We have heard of court cases in which a rape survivor, who has been beaten up by her assailant, nevertheless does not receive justice because her rapist claims that she ‘consented’ to the violence, because she ‘liked rough sex’, or whatever. Aside from the ludicrousness of the assumption that she would have wanted to be brutalised, why is it implicitly accepted that if person A consents to a certain act, that person B is therefore not guilty of having committed it? The fact that rapists have been able to use this defence in court shows that i) juries and judges believe that women desire violence, and ii) that a person may do without condemnation whatever another may ask them to do.
This would not be accepted in other circumstances. ‘He asked me to shoot him’ would not be taken as a legitimate defence for a murderer, even if the murderer could prove that his victim had, indeed, asked to be shot and killed. Consent does not imply that the performer of the act is morally justified. If someone asks you to beat them up, should you do it? Even if they say they like it, does that mean you bear no responsibility for performing an act of violence upon them? You still did it. You still brutalised a person. You didn’t make the moral decision.
My point in bringing this up is to note that the very logic involved in the ’she liked sexual violence’ defence is fundamentally flawed, as it ignores the fact that the purveyor of violence still bears responsibility for his actions even if his violence was specifically requested. Clearly, it is a trope used by rapists which relies on the supposed masochism of women to keep them out of gaol, and it is a revolting insult to a survivor. But even if the claim were true, I cannot see how consent to violence can be used by the perpetrator as an excuse for the violence.
‘Befehl ist Befehl’ was the famous excuse given by Nazis at their trials after World War Two, and still heard in documentaries about the war today: Orders are orders. The assumption is, if someone else ‘orders’ you to do it, it is not therefore your crime, and you cannot even consider disobeying. This was not accepted at the Nuremburg trials as a defence; its cousin, ’she wanted it’, used in trials conducted in the war on women, should not be accepted either.
‘If someone asked you to jump off a cliff, would you do it?’
If someone asked you to harm them, would you do it? If someone said they would like you to harm them, would you do it? I hope that the answer is no, as I cannot see how the person who obeys their conscience would be able to say anything else.
While I agree rather vociferously with everything you’ve said — at risk of being a nitpick troll: what about the BDSM community? Is that different because while it is the appearance of harm, it is actually pleasure? Granted, I don’t really see a dom refusing to take responsibility for their sub (they’d be a very bad dom indeed, to do such a thing), which is what I think you’re really getting at. But still.
Comment by baby221 — July 5, 2007 @ 7:26 am
Great post, Laurelin!
I agree people are responsible for their own actions regardless of the requests, actions or demands of others.
So no “Woe is me!” and no “But she wanted it!” if your actions land your ass in court or -even better- in jail.
In line with your wonderfully succinct argument, I’m no longer playing the consent-choice game on-line. In the future, when I come across a blog entry about butterflies or pron, etc., I’m focusing solely on the men involved and their actions. They are the problem– the rest is all intentional diversion.
Comment by Gayle — July 5, 2007 @ 4:20 pm
It also reveals that men are regarded as knowing better what goes on a woman’s mind than a woman does herself. A woman can say she’s been raped, she can show the bruises, the tears, the bitemarks but as soon as a man says “she wanted it”, he suddenly becomes the expert.
I read an account of a rape case where the male defendant was allowed to stand up in court and provide a commentary on what was going on in his victim’s head. He said she was repressed and that she’d really wanted the sex that he’d forced on her when he barged his way into her house uninvited. The jury were impressed and he got off. What she said about what she was actually thinking and feeling about what he’d done to her was not regarded as important.
Comment by delphyne — July 5, 2007 @ 4:24 pm
Great post – I generally agree that consent should not be a defence to any kind of physical harm inflicted by another person.
The position of the English courts in relation to sadomasochism is interesting and the general conclusion is that consent cannot be a defence to the infliction of serious harm unless there are public policy reasons for allowing it – such as sports or tattooing.
However the cases that have discussed it make an interesting read, in particular the judgement in R v Brown. Wikipedia has a brief article about it under ‘operation spanner’ with a link to the full text of the judgements. The leading judgements here find sadomasochism to be a violent act rather than a sexual act and therefore deny consent as a defence, while the dissenting judge (who finds consent is a valid defence) stated that it should be viewed as a sexual act.
Perhaps consent of the victim is more readily accepted as a defence in rape cases because this distinction exists – would it be less acceptable if rape were classified as a crime of violence?
Comment by la somnambule — July 6, 2007 @ 1:42 pm
Yes Delphyne,
A man’s testimony is almost always taken more seriously than a woman’s, just as a man’s word is more valuable than ours. We may not need four male witnesses testifying on our behalf to bring a case to trial but that’s probably what we need to get a conviction.
BTW, I’ve read men put forth that disgusting repression rationale on feminist websites. You know, she may “regret sex after the fact,” etc.
Ugh.
Comment by Gayle — July 6, 2007 @ 11:33 pm
Dear ‘informed consent’,
You’re not advertising on my blog. Go elsewhere.
Comment by Laurelin — July 14, 2007 @ 2:41 pm
“at risk of being a nitpick troll: what about the BDSM community?”
That’s given radfems plenty of grief as it is.
Comment by littoralmermaid — July 15, 2007 @ 8:20 pm
ah yes, I remember that thread now…
this is my take on the subject of BDSM: I don’t believe that because something is pleasurable that means it is not harmful, and I am very, very afraid of the tendency to eroticise unequal power relationships between women and men. I believe the questions I asked in my post are those which BDSM ‘doms’ should indeed ask themselves. I am aware that people consent to BDSM, before anyone yells at me, I’m not stupid. But I’m not going to pretend that I think sexuality as it is expressed is other than cultural, nor that the dominant paradigm is ‘natural’ or helpful. Nor will I ignore the evidence of women have been coerced into these practices, whether physically or by emotional blackmail.
Nor do I believe it is ‘wrong’ morally to be turned on by certain things; as always, morality lies in one’s actions. People’s sexuality is largely informed by the dominant paradigm of dominance/ submission as sexy, and no-one should feel that it’s wrong to be affected by it- one cannot help that. But that does not mean that the practices should not be analysed, that they should not be critiqued, that the meaning of BDSM in the world should not be sought.
You will notice that nothing I have said here has stopped anyone from doing or thinking or fantasising anything. Everytime I say something along these lines I am accused of censorship, so you will forgive me for being defensive, but I would just like to remind those who disagree with me that censorship is when the government throws you in gaol, or harms or kills or intimidates you because you have said something that they didn’t like, not when a powerless blogger criticises you or does not allow you full reign in her webspace.
True to the principles that I ascribe to in the post, I shall not allow my site to be linked to pro-BDSM sites.
*sits and awaits the onslaught…*
Comment by Laurelin — July 15, 2007 @ 8:52 pm
Damn, that third paragraph had a long sentence in it. Note to self: breathe!
Comment by Laurelin — July 15, 2007 @ 8:53 pm
“I am very, very afraid of the tendency to eroticise unequal power relationships between women and men.”
“I am aware that people consent to BDSM, before anyone yells at me, I’m not stupid.”
“that does not mean that the practices should not be analysed, that they should not be critiqued, that the meaning of BDSM in the world should not be sought.”
“I would just like to remind those who disagree with me that censorship is when the government throws you in gaol, or harms or kills or intimidates you because you have said something that they didn’t like, not when a powerless blogger criticises you or does not allow you full reign in her webspace.”
Laurelin, please take a bow
Comment by littoralmermaid — July 16, 2007 @ 12:20 am
Thanks for the link littoralmermaid — it’s interesting reading. And Laurelin, sorry to have put you on the defensive; I was honestly curious as to your opinion, not trying to bait you! Sorry
But I’m not going to pretend that I think sexuality as it is expressed is other than cultural, nor that the dominant paradigm is ‘natural’ or helpful.
Just a little clarification here — should I be reading “sexuality in general as it is expressed is other than cultural, nor that the normative paradigm is ‘natural’ or helpful” or “sexuality wrt bdsm in particular as it is expressed is other than cultural, nor that the dominant/Master/top/etc. paradigm is ‘natural’ or helpful”? I read it as the latter the first time around, but then I started thinking about it, and while I think it’s the former I’m not sure. I agree with sexuality being culturally dependent either way … but I’d like to be less confused ^^;
But that does not mean that the practices should not be analysed, that they should not be critiqued, that the meaning of BDSM in the world should not be sought.
No, I don’t think it means that either. And I think there’s a lot of really interesting analysis to be found in the power dynamics of bdsm relationships, especially as they’re embedded in and related to the larger social dynamics of sexual relationships between and among the different genders. Unfortunately … that’s not something they’re going to cover at college :p
I think though too, that at the end of the day, you can’t necessarily help what turns you on — and if it’s done in a safe, sane, and consensual way, that you shouldn’t be made to feel guilty about it. You know? I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing, or what you’re trying to do. It’s just that there are so many other larger social forces at work trying to make people feel guilty and ashamed of their sexual choices that it’s hard for me to understand why feminists would want to join that fray.
I would just like to remind those who disagree with me that censorship is when the government throws you in gaol, or harms or kills or intimidates you because you have said something that they didn’t like, not when a powerless blogger criticises you or does not allow you full reign in her webspace
Ugh, I hear you here. I had an influx of trolls a while back on my blog who — for some utterly strange reason — couldn’t understand why I was “censoring” the death threats and other disgusting comments they saw fit to toss my way. It’s as though they refuse to believe there is such a thing as a line between respectful disagreement and being an asshole, and on top of that, it totally galls them that a woman would have the nerve (the NERVE!) to refuse to allow them to say whatever it is they want to say, nevermind who they hurt. The levels of entitlement are just … flabbergasting.
Comment by baby221 — July 16, 2007 @ 2:02 am
Sorry if it sounded like I was accusing you, Baby221! It’s not you that’s put me on the defensive.
‘I think though too, that at the end of the day, you can’t necessarily help what turns you on’
I thought I said that myself in the second paragraph, but maybe I wasn’t clear.
‘It’s just that there are so many other larger social forces at work trying to make people feel guilty and ashamed of their sexual choices that it’s hard for me to understand why feminists would want to join that fray’
I don’t believe that is what I or other feminists are trying to do.
Comment by Laurelin — July 16, 2007 @ 4:18 am
I thought I said that myself in the second paragraph, but maybe I wasn’t clear.
You did. I was just being redundant and taking the available opportunity to air my own opinions
I don’t believe that is what I or other feminists are trying to do.
Nah, I don’t think that’s what you’re up to, or even what feminism in general is up to. I’m just thinking of a few blog-to-blog flamewars between anti-porn/anti-sm feminists and sex-positive feminists, which seem to me to be heavy on the shamin’ and blamin’ and the “well you can’t call yourself a feminist if”in’. I mean, I guess it’s a flamewar, what do you expect, but it’s just … disheartening, in a way, and I’m sure all it’s done is sow seeds of malcontent and mistrust between people who have larger issues in common. As someone who didn’t actively participate but just read around, I can say that the effect it’s had on me has been rather negative, making me suspicious of people who critique the feminist credibility of specific sexual acts and attitudes — it makes me feel defensive, in a “hey I get enough shame about the way I cum from the Church, I don’t need it from y’all” kind of way.
*sigh* I don’t think I’m making much sense — I’ll come back and try again in the morning when I’m thinking clearly.
I want to reiterate, though, that I do agree with the gist of your post. If you feel this is drifting too far please feel free to let me know, I’ll go ruminate on it elsewhere or somesuch.
Comment by baby221 — July 16, 2007 @ 7:35 am
Great post. I’ve been musing the BDSM thing myself. I had an interesting discussion with Littoral mermaid on my most recent post, because I think I am a little confused about feminism and tenets of sexuality. Your comment about BDSM has really ironed out some kinks and confusion for me!
It’s difficult when the posts I come across about BDSM do boil down to “it’s violence, so it’s wrong” or “it’s liberation, because it’s between consenting adults” and so on. I’m not pro-BDSM (the idea makes me blanch..) but the arguments out there are difficult to unravel. Littoral mermaid (in the post comments on my blog) made me think about the context behind sex acts which I think is what feminism is looking at.
It’s not so simple as “BJ’s are degrading” but that the context behind them is degrading – that all men seem to expect them (via porn), and also that they have been used as a form of control, or that they are forced on women that really don’t like or enjoy participating in them. Societal expectations of sexuality seem to be the problem here – that our readings of sexuality seem to be dictated by porn and heterosexual “norms”, if that makes sense?
Comment by Liz — July 19, 2007 @ 4:08 pm