Consent is not the be-all and end-all

What’s your plan OP? Shall we have police in bedrooms to ensure a woman whose sexual preferences are different to yours is not able to engage?
Who's going to stop that woman from doing exactly what she wants in the bedroom?
I think the point is if the woman reports rape/sexual assault there are some acts it should be legally impossible to consent to.
In itself that should make doms/sadists a hell of a lot more cautious about who they dominate or hurt.
I believe the law is meant to be that it is impossible to use consent as a defence focusing harm, but that doesn't appear to apply to men penetrating women for some reason.

I agree a woman should be free to do what she wants and not what society/partner etc wants her to do, why are you assuming a woman couldn’t possibly want those things and why do you want her to be shamed into not wanting those things?

If I say I enjoy anal sex, you will all tell me I don’t really enjoy it, it’s my evil husband and his porn addictions forcing me into it, because myself as a poor brainless woman couldn’t possibly know my own mind and what I enjoy doing

But EJennings said it far more eloquently than me

Do you know what? I'm of the view that people who think it's OK to hurt and rape and abuse others are not OK people. And the woke fools (mainly men with some dense women) who promote these ideas are doing great harm in normalising torture and abuse. And it's usually women and children on the receiving end of the abuse.

I wish these people would FOTTFSOFATFOSM.

No, Early we'd just like women to be free to make choices based on what they actually want and enjoy, rather than because they are being coerced or manipulated, either by their partner or society, into making a decision that harms them.

Totally agree with OP. The whole thing about getting pleasure from inflicting pain and humiliation is just about the worst characteristic/instinct of humans. It should be denounced not treated as a bit edgy. Why are the very people who claim to value freedom also unable to understand the importance of restraint and shame. We've seen these dynamics play out many times in history.

My opinions are just as valid as yours thanks, I know in an ideal world you would just shut everyone up who doesn’t agree with you, but I refuse to be a ‘subordinated’ woman and silenced in my opinion.

What’s your plan OP? Shall we have police in bedrooms to ensure a woman whose sexual preferences are different to yours is not able to engage?

‘Feminists’ seem to be becoming more anti-choice for woman by the day. It’s concerning.

Surely there's some forum for people who like telling women they should shut the fuck up with their moaning you could get stuck into?

‘Feminists’ seem to be becoming more anti-choice for woman by the day. It’s concerning.

Vanilla is used as a generic term for something standard, it’s definitely not just for describing sex. In fact I’ve never heard it used in that context until recent MN threads.
Check out any financial derivatives textbook and you’ll see terms like ”vanilla options” - it’s been used for decades in that regard.

Badstyley.. Isn't the term vanilla as an adjective commonly used not just in relation to sex. It's not really sexualised terminology.

Vanilla shaming is used enthusiastically by the same people who complain about kink shaming. Their motives have nothing to do with acceptance.
Bullies like to dominate, and part of that includes spelling out what behaviour they expect and enforcing compliance.

I note the insult of something being ‘vanilla’ has permeated into every day discourse. I was listening to BBC 6music yesterday evening and a woman described a record as being ‘a bit vanilla.’ She went on to clarify that she meant it was a bit bland and uninteresting. It got my hackles right up. Why bring sexualised terminology like that onto a drivetime radio show?

Why is sex where nobody gets hurt or humiliated now being widely used as a pejorative?

Actually, I found the ‘cup of tea’ analogy to be beyond useless. It gave me hope that saying no before you finished the metaphorical cup of tea was accepted as a reason that a man should stop.

After a lifetime of being fat shamed and always getting the urge to defiantly eat more cake if someone comments on me daring to have some, I'm not sure that kink shaming is necessarily something that would work well on everyone.

Apparently choking during sex is the newest and latest fad and if you aren't into it you are a prude. Choking can literally kill you. Call me a prude.

How did it become OK to harm and injure someone. I don't understand how this happened.

It's got an extensive history, it seems (I haven't seen it but the History Channel has an informative History of Sex that covers the topic). Some of the scandals in early Hollywood involved the death of women caused by men acting in a way that harmed/injured them. Weimar Germany is associated with the more explicit mainstreaming of fetish culture. In the 1930s American Fetish culture also gained a foothold that is later associated with the BDSM imagery incorporated into photography and film in the 1960s.

Possibly easier access to visual materials and the ability to share them has normalised something that used to be covert except for specific clubs and communities? And it seems that there have been some distinctive crossovers with subcultures that have influenced developments in BDSM.

Altho' there have been some social structures that have had sub-cultures, I have no idea whether or not there have been sustained, large-scale societies where the actions have entered the mainstream.

Calling people who just want to have basic PIV sex prudish and close minded is exactly how we got into this horrible mess in the first place.

Yep.

Agree.

Previous thread for info:

Horrendous consequence of current porn trends www.mumsnet.com/Talk/womens_rights/3481254-horrendous-consequence-of-current-porn-trends

I’ve read a lot on here about the notion of enthusiastic participation being a better bar than just consent. Extending that a little bit seeing as we put a rape victims sexual history under the microscope could we not examine the sexual history of the defendant?

Asking questions like are they actually capable of pleasing a woman sexually? Bear with me here if a man can’t produce at least a few sexual partners who could report actually enjoying sex with them surely that would count against them?

Furthermore there is such a focus on the mechanical act of piv as opposed to actual pleasure I think we’ve gotten a bit lost. In my experience women are more likely to climax from other things.

I think we need to move to a point where we stop thinking of piv as the be all and end all of all sexual encounters. Sure it’s nice, but so many other things are nice too.

If you turn it on it’s head it’s quite closed minded and prudish to ONLY consider dimensions of sex that include piv. I think the opening up of our collective sexual horizons instead of following the let’s face it badly written porn scripts would do us all a lot of good.