I found McKinnon’s argument to be perplexing, as it claims that heterosexuality is socially constructed and because of this, “valid consent has no place in this model ... where there are only various types of force and coercion”.
I can understand her argument as being valid and logical, at the time it was written, as it states that “their position depends on a theory of power and social construction that does not allow for the possibility of female sexual agency” (37). This projects that women do not have the right to express themselves in a sexual manner due to the patriarchal society. In some ways I do agree with this, as women have been and still are oversexualized while being oppressed when they do express their sexuality. However, I truly believe that the majority of women are capable of consenting to normal, heterosexual sex in modern day society.
Sexual intercourse is an innate desire and to say that women don’t ever consent to this with their male partners is allowing the patriarchal society dominate yet another aspect of women’s lives; meaning that not only are women losing more control in society but they are further deprived of authority over their bodies. Women should be allowed to express their sexual desires just as much as men do and consent needs to be congruent between both parties.
As mentioned in class, it is hard to grasp the idea of engaging in sexual activity without mutual consent between partners, therefore, it was more difficult for us to to relate to her argument. Consent between partners before sex needs to be acknowledged on a global scale, as there are still a countless number of countries where it is believed that in marriages, consent is automatically given so marital rape is not a criminal offense.
Conclusively, her argument cannot be completely disregarded as in some societies today, heterosexual sex is forced and coerced resulting in women believing that they are “consenting” when in reality, they are not. At the same time, heterosexual sex is a natural activity that with mutual consent, people can enjoy and share in an intimate experience with their partner.
I'm really glad that you decided to take into account both a historical and geographical/cultural context when considering a huge question that comes up again and again (at least for me) when working through Mackinnon: Does her critique of consent still apply at present?
ReplyDeleteI think that part of the reason that many first readings of Mackinnon are met with resistance, or even blatant disagreement, is that our analyses come arguably advantageous positions in time and place. I think that it's difficult for many of us to accept this "inescapable fate" approach to consent because we are living in a Western context that appears to have expanded it's opportunity for women's sexual choices at least to some degree. However, as you mentioned above, there still remains some problems under this guise of progressiveness, such as the rise of over-sexualization of female bodies. Furthermore, to examine the global reality, we know that consent is not a valid or possible choice in some cases, an extreme example of this is female genital mutilation.