Article about BDSM scene not being any more egalitarian than anywhere else.(112 Posts)
I suppose I'm not surprised by this. I don't have anything against BDSM sex per se, but I do think it's absurd to pretend that it's somehow less likely to involve abuse and coercion than any other kind of sex.
There's a big difference between BDSM and abuse.
In BDSM roleplay there is consent.
In abuse there is never consent.
How very depressing. Have you seen this case, Fastidia?
When I was younger the stereotype of BDSM was of a dominatrix clad in black leather whipping an over-excited man... now it seems to be of, er, men being violent towards women.
[disclaimer: I have no experience of the scene myself.]
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
That is horrific MooncupGoddess. Shows how people have swallowed this shit. <no pun intended>.
Fastidia, good article, thank you. Not surprising though.
ok I read the article. They agreed on a safe word but she never used it. She could have said the safe word (and withdrew) consent at any time but she didn't. If she had said the safe word and he continued it would be abuse and assault.
BDSM certainly isn't for everyone, that's for sure.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Of course its still got arseholes in it as much as any other scene. I think its totally open to abuse. I have been involved in the scene here and there and have found that there are many instances where it is great fun and involves deep wonderful communication and playfulness and pushing boundaries. I have also seen stuff that quite frankly terrifies me. Still, if its consensual, its consensual and just because its not my kink, doesnt mean its not ok.
Im glad that guy got off in that metro article. Wow, I cant believe she would have reported it. She wanted it.
It isn't just about consent though. It is about the context of consent.
And you have to question what kind of man wants to do that to a woman.
"Consent" as a term is extremely problematic.
Men have traditionally been the people who got to define consent. And surprise surprise, they defined it in such a way as to enable them to rape women and get away with it not being recognised as consent. Rapey men managed to get their definition of what constitutes consent, written into law.
People who talk about consent without recognising that, are glossing over the issues.
I can understand wanting to do that: the issues are uncomfortable. That's why so many people want to gloss over them.
"She wanted it"
Branleues I can't believe you've actually written that.
It makes you sound as though you feel you are more qualified to state what the woman's needs and desires were at that time, than she is.
Do you understand how that makes you sound as if you've bought into patriarchal bullshit?
I genuinely don't see what the man in the metro article could have done further to ensure consent. They signed a contract, agreed a safe word and she had 'property of Stephen Lock' tattooed on her genitals - which implies that she was a fairly heavy player in the scene.
To the people who think he was wrong - what more do you think he could have done to ensure consent?
BDSM is problematic, but I have always felt safer and more respected in BDSM clubs than "normal" clubs.
Last time I went to one, a guy felt me up uninvited and wouldn't leave me alone. He was chucked out immediately and barred and loads of people asked if I was ok. Same thing happens in a normal club, the bouncers/other clubbers couldn't give a fuck.
He could have, perhaps as a wild thought, chosen not to hurt a woman.
AKiss - without knowing really much more about the case, I couldn't say.
I can't pretend to be an expert on how couples who get their kicks from inflicting pain on each other, ensure consent. Or whether they are honest enough to recognise that even the existence of a safe word may not be a talisman against abuse.
Signing a contract sounds to me like an incredibly dodgy, abusive thing though. Signing away your right to withdraw consent is just not a valid "thing" IMO. In the same way as in English Law, you cannot consent to your own murder. I don't know why that originally was written into statute: I suspect it's something to do with the fact that even the patriarchs who wrote our laws, recognised that most people would never consent to their own murder unless there was a high degree of coercion or vulnerability going on and so they put that in as a protection. I'm very uneasy about the concept of people signing away their right to bodily integrity.
Abigail what if the woman WANTED to be hurt?
I enjoy BDSM. I wouldn't want my partner to not engage with me on that level because he's worried about hurting me.
I think if you have no experience of BDSM it is very hard to comment on this, to be honest.
She didn't sign away her right to withdraw consent, she had a safe word which she didn't use.
I thought the article was very interesting and it made sense to me. Of course there is as much potential for abuse and coercion in the BDSM scene as there is within "normal" relationships/sexual encounters. You get abusers in all walks of life - it makes sense that they would exist here too.
The main problem seems to be - as seen here! - that most people seem to think that if you engage in BDSM (as a submissive) then you "probably wanted it anyway", and what did you expect? ie, denying that any abuse can ever take place within BDSM. Which, if you think about it, is as ludicrous as saying that there is no such thing as rape within a marriage. Just because someone is "submissive" that doesn't mean they consent to everything at all times. It is my understanding that the intention of the "contract" is to outline the boundaries and make them clear before the "scene" starts, so that the sub doesn't have to come out of character halfway through and say, actually, I really don't want you do to THAT. From the article, it would seem that in practice it's quite common for contracts to be broken, which to me shows that they're not working in the intended manner. Also, it sounded (again going from the article as I don't have personal experience of the "scene") as though once one is in the moment, as it were, it's very difficult to protest anything - I'd imagine that's a heavy psychological effect rather than anything physical although of course it might be difficult to protest if you've been bound and gagged, or something.
Of course there's the view as well that all BDSM is abusive and I can see the point of that, but I wonder if it's a bit simplistic.
Its a shame if she felt she couldnt use her safe word, but whole play scenes are based on being clear with each other and being able to PLAY at being hurt but never going further than you want to and to make sure the other person had a way of saying no, fuck off, no more now. You cant look at it in the context of normal relations. People REALLY get off on this, and this in my opinion is prety scary that someone would have all the proper precautions and protocol in place and someone would then be taken to court. I guess its the risk you take if youre playing with someone you dont know well, but she had his name tattooed on her genitals, shed signed a contract, they had agreed a safeword and he would have stopped at any time she used it.
If you dont have any masochistic tendencies, I can see how it could be very hard to understand how anyone could want this, and there are a lot of men and women who get off on power dynamics, but.... It only works when there is consent, otherwise its abuse.
She was playing with fire and went further than she wanted to, but the dominating partner in this instance was not a mind reader and was relying on her safe word. Maybe he wasnt experienced enough either. Maybe they were both stupid? Maybe theyd read too much 50 shades of grey and got carried away without realising that BDSM isnt actually all about handsome millionaires buying you cars and a bit of light spanking. Idiots.
i dont think this has got anything to do with womens rights or feminism.
In my experience there are a lot more men that want to be whipped and dominated than women.
Message withdrawn at poster's request.
Really JustaHolyFool, even though she said she thought she wouldn't enjoy it, you don't want to question the motives of a man who wants to or thinks it is OK to whip a woman? Especially given the context that we live in a patriarchy?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.