|
crazyml -> RE: Consent (9/19/2010 11:29:25 PM)
|
--Fast reply--
I've scooted through this thread, but now have to jump on a plane to Raleigh NC.
Some really solid comments and thoughts so far, but I'm not sure we've nailed it yet.
My thoughts so far :
Aileen has the kind of relationship many of us envy, and I get the impression that it's built on common sense, communication, mutual respect (however the power dynamic works out), and really good instincts. There's a bit of luck involved too, I'm sure, but people mostly make their own luck. littlewonder expresses a similar situation (again I'm envious!).
So we've got two examples of "it working right" (not the only two of course but I'm picking on them).
Let's take an example from the other end of the spectrum - a young vulnerable woman, emotionally insecure, craving love. She's not consenting out of mutual respect, her vulnerability impairs her common sense, and she may not have the awareness to understand the implications (short or long term) of the things she's consenting to. She's desperate not to lose "him", he's become her whole world.
There's an ocean of difference between these two scenarios.
To gungadin's point - Yes, getting written consent is certainly the least ambiguous way to get consent - Although I've had to endure enough days (days I'll never get back again) in rooms with Lawyers arguing over contracts to know that even when written down a list of "things" can be subject to widly (and wildly) different interpretations.
Crap - I have to run to my plane but...
How do you know someone is truly consenting and not just consenting out of fear, whether that fear be fear of punishment, fear of being left by a partner, fear of losing custody of children, etc? Is it wrong if they're consenting out of fear?
The only answer I can give here is "trust and communication". I've seen relationships where "fear of punishment" was used to coerce people into doing things that were good for them -"If you don't go to your classes you'll be punished...". I've never been in that situation because I wouldn't date a lady who needed to be coerced into going to classes - but that coercion does exist.
I've seen partners co-erced into all sorts of things for fear of losing a relationship. In these cases, if the other partner is unaware that that's what's happening then they're guilty of a lack of empathy, if they are aware then they're guilty of abuse.
How do you obtain and trust consent when consensual (or non-consensual) conditioning is going on?
Continuous communication. I think that you need to understand the goals of both parties. Party "A" may really want and need (and consent to) having structure imposed on her life. Forcing her to go to classes under pain of punishment may be "against her will", but it may meet the primary goal of "structure".
But it's gnarly. And, thankfully, not my cup of hippo.
And who is unfit to consent, and why?
In the UK (and largely in the US), fitness to consent is defined legally - It's built on the idea of "competence" - someone who is underage, mentally ill, or under the influence of drugs/alcohol is (largely) unfit to consent.
The nastiest, hardest, most controversial question is "mentally ill" - something that everyone has a different view on, and something that a jury in Arkansas may decide very very differently to a jury in California.
Morally I think the test is someone is unfit to consent when they don't understand the implications of what they're agreeing to.
Personally - I don't go for written contracts, I do go for safewords (with all the caveats and exceptions that need to go with them), I go for communication and empathy. And trust that I know myself and my partner well enough for this to suffice. In doing so I'm aware that a total nut job could leave me high and dry, but I really, really, try to avoid the nutters.
I'll be checking in at 5pm North Carolina time to read the other additions to this thread - it's fascinating.
|
|
|
|
