ABSTRACT This article considers Katherine Angel and Amia Srinivasan’s feminist critiques of consent culture in relation to one of Australia’s most successful instances of consent advocacy – Chanel Contos’s ‘Teach Us Consent’ campaign. I begin by detailing and endorsing how Angel and Srinivasan criticise consent culture for obscuring the fact that women are exposed to (and shaped by) patriarchal norms. I then argue that they fail to wholly extend this nuance to men. By implying that men’s actions in sexual encounters are somewhat expressive of ‘authentic’ desires, Angel and Srinivasan risk imputing to men the very conception of agency they criticise consent culture for imputing to women. This makes it harder to see boys as anything other than potentially violent future-men. In the final section, I argue that though Contos offers a more holistic response to sexual violence than consent culture, she views boys as not-yet-men with a default loyalty to patriarchy. The resonance between these feminists is understandable given the severe and gendered problem of sexual violence. Yet it also indicates, I conclude, that there is a pattern in contemporary Western feminist discourses of sexual consent to enclose boys (and men) as potential perpetrators, furthering the association between masculinity and violence.
Read full abstract