Absence of Consent
Consent has come to be the guardian and gatekeeper of significant elements of our personal integrity. Yet there remains uncertainty as to exactly what consent means. This paper argues that consent marks the divide between the active and the passive. We tend to assume that in our engagements with others, active and passive, there are only two possibilities, consent and non-consent, when in fact there are three. When an agent engages with a patient consent is vital, because the alternative is non-consent. When two people interact, however, consent has nothing to contribute. The law, for excellent reasons, ignores this nuance, so as to treat every absence of consent as non-consent. It does so in order to arm potential victims with a weapon for their protection. To grasp the full significance of that weapon, and to secure proper scrutiny of interaction in other settings, we need to be alive to the reality that the law dispenses with.