Article about BDSM scene not being any more egalitarian than anywhere else.

do you think women cant consent to stuff then. Kind of like children?

Maybe its the extra X chromosome that makes them unable to consent?

I know women who specifically seek this stuff out and who have rejected men who they didnt think were dominant enough, or didnt have enough of a sadistic streak for their liking.
It takes all sorts

No they won't Branleuse. That is one of the problems. Men don't get prosecuted or convicted for sexual assault in anything like the numbers of sexual assaults women are subjected to. As illustrated by the metro article.

I dont think consent is problematic, nor is it defined by men. If its defined by anyone other than the person giving the consent, then its not actually consent at all.
I hated the whole 50SOG thing and it was dangerous IMO precicesly because it wasnt about consent. The woman in it was pressurised, groomed and coerced and it made me feel sick. Nothing erotic about that IMO. If people are using that as their guidebook for kinky fun, then theyre going to be in for a big shock AND are going to run into assault charges pretty quickly

Charlizee is yet another one of our "visitors", I wouldn't necessarily waste much time engaging with them.

On topic - I think a real problem is that the stigma/taboo around BDSM can lead to participants being very defensive of the scene and this is when issues can get swept under the carpet.
I have to add here, I was really concerned to read a recent woman's mag sex tips which featured "mild" stuff inspired by 50 shades, all of which featured a man in the dominant role and no mention of consent or safewords whatsoever. Very worrying.

Bruises can be painful, but do they justify calling an ambulance?

""Consent" as a term is extremely problematic."

Is it? Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought yes means yes and no means no? Please tell me what's so problematic about that.

"StewieGriffinsMom Sun 27-Jan-13 16:45:47
Fastidia These are the links yes means yes blog "

In the article in the OP, the women said yes.

"And you have to question what kind of man wants to do that to a woman."

BDSM goes both ways. Either gender can be the dom and either gender can be the sub. Do you think BDSM is ok if it is a female whipping a male?

:(

I dont know what to think now

ill have a proper look. I only read the metro one

Abigail I think questioning everything is valid.

I don't understand why she didn't use the safe word and that is concerning to me, because it seems like she has low self-esteem or didn't actually have any trust in him or the relationship.

I do think, however, that it is ok for a man to whip a woman with her consent.

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?

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.

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 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.

She didn't sign away her right to withdraw consent, she had a safe word which she didn't use.

I think if you have no experience of BDSM it is very hard to comment on this, to be honest.

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.

He could have, perhaps as a wild thought, chosen not to hurt a woman.

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.

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?