in Under the Duvet

The question of consent is at the heart of the news with all its #metoo business. I found this text that is in line with what I think of the couple.

The question of consent now at the heart of sexuality. Strangely enough, she is quite absent from issues of couple and loyalty, where the rigidity of commitment denies the value of consent.

Through all the work done by feminists and the various current affairs, we begin to understand that consent is central to the issue of sexual relations, and that it is highly ephemeral. Initiating a kiss does not commit to kissing. Sleeping one night is not worth subsequent unconditional implied consent for any booty call. Sleeping, even several times in a row, with someone does not give that someone any property rights over you.

And it has also been understood that the value of “yes” is directly related to the unconditional liberty of the “no”. Without the possibility of free refusal (freed from cultural expectation, psychological pressure, physical coercion), consent loses its value.

Rigidity of commitment denies consent

Strangely enough, the couple relies on the idea (reverse, archaic) of a single solemn commitment which is worth irrevocable and permanent consent. The couple is actually built up as a confinement in a cultural norm that charts all its baggage of archaic expectations and implicit prohibitions. Just the word “couple” excludes you from being more than two.

And therefore, rather than being the place where free and enthusiastic consent is constantly renewed on a ribby of life choices, the couple is built around the daily duty of resigned non-violation of a definitive original commitment.

Fortunately, commitment no longer encompasses conjugal duty. But it still covers the duties of affective and sexual exclusivity and that of cohabitation, which in many consciences come to consent to the other a form of property right over oneself and his body.

Since it relates to sex or feelings, any deviation or suggestion of modification is a priori considered a serious sprain to the indissoluble primordial contract (certainly it is dissoluble, but most often only in crying, gnashing of teeth and broken dishes).

Knowing that the social organization of the couple creates considerable dependencies (material and financial dependence, emotional dependence, concern for children, fear of social gaze), the pressure is enormous to avoid risking breakage. Consequently, freedom of manoeuvre is almost zero and consent has no place.

All this to answer those who tend to believe that the free couple is not a “real couple”. On the contrary, I will say: without the freedom to put on the table the commitment of exclusivity without risking to be made:

treat bastard (ope) by the person you love,
put to the street,
cut from his children,
judge by family, friends

it is not true loyalty. “

Everyone is free to say not even within a couple, as to give his own definition of fidelity.


La Puce

Tags: , ,

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *