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!

Interesting post dwh. Was there a reason you felt you couldn't talk to her about your lack of desire?

By the way, I forgot to say earlier that I have so enjoyed the depth of critical thinking and analysis on this thread, thanks to all that have provided that. However, I must just mention that the best "light-hearted" moment was the poster who mansplained what a Russian doll is. Just saying.

I think following the comments above that we agree sex is different from other things we compromise on in a relationship. so why is this? It is not the physical intimacy because we are happy with nurses etc, it is not the emotional intimacy because we are ok with therapists, so what is different?
I think part of the conversation is that we are saying a wife can legitimatly refuse sex (which I completely support), but also a wife can prevent a husband getting sex elsewhere.
How we would we see a wife who didn't want to clean put prevented the husband employing a cleaner or cleaning himself?
I genuinely am trying to understand why we put sex on a pedestal and why we cannot see it as the same as other things?
BTW my view of sex is that it is different but cannot understand why

Carol I agree it is different, but when in a sexually abusive relationship I tried to approach sex in exactly that way in order to get through it. I imagine other people do this too. But it wasn't a sustainable way of coping.

I think it is the physical intimacy that makes it different. If a nurse is physically intimate they are only doing so to help a patient. They are not enjoying themselves sexually at the patients expense, making them feel used.

Matilda - why cannot a woman see sex with an otherwise loved husband as this, ie helping them? (I couldn't but don't know why)

Well personally I believe I couldn't do it long term, although I did it fairly long term, because I felt too used. But there wider issues as the relationship was abusive in other ways.

Also it can lead to mental health issues. It's possible that the woman dissociates to try to deal with the situation, so kind of like disconnecting body and mind.

Interesting post dwh. Was there a reason you felt you couldn't talk to her about your lack of desire?

Because she would have accepted the validity of the reason and blamed herself totally for it. It would have then compounded the problem of one person not desiring the other (and solving it) with the other person doubting their own desirability. The first problem was an elephant in the room on me alone, bringing in another elephant would have made things worse for both of us by an order of magnitude.

OK, jumping in having read the start of this thread and the last few pages, so apologies if I make some glaring error.

I am particularly interested in DWH position on this. I have been in long term r/s in the past where I have been aware that for various reasons, usually tiredness, being distracted or just differences in body clock and/or sex drive I have not been that in the mood (initially) but I have consented because I know (a bit like going to the gym) I will probably enjoy it once I actually get there.
and I do actually, positively, enthusiastically enjoy PIV (amongst other things) and if not then I will happily takes steps to increase my own enjoyment.

which is not to say I have never had sex I did not enjoy. and this is a world apart from the kind of sex that goes on in many DA r/s where the consent is based on fear/getting it over with and the abuser is perfectly well aware that although they may have agreed to the sex they do not want it. (see it all too often on MN )

But it does also happen the other way round. I have been in a r/s where it has become apparent very early on that there is a mismatch and that I would happily have sex far more often than they would. and I think there is a societal assumption that if a woman offers it a man will always take it. when in fact they may not actually want it. they may consent because they think that they need to live up to the societal idea that that is what men do. virile men are always up for it.
so I found myself in the position of either feeling like I was having sex with someone who I could not be sure really wanted it or feeling both extremely frustrated and undesirable (possibly because after all he must want it just not with me because the 'norms' tell us men have a higher sex drive than women) and also it is an unusual position to find yourself in as a woman because it has never been an issue in any other r/s .

but the bottom line is the people that I like/love/get on well with but do not have sex with (or rarely have sex with ) are my friends not my parnter/SO/bf.

Not sure what you would like my opinion on Pegfin, your certainly not the only woman ever to encounter a man who had (or developed over time) a lower sex drive for them then they expected/wanted. My observation is the 'oversexed' partner has very much the same feelings about their situation, regardless of gender, if their partner has a more neutral attitude to sex, ie they 'consent without enthusiasm'. If, however, the partner has more of a resistance to the idea of sex I believe attitudes of the 'oversexed' partner will tend to diverge depending if they are male or female, the man increasingly externalising it more as frustration and the the woman increasingly internalising it more as being because of her own undesirability. IMO anyway.

I think PIV sex is a big deal for men because they far more commonly orgasm during PIV sex then women (of whom no more than 25% do at best and only 5% exclusively). To orgasm during sex a woman requires clitoral stimulation, which is what men get automatically in PIV sex because the glans penis = the clitoris. If the bulk of women reached orgasm during PIV sex instead of the opposite I doubt there would be nearly as much of a notion of 'why is PIV sex such a big deal for men'? running through female social circles.

DWH, but there are other ways for men to reach orgasm too, so the question of why goal = PIV instead of why, say, goal = orgasm remains.

Carol, a cleaner can clean for someone they dislike, a nurse can care for someone they dislike, but it makes me very uncomfortable to think of a person having sex with someone they disliked..

Sorry dwh that was not entirely clear, what i meant was i found your earlier post interesting. because i take similar view in a loving r/s where my drive is the lower at a given time, I probably would make the effort to have sex in order to avoid a partner feeling rejected.but the other way round i just feel extremely uncomfortable. These things sometimes balance out over time sometimes not.

Plus I do think there is an assumption that it is normal for men to have a high drive and women low (hence women being portrayed as the gatekeepers).

So dutiful rather than enthusiastic consent can apply to men too (I would assume less often but perhaps I am gender stereotyping)

And there is a societal pressure of a different sort on men to 'perform'. I suppose i was wondering dwh if you agreed with that- it is assumed men are always up for it. or is it easy enough for a man to discuss with other men their general lack of desire for sex without it being seen as a problem.

But the other part of my point was that the question was posed - what is different about sex? You can love someone but not have sex with them, they are your friends. and many people would not mind if their partner cleaned someone else's house (either for money or to help that person out) but might be a bit less delighted if they met their sexual needs.
So sex and the mutual enjoyment of sex (of some kind) with your partner must be what distinguishes a partnership from a friendship.

One very basic difference MO is that a nurse is in control, they are doing something for someone more vulnerable than they are in an official capacity where they are protected from assault/violence. With traditional PIV the woman is letting someone more physically and socially powerful they are do something to the most sensitive intimate part of their body. In the case of prostitutes there is little or no protection from violence.
It's worth noting too that caring intimate jobs are usually considered beneath men and are predominantly female roles. Having cared for disabled adults myself I can say from my own experience that the physical interaction does make the job more emotionally draining than other manual jobs that don't involve a caring element.

Good points Cailin.

It's my view dwh that in a healthy relationship one partner should feel able to tell the other that they're not up for sex without the other partner taking it personally. My dh went off sex for a while -I ws a bit frustrated but didn't make a big deal of it. Equally I'm not much up for sex at the mo due to bfing and dh doesn't mind. We know it'll even out later.

In fact caring for someone you actively dislike is very hard.

Cailin, yes, ideally, but sex does come with all kinds of emotional and cultural subtext.

I suppose I was thinking more along the line of a hospital nurse who maybe had patients for a matter of days. I can imagine that care home nursing feels different because it's closer to a personal, long term relationship.

cailin good point re. discussing the issue, although this is based on the assumption that at some point it will return to the norm.

And yy I think any job where you are required to be physically within someone else's personal space is different from jobs where you are not. I think part of that is the strain of being constantly watchful/aware of the (unusual) dynamic.

It seems to me that what makes caring jobs like nursing social work and teaching so stressful these days is a denial of the social and emotional element of these jobs. I used to be a primary teacher and it felt very much like people who had never taught and so didn't understand teaching on a personal level had introduced a whole raft of initiatives that teachers just have to deliver robotically with no regard for the fact that children are complicated demanding human beings who are not just silent receptacles for knowledge.

Fabulous thread - thank you all.

Dworkin's "Intercourse" is magnificently challenging and thought-provoking. The questioning about why PIV is different from doing the dishes (!) reminds me of this passage from it:

""He has to push in past boundaries. There is the outline of a body, distinct, separate, its integrity an illusion, a tragic deception, because unseen there is a slit between the legs, and he has to push into it. There is never a real privacy of the body that can coexist with intercourse: with being entered. The vagina itself is muscled and the muscles have to be pushed apart. The thrusting is persistent invasion. She is opened up, split down the center. She is occupied--physically, internally, in her privacy.""

Equally nurses are expected to execute duties quick smart without any thought given to the fact that for example you can't just march in and stick a needle in someone's arm then storm out again. You have to interact in a friendly personal way with someone you don't know - that involves time and emotional energy.

Dad - the glans doesn't actually equal the clitoris. Yes they are both physical organs that produce sexual pleasure. But the clitoris has many more nerve endings on it than the penis, and most of it is internal.

rosabud, I sniggered about "a russian doll is...." too

caroldecker, good point that if we aren't talking to those closest to us even, how can we really change anything. this is one of many areas in which I am finally seeing I just have to get out of my comfort zone.

About why sex is different: I don't have the answer to that but I have some vague musings... when I started work, firstly in sales and then as various temp admin / receptionist jobs, it was very clear that I was being hired for my "personality" - not my real one, but the one it was assumed I could put on, as young educated pretty woman. It was understood that I could be smiley, "bubbly", kind, open, available, always smiling, always cheerful, always empathetic. I tried to do all this (had to, to make a living) and it jarred with me, hard. I am a natural introvert and I had been educated at a time and in places where the emphasis was on academic cut and thrust: rigour, knowledge, arguments, strong essay writing basically - as opposed to many areas of education now where I gather that being "personable" or "a team player" is part of the deal. It was hard for me to find I was forced to make a living by, essentially, massaging other's egos, as a social instrument, and I compared it in my head to prostitution, while recognising it is not the same. Much more recently I read Nina Power's book One Dimensional Woman and recognised my disquiet of the time very clearly in her examination of the woman who is always polishing the Self, along with the CV. It is the person that is available for work, not just the receptionist / administrator / designer / whatever you do.

Oddly I am sure some people are very positive about this as they see it as a lovely warm privilege to take your whole person to work rather than being treated like a robot. I found it very hard and creepy and have only gradually come to terms with it - and to the extent that I have it is because I have bent the rules and found ways of throwing in the bits of myself that it relieves me to express: analytic skills (even when they result in negative or critical conclusions); sarcasm (when not too rough and results in a feelgood laugh, not against anyone); knowing my shit (because I do). all this is possible only because I am 42 now, and no longer (in my job that I have now and have had for 6 years) expected to be that "bubbly girl". I am not sure it will travel should I get another job.

Minitheminx, the no-consent-to-murder thing is so interesting, and reminds me of how nuance can be allowed here but not there, eg, in Catholicism killing innocents is ABSOLUTELY NEVER ALLOWED EVER when the innocent is a foetus; but there is such a thing as a Just War, which may result in the deaths of innocents, because you can't seriously expect men to entirely relinquish the possibility of going out and fighting, can you.

cailindana "the fact that children are complicated demanding human beings who are not just silent receptacles for knowledge." Right. but the funny thing is that outside teaching, it is generally recognised that Communication is a skill, a Thing; it is not by any means easy to get large numbers of people to understand what you want them to, nor to buy into the project in the first place. there are vast armies of highly paid marketers and PR people in all industries, who are vastly rewarded for doing this very tricky job of winning the attention of an audience and imparting what you want them to know. why is this not recognised in teaching?