Radical, Authentic Consent

The real-life story of Alice tells about a man who would not ask for sex from his girlfriend in any physical or verbal way, but instead did something revolutionary: wait for her to ask.

This essay will be longer than usual, as I'm going to attempt to describe something that I call "authentic consent," a concept that came about as a result of Alice's story.

Feminists have done a lot of work to redefine what consent means. A quick summary: consent is often thought of and described as simply not saying "no." Popular culture is very focused on the fact that a woman saying "no" to a man who asks if she wants to engage in a sexual act (or, more often, just begins the act) signifies that she is not consenting. This is a good start, but it doesn't go nearly far enough. Feminists have helped to define a vision that goes further: that simply not saying "no" does not equal a "yes" and that the "yes" must be freely given, meaning that it can't come about because the woman is drunk, on drugs, mentally disabled, a child, or being pressured in some way (like being blackmailed or threatened with some type of consequence if she doesn't perform the act). Clearly, a freely given yes is important, as a yes that is not freely given isn't really a yes at all.

I want to go beyond this more enlightened view of consent and explore the notion of pressure beyond the obvious aspects of coercion through something like blackmail or a favor done with sexual acts as the payment. For simplicity's sake, I'm going to only refer to pressure for sexual intercourse and not other sexual activities, and I recognize that the heterosexual, cisgender example that I use is limiting.

Here's a review of the three boyfriends Alice had throughout college who informed her views on consent:


Man 1: Non-verbally sought to go to the next level (hands below her waist) by attempting to undo her pants button; she pushed his hand away (her way of showing she did not consent) every time until she decided (without talking to him) she was ok with it and did not push his hand away (signifying consent).

Man 2: Asked for consent for non-intercourse sexual activities by asking permission as he was in the beginning phases of doing the activity. Verbally asked if she wanted to have sex before trying to engage in it.

Man 3: Did not do anything physically or verbally to request further sexual activities or intercourse. Alice therefore asked him for consent on various activities, leading to a new experience of worry-free pleasure for both parities.

I use the term "quasi-consensual" to signify sexual activities that the couple verbally discussed or did not lack a "no" (as with Alice and Man 1). I'll describe why this is problematic. I use the term "authentic consent" for what Man 3 received from Alice. This term basically describes consent free of any and all forms of pressure and guilt, consent that is based on nothing but desire to engage in the activities.

This authentic consent was missing from Alice's sex with Man 2, whom she felt pressure to have sex with after he asked. More on this later.

It's important to note that Alice asked for consent. When describing her story to me, she made it clear that after a few months of not having sex, and of Man 3 never asking for it verbally or non-verbally, it would have felt extremely strange and wrong to her to simply start to take his pants off without talking about it first, so she did what felt natural: she asked him if he would like to have sex.

Critics might pause here to point out the fact that this is exactly how I describe "quasi-consent" between Alice and Man 2 when it's a man doing the asking and a woman doing the answering. Some people might ask how this is any better - how do we do know that Man 3 gave authentic consent? How do we know that he wasn't prey to the same feelings of guilt and pressure that Alice felt with Man 2? When discussing this, it's important to remember context. The context of sexual encounters as it is now is of men "getting" and women "giving." Men are raised to view women as the sexual gate-keepers who are taught to guard their bodies and therefor must be seduced, cajoled, tricked, made to be drunk, pressured, or somehow convinced to give into the man's desire. This cannot be ignored when thinking about Alice's question to Man 3 about if he wants to have sex.

Men are taught to be sexually aggressive, that sex is something they should try to "get" from women, while women are taught that they are the gate-keepers, the ones who say yes or no. Men "take" women's virginity, and women "give" themselves to their partners - they give sex as a gift. It's something that women guard and men try to take. At least, that is how we've been raised to think of it.

With this comes a whirling storm of shame, guilt, and worry that women (and, I'll argue, men) experience during typical quasi-consensual sexual activities. The experience of most women is that a boyfriend (or more casual partner) requests sex from them, and they say yes or no. This is a good start - lightyears better than assuming a yes and forcing the act - but it's not nearly good enough. The mere act of asking is a form of pressure. It's the man saying to the women: "I really want this. I wouldn't be asking if I didn't really really want to do it, right now." If the woman says yes and she's not ready, or doesn't feel that same powerful desire herself, she may feel a sense of shame at doing something before she really wanted to. (Of course, women are varied and complex and it'd be stupid to say that this feeling is a certainty. Plenty of women give a hearty and authentic "yes!" here, and really mean it - this essay is about those who say yes without the excitement, without the same intense desire for sex that the man has.) If she says no, she can avoid this potential shame, but then might feel guilt over holding something back that would make her partner - who she may really care for or even love - happy. Every time they are alone together or engage in other sexual activities, she'll know that sex is on his mind and that he wants it and that she has the power to "give" it to him. This goes on and on and over time the storm of guilt and shame create an environment where some women, like Alice, may have sex with her boyfriend (like she did with Man 2) because she wants to make him happy and kind of wants to do it, but not because she is 110% dying to jump into bed with him herself.

Heather Corinna explores many of these ideas in her essay "An Immodest Proposal," in which she describes what most people view as an ideal first time for intercourse:

On the surface, it looks pretty good. The guy is a good guy. The girl wasn't forced into anything she was opposed to or strongly did not want. They moved forward only when she gave consent, and her consent was always sought out in some way. They were safe and smart with regard to pregnancy and infections, and while it was not exactly blissful for her, it wasn't terribly painful, either. He didn't change his behavior toward her afterward; in fact, it made them feel closer, and they're both glad they chose each other. 

Corinna points out that there is something, to borrow her word, monumental, missing from the picture: her desire:

Nowhere do we see a strong, undeniable sexual desire, deep, dizzy sexual pleasure, or earnest, equal sexual satisfaction on her part. It makes no appearance in a sexual script many would posit as an ideal initiation. We heard her say yes, but we never once saw her beg the question herself. We saw her yes in the answer to someone else's desire, rather than as an affirmation of her own. 

She goes onto to call for a new way of thinking around first times - they they be the result of both parties feeling strong desire for the act rather than one party "giving in" to the desire of the other. 

The way to achieve this, I believe, is for men to adopt the practice of Alice's Man 3. To truly not put pressure on his partner in any way, he needs to do everything possible to put the ball squarely in her court - to make sure she doesn't feel forced or guilted into the act in any way. He needs to not just go for it by trying to undress her or even ask if she wants to do it. The only way that he can be fully certain that she wants to do it simply because she wants to do it is for her to ask him, and for him to be the one giving consent rather than getting it.

Here's some specific language that men can use, since complete silence on sexual matters is never a good thing: "hey, I really respect you and really want to make sure that you never feel pressured for sex or anything you're not comfortable with. So I'm not ever going to ask you, because I believe that even just asking for you to do something with me creates pressure where there wasn't before. Instead, I'm going to wait until you so completely want to do it that you ask me." 

Of course, he can always not give consent if he isn't ready. I hope that someday we live in a world where boys aren't raised to be the sexual aggressors, and it isn't simply assumed that men are the ones who want to have sex first, and we worry about how to make sure that they aren't forced/pressured into sex just as much as we worry about it for women now.

This notion of authentic consent has benefits for the men in question as well. Men who practice this sort of consent never have to worry that they hare having sex with women who might not really want to be having sex with them. I've spoken to a lot of great men who worry that they have engaged in sexual activities with women who weren't really giving consent.  How much better can sex be when both parties are completely sure that the other is doing it purely because they want to and not because they feel pressure? There's really only one way to find out.