Consent - a problematic concept if ever I saw one.

[Beachcomber]

I find the concept of consent, and how it is defined and applied in patriarchy, very problematic.

All sorts of misogyny and abuse is perpetuated against women under the flag of 'but she consented'. Why are we having to put up with this? And why is consent used as though it is some sort of final word on an issue, regardless often of any other factors?

When it comes to rape, I broadly agree with Twisty Faster's wacky consent scheme. I think the whole concept needs an overhaul, and critically examined with regards to all sorts of other issues too.

(For people unfamiliar with Twisty's writing style, she is being a little tongue in cheek and she writes unapologetically for a female radfem audience. Can we try not to get too hung up on semantics - it is the concept that interests me.)

I'm interested in what others think. Thanks.

And then

Xenia, do you understand what people are saying about consent at all?

You don't seem to have - or at least be able to express - any position on the thread at all. You're talking about something else. So it's meaningless to say your opinions are too 'far apart' to debate this - you're not actually understanding what we're talking about.

InAnyOtherSoil I agree that 'some women like to be hurt' is then used as 'well this woman is probably one of them'.

I find the whole BDSM thing terrifying.

Just read Nyac's factcheckme link. What I don't understand is why we feel the need to argue over the legalities of consent to justify the banning of things like porn and prostitution....

The question is: What good ever came out of porn and prostitution?

Sure a lot of men get to jerk off and a few people make a pot of money, but if you compare that to the really bad shit that happens because of it, then it's a no-brainer.

Normally it's the rapist claiming "she consented" that allows him to get away with his crime. We don't normally give that much leeway to criminals.

Nyac thanks for those links. They've really clarified things for me and I've just had something of a lightbulb moment. You are so, so spot on when you say that consent is only something that happens when something is being done to you rather than you participating in it as an equal. Therefore, if you have to 'consent', chances are you are going against your natural inclination in the first place. Thinking back on my past relationships, every single time I have thought about myself as consenting to sex (as opposed to instigating it or mutually engaging in it following cues from my partner) it's been a form of coercion.

Therefore, if consent even comes up as an issue, it immediately implies that something was very, very wrong about the act of sex between those two people. I can't believe I didn't see that before!

Beachcomber thanks for your link as well. That also made a lot of sense. Following on from that video and another post you made in an earlier thread, it's really helped my thinking on porn, and I really identify with the author's journey to being anti porn as I'm another one who used to watch it without feeling anything much but now find it repellant because I realise what it is I'm actually watching. I reached a similar destination with drugs, as I always found most recreational drug users better company (and less violent) than alcohol users, but knowing how much trafficking and prostitution accompanies the drug trade, I have completely changed my POV.

You're welcome Sunshine . I hear you with the porn thing - I'm glad, and touched by your post. Good on you for re-evaluating.

Yes InAnyOtherSoil I think that is exactly what is going on. Firstly we have the fact that 'consent' is a flawed concept in and of itself, as we have already discussed here. Then we have the problem that consent does not happen in a vacuum; socialization and personal history influence our decisions.

Also as said in the post by Factcheckme about porn in general, it makes a mockery of even the flawed version of consent. I agree with her here for example;

both ethically and legally, without a constant negotiation and re-negotiation of consent, there is no consent. this renegotiation occurs when each party, always, has the option of ending, altering, or decelerating the action, at any time. consent, by definition, is a living, breathing, thing, and cannot be given prospectively. the constant renegotiation required in consensual sexual encounters simply doesnt occur when deals are struck, and contracts are signed beforehand.

If anything, these 'pre-shoot interviews' probably act as a form of psychological coercion. They are there simply to let the kink.com consumer off the hook - they don't have to examine their own conscience or ask themselves if what they are participating in is wrong - they have been handed the get out of jail free card with the 'consent interview'.

I also agree with Melissa Farley on the subject (<a class="break-all" href="http://web.archive.org/web/20090207152545/www.mediawatch.com/wordpress/?p=21" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">from her essay Ten Lies About Sadomasochism)

Is it ever OK to consent to one?s own humiliation and victimization? I do not think so. Just because we ?consent? to domination or abuse, does not mean it is not oppressive.

I think that perhaps "consent" draws the line between "nasty bastard acting in an unethical way" and "criminal bastard who needs locking up".

If you're not one or the other then the concept doesn't arise.

DilysPrice, you know the bit that worries me is that men know this. Not all of them use that knowledge, but lots do.

There are a lot of ways to manipulate a woman into 'consenting' and of course there is the whole social wide grooming element, where girls and women are brainwashed socialized into behaviour that is submissive and or harmful. For example I think the people involved in kink.com are criminals and should be at least stopped if not locked up, but the law doesn't agree with me. And this because they have obtained consent - the 'don't even go to jail' free card.

It isn't right.

I don't advise people to go looking at this stuff too much, I would be afraid to look around their website because I know I will see things I would rather not and I will find it hard to get rid of. I have read NineDeuce's posts on BDSM and they were enough for me. I did go and read some of the blurb from one of the kink.com websites and it demonstrates perfectly that what they are doing is manipulative and wearing women down - no big surprise there I suppose considering what they are doing is torture. I was shocked by how open they are about it though.

I am going to copy some of the text in my next post. I will edit out the most graphic parts but I think we still need a;

TRIGGER WARNING*

Ok, some text from one of kink.com's many websites. This one is called 'thetrainingofO.com' which will have Dworkin readers' hackles up straight off.

I have edited out the nasty language of the acts themselves which are the usual BDSM abuses - the psychology is so blatantly abusive though.

trigger warning

"The Training of O is the premier website featuring the erotic training of female slaves. At TheTrainingOfO.com, beautiful submissive women take a 4-day journey through slave training, experiencing erotic bondage, punishment, and humiliation to become trained sex slaves. (edited here for descriptions of acts)

Based on The Story of O, the erotic novel by Pauline Reage, TheTrainingOfO.com is 4 days of reality porn -- real slave training, not staged. It is the real journey of truly submissive women who wish to become trained sexual slaves for men. (edited for descriptions of acts again) But at TheTrainingOfO, the primary means of training female sex slaves is psychology. Consensual erotic torture and domination increase each woman's submission, remolding her mind and attitude until she is an obedient sex slave.

The Training Of O is hardcore erotic humiliation and slave training, with bondage, sex and punishment along the way. (edited again for graphic language) Real female orgasms are just another way to increase a slave's submission."

*

And these people are consiered the 'gold standard' in BDSM porn in terms of using safewords/respecting consent, etc.

WTAF? This is hate speech and violent sexual torture.

So I ask myself how can it be legal to film this being done to women and then put those images in the public domain? This is like a handbook for sadistic psychos but using real women and doing real harm to them.

And how is it possible? Consent.

Consent doesn't just act to draw a legal line between bastards and criminals. It allows criminal bastards to acts like criminal bastards and call it 'between consenting adults' so that makes it just tickety boo in the eyes of the law and loads of people who get off on this stuff.

You hear a lot about "safe, sane and consensual" in BDSM. In fact it's unsafe, insane and very often non-consensual. The sadistic dominant man sets out to break down women's boundaries and in fact to break women themselves through sexual torture. Bodies can't tell the difference between torture that is "consented" to and torture that isn't. It's all harmful which is why sadistic men do it to women.

"Consent doesn't just act to draw a legal line between bastards and criminals. It allows criminal bastards to acts like criminal bastards and call it 'between consenting adults' so that makes it just tickety boo in the eyes of the law and loads of people who get off on this stuff."

Yes.

Lots of women are pro-pornography. That has nothing to do with rape. The key issue is consent. Not everyone has the same sexuality as others. There are also a lot of women who engage in particular activities with men where they do what you are describing the other way round. Presumably you would also think those are sick and should be stopped and you think the men don't consent and the activity is wrong do you?

Xenia, I don't wish to make judgements on people's personal private consenting activities. I do however find the concept of consent itself to be flawed, as do others on this thread. I also have political issues with BDSM - I posted about them on the Ann Summers thread.

I do judge what goes on in porn and in BDSM activities that are in the public domain - these are not a private affair and they affect all of us, so I think we have a right to have an opinion on them, indeed I think we should have and voice an opinion. I consider porn to be a human rights issue.

I think the stuff that goes on in kink.com's various activities is dangerous and very very misogynistic. Sexually torturing people in the name of entertainment is wrong. The website I cite is perfectly clear about how they go about psychologically breaking these women's boundaries and that they use forced orgasm as a reinforcer and a technique for 'remoulding' a woman's mind - I think we should listen to these people when they tell us they are sexually torturing and abusing.

I don't like BDSM when the man is the masochist for reasons I have already mentioned briefly on this thread.

I don't think people should be stopped from engaging in BDSM, but I think the law needs to be clearer on what an individual can and cannot consent to, than it currently is. I also think we need an examination of the role of BDSM in domestic violence and abusive relationships.

I do think it should be illegal to show BDSM porn but then I think all porn should be illegal (because it is hate speech, anti-woman propaganda and racist. Also because it involves rape, trafficking, coercion and promotes incest, sex with minors, rape, violence against women and abuse (verbal, physical and sexual)).

I find it utterly unacceptable that websites like thetrainingofo.com are allowed to exist and that the activities of kink.com are legal.

This is what I posted on the Ann Summers thread about BDSM;

BDSM fetishizes abuse. That is the point of it - and that is why radical feminists have a political issue with it.

BDSM fetishizes submission and domination - the power dynamic upon which patriarchy is founded and perpetuated.

BDSM fetishizes patriarchy.

BDSM fetishizes male supremacy.

BDSM fetishizes female oppression (no matter what the sex of the sub).

The above is my political analysis of BDSM as a radical feminist. It is a political analysis and not a judgement of people's personal sex lives. You can of course be a feminist and practice BDSM - but that does not make BDSM a feminist practice or an empowering one. It remains a very patriarchal practice.

I have almost opoosite views as a free market libertarian feminist who is against most censorship and pro porn so I doubt there is much point in our trying to find common ground.

In the activities you describe plenty of men are the subject of female violence (consensual). I can see you object to that being shown anywhere too and at least that is gender neutral and consistent.