After decades of defending the principle of "No means no" in matters of
sexual assault, many feminists are opting for "Only a yes is a yes," and
in 2022, Spain incorporated this "affirmative consent" into its
legislation. What is its relevance to women's sexual freedom? asks
Spanish philosopher Clara Serra (CS), former Podemos MP, in a
thought-provoking book on the subject that is enjoyable to read despite
some undefined terms and redundancies. In her view, consent poses a
political and theoretical problem that is "increasingly denied and
avoided"; she therefore calls for caution against "obvious" and
simplistic discourses on this concept.
CS examines its definition, its limits, its conditions, as well as its
links with desire, will, force, violence, and power, and highlights
several paradoxes and ambiguities that make it compatible with very
different social and political projects. For example, it is based "on
the great liberal confidence in the possibilities of language and the
explicit pact—that is, contractualism—to guarantee a flawless
relationship with others, harmonious and fulfilling sex, free from
discord, disappointment, and discomfort"; but, at the same time,
heterosexual sexuality is presented as violent and aggressive. If we
live in a "rape culture," is it possible to consent simply by extending
the notion of a contract to the field of sexuality?
Various situations or means make it possible to force sexual intercourse
(coercion, intimidation, chemical submission, shock, fear), notes CS.
It's not always possible to say no, but a yes is sometimes said out of
necessity, or impossible to express. To be real, this yes must therefore
be placed in context and accompanied by the possibility of saying no.
"No means no" remains an important message for women because it "breaks
with the requirement of availability and compliance that patriarchal
society has imposed on us since childhood" in our relationships with men.
Because of patriarchal culture, a person may find sexual assault
"normal" because, in sexual relationships as in other relationships,
social roles are well codified: the active man imposes his desire on the
passive woman by insisting (a little) while she resists (a little)... If
women cannot say no to men's irresistible desire, can they be free to
say yes?
CS also points out pitfalls to avoid—such as confining women to the role
of victim, which the state assumes responsibility for: it will define
"good" ("correct") sex according to patriarchal criteria, expand the
offenses of sexual violence, and increase penalties. We are already
witnessing the rise of punitive systems in liberal democracies,
targeting the poorest and most vulnerable populations. Thus, the
"policies implemented in recent decades by progressive neoliberalism,
often in the name of feminism and LGBTI policies," contribute to
strengthening the prison system in the United States.
Furthermore, there is a tendency to equate consent with desire, but
there can be consent without desire, and desire without consent...
because the individual is not a "transparent, conscious, and rational
subject." Their sexual desires are not always clear and unambiguous (see
fantasies and the role of the unconscious); and we don’t know in advance
what we want in a relationship with a man: it’s in the interaction that
our desires emerge. We must therefore preserve the unknown aspect of
sexual desire, which provides the pleasure of discovery – and claim the
right not to be able to give an immediate answer. However, today, laws
require that men ask and that women know how to respond: sexual freedom
is linked to the very clear expression of desires, the objective being
consensual (non-violent) and desired (pleasant and happy) sex. “Behind
the attempt to make desire and consent coincide, there is in reality a
new puritanism which, far from pushing the limits of female desire,
places on us the duty to experience correct desires.” For CS, “consent
must allow us to delimit violence, not protect us from all risk”; and
even less, “in the name of our protection, (…) protect us from the risk
of our desires.” His conclusion? “Women’s sexual freedom requires a law
that recognizes our will without claiming to know our desire.”
CS supports her argument by referring to American feminism of the 1980s,
the so-called Sex Wars period, where its two main
currents—“abolitionists” and “pro-sex”—were torn apart over the issue of
prostitution, and more broadly over the possibility of consent in a
patriarchal society. For the “abolitionists,” women can never refuse to
have relations with men; sexuality, always violent, is the main
mechanism by which they dominate them without them realizing it (when
they believe they desire and enjoy themselves, they are in fact
subjugated and raped). This vision of sex leads to a demand for state
protection and prohibitionist and repressive policies—and to lesbianism
as a political “solution.” For the “pro-sex” movement, the problem is
patriarchal heteronormativity, so we must attack the hetero norm from
its deviances. Even under conditions of unequal power (see "sex work"),
it is possible for women to say yes or no to sex. All practices must be
defended as long as they are consensual—hence the search for sexual
pacts and contracts between adults.
The positions of these schools of thought that uphold the doctrine of
consent are the product of a very puritanical and "liberal" society: "It
is liberalism that sanctified the yeses and detached them from the noes
by turning our attention to the manner of consenting (signing a contract
or saying yes), and not to the material conditions that make free
consent possible," notes CS. "Affirmative consent" is currently present
in the United States in several laws (those of Wisconsin, California,
etc.) and especially in internal campus regulations; it is now rejected
only in the spheres of critical legal studies, anti-racist feminism, and
anti-punishment. In its social concerns, CS seems to follow in the
footsteps of the French MLF (Muslim Movement for Freedom) of the 1970s.
In particular, its materialist feminist movement, which,
anti-patriarchal and anti-capitalist, sought women's autonomy rather
than their recourse to the state and rejected bourgeois morality by
demanding sexual liberation.
Vanina
https://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4445
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
sexual assault, many feminists are opting for "Only a yes is a yes," and
in 2022, Spain incorporated this "affirmative consent" into its
legislation. What is its relevance to women's sexual freedom? asks
Spanish philosopher Clara Serra (CS), former Podemos MP, in a
thought-provoking book on the subject that is enjoyable to read despite
some undefined terms and redundancies. In her view, consent poses a
political and theoretical problem that is "increasingly denied and
avoided"; she therefore calls for caution against "obvious" and
simplistic discourses on this concept.
CS examines its definition, its limits, its conditions, as well as its
links with desire, will, force, violence, and power, and highlights
several paradoxes and ambiguities that make it compatible with very
different social and political projects. For example, it is based "on
the great liberal confidence in the possibilities of language and the
explicit pact—that is, contractualism—to guarantee a flawless
relationship with others, harmonious and fulfilling sex, free from
discord, disappointment, and discomfort"; but, at the same time,
heterosexual sexuality is presented as violent and aggressive. If we
live in a "rape culture," is it possible to consent simply by extending
the notion of a contract to the field of sexuality?
Various situations or means make it possible to force sexual intercourse
(coercion, intimidation, chemical submission, shock, fear), notes CS.
It's not always possible to say no, but a yes is sometimes said out of
necessity, or impossible to express. To be real, this yes must therefore
be placed in context and accompanied by the possibility of saying no.
"No means no" remains an important message for women because it "breaks
with the requirement of availability and compliance that patriarchal
society has imposed on us since childhood" in our relationships with men.
Because of patriarchal culture, a person may find sexual assault
"normal" because, in sexual relationships as in other relationships,
social roles are well codified: the active man imposes his desire on the
passive woman by insisting (a little) while she resists (a little)... If
women cannot say no to men's irresistible desire, can they be free to
say yes?
CS also points out pitfalls to avoid—such as confining women to the role
of victim, which the state assumes responsibility for: it will define
"good" ("correct") sex according to patriarchal criteria, expand the
offenses of sexual violence, and increase penalties. We are already
witnessing the rise of punitive systems in liberal democracies,
targeting the poorest and most vulnerable populations. Thus, the
"policies implemented in recent decades by progressive neoliberalism,
often in the name of feminism and LGBTI policies," contribute to
strengthening the prison system in the United States.
Furthermore, there is a tendency to equate consent with desire, but
there can be consent without desire, and desire without consent...
because the individual is not a "transparent, conscious, and rational
subject." Their sexual desires are not always clear and unambiguous (see
fantasies and the role of the unconscious); and we don’t know in advance
what we want in a relationship with a man: it’s in the interaction that
our desires emerge. We must therefore preserve the unknown aspect of
sexual desire, which provides the pleasure of discovery – and claim the
right not to be able to give an immediate answer. However, today, laws
require that men ask and that women know how to respond: sexual freedom
is linked to the very clear expression of desires, the objective being
consensual (non-violent) and desired (pleasant and happy) sex. “Behind
the attempt to make desire and consent coincide, there is in reality a
new puritanism which, far from pushing the limits of female desire,
places on us the duty to experience correct desires.” For CS, “consent
must allow us to delimit violence, not protect us from all risk”; and
even less, “in the name of our protection, (…) protect us from the risk
of our desires.” His conclusion? “Women’s sexual freedom requires a law
that recognizes our will without claiming to know our desire.”
CS supports her argument by referring to American feminism of the 1980s,
the so-called Sex Wars period, where its two main
currents—“abolitionists” and “pro-sex”—were torn apart over the issue of
prostitution, and more broadly over the possibility of consent in a
patriarchal society. For the “abolitionists,” women can never refuse to
have relations with men; sexuality, always violent, is the main
mechanism by which they dominate them without them realizing it (when
they believe they desire and enjoy themselves, they are in fact
subjugated and raped). This vision of sex leads to a demand for state
protection and prohibitionist and repressive policies—and to lesbianism
as a political “solution.” For the “pro-sex” movement, the problem is
patriarchal heteronormativity, so we must attack the hetero norm from
its deviances. Even under conditions of unequal power (see "sex work"),
it is possible for women to say yes or no to sex. All practices must be
defended as long as they are consensual—hence the search for sexual
pacts and contracts between adults.
The positions of these schools of thought that uphold the doctrine of
consent are the product of a very puritanical and "liberal" society: "It
is liberalism that sanctified the yeses and detached them from the noes
by turning our attention to the manner of consenting (signing a contract
or saying yes), and not to the material conditions that make free
consent possible," notes CS. "Affirmative consent" is currently present
in the United States in several laws (those of Wisconsin, California,
etc.) and especially in internal campus regulations; it is now rejected
only in the spheres of critical legal studies, anti-racist feminism, and
anti-punishment. In its social concerns, CS seems to follow in the
footsteps of the French MLF (Muslim Movement for Freedom) of the 1970s.
In particular, its materialist feminist movement, which,
anti-patriarchal and anti-capitalist, sought women's autonomy rather
than their recourse to the state and rejected bourgeois morality by
demanding sexual liberation.
Vanina
https://oclibertaire.lautre.net/spip.php?article4445
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S N E W S S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten