Home › Blogs › figleaf's blog

...And Then He Charged Her For a Large: Scripting Consent vs. Respect for the Decision Maker

Mon, 2009-11-09 14:33 — figleaf

Via Ann Bartow via Lindsay at Female Impersonator, here’s a snippet from Until Someone Wakes Up, by Macalester College’s Carolyn Levy

Waiter: Would you like some coffee?
Woman: Yes, please.
Waiter: Just say when. (Starts to pour.)
Woman: There. (He keeps pouring.) That’s fine. (He pours.) Stop! (She grabs the pot; there is coffee everywhere.)
Waiter: Yes, ma’am.
Woman: Well, why didn’t you stop pouring?
Waiter: Oh, I wasn’t sure you meant it.
Woman: Look, of course I meant it! I have coffee all over my lap! You nearly burned me!
Waiter: Forgive me, ma’am, but you certainly looked thirsty. I thought you wanted more.
Woman: But – Waiter: And you must admit, you did let me start to pour.

Follow links beginning here.

I think it’s a great analogy! In particular it nicely illustrates the limits of consent compared to respect for the decision maker Did the waiter obtain consent to pour the coffee? Yes (and if the customer was anything like me before my first cup of the day she may have consented enthusiastically.) So consent is pretty crucial. Heck, the waiter would probably even be shocked that anyone would ever just sneak up on a customer and start pouring coffee.

But did he respect his customer’s decision? Not at all.

Update: As Sungold points out in comments, below, the legal principle of consent is generally quite well defined, and the waiter who didn’t stop when the customer said stop would not be protected under the law. The script, however, very nicely illuminates the common understanding of the notion of consent not as a dynamic decision to be respected but as a static license to proceed with no further consideration.

Tue, 2009-11-10 11:25 — Mike (not verified) #permalink

But some people are just plain stupid too!!

Wed, 2009-11-11 08:10 — thedirtydemocrat (not verified) #permalink

The joke was well taken by myself, however there are many men out there that saying when is just exactly their only defense in a rape case.

Wed, 2009-11-11 10:39 — Sungold (not verified) #permalink

So I don’t know what happened, but the comment I submitted yesterday was deleted. The comment form seemed to be working at the time.

Anyway, I don’t see this example as showing the limitations of consent as a legal or social concept. Instead it shows a common misunderstanding in people’s minds about what consent means. The hypothetical waiter’s reaction reveals the assumption that once you’ve said yes, you’ve consented in perpetuity, and it thus denies that consent can ever be revoked. This was, of course, the basis for the law refusing to recognize the existence of marital rape until very recently. It also was evidently a factor in the outcome of a local rape case, in which the defense played up the defendant’s prior friends-with-benefits relationship with his accuser. The defendant was acquitted.

All of these examples show not the limits of “consent” but rather a persistent popular understanding of it as being irrevocable once given. The distinction between consent and “respect for the decision maker” may be meaningful on another level, but it’s not at all necessary in the hypothetical coffee example. I don’t think we need to introduce a new concept in order to educate people that consent can be withdrawn at any time.

“Respect for the decision maker” is a lot less specific than consent. I think it can form a solid basis for ethical actions. But it also presupposes that the hypothetical waiters among us 1) intend to act ethically in the first place, and 2) won’t confuse your notion of “respect” with older ideas about “respecting” women that are all tangled up with chivalry and protectiveness toward women.

[Hi Sungold. I expect your comment disappeared when I had to re-restore the original database. My sincerest apologies and thanks for posting again. As for the substance of your comment I’ve added clarification to the original post — I don’t want to discount consent, I just want to deepen the popular, as opposed to technical, understanding of the term. My intention is to add “and” not so much “but” or “instead.” —fl]

Post new comment

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