‘What is the difference, if with consent, an earlobe or a foreskin is pierced?’ Sexual exceptionalism and the tyranny of consent

• In Event: Gender and justice

Abstract

This paper uses empirical and archival material to examine the role that sexual exceptionalism takes in consideration of the body, autonomy and desire. Using high profile cases, including the well known bondage and sado-masochism (BDSM) case of R v Brown (1994) as a starting point, I interrogate the role of consent, and its adequacies and inadequacies for dealing with issues of sexual citizenship and human flourishing. BDSM is criminalised in many jurisdictions in the global north, even though it holds as a principal tenet the centrality of consent – that people want what is being done to them. This paper posits that focus on consent encourages campaigners and critics alike to lose their way. Consent can be weaponised against people to exonerate their attackers. It can be used to pathologise victims. It can be denied by the state to erase sexual desire. Here, I ask, what is it OK to want? when is wanting impossible? And how is an earlobe different from a foreskin?

Author

• Alexandra Fanghanel, Greenwich University