‘Consent': How does one define consent when systemic inequalities define gendered interactions?

Scroll.in

25-05-2025

At the beginning of 2025, New York Magazine published a gripping cover story by Lila Shapiro titled ' Call Me Master ', which detailed the disturbing allegations of sexual assault made by eight women against The Sandman and Coraline author Neil Gaiman. In response, Gaiman categorically denied any wrongdoing, stating, 'I have never engaged in non-consensual sexual activity with anyone. Ever.' Yet, this is not an isolated case; it is part of a much larger reckoning shaped by the #MeToo movement – a movement that has repeatedly challenged the simplistic binary of yes and no when it comes to consent. It forces us to confront the complexities of power, coercion, and agency in intimate relationships, where lines are often blurred, and consent is not always as straightforward as it seems. The conversation around sexual violence has long been framed in terms of clear-cut violations, but the reality is far more nuanced. Power dynamics – shaped by gender, social hierarchies, and emotional dependencies – can render consent ambiguous, sometimes making coercion feel like choice. The #MeToo movement has laid bare these murky zones, compelling us to rethink the very foundations of how we understand consent, desire, and agency in interpersonal relationships.
The concept of consent
In her concise yet thought-provoking book, Consent: Fearful Asymmetry, Nilofer Kaul critically examines the concept of consent, unpacking its underlying assumptions of equality, rationality, and clear communication. But how do we navigate consent in a world that is inherently and unequally structured, where power imbalances are persistent and deeply entrenched? While consent may seem like a simple, straightforward principle, Kaul argues that it is anything but. Through her analysis, she highlights how the dynamics between two individuals are rarely equal – social, emotional, and structural power imbalances inevitably shape their choices, whether consciously or unconsciously. By focusing solely on consent as an isolated act of agreement or refusal, we risk overlooking the deeper violence embedded within these asymmetrical relationships. Kaul's work forces us to question whether the language of consent alone is sufficient when it often serves to mask the systemic inequalities that define gendered interactions.
In reality, consent is far more complex than it appears – especially in a society where a woman's smile, her body language, or even the length of her clothing is frequently misinterpreted as consent. The very notion that consent is specific and does not automatically extend from one act to another is something our culture often struggles to acknowledge. As a result, the boundary between consent and coercion becomes perilously thin. It is precisely on this line that Nilofer Kaul situates her analysis. She writes, 'Consent works well only if the two parties stand in perfect symmetry, a desirable but somewhat utopian situation.' By highlighting this fundamental imbalance, Kaul challenges the assumption that consent can function as a clear-cut, transactional agreement. Instead, she forces us to confront the uncomfortable reality that, in a world riddled with asymmetries, the very framework of consent is often inadequate to capture the complexities of agency, power, and coercion.
Kaul employs psychoanalysis – drawing extensively from Freud – to examine the unequal distribution of power between the sexes, particularly within intimate spaces. While this theoretical approach offers deep insights, it may pose a challenge for readers unfamiliar with psychoanalytic discourse.
She argues that masculinity is not just associated with power but is burdened with the need to constantly prove and assert it. This relentless assertion often manifests through displays of violence, reinforcing a fragile and delusional sense of dominance. According to Kaul, this constructed potency is sustained by the systematic erasure of vulnerability, emotional depth, and introspection – qualities deemed incompatible with masculinity. Instead, these 'undesirable' traits are projected onto femininity, reinforcing a rigid and unequal gender binary. Through this lens, she reveals how patriarchal structures perpetuate a cycle where power is both inherited and violently maintained, making true agency within intimate relationships an ongoing struggle.
Kaul delves into the fundamental asymmetry embedded within the very structure of gender organisation, where masculinity is exalted while femininity is systematically devalued. In this deeply entrenched hierarchy, men are positioned as inherently superior, while women are expected to exist in a state of subservience.
Consent, coercion, and constraint
Given this power imbalance, Kaul challenges the assumption that consent, as it operates within such a system, can ever be entirely free of coercion or constraint. When one gender is socialised to dominate and the other to submit, can consent truly be considered an act of untainted agency? By interrogating these dynamics, she compels us to rethink consent not as a neutral agreement between equals but as something that is always shaped – and often distorted – by the unequal structures within which it is negotiated.
While Consent: Fearful Asymmetry makes an urgent and necessary intervention in understanding the complexities of consent, its analysis remains largely confined to a binary understanding of gender, leaving unexamined the many intersections that further complicate power dynamics – class, caste, religion, and race, to name a few. These factors do not merely exist alongside gender but actively shape and intensify the asymmetry Kaul critiques. Additionally, her exploration of consent is primarily situated within the realm of romantic or intimate relationships, overlooking the many contexts where coercion operates beyond these boundaries. What about situations where women are pressured into providing sexual favours in exchange for employment, financial security, or other forms of survival? Or in conflict zones, where the imbalance of power is not just social but militarised, exacerbating the violence of forced consent? While Kaul's work is a valuable starting point, these questions remain crucial for a more comprehensive understanding of how consent operates in a deeply stratified world.