You are currently browsing the tag archive for the ‘Consent’ tag.
Christianity and its various sects harm women.
In the early 1960’s, in response to the call of many millions of Catholic women, especially in the US, who wanted to limit the size of their families through the use of contraception, a papal commission was set up to look at Catholic teaching on birth control in light of the current scientific knowledge. If found that there was no scriptural, theological, philosophical reason, or basis in natural law for the Church’s prohibition on birth control.
[…]
However, in 1968, Pope Paul VI responded instead with an encyclical Humanae Vitae. The encyclical reaffirmed the Church’s rejectionist stance: Contraceptives were evil and against God’s law. Ten years later, Pope John Paul declared that Humanae Vitae was ‘a matter of fundamental Catholic belief’.
In the West, many if not most Catholics ignored the ban. For them, however painful, the decision of whether to conceive or not was rarely a life-or-death issue. Unfortunately for women in the poorest parts of the world, it often is. There, the right to choose weather or not to conceive was vitally linked to a woman’s prospectsfor freeing herself and her family from poverty. It is in this context that the inherent and deeply rooted misogyny of the Church has taken its greatest toll on the lives of women. Pope John Paul II spent a considerable port of his pontificate propagandizing on behalf of a doctrine that tells poor and illiterate women that to use a condom is the moral equivalent of murder and that each time they use contraceptives they render Christ’s sacrifice on the cross ‘in vain’. He said:’No personal or social circumstances have ever been able, or will be able, to rectify the moral wrong of the contraceptive act.
Underlying this attitude is the assumption that when it comes to having a baby, a woman’s consent is not necessary and that once made pregnant, accidentally or not, her own will is rendered irrelevant. The moral implications of this are interesting when compared with those governing our attitudes to rape. All civilized societies accept that a woman’s consent is necessary in order to have intercourse with her. Not to seek that consent and to coerce her into intercourse is to commit rape, which is a serious crime. But yet according to the Church, in the vital matter of pregnancy, a woman’s consent is beside the point.
She can be made pregnant against her wishes, and without her consent. The inexorable law of God overrides her will and the fact that she is pregnant determines her fate. Her personal autonomy is denied to her.
To deny the need for her consent in this the most important aspect of a woman’s life is surely the moral equivalent of justifying rape. It reminds us once more of the profound contempt that has underpinned Catholic attitudes towards women and that has been responsible for so much suffering down through the centuries.
– Jack Holland. A Brief History of Misogyny: The World’s Oldest Prejudice. p. 241 – 243
Religion, centuries of practice keeping women in their place…
Learning about how our culture operates is critical for enlightenment and understanding. Jill from I Blame the Patriarchy shares her view on consent within the culture. In this case, a simple link would not do, as I want to copy/paste this concise definition in another spot on the internet, maybe pissing off some MRA’s in the process.
“For it is the stated position of the Savage Death Island Chapter of Spinster Aunts International that, in a patriarchy, “consensual sex” (between women and dudes) doesn’t even exist. This is because, in a patriarchy, agency is not conferred equally upon women and dudes. This untoward circumstance creates a contingency wherein the notion of consent is, for women, entirely non-substantive, a figment, a desperate fantasy invented to obscure the true nature of women’s status as the sex class. The true nature of our status as the sex class is, by the way, that we are imprisoned in a rape continuum. This continuum ranges from the “voluntary” performance of femininity (which quantifies women’s usefulness to men), to compulsory heterosexuality (which ensures availability to men), to pornography (which eroticizes inequality), to violent sexual assault (which is at the apex of the Global Accords Governing Fair Use of Women).
Wait. What?
The issue of consent — or, more precisely, the idea that women are considered by both custom and law to abide in a persistent state of always having given consent — is the absolute crux, nub, hub, axis, polestar, and epicenter of women’s oppression. The thing is, women can’t freely give consent because women can’t freely withhold it. “Consent” is a meaningless concept in the context of women’s reality.
In a patriarchy, women are, at essence, considered to be giant vaginas with the word “YES” stamped all over’em in red. Because of the sex-based power discrepancies inherent in our social structure, members of the sex class — that is, women — are always “yes” unless they specifically, adamantly, and in front of 3 witnesses with video cameras, say “no.” But even when “no” obtains, other (subjective and arbitrary) factors are almost always seen as mitigating it into a “yes.” Such as not saying “no” loud enough, not fighting back physically, being the dude’s girlfriend, or wearing a tight sweater.
Ahh, a small break in the studies allows me to do some sweet sweet blogging.
The Canadian Supreme Court as just managed to find its ass with, get this, not just one, but BOTH of it hands. The wisdom and judicial prudence has been flowing as of late, but let us scry into the dense legal jargon and decipher this weighty codex:
“A woman cannot give advance consent to sexual activity while unconscious, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled Friday.”
How they get the creamy filling into the chocolate bars is next on this braintrust’s todo list. One problem at a time though…
“If the complainant is unconscious during the sexual activity, she has no real way of knowing what happened and whether her partner exceeded the bounds of her consent,” the ruling said.
The definition of consent is an ongoing state of mind where individuals can ask their partner to stop, McLachlin wrote.
“Any sexual activity with an individual who is incapable of consciously evaluating whether she is consenting is therefore not consensual within the meaning of the Criminal Code,” she wrote.
Why we need such clarity is because in 2007 a couple engaged in mutual erotic asphyxiation and of course, the dude while his partner was out did stuff to her that was above and beyond the terms of their agreement. Okay, that was speculation on my part, this is what the article says:
“The case goes back to a particular episode in 2007 when the woman, who cannot be named because of a publication ban, complained to police about what her partner did to her after she passed out. At trial, the man was found guilty of sexual assault but his conviction was overturned on appeal.”
Ah, says the rights crowd, she had it coming then as she had already agreed to take part in sexual activity. Yes, she did to the initial act, but she did not give consent for x, y, and z that came after when she was unconscious and correctly this dudes appeal was overturn and he went to prison.
“The Ottawa man served 18 months in jail after his conviction in 2008 on the sexual assault charge.”
And justly so, because there was a point, before committing x,y,z on her body, he had the choice. There was a threshold, a line of ambivalence that needed to be consciously crossed before he continued with the sexual assault and he did so. Consent is everything in an intimate relationship, especially one that pushes boundaries with racy sexual activities, and the dude in question made a conscious decision to go beyond the reasonable expectations of their relationship.
Three Justices dissented from this ruling –
“In the dissenting opinion written by Justice Morris Fish, the judges said Friday’s ruling would deprive women “of their freedom to engage by choice in sexual adventures that involve no proven harm to them or to others.”
They also expressed concern about the criminalization of normal sexual relations between spouses.
“The approach advocated by the Chief Justice would also result in the criminalization of a broad range of conduct that Parliament cannot have intended to capture in its definition of the offense of sexual assault. Notably, it would criminalize kissing or caressing a sleeping partner, however gently and affectionately.”
I’m guessing that the x,y,z that our friendly dude perpetrated against our victim was a little more that caressing or kissing. The dissent relies on a less than reasonable interpretation of the law.
“Elizabeth Sheehy, a lawyer for the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund, which intervened in this case, dismissed the dissenting opinion. She called the majority ruling a major victory for women.
“The most important message that the court is communicating is that unconscious women are not sexually available,” she said.”
Hurrah for that.
bleatmop
Mystro
Dead Wild Roses 
Your opinions…