Home>Let’s Talk About Consent
22.08.2021
Let’s Talk About Consent
What is sexual consent? What practices does it refer to? Rébecca Lévy-Guillain explores these questions through the prism of sociology in her doctoral research. A Ph.D. student at the National Institute for demographic studies (Ined) and at the Observatoire sociologique du changement (OSC) of Sciences Po, she is studying the uses of the category of sexual consent at the intersection of social relations.
WHAT IS THE HISTORY BEHIND THE CONCEPT OF SEXUAL CONSENT?
Sexual consent is a relatively recent concept. For a long time, sexuality remained statutory, matrimonial, part of a hierarchical relationship. If we are talking about consent to marriage, consent to sexuality is meaningless. Once married, partners are not on an equal footing: women do not have the freedom to choose the sexual acts to participate in: their sexuality merges with marital duties. The notion of sexual consent first emerged in the legal field and gradually gained importance during the 19th century. Then sexual violence began to be thought of in terms of harm to person rather than in terms of infringement of property. It thus gained social recognition. The notion of consent then becomes a criterion drawing the boundary between violence and sexuality. However, it remained absent from public space until the second half of the 20th century.
It does appear in the early 1960s, most of the time in literary works or trial reports. The notion of consent is then used to justify the legitimacy of access to sexuality: "it is not rape since she was consenting". Thus, it becomes part of a discursive strategy that trivialises violence in seduction relationships. It is therefore still not a matter for debate. It was not until the feminist movements of the second wave, in the early 1970s, that sexual consent really gained momentum over public debate. Envisioned as a political tool revealing the social reality of rape, it was placed at the heart of social mobilisations denouncing male domination. From a feminist concept, sexual consent was transformed into an ethical principle from the end of the 1990s. It delimited “good” from“bad” sexuality. But it lost visibility in the public space. It is during the most recent period – since the Strauss-Kahn affair, and especially since the #MeToo movement – that consent has become a social norm conveying models of conduct and defining reprehensible behaviour. It is also the subject of much debate today because there is strong social control around consented sexuality.
Over the years, the notion has therefore gradually emerged empowered from the legal field by entering new social spaces through a process of politicisation, moralisation and democratisation until it became an ordinary category, mobilised in everyday language. However, despite these transformations, we speak of sexual consent in the same terms: in heterosexual relationships, and unilaterally for women.
IS THIS A CONCEPT THAT IS STILL DEBATED TODAY?
There is now unanimous support around the idea that sexuality must be consented. Yet, consent has never aroused as much debate as it does today! High-profile cases regularly bring it back to the forefront. These cases are all characterised by the same narrative framework and by the coexistence of two competing readings of the same sexual situation: the man proclaims that his partner consented, when the woman affirms that she was rapep. What is at stake in the debates is then to adjudge on the nature of the interaction.
If these debates are so heated, it is because there are several issues at stake. In a context where the egalitarian ideal is widely diffused within social space, reciprocity in sexuality is first and foremost an imperative. It is expected to be the result of a shared desire. Thus, consent embodies this principle of equality in sexuality. Perceived as the boundary between violence and sexuality, consent then has an important social function, it is tracked in sexual relations. However, the work carried out for my thesis reveals that the sexualisation of interactions is not characterized by the making of agreements. If sexuality occurs, it is because scripts are set in motion. That is to say that routinised acts sequences are recognised and coded as sexual by the partners. The signs of consent in sexual scenarios are difficult to grasp. It is therefore the subject of endless discussion. Finally, if consent is the main focus of attention, it is because it is a norm: cases of transgression give rise to sanctions. “Forcing” and “giving in” are all deviant acts that must be banned from one's behavior. Each and every one then tries to position themselves favorably in relation to the norm by showing how consent is respected or, what amounts to the same thing, by striving to keep away from the associated repulsive figures of the “rapist”, the “ forcer ”, the “submissive”…
DO ALL SOCIAL GROUPS TAKE OWNERSHIP OF THIS CONCEPT IN THE SAME WAY?
Omnipresent in public debates, consent permeates social space: almost everyone has already been exposed to this concept. Moreover, individuals all assign the same meaning to it. For them, it is an essential agreement to access sexuality. In other words, consent is a rule of conduct which includes moral value. What differs, however, is the use made of it, which depends on the position in social relations and on lived experiences.
The vast majority of men regard consent as an abstract principle, disconnected from their reality. Even though they believe it is not applicable to their personal experiences, they speak about it very often. That keeps them at distance the figures of the “persistent guy”, or of the “aggressor". By saying what they are not, they implicitly define what they are, that is men who care about their partner's consent, that is, respectable men. Thus, consent functions as a tool for values and social classification. For some upper-middle classe men - often students or young men under the age of 35 sensitised to feminism - the use of consent fuels a form of mea culpa. In this case, they recognize having raped or assaulted a partner and give the notion of consent the role for confession of power.
For their part, women, especially those who are feminists and who demonstrate reflexivity, tend to recycle the principle of consent into a category of perception. They use it as a framework to understand their past sexuality and to classify their experiences. In particular, they mobilize consent to identify sexual encounters that they consider ambiguous, resulting from self-restraint.
Finally, people involved in militant feminist, “dyke”, or polyamorous sociability groups directly translate consent into their practices and reorganise their sexuality around this principle. They therefore give a central role to communication and emphasise the necessity to make sexual negotiations explicit.
YOU ALSO WORK ON THE RELATIONSHIP TO DESIRE AND TO REJECTION. CAN YOU TELL US MORE?
Today, consent is a central social concern. But it does not fall within a logic of action, because access to sexuality is not characterized by the signing of agreements. It lies somewhere else: it is the question of women's free choice that is problematic. They continue to participate in sexual acts by forcing themselves or by being coerced. To make sense of consent, my thesis investigates the mechanisms underlying this limited freedom of women in sexuality. Many experiences that are not perceived as violence but which are nonetheless deemed a-normal result from a state of confusion as to what is desired, and/or a difficulty in saying no. My doctoral research therefore questions these two dimensions using the analytical tools available in general sociology, and in the sociology of sexuality. In other words, it assumes that sexuality is not only a biological phenomenon but that it is also a social activity, which is acquired throughout life and which is codified. I examine the socialisation processes to desire in order to explain why women find it more difficult to feel and identify their desire and therefore to know what they want. And I further investigate how a set of factors such as assertiveness, empathy and the anticipation of violence influence the greater or lesser ability to refuse a sexually oriented request.
=> Interview conducted by the Research and Educational Programme on Gender Studies of Sciences Po (PRESAGE).
