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.

If you took the S out of BDSM you'd have to make the M in BDSM redundant.

One sort of depends on the other.

I agree with many of the points made, but I'm a bit anxious about the idea of prohibiting things in case they are abused by people who are not actually a part of the original group. Common examples seem to be men who are not genuinely trans co-opting self-ID to gain access to women's spaces, and also men who use the consensual BDSM argument to commit vile transgressions.

I see the logic, but where do we stop? If it became apparent that some people were using feminism as a vehicle to push misandric ideologies, for example, would it be fair to prohibit feminist discourse, even though the aforementioned people are only using it as a vehicle?

We're saying no males, especially obvious non passing ones, should be in women's spaces because it violates women's rights to privacy, dignity and safety. And that you shouldn't be able to consent to your own murder. You seem confused.

I don't disagree, but some people (not just on this thread) seem to have no issue with post-op transsexuals who are close to passing, but are extremely worried about sexual fetishists (for obvious reasons).

And is euthanasia not consenting to your own murder (albeit for very different reasons).

The icemountainfire link was excellent.

newyear

Well the difference between abusive men using self id and bdsm as a cover for their abuse and misandrists using feminist discourse is that the numbers and the risks.
Where are all the misandrists killing and raping men?

It’s not a slippery slope at all, the boundaries are clear. Your sexual pleasure is not more important than my safety or right to dignanty, ever.

And euthanasia is totally different because it is completely down to the person who is dying, and it is not dependent on or for the benefit of someone else’s boner.

Though the most compelling argument against euthanasia in my opinion is that people might feel compelled to do it rather than go into a home and be a financial burden on their family.

newyear
This thread is about the normalisation of sexual sadism as a behaviour not trans issues. It relates to the use of the concept of consent to sexual violence in a court of law.

If you took the S out of BDSM you'd have to make the M in BDSM redundant.

Hm well it is possible to hurt yourself without asking someone else to do it for you. I certainly don't think it's a good idea, but solo masochistic sexual practices probably exist. Don't fancy looking it up.

There are those auto asphyxiation wanking accidents you sometimes hear about, for one thing.