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.

Iused sadly the author did say (paraphrasing) that she felt women wanted to be dominated and that explained the success of the book.

Early again no one is saying this should/will be outlawed by a nanny state. It is the business of women who have sex with men to discuss what they see as a violent trend of male sexual violence dressed up as consensual sexy fun. It is my business, it is our business, and especially here where we're discussing our own personal feelings, beliefs and experiences around this issue and how that relates to feminism. No one here is talking about you and what happens in your bedroom. Go out and get that anal! :)

Yet when someone claims to get off on being seriously injured during sex, we suddenly say that this is a totally free choice that should be respected and cannot be criticised because it would be kink-shaming.

Yes, yes! Absolutely agree!

Harm is harmful

I don't know why there isn't a law that gross bodily injury vitiates consent, so that consent is even at issue and can't be a defence. That seems simple enough.
Simple, but it gets bogged down in human rights law.
Whereas my (rather libertarian if I do say so myself) argument is now this: if you're partaking in an activity that could end up costing the country money (therapy for your subs, wound care, prosecution costs, etc) then you should be financially liable for those costs.
Make them take out Dom Insurance! They'd have to document and prove their training, document and prove ongoing enthusiastic consent, document and prove the equipment and venue were suitable, the works.
Health and Safety wouldn't allow you to do a non-sexual leisure activity that was high risk without those things being in place, right?

Yet when someone claims to get off on being seriously injured during sex, we suddenly say that this is a totally free choice that should be respected and cannot be criticised because it would be kink-shaming

So true Funky. And our children are surrounded by a torrent of porn alongside adults displaying their fetish and kinks for all to see . They are being taught that this is normal and that girls who don't accept whatever men want are 'frigid', pearl clutching, censorious and so on.

EJennings
Don't kid yourself. If they could find a way to get the public to believe those animals consented, they'd do the same to the animals.

thefirstmrsdewinter I didn’t once mention me or what I liked in the bedroom, it was an example so there was no need for your rude comment.

'Fuck up, lose your house. Now how kinky do you feel?' Is it wrong that I heard that in a Hollywood drill instructor voice? :) :)

'Make them take out Dom Insurance!' Ooh yeah, read those clauses sloooowwwlly.

Yup, feministfairy. It’s becoming the norm. There was that horrific case on another thread where a girl ended up with a colostomy bag due to injuries sustained during anal sex. Girls are being taught from an early age that if they want to keep their boyfriends happy, they need to engage in anal, fisting and agree to be choked during sex. What sort of impact does that have on your confidence and sense of self? Asking people who are caught up in abusive dynamics whether they are making a free choice is unhelpful. Nobody wants to think of themselves as a victim or a pushover so of course the young woman in the BDSM relationship or the pornstar or the sex-worker is going say that she chose this life and that she is empowered. It’s often only later once they are free from that dynamic that they can see it for what it was. It’s like the teenagers who have relationships with men in their 30s and it’s only when they are that age themselves that they see how totally wrong and abusive it was.

EJennings
That "stapling one's genitals to Formica worktops" court case as referenced earlier.

Similar cases are the kind of thing that could be dragged out for years and in the meantime there's no legal provision to stop the harm. So nothing ever happens.
A bit like Heathrow's third runway, that could stay in the courts for ten years easily, with a good chance nothing will ever be built.
You or I might think sadists' arguments were spurious and their delays were vexatious but that wouldn't stop them clogging it up.

As we know from the AGP lobby and PIE, men's sexual interests are represented at the very highest levels.

Early my sincere apologies, did I get you confused with a pp who loves anal? And I didn't mean to be rude, just a bit cheeky. I truly believe that if you love it you should go get it. I wish there was more enthusiastic female sexual go-getting, I fully endorse it.

there was no need for your rude comment
It was me you reported, well done, you got me a deletion. Thank you for your contribution.

(Early just to fully clarify, in case it sounds sarcastic, what I said is totally 100% in earnest.)

FlyingOink I have never reported anyone on MN until tonight where someone reported my post for a clearly sarcastic message and MNHQ saw fit to delete it despite the constant endorsement of ‘free speech’ so they’ve told me to report as I see fit myself, which from now I am happy to do.

Gonna disagree. There are WAY many more animal lovers than women-lovers.
Maybe but there are plenty of cases of deliberate animal abuse (as opposed to criminal neglect) such as dog fighting, badger baiting, tying a dog to a tree and beating it, bestiality, etc and the perpetrators in the news are always male.
A generation of boys who grew up on bestgore.com and rotten.com will watch animal abuse.
If there was a way to monetise that further through manufacturing animals' consent it would happen.

'Don't kid yourself. If they could find a way to get the public to believe those animals consented, they'd do the same to the animals.' I did have the thought that BDSM is like free-range meat, that because you've assessed the conditions and are satisfied they're better than the battery/factory alternative, you're fooling yourself no harm has been done, but the animal still dies in the end so you can eat it.

Is it wrong that I heard that in a Hollywood drill instructor voice?
I'm pretty sure I typed it in "Alan Rickman baddie" not "drill instructor".
Must be a problem with my keyboard

I did have the thought that BDSM is like free-range meat, that because you've assessed the conditions and are satisfied they're better than the battery/factory alternative, you're fooling yourself no harm has been done, but the animal still dies in the end so you can eat it.
The problem with that analogy is the assumption that most people have a moral objection to eating meat, and mitigate this objection through insisting on decent abattoir standards.
Whereas unless battery eggs are banned, there's always a market for them and blind factory farmed chickens because they're cheap.

Must be a problem with my keyboard
Maybe a problem with my screen.
Oh false alarm, I've got the weaker readers on, that's Rickman alright.

sadly the author did say (paraphrasing) that she felt women wanted to be dominated and that explained the success of the book.
Well she would say that wouldn't she (apologies Mandy Rice-Davies). She had a book to sell and her literary reputation to defend.

I think it's hard to force people to care, basically.
And men taking advantage of what they learned in porn to brutalise women and girls have no consequences to consider; those who object to it personally or find that behaviour distasteful still have no skin in the game really.
Hence my insurance idea; disinterested men would get on board with making "perverts" pay for their hobbies, I'm sure.