Consent is not the be-all and end-all

EJennings
Don't kid yourself. If they could find a way to get the public to believe those animals consented, they'd do the same to the animals.

Yet when someone claims to get off on being seriously injured during sex, we suddenly say that this is a totally free choice that should be respected and cannot be criticised because it would be kink-shaming

So true Funky. And our children are surrounded by a torrent of porn alongside adults displaying their fetish and kinks for all to see . They are being taught that this is normal and that girls who don't accept whatever men want are 'frigid', pearl clutching, censorious and so on.

I don't know why there isn't a law that gross bodily injury vitiates consent, so that consent is even at issue and can't be a defence. That seems simple enough.
Simple, but it gets bogged down in human rights law.
Whereas my (rather libertarian if I do say so myself) argument is now this: if you're partaking in an activity that could end up costing the country money (therapy for your subs, wound care, prosecution costs, etc) then you should be financially liable for those costs.
Make them take out Dom Insurance! They'd have to document and prove their training, document and prove ongoing enthusiastic consent, document and prove the equipment and venue were suitable, the works.
Health and Safety wouldn't allow you to do a non-sexual leisure activity that was high risk without those things being in place, right?

Harm is harmful

Yet when someone claims to get off on being seriously injured during sex, we suddenly say that this is a totally free choice that should be respected and cannot be criticised because it would be kink-shaming.

Yes, yes! Absolutely agree!

Iused sadly the author did say (paraphrasing) that she felt women wanted to be dominated and that explained the success of the book.

Early again no one is saying this should/will be outlawed by a nanny state. It is the business of women who have sex with men to discuss what they see as a violent trend of male sexual violence dressed up as consensual sexy fun. It is my business, it is our business, and especially here where we're discussing our own personal feelings, beliefs and experiences around this issue and how that relates to feminism. No one here is talking about you and what happens in your bedroom. Go out and get that anal! :)

The issue isn't the masochist, it's the sadist, surely? The sadist is the dealer.

Of course. But those who defend BDSM argue that it's all cool because the masochist consents to it. So I was pointing out that when people engage in other self-harming behaviours, we don't say it's cool and that people have the choice to slash their arms or take dangerous drugs. Instead, we tell them to get help to work out why they want to engage in that behaviour. Yet when someone claims to get off on being seriously injured during sex, we suddenly say that this is a totally free choice that should be respected and cannot be criticised because it would be kink-shaming.

Going back to the OP, is there any way to change the law so the onus is on the accused to prove consent?
The current assumptions just don't work. The more implausible it is that an individual would consent to something, the higher the burden of proof required.
There will always be ways around it, of course. Coercion to sign porn contracts shows us that.
Financial obligations maybe? As in, if you choke this girl and she suffers brain damage from lack of oxygen, you are criminally charged and required to contribute financially to her care - regardless of consent - without bankruptcy being an option, like how non-payment of child support is a imprisonable offence in the US.
It's blunt, but I think it might focus people's mind on their responsibilities when carrying out dangerous activities. Fuck up, lose your house. Now how kinky do you feel?

I do find it fascinating that people who clearly have no understanding or experience with something, feel they are best equipped to judge what it entails and what is acceptable within it. Found the below article interesting:

medium.com/@lachristagreco/bdsm-feminism-the-two-can-coexist-6f06977f291e

BDSM is usually carried out in a safe way, with codewords and understandings

Yeh. Cool. Empowering. Choicy choicy etc

I think the 50 shades of crap is a red herring. The people reading it were really fantasising about a billionaire boyfriend and if it involved a bit of pain to access the free credit card well... no pain no gain.
That's my take on it. But sadly I do think the marketing success has been misinterpreted (wilfully or lazily) as meaning large numbers of women want nothing more than a good beating.

Someone could say that about cutting themselves with a razor-blade though. People use self-harm as a form of emotional release and also describe a sense of calm. But we all know that it's extremely damaging and those who engage in it should seek help through therapy.
Probably. But you could say the same of being promiscuous, of binging and purging, of smoking, of drinking to excess, of using illegal drugs, of masturbating too frequently (especially to porn). People do a lot of self-harming in an attempt to self-soothe.
The issue isn't the masochist, it's the sadist, surely? The sadist is the dealer.

A lot of people believe that what happens between two consenting adults in the privacy of their home, is none of your business.
Obviously, some people believe we should police what people do ‘for the greater good’
I accept I’m in the minority on MN but I’ve never been a fan of a nanny state.
If someone does something without consent, it’s assault. Whether they agreed to the initial sex and it was taken too far, still assault, they didn’t stop when they said too, still assault. Two adults doing what both parties want to do and have agreed to do with safe practices - no one else’s business
BDSM is usually carried out in a safe way, with codewords and understandings. If it’s taken too far then it becomes assault.

Anybody who really thinks that violent sex is liberating etc etc ask yourself how you would feel if your children sought that kind of relationship. What do you want for your kids? Nobody would say BDSM. For very good reason.

Lichtie
I read another couple of links and anecdotally being submissive was favoured across the board, but more strongly by women.

Funky yes, this exactly.
I'm agoraphobic and staying home all day is the way I soothe myself but I'm not touting it as a form of therapy. :)

It's almost more humiliating to reflect on how you said you definitely wanted exactly what you got. And if it goes a little too far, if it's a little too bracing and if you have to use the safeword because it fucking hurt a lot instead of just some, that's all worked out well according to BDSM parameters. And who would listen anyway if you felt upset about it, because after all you'd asked for it.
That's a bloody good point.

We easily recognise that revelling in cruelty in non-sexual situations is not a characteristic of a good person. I do not think adding sex to the equation changes anything at all.

Agree.

FlyingOink, that's an interesting study. But it asks preferred roles with 75%+ women saying they prefer to be subs, only 8% say they prefer to be doms. Interesting that the male side of the preference shows less than 50% prefer to be doms and over a 3rd prefer to be subs. Seems to be an imbalance in the survey... Or not everyone plays the role they prefer?