Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Feminism: chat

Original poster

Consent is not the be-all and end-all

334 replies

MagicMix · 18/01/2019 11:14

Following on from the thread about the impact of porn and other threads about the implausibility of consent to brutal practices.

The focus on sexual consent in feminism in recent years has been positive to a certain extent but I think we have lost nuance when we consider consent to be the key to sexual ethics.

Consent is not a green light for whatever you want, it is the bare minimum. Sex without consent is obviously very wrong (rape or sexual assault). And most feminists have at least some understanding that coerced consent is a problem and does not equate to true consent, although some seem unable to understand that paying someone is clear-cut coercion.

But we have to go further. Consent does not make everything all right. There are some things that can never be all right and the anti-kink-shaming 'sex-positive' thinking that refuses to condemn anything as long as someone is getting sexually aroused by it has led us down some very dark paths.

If you can stomach it, here is an article about a woman who claims to be sexually aroused by being waterboarded.
www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-features/waterboarding-kink-sex-bdsm-torture-779066/
Now I don't believe her and my personal opinion is that the M is BDSM is a form of self-harm, but really that is not the main point. The point is, somebody did that to her because she asked for it. People are quite literally torturing other people in the pursuit of sexual pleasure and we are expected to be non-judgmental.

The point is that the S in BDSM is sick and wrong. It was said on the other thread that we need to bring back kink shaming. Yes a thousand times. They can call me a prude, frigid, accuse me of being in a moral panic, I don't care. If someone gets sexual pleasure from hurting people, torturing people, acting out scenarios that put them in the role of rapist or slave-owner, I think that person has an unhealthy, dangerous sexuality and should seek help. It should not be accepted uncritically as harmless just because there was consent.

OP posts:
New posts on this thread. Refresh page
Original poster
MagicMix · 21/01/2019 13:10

If you took the S out of BDSM you'd have to make the M in BDSM redundant.

Hm well it is possible to hurt yourself without asking someone else to do it for you. I certainly don't think it's a good idea, but solo masochistic sexual practices probably exist. Don't fancy looking it up.

There are those auto asphyxiation wanking accidents you sometimes hear about, for one thing.

OP posts:
Imnobody4 · 21/01/2019 10:10

newyear
This thread is about the normalisation of sexual sadism as a behaviour not trans issues. It relates to the use of the concept of consent to sexual violence in a court of law.

Calvinsmam · 21/01/2019 09:20

newyear

Well the difference between abusive men using self id and bdsm as a cover for their abuse and misandrists using feminist discourse is that the numbers and the risks.
Where are all the misandrists killing and raping men?

It’s not a slippery slope at all, the boundaries are clear. Your sexual pleasure is not more important than my safety or right to dignanty, ever.

And euthanasia is totally different because it is completely down to the person who is dying, and it is not dependent on or for the benefit of someone else’s boner.

Though the most compelling argument against euthanasia in my opinion is that people might feel compelled to do it rather than go into a home and be a financial burden on their family.

SonicVersusGynaephobia · 21/01/2019 00:49

The icemountainfire link was excellent.

NewYearNewName111 · 21/01/2019 00:47

I don't disagree, but some people (not just on this thread) seem to have no issue with post-op transsexuals who are close to passing, but are extremely worried about sexual fetishists (for obvious reasons).

And is euthanasia not consenting to your own murder (albeit for very different reasons).

Ereshkigal · 21/01/2019 00:29

We're saying no males, especially obvious non passing ones, should be in women's spaces because it violates women's rights to privacy, dignity and safety. And that you shouldn't be able to consent to your own murder. You seem confused.

NewYearNewName111 · 21/01/2019 00:24

I agree with many of the points made, but I'm a bit anxious about the idea of prohibiting things in case they are abused by people who are not actually a part of the original group. Common examples seem to be men who are not genuinely trans co-opting self-ID to gain access to women's spaces, and also men who use the consensual BDSM argument to commit vile transgressions.

I see the logic, but where do we stop? If it became apparent that some people were using feminism as a vehicle to push misandric ideologies, for example, would it be fair to prohibit feminist discourse, even though the aforementioned people are only using it as a vehicle?

EJennings · 21/01/2019 00:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

AliceToo · 20/01/2019 23:58

If you took the S out of BDSM you'd have to make the M in BDSM redundant.

One sort of depends on the other.

Ereshkigal · 20/01/2019 23:15

Thirded - and the links for rape and violations in that piece are must-reads albeit very disturbing and very relevant

Click on every single word at the end where it says that they don't respect boundaries. They all link to evidence.

Ereshkigal · 20/01/2019 23:12

Yes agree that is amazing!

EJennings · 20/01/2019 23:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

arranbubonicplague · 20/01/2019 22:34

Icemountainfire - just wow!

Thirded - and the links for rape and violations in that piece are must-reads albeit very disturbing and very relevant.

LangCleg · 20/01/2019 22:26

Icemountainfire - just wow!

Seconded!

Ereshkigal · 20/01/2019 21:51

I call it sadomasochism rather than BDSM for the same reason why I won’t call males in dresses women. Oppressed groups have no obligation whatsoever to follow the language rules made by the oppressors.

Sing it loud.

Imnobody4 · 20/01/2019 21:49

Icemountainfire - just wow!

Original poster
MagicMix · 20/01/2019 21:26

Oops missed off the last backslash so not clicky.

icemountainfire.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/sacred-kink-i-questions/

OP posts:
Original poster
MagicMix · 20/01/2019 21:25

Unapologetic radfem comebacks to the standard defences of BDSM. The point about 'boring' missionary style het sex requiring just as much trust as any kink was an eye opener for me.

icemountainfire.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/sacred-kink-i-questions

OP posts:
Original poster
MagicMix · 20/01/2019 20:37

Meghan Murphy on point:
www.feministcurrent.com/2017/10/10/point-kink-community-take-responsibility-anything-goes-approach-sex/

OP posts:
Imnobody4 · 20/01/2019 18:39

Absolutely agree EJennings. We treasure the concept of human rights. You cannot agree to give up your rights ie to elect to be a slave. It is inconceivable that consent to be tortured, humiliated etc can be seen as part of the framework of human rights.
We do not accept suicide as a issue of freedom. We consider it a public health issue. We ask why people would do something so destructive and consider how to support-we don't form groups justifying and fetishising self slaughter.

EJennings · 20/01/2019 18:03

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FlyingOink · 20/01/2019 17:32

I am reminded of this article:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.dailydot.com/irl/kink-bdsm-consent-problem/
Wow that's worth reading. I've just got around to it.
The author, who seems to take BDSM very seriously, lists times she and her female acquaintances have been molested, mentions high-status doms who are beyond reproach no matter what they do, then ends with a feeble request for kinksters to be better representatives of kink.
The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.

LangCleg · 20/01/2019 14:11

QED

earlywalker · 20/01/2019 14:06

Because of this, and given the choice, they would rather abusive men who murder women and get away with it continued to do so, than agree to society mitigating the harm to women.
Well there’s a nice bit of gaslighting for all too see.
Not what people have said at all.
The issue is with the justice system and abusive men, not what people should be allowed to consent too in private.

LangCleg · 20/01/2019 14:00

I’m honestly confused by the assertion several people have made that this debate isn’t about personal choices. I can’t see how sex is about anything else.

Hmm. You don't sound confused.

This is what is happening: people on this thread are reacting with hostility to the idea that a kink subculture they are involved in has now been sufficiently normalised in society that abusive men are exploiting it, killing or harming women, and then putting up defences in court that allow them to receive very light sentences or get off altogether.

This is a significant social harm for women as a class and something needs to be done to mitigate it.

This is not confusing you. People on this thread are sufficiently invested in their kink subculture identity that they interpret the material reality of the social harm involved in the normalising of it as a personal attack on that identity. Because of this, and given the choice, they would rather abusive men who murder women and get away with it continued to do so, than agree to society mitigating the harm to women.

Nothing confusing here at all.