The Body’s Response Is Not Consent
On Involuntary Bodily Responses, Responsibility, and the Shame That May Arise Afterwards
Among the most difficult experiences following sexual abuse are not always only the memories of what was done. For some, there are also the memories of how the body responded.
The body may have reacted to touch. It may have felt warmth, tension, or a form of physical pleasure. A child may have sought attention, looked forward to the closeness, or felt attached to the adult who was at the same time violating the child’s boundaries.
Later, such experiences may be interpreted as evidence:
Perhaps I wanted it.
Perhaps I participated.
Perhaps I cannot call it abuse.
Perhaps it was partly my fault.
This is one of shame’s most painful distortions. An involuntary bodily response is transformed into a moral choice. The body is summoned as a witness against the person.
But the body can respond without the person saying yes.
A response is not consent.
When the Body and the Will Do Not Speak with One Voice
We often think that the body expresses what a person truly wants.
When we are happy, we smile.
When we are afraid, we withdraw.
When we desire closeness, the body responds.
Reality is more complex.
A person may laugh nervously in a serious situation. A person may become silent when they most want to cry out. A person may freeze when they want to run. The body can respond automatically, before the mind has had time to understand what is happening.
The same is true of sexual touch. The nervous system may respond to stimulation even when the person is afraid, uncertain, disconnected, or wishes the act to stop.
The physiological response tells us that the body was touched.
It does not tell us that the person wanted the act.
The body cannot give consent on behalf of the person.
The Inner Trial
Later, the adult may conduct an inner trial against the child he or she once was.
The charges may sound like this:
My body responded.
I did not resist enough.
Something about the closeness felt good.
I went back.
Therefore, I must have participated.
But this trial rests on a fundamental error. It treats the body’s automatic response as though it were a considered moral decision.
Nor does it ask:
Who was the adult?
Who had the power?
Who understood the situation?
Who was responsible for protecting the boundary?
Who had the ability to stop what was happening?
When these questions are included, the picture changes.
The child was not responsible for regulating the adult’s sexuality. It was the adult who had the duty to understand the difference between a child’s need for closeness and an adult’s responsibility for boundaries.
The Child’s Desire for Closeness
Children seek attention, care, and belonging.
They may be pleased when an adult shows them particular interest. They may long to be chosen, seen, or held. When a child lacks security elsewhere, an adult’s attention may become especially important.
When this closeness is sexualised, the child may later think:
I sought the contact myself.
I cared about the person.
I wanted to be with him or her.
But the child may have wanted the relationship without understanding or wanting the adult’s sexual actions.
The child may have sought care while at the same time being subjected to something it was not equipped to understand or evaluate.
The child’s attachment does not cancel the violation.
It shows, rather, how great the adult’s responsibility was.
Something Can Feel Good and Still Be Wrong
We often want moral experiences to be unambiguous.
What is wrong should feel bad.
What feels good must be good.
But human experience does not always follow such a simple order.
An act may produce physical pleasure while at the same time being a serious violation of trust and self-determination. A relationship may contain warmth, playfulness, and attention while the adult is exploiting the child.
It is therefore possible that the child experienced certain aspects of the closeness as good, while the situation as a whole was abusive.
This does not make the experience less true.
It makes it more complex.
Acknowledging this complexity is not to minimise what happened. It is to avoid forcing the child once again to simplify their own experience in order to be believed.
Consent Requires Freedom
Consent is not merely a bodily response.
Nor is it simply the absence of protest.
Real consent requires understanding, freedom, and the possibility of choosing. It must be safe to say no. It must be possible to change one’s mind. The people involved must occupy sufficiently equal positions.
A child and an adult do not stand in such a relationship.
The child depends on the adult’s judgement, protection, and responsibility. The child cannot be expected to understand the full meaning of the acts or their consequences for development.
A child’s curiosity, attachment, or bodily response can therefore never release the adult from responsibility.
It was the adult who should have set the boundary.
When the Body Is Experienced as a Traitor
Some describe the body as though it betrayed them.
I was afraid, but my body responded.
I wanted to get away, but my body was not unambiguous.
I feel as though my body took the other person’s side.
In this way, a split may develop between the person and the body. The body is treated as an enemy that revealed a hidden truth.
But perhaps the body was never on the other person’s side.
It was caught in the same situation as the child.
It responded to touch, fear, tension, and closeness with the capacities available to it. It could freeze, become numb, adapt, or respond automatically. None of these reactions amounted to moral approval.
The body did not fail the child.
It was the adult who failed in their responsibility.
The Shame of Having Been Alive
There is a particularly painful form of shame in punishing the body for having been alive.
The body may have responded because it was sensitive and functioning. But later, this sign of life is interpreted as guilt.
The person may then try to keep the body under strict control.
She may avoid touch.
She may try to become numb.
She may feel guilty when something feels good.
She may believe she has no right to pleasure.
In this way, the abuse can continue to restrict life long after the acts themselves have ended. Not only through fear and pain, but through a prohibition against pleasure.
What once happened beyond the child’s control comes to determine what the adult later dares to feel.
When the Past Enters New Intimacy
As an adult, a person may desire closeness with a partner she trusts. The relationship may be voluntary, safe, and loving.
Even so, bodily responses may awaken old memories.
What is happening now may suddenly feel like what happened then. The person may lose her sense of presence, become frightened, or need to stop.
This does not necessarily mean that she does not want the partner or the closeness. It means that the body carries experiences that do not always follow chronological time.
The past may become present in the body before the mind has time to say:
This is different.
Such responses cannot be removed by demands to relax or trust more. The body needs new experiences in which self-determination is real.
Touch that stops when the person asks.
A no that does not lead to rejection.
A yes that can be withdrawn.
Closeness without an obligation to continue to the end.
In this way, the body may gradually experience the difference between being taken over and participating freely.
The Other Person’s Responsibility to Ask and Listen
In a safe relationship, bodily responses cannot be used as a simple measure of what the person wants.
A partner may assume that everything is fine because the body responds. But it is possible to be physically aroused and emotionally absent. It is possible to desire closeness and still need a pause.
The other person must therefore be willing to ask:
Does this feel good for you now?
Shall we continue?
Do you need us to stop?
What matters is not only that the question is asked, but that the answer has consequences.
If a no is met with disappointment, pressure, or guilt, freedom becomes smaller. If a request to pause is respected without protest, the body may gradually learn that it now belongs to a different kind of space than before.
Safety is not only the absence of violence.
It is the experience that one’s boundaries matter.
The Physiological Body and the Lived Body
It may be helpful to distinguish between the physiological body and the lived body.
The physiological body consists of nerves, blood flow, muscles, and automatic responses.
The lived body is the body as it is experienced from within: with memories, fear, trust, boundaries, and meaning.
During a violation, the physiological body may respond to touch while the lived body experiences confusion, insecurity, or powerlessness.
The problem arises when one local bodily response is allowed to define the whole experience:
My body responded, so I must have wanted it.
But a human being is more than a reflex.
The situation as a whole includes age, power, understanding, relationship, freedom, and the possibility of saying no.
The bodily response may be real.
It may also be true that the act was not wanted or chosen.
These truths do not exclude one another.
A Capacity for Pleasure That Does Not Belong to the Perpetrator
Some may feel that the person who violated them also gained ownership of their later capacity for pleasure.
Touch becomes connected to that person.
Desire becomes connected to the secret.
The body’s responses feel as though they still belong to the old relationship.
But the capacity to feel pleasure was not created by the perpetrator.
It belongs to the human body.
It belonged to the child before the violation, and it can still belong to the adult afterwards.
The person who misused a bodily capacity does not thereby gain moral ownership of it.
Reclaiming the body may also mean saying:
My capacity to feel something good belongs to me.
It is not evidence that what happened was right.
It is not bound to the person who violated me.
It may take on another meaning in a life in which I participate on my own terms.
Telling the Whole Truth
People who experienced bodily responses during abuse may fear that they will not be believed if they tell the whole truth.
They may feel pressured to describe everything only in terms of pain, disgust, or resistance.
They are then forced to choose between credibility and truthfulness.
An ethical conversation must be able to hold more than one experience at the same time.
It must be possible to say:
I cared about the person.
I liked the attention.
Some aspects of the touch could feel good.
And at the same time:
I was a child.
I was not free or equal.
I did not understand what the relationship involved.
The adult should not have made it sexual.
These statements do not contradict one another.
They reveal the distinction between bodily experience and moral responsibility.
The Helper Who Can Bear Complexity
When a person speaks about an involuntary bodily response, she may watch the helper’s face closely.
Will there be surprise?
Will there be doubt?
Will there be a sudden change in the gaze?
A moralising response may confirm the shame. But dismissing the experience too quickly can also diminish it:
It was only a reflex. It means nothing.
For the person, it may have meant a great deal. It may have shaped the entire relationship with the body, intimacy, and trust in one’s own experience.
A more precise response might be:
I hear that your body responded.
I understand that this has made you doubt yourself.
The response did not make you responsible for the adult’s actions.
We do not need to deny what the body did in order to place responsibility correctly.
In this way, the person can tell the truth without having the truth used against her.
From an Accused Body to a Surviving Body
The body may need a new language.
Not:
My body betrayed me.
But:
My body was in a situation it could not control.
Not:
The response showed what I truly wanted.
But:
The response showed that the body was alive and capable of responding to touch.
Not:
I was complicit.
But:
The adult was responsible for the boundary, regardless of how the body responded.
Such language does not remove every difficult feeling. But it may make it possible to meet the body with less disgust and greater understanding.
The body was not the perpetrator.
It was the place where both the violation and survival occurred.
The Right to Feel Something Good
A human being has not only the right to be protected from pain.
A human being also has the right to pleasure, joy, and closeness.
For someone who associates bodily pleasure with violation, this may be difficult to believe. What feels good may seem dangerous because it resembles something from the past.
But two bodily experiences may resemble one another and still have entirely different moral meanings.
Touch may be physiologically similar, while the relationship is different.
The body may respond, but the person now has a voice.
Closeness may take place within freedom, equality, and respect.
The moral distinction does not lie in which nerves respond.
It lies in whether the person has a real possibility of choosing, stopping, and being met with respect.
A Sentence for the Body
Perhaps the body needs to hear this many times before it can be experienced as true:
You responded because you were a living body.
The response was not a promise.
It was not consent.
It did not make the child an adult.
It did not release the adult from responsibility.
You could feel something good and still be violated.
You could long for closeness and still be exploited.
It was not your task to set the adult boundary.
Reclaiming the Body’s Responses
The way forward does not consist in proving that the body never responded.
Nor does it consist in rewriting the experience until everything becomes unambiguous.
It consists in placing what happened where it belongs.
The body’s response belonged to the body.
The responsibility belonged to the adult.
The complexity belonged to the situation.
The guilt did not belong to the child.
When this distinction gradually becomes possible, the body no longer needs to serve as a witness against the person.
The response no longer needs to be interpreted as a verdict.
It can be understood for what it was: an involuntary bodily response in a situation the child was not responsible for controlling.
The body responded.
But the child did not therefore say yes.
The body was alive.
But the child was not guilty.
The way forward does not consist in proving that the body never responded.
Nor does it consist in rewriting the experience until everything becomes unambiguous.
It consists in placing what happened where it belongs.
This essay was developed through a new reading of the focus-group discussions and in-depth interviews that formed the foundation of my doctoral dissertation, A Study of Shame (2009). The text is part of the series Conversations About Shame and was written in conversation with OpenAI/ChatGPT.
No comments:
Post a Comment