Consent

[whiteraven]

That's a stick a lot of us use to beat ourselves up with in order to blame ourselves for our abuse.

Oh, no doubt. I wasn't really using that as a tie-in with the kind of consent I'm seeing discussed here, though. I was thinking more along the lines of, you know...if you watch someone kill someone, you are complicit in their behavior.

Oops. I guess maybe I do believe that about kids, even. Or me, anyway. I have two specific things in my past - which I don't talk about but which seem to be driving this conversation - where I watched something horrific happen and did nothing about it. I was 4-ish the first time and in high school the other.

Lord.

Enthusiastic and continuous.
if your fight, flight, freeze, fawn response is freeze like I tend to do that doesn’t mean you’ve given consent. We really need to teach young people non verbal cues as well

Yeah, that makes sense.

 

[NoWhereKnowWhere]

I was 4-ish the first time and in high school the other.

Children can’t consent.
I was groomed I was even enthusiastic about complying but children can’t consent.

For a long time if someone described my situation to me but with different people I’d say that it was child abuse and not ok. Yet somehow for me particularly it was different. Damn what makes me so special that the rules of morality (and the literal law) excuse things done to me from them.

 

[PerfectEmpire]

Consent is more than a mere "yes." Consent has a context. It has parameters, assumptions, and contingencies. If any of those are violated, then it follows that the consent is null and void. If the context is warped, so too is the consent. If the person is in a lesser position of power then consent is warped.

 

[Sideways]

I watched something horrific happen and did nothing about it. I was 4-ish the first time and in high school the other.

Yeah, I think I hear you. And it probably doesn't matter how much logic I throw at you, they aren't beliefs that will shift easily or quickly.

Maybe next time you're out and about, and you see a kid that looks about 4 years old (so you have the reality of that size human in front of you, but without all the emotions and complications of it being you), just ask yourself "Do I really place expectations on a kid that young about what they should do..."?

Don't even get me started on high school, and the complications of expecting teens to know what the right thing to do is and having the capacity to do it. Things that are obvious to us as adults can be incredibly complicated to a teen (cue the huffy teen exclaiming to an adult in frustration, "You wouldn't understand "...they aren't just saying that - the world through teenage eyes is a scary, shitty, isolating place).

 

[Chitoshi]

At best, I’d say some went along with things because they were confused and terrified and didn’t know how to get out.

Coerced consent is not consent. Consent under duress is not consent. If someone puts a gun to my head and I let them have something or do something, I am consenting because I am fearful they will shoot me even if they did not explicitly say it. There's context there.

Leave the group? I know it's much more complicated than that, but it's what I tend to do.

I understand what you are saying here and I also sometimes have "then leave??" thoughts for many situations, too, but generally I recognize I wasn't in the situation. I don't know much about cults in particular, but as being part of a "group", leaving the group could have severe consequences, implied consequences, or a loss of "community," especially if you've isolated yourself to only that group in particular and feel like you have/actually have no one outside of the group can be a very powerful motivator to stay.

Additionally, the peer pressure aspect in "everyone else is doing it and seems fine" or "no one else thinks this is wrong because otherwise I'd know about it" can also be powerful motivators to stay silent despite your discomfort.

I am extremely biased involving how consent *should* be, so I would be lying if I said I wasn't emotional surrounding how consent is given and perceived. The absence of a "no" does not mean "yes."

 

[whiteraven]

I appreciate the discussion. Bringing up a lot more for me than I had intended, but that's ok.

Consent is more than a mere "yes." Consent has a context. It has parameters, assumptions, and contingencies. If any of those are violated, then it follows that the consent is null and void. If the context is warped, so too is the consent. If the person is in a lesser position of power then consent is warped.

Indeed. It seems that the context may be one thing that makes it lie in that gray area - what some believe doesn't matter, matters enormously to others.

Maybe next time you're out and about, and you see a kid that looks about 4 years old (so you have the reality of that size human in front of you, but without all the emotions and complications of it being you), just ask yourself "Do I really place expectations on a kid that young about what they should do..."?

Good idea. I think I haven't unpacked all that happened then enough to even consider I might not have been responsible.

Coerced consent is not consent. Consent under duress is not consent. If someone puts a gun to my head and I let them have something or do something, I am consenting because I am fearful they will shoot me even if they did not explicitly say it. There's context there.

Good point. This brings to mind the "consent" forms that one must fill out at the doctor. Do you think that could be considered "coerced?" I'm sick, I go to the doctor, and s/he will not even see me if I haven't signed their consent, which is pages long and includes things I normally would NEVER consent to.

Additionally, the peer pressure aspect in "everyone else is doing it and seems fine" or "no one else thinks this is wrong because otherwise I'd know about it" can also be powerful motivators to stay silent despite your discomfort.

Hm...yes, but it's kind of left to the individual to decide what she will/will not do. If you're in a group that has decided to commit a felony, the "everyone else was doing it" won't hold up.

 

[barefoot]

Coerced consent is not consent. Consent under duress is not consent. If someone puts a gun to my head and I let them have something or do something, I am consenting because I am fearful they will shoot me even if they did not explicitly say it. There's context there.

I know. That's why I said:

All these things ^^^ considered - I wouldn’t say that most of the women had consented. At best, I’d say some went along with things because they were confused and terrified and didn’t know how to get out.

Not sure how, from everything in my post, you took from it that I think coercion = consent??

I said 'most of the women' rather than all because I don't know enough about the women right at the top who also got arrested along with Raniere – Allie Mack and Lauren Salzberg – to know whether they were coerced/victims as well or whether they knew exactly what they were getting involved with from the get go. I wasn't suggesting that anyone who was coerced was consenting.

 

[PerfectEmpire]

I find that consent is a red herring.

An interesting question that came up for me when I was thinking about all this some years ago was whether or not a person can consent to being punched in the face or some other terrible experience. Are there some things that are wrong even if the victim agrees to them? Like agreeing to be eaten by a cannibal? I think society has decided to draw lines (e.g., cannibalism) for many things which render consent inconsequential. And that is interesting.

Further, consent cannot be valid if the subject is unaware of what they are in for, and especially when they are being groomed. An abusive relationship, or cult, for instance. Which brings me to questions about when does persuasion cross the line into grooming and unethical territory? It is always unethical if the person is being persuaded into something they don't want or wouldn't want.

I think both above paragraphs relate to this concept of whether consent is distinct from the question of morality and ethical behavior on the part of the would be perpetrator. It seems to me that if what the person is doing to the other person is wrong, then consent is a tired topic often employed in defense of the perpetrator to distract from the wrongness of their actions ("but they consented!"). If what the person was doing was antisocial (evil) then consent is irrelevant.

The problem I keep coming back to is that we need to decide as a society what is unacceptable behavior and enforce it. But it's not even that simple because people want to get away with evil stuff and don't want the rules to be too strong. Those people distract us and mix up our minds and derail our focus on them and their bad behaviors by making us blame ourselves, question our consent, and other red herrings. I've come to the conclusion that consent is often a red herring in these arguments. It's not the thing to focus on if we want to solve the problem of evil. The question to ask is whether what the alleged perp did was simply awful, dark, sick, twisted, wrong.

Is starting a new age cult in which you brand women and emotionally manipulate them and use them for sex wrong? Heck, is simply branding women wrong? Can women consent to being branded and if they do does it even matter, or is darkness just darkness and consent inconsequential?

This might not make sense to others. It's kind of hard to articulate but I hope it comes through!

 

[Mee]

One of my fave quotes of all time:

“Aren’t we setting the bar a little low with consent? Shouldn’t we be aiming for enthusiasm?!?”

I’ll have more to say on the subject a bit later, that I don’t have time to go into right now... but this gets it going ;) Consent? Is reeeeally scraping the bottom of the barrel, as far as I’m concerned.

Enthusiasm and also informed. There has been quite some dialogue legally and otherwise about the ‘informed ‘ and ‘deception ‘ aspect of consent in sex. Even those against making Vincent by deception a crime are forced to accept that it leaves it at odds with other aspects of the law - eg fraud compared to theft.

 

[Mee]

I remove myself from the situation if I am uncomfortable, but I know it's complicated.

may I leave earth please?

 

[whiteraven]

Are there some things that are wrong even if the victim agrees to them

I think we move with all of this into that space you talk about - ethical and moral behavior - which, I believe is completely dependent on who you are, where you live, how you've been raised, etc...

consent cannot be valid if the subject is unaware of what they are in for

Do you consider blanket medical consent given before treatment in this category? I'm thinking it definitely is.

think both above paragraphs relate to this concept of whether consent is distinct from the question of morality and ethical behavior on the part of the would be perpetrator. It seems to me that if what the person is doing to the other person is wrong, then consent is a tired topic often employed in defense of the perpetrator to distract from the wrongness of their actions ("but they consented!"). If what the person was doing was antisocial (evil) then consent is irrelevant.

Oh yes, but who determines what is wrong? It's not an absolute by any means. What is wrong in my neck of the woods may not be in yours.

Interesting concepts to consider!

I've come to the conclusion that consent is often a red herring in these arguments. It's not the thing to focus on if we want to solve the problem of evil. The question to ask is whether what the alleged perp did was simply awful, dark, sick, twisted, wrong.

It's a very good point. But...

Heck, is simply branding women wrong? Can women consent to being branded and if they do does it even matter, or is darkness just darkness and consent inconsequential?

Herein lies one of the issues. I personally think that if a woman *consents* to being branded, it's ok. I don't label the actual act as wrong or evil. As has been mentioned here, context may matter. But if a woman in a D/s relationship consents to branding (or any other different, "dark" thing), then I don't see anything wrong with it.

This reminds me of the woman who was a friend of a friend of mine who had body dysmorphic disorder and cut off her own leg.

may I leave earth please?

Oh, I hear that. And seriously, this whole thing may be one of the reasons I am suicidal a lot of the time.

 

[Mee]

D/s relationship consents to branding (or any other different, "dark" thing), then I don't see anything wrong with it.

.....

Oh, I hear that. And seriously, this whole thing may be one of the reasons I am suicidal a lot of the time.

also specifically as regards bdsm and touching in the Mack et al situation and similar -

this is something I return to a lot and have reached no resolve on. BDSM often has one of two caveats peolple talk about . One is RACK ( risk aware consensual kink) or SSC ( Safe, sand consensual). The more distance I get from this sort of thing the more dubious I find those claims. Who is to say who is sane? I believe I saw a lot of non consensual situations (mainly coercion or what I would say related to DV - though the violence was emotional not the kink) and who is to define we are risk aware ? Can we truly be? I believe I was not because of deception .

people ‘in the scene’ often say this is well self policed. That’s not my experience and I’d be interested in seeing any research on preexisting trauma / ace factors in that community. This is something I really don’t have figured out. It interrelated a lot with my ongoing trauma symptoms and inability to return to normal sexual function for example so thoughts can get muddy if I linger here too long. I’ve attended bdsm functions with kink aware therapists promoting bdsm - something I feel really icky about now. I also see it promoted as a therapeutic device sometimes...... in itself this seems to feel like the risk aware and ‘safe and sane’ claims are getting pushed if it’s not a professional guiding it.

I have lots of thoughts around this that drift away from the consent question - but they all end with an ‘I just don’t know’.