One of the things that I find an interesting but controversial question of consent is around abusive relationships, and people who stay in them.
I can see clearly that threat of physical consequences 'if you leave me then I'll find you and kill you' for example is something that a person does not consent to, and is not so much about consenting to be in the relationship, but trying to stop something worse from happening.
But there are people who stay in abusive relationships where consequences of violent retribution has not been implied.
Is staying in a relationship for financial security and companionship and things that a person has no inherrent right to ask for from another person, rather than safety from violence, knowing that abuse is likely to occur equivilent to consenting to abuse? And is it still abusive if a person has consented? Is it possible to consider it as a fair exchange, if a partner is tolerating violence rather than enjoying it?
I'm speaking for people who go back to partners who have a long history of being abusive, even after they have moved out and achieved financial independence (even if that income is significantly less than what they would have had if they were sharing their abusive partners income). There seem to be people who persistently choose abusive partners and fail to leave when someone is violent towards them.
Various anti-abuse campaigners say that it is always unacceptable, and never right... but if a person (rightly or wrongly) believes that it is better to have an individual in their life on the whole, regardless of whether they're abusive than to be without them then is that in itself consent?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-16 02:14 pm (UTC)I can see clearly that threat of physical consequences 'if you leave me then I'll find you and kill you' for example is something that a person does not consent to, and is not so much about consenting to be in the relationship, but trying to stop something worse from happening.
But there are people who stay in abusive relationships where consequences of violent retribution has not been implied.
Is staying in a relationship for financial security and companionship and things that a person has no inherrent right to ask for from another person, rather than safety from violence, knowing that abuse is likely to occur equivilent to consenting to abuse? And is it still abusive if a person has consented? Is it possible to consider it as a fair exchange, if a partner is tolerating violence rather than enjoying it?
I'm speaking for people who go back to partners who have a long history of being abusive, even after they have moved out and achieved financial independence (even if that income is significantly less than what they would have had if they were sharing their abusive partners income). There seem to be people who persistently choose abusive partners and fail to leave when someone is violent towards them.
Various anti-abuse campaigners say that it is always unacceptable, and never right... but if a person (rightly or wrongly) believes that it is better to have an individual in their life on the whole, regardless of whether they're abusive than to be without them then is that in itself consent?