WidowWadman, not sure what you mean. Read more of the thread perhaps?

Reading and catching up on Basil and Cognitive's legal stuff.

I'm not part of the Borg Mind.

"mighty radfems"

Nyac What gives you the idea that it is only women who consent to sex? Isn't the idea that sex is something men always want and women not sexist in itself?

"People don't consent to eat food"? Do you not? There's stuff I eat, and stuff I'd never eat. Sometimes I like eating some stuff which I don't fancy at other times. I don't let anyone put things in my mouth, may it be food or penises, without my consent. And I don't force myself to eat when I don't feel like it, nor eating things I don't feel like eating.

"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."

Exactly what I've been trying to address. The idea which seems to be stated over and over again is that women only consent to some sexual practices because of coercion or because they have been manipulated and therefore it wouldn't be real consent. I call bullshit, because it makes it sound like it's only men who are able to manipulate and women are never capable of genuine likes and that if they think they like something it's only because of manipulation.

HmmThinkingAboutIt, if you read the post carefully made by InAnyOtherSoil (who linked to the trauma bonding article), she is talking about the phenomenon where sometimes women go on to have a relationship/or continue a relationship with a man who has raped them.

I have read posts on MN from women who say that they did exactly this. They say that they did it in an attempt to regain control and to rationalise what happened to them and 'make it not rape'.

Let's have a little respect and believe these women please. (Rather than try to score points.)

widow, did you find that post I asked about? I've looked and still can't work out which bit of the thread you were talking about earlier.

This is a parenting website and I want some practical advice that I can give to me soon to be teenage sons on this issue. Most of you know I am a man.

When I was at at school, consent was not discussed at all in SE classes. I don't know how much it is discussed now. I expect it is along the lines of 'no means no' but I don't think that is enough.

My sense is that I will tell my sons that they should ask if the other person wants to have sex and receiving a positive verbal 'yes' is what is always necessary. That positive 'yes' can always be cancelled with a verbal 'no' of course.

However, in an existing long term relationship is it really practical to expect both people to go through the formality of seeking a positive verbal 'yes' in every encounter. Is the man always at risk if he does not seek a positive verbal 'yes' even if he has been in a relationship for 30 years as in my case? Obviously, a 'no' at any point still means stop immediately.

The law clearly needs clarifying on this issue - what is the right practical solution though? I don't find 'enthusiastic consent' a very precise definition. To my mind consent either has to be given, not given or given and then withdrawn. The degree of 'enthusiasm' in consent is not something the law will be able to deal with or even define.

I just don't read that article as saying that all men are abusers or rapists as a matter of course.

The point is that we should assume that a man is an rapist unless he can show he has consent. This only applies to cases where consent is an issue, since anyone who has given consent enthusiastically is not going to be claiming rape in the first place. So a man is only actually called an abuser if he has failed to obtain enthusiastic consent. In which case he most definitely IS a rapist.

Nyac What gives you the idea that it is only women who consent to sex? Isn't the idea that sex is something men always want and women not sexist in itself?

WidowWadman, that isn't what Nyac says though. What she says is a whole lot more complex.

As the OP of this thread can I urge everyone to read posts carefully, try to understand them and just think a bit that we are talking about all as taking place this within the context of a patriarchal society (we shouldn't have to repeat that or clarify it in every post).

Oh I can read.

It still says the same as the first, and the second and the third time I read it.
I still take the same from it.

This is not about believing or not believing anyone.

My point is just about not generalising and it propagating hatred.

It is about how that blog purely and simply and how it is being used and read inspite of repeated denials.

Its about being completely opposed to the idea that all men are rapists and abusers.

It keeps coming up and it keeps being denied.

That blog is influencing thought and it is being rationally discussed.

Its extreme and disgusting and completely separate from any views about rape I have. Its just about hate. Nothing more. Nothing less.

And every time its used, as a reference... well... yeah...

You feed the monsters you despise the most.

How many women have great sex - sex that they really wanted to have and made it clear that they were up for - and then go on to 'cry rape'?

Surely the point should be that unless a man is 100% positive that a woman wants to have sex, you don't have sex.

I really don't understand why that should be so hard for anyone to get their head around.

beta - I'd say, if in doubt, ask. This can be quite a sexy thing and not a chore at all (though rather you than me communicating that to teenage kids!).

I think teenagers need to know that good sex involves lots of communication, and it's normal to keep asking how something feels or if it is the right thing to do. I reckon teenagers feel if they ask this, it makes it look as if they don't know what they're doing, so they feel nervous. Maybe you could say to them that talking about what you're doing is actually quite normal as part of adult sex?

The points in this thread about PIV might be good too? Can you maybe say to them good sex involves all sorts of things and not necessarily that?

Sorry, I don't know if that is any help, but just wanted to reply as I had the good luck to meet some teenage boys who'd had better-than-average guidance in this area and it was really positive for them and me!

"Surely the point should be that unless a man all participants is are 100% positive that a woman all participants wants want to have sex, you don't have sex."

FIFY

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.

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.

HmmThinkingAboutIt I said read the post that linked to the article which offends you so much. Did you read my post?

Or do you not give a shit about the testimonies of women who have been raped by their date/partner/boyfriend?

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 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.