Meghan

Consent (as a Concept) is Necessary

The argument that consent is a necessary social human construct is brilliant because it is solid.  The argument is solid because it gives every human their humanity.  It gives every human agency.  It empowers every human.  If the boundary of consent is overstepped it inevitably leads to dehumanization, victimization, power imbalance, destruction of another, and stripping someone else of their agency and power.  It is clear in our collective conscience and sense of morality that these are BAD things to do.

As you can see, there is no room for wavering, or trying to decide whether or not this concept is necessary in the world.  There is no room for hypotheticals, especially when the hypothetical is formed in this way: “It’s rape unless (fill in rape myth here).”  Anyone who thinks that there is a hypothetical situation that can disprove the necessity of consent as a social construct for the human animal is either a rapist, a rape apologist or both.  The folks who believe the argument for the necessity of consent is disprovable are definitely entitled.

This brings me to another great thing about this model of consent: entitlement.  Within the model, the word entitled is used to describe people who, in order to reinforce their structural power over another person, feel the need, as if given the right by birth, to overstep – with immunity – the boundaries and consent of others.