A-Infos (en) Italy, FAI, Umanita Nova #7-26 - Speaking of consent. Everything we should have known... and what we dare ask today. (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

Italy is once again discussing the fight against gender violence: the 
casus belli, the Bongiorno amendment to the so-called "rape bill." ---- 
Last November 25, the Chamber of Deputies approved a bipartisan 
legislative amendment to introduce the definition of "free and actual 
consent" for the crime of sexual violence. In this way, the law aligned 
itself with both the Istanbul Convention and the most recent case law.
Great fanfare, a major scandal within the League and beyond.

The change was quickly described in terms as apocalyptic as it was 
grotesque, to the point of absurdly suggesting that a declaration before 
a notary would be necessary in the future in order to "intercourse 
without risks." Opposing this amendment becomes, in the words of its 
detractors, both a question of freedom ("nothing can be said/done 
anymore") and a matter of protecting men, threatened-once again-by 
armies of resentful women and the plague of false reports, often driven 
by "morning-after regret." It's clear that those who argue in these 
terms ignore, or pretend to ignore, the mechanisms of violence, but 
we'll return to this later.

The amendment presented by Giulia Bongiorno, a lawyer and senator 
currently a member of the Northern League, has now reached the Senate. 
This amendment, if it were to become law, would represent a step 
backwards both from the previous proposal and from current practices.

In this context, we cannot help but notice the opposition's role in 
paving the way for the current situation: modifying existing 
legislation, given the current parliamentary composition, is, to say the 
least, disarmingly naive. In my area, we say "xe più mona che stronxx" 
("to be more foolish than...").
Focusing on the content of the amendment, it would involve replacing the 
concept of "free and actual consent" with that of "evaluation of 
contrary will."
This issue apparently pertains exclusively to the legal and criminal 
sphere, but its implications transcend that specific field.

It is necessary to recognize that the balance of power between 
legislation, case law, and the "real country" is complex and 
multidirectional.
The author has no faith in the ability of the law-or case law-to 
determine the material in absolute terms; however, it would be truly 
naive to deny that the concrete nature of our daily lives is heavily 
influenced by these elements. Furthermore, every legislative provision 
is also a political and social statement.

With these connections in mind, let's attempt an analysis starting from 
the introduction of the concept of "consent."

The issue is seemingly extraordinarily simple: it would involve 
recognizing, at a legislative level, the need for active will on the 
part of the people involved in a sexual relationship.
Easy, right? Not at all. Consent speaks the language of desire, of 
encounter, of listening, of limits. It establishes a concept both banal 
and powerful: another's body is not something available "until proven 
otherwise."
Abstractly, this principle concerns every body equally. But, once again, 
bodies become embodied power relations; in reality, this legislative 
process impacts primarily female and feminized bodies.
I believe it is necessary to carefully consider the "obviousness" of 
this fact.
It is striking how, from a strictly heterosexual perspective, 
availability and accessibility concern only women's bodies. It is 
evident how the agency role is perceived as the exclusive purview of the 
male, in a relational-and power-asymmetry so obvious as to become invisible.
It's important to highlight this invisibility, to avoid the risk of 
portraying, even unintentionally, as "natural" what is, in effect, a 
historical and social fact.

The current debate on consent fully questions the dominant patriarchal 
culture, and the gendered lens through which this concept 
is-rightly-interpreted demonstrates how patriarchy is still far from 
being a legacy of the past.
It's especially interesting to note how this gendered lens is applied 
not only by "bad feminists," but primarily by men themselves. Both the 
misogynistic, hostile, and anti-feminist ones, and-albeit with markedly 
different approaches-the allies. No one seems to feel the need to point 
out that the establishment of consent as the basis of sexual relations 
would also concern and "protect" men. The boundaries of the male body 
are never the subject of debate: it's unnecessary, it's a given.
There is no absolute reason why legislation that enshrines the concept 
of consent should particularly protect women or particularly restrict 
men. Yet, this is how it is-correctly-interpreted, even and especially 
by its detractors. The king couldn't be more naked.

Because it is here that it becomes clear how sexual violence is largely 
gender-based violence. How much it's about power, not sex.

Power is always at the root of rape, whether it's taking advantage of a 
dominant position, reaffirming it when perceived as threatened, or 
asserting it as a form of revenge. Sometimes women's bodies are used to 
speak indirectly to other men; this is the case, for example, in war rapes.

Power is at the root of even the most "banal" and everyday rapes: in the 
family, in intimate and loving relationships. The social and structural 
asymmetry between bodies whose role is to demand and bodies whose role 
is to be available. The most pervasive-and therefore the most 
invisible-of abuses of power.
Patriarchy flows powerfully through us, transcending ideological 
barriers. Calvino was wrong when, in 1975, he vilified those responsible 
for the Circeo massacre, attributing their actions exclusively to wealth 
or political affiliation. Those who still endorse his theses today are 
also wrong. And the debate surrounding the "Epstein files" seems to be 
rapidly spiraling toward the same abyss.

I was already a teenager on February 15, 1996, when rape stopped being a 
crime against morality and became a crime against the person. A few 
years later, it would become a crime against me. Unimportantly, I never 
reported it. Was it the right choice? Probably, but it's a choice I 
could never truly make, because it took me more than ten years to 
recognize what had happened to me. At that point, every assessment was 
purely academic. Despite my political, militant, and feminist 
background, it took a long time to name my experience. I needed to 
recognize myself in the different yet similar experience of another 
woman. Only then did I understand that paralyzing myself, biting a 
pillow hard to keep from screaming, crying, and refusing to participate 
in any way were abundantly valid signs of non-consent. Although, it's 
true, I never said "no," I didn't push, I didn't scratch, I didn't try 
to hit. I only hoped he would hurry up and that "my duty" would be over 
quickly. This personal testimony is intended to be a concrete example of 
how the dynamics of violence and its recognition can sometimes be 
difficult to understand, even for those who suffer them. But even today, 
as I mentioned at the beginning, the narrative of "she was there and 
then regretted/changed her mind" is widespread. Life is more complex. It 
is always more complex than a slogan, a law, or a sensational statement 
on social media. A multitude of factors come into play, often difficult 
to understand for those who are not at risk of finding themselves in 
this position-namely, most men.

Gender-based violence is often, as mentioned, also gender-based violence.
Violence from a society that teaches women to be available until proven 
guilty; violence that teaches them that this availability must be 
unconditional for partners, husbands, loved ones, and lovers; violence 
that internalizes guilt, because "I didn't rebel enough"; violence 
of-and in-the understanding, acceptance, and justification of a man who 
"couldn't understand." Violence that measures a woman's worth by the 
male yardstick and gaze. Violence from a man who isn't educated-and 
often has no interest in being educated-in listening, empathizing, and 
ultimately, the violence of "just breathing."

The point isn't to apportion blame; that's not helpful. The point is to 
recognize the problematic nature of this violent asymmetry that codifies 
and structures desire.
The same violence that made the feminists in the streets say, "Who cares 
if they talk about consent, they're unfuckable anyway."
For me, a feminist, a survivor, and unfuckable, the approval of this 
amendment will change little. The social and political significance of 
this approval, and the fight to prevent it, will, however, mean 
something. Or a lot; it will depend on us how we write it.
In memory of Franca Viola, who rebelled against her rapist and her 
shotgun wedding. And also of her father, who was her ally.

Asia

https://umanitanova.org/a-proposito-di-consenso-tutte-quello-che-avremmo-dovuto-sapere-e-che-oggi-osiamo-chiedere/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en