Home › Blogs › figleaf's blog

Decisions, Consent, and Disclosure

Mon, 2009-04-06 17:07 — figleaf

Another thing about putting the emphasis on deciding instead of consent. Maybe the most important.

There’s a certain sexual coercion implicit in the word “consent” in that when pressed for an answer the choices are “yes” or “no,” and thus one is obliged (at least socially) to disclose some information about one’s sexual state.

Consider that when pressed for a decision social convention permits one three choices of answer rather than just two: yes, no, and it’s none of your business.

And by the way, I think the two examples illustrate what I’ve been trying to say about how thinking in terms of consent allows the person asking to place the question outside the person who’s asked, whereas thinking in terms of a decision locates it where, and with whom, it belongs.

Mon, 2009-04-06 18:26 — 2826 (not verified) #permalink

Your comment about the dichotomy definitely resonates with me. I used to get very worked up when someone would proposition me, because I didn’t want to say no, but I also didn’t want to say yes. Imagine my feeling of utter idiocy when I realized that you could say “maybe”. Or “Not now.” Or “I don’t know”. Or…anything at all, really. It’s not a question of yes or no. It’s a question of “what are you thinking? what do you want? what are you interested in now? what might you be open to later?”

[“It’s a question of ‘what are you thinking? what do you want? what are you interested in now? what might you be open to later?’” Beautifully put, Ironrose! Never mind the intrinsic leverage implied by the word consent; never mind the operational thinking behind “getting” consent! Thinking in terms of “can I just put it in a little” followed by “yes” or “no” itself is just so… narrow. Thank you! —fl]

Mon, 2009-04-06 19:16 — 2826 (not verified) #permalink

Hmmm. I’m not so sure about whether the dichotomy is a problem here. There needs to be a dichotomy, either yes or no, or we end up with some gray area and in the realm of date-rape apologists. When it comes to sex, “maybe” is ethically (though not legally) the same as “no” at that particular moment. It might lead to more negotiations, more time spent getting to know each other – but it had better not lead to one partner pressuring or forcing the other.

As far as answering “none of your business” – that’s also equivalent to a “no.” Asking/propositioning/initiating can’t occur without putting some burden on the other party for an answer of some sort. So in basically friendly, sexy situations someone is going to have to make the first move. If the other person is totally uninterested, one way to signal “none of your business” is to change the subject. Again, this is equivalent to a no, because it’s not a yes. In other situations (I’m thinking of street harassment as one example), the person being approached has every right to say “piss off,” and once again it amounts to a no.

I think the core of the problem of “consent” is women’s ostensible and enforced passivity in the process. In SnowdropExplodes’ reformulation, everything is gender neutral. And that may well make sense in kinky communities, where less is taken for granted. In the land of conventional heterosexuality, male initiation and female gatekeeping is still assumed. “Consent” thus appears at gatekeeping – even when it’s “enthusiastic.”

This is so deeply ingrained that – just for instance – Jill Filipovic’s intro to “Yes Means Yes” can’t get away from a notion of consent as something women give, even though much of her essay is devoted to debunking the notion of female passivity. I’m not picking on Jill, at all, or denigrating her otherwise solid essay. Rather, I’m suggesting that the gatekeeping idea runs so deep that it’s awfully hard to escape even as we try to dismantle it.

Mon, 2009-04-06 19:40 — 2826 (not verified) #permalink

And maybe a second core problem is – as you phrase it – “when pressed for an answer …” when in fact no one should be pressed. They should be asked. And if they demur, we’re back to no, at least at that particular moment in time.

Sorry about the disjointed comments, but I’m starting to see why you’ve got one post after another on this issue. It’s like untangling a very large, very knotted ball of yarn.

[It’s taken me a while (a consequence of trying to articulate a developing conviction) but I think “when pressed” is highly relevant. Because not to put too fine a point on it “consent,” especially as it’s almost always discussed in legal terms, really only comes into play when one is either pressing or feeling pressed. A reason, incidentally, why I think it’s especially critical to move the focus past consent to respect for the decision maker. Because sort of by definition pressure implies disrespect for the decision maker… which necessarily then pushes the matter to the firewall of consent. This is why I think consent is critical, but not sufficient. Thanks, Sungold. —fl]

Wed, 2009-04-08 21:27 — 2826 (not verified) #permalink

I think these are some very insightful points. I guess, not just with the whole being kinky thing, but also with some events in my personal history, I have more awareness of being put on the spot (so to speak) so I don’t automatically frame it as gendered in one direction.

I think the thing about “when pressed for an answer” is very important, it’s kind of the flip side to what I was arguing with all that logic-style notation (and that you also made): so while there always has to be a person asking the question (because otherwise nobody knows if the other person has made any decision or consent or whatever), the way in which the question is asked makes a difference (i.e. between “asking” and “pressing”).

[Oh yeah, if I haven’t been more clear I really need to be. This isn’t about consent as a gender thing, even though it’s been raised and pursued because there’s where most of the open conflict has been. But no, over time, if we really do get radical gender parity it stands to reason that questions of consent are going to come up in any dimension. (This is not playing “whut about teh menz” but already men are under pressure to always be ready, for instance, and that sometimes gets played on as well.) Anyway, whereas I think with more respect for decision makers there’s be less contention, but to the extent anyone, of either gender, exerts pressure there’ll be a need for formal, and possibly legal grants or denial of consent. Thanks, SE. —fl]

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.