The epistemology of intent
This is phrase that I’ve borrowed from Michael Frayn who cited it to describe one of the themes in his play Copenhagen, and I think that it could be used to characterise the problems the characters in Consent have in understanding their own behaviour. Virtually all of the characters display a lack of consistency and clarity about their feelings and motives for their actions, as Kitty recognises: “I’m astounded by the lack of insight, the way people don’t even see what they’re doing even as they’re doing it.” She herself embarks on the affair with Tim and unexpectedly finds herself emotionally overwhelmed. She is almost bewildered by her own behaviour, resigned to accepting that “You can’t legislate for human behaviour.” Similarly Zara’s own judgement seems unreliable when on first meeting she declares unequivocally that she just “doesn’t fancy” Tim, only to surprise us subsequently by falling for him. Underlying many of their irrational impulses is of course the mystery and power of sexual attraction, as Jake pointedly puts it: “it’s impossible to communicate the pheremonal semiology of sexual attraction.”

Rachel propounds “Is there anything that doesn’t stem from a sexual motive”.  Their behaviour certainly seems to indicate that its power overrides the rational management of their actions. Tim cannot account to Edward for the reason that he continues his affair with Kitty: “When you boil an egg the structure of the molecules change. The egg doesn’t know why. It just becomes a boiled egg.”  Edward doesn’t grant, however, that our consciousness really abdicates its moral awareness – we cannot escape the voice inside our head, although it is capable of creating its own justifications. And ultimately Edward himself is proof of the limits of our consciousness to comprehend our own motives. When Rachel challenges him on his anger and aggression toward Kitty: “Ed, this is crazy. You’re rational. You’re intelligent.”, it’s Jake who pinpoints the irrational sources within us: “If you’re hurt enough, you become stupid.”  Sexual violence may be an expression of rage or frustration; frustration at a lack of control, and aggression an attempt to exert control.

The characters in the play frequently demonstrate a lack of understanding of each other, but most tellingly also of themselves. When Jake says “I look back at myself and I don’t know who the person was who did those things”  he could have been speaking for all of them.