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.

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’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.

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)

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 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’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.

Hmm. You don't sound confused.

This is what is happening: people on this thread are reacting with hostility to the idea that a kink subculture they are involved in has now been sufficiently normalised in society that abusive men are exploiting it, killing or harming women, and then putting up defences in court that allow them to receive very light sentences or get off altogether.

This is a significant social harm for women as a class and something needs to be done to mitigate it.

This is not confusing you. People on this thread are sufficiently invested in their kink subculture identity that they interpret the material reality of the social harm involved in the normalising of it as a personal attack on that identity. Because of this, and given the choice, they would rather abusive men who murder women and get away with it continued to do so, than agree to society mitigating the harm to women.

Nothing confusing here at all.

Because of this, and given the choice, they would rather abusive men who murder women and get away with it continued to do so, than agree to society mitigating the harm to women.
Well there’s a nice bit of gaslighting for all too see.
Not what people have said at all.
The issue is with the justice system and abusive men, not what people should be allowed to consent too in private.

QED

I am reminded of this article:

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.dailydot.com/irl/kink-bdsm-consent-problem/
Wow that's worth reading. I've just got around to it.
The author, who seems to take BDSM very seriously, lists times she and her female acquaintances have been molested, mentions high-status doms who are beyond reproach no matter what they do, then ends with a feeble request for kinksters to be better representatives of kink.
The cognitive dissonance is breathtaking.

Absolutely agree EJennings. We treasure the concept of human rights. You cannot agree to give up your rights ie to elect to be a slave. It is inconceivable that consent to be tortured, humiliated etc can be seen as part of the framework of human rights.
We do not accept suicide as a issue of freedom. We consider it a public health issue. We ask why people would do something so destructive and consider how to support-we don't form groups justifying and fetishising self slaughter.

Meghan Murphy on point:
www.feministcurrent.com/2017/10/10/point-kink-community-take-responsibility-anything-goes-approach-sex/

Unapologetic radfem comebacks to the standard defences of BDSM. The point about 'boring' missionary style het sex requiring just as much trust as any kink was an eye opener for me.

icemountainfire.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/sacred-kink-i-questions

Oops missed off the last backslash so not clicky.

icemountainfire.wordpress.com/2016/07/07/sacred-kink-i-questions/

Icemountainfire - just wow!

I call it sadomasochism rather than BDSM for the same reason why I won’t call males in dresses women. Oppressed groups have no obligation whatsoever to follow the language rules made by the oppressors.

Sing it loud.

Icemountainfire - just wow!

Seconded!

Icemountainfire - just wow!

Thirded - and the links for rape and violations in that piece are must-reads albeit very disturbing and very relevant.

Yes agree that is amazing!

Thirded - and the links for rape and violations in that piece are must-reads albeit very disturbing and very relevant

Click on every single word at the end where it says that they don't respect boundaries. They all link to evidence.