Consent is not the be-all and end-all

I don’t think consent alone is enough.

Supposing another victim like Natalie Connolly survives their attack and says afterwards ‘I consented’. (Because she really did consent, or because she is protecting her abuser or is scared of him, or because she thinks the fact that she consented to some of it means she can’t complain about any of it).

Would like to hear thoughts on this from those who think all forms of BDSM should be permissible and down to individual choice.

I think it’s less about the victim’s consent and more about the defendant’s behaviour.

Absolutely. That is, I think, the initial focus of this thread.

I think it’s less about the victim’s consent and more about the defendant’s behaviour.

Do we want to let people who eat others go unpunished?
Do we want to let people who waterboard people go unpunished?
Do we want to let people who penetrate people who are not conscious go unpunished?

The idea that law is not about imposing morality is ludicrous. Law is all about regulating societal behaviour. By tolerating what is rape and torture, it’s simply giving the green light to abusers and telling them that their conduct is totally okay.

Also, everyone’s choices are influenced by their background and circumstances. If you delve into the background of people who are happy to sign a letter giving consent to be raped, you might find some less than healthy experiences that shaped their current views. You only have to look at the women who have broken free of the sex industry and the way they view their previously enthusiastic consent the benefit of hindsight.

and that the sub won't change her mind afterwards
Sorry that sounds a bit MRA false-allegation-ish.
I'm trying to say that some way of ensuring and recording consent would be a positive for the dom as well as the sub.

Thinking about what I posted earlier (namely that the more dangerous or outlandish the act, the more consent should be sought) I've just realised that regardless of the type of consent proof, there's always a coercion argument.
Basically even a dom who gets video, audio and written confirmation of consent can't be sure that consent is freely given and that the sub won't change her mind afterwards.
So the structure of it relies on the complainant being disbelieved.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
Is it fair that he was prosecuted? His victim gave consent.

Are we infantilising the victim?
Vs
How can someone consent to murder?

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.
Personally I was talking about the law, not sex. H1dingInSight good that you have at least got a written contract, bad that it would never be legally enforceable so it really doesn't protect your partner at all (if that's what you were intending by codifying your submission limits)

I’d like to say quite openly, I do not accept anyone giving consent to be what is otherwise treated as rape. If you are not conscious, you are not consenting and no pre-signed piece of paper would be a legally accepted defence.

It's likely that it would be though, as the defendant would simply need to demonstrate that he had a reasonable belief in consent. Technically you can't consent while asleep under law, but a mistaken "reasonable" belief in consent is an objective test and this signed paper would support that.

That's my (non lawyer) understanding anyway.

The issue is the act in these cases, because "consent" provides a defence or mitigation, however much you try to pretend it isn't. No one can "take her word for it" because she is dead.

Indeed.

But y'know. Howls of outrage from extreme right wing libertarians (who, for some reason, believe themselves to be progressive) when presented with evidence of social harms because.

Individualism is a fucking cancer to communal wellbeing.

I can get behind the idea that no-one can consent to be killed: as the victim isn’t able to give her view them lack of consent should be a given.

But the court just went along with what you believe, that because she "consented", even being several times over the drink drive limit, he wasn't fully responsible.

I’d like to say quite openly, I do not accept anyone giving consent to be what is otherwise treated as rape. If you are not conscious, you are not consenting and no pre-signed piece of paper would be a legally accepted defence.

The defence is that she consented to the acts and neither she nor the abuser thought anything would result in her death. It’s the point of the flipping thread! That consenting to violence which could result in harm or death, blurs the lines of responsibility and enables violent men to, quite literally, get away with murder. If your only point is, oh but I enjoy it and we don’t go too far, then you’re not really adding anything. We are trying to discuss what else matters besides consent and how to legally prevent consent to violent acts being used as a defence where long term harm or death is the result. It’s not really about what someone is willing to consent to, but rather what else matters.

FWIW BDSM people I know were keen to point out the book throws all their "safe, sane and consensual" framework out the window, and is abusive.

So you have given written permission for what would normally be rape?

Consent is used as a defence for the majority of rape cases too. ‘She asked for it’ etc. It’s not just the case within BDSM. The issue is not the act but the inability of the justice system to take a victims word for it when she says that some or all of the acts were not consented too, or when an obvious murder has taken place for the opportunity to say ‘she asked for it’ to be disregarded

I know I said that I was leaving this thread, but this post totally articulates my viewpoint and so I wanted to agree with it.

I’ve also been thinking about poor Natalie Connolly a great deal. I can get behind the idea that no-one can consent to be killed: as the victim isn’t able to give her view them lack of consent should be a given.

What sort of person would be willing to commit such a cruel act without being forced, let alone enjoy it? Can a good person get pleasure from violating the Geneva Convention?

Exactly. Part of the criminal law is to censure those who commit behaviour falling outside accepted standards. Someone who waterboards, cuts or tortures someone is a person who falls outside accepted standards, regardless of how much his (usually young) victim claims to love it.

As for the 'I have given my dom permission to penetrate me when I sleep', that has made my stomach turn so I am not even going to go there.

Is there a limit to how far I can go with my consent? Can I consent to be someone's slave for instance? Can I say I want to be chained up in someone's basement and used for that person's pleasure? Or are there certain acts that are quite simply abhorrent and we don't want to tolerate the people who engage in them?

The issue is not the act but the inability of the justice system to take a victims word for it when she says that some or all of the acts were not consented too, or when an obvious murder has taken place for the opportunity to say ‘she asked for it’ to be disregarded.

The issue is the act in these cases, because "consent" provides a defence or mitigation, however much you try to pretend it isn't. No one can "take her word for it" because she is dead.

Earlywalker I would encourage you to re-read the OP. And then discuss that. There are acts being ‘consented to’ that are resulting in serious harm. The topic is about whether or not consent is an appropriate defence in any and all cases.

The fact that we have to concern ourselves with what happens in other peoples bedrooms has happened because of the actions of men. The physical differences between the sexes means men can more easily physically and sexually harm us. If they hadn’t used their physical power to abuse us since, well forever, we wouldn’t need to discuss what limitations and laws we set around sex. The fact there are women on this thread, and in life, pointing the finger at ‘bad feminists’ for involving themselves in something we all wish we did not have to involve ourselves in, is frustrating as hell. Women are dying and teenagers are left so damaged they need colostomy bags, and extensive counselling no doubt. I’m not responsible for this conversation, abusive men are. I won’t be called a ‘kink shamer’ or a ‘supposed feminist’ because I am responding to the harm being done to women due to the normalisation of violent sex. No. That’s on men.

Consent is used as a defence for the majority of rape cases too. ‘She asked for it’ etc. It’s not just the case within BDSM. The issue is not the act but the inability of the justice system to take a victims word for it when she says that some or all of the acts were not consented too, or when an obvious murder has taken place for the opportunity to say ‘she asked for it’ to be disregarded.

It’s still a really poor analogy. There is no comparison to an intimate sexual experience between two people, and a medical procedure involving multiple professionals which has been deemed safe and beneficial by professional organisations. It’s incomparable. Totally. Particularly as nobody here has said consent is irrelevant if risk is involved. The actual thread is about what else matters besides consent with respect to sex, and that, ‘ consent isn’t the be all and end all’. You’re not debating in good faith at all. Stay on topic and debate what the OP has actually raised. What are the limits to consent with respect to sexual intercourse and how can we best protect those that are victims of crimes where consent to violent sex is used as a defence.

Yes but when you had a c section you were pregnant and that baby needed to come out and whichever way it comes out has risks.

Which is exactly what life was like for the gay community before homosexuality was legalised.
Errrr hardly. I hate it when this happens.

Gay people couldn't live their life according to normal human needs. They couldn't have relationships, get married, show affection in public etc.

There is lots more to being gay than who you shag and how you do it. And so the impact on gay people was high.

Society has moved on. Noone gives a shit what 2 adults get up to behind closed doors.

However a scenario where a man can successfully use BDSM practices as a defence to rape or murder is wrong and harms all women.

It's not the same as homosexuality at all.

Not true in all cases, my second section was done under ‘maternal request’ meaning it was my decision alone and I cosented to the risks involved becuase it was what I wanted.

A c section is a poor analogy. It’s used to prevent the death of or injury of the mother and/or baby. It’s a medically necessary procedure.

It astonishes me that you can’t see the difference and are using ‘consent’ as a reason to yet again berate women here for not being good feminists. There are all sorts of reasons why we,as a society, set limits on consent in potentially harmful situations. When it involves sex, particularly when involving people with vastly different physical capabilities and strengths, it requires even more sensible discussion on how we limit the ability of the physically dominant person to coerce or harm.

I think it’s a very slippery slope to begin saying consent doesn’t matter if there’s risk involved. When you opt for a c section for example, you sign the forms saying you consent to the procedure despite the risk of multiple things including death.
If we start telling woman they Can’t consent if there’s risk to them, what’s to stop the dr saying ‘actually no, risk too high your woman brain can’t understand that, no you can’t have your section’
Astonishes me that a group of supposedly feminists are focusing on people (woman) being unable to consent rather than abusers going too far or courts letting them get away with it.