Feminist Re-Conceptualization of Sexual Consent As Affirmative

CEU eTD Collection Feminist Re a s Affirmative, Communicative, Enthusiastic In partial In partial fulfillment for the degree of Master of Arts in GenderStudies Second Reader: Supervisor: Assistan - Conceptualization ofSexual Consent Department Gender of Studies Central European University 50 Shadesof Yes: Assistant Professor Budapest, Hungary Olga Burmakova Submitted to 2013 t Professor Anna Loutfi By

Hadley RenkinZ.

CEU eTD Collection c a f i the re framework consentsexual a I Abstract n o n n i t relatively new developm relatively new t l

d i e l r z o

e r e e c w s n l o - p a

s sexual conceptualized consent and n t b o h h n o n i e p e r s i a e

. c r

f t

o e t o e o

v d r o

t u a n aspects h r s n

t e

d a h a

s f e n e f y r d i s s s r

t t m e i e . a m x

m n B a u p t d y a i i ent offeminist thought offers a c l i v

l i n analyzing

e e subject emerges that p g d ,

c o o c o f b l a

m l t i e h m m m i s s u

o t r t n h e o f i - e

c sexual coerciontosexualassault violencesexual from and rape date t

a h d o t c e i n i r s v

i c c t t e e r o i

c a p a u a n n t r l u s

d s a f f a e

o r s i l e

i s p r n z e m m r a t s o h t s a

i d t u m o t h i u s n o i e i c s s a

n n e w

s d a

t d t o

i i

o s s c f b i o c

c f . t y

o l h In mythesis, I h the nuances of nuances its three the u

u t

e t i h r n i

o d s e c e

n o l p , u

m r a reclaiming d o

i e re n p s a o -

a n conc n

t comprehensive modelof e

d n i t provide an analytical analytical an provide s s eptualization ofeptualization c

o o a f n u

d t r h s

r e i e s

v n n i s e

i w s n e g x m

u s o e a x d l i u t e y a l ,

CEU eTD Collection menotjust butabetterperson. abetterresearcher made encouragement: you challenged inspired me me, I likewould finally, And to classmates thankmy for minds theirbrilliant and mysanityduring save writing blocks throughout theyear. of this academicproduce piece butalso offered text, discussions my exiting issue helped and onthe My endless toJohn gratitude Harbord, academic my writinginstructor on not who researcher. anda thinker throughout of thewholeteacher studies year whose and influence as huge a onmy classes hada I tothank alsolike would Professor Hadley coherent intoa into shapingtopic systematic mythoughts and whole. onthis complicated broadand toexpressI tomysupervisor like would mygratitude me Professor haswho guided Loutfi Anna Acknowledgements

Z. Renkin, inspiringZ. an was and who thought ,

t ii a

l k e d

t h

r o u g h

t h e

b l o c

k whole s

i n

m ly helped meto helped ly - y hearted

t h i n - k provoking i n g

and and

CEU eTD Collection References Conclusion 4.Sexual discourse, subject: Chapter changingchanging citizenship 3.Enthusiastic consent:Chapter tosexualagency claim 2.CommunicativeChapter ofsexuality model 1.Affirmative consentChapter standard: Introduction ofTable Contents Acknowledgements Abstract Table of Contents 4.2. Claim tocitizenship 4.2. transformation Talkingsex: 4.1. ofthediscourse Sexual agency 3.3. sexualand subject Se 3.2. wantedness Sexual motivation: 3.1. vs. consent of consent Communication as2.3. thepractice Model(s)2.2. sexuality of consensual Thediscourse:2.1. dominant non 1.3. Affirmative1.2. consent gives ―Silence 1.1. consent‖ The standards reasonability of and responsibility

...... xual for desire: search the―truth‖

......

...... - ...... communicative communicative model(s) of sexuality ......

...... re

...... - conceptualization of consent inlegalpractice conceptualization ......

......

...... iii

......

54 50 43 40 40 37 34 31 31 25 23 18 18 12 10

iii

7 7 1 ii

CEU eTD Collection maid ofnon accused 2013) says that thejustificationwhich of some sort and definition ofrapeorsexual assault,every is ineach debate casethere a ofsome sort, a of seems sexual itis theeach case: buriedunder specifics broughtup consent. inthevery While W ―real a of had 2012 Bergeron 2012) 2008) is which there is coercion considered acceptable and expected innormal even relationships Thereassaults old. are young, notdeemed are which victimswomen, gay,transgender, where are that don‘t.Therecases heterosexual, men, are dis it wanted sex unconscious drunkand if they were shamed and publicly accused sexand ―consumer‘s ofwanting ofhaving guilt‖, consentingtoit even mak Rape Introduction hile eachhile case its has 2 ,

(The Associated Press 2012) Press (TheAssociated of ; case only torefuteonly thecharges bycla , in romantic courtship, inromantic ‖ rape 1 the pleasures they provide of D 2

Some examples are: are: examples Some case rape Steubenville are: examples recent Some emocratic morality should emocratic sexual judge acts bythe partners oneanother, way treat the level

– es mutual consideration, the presence or absence of thequantityof orabsence quality thepresence mutual consideration, and coercion, and

even 13 a Rehtaeh Parson Rehtaeh highlighted the news day the newsday Teenage girlsafter day. - (Walsh 2012) (Walsh consensual sex with two women two with sex consensual .

At theAt samet time, - year peculiarities

the issue of autonomy women‘s sexual

(The Huffington Post 2013) Huffington (The Roman Polanski accused of raping a 13 ofraping a accused Roman Polanski

- . old girl

(Lloyd 1991)

. .

(Rubin 1984, 283) 1984, (Rubin , one topicis, one central ofthem, thediscussion toall ofwhi thatFor case makes thenews,thereare each hundredsof those 1 he media media politicalhe the and campaignin US electi presidential . iming thatthe iming they that consented, women lying, they are that Influential and rich men richmen Influential and

(The Telegraph 2012) Telegraph (The , in everyday sexual , ineverydaysexual experience assaulted per .

1 are (The Huffington Post 2013) Post (TheHuffington

worthy report oftrial oreven raped and assaultedthe and by raped son - ; year Dominic Strauss Dominic

are are was consenting, whether by being bybeing was consenting,whether -

old girl old and thequestionand to of consider what accused ofcoercing into women (BBC News(BBC 2009)

(Brousseau, Hebertand ; - Kahn case ofAud case

accused of raping a hotel ofraping a accused ir peers, to bethen (Amato 2008) (Amato rey Pott rey

; Julian Assange Assange Julian

(Pe (Castillo (Castillo ch abled, abled, rry on ; CEU eTD Collection of th examples agreement basedcommunicated) on act to sexual a the sincere (enthusiastic) desire. or ―enthusiastic consent‖. reflectdifferent aspectswhich of its logic: ―communicative consent‖ ―affirmative consent‖, principal develop consent hasbeen theAs attempt toanswer question an consent‖, of―real re thenew cult as existinginequalityas well inse scholars pointoutlegal theproblems thatthewide Plummer 1989, MacKinnon 1995) the feminist critiqueof culture rape 1989, Pineau (Bryden Chamallas1988, Gotell2008) Wertheimer 2000, 2000, of suchdevelopment non consent and variations of abuse sexual legal system,are used US they within and contradictory donotgrantprotection from and many definitionswithout given clear diverse ofconceptualizations infact consent and are oftensense common based on understandings violence while the sameat timepromoting its reoccurrence. isis part unclear and As suggests culture feminist critiqueof rape of clarity: lack question, a dowe what consider ―real‖ consent? drunk shorttheroom. in orsleeping, wearing a simply skirt being or ure sees law and policy and ure sees law the oneofthegrounds as change for e se approachesworks ―Date are of Feminist LoisRape: A Pineau Analysis‖ (1989) - consent parcel revision

ed in these fields.ed in two It appears has toberevised (Decker andBaroni 2011) (Decker All three define consent positiv define as three and All clearly

of the rape cultureof itself, the rape to easier as itmakes justifysexual ignore and

is happening in twospheres in is is of happening theory theory:one feminist legal

(Beres 2007) xual sphere bringintoxual decisions, of thecritique therape legal while . The two are obviously. The twoare interconnected, and other: refer toeach

(Burt Bussel F 1980, 2008,

(Bryden Chamallas 1988) 2000, .

(Burt 1980, Friedman and Valenti and (Burt Friedman 2008) 1980, Currently, there are many thereare Currently, definitions of non 2 -

spread assumptions about gender and sexualityspread assumptionsand gender about . The scholarsthatdefinition ofsexual agree in different literature There is lack also of a because clarity riedman and Valenti 2008, Valenti 2008, and riedman

- conceptualization of sexual There is always adoubt, ely expressed (affirmed and .

D , theotheroneis and iscussion and under various names Two strong , the fact that itthe fact - consent

CEU eTD Collection o discourse Nevertheless, theworks of theproponents ofre this of sexualconceptualization consent theunderstanding makes further and analysis of it difficult. entails, doesthere isanalysisof affirmative/communicative/enthusiastic nocomprehensive what consent while differentHowever, works addressfacets of connections differentconsent them, and between to the discourseimplications. possible and relationsinstrument power be of the instituting the basis for entails exactly it 1996, Pineau (Gotell 2008, 2008) Riggs gender. and sexuality a The e understrevision of as new themas well 2008) Valenti title ―Y ―communicative model calls collection ofsexuality‖; a ofessaysand byvarious authors the under understandingoffers ofsexuality understandingnew ofconsentgroundedina new a Response ―A and i toMyCritics― (1996)

n f broad spectrum legal ofspecifically issues, fromapplications tora

t c h l s a u e works offer sexual consentcomplicatedsexual ase worksa offer multi and i s m i

a es Means Visions Yes: Power a Sexual of and Rape‖ Female Without World especially whenespecially viewed outside of thelegal context. s s , t

i i s n c o

expression of sexual desiresexual expression of m w categorization of subjects order inthesocial categorization

which addresseswhich culturalassumption h e

i . c o

F h f

w t r h t h e h As this modelispolicy offeredsometimes and for new implemented and law i

e c r r h e m v

a i o r s e i r o

e o n ,

sexual consentsexual is o e f r

t s ,

e a x n u d a , itis understan necessary detailed toprovide a . anding of consentanding

l some

n which shen which addresses side of theproblemand the legal c o

n s e can becan inferred n tween them t part of

p 3 s r

o about gender and sexuality, and again gender offeringabout the - d conceptualization of sexuconceptualization u c sexual identity identity sexual e

(Foucault 1988, 43 1988, (Foucault s based on affirmation, communication and and based affirmation, on communication

, itis tounderstand necessary changes the a This of fragmentation the

- n faceted concept faceted f e r o w m

e dical changesdical tothe discourse on i x t . u

T a (Rubin 1984) l h

s e u s b e

j - c e 44)

l c which aims toaddresswhich a al consent produce a a consent produce al t i

m a , and also an also an , and n s d

range (Friedman and

and and s – ding of what ofding what e

t what she s

serves as a

r n o u m m

b e r

CEU eTD Collection consciousness‖ legislation is where work isfocused situation system, social onthe US reflects and accordingly legal and Additionally, as most authors withinthe ofwork from come and discourse, the US, US their of addressvariety they larger from a women although men‘s coercion, I basefocusconsent which my a analysis onalso have interaction onheterosexual protectionof and ty ―severe‖ focus onnon sociological and Both legal Roberts Hickman 2000, and Mu studies uponsociological draw of consent sexual Taslitz 2005) andBaroni 2011, Pineau Decker Gotell 2008, 1989, Haely 2000, 1999, Hubinand Wertheimer understanding consent, ofsexual Iturnthelegal schola to ( of literature. w w a a w M t s o 1975, 1984), Elizabeth Grosz Elizabeth 1984), 1975, o n n o o h

y l d a t u r r a

l h

g k k y t t i e i n o s , t o k

I a c h o i n w

n l a i analyze f s d l h d i

s L t d f i

o c o r t o e pe a o h

f n i t m

. s First of all, my approach i First approach ofmy all,

h - s

s e t

c Toth address consensual interactions between a male a between victim, onmore female perpetratorand consensual and interactions e h

e P e l of those sexual and suchas rape assault. l

a x

e w a t i l b n h u

a i c o m o e a w e l r l a r

d a u t i s a m

o t i u

n i s e a n

b c d s t n o h o

w e e d p n e u m c

h o

r t t r t s h i

l e s h e c i a e e o e c r v e h n

y reality of negotiation ofnegotiation reality problemsof consent sexual and arisingit,I with u o i

c d s c i

(1998) t r f n o p i h o c

o s ehlenhard 1999,Peterson 2008) 2007,Powell ehlenhard Muehlenhard and g t l r i e n l e n h s o

e s c f x

e b c

r r a e u u seen as a key instrument key seen as a tosolving of problems thesociety, the

e t o l n p p i e a s -

o m d r t conceptualization e etc. l m

o n s groundedin feminist theory d

d o

r s p t

i e f ― h

i s o

w n c Y c s As part significant of e n l

e o

i a m e d t e x i u h s m n i u y

r s

M t s a t

c i s w r e n l o

o c g o u i a a (Adams t o f

4 r t r n

m k p s n

t s f e h

r s

bring certain limitations bring tomyas certain they analysis e

o Y s e i c n s e n d a e

t x

r t The works onthere u n s o

u o ‖ c a -

f - a b rship and philosophy of law oflaw rship philosophy and Curtis and Forbes 2004, Crown and and Crown Curtis Forbes and 2004, f . e s c

s l

e s For myanalysis o s e i c .

t e n x r

i I x e a t u c n i u p v z e a the critique

a e p e p o l

l a n e t c r

l c u d a s o e o h a r e d n s l n r i such as worksRubin of Gayle

i s

a z s i e t n sexually situations. coercive . n e a o n

t n d

t t i d t o h

c o n i w

a r s is based on the legal is basedthelegal on I bodies onseveral draw

i - n s h a t n conceptualization of conceptualization o i

s i c b e c

, a

i w h e t I l

v i y p a m s i r r

e e e p o o w v

a ―legal a r v d s a e e t i e l (Bryden 2000, s d a d u l e t

a e a n a

t d n a s t e e n

d d a o d

v t

w I o i e n n h

r s

t o t m e l

h y l

e e e

CEU eTD Collection whichagency‖, is addressed ― in is oftenof subjects questioned, sexual is whose agency theclaim The third claim a subjectivity c d sexuality c standard the legal T s i 2008) Plummer 1995) evaluated to punishment, the buteven analysis of his behavi burden of proof of non a conceptualization I toothertheoretically applied situations. inequality social including n n u n t o l e h a t e b

d m n a i C e q m j c , s

u o h s e k e c

a e

n n a e r f i t l c or thechange tothesenorms, tothe accordingly, and g s p s r s t i o t

. t

o t a b y . i r e n Feminist legal scholars the been about long putscritical which have existing standard the

n , n a

u Instead

r i d v c t

e a 1 o

c c n the most intimatedetails

t n l i l I o h h v n s a s

w v e e i a

i e , . l m m d

d e e n e a analyzed T , r

d , as itis groundedinthe t r

y , p

a i t

o h a .

n r

l e t p t y a n e

f e

o l r t

t a s

c h a o h a alternative s b a t i o f e

a e h m l o t f y n

- h i i s r l consent onto the victim, and allows theaccused allows toavoid and consent onto the thevictim, noteven s s h r s s e a a e

i m

. e i g s c t m

t n t n e

l , o i r o e My is be analysis therefore tothesame focusitcan limited although a s

d i e t t

C t t g l

h c

s i i – a t i q v h h i e t n i s l i e m u x a

a p o ,

a a feminista modelof

m p C e n u l c communicative model of consensual sexuality n s e a ; t a g o p h

o c e b l p e n e a e r d a

u r c

p s m t e o 3 s

t h t e t (Bryden 2000, s l

, d e e n

a e

o a d

is to r n u s

t u f

d o

c t

2 l s I s

i t e i presumptions interaction. the norms about sexual of t

, o s e n

s a s c c i f x h g n s a sexual agency, agency, sexual asare women and one ofthecategories o

n u

r o d s u a a o e a e w a

r s l t or, choices his self thevictim‘sare lifeand while r s s r

p , e p , c d j e

u o a i o although e 5

t c s a for n c n

t d t n i s s i enthusiastic consent, in which women are are enthusiastic women which consent, in f Burt 1980, o o d p i e i b c e n

sexual assaultsexual n r t i

e s l

t h s i

t s

e t n o e a e y x n

o n

p u t i i d t t h t n r a

, p i a e d

l n c

a c c

r o s f

a c o o t u i a e i Chamallas 1988, Chamallas s t c m b c c b s s e specifically to o e l t e

s j e m c r

e l

t o d m f h o

c h

u legislation f i t a f s a n a

o n s c t s t g i e

l i g a e c it is not enough to change it is notenoughtochange l v c x y p x e a

e u ,

normative mo u a t

s t i a t b a h

o h l t l l i e n h

e e t a

g s a o first

(Bryden Gotell 2000, e s ―female sexual―female a s p i f a s n n

r Jervis 2008, a

u c d d o o

l w e

b t c f m s

f r l l o a e a e e e y m x n i r d m m

e u t

t u del of del d s o o

o e n o .

t x p f i A f h c

r g r e a s a a e e t

c l I i n -

o t

i d I n c e t e

r i

CEU eTD Collection c t d gratification. pleasure well thus, as and and as agency, therights tosexualself S todosolanguage as well thisas accessible make language toanyone. consent kind ofsexuality others‘ asuponthe long itdoes freedom. notinfringe themorals, by butsomethingand t for ingeneral, as thesociety notsomething pre sexuality self 4. tothe consequently, and claim for these citizenship, conceptsand, three As three all all accordingly, chapters refer to d sh freeand joyful sexlife, from violence to self:sexual yourself, ―…sayyes that yestothe idea to and right to yes youhave yourdesires, a a presented freedom, asbaseddesire and ofsexual and to women‘sentitlement valid ―yes‖ responserespected and is equally an viewed as autonomous torequest sex actors or empowered decline he full ability to consent fullhe ability i e e e t x m s i As thenormativepresumptions thelimitations towomen‘s and self z i - u r e expression of other sexual subjects, produced discourse are predominant bythe sexual expression and ofother ongender o e a n n l

a s s c h s – t i

, r t i

g p i a that is, upthediscussion positive open sexuality its ina toall of variety develop way, and a the n z r t . o e

e n , u

W s the n h e d h i x s p i normal under theconceptualization of t claim ist claim tothe

l nuances nuances

f e i o n

t r

his claim is tothe discussion notnew consentsexual of

t s h u i s c

h n or not that appear fromthat appear there

e a w

l d a

to sexualrelations i i s m c rethinking ofrethinking sex o a hat everyone figures everyone hat and outrighthas to a as individually achieve u n r d s

e o

is bothre n ame‖

h e

a (Cho 2008) - g ‖ defined for everyone by the virtue bythe for everyone of theirgender defined e

n (Filipovic 2008, 14) 2008, (Filipovic - - 6 i

conceptualization of consentconceptualization inthis model claimed and re and claimed n t and redefining itfor redefining person and and each individually,

c a t

s w To make doso, itnecessaryto e o x a affirmative/communica

u y top .

a I t l h

e ics I s a l u t a

b b p - j o r e determination and tosexual and determination the transformation of thediscourse,the transformation - discuss in the concluding discussthe concluding Chapter in o r c defined bydefined desire sexual centering a d t t – u t e

h c

a modelisa ―no‖ where - o This sexual female a e expression, as well as tothe aswell expression, t n s

i a s t h

n p e e r

(Rubin 1984) (Rubin o c w the o d

m v u tive/enthusiastic a c

p r expression of e i l d a e t

x a i speakable o i s t n y

o o agency is r , f e f a

s s s s u e e

I l x d x t

the u e

u o f their a a i f l l n

i e t .

CEU eTD Collection 2011) continuously discuss thechanges inthe implement definition and of theprob demonstrationby thatshe tried tofight himoff. components core all definitioninitself This holds penis question,but not husbandin thecarn ofwoman a a will‖ her nonconsensua fundamental definition ofsexualnon systemFirst legal does notdefineconsent so muchas oftheAmerican all, now. to offences, sexual relation I focuswill ontheconceptualizat of consent isage basedthedefinitionofsexualconsent upon onag laws conduct appropriate sexual 1988, relegated being sphere,sexuality private ―sexual is regulated toa conduct highly activity‖ sexual activitylegal from consent appearsSexual withinframework as thecorecomponent the legal indifferentiating mainly 1. legal practice Chapter 1. Affirmative consent standard: re 1. “ -

. But even Silence gives consent gives Silence in 777)

vagina type, that type, it ―forcibly thefact wasdone and againstvagina and herwill‖ tobeproven had (Decker Baroni1083) 2011, and e ofconsent andoffences ofsexual thevariety (rape, sexual assault As etc.). discussion on this, and regulation produces as itpresents values, vision a tothe subjectsthelaw of of lems consentconcept sexual as with a central rights tosexual

if we widenif we discussion the tothe and various formscoercion of violence sexual

- consent was adopted from English common law, fromconsent wasadopted Englishcommonlaw, where (asthe rape illegal l act) wasl act) as ― defined (Chamallas 1988, 1988, Rubin (Chamallas 1984) ” , as well immoralas moral from

where the knowledge person man thecarnal was a doing carnal ofwoman knowledge against a forciblyand 7

al knowledge meant penetration, meant knowledge al mostly of - conceptualization of consent in . The f ion ofconsent in offensessexual for per se (Wertheimer 2000) (Wertheimer ields where it ields where is are mostly debated (Bryden 2000) , which isin mostly, which developed , and legal scholars legal , and non - consent

(Decker andBaroni (Decker . Despite sex and Despite and sex . The basic (Chamallas CEU eTD Collection 2007) Peterson2007, Muehlenhard and As desires human feminist question is,itbe? should 2005) make can hims recipient recipient nor non means no‖ ensure the non that 2000) Wertheimer encounterconsent intheparticular approachThe legal what consent, areitssexual and implications. gives―silence consent‖. ofany absence affirmation is seenas affirmatio affirmed consent,affirmed non else is thenthereiseverything consent, and consent),which inpractice, while it hasthree gradations: non By centering court system large. at thesociety and communicated proven otherwise,so itis such as assault sexual etc., theproblemof definitionstands: basic sexualconsent is assumed until , this situation approach traditional questionable tends inthe tobe perceivedas consent; buta 3 -

For the discussion of legal probl oflegal the discussion For conse (Bryden Pineau 2000, 2000) 1989, Wertheimer 3 . But thereconsent important isthe neither very discussionsituation alsoabout a where nt was affirmed, or where theaffirmation orwhere nt was affirmed, of non

in specifica is recognizedwhich way incases, otherpartyand, bythe legal bythe - consent, this approach . There is, ofcourse, thequestion and motivation are oftento the are individual uncleareven motivation him and - of the American legal of theAmerican consent, once expressed, will be heard and obliged andobliged be expressed,will consent, once heard

elf tothe communication deaf do,consciously ornot as many The question main is, ofcourse,this whether is to principle applicable non

- consent

- consent, and absence of any affirmation. In ofany centering absence consent, and non

(Bryden 2000, Chamallas 1988, Decker(Bryden and Chamallas1988, 2000, Baroni 2011, ems wi ems which has tobewhich affirmed,t and

, the presents consent is as dichotomous affirmed (there th the ―no means no‖ standard see: see: standard no‖ means ―no ththe system brings legal system some needs for criterion sort of external

n of consent, asinthe n of 8

of non

. As ―silence gives. As ―silence consent‖, as the and a set questionsa ofcritical - consent: how it is expressed and how to expressed how itisconsent: how and - consent was not recognized bythe recognized consent wasnot his affirmation has tobe saying saying – Bryden, 2000 Bryden,

a famousa statement ―no qui tacet qui -

or herself about ; Wertheimer, 2000. ; Wertheimer,

consentire

(Taslitz

the status of

(Beres (Beres - consent,

non –

CEU eTD Collection brings cognitive access together and abilities toinformation) as issuecontradictory itincludes of consentsuch ingeneral: issues of again consent as (which age information todoso. cognitive personhave abilitiessituation, for has a to appraisal, understanding adequate and and abilities the cognitive and issue tounderstand appraisethe To of and toinformation. beable access toconsentquestion isCapacity initself brin complicated a as ittheoretically consent iswhere presentedpositively, and somewhat consent. doesnotgive silence and (Decker toconsent meansIncapacity tounderstand sexual situationthe inability orappraise the involving act consent‖ I the gointo discussion communication of becomesCommunication thus issueof central sexual a tothe conceptualization consent. But before – 1997, Kittay 2000, Wertheimer2000) token ofintent beunderstood ascan ofinterrogation the practice, ofof legal foris from view itis butalso enough, notonlydifficulttoargue calls thepoint if sexornot,andforshe tohave has intended part of perpetrator. of criterion This theparties: has toshow for intent the the(non)existenceascertaining ofconsent

consent which is clearlyconsent which communicated. unambiguously and she disagrees ordesisted ,

which is alsowhich very importantinmany lendsto and ways thediscussion ofcommunication. Baroni 2011, 1083)

(Beres 2007)

victim‘s behavior and views onsex views and victim‘s behavior ― The ways The ways performative

(Bryden 2000) . While there beexpressed differentWhile are opinionsonhowitcan . Interestingly, this is the only aspectoftraditional. Interestingly, thistheonly is legalframework this is capacity inlegalframework treated are as various and ‖ , one popular suggestion popular , one isthe standardof affirmative c

(Wertheimer 2000)(Wertheimer .

While there scholarsWhile suggest are who itself thatintentby on the part of the victim and the knowledge of itontheon thepart knowledge andthe of thevictim it is necessary the man 9

–

whether he intended to heintended hereven whether overpower (Beres 2007)

– to consider the of issue ―incapaci

an act which act is tokenan a of consent, a

aites 2005) . Others , consent with ofpeople the gs the together issue of suggest thatc suggest woman woman

–

whether whether onsent ty to (Bryden onsent CEU eTD Collection theft. otherparty theby deception 2000 Wertheimer passive. It also meansthatconsenttostate basic sexof is theindividual seenas unless the this consent is assumed untilnon above, inAs argued inthe Icurrent USlaw dominant have themodel 1.2. society in inequality orignore expectationsand reproduce behavior ofinpractice genderedeither are reasonable and gender sexu 1989)(Adams Pineau 1996, of to benefit thedoubtintheirsupposeda recognize communication incapacity of non and affirmcommunicate theirnon whileParadoxically, there is lotof a pressure onvictims of assault sexual appraise and 1989) Pineau 2011, raisedusually ―reasonableor―sincere as belief‖ belief‖ consent that is given is expressedofwhich therequirement in thequestion of and oftheaffirmationparty, perpetrator thecapacity torecognize of non toconsent describesIncapacity on deception temporalofjudgment impairment disabilities, mental byalcohol

al matters al Affirmative consent Affirmative 4 5

Interestingly, the current legal definition of definition legal current the Interestingly, ofalcohol see: theinfluence under ofconsent the discussion For 5 , access tothe history, access partner‘s etc. medical vs. personal privacy,

the situation, toreceive ability and and ofunderstand consent. communication the

(Beres 2007, Kitzinger and Fritz(Beres and 1999) 2007,Kitzinger . It information, also requiresfactors: capacity certain adequate tounderstand

(Decker and Baroni 2011, 1167) Baroni 2011, and (Decker

even though they such thoughthey ableeven are torecognize communication innon -

consent is expressed; it to the detriment of the injuredparty. it to thedetriment ofthe

- e consent clearly and assertively, perpetrat consent clearly

of the twop mens incapacity to c to incapacity

rea arties in the encounter. Butarties intheencounter. there is also theother

10 and its definitioninthe law or case, inthespecific

even though deception is prohibited in other cases such assuch in other cases is prohibited thoughdeception even in

. In fact, expectations of. In fact,expectations thecommunication this wa onsent does not include, in most cases, the use of theuse cases, inmost include, not does onsent y, non y, Wallerstein 2009, W 2009, Wallerstein 4

or drugs, protection fromor drugs, protection - consent is active and consent isand consent is active

(Decker andBaroni 2011) –

mostly women women mostly ors

(Decker andBaroni – ertheimer 2001, 2001, ertheimer

mostly men - consent - consent -

to -

have have - ,

CEU eTD Collection see law theUS Baroni, 2011 & Decker ofsexualcommunicationis thegoal thesituation where is of toensure theotherparty. consent the t What andBaroni 2011, (Decker 1996) Pineau 1996) Pineau (Gotell 2008, of it. communication or insomegranted other. Consent formhas tobecommunicated, or isseen as consentingindividual permission tosex bydefault; for atte sexual Re consent. thus,desiring and con ofsexuality model itis stateit comesthebasic throughwhere thetraditional in to be man ofa tobehave or―naturally‖). sexual onasexual While with consent thisis understated somewhat logic pressure oro intotheir reproductive ―nature‖, togive onwomen haveyou actually tohave ittoreasons for (compare theconstant―natural‖ you is notto dowhat useI have asitimplication doestoAnother forconsequences, women. consent seeing state as thebasic is why (Beres 2007) unless stateitis they otherwise,and notnecessary toasktheir permissi tosexseen asoratleastsexualattention(in available theform harassment of etc.) objectification, quiteobvious frare itbyexpressingperson non has reason towithdraw - focusing onconsentinstead of non he move of move centeringhe affirmative consentand non making 6

For the detailed analysis of the meani analysisofthe thedetailed For

d theturn asstate ofthebasic is phrase reasons ―has towithdraw‖: also seenas ―natural‖ , though it might not happen tothem as, thoughitmightnothappen often, such orwith social devastating Bryden, 2000 Bryden, . For discussion of possibilities and limitations of implementation of affirmative consent model in model consent ofaffirmative ofimplementation limitations and ofpossibilities discussion . For om the feminist pointfor it ofspecifically, om the women view: are means thatthey The standardof affirmative consentis senting, and itissenting, and fortosubmit natural thus, woman to a and hisalso desire ; Pineau, 1996 Pineau,

, and attempts started are , and ofsome implementation in states of theUS

; Wertheimer, 2000 Wertheimer, - . consent makesnon ng of consent and rape/sexual assault/sexual coercion in US law, see law, see US in coercion assault/sexual rape/sexual and ngconsent of 6

11 . -

consent. - consent a passiveconsent a state, basic no

implemented T he implications of implications he this assumption - n gay peoplen gay ―natural‖ tohave sex, consent a affirmed on. The same goes for same men on. The

in the Canadian in theCanadian ntion has to be asked and ntion has and tobeasked

basic state accomplishes , meansactive which law

CEU eTD Collection 2000) Wertheimer 2005, or seen, accidental have we be, as can which communication to recognize party first therethat consentis and given is nomisunderstandin of theirnon communication of consentbreaking is notonthe assaulted person, didn‘tput enougheffort who into Thisthe concept of revision consent of isanswertothe first an that claim: 1. argues, of grandscheme both, ina things,coercion sexual itis lesserorviolence. a lossthan first even actifan happen; sexual partytonot consentthenthe will fails ensure act issilence consent,firstthe thenthe violate party partysexually.If, second can hand,the ontheother failure ofensuring consent. If onep the This intoaccount of ifconsequences failureofensuring take is we non important consent to it,orifconsent do,their they is notvalid cannot individual isaffirmed, silence non and in logic certain escaping consent is thebasicWhile statenon and 3. 3. The standards of responsibility and reasonability and ofresponsibility standards The

7 2000,564 (Wertheimer run, it lessens the for possibility c sexual consentThe is standardfor high advantageous sexual menasinthelong for and women W hic h can entail simple non simple entail hcan understand or appraise the situation involving the sexual understand sexual situationthe orappraise the involving act then .

communication as do.If, some hand,consent has ontheother tobe people

- consent, then communication becomes a necessity. a becomes consent, thencommunication - consent, butonthe whodidn‘tputenough assailant effort inensuring -

566) - expression but also failure to communicate by the second party or failure ofthe failure or party thesecond by to communicate failure but also expression

arty fails to ensure non toarty fails ensure - consent hasto beaffirmed,silence oercion andoercion atmosphere social produces more equal 12

, meaning they they to incapable legally are , meaning consent g (Decker andBaroni 2011,(Decker 1989) Pineau - consent of the other, assuming consent of that theother,

intentional responsibility forresponsibility 7

is thereis consent, and

(Bry Additionally

den 2000, Taslitz2000, den was desired by was desired by they cannot cannot they As - consent versus Wertheimer , if an . It is .

CEU eTD Collection been to employed have absolve menofresponsibility for coercion sexual beginning tosex expectations will reasonable thatwomen agree evenit eventually inthe if she about is ―coy‖ diffic men have the groundedin are Taslitz Haely 1999, and 2005) of thenoncommunication the andunderstand approach, traditional expectationsto hear man for reasonable a the both standardsHowever, responsib ofand reasonability by abidingcriminalization thelaw responsibility of thus, for consent, breaking and the risk aims toprotect himself of from perpetrator potential as of assault, a person sexual itis reasonable whokn a pursue cost. gratification sexual The any at toabide affiincentive the punishment f anddropped areas‖ ofin thecases rape other―gray date After the implementation sexual of inthe Canadian thisassault law, standard ofthe rate convictions drinking accountable…‖ approaches proactive seen as oneof―…positiveand holding tocurbingrape: perpetrators and or drives thepartner‘s but theaffirmative inlaw, consentstandard that of the fear rapists responsible. We somethingalsowomen. know thatdoes work (although take while): itwill a holding know We something[On rapeprevention]: already thatdoesn‘t work:blamingshaming and (Bryden 2000)

(Gotell 2008) ulties understanding communication sexual in the beliefs gender popular about relations behavior sexual and

(Friedman or have uncontrollable sexual uncontrollable urgesor have rmative consent standard whatsoever, and only the encouragement to the andonly rmative whatsoever, consentstandard encouragement , as an outcome, itis outcome, , asstillthesituation an over preferable thereis no where - (J. F consent are lowered throughthestandards mistake‖ lowered consent are of ―honest

and ―reasonable belief‖ ―reasonable and riedman 2008) riedman (Gotell 2008, 876) and Valenti Valenti 2008,and 6) responsibility

(Hubin and Haely 1999, Haely (Hubin and 1989) Pineau in this case is closely linked with with in this caseis linked closely ility have always been have ility gendered. . (Gotell 2009)

(Adams Pineau 1996, 1989) (Carmody 2004) (Carmody . Although is it notthe respect (Burt 1980) ows aboutthe . The same beliefs

. such as that This vision of

or have or have reasonability In the (Hubin

which their :

CEU eTD Collection againstcoercion her: becategorizedeasily ―i as bybeing publicin a behavior place,dressing ―provocative‖ manner,sex ina having flirting and can w a she ―responsible‖ has preventthe and behavior,to predict inwhich and one risks being of, basically, theAt same time, resistance‖―token often accepting while as given that womenof violence ineven sexual never it live ifthey encounter themselves conditionssocial for men‘sand conditions physical same asa situation,in thesame although in thesituation of assault thesame sexual logic as by judged man oris toa often coercion ifapplied for behavior does herresponsible and no applied to When communication: s masculine oman someone to do something they don‘t want to.someone todosomething don‘twant they of listeningtotheircapable sex partners that is understanding and beings human rational Feminists notanimals.Instead, are are fully men that insist men (J. Friedman2008) ― reasonable man‖ sameofdifferent dointhe situationreasonable because would even social and ubject isubject contested theaffirmative consent by anditsfor standard demand rational

the very conditions same create a different―reasonable‖ for standard woman‘s a woman, however, the standard of thestandard woman, however, traditional inthe calls reasonability approach

(Hubin and Haely Haely 1999) (Hubin and

rresponsible‖ or ―not respectable‖, which somehowrresponsible‖ which or―notrespectable‖, justifies or violence

in a sexist womanin a thenorms society.violates A who of ―respectable‖ other some argue that whatsome that a argue women‘s participation insex,uptothe general atmosphere of fear expectations of woman‘s t give herany t give leeway Ontheonebehavior all. her at hand, .

This doesn‘tinto take the approach account 14

(Filipovic 21) 2008, ― reasonable woman‖reasonable would dois notth be havior, suchhavior, as

not aboutpushing ―coy (Plummer 1995) ness ‖ and ‖ and gendered e , CEU eTD Collection critpressures been that have from assault sexual thepossible themselves, bylimiting alsois from notmuch different the same The beassertive pressure to onwomen existence. datessuch dressparties at as ―sexy‖ at and ordrinking subjects. the same At violable women time, regularlyare encouraged toparticipate inmany ofthem, considered―risky‖men butare for women those problem with risksbasically cover thatthey which kinds is ofall gounpunished behavior for fromsex anything having be spaces inpublic to spendi wo standardinfavorignore of the of moral judgment the theaff by from granted theprotection who the sexually responsiblewomen against are in non active ideal, as reasonability is her―normal‖behavioras approach: of aswell measured woman‘sbehavior against The subject ―risky‖ sexual the with often coincides ―promiscuous‖ subject sexual protectionoffor in herself assertiveproactive being and from theattack. pre differences withtheprevious idealized subject The is one. new female notonlyresponsible for risk woman‖ and ―reasonable ―risky woman‖ As Gotell(2008)―responsibility‖ ―reasonability‖. and argues, byitselfThe the affirmative doesnotwoman‘s theproblemwith consentstandard solve necessarily vention bynotengaging and vention ―risky‖thepossibilities, in behavior predicting but also responsible hitchhiking. hitchhiking. prudence: moralityfor and casuof in female example,byengaging rapist is acquaintance justiceAn mosttoescape traditional likely ifhis violated norms victim

(Bryden 2000) iqued byfeministsiqued for decades

irmative consent standard

and proactive, and as well as toprotect themselves preemptively

(Gotell 2008, 886) (J. Friedman2008) 15

ng time with male male with ng time acquaintances. –

a well a man‘s ―irresponsible‖ behavior

(Filipovic 2008,(Filipovic MacKinnon 1989) , which has, which more similarities than there is

- and thus,and make them known doubleknown (Gotell 2008, 887) - normative way can be excluded can beexcluded normative way a new dichotomy new a ofa

al sex,drinkingal or heavily, - bind of female bind offemale

of thetraditional , as thecourt will into ―risky‖

General which can . - CEU eTD Collection being all, at poorfemininity prescriptions oronewho femininity, responsible was consideredineligible to of this kindof bythosesubject produced discourses discourses well as sexuality as structures and ongender ofan power relations constructing vulnerabilities‖ ―law between as legislation‖―law as pract and whileinto thesolving law, some problems doctrine,does notresolve of thegap theprevious But it is as Gotell here, tocommunicate orunable eithersleeping ormentaldisability, communication andage for protects thedemand clear those unconscious, ofconsent modelaimstoprevent intoxicated theusage state orother incapacitiesof consent such as thattheconsentingdemanding of capable party was inform so, and doing rational forthe demand consent consent protects from some atleast against ofthe assumptions behavior of ―risky‖ thisIn aims toresolve double theory,theaffirmativeconsentmodel the systemic ofgender nature as thewoman‘s system of (Gotell 2009) time, thesystemic nature assaultsofis sexual violence sexual and erased, are decontextualized fear notonlythe includes of attack. menbutalsoresponsibilityt woman‘s At topreventthe violence includesRespectable femininity of sexual strongmale presumption

power andoppression power , as if presumed t hey are happening in individual in arehey situations, happening inprivate cases, notaspart of a larger the assumption such non the ofconsent in (2008) (2008) at

―normal‖ behavior, or traditional gender scripts ortraditional gender behavior, ―normal‖ every stepevery toprotect aims from theassumption consent inflirting. By of

(L. Peterson 2008) - based vi argues, that theargues, that implementation ofthe affirmative consentstandard

(Beres 2007)

– (Gotell 2008) olence and the gendered socialization. thegendered olence and

one that somehow violated some of violated somehow one that double ―yes‖ or ―no‖.―yes‖ . O ice‖ as itdoes intoaccount nottake ―thepower , ofcolor r, in fact,some r, in 16 .

In practice, thelaw continuesIn practice, the to internalize

(Mukhopadhyay 2008) (Mukhopadhyay

– -

for example, a a forfor demand verbal example, verbal expressionsverbal as sexy dress, and

context iscontext taken account, into d inequality. The ―risky‖ female d inequality. The ―risky‖ female - bind by includingbind by protections , and some, and isnot,

(Gotell 2008)

or otherwise outside ed, theaffirmative ed, - binding binding ; it he samehe such as

such CEU eTD Collection toprotect developed assailants)(as orinvoluntary the usual voluntary standa of the normsrespectability of rd. In sum, the affirmative consentIn is standard system sum, effective of an management theaffirmative risk women

but in the context ofthebut inthe context systemic (P'erez 2008) (P'erez

is stripped of of theprotection thea – 17

a somewhat paradoxical outcome of paradoxicaloutcome thestrategy somewhat a

gender inequality, notsurprising.gender ffirmative consent for men

CEU eTD Collection h from demanding women toandcontrolaccess over theirbodies activityshaming sexual different, adversary complementary and ―mainstream‖ discourse a sexuality, which is usu responseofdiscourses itismodel a supposedthereisavariety and to.Although ongender tobe Before thespecifics exploring of mode thecommunicative sexuality sexualgendered between and interaction genders. tochange thediscourse the thereisneed fully; a it and of produces; change themodel practices its consentas justification. Affirmative position which men asunequalgender women subjects and create and conditions for and coercion it and As shows, the previous chapter the problems the existinglegal with conceptualization of consent 2.1. Chapter 2. Communicative model of sexuality e t e r The dominant discourse dominant The o s application inpractice appear ass result a application of to its and thediscoursessexuality connection on s e first betrayer. means suffering […]For consequences. ofus all wh [those compliant consumers.us eager, bending and oreven upstanding Breaking thenorms citizens norms are ofus gender We all the notsosex subtle, and taught requiretomake and subtle, x u a l i t y (Filipovic 2008)(Filipovic

a s

c o m (Amato 2008,223 (Amato p (Filipovic 2008, J.Friedman 2008, (Filipovic Jervis2008, 2008) u l s o r y

(Kitzinger andWilkinson(Kitzinger 1996, is one : non ally referred to as ―dominant‖ ―dominant‖ referred toas ally

which, basically,which, presentsfemale and sexuality male as just - -

communicative model communicative (Millar 2008)(Millar 224)

a legal change, a

; and limitssexual; and female while helpful,does not solve theproblem

l of sexuality, itis thel ofsexuality, tolookat necessary

Rich 1980) Rich

(Pin (Troost 2008) o do not comply], o donotcomply], shame is the (s) eau 1989,eau 2008) Riggs

while while the sameat time of sexuality .

ity specifically by ity specifically by .

I t

a l s

i n s t i

l or l s

CEU eTD Collection tothe passion/love/romancecontradictory which prioritize people the of threat under dangerouseven disease passion and love and/orsafety measures:in a practices forstudy example, ofcondom These as contradictory notionstodiscussionof as the appear consent, of aswell sexual choice conquers a one interaction is sometimes harmful consideredunnecessaryand even for theemotiona S unnecessary and unquestionable todiscuss leading aslogically activities penetrating totheman woman a 1975) (Davis Rubin 1990, presents universal ―naturally‖ asa interaction phallocentric sexual and scheteronormative noticeably absentconsent for bothparties is desire resisting by theiradvances they responsible thewillingness are tosubmit,sameparadoxically, at time, but for men‘s restricting submissive are passive;Women and thei oftenaggressive and uncontrollable,they and always desiring pursuingare sexand it intercourse pursues thepassive, mostly submissive and drives sexual aimednatural reproduction: at theactive, driven similarities thandifferences The model exual communication, suchexual or discussion as affirmation preferences sexual proactive of of consent, - night standnight ―includes tomarriage thefirst beliefs at of love sight, is thatlove blind,

ll, love entails love love ecstasy,and ll, both is and pain passionate‖ (Waller in

(Beres 2007) s resulting in his orgasm.resulting his in

of sexuality corresponding and central to this discourse also vary but have more tothis buthave central of correspondingvary and sexuality discoursealso which include trustwhich blind reasons inyourpartnerarethe don‘t people . The ―romantic ideal‖ The ideal‖ widewhich ―romantic ina scope appears from ofinteractions , othersexual andactivities, and excluding preferences sexual presenting all .

A s one example, there s oneexample,

(Filipovic 2008,(Filipovic Decker In this model, r sexuality is supposed to be reactive to male desirer sexuality is supposedas tomale reactive tobe

- (Beres 2007) (Carrillo (Carrillo 2002) uninterested (Hickman and Muehlenhard 1999)(Hickman Muehlenhard and 19 men are dominant and dominant active, is are theirsexuality men is thenotions on modelbased of a supposedly

. -

and Baroni 2011) and , as negotiation ofcondoms, as negotiation seen as is - sex female to achieve the penis toachieve the sex female - – by

an an whichact is desirable, ―naturally‖ - his (Takacs, 2006) et al. - need male ofneed species human use negotiation, use negotiation, l effects of sexual . The of sexual concept .

This modelalso Lloyd 1991, 16 Lloyd 1991,

(Beres 2007) the ideals ofthe ideals communicat . The enario - in - vagina

). . e

CEU eTD Collection 1989 Pineau 2005 done 1989) Pineau majority, it While (Beres 2007) modelin contractual which leadswhich toanothermo (Lloyd 1991) power initiative the give don‘t only and toaman expect thisa seizure tosubmit of woman but romanticize sexual a The how notionsrelationship traditional and/or romantic isestablished of progresses and meansthatitisusually to in a giving man woman a toeach otherto be―giving‖ partners , Kittay 1997 , Kittay from the dominant discoursethe dominant does (Lloyd 1991) 9 8 ter once is contract,and that a contractor is her thatshe done, todemand satisfy entitled the coursefuller […]Atsome agreement, she interaction. point an ofsexual orformed has made should…women n happiness what own,Imean, before your ‗cos in everything, you‘re and you‘re when Yeah, love supposed theotherperson‘s tosee , especially

For further discussion of the contractual model see: model ofthecontractual discussion further For see: ofconsent problems and ofromance/passion discussion further For , Pineau 1996 , Pineau ms of thatcontract.

the creates conditionscreates tosexualcoercionviolence and conducive

. 9 , as shown studies by of assault coercion. sociological sexual and

: These contract‖ notions the interconnected often―sexual with are

1950s till

in the established relationships . Even the in as violence ―love‖ relationshipisconsideredmany by meaning

the

del of sexual interaction appearing inthe ofsexualinteraction del appearing ot behave sexually unlessot behave are they tocarry throughonsome prepared

women who have who women initiated encounte the

1980s demonstrated 50to64% that of college wom what the otherneeds, includingwhat gratification sexual (Pineau 1989, 229) 1989, (Pineau

not describe actual sexual behavior sexual of of the all or even not describe actual people, 20 ever itis.

) are also expectedare to―knowother‖, also, each and

: Chamallas 1988 Chamallas

( Respondent in Respondent , Kittay 1997 Kittay dominant r areobliged tofollowthrough Bussel 2008 Bussel

(Burt 2008, Filipovic 1980, Powell 2008,Powell 176) , Patem The landmark studiesThe landmark discourse ( , en have experienceden have (Patema which inpractice which Davis 1990 Davis an 1988 an – n 1988) ,

Fraser 1993 Fraser , Kimmel Kimmel

, CEU eTD Collection assertiveness woman‘s hand, tothe man‘s going such is thedate, as etc. apartment initiating soreproduce is inthe thewoman and/or and where literally man‘s symbolically, power also situations which theinitiated man the territory, date, for paid drovethecar itand orondateswhere S have women expectations resistance/succumbing ofpressure male female toit and inbothdatingit to For bejustified later. and example, risk For reproduction of women, ra peers ofdeprived this entitlement ingeneral andentitlement combin towomen‘s bodies inparticular themajoritymen butvictimize ofwomen 2005) 2005) relations adversarial toeach as vision other,as ofsexualactivity well masculineas a trait tothedefinitionsAdherence passive femininity ofmasculinity and aggressivedominant in coercionincidence ofsexual thesame remain changes certain and ininterpretationtrends behavior in sexual ofit,but thestatistics of the rape intercourse to21%had 15 sexual it regularly; unwanted fits definition that thelegal of orexperience some sexual of kind coerced activity kissing, (touching, forcedpettingetc.), with experiencing many exual coercion is more likely to happen coercion tohappen isa exual morewhen woman likely aman, with is alone especially on―his‖ (Adams (Adams men , leads (Adams (Geisinger 2011) - - Curtis Forbes2004) and - Curtis Forbes and 2004) - called ―traditional script‖ sexual called Curtis and ForbesCurtis 2004) and towards

(Hal

sexual violence and coercion violence and sexual

l, et al. al. l, et 2006) (Kimmel 2005) pe myths and traditional gender roles myths gender constitutepe traditional and situations of higher , both for experiencing sexual coercion and/or assault, for, bothfor and experiencing . Studies and2000s developedin the1990s demonstrate new .

The sexually which coercive men constitute (Cowburn 2005) (Cowburn , especially if they are supported ifthey, especially are in theirviewsby (Adams (Hickman and Muehlenhard 1999)(Hickman Muehlenhard and 21

- Curtis and Forbes 2004, 115) Curtis 2004, Forbes and casual hook casual (Adams

do so because of the feeling of do so ofthefeeling because - Curtis 2004) Forbes and ed with the ed with of being feeling - ups for sex, both men and ups bothmen forand sex, . Ontheother – (Powell 2008) .

all situationsall a

minority of

(Taslitz (Cowburn (Cowburn

. CEU eTD Collection of consent aims tochange. misinterpreted,be orclaimed unrecognized. tobe bodies, gestures andothernon of communication 110) 2008, seen as indecent: shameful―sex and thereislexicon a when ofsex outside of those ofsex the talk discourses, topicoutsideas of a certain or parameters discourses of medical legal discourse. is bythe discouraged communication In fact, communication ac analysis of communicativestrategies, or all wasn‘tsaid at appears one Communication inthis discourse failed a as only Forbes 2004) interpreted asintent sexual andusedof formen‘ssexualcoercion justification tions, meaning thatthe tions, meaning strategy ―just sayisintheview no‖ notveryfeasible of normal patternof the befewerthere‘ll of those person silences ofone andless awkward chance had thinkingthey out sex inand about Getting more of of comfortabletalking themomentmeans the heat sex. bad and your assault wasjust miscommunication aboutwhat ha own judgment arousedfeeling orhaving desire,becomesallforsexual it theeasier toquestion you your steeped youare in When of(ormessages attheexpense lookinghot as about substitute for) . Therefore, communication of desires, sexual verbal, including the especially best sex in the world while theotherwishesbest ithad sex while intheworld happened. never .

, which becomesstronger even inthesituations sexual any andverbal where direct

, for variousthem, reasons. of One affirmative of mostly consent,hastobedifficult, and language is ina done

- verbal techniques of communication of techniques communication verbal - negativity teaches usspoken of‖ thatsex is notto be ppened to you and believe toyouand ppened forces cultural the telling that you is that straightforward r straightforward 22 T

his is the situation which communicative model communicative situationhis which is the as sex

Kitzinger andFritz Kitzinger

has been forhas been so consideredtaboo long efusals are dispreferred conversational efusals conversational dispreferred are (Jervis 167) 2008, –

in when cases was ―no‖ (Powell 2008) (Foucault 1988) (Foucault –

as well as s well as (1999) (Adams

(Bussel 47) 2008,

which can easily can easily which

show their in

ex itselfex - that Curtis and

not heard, not heard, (Riggs (Riggs

e ven ven –

CEU eTD Collection 2008 Millar attempts feministThere many to build suchmodelin are a theory (i.e. f pleasure ofthepartners inwhatever consent. In thiscorresponding onsexual thepurpose legislation model, activity ofsexual is of non communication those how know endsare 1989 Pineau situations intimate obligation―in an to we tak have is interaction themutualsexual pleasure of consentcommunication fromsides purpose bothfor ofmutualenjoyment. the 2008) Valenti as well othe She, as many female sexual and and desires,male behavior reinterpretation modelof and sexuality the dominant its ofsexualscript all with assumptions about andthetoolformetaphor achievingsuccessfully consensual encounter)is basedtherebuttalof on Her rape. date model and sexuality‖of communication ―communicative (where serves Lois Pineau models critical comprehensive of consentaffirmat sexual as an a and re As tothe the answer problems discourse ofsexuality, model thedominant thetraditional and 2.2 - conceptualization of consent sexual offersconceptualization ofa―communicative of thevision model sexuality‖, . Model(s) of consensual sexuality ofconsensual Model(s) corresponding ), using different metaphors ), that―implies to know those theobligation alsowhat to and endsare, theobligation (1989) , argues that sex should basedmutualagreement on be ofthe parties expre

as an answeras an problems tothe many of of oncases rape court trials acquaintance technique as of communication toolof interaction. a sexual - consent, that should be central to the sexual and social to and conduct, consent, thatshouldtothesexual central be rs attained (Beres 2007, Carmody 2004, Decker and Baroni 2011, Friedman and Decker BaroniFriedmanand 2011, (Beres and 2004, 2007,Carmody ‖ (Pineau (Pineau 234)1989, orm they mutually agree, withoutpressure coercion. and : m –

etaphors for sex are actually onefor ofthe actually etaphors sex are meaning, asown, the pleasuretaken ofthepartner your

interaction. 23 e the ends of (O‘Neillin othersown‖ as our

. It is communicati

ive and agentic and ive developed was by act

Grosz 1998 on of not consent, and One ofthe aims , If of thegoal Davis 1990

as boththe of critique ssed in mutual

the

CEU eTD Collection acts. sexual specific and combinations accordingly. toask eachaboutdesiresinteraction, other andfeelings cont and theparties tocommunicatecompatibility, beforeduring with have other and each thesexual duringto their experiences Toencounter. figure the other‘s andtheir outeach preferences also nopreexistent erogenouszones acts existingoutside of encounter, thespecific specific theirpreferences. participants There and are there model;indeed, inthecurrentdominant penetration is nopre actparty sexual is to feltas unpleasant theother.There is no―main‖ this itis model, m thoughthis twopeople include only any modelcan amountofparticipatingact(s). inthe people In of formodel others sexuality which and argue. Pineau For about of talk thesake simplicity, Iwill M satisfaction isinteraction tofigure mutual outthe desiresof andpreferences negotiate thepartner ofmetaphor mu instance, oncollaboration subjectscentered two forbetween is achievedthroughcommunication: which his prize all by necessary): means overcome hungrypersongetshunter gets aeats thefood,aman theprey, the sameoftenat time embodies thesexitselfobstacle an and ashappening interaction betweensexual and etaphors can do only so doonly termsetaphors muchin can of so explanation, I wil at the saat 10

(Davis 1990, Millar 2008) (Davis Millar 1990, Thomas Millar Both metaphors are also open to more than two partners as well as the whole variety of sex/gender ofsex/gender variety thewhole as well partnersas two tothan more also open are metaphors Both 10 me time one me time discourseof present thetoolsThe useswhich fordominant metaphors it. .

tually pleasing of outtually conversation.Bothmetaphors thatthegoal there use topoint utual pleasure that is central to the encounter; and the and is that totheencounter; utual pleasure absence central ofpleasure ofone (2008)

uses the metaphor . The metaphors discourse of thenew onconsensual (Grosz 1998) the active subject male 24

of performing music together, and of performing music together, except for thoseexcept totheparticipant specific

on the way to it which hason thewaytobe toitwhich

and the and l try to go back tosexpresent and a l try back togo inue or change their behavior orchangeinue theirbehavior - exis ,

such as tent classification of sexual passive object female the penis Pineau -

in sexuality are are sexuality - vagina vagina

s and uses a

(who CEU eTD Collection caress. a or kiss,touch it a a be action, one Imean Here, oneto another. f ofthemchange each to ofconsent thestatus as well as parties theofroles and ofsmall acts, involvehundreds theother, initiator and an capacity respondent. has the a The tohave respondent toconsent as For singlesexual ofI thesake inone argument, discuss act involved parties heretwo of also The nottied togender. response bepassive nothing‖; as in ―doing cannot also therequirement roles notfixedthroughout activity are thesexual changefrom and can oneact to they are another; inseparatethis party While one still acts, scenario. initiate actively the can and thefirst by initiated party has toactivelyonly co discourse, there In (atleast) communication, are twoparties 2.3 of but express sexual inthis consent theirowndesires discouraging tounwanted consent,acts out thus of sexuality partner‘s them.It insome is ofthe presentations prompts orrefusing also expected of suchmodel a expressingconstantly communicatingtheirdesires either preferences, and and their consent totheir non considerednonconsensual. be would ofany Itthatinabsence expression is expected ofconsent or assumptionall; ofconsent at consent does consentnotmean consent to, tooneact and Morethereis toanother. no so, As regards of affirmation toitsreasonsrelated ―wantedness‖ not . - consent, one partyconsent, one wouldor ask for refusal; are confirmation thus, theparties Communic 12 11 By act, I mean not intercourse or any other sexual activity from the beginning to the end; such an activity can can activity an such theend; to thebeginning from activity other sexual any or intercourse not I mean act, By For the detailed discussion of desires and wantedness in relation to relation wantedness in and desires discussion of thedetailed For

one (male) party one (male) (Friedman 2008) and Valenti

of consent calls fo

consent, there are nopreconceived notions are apersonconsent, there orwouldnot of would what ation as the practice ofconsent practice the ation as mmunicate . The revised model of sexuality described inprevious. The revisedofsexualitydescribed model sectionquestions

for specific each act, consent as otherwiseact the has tobeexpressed, the active initiator,the active and apassive respondent theother(female) who

r some sort of communication, as silence sortr some communication, is of

in case of

that the parties notjust are consenting toanother‘s prompt 11 .

non - consent 25 both of which

and only as a response as a only and totheactions

give their input. their give

consent, see Chapter 3. Chapter see consent, non

- other respond, these consent. In thedominant supposed tobe 12

where one is one where

rom CEU eTD Collection notjust and in the (in)famouschapter, policy College Antioch There practica is, a infact, orconscious misrecognitionaccidental ofsignals. and miscommunication 2007,83) Muehlenhard consent forreported expressingintercourse sexual their [is] doin assumption ofany absence expression, ofconsent so in thesilence‖. ―breaking by of strategiesPopular consent are of basedthe communication on strategies of the ofconsentresponsibility pra sexual reorganize communication and ineveryday legal proceedings,for and the aims thissametorearrange policy at time approach thedivision of thetheoretical aspectWhile ofaffirmative order in nottothe activity nonconsensual. it make mightnotbeconsensual,which in whereas recognize communication in thequestion argued earlier, have of failure isinthe the and consequences thefailure: toreceive passive party toensure non their than it responsible there an was forwhether expression ensuring ofconsent ishere thatincase and with the other their capacitiesto communicate iseach receive communication, what important the non they tobeablecommunication; also tocommunicate have tothereceive otherparty.Thecapacity understandable initiator hasthe tohave recognize and this d iscussed earlier, and also the capacity tocommunicate thatiscussed also thecapacity this and way is consent ina earlier, reasonably is tostop theirresponsibility - consent approach). While there are thereare expectations While consent approach). ofboth reasonability participants and

of non , with theimplicationsdiscussed all were of itwhich earlier, such as - l example of theuse ofthel example communicative strategy described inthis responsiveness or unclear communication, theinitiating communication, partyresponsiveness is unclear or the - tradition consent was expressed and communication received. Again, asIconsent wasexpressedcommunication and

whereas in the traditional model, it is it re model, a inthetraditional whereas al approachtheactivity isal justification for a continuing

consent approach is oftenconsent approach offered standard of first asa all the affirmative itis consentmodel, reason tostop clear a 26

―the modal way that men way (…) womenand ―the modal them (Baya 1993)(Baya g nothing‖ g nothing‖ seeking .

consent (capacity absent in they cannot besure cannot ofit, they

which sparked the (Peterson and (Peterson and sponsibility ofthe ctice ctice CEU eTD Collection to consenting and is safe partner other that the sure tomake control non a is impossible, communication ac uttered be cannot they so that chosencarefully hand, are other onthe safewords, pain; and power with in games especially meaning, oftheir opposite the standfor moment, and the partnerswhat sure are theybe might totry, ofbutwhat aretheir willing preferencesthe at intoaccount tend totake situationalityofdesires, theambiguity and paying attention by tonotonly desires cases fantasies suffice and will many in areacceptablekind ofactivities toboth;butless strategies suchdiscussion formal as simple of checklist There alsoofnegotiationaffirmation tactics and are proactive ofthemost of formal consent. One is safewords topreventof misreadingaim non inreactive ofcommunication communication safeguard againstits toproactively theneed risks and them.of Some of thetactics communication ―deviant‖ community the dangerous nature and legality ofmanyquestionable BDSM activities information and safety torelative withsomeoftheof actions,together reasonability claim formand including Holiday and Henkin 1976, 1996) their fromthem todelineate practices physicalpsychological sexual, and violence and ethics ofcenterpiece ofphilosophy BDSM and itis practitioners; thestrategy thatallows indeed, inthe1990es debates 14 13 starts happening. toarticulate what do have exactly youdoand it. You to before anything notwant happen ways, may inmany Kink, themostbe responsible of you form sex because SSC – Though a simple ― simple a Though

(Grey 1995) a lista of andkinks preferences – with thiswith specificpartner.

Safe, Consensual Sane, Safe,

awareness of theproceedings

(B has

– eres 2007, Pineau 1989)eres 2007,Pineau

no‖ or ―stop‖ can be used as well, in many cases, it is acknowledged that those words can wordscan that those itisacknowledged cases, well, inasmany used be can ―stop‖ or no‖ words communicate desire which the tostop immediately the activity (Riggs 2008, 113) 2008, (Riggs

developed philosodeveloped a - verbal signal is chosen. And in any case, it is the responsibility of s partner who is in iswho in partner ofs itistheresponsibility case, in any And ischosen. signal verbal

. Any of BDSM. Any philosophiesetc. RACK (SSC,

(Stein 2000 (Stein

cidentally in the throes of pain or passion. In cases verbal verbal cases In passion. or ofpainin thethroes cidentally that bothpartners tofigure outwhat fill andcompare out

- 2002)

phy of sexual interaction which which of interaction seemsphy ofsexual more aware (Bussel 2008) (Bussel (Henkin and Holiday 1996) Holiday (Henkin and . Communicationof affirmative consentis the ; RACK ; RACK 27

–

theproceedings. Risk Aware Consensual Kink Consensual Aware Risk . It is worth noting thatthese strategies

, i t is notsurprising . Taking the intoaccount 13 - consent, such as ) centers consent,

(Switch 2001) (Switch have

abuse

to talk about to talk about

that (Leigh .

14 . this CEU eTD Collection theparticipants other. where each know encounters always practically feasible communication verbalsolution direct ofa of and consentWhile is theoretically issues, all itis not 2008) more clear relations partiesSome considernon acceptable, itsamong proponents thecritics as between themand of as well themodel reactive and proactive C There is question, a ofcourse,consent constitutes of what ―communication‖ a ornon discussed was 1,building consent which it onthe Chapter skil in responsible other. forconsent ofeach ensuring model, isconsideredmore bothparticipants are thatincommunicative approach orless equally fo quote above) the flow‖. with ―going by becomes actorThe rational then individual a whobears responsibility (see in it while decision about ―consent toaffirm itis to necessary to beable consent conscious communication, through verbal a make thatthedemandOne thing oratleastclear ofdoes verbal, is that communication andunambiguous, ommunication can non ommunication beverbal and .

your lover, a greater degree agreater your lover, ofspontaneity is acceptable. momentousas tobecarefully a evaluated. dangers fraught decision, with thatneed With …I (Kittay 1997, Pineau 1997, (Kittay 1996)

(Bussel 2008) n an ongoing sexual sexual ongoing n an (Beres 2002) 2007,Carrillo r giving orr giving receiving consent. W

(Beres 2007)

an . it view Many as - verbal expressionverbal o d saferof possibility from view touch ofunwanted thepointof relationship sexual every thepartiesdonotregard usually encounter ing by doing nothing‖ bydoing ing individual the can escape making decision .

There debates kinds are of aboutwhich communication are while others as express communication forverbal preference a a . It tobetooformal also seems for long - verbal, directverbal, (straightforward) (ambiguous), indirect and

too formal and thus, and uncomfortableformal for the ―passionate‖ f consent sexual acceptable, established especially in hat hat differentiates meansno‖ itfrom the―no But this alsoto centers thecapacity approach 28

(Bry ls of communication. ls of communication. den 2000, 403) 2000, den - term relationships

(Beres 2007) - consent. (Troost

. CEU eTD Collection means actually reaction consent. necessary for act.in an engage Therefore, theirusefulness itis asat tokenofconsentis questionable: don‘talwaysmoans orreflect spontaneously,conscious and arousal,ofaperson decision happen to performed (Pineau some Additionally, while non faulty mightbe which non solicit preferably averbal the partner, model, mencommunicative as women) (as well are expected signals the ofmisrecognize consent various conversations behaviorsand thanw beeasily misinterpreted.can On the otherhand,non (Wertheimer 2000, 574) (Wertheimer conditions such are asbackground torenderthe silence in thosebe inwhichunderstood contexts can silence safely tokenofconsent andthe to bea proposition, acceptable is silence a not. Asageneral consent transformative token ofmorally of consent somea as long its will Nothing from problematic follow construing 400) 2000, cons If speakthanwords,‖ thenperhaps more ―actions loudly offailing theaction to signify ent affirmatively speaksent affirmatively than more toresist. offailing loudly even the action one partner

(1996) .

- verbal communication such sounds communication reactions, verbal as bodily silence or,indeed,

to be able toensure to beable that ha s an example of a ofa s example woman an unbuttoning herblouse), others, such as As Adams tend cites,uniformly ―men a more togive to readings sexual - verbal signals dorequiremoreverbal orless tobe decision conscious

, or claim this, orclaim misrecognition ning isning tothe clear andso as long Bindicate contraryifit can is - ambiguous notto ontheirperceptions and rely response, omen do‖ omen do‖ 29 the otherpartnerbythis kindofnon

(Adams 36) 1996, any any to dispel doubtsany consent about of behavior or ofomission act behavior token as a - token morally transformative.token morally (Taslitz 2005) ; they also tendto . In the least least - verbal verbal (Bryden

CEU eTD Collection ―enthusiastic consent‖ servesasthese attempt toanswer an questions. desires? male with desire, female Orfemale want is of it constitutes sex, that consent? sex, to did just have women agreement as many wi relationconsent, especially in thequestion always arises towomen, this as towhat consent is: isit inthis modelis supposedCommunication consent tosex.discussion toexpress But inthe ofsexual stated ―default‖ of consent language clearly the currentdiscourse, already andorinvoluntary themeanings exist beintentionally can misread, a Part theoretically While icipants can indeed develop indeed seticipants can a ofmeaningsoutside of butas theaffirmative consentmodel; in Wertheimer

‗s logic is sound, empirically this is‗s sound,kindofsafety logic empirically is to hard achieve. could 30

be of thout feeling any sexual any thout desire, feeling just complying

use.

The idea ofThe idea CEU eTD Collection automatically mean consent to it. consent to sex has thedesire tobebased on tohave desire tohave sex, although sex doesnot decision onthebasis is of is what and notwanted. ofThe ent concept state consent feeling, a of desire;In and isresult mind,a a otherwords, is of conscious wanting As Petersondefinetheirconflation. Muehlenhard and differentiation, morealthough complicated, respondents the th ―unwanted‖ and ―consensual‖ ―non equals unproblematically ―wanted‖conceptualized as wanted where either or equals unwanted, (2007) consent, and giving consenting isconsideredsignalofwant. as a and―consent‖of encounter toit,twoconc sexual encounter ifsexual considered ―true‖only is wanted. ―really‖ desires of person.ofgenuine a Theenthusiastic concept consent demandsthatconsentbe beunderstoodof that it them, itcan expresses, is thekindofconsentwhich openly enthusiastic consentWhile from has the varioussum ofstated definitions,few themare clearly, and 3.1. Chapter 3. Enthusiastic consent: c Sexual motivation: w motivation: Sexual

point out in relation to the sociological studies topoint out thesociological inrelation onthe issue of but decide notto con but decide their wishes individuals ortheir want inclinations…Conversely, or can wish for something orbe willing tosomething. agree […]Individuals can dothings thatdo notcorrespond with aspects of incont itaspositively valenced; …To want

something is to desire it, to wish for it, to feel inclined towardsomething desire to it, isinclined it, wish feel it fororto to or regard it,to antedness vs. consent vs. antedness sent to it. Enthusiastic consent is, sexual thus, (Peterson 2007,73) Muehlenhard and - laim to sexual agency consensual‖, therealityconsensual‖, ofrespondents‘is experience emselves might conceptually mightconceptually same the emselves make 31 epts is seen ―wanting‖ often thatare conflated: as rast, to

consent This

is to be willing or to agree todo ortois agree tobewilling As demand Peterson Muehlenhard and

consent, consent,

a conscious decision conscious a husiastic consent suggests that

dissociates ―wantedness‖

while sex is usually while and actively,and the

made onthe made CEU eTD Collection itself. wanting sex notor wanting with correlates making―consequences‖ whatin and play rolethey decisions sexual consent. about more ontheother more―consequences‖, complicated. hand,are While specific person, withthis it orthedoesn‘tmindsatisfying woman specificperson. The From thei ofconsequences it,for example differentiation between thesexualwanting/not itself wanting act and wanting/not the wanting the same sexat not wanting Onthebasis time. of theirresponses, adda Muehlenhard Petersonand non in desire. For example, is whether what thesame. desire, and and they are it raises theHowever, question constitutes of grounds what for the consent the affirmative consent. grounds of the desire to - sexual reasonssexual also offer for assex,and lotof grounds a examples wanting of bothwant complicated 15 (Peterson 2007,81) Muehlenhard and didn‘t (―I and not the consequences wasn‘t ready want I topregnant, didn‘t get him‖). love desc woman] toshame. to I[sic]my family reuine didn‘twant relationshipGod‖).[Another with all but myhormonal to place didnotwant (―Ienergy‖) didn‘t theconsequences to put want […]wrote woman that A

What they don‘t address, however, is the situation where the woman does want consequences, and how this how and consequences, want does woman the where isthesituation however, don‘t address, What they r analysis, wanting the sexual act thesexual is,desire basically,sexual at r analysis, is wanting aimed either a which

than that ribed her reasons for wanting the sexual act (―I liked him, reasons (―Iribed her liked act it and thesexual wanting felt good‖)but for (Peterson 2007) Muehlenhard and

have sex which is expressedhave

, I will leave this discussion aside for now and look at what are the arethe this what , I leave will discussionfor aside lookat and now

15 :

she wanted the sexual thesexual sheact wanted (―I where know washornyorjust didn‘t

32 Desire to

–

presumably, by themeanspresumably, by of communicating

respondents desire bothsexual and cite

have sex does not always equal sexual sex doesnotsexual alwaysequal have sexual desire –

what iswhat wantedness, is, ofcourse, also

ing and and ing CEU eTD Collection can which be it iscons unclear Bergeron 2012) sexua be motives want doesto woman can approach as a achieve sex, ifnot ambiguous:what having by seriousaccepted a But as to the threat considersex coercive, theformer is often normalized. sex? having by negative consequences motives avoidance andthe sex while notstop will have it anotherwoman. subjects of fear shaming and results canact bethe of position theambiguous of assexualized women of women‘s posi of wantedness soof evaluation of Many them;and isof theencounter. personal theresult themare basedThose theindividual‘s on circumstances quitesubjective, and motives are personal evaluation shaming. partner‘soravoid rejection displeasure, violence, physical oravoid boost to self sexual include totheir motives‖related behaviorsother hand,sexual bepursued psychological gratification ―toobtain may or incentives that maybeconsequences orexternal‖ internal understood positive, orvarious motivesmaybe intermsof sexual negative, approaching avoiding beInso, can order consequences reframed to do l pleasure, ornotl pleasure, it? only 16 .

For example, one woman can considerthe onewoman For possibility example, ofslut The same analysis of motives and ambiguities can be done for men. for done be ambiguitiescan and analysisofmotives same The

- worth from obtaining a prestigious motives a includeobtaining partner.Avoidance fromcan attemptsworth to

pleasure, from coming orgratification overthe expressing partner,or power possibly It rangespartner‘s from

tioning in the discourse on sexuality: for example, bothfeeling thediscourseforinsexual tioning in of power example, onsexuality: to financial gain. some ofthem gain. While thanothers,to financial also seenas are less problematic (Brousseau, Bergeron 2012,534) Hebertand

idered acceptable for acceptable idered ―true‖ wanting. The answers range from the feeling of power ofThe power the feeling answers from range

rejection to physical threat, and and threat, tophysical rejection while isthe latter usually In thefeminist analysis, (Brousseau, Bergeron 2012, Hebertand 33 in terms o : w

hat ishat woman theharmthata is trying toavoid f

―motives‖ for sexual activity sexual ―motives‖ for

or repercussions social such as

- . Approach motives may

shaming as shaming the focus is onthe usually (Brousseau, Hebertand

a reason nottoa 534) : ―the . On the CEU eTD Collection considerednon the currentmodelof sex‖ are ―good ornot; consensual complexity‖ actsand/orpreferences ofbeing the ―moral sexual donotfit which analysis ofRubin‘s ―good sex‖ dichoto sex/bad simple as itseems. leftit IasideAlthough have desire sexual untilnow, itself is as also groundsconsent notas for 3. my paper. agency? sexual equality and deliberation of Unfortunately, thescope onthisbeyond question goes Thequestionin society. isof compatible those which ethically with reasons thefeministof are goal ofnot all whi open consent are But theissue towhich leastsome inreality, is moreat ofthe theorist complicated, on theissue is that see can whichof them we as and ―free‖ ―coercive‖? as Theof moralthescholars stand some take motives motives.Which sexual for toconsent thedecision consi sex dowe desire sexual itselfargument, the as unproblematic, onthisdecision toact non desire by is mitigated enthusiastic consent sp my work, exploration ofsexualmotives While 2 . Sexual desire Sexual their objective only sexual only their objective intimacy… pleasure oremotional with …moral sexisindentified tobe coming this complexity this bringsthat conceptualization upthefact complexity ambiguity and ofconsent, and

ch are relatedch are many tosexualdesirebythe and ifnot produced all structures o

(Corinna 2008, Millar 2008,(Corinna Millar 2008, Sullivan 2007) Not all desires have been historically seen as historically valid been Not desiresgrounds all have for consent. In Gayle sex should only happen as an an as happen expression only sex should desiresexual and attraction: of : search for the “ for the : search ecifically, poses anethical questionecifically, needs moreneeds and empirical research truth”

my, my, she points is sex‖ outthatgranted only―good 34

- sexual bothparties inwhich asconduct have consensual, and participation consensual, inthemeither and . Even if we take, ifwe forEven the of sake the . People dohave. People sex for reasons, many

(Chamallas 1988, 777) goes of thescope beyond der acceptable? Which acceptable?der Which s

of enthusiasticof

f power f power - CEU eTD Collection in its absence. expressed desire, considered assuch sexual included openly often making although decisions, are in such as usually are Some accepted as part ofpreferences outliningvariety ofdesire, theobject but not limited including, to sex gender. and finally, And asexualif thisagain, contested by people. desire Then sexual thereis thedesire toreceive gratification anotherperson with universalpeople norm; least,a orat butthisconsidered universal, byasexual notionis contested it is farfromthat. considerquestion we ofwhat desire‖. ―sexual even However, ifwe grounds kindsconsider all ofthereisvalid for desiresstill as consent, a ofthepleasures theyquality provide‖ ofmutual the level another, thepresence consideration, ofcoercion, orabsence and thequantity and morality then ofsex‖: ―chastity‖heterosexuality, I etc. personal anddesires, preferences morallimitations withouttraditional such as obligatory discourse is is and not―normal‖sexuality. onwhat They c Both and Pineau discourse andsexualityThis thedominant 2. isdescribed ongender conflation based Chapter on in givingthen submittingwoman consent a is seenas out that incourt decisions, thereproductionof serve proof as a role initcan of co 1984) the makes . On the other hand, participation in what is. Ontheotherhand, inwhat considered participation sex‖ and ―good fulfillingtheexpected 17

A claim ofa A claim participants criminals orserves ofincapacitytoconsent proof theirmental as a the authors the tosolvechanging Means aim this of Yes‖ ―Yes problemby First, its structuFirst, its sexual identity can be considered yet another claim to citizenship on the grounds of ―true‖ sexual sexual of―true‖ grounds onthe to citizenship another claim yet considered be can identity sexual ew ew ethics acts of offersexual sex they way ―judge bythe partners one treat

n this,to call offeranswer direct Rubin‘s they for a ―democratic re is complex. re is complex. of sexual attraction, such as appearance; others suchof attraction, asrarely sexual appearance; are nsent even if it was not in fact given; for ifitnsent wasnotinfactPineau given; even pointsexample, (Ru bin 1984, 283) While desire sexual is truth‖, often ―natural as seen a the scenario There is the capacity tofeelThere isarousal thecapacity is usually which 35 (Pineau (Pineau

laim the laim 1989)

of pursuing/female male refusing but for

another person exists, thereis a person another .

freedom of expression sexual of –

also not universal, and not universal, and

(Rubin (Rubin class, 17 . CEU eTD Collection to that thesubjects able theirbehavior are critically access change and theirdesires accordingly: from from? come are thediscursive how And ―norm‖ interms inthem authenticity dothedesires then, ofwhere ―personal truth‖; but different thatare theFoucaltianIf take we discourse way of theonly as production ofthereis now desires than reproducing productionisproducing and sexuality part ofsex of and them,and it of subject thedesiresexists subject, asany sexual of any relations,power intheintersectionof desires wellcertain McKinnon‘s concernsCatherine the ver about Pineau‘s critics, Adams 1989, MacKinnon Rich2007, 1 preferences,as by―natural‖ into this question calls and its discursive production ―freedom‖ desire, in Sexual person apreference with black for partnerswhite submissive who a play rolein for preference hasyoung ordesire a poorer women; for structures, and reversal ofpower a such as a less powerful andless butawider scopeofkind, them: negotiated desire forpartnerwhoisa more or powerful, preferences. These include however, preferences, can desire dynamics, for power notof only BDSM position S etc. economic (Pineau 1996, 69 1996, (Pineau accept myown desireaccept years toIt dynamics many understand mainstream haspower me of taken unlearning and - known types known of oppression and of capable consentingbasedtheirgenuine known on are –

such as when a woman isfor woman looking such a as when aff an al its complexity, itsal complexity, (1996) - ome ofthenothers constitute identitieswhile modern consideredas jus are 70) . In my opinion, this concern can be can . Inthis myopinion, concern

for fetishized ones. fictional, , raises concerns about the authenticity ofwomen‘s, raises the concerns authenticity about desires, echoing 980) produced byproduced discourses the structures as atleast andpower much . This is to especiallyfemale desire: trueinrelation sexual one y possibility that women who havey possibility been womenwho that victims of 36

subjects able to act onsubjects toact able those desires?It seems (Fowles 2008,119) luent man, or an older and affluent men andaffluent man,oranolder luent raised the authenticityequally about

a relationship. (Foucault

(Beres 1988)

of .

t CEU eTD Collection thefreedom? and the agency agentic, subject his/her be ―freely‖,sexual consentgiven be how can what limitationsand arethe of partner(s), history personal a theirownsexual views?words, and Incan society, and how other their negotiate sexualwithindo they subjectivity the all structures evaluatetheirdo they How desires them? thediscourses within how And that produceand/orlimit H 3.3. chapter. in thenext structures; tothe discourse thechange gender. on the otheris Theybe and sexuality will addressed ofsolve. One th therefore,exists Theretwo are, theoldone. tries alongside themodel sets to which of problem of course, difficultdesires tosexual the separate from thediscourse this discourse and onthem, new notby issexuality defined theexperts as inFoucault‘s, butby consentThe discourse affirmative/communicative/enthusiastic modelproduces anew which in they conditions inwhich part it. with it means what virginity: constitutes tothem, what themas w virgins, and offersofwomen Blank Hanne intriguingexample an their resisting redefining thediscourse by ow do sexual sexual ow do Sexual agency and sexual subject sexual and agency Sexual consider oneself to be having ―real‖ sex. sex. ―real‖ consider oneselfto behaving they thinking,in their that notmerelyaspirational are been this internalized have tosuch by women become and so extent, an normalized and emotional ofdescendant feminist priorities their Sexual will, in,ifpleasure, you habitat. natural This process subjects recognize theirownsubjectivitysubjects recognize itself in relation and totheir partner(s)? em is the question of personal sexual agency inthe agency em is thequestionexisting discourses of personal sexual andpower

- oriented virginity is no carefully formulated political formulatedbuta political isaction, nocarefully feral oriented virginity physical investment, self

- awareness, and plain oldknow plain and awareness, (Blank 2008, 293) 37

– the subjects themselves

they are are isthey what requiredinorder of power, in relation to their relation in of power,

hat is orthehat theact - how on the part of –

though itis, to CEU eTD Collection a See commit it. subjectivity theirsexual their positioning communicating toclaim desires by and their consent. and 2008,(Kulwicki L.Peterson 2008) hurtful, coercivediscourses which behaviors are sexuality and abusive of the danger on warning as a enthusiasticits definition; affirmative,communicative, knowledge about and the sexknowledge about inall itsknowledgeconsent about knowledgein variety; sexualpleasure; about The enthusiastic consen expression choices sexual and the inwhich circumstances partners, mightbring outthis theaffirmative consentapproach as agency, itattempts the tocreate also call while 2013) (Crawley people practicalwhere are agentic actors responses making ofoptions to theirlimitedchoice of subjects as agentic thatbalancessymbolic interactionismview‖ asanapproach Foucault‘s ―bleak aninterpretation with Fouca to relationshipimmanent every is argues, power Foucault thus, ineveryand constantly produced omnipresent relation, and individua But an can model, is―insubstantivecommunicative understanding truly ofa free individual.‖ thattherationalelaws claims behind Pineau on the implementationconsent, with of her ult‘s approach inparticularult‘s doesfor Evans approach notallow free will; inhiscritique ofoffers Foucault 18

In can be argued that by the same logic, men make agentic choices either to desist sexual coerc sexual to desist either choices agentic logic,make men that thesame by Inargued be can ‖ (Crown and Roberts and 2000) (Crown lso: ing 18 . By offering a discourse a allows. By onsexuality which offering Perry, 2008 Perry,

for questioning of thosefor orderbetween toaccount inequalities desires in ‖ and a a of‖ and ― feeling l be ―truly ingeneral and sexually, free‖, specifically in the societywhere, as

(Evans t model claims tooffert modelclaims thesolution include: throughset which a oftools

, Taslitz, 2005 Taslitz, agency canagency be

1993)

(Foucault 1988) (Foucault . ; and so does Crawley in her in of so sexual; and doesconcept Crawley embodiment

These subjects the interaction toolsallow insexual to r entitlement to tosay tosayforms yes noand sexual of .

manifested as ― ?

the possession one‘s control over body of for of desires therecognition social inequality,social the

(Pineau 1996,(Pineau 83) iontoor ecognize ecognize

CEU eTD Collection agency.her non scriptsinto traditional and butamoralcompassagency, enthusiastic notfalling consent, for and through it,as itis exercising autonomy.personaland agency Enthusiastic then notonly consent becomes tooltoa achievesexual tomakesexually, personal from w choices a options is, thelimited supposedly, which outofit, orpreventingway to It it. way thepersonal as ―truth‖ alsoa explore ofthe is self perceived Nevertheless, enthusiastic consent i situations those v farfrom equal, ofabuse and feministdeveloping a consciousness of knowledge themselves enthusiastic and in consent, found This developed, can fail. when consciousness, even There stories who, are after of women discoursesand inwhich himsubject has toevaluate This forenthusiastic subject consciousness inthe thesexual is consent characteristic The model. experience, and thevalue and experience, toit. one attaches that. It is onemakes also theconsciousness iswhat doing, one of onehas of what the behavior tell restrictive should which us we do.Sexual laws orshouldn‘t what is more than fromdesires derive instincts, natural which onthe and, behavior isSexual not,as is hand, toooften assumed,superimposition of, ontheone a of. self Even do people let pilot and whatever. sure partIt tomake onmy does requiresome automatic vigilance Idon‘tjust goonsexual (Tzintzun 2008)

- consciousness does not always freeconsciousness individual the from notalways the coercion does s/he -

or interms herself a of critically desires andwants,

is positioned, and control his or her behavior accordingly. is control positioned, hisor and accordingly. herbehavior - agentic disc agentic s viewed as guidance as s for recognizingcoercion viewed finding a the and (Cho 2008)

ourses, subject theofthis claim sexual his or modelcan iolence 39

(O'Higgins 10 1983, Foucault and

(Tzintzun 2008, Steiner (Tzintzun Steiner 2008, 2012) other hand,ofpermissive or s as situations well . ay for ay the -

11) s/he

is aware is aware CEU eTD Collection to giverestructuring thepartic communication theinterpersonal consentThe affirmative/communicative/enthusiastic model sets goals. is twointerconnected One its and theprevious onthediscourse. discussed ―freedom‖ chapter also conditional in be consent can these inadditiontherefore, ofin ―informed‖ circumstances, how tothe qu foris sometimes oflanguage shame shrouded taboo, and lack it.There is question, insilence, a In legal context. the―domand interaction thiswithinthespecificimplications hasfor partner kindofsexual cultural each social, of thepersonknowledge him about the sex; knowledge about the specificspartner andabout of have can This aspectsaccordingly,several knowledge and, sources: several general about knowledge tohave going and are implicationsithasforthey what of either them? person a to agrees someone,When sex with doeshave this person know there isquestion―informed‖ means.What a ofwhat isthatconstitutes this knowledge consent? As I h 4. Chapter 4. 1 . Talking sex: transformation of the discourse ofthe transformation Talking sex: ave argued throughoutthecondition consentincludes argued this while informed‖, ofave paper, ―being 116) does notunderstand shethe agent consenting. towhat is putatively useful ofa but it reminder is,There this, strictlyredundant. is noconsentwhere speaking, freedom.Consent bothknowledge involves and Thephrase'informed,

Sexual subject: changing discourse, changing citizenship inant discourse‖ and ―traditional model‖ of discourse‖sexuality, model‖ inant ―traditional this and knowledge -

or herself; and knowledge or the herself;conditions knowledge about and and 40

their planned interaction; their planned personal ipants theknowledge eachabout

exactly what kindof sex what exactly (Hubin and 1999, Haely

voluntary consent'isvoluntary

estion of CEU eTD Collection becomesconsensual sexuality normalized. thethinking‖By the consensual sexuality ―changing ―giving about and language‖ for its production, enthusiastic: The first re obviously,thewidespread is, goals supposedtheinterconnected thatare tochange discourse alignment their in vision.with subjects sexual and is what theytobrin attempt specifics of areunderstood ofsex;sex about the isas how thepractice talked production ofsexuality ofspeaking sex is it seems thatthetheoristson moved of just consent have from stancewhere the―revolutionary‖ to fromalso for the sex gained and the knowledge be toit‖ right speakabout cause:demand ―the Foucault‘s discourse for formsfreedom, that political sexual onrepression a The rhetoric of re itabout openly. proceedings.other andthe Thethediscoursetalking otherisby and gender tochange onsexuality need to give people language togive the need todothat. sexual play with insisting don‘tproceed people We that untiltheirpartner expressesyes. we culture, to tostart rape …In need need order start sex. tofully eradicate about We talking enthusiastically wantenthusiastically it is wrong‖. someone says noandwhen fightssomeone doesn‘t is to―sexwhen wrong‖ back and openly isthatThe enthusiastic goal culture… American the onall …shining thelight cornersprojected dark blame of shame and sexual ontous by

- transgressive thus, and powerful conceptualization of consent conceptualization

(Friedman Valenti and 2008) - consent models will help to change the thinking from thethinking helpconsent modelswill tochange ―sex - conceptualization of consent as affirmative and (Kulwicki (Kulwicki

g to ―the light‖ of light‖ discussion.g to―the of They setthe variety has 41 (Foucault 1988) (Foucault

(Riggs 2008) certainly inherited lotofcertainly a characteristics of 2008, 309)2008,

to the position the where (Foucault 1988, 6) 1988, (Foucault

. But but CEU eTD Collection discourse‖. the enable peopleThe thelanguage knowledge and theclaimknowledge and to thepersonal his authority over morality. sexual the new It also produces subje sexual activitiesconsensual sexual as normal consentThe affirmative/communicative/enthusiastic modelbothclaimstheexisting of variety the rhetoric ofand consent―good‖ between thedichotomy ―bad‖ aims todissolve sex questioningand its the same practices,time at while putting itonthe same levelotherpractices, as al By heterosexuality bringing specificallyoutofthe of silences supposedly u common same establishing time themselves asactors sexual of resistingthepressure the―dominant and consensual and consensual and partners intercourseshould preferred and acts…be sexand is moreheterosexual than … teachin want him,but something. Iwant …If didwant community that a I grownupin provided had hadtriedtoeraseworld that part of I that methat felt I knows what wanted.Who need Iknowthata person toassert had toa myself assexual a 187) 2008, gave ittosexuality, her,ortook itfrom of her,butrather not partnerhadtheexpectation of male being her person who if tosex already sheWhat came her response, comfortable sexual with and ownbody and forto how most them,and enjoyable thatsex is Knowing notuniformis normal, healthypeople what and alsoto learn encourages

g sex healthy normalas and partofis a interms lifethat preferred varied of both

pleasurable

for participants. all and

produces a new norm ofproduces new sexuality, a is by one that defined establish sexual boundaries. – 42

especially women

(Kulwicki ct whose sexual ct whose sexual agency is established through -

or sexuality. herown so I that I significantly. know didn‘t

2008) learning –

to protect themselves

about itabout from her? (Kulwicki (Kulwicki 2008, 308) taught

her aboher

nderstanding

(Rubin 1984) (Rubin ut her , (Corinna (Corinna

while while at .

CEU eTD Collection consensual of being argument Rubin‘s behaviorsfreedoms. complexity that―normal‖sexual allowedtheethic While are gives subjects,sexual which them accesstofull citizenship should morality democratic ethical basis bethe informal equality forand for formal a 1984) tocitizenship,accordingly, onthegrounds butredefined of of citizens sexual categories marker a Sexual consentappearshereas as well. of torights access and, susexual discussion agency,sexual for is ofcitizenship theclaim self, desire, sexual onthegrounds of sexual from emerges What theaffirmative/communicative/enthusiastic from especially consent model, the 4. Troost 2008) affirmative, communicative,enthusiastic personal consent intheir lives ensure toassert ofindividuals agency and principles of their othersapplying through L. Peterson 2008) an sexuality As 2 . a Claim to citizenship Claim to , inopposition tothe current use of citizenship. ofconsent demarcation inthe practical meanspractical of thechange ofthediscourse, of theproponents model of therevised approximation of deviant of myreach. deviant approximation within sexuality waysfound tothose healthy explore aspects thetaboo, for toand and nurturing thequeer have myattraction I may modelsfor consent either consensualeither ornon bjectivity bjectivity (Rubin 1984, 304 1984, (Rubin d consent list sexualeducation .

including but not limited to legal butnot tolegal limited conceptincluding of as consent, etc., wel –

for women as specifically, they category discussed, themain are butfor other

- 305) -

consensual while ―abnormal‖ are deemed always already are non ―abnormal‖ consensual while is valid, there is more complexity toconsent thereisis more valid, complexity itself.

(Kulwicki Perry 2008, 2008) 43

of myself, instead of accepting the instead of closes accepting of myself, (Rubin 1984, 291) 1984, (Rubin

―democratic morality ofsex‖ morality ―democratic (Riggs 2008, 114) 2008, (Riggs , legal changes

(Blank Bussel 2008, 200

with all its all with rights and

l responsibility of This kindof ll kinds of

(Pineau 1989, 1989, (Pineau

(Rubin (Rubin - 8, CEU eTD Collection byconsent is his/her complicated positioning the repressive inthestructures andwithin power of is ambiguous,gendered/raced/classedOn the otherhand,there an of for subject today, whom by andactionshis/her only choices judged Ru are his/her sexuality, own his/herin general, partner(s), situational circumstances. and This subject and of making into rational the take informationcapable decisions which account s/he hasonsexuality necessary thecapacities,freedom information, all all and for subject consent. is sexual This f idealsubjects. thereisimaginary hand, an subject Ontheone of the future,has all onewho defines citizenship. sexual centers thequestionagency, is ofsexual can how what female itbedefined and it,inturn, how citizenship,sexual along ofintersections the variety with of oppression, the critical a Taking standand citizenship, againstsexual s the current situation with infact, and, based compatible the―democratic morality‖. on affirmative/communicative/enthusiastic attempts consent model way todrawsuchdistinction a ina choice‖ sexual between inequality partners, takesintoaccount and the―structural constraints onsexual useful ofsex‖,it morality for the―democratic not just to ―higher this herargument, toby distinction has tobeapplied kinds of all identities sexual and practices, and points thedistinction between contain laws out,rape coercive consensual and behavior inequalities them, thereare reflected are and bythe which reproduced even rape As laws. Rubin thehigherhave status social closer tofull are such as and heterosex citizenship, etc. circumstances consentThe is ways distributed (1984304) , although way a different in cri fromRubin what - – status‖, ―good sex‖ suchas ―good heterosexualstatus‖, activity. But for distinction this tobe

does show thatconsent indeed is privilege a In thediscours –

who is i who and e about

s toconsent, notable towhom, inwhich has to be drawn in a waydoes ina that has tobedrawn notreproduce

44 the model byitsthe model proponents bin‘s morality of democratic sex.

(Rubin 1984,(Rubin 305) tiques. The new

there are in fact two infact there are uals; but even among among uals; buteven

pecifically female pecifically consent model

of those who (1984304) ully ully ; CEU eTD Collection powe intersectional specificforof the inequality, sexual problemoffemale as well agency as wider contexts of agenticThisand subjectivity. tool ofthe ―vision ofthe thetransition future‖, of one de into the today‘ssubject toexercise his/herwithin agency unequal and thelimiting structure,power a and The af structures.the power judgments they fair,andtheir positiontoday‘s world,rarely re and are and again straightforwardalways ina This way. subject is judge still byhis/her are ―true desires‖,produced they although positioningdiscourses, and not albeit for theremightbe to need and him/her earlierlimited, overcome socialization a toaccess his/her themattempting tonegotiate moreorless His/heraccess successfully. bea can toinformation scripts; gender following beconscious ofdynamics orcan thepower discourse relations. onsexual firmative/communicative/enthusiastic consentfirmative/communicative/enthusiastic modelis, therefore, bothaninstrument for 2008, 171) 2008, hirsenselimiting sense to ofownershipa others ofentitlement it. granting ofit, and oppressed… culture rape works byrestricting person‘sInof sense, a hirbody, this control works leastinpart at bycontrollingownership orclaiming ofthe bod oppression […]thoughtheform any constant intensity attack. and you toname vary, care […]are and children rightsunder near bearing sexeducation, toabortion, birth control, demands culture live that in a liveWe ownershipthe oftheWe in public body. culture

r dynamics.

transition is Thissubject of can beignorant his/her today‘s positioning, blindly

set into the context ofother power context set intothe structures andsystems 45

d byvarious, often morals contradictory of mocratic morality free mocratic ofsexideal and s/he

is trapped in, and is trappedin,and ies of those - position in him/her (Troost

lso where where - CEU eTD Collection of others, rights,include, sexual among therighttosexualself which kind the privileged isFreedom its desire ofsexual rightwhich and human expressionseenas a toonly is unfairly limited rights citizenship. and desire sexual inequalities, tointegrat made are the While (Millar 2008,35) (Millar own decis straightneedis tolearn What menthatwomen humans, really get are too,who their tomake lotof women men.A sex ―like like also have men‖ act human they to women, like individual with beings nee they when children want, to marry they want, whom sextoownproperty, without togoschool,fearing tohave money, pregnancy, tohave have women therightWhen toacco theirownchecking open celebration. selvesisembodied accep culture live shamingparts, ourmostina violencetoour will we beautifully human where in As culture aslive long we a profitable sales presumed based and on where securityare sexual freedom the only cost freedomthe only sexual of rape. sexualityfemale is thisstruggleClearly, of ismuchlarger a just onepart proponents ofrecognize themodel ions whether about owes whomtohave thatnobody andwith sex. sex; and anyone of sexual It citizens. is, indeed, present inthediscussionof rights human set as a (Amato 2008, 225 e it inthediscourse, totackling inthissystemic specificapproach the

– the

female inparticular female

answer todismantlingculture, rape orthatnoris it stop rape, will all table and expected. and table The antidotes and to affirmation shame are - 226)

(Friedman and Valenti 2008, 7) Valenti (Friedman and intersectional complexityintersectional ofinequality and attempts –

46 is presented as thegrounds thedemandsto for

–

they do that is, for pleasure. -

we don‘t believeempowering don‘t we that ds, ambitions, and desires . When youextend. When rights human - determination and therightto and determination unts, their tomake own

(Filipovic 2008) (Filipovic –

just

CEU eTD Collection need. a as sexuality to theconceptu connected all are they and ofthem, concept in all is thekey ―gratification‖ as themtogether is needs thebasisof valid, notonly what butalso of deemed understanding are or ―perversion‖ aswhich a hasand tobecontrolled notsatisfied. model of The dominant sexuality ornon heterosexual of femalecenter thediscussionneed‖ ―the while non as and drives pleasures are sidelined, and Because―need‘. (hetero)sexual ofthis themale pleasure model, and drive are often putfront and discourse‖ ―dominant and model‖ including theessentialist onsexuality, und activitysexual generaltowhat historically in islinked is this as describedin ―traditional paper of theirunderstan 2000) (Richardson activities, sexual in specific therighttopleasure received and from enjoyment and participation The right to gratification sexual informed consent. brings personal questions agency, of to together autonomy, capacity sexual and consent,including bodily and autonomy.right to practice The consensual sexual rig men‘scases, is right to gratification privileged women‘sright sexual over toas their thesame aswell peop bodied violencediseases, coercion, As abuse. those and fears most female faced oftenand are women by insex to engage without fear‖ terms theemphasis intheclaims of safety; control tosexualself and right to self sexual gratification sexual 19

Richardson separated the right to pleasure from the first two rights, but I find it more productive to discuss productive it more I find but rights, two thefirst from to pleasure theright separated Richardson le, they centralle, are of female tothe delineation and sexual male citizenship. In many

ding played an important an roleinunderstanding played ding consent. ofsexual The right to -

19 determination determination (Richardson 20 . In all these rights, consent plays a significant role; and inturn, role;. Intheserights, and all asignificant consent plays thedevelopment - heteronormative desi heteronormative

(Richardson 114) 2000,

includes therighttoincludes activity sexual general, in the right to participate interprets (explored in therightto gratification sexual below) 00) . In both of them, sexual consent sexual itputfront The center. them, . Inand both of res are constantly questioned as either not a ―real‖ need,res constantlyquestioned asnot―real‖ are either a 47

of unwanted pregnancy, transmittedof unwanted sexually ht to self sexual - determination is determination erstanding ofsex as whose - determination determination

needs are needs ―on the right ―on the alization of alization

- -

CEU eTD Collection tothe legalof theappeals system of othercategories experts of and as conductors therevised conceptualized although citizenship, limited probably differently from Because standard. thecurrent to as some such as obviously as criteria, capacity consent,will delineation reappear f between interesting pitfalls.It whatpotential new is particularly categories of produces, subjects approach this criticaIt theory,accessed has tobe,asany sensitive to remaining intersecting inequalities while them. 1984) feminist radical asappears a It can practice. as theory beseen and forclaims rights citizenship, and Putting t gratification.‖ heterosexualthere is sex beyond better intercourse, make people decisions can sexual about reproduction limits (p.307). own bodies‖ the right toagainst sexual as wellgratification, as ―a rightto[people‘s] fundamental knowledge about pregnancy discussedpleasure is always thatdoes notsex education discussion include ofpleasure is as discriminatory men‘s towoman, discourse. thedominant limitations produced by gendered theright and determination and to gratification themfor sexual claims contesting the women, consentThe affirmative/communicative/enthusiastic modelcenter gratification, sexual dutytoprovideto have female and it,butnot alwaysvice versa. ne cessary tosatisfy, orwhoisfor itis how right responsible and for male theirsatisfaction: example,

aimed at sexat aimed ―vectoras a oftheperspective which oppression‖cuts from across the ogether production of sexual agency, production of the new discourse on sexuality, and productiondiscourse ofand ogether agency, ofsexual thenew onsexuality, –

but women‘s organs responsible pleasure and for (Kulwicki 2008, 308)

the rights of gay people to their embodied sexual citizenship. sexual totheir embodied the rights that people of gay ―When aware Additionally –

penis the affirmative/communicative/enthusiastic consent model , ignoring thatsex, ignoring ispleasure about moreoftenthan

- in - vagina penetrationorgasm male and forvagina necessary being lly from lly thisand for pointof view its applicability 48

For example, For example,

it can be never benever Thisit can mentioned. goes a

s boththe right to self sexual ―radic Kulwicky al

theory of sex‖ (2008)

claims

(Rubin (Rubin ull and

- that CEU eTD Collection scope of mythesis. possibilit discourse, within it implemented theneoliberal and is analysis tocontinuethe necessary of its the production with model of bio discourse itis toconsider necessary onsexuality, ies in relation to neoliberal sexual sexual citizenship.neoliberal the these toUnfortunately, topics gobeyond ies inrelation

- power. As the model is developed As is continues themodel power. developed and tobeproduced

the role of governmentality of relationship role governmentality ofthisand the 49

CEU eTD Collection ―truth‖ the ofsexualreach de ofThe enthusiastic concept third consent, a a legalmedical discourses.and ar relations in equality between partners, but a communication including of c torestructure aims sexuality practices sexual byintroducing the communication, moreverbal modelthe of and communicative sexuality T T feministwith goals thanthepreviousgives standards consent‖ ―nomeans and of ―silence even no‖. redistributes partially and on rape the system, ofprotecting women althoughgoal inthelegal does it putmore accused pressureonmen standard for law assault sexual I revealed c c a c I Conclusion n n nd preferences between communication ispartners. of sexual The practice n o o o h h ound discussionsexualit of

a n n n t m i e l s h c c c r y

e e e e y e c s p p p

i h i t s a s t t t h a

n u , u

n e a s a I a a f s

o g

l l l

n i y h i i e t m s z z h e s a

, a a i i

e e v e s s I t t d

e i i

d o o offered two by o o h

f p i f f n n a o s

v r . c the legalaspectofthis re t r

o o h e o I

a v f

e u p h

s radical change r d c r a e s o l e v x e a d d e

i u m o

u a a a n c l

l s

s c e

c s o t o d o y, normalizing normalizing y, e h

sire which issire supposed which expressed tobe theact in of communication m

onsent non and x n e , i a an analyticalan framework

n l u t I s p a

e a a b e d r n l r e r

o e e t c c h

m r

o o to the general discourses sexuali and ongender a e a i m n s n o n t responsibilit

e s n n s a p d e i f e s v l n

f t i c o e e i r t t r a -

a n d e ideal ofenthusiastic consent. C m m conceptualization expressed theaffirmative consent conceptualization in p s t and personalizing personalizing and

d e

t b r a I o

h d e nd - aspects of y

t consent, as well as consent, as well d s s e

h v e h t

c h n e o o final ofthis aspect re l 50 l

e , t a w y and the y and o w

e m c i f

m d

, o

. s

i his byitself, standard,taken m

s i t e

f x it also undermines the silence and shameit also undermines and thesilence t m

o h u t the re h r a u a

e t l t n

c a i burden of proof inmore accordance w c e o p a

o this kindofdiscussion of outside n p - r t conceptualized modelofconsent: conceptualized r e s i e k v l e a a s e n insisting of desires onnegotiation r t

i t o a o v

n f a v e

s d t l e -

y h conceptualization, aimsconceptualization, to

r i e t t e r

l n

e i y s proponents t c

ommunicative model of model ommunicative

h i e o n u n a f

s f i t t m i e h

a f r e e s e e i t m d r d i cannot cannot c

w i to achieve more u . ty which n

F n o i

s d r o r t k o e f r s

m r e t ,

achieve theachieve

h t - a h m i n s i

s d

y n

r e e w -

CEU eTD Collection strategies research forneed their empirical on thepractical usetonegotiate people sexual First, desire, genderedthought onsuchsexuality, topics agency, as subjectivityand among others. the and sexuality concept of interesting enthusiastican direction consent present for future feminist sexual especially concept, sexualassault and legislation education themost are are obvious, as they of sexualconceptualization consent analytical producedIn an framework I myanalysis, have for onthis thefuturere research grounds. new gives which dependantofgratification ofare consent, concept thenew towhich modelofconsent and morality through ofsex;is this right to made the self claim sexual tosexualcitizenshipclaim is based which on discussion discour ofdominant structures normalizingrecognized ofandby power; the discussion the sexuality, including of most of capable agents the assexual importantly, women within oftheirownsexuality negotiation emergesclaim to and thetransformation ofdiscourse onsexuality Fromre this consciousto make decisions his/her about sexuality. sexual subjectagentic limited thestructures by anddi of power surrounding it. the v desireas iseven it ―true‖sexual byitself and more questionable, between soisand differentiation affirmationand of consent. ariety of―wants‖ariety a s

a n

agentic and self and agentic - conceptualization of consententhusiastic sexual as affirmative,communicative conceptualization and the On the other hand, the application hand,theapplication ofOn the other enthusiastic person consenta presents as an

which express notso constituted desire sexual as socially fears needsand - conscious sub sexual This strive for truth raises a wide setThis ofquestions awide for strive raises truth se and power structures power se themselves. and central tothechanges of for necessary thenew theimplementation which haswhich policy for fields.and broadimplications Law many consensual sexual sexuality, agency ject appear ject 51

in thismodel new ofconsent scoursesis situated s/he inbutable . - But the comm

determination and ri and determination gender bypresenting and people, The second,less is overta claim

w h unicative model of model unicative and democraticand i c h

e ght tosexual l a b - o there is a

r a t e

o n , CEU eTD Collection positioned inth citizenship F consent. uponinthis touched quitehaven‘t are but which paper, important and forsexuality thediscussion of set body theissueanother raised ofquestionsby autonomy and of bodily ownership I is which toproduce subjectorincapabledeployed capable a of further consent alsoneed consi desire, asthecorecomponent of it enthusiastic is consent;produced, theways theways it and is o therevisionofby theconcept One toconsent; immediately. ofthemis capacity while itexists itis limitation as a redefined already, the newunderstanding with ofconsent.Along form the of citizenship, sexual limitations toit appear outlines and one, new a discourse sexual defined butproducescitizen a Third,re this con ofsubjects negotiation and amongthem. interactions sexual such as variables race,social play class asthey etc. an positioning of important roleintherelative female encounters and discussion ofsituations thevariety combinations of same and as toinclude actors, such perpetrators thevictims of coercion, women, sexual and itis towiden necessary scopeof the as mydiscussionSecond, byheterosexual limited was interactions negotiation. sexual recognize they levels and positioning structures their inthepower itintotheirsociety and of include without withand interactions the o u ceptualization outsideceptualization alsooffersof context theUS promising a of direction research. r t h , it is necessary to explore how how it is toexplore necessary

l i - b conceptualization of consent sexual does notjustconceptualization thetransformation of claim e r e current structures of power, and his/her consent is produced within and structurese current and within ofand his/her consent power, is produced a l

n d

- n on e o - l male coercion. coercion. A male i b e r a f consent in ways thatf consent inways for is call further Another sexual deliberation. l . affirmative/communicative/enthusiastic consent, and on the ways affirmative/communicative/enthusiastic ontheways consent, and On the onehand, subject oftoday sexual is theconsenting t h i s

m dditionally, thefuture needs research other toinclude o d e l

52 reproduces and/ortransforms structures of

Taking thediscussionTaking re ofthis where men where presumedwere the

by therevised by deration. deration. - sex

- Yet Yet CEU eTD Collection f m c A tobeexaminedinthecontinuing critically have research of thetopic. formedthinking theliberalneoliberal discours by and Ontheotherhand, subject theconsenting change. of thefuture is the nevertheless produced within policy lookforwho and asproponents thechanges oneofin law of the model theinstruments of resistance toit. assometimes toolof muchasitis power bythesestructures,a toolof claimed becoming a tobe r o a s a n

m n t s h y e e e

n w f

a t l o i , c s

r s t t k o e

x r d f s u

p a t v h l o

e It consciousness is more supported even b thelegal by demonstrated a s s l t u o s

i b a p b r j e l e e e d c

t a i i o n v v t

e i m

t n c y o u y a e m n t s h d

p f e

l o s s e i e r t s

e x

r l w u e y s a

i e u l l l

n c p r i d c t r e i o h z r v

e s o i n t d f o s f e o h e

r d a i p e

. 53 valuable

F i

s a o

n b r es e o a e v n d and, therefore, inherits characteristics which characteristics which therefore, inherits and, e y e

s r d o h e , f f

a e these directions w s r

e s t n h ,

c e t h e i r

p r

e o e

x l i a n t t e t i . n o

s n i s v ,

e a t

r h r e e e

i a n e n a f l r a y the y the u c l y e h t n

i o c c a n e l d

e b x y u

a l

CEU eTD Collection P."RedefiningBryden, David Rape." no. 49(6) (2012):533 TheofCouples: Roles Sexual Motives, Revictimization, Reperpetration." and M.,Martine Hebert, Brousseau, Melanie Press, 2008. Without World Rap "TheProcessBlank, Hanne. Psychology & Feminism "'Spontaneous'Beres, A. Sexual Consent: Melanie AnalysisofAn Sexual Consent Literature." BBC News.slow "The http://www.mit.edu/activities/saf J. Matthew "Antioch OffenseBaya, Policy." Sexual Press, 2008. Without World Rap Is Toni. theFirstAmato, "Shame Betrayer." 91 2004: ofPerpetrator, Review Cultural, A Situational and Variables." Victim, Adams Leslie by Francis, 27edited M."Date Discourse."Adams, Erotic David Rape and References - Curtis, Leah E., andCurtis, E., Gordon Leah B. Forbes. - 122.

e e , edited Friedman 287 Jessica byJaclyn and Valenti, , edited Friedman 221 Jessica byJaclyn and Valenti, - , no. 17:93 (2007):93 , no.17:93 546. - burning Polanski saga." burning Polanski saga."

- 40. USA: Penn State Press, PennState 40. USA: 1996. - Oriented Virgin." Oriented e/data/other/antioch Buffalo Criminal Law Review

and Sophie Sophie and Bergeron. "Sexual CoercionMixed within - 108

In .

In Yes Means Yes:VisionsMeans Power ofSexual Yes Female a BBC News "College Coercion : Experiences ofWomen's Sexual "College 54 Yes Powera Sexual Means Yes:Visions and of Female Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

In - Date Rape: Feminism,Date La the Philosopy and code (accessedcode 01, 06 2013). , 12 28, 2009. 28, , 12

, 2000: 3 , 2000: Trauma, Violence, Abuse & - - 226. Berkeley, Seal Berkeley, 226. California: 298. Berkeley, Seal Berkeley, 298. California:

17 - 479. Journal ofSex Research

10 04, 1993. 1993. 10 04,

nd a a nd - Sex Sex , w , , CEU eTD Collection 2013. Sara. EmbodimentCrawley, "Sexual Projects: Mode Mediating men." by coercion "Hegemony discourse: Malcolm. and Cowburn, Reconstructing sex offender andsexual themale Press, 2008. Without World Rap Heather. ImmodestCorinna, "An Proposal." by edited "Foreword." Margaret. Cho, Chamallas, Martha."Consent, theLegal and ControloftheSexual Equality, 1988. Contact." "Teens Mariano. Castillo, ofpostaccused Mexico in TimeofSexuality the in AID "Trust, Hector. Carrillo, Love, Passion: ofHIV Risk." Context The Relational P. and Cowling,P. Reynolds 45 Moira. "Sexual Carmody, theeroticsethics and of consent." California: SealBerkeley, Press, 2008. Powera Sexual Female World and "Beyond Kramer. Bussel, Process." or Yes No:Consent as Sexual Rachel 217 1980: Burt, "Cultural MarthaMyths R. Supportsfor and Rape."

- Jaclyn Friedman1 Jessica and Valenti, 230.

e , edited Friedman 179 Jessica byJaclyn and Valenti, Sexualities, Gender Evolution and

In Without Without Rap - Yes Means Yes:VisionsWorld Powera ofSexual Rap Female Without and 56. Aldershot, S , 255

ing picturesing of assault." sexual - 288. Chicago: University Chicago: ofChicago288. Press, 2002. e , edited Friedman 43 Jessica byJaclyn and Valenti,

UK: 2004. Ashgate, - Yes Means Yes:Visions Powera ofSexual Female and 4. California: SealBerkeley, Press, 2008. , 2005: 215 55

Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology

- In 231. rnist Subjectivities." Queer Selvesand Making sex of sexual consenMaking sex of sexual

- 192. B 192. CNN

In Yes Means Yes:Visions of erkeley, Seal erkeley, California:

, April 15, 2013. , April15, In The NightIs Young: t

, edited by by , edited

52. , e , CEU eTD Collection Contract." the "Beyond Fraser, Model: Master/Subject Nancy. on Carole Pateman's Reflections Sexual Press, 2008. Without World Rap Shouldn't)."Submissive She Us(and Scares Why "The Fowles, Stacey May. Fantasy of "Non Acceptable Books, 1988. Michel. Foucault, Press, 2008. Without World Rap Feminism How and Culture, Fight Can Jill."Offensive Filipovic, Feminism: Norms TheGender Rape Conservative That Perpetuate David. Evans, Cr John Peter F,Decker, and Means Still GBaroni. ""No" "Yes"." 1990. Law, FrancesE.Olsen, by edited 571 Elizabeth. Davis, Karen experiences." Linda and Laurel, theirYoung J. Roberts.will: nonagenticwomen's Crown, sexual "Against iminology , 2011: 1081 , 2011:

Social Text

Journal ofSocial andPersonal Relationships Sexual Citizenship: TheMaterial Construction of Sexualities. e e History of Sexuality. , edited Fried byJaclyn , edited Friedman 13 Jessica byJaclyn and Valenti, , no. 173 37 (1993): - 1169. I Love Myself I When

- 590. Dartmouth: University of Valifornia at Los Dartmouth: at of 590. University School ofValifornia Angeles

Translated RobertNew 1. by Vol. Hurley. Back." - 181. man 117 Jessicaand Valenti, am Laughing. am

56 In Yes Powera Sexual Means Yes:Visions and of Female

, 2000: 385 , 2000: Yes Means Yes: Visions of Female Sexual Power Sexual Yes Means Yes:Visions and a of Female - Consent": Why theFemale Sexual Why Consent":

Vol. II,Vol. in - 405. Journal of Law and Criminal Feminist LegalFeminist Theory (1995

- New York:New 1993. Routledge, 28. Berkeley, Seal 28. Berkeley, California: - 126. Berkeley, Seal Berkeley, 126. California:

York: Vintage York: Vintage ) ,

CEU eTD Collection Naomi by 268 edited Zach et al, "RefiguringGrosz, Lesbian Elizabeth. Desire." http://www.unrealities.com/adult/ssbb/c.htm 2013). 01, (accessed 06 is Johnson.Grey, a "What "safeword"?" (2008): Sexual Autonomy‖ and 865 Risky Subjects and Women." Gotell, Lise. "Rethinking Affirmative inCanadian Consent London,2009. Routledge, UK: Reform." Law Gotell, Lise. Dissertations. feminist theory, rape, Geisinger, up." Brandi hooking N."Critical and Rape. Without JessicaFriedman, Jacklyn, and Valent 2008. Rap Without Can, Too)." You Pleasure How (and or: Le ofGoingWild and Friedman, Jacklyn. I"In Defence How StoppedWorrying Press,Seal 2008. a WithoutWorld and Rap Jessica and Friedman, Jacklin, Valenti. "Intro

, edited Jaclyn Jessica Friedmanand by 313 Valenti, Iowa State University, State Iowa 2011. "Canadian Sexual"Canadian Assault Neoliberalism Law: Feminist theErosion and Inspired of

Berkeley: Seal Press, 2008.

Rethinking Rape La e , Jaclyn by edited Friedman5 Jessica and Valenti, Akron Law ReviewAkron Law

- 280. Blackwell,280. 1998. - w 888.

In , edited Clare by Vanessa and McGlynn Munro, 209 i, .

Yes Means Yes:VisionsWorld Powera ofSexual Female and

Yes Means Yes: VisionsWorld Powera ofSexual Female and

The soc.subculture.bondage duction."

, no. symposiumAffirmative issue:―Rape, Consent, In 57 Race, Class, Gender and Sexuality: Gender Class, and Race, The Big Question

In Yes Means Yes:Visions Power ofSexual Female

Sexual Assault Law: Sexual Neoliberal - - bdsm FAQ List. 320. Seal Press, Berkeley, California: Graduate Theses and

- 14. California: Berkeley,

08 1 arned toLove arned 0, 1995. 0, 1995. - 223. s , CEU eTD Collection Feminist Refusal." Perspective onSexual Celia, Kitzinger, Hannaand Fritz. "JustNo? Analysis Use ofConversation a Say The inDeveloping Philosophical A Policy‘: Exploration‖." Eva "AH! Kittay, Feder. Soble‘s‖Antioch‗sMy Reply Foolish toAlan A Heart: Offense ‘Sexual Men." S. Michael "What‘sKimmel, Domest LoveGot toDoIt? with Rape, JessicaFriedman and Valenti, 163 Matters." Outfit:Jervis, New OldEnemy How a Lisa. in Rape "An Became date Gray Rape (Mar. 1999):113 C., Karenand Hubin, Donald Haely. "Rape Man." theand Reasonable Situations." Young How Men Sexual Condom": Communicate and Women Consent inHeteros ""By SusanE., L. Charlene Muehlenhard. Semi and Hickman, the Publishing,Los 1996. Daedalus Angeles: Holiday. Sybil Bill,and Henkin, Psychology desistance,and"Initiation, persistence coercion." ofmen's sexual GordonNagay C. Hall,

74, no. 4 (2006): 732 4(2006): 74, no. The Gender Of Desire:The Of EssaysSexualit Gender Male On In The JournalofSex Research Yes MeansWithout Yes:VisionsWorld Powera Rap ofSexual Female and - 139.

ama, David S. DeGarmo, Sopagna Eap,L.Teten,ama, DeGarmo, S. Andra David Stanley Sopagna and Sue. - 742. Consensual Sa Consensual - 170. Berkeley, Press,170. California: Seal 2008.

, 1999: 258 , 1999: Journal

Discourse Society domasochism: How How to to Talk About Itand DoIt Safely. of SocialPhilosophy - 272. 58

, 187 , 1999: 293 , 1999: - 196. SUNY Press, SUNY 196. 2005.

2, no. 2(1997):2, no. 153 - Journal ofConsulting and Clinical Mystical Appearance of a Mystical ofa Appearance - 316. ic Violence, and theMaking and Violence, ofic Law and Philosophy

e , edited by , edited Jaclyn

and Why It Why and

exual exual - 59.

18, no. 2 18, no.

CEU eTD Collection Carole. Pateman, Foucault." O'H JessicaFriedman and Valenti, 151 Consent." Sa Mukhopadhyay, Seal Press,California: 2008. World Powera Rap Sexual Without and ThomasMillar, aPerformance "Toward Macaulay. Model of Sex." 1989. CatherineMacKinnon, A. 14 1991: Darkside "The Lloyd, Sally A. Sexual Exploitation." and of Courtship: Violence Review ,Vol. No. 39, 2(Mar.) L.Leigh, H."Sado 2008. Rap Without Kulwicki, SexCara. "Real Education." Hughes Felicia and constructionist perspective." Celia, Kitzinger, Sue and Wilkinson. iggins, James, and Michel Foucault. Foucault. Michel iggins, James, Sexual Choice, Michel and "Sexual Act: with Interview An

- 20.

In Salmagundi e

, edited Jaclyn Jessica Friedmanand by 305 Valenti, Yes Means Yes: VisionsWithout World Powera Rap ofSexual Female and The Sexual Contract. - mhita. Femalemhita. Black "Trial byMedia: Lasciviousness theQuestion and of - Masochism, theReform Consent, and Law." of theCriminal Freeland, 135 , no. (FALL58/59 1982 Toward a Feminist TheoryToward Feminist State. the a of

, 1976: 130 , 1976:

In Practicing Feminism: Identity,Practicing Feminism: Difference, Powe - - 154. Routledge,1996.154. 162. Berkeley, Press,162. California: Seal 2008. e

"Deconstructing heterosexuality: feministA social , edited Jaclyn Jessica Friedmanand by 29 Valenti, Cambridge: Polity Press, 1988.

In - 146. Y es Means Yes: VisionsWorld Powera ofSexual Female and

- WINTER 1983) (1983): 10 1983) WINTER 59

Cambridge: Harvard University Pres - 312. Seal Press, Berkeley, California:

Yes Means Yes:Visions of Female r , edited by Nickie Nickie by Charles , edited - 24.

Family RelationsFamily The Modern La e , Jaclyn by edited - - 42. Berkeley, w , s, CEU eTD Collection consent." Anastasia. Powell, negotiation fati?"Amor habituspeople's of young Gender (hetero)sexual and World stories."Plummer, "Women‘srape Ken. culture and Pin Francis. The Pensilvania UniversityPensilvania: Park, University Press, 1996. Lois.ResponsePineau, "A Critics." tomy Ex Nonconsensual Sexual experiences: and Consensual ImplicationsTheir forLabel Women How "Conceptualizing the CharleneL.Peterson, Muehlenhard. D.,and "Wantedness" Zoe of Women's Press, 2008. Without World Rap Peterson, Not "The Latoya. JessicaFriedman and Valenti, 193 Involved." Why Sexuality, and About Sex a Sexuality: Healthy The Upwith Perry, Lessons Brad. Don'tLearn)Boys "Hooking (And Learn Rap States." theUnited in Women MiriamZoila. P'erez, periences With Rape." periences Rape." With eau, Lois. "Date Rape: Lois.eau, "Date FeministA Analysis." e , Jaclyn by edited Friedman Jessica and Valenti, 141 s , by Ken Plummer, Ken , by 62 Journal ofSociology

Yes Means Yes: Visions Powera of Sexual Female and e , edited Fried byJaclyn "When Sexual "WhenAutonomy Sexual Isn‘t Sexual Violence Enough: ImmigrantAgainst Journal ofSex Research , 2008: 167 , 2008: - - Rape Epidemic." Rape 80. New York: 80. New Routledge, 1995.

In - Positive Rape Prevention Paradigm Can BenefitPositive Can Rape PreventionParadigm Everyone Yes Means Yes:VisionsWorld Powera ofSexual Female Without and - 208. Berkeley, Press,208. California: Seal 2008. - 184. man 209 Jessicaand Valenti,

Date Rape: Feminism,Date Philosophy La and the

44, no. 1 (2007): 72 1(2007): 44, no. Law and Philosophy Law and Yes Powera Sexual Means Yes:Visions and of Female 60

In Telling Sexual Stories: Power, Change and Social Stories:Telling Sexual and Power, Change - 150. Berkeley, Berkeley, 150. California: Seal

World WithoutWorld Rap -

8, no. 2(1989):8, no. 217 88. -

220. Berkeley, Seal Berkeley, 220. California:

e , Jaclyn by edited w

- , L. by edited Press, 2008. 243.

CEU eTD Collection http://www.leathernroses.com/generalbdsm/garyswitchrack.htm (accessed 06 2013). 01, Swit Criminology "Rape, Barbara. Sullivan, Prostitution Consent." and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNJjEZoRKqM 2013). 01, (accessed 06 Leslie " Steiner, Morgan. history. "―Safe Sane David. Stein, The Consensual‖: Making ofShibboleth." a Routledge, 1984. Sexualit Female Danger: Exploring "ThinkingSex: Gayle. NotesRubin, Theory for Radical ofthePolitics a Sexuality." Anthropology of Wome "TheTrafficNotes Gayle. ontheRubin, inWomen: of "Political Economy" Sex." 107 Jessica Valenti, Power Sexual Yes Means Yes:Visions World and a of Female Without Rap Jacobs."A Lee LoveLetterRiggs, from Anti an 20(1) (2000):105 Diane. Richardson, "Constructing rights." sexual cinizenship: theorizing sexual and SocietyCulture Adrienne. Lesbian "CompulsoryRich, and Heterosexuality Existence." ch, Gary. Gary. ch, Of"Origin vs.RACK RACK; SSC."

2000 , 2007: 127 , 2007: - 2002. http://www.boybear.us/ssc.pdf 2002. 01, 06 2013). (accessed

- 4, no. 4, Summer (1980): 631 4,Summer 4, no. 135. - n 116. Seal Berkeley, Press,California: 2008. , edited by Rayna Rayna Reiter, 157 by R. , edited –

142. Living Love." Through Crazy

y , by Gayle, by Rubin, - 660. - Rape Activistto herFeministRape Sex 61

edited by Carol Vance,edited Carol by 267 Leather and Roses.Leather

- The Australian and NewJournal of Zeland The Australian and 210. New York:Monthly New Press,210. Review 1975. YouTube.

TEDxRainier. 2012. 10, 11 e , by Friedmanand edited Jaclyn

2001. slave david leather stein: s/m Signs: Journal in ofWomen

- 318. London:318. Critical Social Policy Critical -

Toy Store." In

Towar In Pleasure and

d an an d

CEU eTD Collection Bree." Drunken Following Consent to Sex on a Shlomit. "‗A Wallerstein, drunken consent is still consent‘ Macmillan, 2005.Palgrave Matthew. Waites, JessicFriedman and Survival." Tzintzun, Personal Misoginy: CristinaStrategies Meztli. A Storyand "Killing ofLove,Violence, for Jessica Friedmanand Valenti, 171 Jaclyn Sovereignity." "Reclaiming Touch: Troost, Hazel/Cedar. Rape VerbalCulture, Consent, Explicit Body and AssangeThe "Julian accusations: Telegraph. rape timeline." 4 Boys." — StirsThe Huffington Controv Rape Post. "Ohio The Associated Press. "Strauss Gender Taslitz, Andr European Health ofPublic Central Journal attitudesbeliefs adults and in of heterosexual young St. Budapest, and Hungary Petersburg, Russia." Mo Lazlo Judit, Amirkhanian,Takacs, JeffreyKelly, YuriA. Kirsanova, A. V. Anna Roman Khoursine, and A. . "Rehtaeh Parsons,. "Rehtaeh Girl,Attempt; Parents Dies After Suicide Canadian Allege She RapedByWas

28 (2005): 381 28 (2005): The HuffingtonPost ""Condomscsonaki. butIqualitative not":A analysis am reliable are of AIDS In ew E. "Willfully E. Rape Blinded:ew OnDate Self and Yes Means Yes: VisionsWithout World Powera Rap ofSexual Female and

In Rape, Rape, Yes Means Yes:VisionsWorld Powera ofSexual Female Withou and The of age citizenship. consent :young and people,sexuality a Valenti, 251 a - 446.

, 09 04, 2013. 04, , 09 - Kahn, rape accuser agree tosettle lawsuit." agree accuser rape Kahn, - 264. Berkeley, Press,264. California: Seal 2008. , 2006: 59

- 178. Berkele178. - 66. The Law Journal ofCriminal ersy." ersy." 62

y, California: Sealy, Press, 2008. The HuffingtonPost — The Telegraph or Is - Deception." Deception." It? Critical A Analysisof theLaw

Houndmills, Basingstoke: , J , 03 , 03 27, 2013. , 2009: 318 une 2012. 20, CBC News Harvard Journal of Law & & ofLaw Harvard Journal

e , Jaclyn by edited

– , 11 30, 2012. 30, , 11 t

, edited by 344. -

related related

CEU eTD Collection 583. Alan. "What Wertheimer, Is Consent?Important?" IsIt And Alan. "IntoxicatedWertheimer, ConsenttoSexual Relations." 2012). http://www.salon.com/2012/11/08/how_choice_became_a_winning_is issue." "How Joan. winning choiceWalsh, became a

Salon.

11 08, 2012.11 08, Buffalo Criminal Review Criminal Buffalo Law Law and PhilosophyLaw and sue/ 02, (accessed 06 , 2001: 373 , 2001: , 2000: 557, 2000: - 401.