Sexual autonomy, the missing piece of sexual consent

I've been reading Unwanted Sex - The Culture Of Intimidation and the Failure Of Law by
Stephen Schulhofer, about sexual coercion, sexual harassment, and sexual autonomy. It was published back in 2000, but it's still recommended reading for people interested in the subject.

He argues that laws don't protect women against sexual assault because consent is defined wrongly, and consent is defined wrong because the concept of sexual autonomy has been left out of the definition of consent. Sexual autonomy is the idea that two people are free agents when it comes to sexual contacts and there are no entanglements which would prohibit one from exercising their full rights in the sexual relationship. Schulhofer argues that sexual assault and abuse should be redefined to take into account that in some situations, seemingly free agents in sexual relationships may not be truly free agents, and to consider it a form of sex assault.

This world view was pioneered by Catharine McKinnon in the 70s and 80s, and led to the adoption of sexual harassment policies and civil remedies. McKinnon's anti-porn stance, summed up in layman (or laywoman's) terms as "adult porn is to women what child porn is to kids," caused major divisions among feminists back in the 1980s. McKinnon introduced the concept of power differences in boss/subordinate relationships, and in 2005, with Women's Bodies - Men's Laws states that power differences can make an ostenably equal pairing unequal.

In short, sexual abuse and assault isn't just a lack of consent, but the lack of ability to consent. The lack of ability to consent is what makes teacher student sex criminal, and sexualization of fiduciary relationships unethical. Whenever there is an "offer" of sexual activity by a boss, sexual harassment, coercion, and even assault is present, depending on the other dynamics present in the encounter.

Without autonomy, there can never be true consent, and without consent, there is only sexual coercion of some sort. Instead of “consensual” and “non-consensual” sex, perhaps sexual relationships should be classified into "coerced" and "non-coerced," or perhaps “autonomous” and “non-autonomous.” There are plenty of legal relationships which are not autonomous, including bosses and subordinates in the workplace, lawyers and clients, and doctors and patients. Of course, all of these people can be sued for sexual harassment and malpractice, and a jury would probably believe the victim, but in most states, the perpetrators are not criminally liable. Teacher/student and therapist/patient sex are the exceptions, with criminal liability and a Sex Offender Registry entry in the criminal's future if convicted.

Power differences stemming from different victimization status are also a factor in determining if a sexual relationship is autonomous or if there are outside forces "compelling " sexual contact. Some traumas prime victims for revictimization. Sexual re-victimization is much higher for CSA or sexual assault victims than other victims. In Bobbie Rosencrans' book "The Last Secret," 62% of the CSA victims studied were revictimized as adults. In many cases, CSA or DV survivors are in relationships which more closely resemble adult/child sex rather than healthy adult/adult sex.

These differences may well make a legal sexual pairing a form of sexual abuse. Take the case of Jim and Katie. Both are in their late 20s, but Katie has a history of domestic violence and sexual abuse. She lives with Jim because the homeless shelters are her only other options. If Jim demands sex from Katie and she submits, it's legal because both are over 18 and there is no coercion in the legal sense, but Katie is not sexually autonomous. Katie is having sex with Jim so she can have a roof over her head. Autonomous people do not do this - desperate people do. Jim is taking advantage of her, and making her his victim. Katie does not truly have the ability to consent to the sexual relationship with Jim.