Do you think Hannibal cares about consent with Will?
He doesn’t even know that word, look at everything he’s done to Will’s body.
Only sexually but only because he has pride, not because he cares.
Of course, he’s actually nice.
I don’t think he understands consent.
No but maybe he changes after the fall…?
See Results
Oh, I’d like to talk about this.
Hannibal’s relationship with consent seems to be driven less by external social norms and more by his internal sense of aesthetics and personal mythos. In the world he has created for himself, “consent” is not tied to moral imperatives. Instead, it’s an aesthetic and relational ideal.
He seems to see desire as something to be cultivated, not demanded or forced outright. In sexual matters, he likely finds coercion to be inelegant, he wants to be wanted, and so he would consider true desire (even if he manipulates it) as the ultimate form of “consent.” For him, sexual violence would be an aesthetic failure because it signifies that he did not succeed in making himself an object of authentic desire.
But, beyond sex his notion of consent is amorphous, maybe even non-existent. He does not value the integrity of another’s will or mind because he sees himself as the ultimate arbiter of meaning. He sees his manipulations not as violations but as acts of creation: he’s sculpting, refining, guiding someone towards their “true” self (at least as he sees it).
And Hannibal’s love for Will is expressed as a desire to break him open and remake him. He believes that Will’s “true self” is waiting to be liberated from social conventions. In his mind, the manipulations and violations he performs on Will, psychological, emotional, physical, are not coercive but revelatory. He doesn’t conceptualize these acts as violations because he does not see Will’s existing self as authentic or complete. Will’s resistance is part of the dance; to Hannibal, it is not “non-consent” but a sign of the layers that must be peeled away.
So sexually consent to him is aesthetic triumph: being desired is the highest expression of his seduction. Psychologically consent is irrelevant because he’s “liberating” the other, not violating them.
In his worldview consent is not a moral necessity but an aesthetic ideal, and violation is only ugly if it is graceless or if it fails to produce beauty or transformation.
This is, of course, entirely from within Hannibal’s own perspective. He lives in a hall of mirrors, where all definitions are recast to reflect his own mythic self-image.