Consent - is it a meaningful concept?

[Beachcomber]

On the recent ‘Invisible Men’ thread, the concept of consent came up and was discussed. I posted referring to the following quote from Catharine MacKinnon in which she questions whether consent in male female sexual relations, within the context of a patriarchal society which is founded on dominance /submission is a meaningful concept; and she concludes that it is not. Which is quite a statement.

Quite a few posters expressed an interest in having a thread on the subject of consent and MacKinnon’s analysis of it. I have been meaning to start the thread for a while, so here it is.

Here is the quote from MacKinnon. It is from her book “Toward a Feminist Theory of the State”, specifically from the chapter ‘Rape: On Coercion and Consent’ which you can read Rape: On Coercion and Consent here (It does help to read the whole chapter which is a searing piece of feminist analysis from an utterly brilliant woman. )

"The deeper problem is that women are socialized to passive receptivity; may have or perceive no alternative to acquiescence; may prefer it to the escalated risk of injury and the humiliation of a lost fight; submit to survive. Also, force and desire are not mutually exclusive under male supremacy. So long as dominance is eroticized, they never will be. Some women eroticize dominance and submission; it beats feeling forced. Sexual intercourse may be deeply unwanted, the women would never have initiated it, yet no force may be present. So much force may have been used that the woman never risked saying no. Force may be used, yet the woman prefer the sex - to avoid more force or because she, too, eroticizes dominance. Women and men know this. Considering rape as violence not sex evades, at the moment it most seems to confront, the issue of who controls women's sexuality and the dominance/submission dynamic that has defined it. When sex is violent, women may have lost control over what is done to them, but absence of force does not ensure the presence of that control. Nor, under conditions of male dominance, does the presence of force make an interaction nonsexual. If sex is normally something men do to women, the issue is less whether there was force than whether consent is a meaningful concept."

Another text which was brought up in the discussion was the section on sexual intelligence by Andrea Dworkin in the chapter “The Politics of Intelligence” from her book “Right-Wing Women”.

Here is a link to a pdf of the book, I’m afraid the quality isn’t great. The relevant section starts on page 50 of the pdf (page 54 of the book).

www.feministes-radicales.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Andrea-DWORKIN-Right-Wing-Women-The-Politics-of-Domesticated-Females-19831.pdf

I can’t select the text due to the format so have typed up a section from my copy of the book – please forgive any mistakes! The entire chapter and book is brilliant feminist analysis so I urge women to read it – it is one lightbulb moment after another and wonderfully written, Dworkin’s pace is incredible and her clarity of thought exceptional. (I have added some paragraphs in order to make it easier to read.)

“Sexual intelligence asserts itself through sexual integrity, a dimension of values and actions forbidden to women. Sexual intelligence would have to be rooted first and foremost in the honest possession of one’s own body, and women exist to be possessed by others, namely men. The possession of one’s own body would have to be absolute and entirely realised for the intelligence to thrive in the world of action. Sexual intelligence, like moral intelligence would have to confront the great issues of cruelty and tenderness; but where moral intelligence must tangle with questions of right and wrong, sexual intelligence would have to tangle with questions of dominance and submission.

One preordained to be fucked has no need to exercise sexual intelligence, no opportunity to exercise it, no argument that justifies exercising it. To keep the woman sexually acquiescent, the capacity for sexual intelligence must be prohibited to her; and it is. Her clitoris is denied; her capacity for pleasure is distorted and defamed; her erotic values are slandered and insulted; her desire to value her body as her own is paralyzed and maimed. She is turned into an occasion for male pleasure, an object of male desire, a thing to be used; and any wilful expression of her sexuality in the world unmediated by men or male values is punished. She is used as a slut or a lady; but sexual intelligence cannot manifest in a human being whose predestined purpose is to be exploited through sex.

Sexual intelligence constructs its own use: it begins with the whole body, not one that has already been cut into parts and fetishized; it begins with a self-respecting body, not one that is characterized by class as dirty, wanton and slavish; it acts in the world, a world it enters on its own, with freedom as well as with passion. Sexual intelligence cannot live behind locked doors, any more than any other kind of intelligence can. Sexual intelligence cannot exist defensively, keeping out rape. Sexual intelligence cannot be decorative or pretty or coy or timid, nor can it live on a diet of contempt and abuse and hatred of its human form. Sexual intelligence is not animal, it is human; it has values; it sets limits that are meaningful to the whole person and personality, which must live in history and in the world.

Women have found the development and exercise of sexual intelligence more difficult than any other kind: women have learned to read; women have acquired intellect; women have had so much creative intelligence that even despisal and isolation and punishment have not been able to squeeze it out of them; women have struggled for a moral intelligence that by its very existence repudiates moralism; but sexual intelligence is cut off at its roots, because the women’s body is not her own.

Okay. The OP is pretty huge so I will leave it at that and post my own thoughts in subsequent posts. This one is just meant to provide the material for discussion. I suppose this thread should really be in the feminist theory section of MN but I don’t really agree with the existence of that section so here it is in the regular feminist hang out!

Wrt the legal side, maybe my experience was unusual, but I did in the end speak to the police about an ex of mine. It didn't go anywhere, but the policewoman I spoke to had a much better grasp of what constitutes consent/rape than I did. Or at least a different grasp. Which on one hand isn't surprising I suppose, but it did shock me at the time. I thought I knew exactly what rape was. And it is odd in that I can't be that unusual, there are lots of women in abusive relationships who do not fully understand consent, as illustrated in 'Relationships'.

With me, I was speaking to the police about some specific incidents, and as part of that I was asked whether it was a controlling relationship. Then when I said yes I was asked what I understood that term to mean. The examples that I gave as examples of 'controlling behavior' the policewoman said were examples of rape.

Reporting didn't go anywhere for a range of reasons, but the police themselves were very understanding and certainly educated me about consent, though it did also end up causing a lot of other issues and all got very complicated. It's very hard to be told something was rape when actually you don't believe it was, though the police were very kind about it and I suppose you can't expect or want the police to hold back on calling it rape if that is what it is. It's complicated!

But I also think mn is an amazing place to be able to discuss things like this.

I'm glad you spoke to some supportive people in the police MW.

Why are posters like Beatrix so closed to being open minded on this subject? Why are they so determined that this subject must not be examined from any view point other than the conventional one? And why, when women discuss it, are they so patronising? And why is there a sense of anger just below the surface in all their posts on the subject? It's astonishing.

As for discussing this subject with partners, male friends etc, it can be challenging and devastating when they 'don't get it.' I was enraged the other night by two male friends who implied that young teenage girls were inviting trouble by being dressed "too old for their years" especially as "some men can't control themsleves." However, they very graciously acknowledged that it was not the gilrs' fault but the fault of the parents (although there was a heavy implication that they meant the mothers) of the girls who allowed them to dress this way. When I argued back I could tell they thought I was being too feministy and anti-men.

However, some men are prepared to listen, even though they may never completely get it. When discussing this subject the other day, my partner said that he had thought about rape from a different angle because of some of the things that I have said and that he can now appreciate male entitlement (I think the "Where is Men's Roar" video that someone posted on here a while back really made him think.) So there is some hope.

Yeah it's funny how she wanted to narrow it down to just the legal stuff.

And then strops off when that tack is rejected.

It's not that it's not interesting, it is, it's just that this is more interesting - the legal stuff comes out of the cultural stuff.

I have a feeling that at least consent is something - perhaps a lowest common denominator if that makes any sense.
Ideally we should be looking for more than that - for active enthusiastic engagement or whatever.
But perhaps consent can be a meaningful concept in many relationships and encounters.
To make it personal I feel that if I'd ever asked anyone to stop (and sometimes I have) then they would have done/ did.
I feel I've been fortunate whereas really it's the least we should be able to expect.

Beatrix has a legal background from other posts, so I can understand that being the angle, but I'd be happy to post separately on a thread about rephrasing the 2003 Act once this thread has thrashed out the philosophy behind it.

It comes up time and again rosa but I still can't understand why it's anti-man to be baffled by any notion that "men" can't control themselves in the presence of skimpy clothing. Are "men" like toddlers left alone with a birthday cake or something, in the eyes of your friends, rosa?

What sometimes helps to challenge ideas about restricting women's movements/choice of clothing is suggesting that instead men be placed under curfew or be required to be chaperoned at night by a trustworthy woman. The response is usually "don't be silly why should all men be restricted when only some of them are rapists?" to which the only response is of course "why should all women be restricted when none of them are rapists?"

Interesting the point about not discussing with partners. I would think that if people who understand these points cannot discuss with our nearest and dearest we are a long way from changing anything.
Most men I know are consciously feminist but unconsciously conditioned so need these things explained so they can see beyond what they have been bought up to understand as true.

The other question I have about consent in relationships is whether compromise in sex is different to compromise in other areas of life. Upthread someone mentioned a woman at home who is financially dependent on a man concerned he will leave without sex, so has sex therefore there is no consent. However we would expect her to provide other things 'in return' for the financial dependence (housework/childcare etc) as that is how relationships work, with give and take on both sides. Why, therefore, does sex always have to be fully mutually enjoyable at all times, and not sometimes be considered part of the give and take of relationships?

What makes sex different, is that what you are getting at CarolDecker?

I think it was discussed upthread - best I can do at the moment is It Just Is. Anthropologically, PIV sex (aka sex) for women has been potentially life changing, maybe even life ending. So women 'naturally' (?) tend to invest it with emotions, that we just don't with making tea or whatever.

I imagine a lot of women recognise that, even if we can't articulate it that well, and we are certainly not encouraged to examine it either.

Bodily integrity/boundaries also. Having sex you don't really want and doing the dishes are two very different things. It also makes sex into a chore. How unsexy.

Big hugs to everyone who has shared some difficult real life experiences. It can help to talk but its also great for some of us to listen too. I get caught up in theoretical stuff and I need to be reminded that its only useful in so much as it helps us to understand real life.

A lecture today touched upon consent but in relation to something else. I don't know if anyone remembers the case of the German Cannibal who advertised for dinner dates. He advertised for people that would be prepared to share a meal with him, to be murdered by him and eventually eaten by him. (grim) He was caught frying his last dinner date's liver and arrested. His defence at trial was that the people he murdered had given their consent. The judges decided that it wasn't possible for anyone to consent to be murdered.

These male judges simply couldn't conceive that anyone in their right mind could consent. Presumably anyone who did would be vulnerable in some way, mental illness, depressed or perhaps once they got there they couldn't say no. Perhaps he wouldn't allow them to leave and they couldn't withdraw their consent. No one was interested in whether "they" consented to be murdered. It was judged irrelevant that there was even a the slightest possibility that these "victims" were sane or that he didn't use force/coercion/intimidation

It just seems to me that women are judged to be in a perpetual state of consent until we say no, if no is not enough then we should fight back. But this simplistic view doesn't take account of any vulnerabilities, be it drink, mental health, lack of strength, fear. No wonder rape trials focus on the issue of whether the women gave consent. Its already assumed that despite 100s of years of male dominance that somehow we are still capable of giving consent irrespective of the circs in which it is given.

Anyone who has ever had sex they didn't want knows why it is different to doing the dishes, etc.

It is a hard thing to put into words and I don't think women are encouraged to analyse it. I haven't read Dworkin's book 'Intercourse' - but I suspect what she says in it may help articulate the phenomenon. I have been meaning to read it for a while but have been putting it off as I have heard it is pretty painful to read.

I've read the introduction by Ariel Levy and she describes it as Dworkin's most radical book, so I imagine it must shake things up a little...

God Mini that is a really good point.

In English law, it has always been the case that you can't consent to your own murder. A murderer will never have been able to argue (as far as I'm aware) that his victim gave consent, that they did a deal etc.

And yet that understanding that sometimes consent is simply not a good enough excuse to do something to someone, isn't there for rape.

But I suppose the difference is sex is a normal thing to do, in most cases.
After all, what's harmful about sex?

Beach

Some men (people?) do think sex is the same quality of deed as doing the dishes, I think - they must do if they think that prostitution is just another job where you pay someone for a service.

It reminds me of my mum once being cross that her vegetarian friends wouldn't eat meat at her house, after all, she ate veggie food at theirs. To her, it was being a good guest. To them, of course, it was integral. I don't think I could make her understand though.

I don't think that they actually think of prostitution as just another job. For example, not many men who say things like that would want to have it as their or their wives/children's job even if the pay was good.

The problem with that view CarolDecker is that sex is not a human right.

we would expect her to provide other things 'in return' for the financial dependence (housework/childcare etc) as that is how relationships work, with give and take on both sides. Why, therefore, does sex always have to be fully mutually enjoyable at all times, and not sometimes be considered part of the give and take of relationships?

Housework and childcare do not legally require consent from both parties in order to not be a criminal act, sex does. It doesn't have to be fully mutually enjoyable at all times, but it does have to be consensual at all times, hence the difference. The problem within this type of relationship is that consent is often taken as a given by the man, and unable to be freely given by the woman. If consent cannot be freely given, then it is not 'real' consent, and therefore any sex which takes place under these conditions could be construed as rape.

Yes, but they'd probably also prefer their kids not to be sewage workers or whatever.

I do think in some people's eyes, someone who is paid to have sex isn't philosophically different to someone who is paid to wipe bottoms or other "personal care" type work.

I don't think so. Prostitutes are look as with a certain type of contempt by buyers, nurses are just not doing the same thing and are definitely not seen in the same way.
Many men seem to think of "hookers" as a special type of subgroup of women who have even less personhood and bodily integrity, zero to be exact, than other women.
They're just "hookers" not people. So for example some have the idea that if they pay one it's better than having an affair, because no real person was involved (?!)

However we would expect her to provide other things 'in return' for the financial dependence (housework/childcare etc) as that is how relationships work, with give and take on both sides. Why, therefore, does sex always have to be fully mutually enjoyable at all times, and not sometimes be considered part of the give and take of relationships?

By the way I found this comment chilling.
Here it is, the idea that women's bodies should just be "open" for men's use as a service and that we should have no sexual boundaries. It's disturbing. We are human and we need boundaries and to feel that our bodies are our own. Because they are.

And because sex isn't a service we render each other.

It's something we share FGS.

Call me an incurable romantic.

I think carol's question is a totally valid one as it reflects an attitude that many women themselves have - I've seen it far too many times on MN. Women who can barely stand their partners and yet are still having sex with them as they feel it's their duty or worse still women who are exhausted from small children and yet feel obliged to provide sex to a partner who's decided she's had sufficient "holiday" from duty and must go back to letting him use her body.

The real question is, what sort of partner would want or enjoy sex with someone who doesn't wany it? And if it's the woman who's the breadwinner what services is she entitled to demand in return for the money she provides?

Hmmm. OK, I will get very personal here. I think in marriage 'meaningful consent' has a lot to do with the connection of sex and love. Being married for decades you go through times where your desire for sex with your spouse matches up with theirs and times when it does not. During those mismatched times its possible to get into an entirely wrong and problematic head space, which I would distil as 'If you love and respect me you will match your sexuality to mine.' That can be the mantra of either the spouse who wants more sex or the spouse who wants little, in fact both can have that attitude at the same time.

When I fell out of desire for my wife (which happened first) I saw it as a problem I needed to work on because I loved her and valued our relationship- and therefore her sexual satisfaction was important to me. I knew it would negatively affect her sense of self and our relationship if she perceived I no longer desired her. She never talked about whether she even noticed my problem or not. On my side it was quite a deep issue. I could satisfy her sexually but it had become more of a robotic chore for me with faked enthusiasm and faked orgasms. It took me several months before I got my 'Damn you look hot today honey!' groove back.

When she fell out of desire for me (which happened many years later) she saw it as a situation I should be content to accept as long as she felt that way because of my love for her. I was disappointed. I felt that she had disconnected love from sex and used love as a justification that made her 'right' in her view. But I did not play the 'fuck me or I leave' card because I would not put up with sex as a 'chore' she would perform for me. I told her our relationship was on the rocks and that it was not on the rocks because she either refused sex with me or provided sex for me, it was on the rocks because her desire for me had vanished and so intimacy between us was devalued. That seemed to get through to her and we worked through our problems.

Yoni, I wasn't thinking specifically of punters.

Lots of people are neutral on the subject of prostitution, they would not go to a prostitute but don't have a problem with the idea that others do. I can only assume it's because they don't see selling a sexual service as massively different to selling other "physical services"