The idea that by default womens bodies are available for sexual use and that women have to revoke consent every single time is Fucked .
This should be common sense, yet for some reason people have this irrational fear that if their partner doesn't have to say "no", that they might accidentally rape them.
You don't accidentally rape someone. How can you not notice when your partner freezes in fear? Or when they are totally unresponsive? When they put their arms in front of their body to shield themselves from you ? When they stare at the ceiling the entire time? When they're in pain?
Maybe you don't care because neither your partner's pleasure nor consent is important to you. In other words, you don't care because you're a rapist .
Sex is a mutual, shared experience. It's not a conquest. It's not some fucked up game of aggressors and gatekeepers. It's not a prize to be won, or something that's owed. It's not a rite of passage. It doesn't mean you love each other (even though it can be a way to express it if you do). If you're male it doesn't make you a man, and if you're female it doesn't make you a slut.
But how do we create enforceable laws that shift the burden to obtaining positive consent for sex, rather than simply requiring a lack of revocation? Requiring that a partner verbally say "yes" every time is neither practical nor sexy, and it misses the point. Someone will say "yes" if they fear violence for saying "no", or are otherwise not empowered to say "no."
Of course, when you're actually there its obvious when the sex was mutual. When you look into their eyes, they look back. When you lean towards them, they mirror you. When you put your arm around them, they pull you closer. When you kiss them, they kiss back.
Hell, they might even initiate something themselves!
But in the courtroom, what behaviors should be accepted as proof of consent?
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Provable Positive Consent.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/15316
Thank you so much for posting this. I don't have any answers to your question, but this is the first time I have ever encountered someone talking about 'freezing in fear' as rape. That was how I was raped, completely frozen in fear and unable to move enough to say no. It took me ages to admit to myself that it was in fact rape, and to stop blaming myself for what happened (I kept telling myself that since I was conscious, I should have been able to say no, so it must have been my fault...). I've never heard other people talk about this form of rape, so I have wondered if I'm the only person who has experienced this. Having this type of rape acknowledged means the world to me, so thank you.
I highly recommend this blog: http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/
the author was raped in a similar manner and writes quite a bit about it, and the meaning of consent and force.
Very good blog, I especially recommend that people read this post-
http://fugitivus.wordpress.com/2009/06/26/another-post-about-rape-3/#comments
"Sex is a mutual, shared experience. It's not a conquest. It's not some fucked up game of aggressors and gatekeepers. It's not a prize to be won, or something that's owed."
Bingo.
I don't even see this as a court of law issue (though the way we handle sex crimes does need to be addressed) as much as it's a pervasive problem in our society with the way people are taught to view sex.
Women "have" it and men must somehow convince women to "give" sex to them, or use force to "take" sex. Men "need" sex, and good women (wives, girlfriends, prostitutes) recognize this "need" and legitimate their man by "satisfying" their "need" for sex.
It's all very bizarre, and even without discussing how it impacts women, this structure pressures men into acting in risky and downright psychotic ways. It encourages men to be emotionally and sexually stunted.
Do you have any idea what "implied consent" is? Legally this is a non-issue, way to be useless.
"way to be useless"
Were you describing your comment?
Yeah. It's called having a vagina/being a woman, in our current legal system.
unfortunately, not all people follow the law. and it is also unfortunate that a lot of people bend legal definitions and use them against victims. in the case of implied consent, it is not clearly outlined what exactly not-verbal consenting behaviors would be. so body language meanings are malleable and often used against a victim of a crime rather than to protect them or defend them. a person's 'silence or inaction' can also be deemed implied consent. but what if they are terrified speechless or frozen with fear? not everyone reacts as they 'should' (according to those judging the matter from the outside). how many times, in many cases, have the 'facts and circumstances' of an event been twisted to fit an agenda? OFTEN enough. if someone wants to not see the signs the law often tells them they can by the vague nature of these definitions.
i do encourage people to verbally ask for consent in first time, or random, hook ups-
the last time i slept with a random guy we were just about to go for the condom and he said "is this ok?" and i was totally confused- why is this guy asking me that? we're making out right? and said "of course!" and he said "just like to check" with a smile and then we had sex.
for the first ten minutes of the sex i was just thinking wow. he just asked me for consent. he just made damn sure that i also wanted to do this. it was the hottest thing ever.
i told a lot of my friends about it and how hot it was, and i plan on teaching my little brother to ask that when he's older.
of course, in a relationship one would hope you and your partner can figure yourselves and your interest level out by paying attention to one another, and not need to ask every single time
I would make that last paragraph in a good relationship, because there are people in a relationship that don't pay that much attention. but otherwise, spot on. Asking for consent is sexy. I've never understood the dating advice "don't ask to kiss her, just do it" I can still remember feeling tingly when my boyfriend first asked "can I kiss you?" hott.
I know, its so amazing when guys actually stop and ask before they just go ahead and start taking your clothes off. It makes me wonder though is it sexy because he's one of the only ones to ever ask or if it was because you actually find it sexy to be asked, just random thoughts that it makes me think about
Word. Your post nails it. It's amazing how I did a double-take and thought, woah, yeah, that's right! I hadn't thought of it that way before. Which is scary. Water in which we swim, and all that.
If I read the question correctly, the issue of how you place a requirement of establishing consent in a legal context. Not in a private context.
Lets take a bizarre hypothetical scenario. Take two people who just gave enthusiastic consent to each other and really enjoyed themselves and know their partner did as well. The next day they are both separated and both are told that the other person has stated that it was rape. Both parties are presented with an opportunity to prove consent was freely given, how could they do so assuming that the other person will testify against them?
Ultimately, I'd say both parties would be unable to prove they had received consent. Now this does not address a realistic situation in regards about how these conflicts arise, but it does very specifically address the issue of whether or not consent can be proven when there is a conflict.
They could have signed a consent form between each other soon to be sexual partner detailing every detail about how the sexual encounter were to take place. Yet that form would have validity only for the length of time you were signing it because it could be backed out of at any time.
Alternatively you could videotape or record every single sexual encounter, yet coercion could have taken place before the encounter were videotaped.
But this is a hypothetical question ignoring many of the problems apparent in the solutions, in an attempt to theorize a way to prove consent in a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt. Personally, I do not think it could be, every solution has its own reasonable doubt. But I'd be interested in hearing other peoples take.