THE MEANING OF CONSENT

Consent is much discussed today, a very good thing. Learning that everyone has the right to determine sexual contact is healthier for everyone. However, intimate partner violence (IPV), sexual abuse, and sexual assault are too often misconstrued as consensual when they aren’t. Those who have been victimized often have their actions misinterpreted to their detriment.

The presence of coercion is an important factor in evaluating if there is true consent.  

 “Coercive control is any behavior that is used to instill fear and compliance in a partner,”[1] according to Evan Stark, PhD, the sociologist and forensic expert who coined the term. People understand physical force much more than they do other forms. What they recognize less are the verbal, emotional, and psychological behaviors that interfere with the ability to consent.  

For intimate partner survivors, coercion is by definition present. Misunderstanding by others often occurs when they maintain contact or have sex with the abusers. Common reasons they feel they have no choice:

• They are afraid because they’ve suffered physical or emotional abuse from that person and know what they are capable of.
• They’ve said no but the person continues to harass them, they feel overwhelmed, and find it easier to give in.   
• They’re confused by claims that they’re responsible for the other person’s feelings or welfare.

These reasons are often invisible to others. They either don’t know about the coercion or underestimate how it affects victims. When those in positions of authority, such as the police, district attorneys, or family court personnel, assume that coercion isn’t involved, they make decisions that retraumatize those who have been victimized. When juries assume consent when there’s been coercion, they don’t convict for rape or domesitc abuse.

It’s important to distinguish between expressed consent and implied consent. Expressed consent involves a verbal “yes.” Implied consent involves an assumption that the person consents due to previous behavior, social expectations, or some other factor. Coercion can be present with both forms of consent.

Why do so many mistake survivors’ behavior as consent?

We’ve been socialized to misinterpret it. Implied consent due to assumptions has a lot to do with it. For example, there often is an assumption that because an individual goes on a date and gets drunk, that they are consenting to sex. We all have the right to date and drink, but that doesn’t mean we give up our other rights. Yet too often, we hear  something like, “they should have known better,” which implies that those victimized are responsible for what happened to them. This certainly ignores how the perpetrator felt entitled and often results in exonerating them.

Another frequent assumption is when someone has said yes once, that it means they are always going to consent. No one should be considered always available. We have the right to choose when we have contact with someone and whether to have sex, and that choice is affected by many variables:

• Health—we choose not to be sexual when we’re sick or suffering from an injury.
• Fatigue—we don’t want sex when we’ve had tiring days or have low energy.
• Emotional triggers—when abuse from the past is triggered, we want to stop the activity that triggers.
• Stress—work, dealing with children, caring for parents, and many other things contribute to being less available physical and emotionally.
• Discrimination–due to being LGBTQ+, a racial minority, or immigrant, which makes it riskier for them to identify as victims.
• Past behavior by the individual—previous interactions were undesirable and/or abusive, leading them to no longer be open to contact.

Rights are not respected by coercive controllers. Victims’ basic right to change their minds about being with a person are violated by those who use coercion. Without recognition of that, consent is misjudged.  

According to psychiatrist Judith Herman[2]:

“Society is set up to conspire with the perpetrator, to ignore their crimes and pretend they didn’t happen, because otherwise, we have to do something. . . .  All the perpetrator asks is that the bystander do nothing. He appeals to the universal desire to see, hear, and speak no evil. The victim, on the contrary, asks the bystander to share the burden of pain. The victim demands action, engagement, and remembering.”  

In other words, victims require all of us to face unpleasant things, including the ugly truth that sometimes we’re not safe. Believing perpetrators or doubting they are capable of such things promotes the belief that we are always in control of what happens to us. Feeling powerless is something we loath and unconsciously may deny.

In our societal institutions, doing nothing represents collusion with those who abuse.

We can’t completely understand the issue of consent without recognizing that patriarchal beliefs still affect women and men’s expectations and behavior. We need to acknowledge that how we view our bodies and our power has been influenced by these assumptions.

Those who feel entitled take advantage of others’ vulnerabilities, whether that’s intoxication, youth or old age, economic status, job instability, dependency for caregiving, immigration status, and any number of others, but especially including that we love them. That’s the most insidious thing about IPV.

Advertising that makes giving consent seem “sexy” and desirable buys into gendered beliefs that ignore the power imbalance that often exists in relationships.

Those who are abused are also affected by this gendered socialization. They often feel guilty because they “consented” by staying when in actuality, coercion was involved.  They may question themselves as to why they “allowed” it. Allow implies giving their permission. When I ask whether this occurred, they always say no. They felt they had no choice at the time.

---

[1] Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. Evan Stark. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007.

[2] Trauma and Recovery: The Aftermath of Violence—from Domestic Abuse to Political Terror. Judith Lewis Herman, M.D. United States: HarperCollins Basic Books, 1992.