Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

["Kile, Marilyn J" <>]

The definition of consent in Wisconsin law that I use it as a teaching tool 
is "Consent means words or overt actions by a person who is competent to give 
informed consent indicating a freely given agreement to have sexual 
intercourse or sexual contact."

 I think informed consent is a valid concept.  It means you know what you are 
consenting to.  It takes away some of the "it was just a 
misunderstanding/miscommunication" excuse.  Therefore yes to "Do you want to 
mess around?" or "Do you want to come up to my room?" is not considered 
informed consent to any specific sexual act.

Marilyn J. Kile, LCSW
Sexual Assault Prevention Coordinator
2022 Ambrose Health Center
University of Wisconsin-Whitewater
800 W. Main St.
Whitewater, WI  53190
www.uww.edu/sart
262-472-1300 X2244
FAX 262-472-1435
 
The information contained in this email message is intended only for the use 
of the recipient(s) named above and may be confidential privileged 
information. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, or 
authorized by the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any 
review, dissemination, distribution or copying of this message is strictly 
prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify 
me immediately by email and delete this entire message.


-----Original Message-----


Message: 1
Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:54:17 -0400
From: 

Subject: Re: SAPC Digest, Vol 1198, Issue 1
To: 

Message-ID: 
<>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"


 


 "informed consent", like "effective consent" and "affirmative consent" are 
all meaningless, in my opinion - if not harmful - because they modify a word 
that burdens victims by suggesting they not only need to consent, but do so 
"effectively" and "affirmatively".? This is partly the fault of law itself - 
which doesn't put the burden on the offender - as it should - to prove that 
he HAD consent.

Reformers are talking about restructuring rape law to allow this burden-shift 
- but don't hold your breath.

In the meantime, thinking about the issue differently is helpful 

"knowing, intelligent and voluntary consent" is better because it is the 
phrase we use to describe an effective waiver of a suspect's Miranda rights.? 
Giving up authority over your intimate self should call for an even tougher 
standard - though the law has always provided the opposite.

this standard is effective because it warns the potential offender that there 
is no consent, ever, if the woman is incapacitated - (something we don't 
teach very well in society or law) and it nicely bumps up the burden on the 
harmdoer to be certain about whether he HAS consent - rather than exploiting 
opportunities where consent is vague - 

Buyer-beware should be the theme - 

or as i say in my bumper-sticker? approach "KNOW or it's NO"

(No means NO - is a silly idea that not only adds no value to the goal of 
prevention - it doesn't promote women's autonomy at all - because it requires 
the victim to SAY no - and if she doesn't, then yes is presumed.? This is 
backward and offensive.? The presumption is no - period.? Autonomy theory is 
better understood in a nonsexual context where we are quite clear that the 
right to swing one's fist ends before it hits someone else in the nose.? This 
goes for penises and vaginas, too).

Wendy Murphy




 

**********