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.

Your death and his incarceration affects more than just the two of you

Yes. Just as it would if I died mountaineering, or parachuting, or playing rugby, or driving my car. Especially if my death was attributable in whole or in part to him not paying attention to safety standards. No different.

It's extremely disingenuous to imply that eg holding a knife to someone's threat while you have sex with them is like playing rugby.

Please stop making this about you. It isn't.

We don’t live in 1984 (yet). There’s no camera in your bedroom waiting to prosecute you for indulging in consensual bdsm. I don’t understand why you’re so defensive? My current vice is sugar, I don’t take umbrage when people talk about sugar taxes etc, because it isn’t great for me, it’s not good for society and regardless of my enjoyment of it, the consequences are the consequences.

Because a sugar tax is civil rather than criminal.

If you make it impossible for me to consent to BDSM sex then you make us criminal.

Out get-togethers with our friends would be illegal gatherings. Our texts could be monitored for key words. We could be reported by anyone who overheard a conversation.

Which is exactly what life was like for the gay community before homosexuality was legalised.

Please stop making this about you. It isn't.

I was just offering my viewpoint.

I’ll stop posting now, as that’s all I can give.

If you get on a plane knowing you will parachute off and you may get injured and die as a consequence it’s one thing. If you get on a plane and you don’t know you will be parachuting off and will have no choice when you’re shoved out the hatch, perhaps with no parachute on at all, then that’s something else entirely. Women don’t know they’re not just getting on a plane, sitting down with a drink and going on a lovely holiday. Which was the social contract for a millisecond of sexual history.

I was just offering my viewpoint.

Yes. Which is: I want to do X and I will resist any idea that X could be made technically illegal with zero practical effect on me but that would also offer protections to women who don't want to do X and ensure that men who made them do X and killed or injured them could be adequately prosecuted.

We know your view. You'd rather women died and men weren't punished for killing them than to have something you do rendered technically illegal.

It's a charming view.

Lol hiding there’s tens of thousands of men looking at images of child abuse that the criminal justice system has no capacity to prosecute- do you really think there’s anyone who’d be interested in long, expensive investigations of a group of middle Englanders who like a whipping every so often?

If you make it impossible for me to consent to BDSM sex then you make us criminal.

What forms of BDSM sex do you imagine would be criminalised?

The standing legal position (R v Brown, R v Emmett) is that many acts of BDSM violence already potentially are. Your consent is immaterial. But when a man claims "rough sex gone wrong" when a woman dies this seems to go out of the window.

Interestingly, rugby is under the microscope lately for the increasing long term injuries and yes, DEATHS. Despite players stating it’s part of the game, they all know the risks etc there are still professionals deciding on how best to protect players and how to limit harm. This has meant drastic changes in how the game is played, and more are coming following a spate of deaths. Many other aspects of everyday life are already under limitations in order to protect us, whether we want it or not. This isn’t about stopping sex is it, it’s about society discussing what limits and protections we set. Most aspects of our life are affected by legal and moral boundaries set by society- none of us live in a bubble where our actions don’t affect others. I’m unsure why anyone would take issue with sensible discussions on how to prevent long term injuries like we saw with the 16 year old after group anal, or deaths. That it involves sex, should not mean we back away and hide behind ‘consent’.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.