"Implied consent" is a term that comes up a lot in discussions of sexual misconduct and female bodies.  For example, most recently a woman was judged to have implied consent for having her top pulled off by a man wielding a camera.  How did she imply this consent?  By being in a bar where signs were posted that a camera crew was filming.  

And if you watch the video, she implied consent by refusing to take her top off, saying "no," and turning away.

That's the thing about "implied consent."  It's ridiculous, and it's only ever trotted out to excuse the actions of someone who has misbehaved.  The thing about "implied consent" is that it is not consent.  Consent is when someone says "Yes you may do X."  Implied consent is when "Well I did X and then she complained that I hadn't asked her, but I could totally tell that she wanted it, so her short skirt implied consent."

See how that works?

"Implied consent" IS NOT CONSENT.  I mean, that's the point, right?  You wouldn't have to call it "implied consent" if actual consent was present.

Implied consent is an excuse used by an abuser, a rapist, an incredibly sleazy film crew with no boundaries.  Implied consent is a theory manufactured by a society which refuses to recognize what "consent" is and what it means.  Implied consent is a fancy-sounding term for "she was asking for it."  Implied consent gets trotted out for everything from slut-shaming to rape.

Consent as a philosophical concept means that a woman has control over her body.  She is a sovereign being, and is the arbiter about what does and does not happen to it.  She is allowed to decide who can and cannot touch her, and where, and how.  That is what "consent" means.  

"Implied consent," on the other hand, is something that is applied to a woman externally.  By someone who has violated that woman's boundaries without her explicit consent.  "Implied consent" completely undermines the entire idea of consent.  Although it sounds like a point on a continuum, "implied consent" is actually the complete opposite of consent.

"Consent" means that "a woman can tell you what you are allowed to do to her."  But "implied consent" means "anyone can tell a woman what they are allowed to do to her, depending on the context."

So which is it?  Do women have sovereignty?  Are women allowed to patrol their borders, so to speak?  To regulate immigration across those borders, and to police any incursions which may occur?  

If so, then consent is the rule of the day.  Did the plaintiff in the GGW case consent?  No, she did not.  She refused to take off her top when they asked, she said "No" on camera, and she turned away and started to leave.  That's a pretty clear refusal of consent, if you ask me.  

Or are women only given the fiction of control?  Is a woman's right to control access to her body conditional?  Because that is what "implied consent" means.  It means that "other people get to judge whether or not you have offered consent, based on a lot of things other than whether or not you have actually said "Yes this is okay.""

Photo credit: Flickr/jk5854