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.

Nobody in real life talks or thinks about consent to sex unless the context is rape i.e. the rapist claiming "she consented".

Nobody ever says "I consented to sex last night", they say "we had sex" or "I got a shag" or "we made love" or something like that. Consent is a legal term, in order to give rapists a get out clause, and has been said is based on the idea of women as men's property, now modernised to women's bodies being our own property.

There's another article here from FactCheckMe about consent in sex and how it's based on the laws of property. Her logic and analysis are something else:

factcheckme.wordpress.com/2011/03/03/the-language-of-consent/

Yes, consent implies a passivity.

When I went looking for a definition that was definitely the implication and it is what I am uncomfortable with.

con·sent/kənˈsent/
Noun:
Permission for something to happen or agreement to do something.
Verb:
Give permission for something to happen: "he consented to a search by a detective".
Synonyms:
noun. assent - agreement - approval - accord - compliance
verb. agree - assent - accede - acquiesce - comply - concur

I first started to feel uncomfortable with the concept of consent in discussions about porn and prostitution.

It is definitely used as a get out of jail free card for rape and abuse. (same for BDSM)

Now as I think that porn, prostitution and BDSM are all very symbolic of how patriarchy manifests, I then followed that line of thinking into sex relations in general. And I still found the concept of consent to be highly problematic.

And so I started this thread.

I'd be really interested to hear if women have ever thought of themselves in terms of their sex lives as "consenting" to sex. Because I certainly never have. It describes nothing of my experience.

It really is a legal concept that has been forced on us because it's useful to so many men unfortunately, and then picked up and run with by the misogynists, because it keeps the focus on women's behaviour and not on men's sexual violence towards women and girls.

Very glad you started this thread Beachcomber. This is a good discussion.

That blog to me is Poe's law in action, sorry, but I really struggle to take it seriously.

Consent is very important. In my own life time a married woman was deemed always to consent to sex and your husband could not in law rape you. That remains the case in some countries. We rightly changed the law.

I think it is eseential that there is a legal definition of consent.

Thanks for the links Nyac - they have helped me order my thoughts perfectly.

InAnyOtherSoil yes to this;
It's this notion that some women - impossible unicorn women made of the same smoke as smokescreens - like to be raped and tortured, so lets not ban raping and torturing to protect these imaginary women.

It is just so much bullshit.

That wasn't about consent though Xenia. That was about women being treated legally as property and not having human rights. Did you read the link I posted about how rape laws resemble trespass laws?

Consent/agreement as a concept is also relevant to battery, contracts, sports, etc. It's not just for trespass and rape. You could equally say that rape laws resemble sports laws, but that wouldn't really fit the misogynistic interpretation.

factcheckme.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/all-porn-is-rape/

This is great too and puts how I feel about consent and porn into words very well.

Ecclesvet, the parallel with property is being drawn because in the not too distant past, women were property. The parallel is valid because current laws are founded on our previous status as chattel. And that is what makes it misogynistic.

I don't understand that the problem is.
Are people saying we don't need a test of whether someone consent to whatever it might be - a puncin in a boxing ring, sex with their husband or someone slapping them in Tesco?

So we agre we need a test of consent. That's fine. That's really important to women.

The difficulties are over misunderstanding. I accept that. In rugby what do you consent to? In boxing ditto. When you walk down the street you consent to people brushing against you generally but not to being slapped etc etc. The law has spent years working on all these things and on consent in rape contexts.

I haven't time to read the thread. If the point instead is not about consent but about how people should run their sex life what is the issue over that?

xenia, sorry, but you are totally missing the point here, and I don't see who you think you're agreeing with.

The issue is about consent as a concept, not tests of it. If you don't have time to read the thread, maybe the OP would be a start? Not sniping, btw, I get that not everyone reads every single post in a long thread, but I think you're talking cross-purposes here.

I've read the link on the first page. I fundamentally disagree. The consent test is the correct one. What the writer on thhe link tries to suggest is that the law suggests if you wear a short skirt etc etc then you have consented. That is not what the law says nor how it is usually interpreted.

It would be very wrong if every act of sexual intercourse or indeed being punched in the boxing ring etc were taken to be without consent unless the other person could prove you had consented. That would be terrible and very unfair.

Yeah, imagine all those rapists who might actually be held accountable for their behaviour.

So how do we feel about consent in the context of prostitution, porn and BDSM?

I feel like it is used as a free pass to rape and abuse women. Scary shit.

I disagree. I suspect we are too far apart usefully to debate it.

Or, you could try reading the whole thread as a precursor to a successful debate since its somewhat asinine to complain about an inability to debate when you haven't bothered to read the opposing sides opinion.

Whenever I have had discussions about porn, prostitution and BDSM the final word always seems to be 'but she consented' and then you get some bullshit about freedom and people knowing their own minds and feminists wanting to oppress women by making it considered a shitty thing to do to harm a woman just so that you can get some kicks.

I then I kind of lose the will to engage with the person because I find the blind callousness despairing.