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: 2010-07-16 01:43 pm (UTC)This first example is one based on personal experience as someone who has received street harrassment for looking visibly queer.
If you look at the effects of physical versus verbal harrassment... slapping someone has a fairly minor physical effect. Its quite a momentary physical pain with no lasting physical damage, and the fear of escalation and feeling of discomfort which come from having someone show that they they are willing and able to violate your rights are far more lasting than the initial sting.
Verbal intimidation in the context of shouting at someone in the street and being physical intimidating without actual physical contact can have a lot of the same consequences in terms of diminishing people's safety as physically hitting someone; the end result makes people afraid, upset, or angry.
Once someone has shown that they are willing to be verbally abusive to you in an unprovoked way (which in the UK is a criminal offense, particularly if its covered by hate crime legislation) then it is hard to separate that from an implied threat of violence... at the point where a stranger is in your face, spewing out a load of homophobic abuse like that, and asking you about what bits you have under your skirt you don't know whether they'll hit you or not, and what level of violence there'll be if they do.
If something is purposefully used to make someone miserable, afraid or un comfortable then it has many of the same effects as physical violence.
People start wanting to avoid work or school and their ability to concentrate and function as well as their attendence suffers, as well as their performance.
In a relationship verbal abusiveness (not neccessarily fairly 'meaningless' expletives but targetted attacks on people's self esteem) is used as efectively to take away someone's self worth to the extent that they can be controlled as physical abusiveness.
And from a doctor, police officer or other person of trust and/or authority who act as doormen for provision of services it can stop people from accessing services that they desparately need.
Sending someone a random internet message 'ur hair is stupid' is mean but unlikely to have long and profound consequences in and of itself, but if you perpetuate a sort of discrimination that society as a whole has inflicted on someone then racism, sexism, homophobia or transphobia is often part of a wholescale hate campaign which is delivered by droplets rather than barrels...but eventually droplets add up to barrels.
no subject
Date: 2010-07-16 01:57 pm (UTC)Thanks for the food for thought!
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?