The Roman Polanski rape makes me sad, too, and it’s even less ambiguous and yet ppl seem to see it as a super grey area because the girl looked older and had a greedy mother and b/c Polanski is soooo creative. Blech.

No I completely understand what you’re saying here. When I said “consent implies willingness, not just a lack of objection,” I was referring to the mainstream idea that to be un-consenting (which is totally not a word) you have to be kicking and screaming and that if you’re just lying there, then you must be fine with it. This idea only applies to situations where the rapist/victim dynamic is pretty defined, where the relationship between them is less complicated.* Of course, there is the whole other end of the abuse spectrum where this relationship is very complex – like in MacKenzie’s case. This is where any definition of consent completely goes out the window because there are so many other dynamics at play. Here, what you said Megan, about seduction and empowerment etc – I completely agree.

*I’ve said this very badly, and I don’t mean to imply that some rape is less complex or devastating etc. than others, I was just thinking on the differences between getting attacked in the street by a stranger, being date-raped by a friend and longer term abuse by a father – they are such different emotional circumstances.

Holy effin shee, that is awesome.

Mackenzie Phillips says “it became consensual over time.” The “over time” part is what gets me. I haven’t read her book, so I don’t know all the details, but it sounds to me like her dad just wore her down. Like after he’d raped her so many times she eventually just complied because what she wanted apparently didn’t matter any which way. It sounds like Mackenzie Phillips has that typically warped view of consent as being ‘not kicking and screaming.’
Another thing that’s grating my cheese is people saying “we don’t know whether it’s true because John Phillips isn’t here to defend himself.” Like if he was around, he’d be all, “oh yeah, I totally did that.” And as if Mackenzie Phillips has any reason to make this stuff up.

But the reason I’m bringing it up is because it felt like I couldn’t explain it in the dworkin debate without causing you to angrily accuse me of infantilizing women or patronizing them with my extremist claims that no woman ever truly consents. And so I just want to point to what you said and say, “ah, there. That is pretty much what I meant. Just that having lived through the choice-to-consent-that-is-not-really-a-choice, I tend to see all consent as falling on a spectrum. Some is less constrained, some is even enthusiastic, but it is all subconsciously weighed.

I think if you have ever had to (or chosen to) seduce your rapist, you will understand what I mean. And if you have not, let me say that I am not trying to invalidate women’s agency in consenting. Nor am I trying to start up the debate we were having, just striving for a little illumination, I guess.

QL’s words: “consent implies willingness, not just a lack of objection,” made me think about how far we have to go in terms of understanding consent and understanding what constitutes reasonable behaviour from the victim. I mean no offense to QL’s argument there – just that when we want to assert that John Phillips is still culpable we say, “well she might have complied, but that’s not consent.” But what if she did seduce him, what if she did act enthused? It’s not abnormal for victims of assault to do, it’s one of the few ways they can feel like they still have some control. It’s similar to women “choosing to feel empowered by” whatever the degradation of the day is.

What we consent to and why, what we believe we want for ourselves and why, what we gain by consent and what price we pay for our agency is all SO, SO complicated.

To come back to the issue of consent and incest and responsibility, someone said it on some thread at IBTP a long time ago. “It doesn’t matter if an abused dog does everything it can to get you to kick it [because that's what it expects and knows how to deal with], you’re still a sick fuck if you oblige it.”

I understand that it’s difficult to shift your ideas about people you’ve felt a great affection for over the years (John Phillips) as a musician, and possibly as an ideal type of man. I get that you can be unwilling to give up the comfort that people gain from idealizing celebrities, when the real world seems so imperfect, so I don’t expect you to hate John Phillips for his actions, I don’t expect you to so easily change your feelings for him. What i expect you to do is admit that what he did was WRONG and rather MESSED-UP and that Mackenzie is a VICTIM in this situation who was ABUSED by one John Phillips. Whether you want to blame drugs, or mental illness, whether or not you can bear to hold him fully accountable in your mind, you must at least admit and accept that he abused her and it was wrong.

The idea that a daughter can consent to sexual relations with her father is so absurd I don’t know how it’s even considered. It’s such a complex dynamic in terms of power, responsibility, love and sexuality that my mind boggles at the very idea of it.

Consent implies willingness, not just a lack of objection. How this concept continues to escape people is beyond me.