Consent culture assumes a model in which a person has boundaries which form the basis of consent decisions, especially decisions about sex. Not everyone makes decisions this way.
A common alternative is "everything (many things) has a price", a framework which, if forced to be interpreted within a framework of "boundaries", would cause boundaries to appear very fuzzy. Of course, the fallacy is forcing such an interpretation. These different frameworks cause the disagreement between the viewpoints of "No means no" versus "No is just the beginning of a negotiation, a prelude to yes".
In this political battle over promulgating consent culture versus alternative frameworks, what is the underlying battle about?
Hypothesize it is more social class warfare. The upper classes have strict rules about who they can have sex with, or else risk class demotion, so the framework of their decisions is easily expressed in terms of boundaries. The alternative framework mentioned above of "everything (and, in particular, actions about sex) has a price" is considered slutty so unacceptable for such classes. On the other hand, lower classes do not risk class demotion based on who they have sex with, so sexual decisions are not easily thought of as boundaries so better understood in a different framework.
No comments :
Post a Comment