Consent is not the be-all and end-all

[MagicMix]

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.

And, again, I’d be delighted to see society’s attitudes shift away from a casual acceptance of unwanted sexual violence, in every manifestation.

Just don’t criminalise me and mine.

I am reminded of this article:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.dailydot.com/irl/kink-bdsm-consent-problem/

If some members of the BDSM community cannot see how their own “choices” can provide a smokescreen and cover for abusers of the worst kind I’m really at a loss how to proceed.

All I’d really advocate doing is handing all the legal power to the subs in this equation. If you find a Dom who respects your boundaries and it’s all satisfying fun and games well you are never gonna press charges are you?

I really don’t see what anyone stands to lose in this equation.

Just don’t criminalise me and mine.

Nobody is looking to criminalise you

However, the dialling back of societal acceptance may feel unpleasant. But unpleasant feelings should be something the community should be able to deal with...

Let me try and find an analogy.

I haven’t come across anyone on here who has an issue with live-and-let-live-pass-quietly trans men and women. Everyone agrees that they do no harm and should be allowed to go day to day without harassment or abuse.

Everyone, rightly, has a massive issue with TRAs and their allies who want to trample all over women’s rights.

The BDSM community is like the trans men and women in the first paragraph. We just want to get on with our lives in our own way.

This thread is behaving like the TRAs in the second paragraph. Wanting to take away my right to consent on the grounds that we’re the problem. When we’re not. Male violence in all its forms is the problem.

also deeply, deeply, resent men who murder women claiming that they were is BDSM relationships and it was BDSM that killed their partners. No BDSM practitioner I have ever come across has any desire to do lasting or permanent damage to his or her partner.

That's not the point, is it? They're not claiming that women consented to be killed or they set out to kill them. They're claiming that it was accidental in the course of extremely risky sex practices. To get off a murder charge or mitigate.

I agree with 99.9% of the OP. Unfortunately the definition of sadism/sadistic behaviour has become blurred especially in recent times. Originally the "S" in BDSM referred to the consensual act of inflicting/receiving pain or certain humiliation. Ergo: being spanked, even denying a woman orgasms, cuckolding. Within the community pain, and the whole aspect of sadism, is explored and interpreted and expanded. There are strict conditions, rules and soft/hard limits integrated into any BDSM encounter and put in place prior to the sexual encounter. The birth of fetish forums such as Fetlife have enabled people to detail their experiences and ensure they are being safe and providing security with people able to ask anything (rather similar to MN but on a sexual level) anonymously. Just trying to highlight this point of view, and I have unwavering unconditional respect for women, and consent.

And that's an extremely poor analogy, and while I support male transsexuals and don't wish them to be discriminated against, harassed or abused, I don't want them in female spaces or claiming to be women either.

All I’d really advocate doing is handing all the legal power to the subs in this equation. If you find a Dom who respects your boundaries and it’s all satisfying fun and games well you are never gonna press charges are you?

This.

If you find a Dom who respects your boundaries and it’s all satisfying fun and games well you are never gonna press charges are you?

But that’s the whole fucking point!

The moment my Dom doesn’t respect my boundaries then it’s no longer consensual and I would press charges.

Think you’d have lost the fight at that analogy H1dingInSight most people on here really do have a problem with ‘them all’

Then unless you die there is no risk for him, is there? If you kill someone you should expect consequences.

Whether pressing charges would work is an entirely different matter, but that’s no different from any other he-said-she-said rape scenario.

It’s not about consent, it’s about male violence.

Sorry I don’t mean to be obtuse, there are two things that are massively influencing me atm one of which was that horrendous case with the 16 year old and colostomy bag, and another concern or a more personal nature. I may not be being 100% objective here.

Thing is say your Dom kills you, and you’re not there to say otherwise and he says “oh it was just a sex game gone wrong” and gets let off, where does that leave us as a society?

Think you’d have lost the fight at that analogy H1dingInSight most people on here really do have a problem with ‘them all’

No, I don't have a "problem" with them thanks. I just don't want any males at all in female single sex spaces. Was just clarifying this. You can do your goady derailing nonsense elsewhere. This thread is not about trans issues.

Then unless you die there is no risk for him, is there?

There’s no risk to him as long as he stays within my set and agreed boundaries. The moment he goes past (not that he ever has) then my consent is withdrawn and if he continues then he’s at the same risk as any other man who forces himself on a woman.

As it happens, one of my boundaries is around name-calling. I don’t like being called slut or whore or any other sex-shaming variant. So he simply doesn’t do it.

It’s not about consent, it’s about male violence.

We're specifically talking about the times when it is about consent. Like "consensual waterboarding". If someone is killed in that should consent be used as a defence?

And, no, in principal i see no limits to the acts to which a person of sound mind can freely consent.

But you then think it's OK to actually do anything to another person as long as they consent? Again I'm not saying consent is impossible, I'm saying it is insufficient to make it OK to actually do it.

OK to waterboard someone, OK to tear out fingernails, OK to cut off a limb, OK to cannibalise someone? Seriously no limits? Consent neutralises all harm?

OK well at least you are consistent in your position. I believe this position is morally bankrupt and would lead to an absolute hellscape of a society, as well as providing easy legal outs for the worst kind of people in this world.

and if he continues then he’s at the same risk as any other man who forces himself on a woman.

Actually I’m not sure he is. Because firstly you’re already in a situation where you could then be hurt. And secondly the precedent is set for you ‘liking that’

So say you’re (generic you) in a situation where a partner has always been Ok, then one day he isn’t - you’re already in that situation, you may not physically be able to stop him, and if it goes to trial, the presumption will be that you wanted it.

And before you say that won’t happen, it did - to Natalie Connolly. That was the defence. Previous consensual rough sex used to justify a brutal sustained attack which killed her.

He got three years I think.

The moment my Dom doesn’t respect my boundaries then it’s no longer consensual and I would press charges.

Well, if the law permits a defence of consent to violence, you will be hard pressed to do that. It will be pretty hard to argue the distinction between being waterboarded and not being called degrading names and being waterboarded and being called those names. In all likelihood, very few convictions would result. Which is why consent is such a handy defence for rapists, because it essentially comes down to one person's word against others. At least at the moment serious injuries sometimes persuade juries that it probably wasn't consensual. But if it becomes mainstream that sex involves choking, slapping and degrading, that will be way more difficult to prove. And in the BDSM scenario, you're in the extremely difficult position where you consented to sex at the beginning and then withdrew once it had started. Yes, we keep getting told that you can withdraw consent whenever and it's valid, but try getting a rape conviction if that is what has happened.

OK, let’s talk about waterboarding.

In my view, she (the author of the article) can consent to waterboarding if she chooses. I would strongly advocate safety practices - safe words, or if she can’t talk then a safe gesture - that mean everything stops the moment she says so.

If something awful and tragic happened and she died, then one of two things occurred. Either he partner ignored her attempts to stop, to withdraw her consent - in which case it’s murder. Or it was a horrible accident, unintended but within the realms of predictable possibility however remote, in which case it’s manslaughter.

The trial would allow a jury to decide, just as in any other crime.

But I’m not sure that waterboarding is a great example because my understanding is that although it’s a genuinely tortuous experience to go through (way beyond anything I’ve done or want to do), it doesn’t kill. That’s why it’s such an effective torture method - you feel like you’re drowning but you’re actually not even close. I read an account from a journalist who voluntarily allowed himself to be waterboarded so he could report what it was like.

Choking is probably a better example because that is genuinely dangerous if taken too far.

And in the BDSM scenario, you're in the extremely difficult position where you consented to sex at the beginning and then withdrew once it had started.

No more so than any other rape case.

Which is exactly why consent is what matters. If it’s taken too far, consent is lost and it becomes assault.
The main reason things like this piss me off as it’s yet another way of saying a woman is incapable of making her own decisions and saying what she consents to or doesn’t consent too.
No. Woman are not all powerless victims, woman are not the issue that needs addressing. Male violence is. Men need to be told that they cannot kill a woman becuase she gave him permission to spank her or whatever.
Educating violent men (and i guess it could be woman in some situations) is where the focus needs to be. Not saying ‘oh poor silly girl didn’t have enough brain cells to say no so she said yes’
The criminal justice system is frankly a joke when it comes to any sexual violence.
Making the focus on ‘kink shaming’ takes away from the real issues of Male violence and an unfit for purpose justice system.

So say you’re (generic you) in a situation where a partner has always been Ok, then one day he isn’t - you’re already in that situation, you may not physically be able to stop him, and if it goes to trial, the presumption will be that you wanted it.

No different from rape in a relationship. Which isn’t to say I condone it, not at all, not for one moment. But the challenges are the same.

Consent is a clear and unambiguous concept - either it’s given or it’s not. What you’re arguing now is whether it can be proved, not whether it can be validly given in the first place.

I will admit that I find BDSM repugnant. I accept even your proposition the S&M is wrong but that is a question of morally. The law isn’t there to impose morality but to protect rights. If both parties are acting immorally with continuing consent then no rights are being infringed. The law doesn’t prohibit such acts for this reason and I try not to judge for the same reason. I would never participate. I would express the view that it is morally questionable if asked. But I wouldn’t presume to force my own morality on others when they are not harming me or any unwilling third parties.

The criminal justice system is frankly a joke when it comes to any sexual violence. Making the focus on ‘kink shaming’ takes away from the real issues of Male violence and an unfit for purpose justice system.*

Yes, this. 100%.