A Question of Consent
Jul. 14th, 2010 11:07 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
emanixThe topic of consent has come up more than usual in several different areas of my life over the last few weeks, and it has brought up some interesting questions for me about exactly what consent *is* and where it is and isn't necessary.
Wikipedia currently defines consent as: 'Voluntary agreement or permission, not unlike assent consent can be achieved by passively not refusing; To express willingness, to give permission.'
So consent can be verbal, 'yes I give permission for you to do x', non-verbal, in the sense of a nod, a wink, a shrug, or tacit in that the person consenting simply does not act. There are situations in which all of these are perfectly appropriate, but lately I note that certain people find it hard to draw the line as to exactly which acts require consent and which do not, or they draw it in different places to me, or to each other.
To get a little metaphysical for a moment, there is no way in which we can act that does not affect other people - every air molecule we breathe out will reach someone else's lungs slightly altered by its contact with us. We drop skin cells as dust everywhere we walk, and the vibrations of our voices may well alter the paths of tsunamis just as much as the flap of a butterfly, they've been known to start landslides. It isn't possible to know the effect we are having on the entire world all of the time. We have to assume some level of tacit consent to our existence from the rest of the universe, or we simply couldn't live.
So what *does* require consent?
To me this is something that's always been relatively clear cut - Personal sovereignty means that I (and everyone else) have a right to give or refuse consent to anything that has a demonstrable direct physical effect on my person. Thus anything that involves my being touched, moved, enclosed, irradiated (by something under the control of a person), or chemically interacted with requires my consent.
So I support the smoking ban in public places because I don't consent to breathing in chemicals that have a direct effect on my lungs. I support the law prohibiting people from punching me in the face without my consent, because well, I don't like being punched in the face without my consent. On the other hand, I do not support laws which remove a persons ability to consent to such things, however well intentioned, because they remove a bit of my personal sovereignty, whether I intend to use it or not.
(Theoretically, of course, living in a democratic country means giving tacit consent to the government to make these laws, along with the active consent of voting for whatever party I prefer - though quite where that leaves everyone who voted for the parties not currently in power, I have never yet worked out. )
Where I would say consent does NOT come in, are the things I see and hear other people doing, and this is where I find I differ from some of the people around me.
Some recent situations in which I have seen differing views on consent:
An event in a fetish club, where one couples' intense scene gave a sense of unease to several other people in the club who weren't entirely sure that the scene was consensual. The general opinion seemed to be that the other people in the club had not consented to VIEW what this pair were doing, and that they were therefore in the wrong. Is consent necessary for merely appearing in front of somebody?
One half of a couple speaks for their partner on a mailing list, and several people insist that consent MUST be given by the other partner in front of the rest of the group in order for this to be okay. Is it really reasonable to demand that the silent partner gives written consent to this, considering that the state of their relationship is nobody else's business?
A comment was made in the same thread about this being equivalent to "being drawn into someone else's D/s play without my consent" - I can't quite understand this objection I have to admit - Objecting to the facts of someone else's relationship, as long as they are not expecting you to be physically involved, or demanding that they be called by their role names, is that not well... like requiring consent to be told that the sky is blue?*
A person was objecting to being referred to by an incorrect term (which had been accidental on the part of the person using it) It was stated that this was non-consensual, and equivalent to physical violence. Is a pronoun, an insult, or any other term used to refer to a person, really a matter of consent, as opposed to politeness?
A disagreement between a young lady at a party who had given written consent to everyone at the party for a particular action (kissing), and a certain chap who wanted to double-check that this was okay. Could it be said that she had not consented to having her original consent questioned?
What's your opinion on the above issues? Are there any situations you consider to be grey areas? How do you handle these?
What does consent mean to you?
--
*In this particular case, the issue has since been cleared up and seems to have been a misunderstanding, but it's not the first time I've heard similar views stated, so I'm letting the question stand.
Wikipedia currently defines consent as: 'Voluntary agreement or permission, not unlike assent consent can be achieved by passively not refusing; To express willingness, to give permission.'
So consent can be verbal, 'yes I give permission for you to do x', non-verbal, in the sense of a nod, a wink, a shrug, or tacit in that the person consenting simply does not act. There are situations in which all of these are perfectly appropriate, but lately I note that certain people find it hard to draw the line as to exactly which acts require consent and which do not, or they draw it in different places to me, or to each other.
To get a little metaphysical for a moment, there is no way in which we can act that does not affect other people - every air molecule we breathe out will reach someone else's lungs slightly altered by its contact with us. We drop skin cells as dust everywhere we walk, and the vibrations of our voices may well alter the paths of tsunamis just as much as the flap of a butterfly, they've been known to start landslides. It isn't possible to know the effect we are having on the entire world all of the time. We have to assume some level of tacit consent to our existence from the rest of the universe, or we simply couldn't live.
So what *does* require consent?
To me this is something that's always been relatively clear cut - Personal sovereignty means that I (and everyone else) have a right to give or refuse consent to anything that has a demonstrable direct physical effect on my person. Thus anything that involves my being touched, moved, enclosed, irradiated (by something under the control of a person), or chemically interacted with requires my consent.
So I support the smoking ban in public places because I don't consent to breathing in chemicals that have a direct effect on my lungs. I support the law prohibiting people from punching me in the face without my consent, because well, I don't like being punched in the face without my consent. On the other hand, I do not support laws which remove a persons ability to consent to such things, however well intentioned, because they remove a bit of my personal sovereignty, whether I intend to use it or not.
(Theoretically, of course, living in a democratic country means giving tacit consent to the government to make these laws, along with the active consent of voting for whatever party I prefer - though quite where that leaves everyone who voted for the parties not currently in power, I have never yet worked out. )
Where I would say consent does NOT come in, are the things I see and hear other people doing, and this is where I find I differ from some of the people around me.
Some recent situations in which I have seen differing views on consent:
An event in a fetish club, where one couples' intense scene gave a sense of unease to several other people in the club who weren't entirely sure that the scene was consensual. The general opinion seemed to be that the other people in the club had not consented to VIEW what this pair were doing, and that they were therefore in the wrong. Is consent necessary for merely appearing in front of somebody?
One half of a couple speaks for their partner on a mailing list, and several people insist that consent MUST be given by the other partner in front of the rest of the group in order for this to be okay. Is it really reasonable to demand that the silent partner gives written consent to this, considering that the state of their relationship is nobody else's business?
A comment was made in the same thread about this being equivalent to "being drawn into someone else's D/s play without my consent" - I can't quite understand this objection I have to admit - Objecting to the facts of someone else's relationship, as long as they are not expecting you to be physically involved, or demanding that they be called by their role names, is that not well... like requiring consent to be told that the sky is blue?*
A person was objecting to being referred to by an incorrect term (which had been accidental on the part of the person using it) It was stated that this was non-consensual, and equivalent to physical violence. Is a pronoun, an insult, or any other term used to refer to a person, really a matter of consent, as opposed to politeness?
A disagreement between a young lady at a party who had given written consent to everyone at the party for a particular action (kissing), and a certain chap who wanted to double-check that this was okay. Could it be said that she had not consented to having her original consent questioned?
What's your opinion on the above issues? Are there any situations you consider to be grey areas? How do you handle these?
What does consent mean to you?
--
*In this particular case, the issue has since been cleared up and seems to have been a misunderstanding, but it's not the first time I've heard similar views stated, so I'm letting the question stand.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-14 11:23 pm (UTC)I tend to wander off in the direction of free speech, but that doesn't mean that speech should remain unchallenged. Specifically, I would abhor any moves to restrict what people can legally say (give or take slander, direct or implied threats of violence, shouting fire in crowded theatre), but social pressure is potentially acceptable, especially where the speech reinforces a power differential (i.e. racism, sexism etc.). I also don't think people realise that internet pile-ons can bring a power dynamic and privilege into play that are the opposite of those being railed against.
You'll note I didn't use the word consent above. Viewing other people being confused about or even deliberately refusing to use one's preferred terminology and identity as a breach of consent and equivalent to physical assault is utterly inimical to free speech, and may even hurt wider acceptance and understanding of the identity in question. Yes, it may cause upset and emotional hurt. But people don't get to dictate what everyone else thinks and says about them. That's not how it works.
Free action is more problematic, but it's late and I should be starting work.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-15 01:00 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2010-07-16 01:58 pm (UTC)What someone says *about* you, again is entirely different to what people says *to* you, and again I don't think that what someone says to consenting adults who choose to hear it is a matter for state intervention. I think a person should have some measure of control about they have to deal with in day to day life.
But people ultimately have the right to be left alone, and having things randomly shouted at them or about them in the street isn't something that they should have to put up with.
I don't think publications and media should be restricted, as those things are free for viewers to opt in or out of, but I think that in public, and particularly when it comes to public services then I think that people should have a right to protection from insult and discrimination.
I think a doctor's receptionist should be able to say whatever she likes at home (as long as she honours confidentiality agreements from work). But if she's outside, and particularly at work then hateful speech isn't acceptable and a matter of consent. If she wants to write a book entitled FAGGOTS ARE SICK PEVERTS then she can do it at home, but she shouldn't leave a copy on her desk at work, or use the medical records she has access to as case studies. And if they started selling it on amazon then yes, I probably would say to amazon that it is financing homophobia and ask them to withdraw it, and ask others to do likewise...but I think the big ethical consideration isn't regarding how it impacts me as a consumer, but how it effects amazon's gay employees, who also have a right to do their jobs without being expected to tolerate homophobia in their workplace.