On Consent

I would like to apologize up front to anyone who is looking for a short and humorous article on this subject. This post will be neither. Consent, or the lack thereof, is a subject for which I lack humor. Also, the treatment I wish to provide the subject in this post can not be done briefly, and thus this post will be rather long and wordy. As relationships in our world are often more complex than is often discussed in polite society, this post will also cover some forms of relationships not often discussed in polite society. Really, standard relationships have adequate guidance out there, and those trudging through the wilderness of non-normative relationships need more guidance, not less.  This will be long in hopes of covering enough ground to be worth the time and effort to write or read. Please, bear with me though, if you will.

One of the most vital and misunderstood aspects of modern sexuality and relationships is the apparently complicated nature of consent. Even in traditional relationships with 'normal' boundaries and expectations there can be huge mistakes made do to misunderstandings on what consent is and is not. Even the simple idea that "No means no," has been difficult to get across clearly to many people, resulting in the fact that supposedly smart men on college campuses parade around chanting "No means yes! Yes means anal!" in mockery of the whole concept of consent.  One work that covers the intricacies of consent in non-traditional relationship models far better than I could cover in one blog post is the book The Ethical Slut by Dossie Easton and Janet W. Hardy. That book primarily is on the subject of polyamory and the ethics thereof, however, many of the concepts discussed are applicable to any relationship that goes outside of the expected norms of society.

First, I need to establish that legal consent and ethical consent are not the same thing. I am not a lawyer, and am not qualified to give legal consultation. I will be discussing the ethical principal of consent which, while it shares some traits with legal consent, it is quite different in the way that law and ethics are not the same. Just because something is legal does not make it right, nor does something being right make it legal.

Now, it is important to note that consent within relationships does not only refer to sex. Consent in relationships applies to everything. That does not only apply to sexualized and/or romantic relationships. Consent is important in friendships and other social dynamics as well. If a friend tells you a secret, and you tell another person that secret without that friend's consent, then your friend would likely feel betrayed that you violated that trust. Two big concepts important to understand consent in terms of are trust and the violation of trust. When you are in a relationship, even if it is a brief and passing interaction, to go outside of ethical consent is a betrayal and violation of trust, even if the trust was just in one being a worthwhile human being.

The first and most vital principle of consent is, no means no. In sex and romance, if someone says no, then stop. No does not mean "push harder," "I want you to force me," or anything other than "No." This is not just sex. It applies to even there being a romantic relationship in the first place. If you try to initiate a relationship, and the other person does not consent,  you do not get to declare it a romantic relationship anyways.  As the inverse of this principle, do not say "No," when that is not what you mean. If you mean "I'm not sure," then say that. If you mean you want to play out a scene where you can role-play a non-consenting character, then establish that is what is happening. Consenting-non-consent, struggle play, and role-play will be covered in a short bit further, but it should never be assumed that that is what is meant when you say "no" unless it has been explicitly established beforehand that this is what is occurring. Do not keep pushing if the response has been "no". Do not say "no" if you wish to be pushed further. Every anecdote of someone not giving consent and then it turning out that denial of consent is not what they meant undermines the entire premise of consent. It provides people who want a "no" to mean "yes" to claim they misunderstood what was meant with what they feel is a shadow of an excuse. "No means no." goes both directions. If no is said, stop, or at most ask for clarification (which in most situations, they are not required to clarify). If you mean not right now, that you want more romancing, or you are just unconvinced, then say those things.

As a half note, consent is not necessarily only a two way street. Consent involves everyone who is involved. If person A is in a current relationship with person B and wishes to have romantic contact with person C and does not inform both persons B and C of their connection through person A, then informed consent does not exist. Even if the current relationship with person B is non-exclusive, being involved with a third, forth, or hundredth party requires consent from all parties involved insofar as it affects them or the nature of the relationship. Consent from the ethical perspective includes everyone involved, even if they are not physically present.

Now we need discuss the two concepts of explicit consent as opposed to assumed consent. Explicit consent is where the person does not just not say no, they actively agree or request the actions to be taken. Explicit consent also requires that the consenting party is informed of all significant details of what they are consenting to and any probable complications in addition to being in a state of mind where they are capable of making that decision.  If you are married or in another defined romantic relationship and do not inform the person you are sleeping with, then they are not informed in their consent, also, if the other person or persons in your defined relationship are not aware of and have not agreed to your escapades outside of that relationship then they are not informed in their consent to continue that relationship.  This is a large area where ethical and legal consent differ greatly. Another strong example of consent being ethically invalid due to lack of information is if one party has a known communicable disease and neglects to share that information prior to sexual actions that could expose the other person to said disease.  It is important to note that these examples do not cover every situation by a long shot.

Assumed consent, on the other hand, is where explicit consent does not or can not occur but there is every reason to believe in good faith that consent is present. One common way in which assumed consent is often acted upon ethically is when two persons have a pre-existing, active, sexual relationship and one or both are drunk or buzzed beyond the point of clear thinking and thus not able to make the decisions necessary for providing consent. Most sexually active couples would agree that in this situation, for them, consent could be safely assumed by their partner if no other mitigating factors were present. However, prior discussion of any such potential situations would be best for all involved to avoid problems down the road.  It is not better to beg forgiveness than permission.

 

Another example of assumed consent would be in a non-monogamous relationship where Person A is sexually active with four other persons who are all aware of Person A's relationship with all other persons involved, and that it is established that Person A's sexual activity with all persons involved is ongoing. Person A would not be obligated in this situation to check in with all of their other partners each and every time they have intercourse with any one of their partners, only the partner or partners that will be directly involved with that session of sexual activity. This does not mean that Person A should not check in with all of their partners, and routinely re-assess boundaries as well as comfort levels.

The next item to be covered is struggle play and roleplay: the lands where safe-words reign supreme.  Struggle play is where two or more persons wish to participate in sexualized activity where one or more persons involved will be pretending to be a non-consenting participant as part of a sexual-role-play scene, however, all persons involved are explicitly consenting. That all persons be explicit in their consent is paramount, as is establishing a way to revoke consent during the scene, if necessary, that will be easily recognizable as not just playacting. The best established way to do this is to have a hard safe-word, which is a pre-agreed upon word that would be very out of place in the scene, that if said brings the entire scene to a full stop. Some also use a second "soft" safe-word that just indicates that a scene is starting to go too far in one direction or another or the need for a break. Some couples/groups will spend long periods going over itemized lists and discussions of limits, likes, and dislikes beforehand, for some it just consists of "The safe-word is 'neo-classical', now where's the rope?". While safe-words are best known for their use in role-play, bondage, or sadomasochism, they really can be useful to establish even for the most normative couples in case of someone getting "lost in the moment," or if there ever could be any confusion whether someone is playing a part or actually asking for things to stop.

Another sub-point of consent is the revocation thereof. In regards to sex and relationships, any involved party has the full right to revoke consent to their involvement at any time. No prior agreements, contracts, or expectations preclude that right. At any point, even mid action, any involved party must be able to signal their desire to remove themselves from aspects, or the entirety, of the situation. This signal must be followed by everyone involved. If, due to mechanical or other restrictions, a verbal cue such as a safe-word can not be used, then something else should be devised (for example, a person wearing a gag or other mouth covering may hold a bell in their hand, that if they drop it, is considered the same as saying the safe word). That is not to say hard feelings or complications can not arise depending on the nature of the relationship or situation stepped out of. Divorce (revocation of consent to the marriage agreement) from a traditional marriage is a very complicated way for a relationship to end. Also, a submissive who pulls the safe-word out as a "gotcha" card in every dominant/submissive scene they play in may soon find no one wants to play with them. Also, as marriage is no longer an institution of sexual slavery, within a marriage, it is fully within the rights of one participant to decide to not consent to any form of sexual contact with their spouse, ever. It then is within the rights of their spouse to decide whether they consent to staying in a marriage where sex is no longer an aspect of the relationship.

Then there is consenting non-consent. This is an agreement that in a certain scene or situation consent cannot be revoked. I personally object to the idea of this, but others feel it is a necessary thing. In a consenting non-consent situation, consent is given unconditionally for a given scene or entire relationship dynamic. Usually this involves punishment scenes, but may be used in any situation where the submitting party feels they should not have the option of removing consent in the middle of the 'action. Personally I feel this is dangerous and creates much potential for abusers to hide abuse behind a smokescreen of kink. I especially have doubts about people who insist upon all actions in a relationship being consenting non-consent, and who believe that their partners should never be allowed to use a safe word. I acknowledge that there may be those who truly are worthy of that monumental level of trust. It has so much potential for abusers, though, that I personally am wary of it as a concept. If it's what floats your boat, you are an adult, and you genuinely want it, go for it, more power to you. Just be sure to ask yourself why your partner would want you unable to withdraw consent if you feel pressured into a consenting non-consent dynamic.

Every relationship has rules. Many relationships we participate in on a daily basis have per-established social norms that dictate what the rules are if not explicitly spelled out to be otherwise. Most people understand that there are different social expectations with one's drinking buddies, in a church, in an office, in a courtroom, at a sporting event, or at a dance club. There are social norms that in a society define the assumed rules for a friendship, a dating couple, a married couple, a family, and many other relationships. If a relationship isn't going to stray much from those expectations, then there is not a huge number of expectations that will need to be spelled out explicitly, at least at the beginning. Most people can safely assume that, in a committed relationship, sex with others is not allowed and that, in a friendship, tying one another down and stabbing the restrained party with needles will not be seen in a positive light. If a relationship is outside of the assumed social expectations of a relationship of it's type, or the relationship does not fit neatly in any well known relationship category in one's society, then the rules of the relationship should be established explicitly and in detail, or there will undoubtedly be pain and confusion as each person involved has to figure out the expectations of the other/s by trial and error and hope their expectations end up being compatible.

It is important to point out that taking an existing relationship model and subtracting base assumption rules usually makes the relationship much more complicated and delicate, not less. The most obvious example would be removing the limitation of monogamy on a committed romantic relationship. Removing this rule makes many more actions within the rules of the relationship, and thus the expectations of all of the myriad situations that could result in must be established sooner or later or there will likely be a great deal of upset about assumed consent applied poorly.

Rules of different relationship forms is not just a matter for one other post, but of many. The way it applies to this subject, however, is that a relationship's rules define what consent can be safely and ethically assumed. Most of the rules of most long term romantic relationships default to the perceived societal norms for that type of relationship. It is important to know these expectations and how you and anyone you may be involved with differs in expectations from those norms. To go outside of the consented upon rules of a relationship is to violate the trust of the relationship. It is a betrayal. Even if a betrayal happens due to lack of communication, trust is difficult if not impossible to rebuild.

The overarching theme of consent is communication.
Say what you mean.
Mean what you say.
Listen to what is said.
Believe that people mean what they say.
Tell people what you expect of them.
Listen to what those around you expect of you.
Understand the trust placed in you.
Be worthy of even more trust than is placed in you.
Trust those around you enough to be honest with them.
Trust is precious.
Don't wonder what you can get away with.
Do right by everyone.
Be the world growing into a better place.