Sexual Consent without Passivity

Abstract In “The Opposite of Rape,” John Gardner defends two central claims. The first claim is that consent is not necessary for morally permissible sex and the second claim is that giving consent pride of place in sexual offence policy has the unwelcome consequence of reinforcing sexist ideology. Gardner’s arguments for both claims rely on what I call the “Passive Consent Thesis” which is the thesis that “if A gives consent to B in a sexual encounter, then A is passive and B is active in the encounter.” Gardner argues that if sex that is good in a key respect, then they engage in joint sexual activity that is free of this asymmetry of agency. Building on work by Karamvir Chadha, I respond that even if someone is passive with respect to the action to which they consent, they can still be active with respect to a different action that they perform themselves. Consequently, I maintain that two people can give each other consent while engaging in joint sexual activity.