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.

Eh?

sunshine - didn't try to derail and do a whataboutthemenz - just thinking that the emphasis should be in any sexual situation both partners should be sure about consent, no matter whether it's a man and a woman, a man and a man or a woman and a woman.

The actual underlying idea that sex is something that men do to women, I think also gives support to the idea that sex is something that men should do to women, i.e. it is expected of them to want it, which then in turn leads to men pressuring women and boys pressuring girls into sex, possibly neither of them really wants.

So basically, by making this gendered, the situation is perpetuated, and that's damaging for everyone involved.

Hope it makes a little more sense now.

Are we really going to have to do 'she said, no she said' type bullshit.

OK.

I think you are refering to this post by Nyac;

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.

You seem keen to reduce this to;

it is only women who consent to sex

I disagree with your reduction.

I do think it's a good point that it's important consent doesn't just refer to women.

I agreed with nyac when she said it, and several people had been talking about it before. I don't have this set to page numbers, but nyac's post was at 15.23 today and others made the same point less explicitly before that.

WW, yes that makes sense and I agree with it theoretically. However, I think it's important to separate the drive for sex from the act. Men and women may have equal desire, but sex is not an equal act for them. The risks for women are much, much higher than for men and that should not be ignored. It makes consent a vital issue and does place the onus on men IMO.

Also, while you could argue that getting women to take equal responsibility for ensuring men are consenting is levelling the playing field, I would argue that it ignores the patriarchal background against which all this is playing out. Taking 'equal' responsibility actually means that women are taking more responsibility because of male privilege.

X post. What Beachcomber said based on Nyac's post.

Beachcomber

I was replying to this posting by Nyac

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

So basically, by making this gendered, the situation is perpetuated, and that's damaging for everyone involved.

Yes.

But it isn't feminists who 'make' this issue gendered. It is patriarchy.

We are just observing the phenomenon and chewing the fat about it.

You want to get on to patriarchy if the gendered bit pisses you off. It pisses me off too.

Fwiw, whether you agree with the blog post or just use it as a starting point for debate, this discussion is helpful, imo.

MoreBeta
InAnyOtherSoil linked to a good blog earlier with a good list of verbal and non-verbal signs of consent and non-consent.

What I would say to my son (when he is of that age) is that it is not enough to not hear a "no", you have to be sure that the girl is willing to go ahead.

Do you have to have a clear "Yes" every single time, even after 30 years marriage - I think that depends on the marriage, but presumably if your wife was not responding or was showing reluctance, you would stop and ask if she was ok.

If my DH is distracted and not "with the programme" then I notice.

I think the non-verbal clues are very important. It is too easy to get hung up on whether she said "yes" or "no" when it should be absolutely clear when a woman does not want sex, or is just going along with it.

Then maybe you should have taken Nyac's post in the context of the thread and her other posts. I think it is pretty clear that we have all been talking about the issue of consent with regards to women in a society which places women in the role of the 'gatekeepers' to sex. Non?

I think instead of putting the emphasis how it is riskier for women, it would make more sense to remind men of their own risks - women are more suspectible to STD transmission, but even if the statistical risk is lower for men, there is a risk of contracting serious STDs, including HIV in every episode of having sex for someone with unknown serostatus. And it's impossible to predict which episode will not result in transmission and which will.

If the message you broadcast is that the onus should be on men to be sure because it's riskier for women, then those men who are arses, won't care on bit more. If you emphasise the message that it's risky for both parties, and don't downplay the risk for the privilieged side, brains might hopefully be engaged more.

Of course there's also the risk of pregnancy where no or insufficient contraception is used, but then again, I think the message that that's less of a problem for men because they can just walk away doesn't really challenge status quo. Don't emphasise they can walk away, but the opposite.

So ... correct me if I'm wrong ... everyone on this thread reckons it's important sex be consensual? And everyone reckons it's important that women not be the only ones who're focussed on when we discuss consent?

Yes?

If we can all agree on that could we carry on with the thread maybe? It was interesting and I know it's useful to check we're all on the same page but we've been trying to do that for a while and it seems a bit OTT.

That is a good summary of where we are just now I think DoomCats.

In that case, then: do you think consent is becoming more problematic as a concept, beach, or has it always been problematic but we didn't notice fully?

I'm wondering as it seems - despite marital rape having been criminalized within my parents' married life, so quite recently - that it is getting more fraught and mroe problematic as a concept, and not because we're coming to accept it frames women as passive, but because there are so many myths about how women behave when they want sex.

I find it really sad.

I think consent is showing itself to be flawed as women are accorded, in legal terms, more human rights.

Consent wasn't an issue before, because women didn't have to give it in order to legitimize male behaviour. Men had conjugal rights, women were chattel, etc.

Now we are supposedly (at least in the west), equal, our consent is a barrier to continuing behaviour that was considered an entitlement in the past.

Does that make sense?

Yes, perfect sense.

I suspect it's also important that, until very recently, homosexual relationships were not legal, so ideas about consent (and especially legal ideas) are incredibly fixed on the idea of heterosexual, monogamous relationships.

I've appreciated this thread very much, it's clarifying a lot of ideas for me. Thanks.

I apologise if this is taking the thread off topic, but it's a question that keeps coming up in my head and I just wondered what others though.

Do you think one of the reasons so many relationships fail or are miserable is due to the issue of consent? (I'm not sure I can explain this properly, so sorry if this makes no sense.)

It's just struck me that sex seems to be treated as the primary feature of so many relationships. The initial 'courtship' seems to be all geared up to the 'act' of sex, and once the relationship is established, sex seems to be used by many as a barometer of how healthy it is. It just seems to instantly launch men into the position of wanting it, and women into the position of deciding whether or not it's going to happen (although often they have no choice) and it's so adversarial.

I don't get it. I like sex and think it's important. And I accept that it' an important characteristic of a romantic relationship. But it seems to dominate rather than just be one characteristic. When you think about it there are so many things that define human relationships and intimacy. Why is sex so important? I'm sure people will say bit's because it's what separates their relationship with their partner from their relationship with family/friends, but is it? Really? If you really think about it, isn't a relationship about so much more than that?

And this all stems from the idea (as we all seem to agree on) that men want sex and women fight off the advances. I wonder what would happen if sex was genuinely not a weapon co-opted by patriarchy. What if sex went back to genuinely being about desire and being desired. Would the issue of consent disappear or be reduced?

thought not 'though'

Not going OT at all Sunshine (and no matter if things do wander a bit anyway). I totally agree with you about sex in relationships. There is definitely an aspect of the woman being there to sexually (and domestically) serve the man. Still, in this day and age.

Yes of course women are sexual too and like sex too, but that just brings us back to the questions over the importance accorded to penetration and leaves us wondering, as you say sunshine, wondering what our sexuality would be like if it weren't used to oppress us.

I'm noticing with my younger sister that some men are now subtly getting women to consent to being a sex object pretty much straight away. What I mean is, a couple of guys she's met recently have said "I want to go out with you, but I don't really want a relationship." Surely all the means is, I want you for sex but I don't want to actually connect with you as a person. These are seemingly normal nice guys. Am I just getting to be an old gimmer or does this seem to be a really negative step in the wrong direction? I don't think in my time (not so long ago, about 10 years) any guy would have had the brass neck to be say something so insulting to a girl they were hoping to go out with.

I think the idea that consent doesn't refer simply to women is taking the discussion off course. It seems like nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking.

When do heterosexual men "consent" to anything in sex? It just doesn't happen - except maybe in BDSM and that's probably a whole different story. Rape is something that men do to women, and it is for that reason that "consent" has to exist - to give rapists and abusers their get-out clause. Given that women can't rape anybody I'm wondering what men are supposed to be consenting to in sex, unless they're with another man in which case rape is back in the equation.

I think the "enthusiastic consent" people are capitulating to the idea that we live in a rape society, where women do have things done to them by men that they don't really want. Sex that is wanted is participated in, not consented to. I've never consented to sex, I have participated in it and I have been raped, but consent implies being persuaded, which is not necessary when it's something you want to do.

Sunshineandbooks, there's a extremely good post at Femonade about consent and how it is a male-centred concept, based on the idea that woman's body is property, previously owned by men, but now owned by women ourselves, which we "consent" to allow men into or not.

factcheckme.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/dood-centric-problem-solving/

Nyac "When do heterosexual men "consent" to anything in sex? It just doesn't happen"

What? Men consent to anything in sex, any time they engange in and consent to having sex, surely? Just the same as women do.

Consent is agreeing to something to happen or participating voluntarily in an action. It's about being as an individual exercising the right to decide what you would like to do, having autonomy over your own body. No matter what shape your genitals are.

If I initiate sex and my goes along, then it goes further. When he says "sorry, not in the mood, then he doesn't consent and it doesn't go further. Same thing the other way round.

Or is it one of these political dimension things I'm not getting?

The legal definition of rape means that it can be only done with a penis, but even if by legal definition women can't rape, surely they can sexually assault. What would you call it if a woman touches a man in a sexual manner against his will (i.e. without his consent)?

I think by the way participation is basically implied consent - I don't quite understand the semantic dimension you're aiming at, but that might be a second language thing?