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.

That case was a classic example of what is wrong with the justice system. They found him guilty of manslaughter but chose not to pursue a murder charge as they couldn’t prove there was intent to kill. If she is dead at your hands with over 40 injuries, including bleach poured on her face and left to die at the bottom of the stairs before calling an ambulance - yes there was intent to kill and it makes a mockery out of the system to even suggest otherwise.
That is not BDSM. A key point within it is trust and control on both sides, and I disagree with the OP as I think consent is what matters.
This woman may well have consented to some painful acts, but does that mean she automatically consented to the bleach? To being left to die? No it does not. You can consent to sex, and change your mind, or not want anything other than that and if you’re wishes are not listened to then it is assault and/or abuse.
We don’t need to be ‘kink shaming’ we need to be ‘violent man’ and ‘fucked up justice system’ shaming.

OR is it a convenient way for men to use as an excuse when really they are just a violent bastard and the woman may not have even been into it at all?!

I don't think you can deny that it is possible to practice consensual fulfilling bdsm within a relationship. Women have fantasies about control just as men do.

What I don't get is why "aggressive" porn has become the norm- is it the people controlling the production of porn making it so? Or is that just the demand?

It's incredibly depressing.

@CaptainBrickbeard that's horrendous. Will this training get through to schools?

@lemonlife not denying it can be consensual but could it become a convenient excuse for some.

Jakey, the training was in a huge secondary school to the entire staff. But schools are stretched in every direction and unless Ofsted announce a focus on this, it won’t stand a chance of making it onto the agenda. Cuts and relentless focus on data have squeezed everything else off the table.

I don't think you can deny that it is possible to practice consensual fulfilling bdsm within a relationship

No, but the entire point of this thread was that wrangling over consent as if consent makes absolutely anything all right is pointless. Sadism is wrong even with consent.

Obviously we would probably all draw the line at different points but I think almost everyone actually agrees with me on the basic principle that consent is not sufficient to neutralise all harm. Do you see any issue with consensual waterboarding?

But magic, in a bdsm relationship would you not need to consider what is the driving force. The sub or masochist in the relationship may be the one that is driving the behaviour for their sexual gratification.

'sadism is wrong even with consent'
The interesting thing is that many dominants are not sadists.

Even ones who engage in relatively heavy pain play, flogging, caning, etc. And I am sure that sounds completely ridiculous to you, as you are not a masochist. Some dominants are into seeing the elation their submissive gets from the pain. They have attended classes and read extensively to know how much pain and where is safe, and stop when they have had enough even if the submissive is begging for more.

Somewhat OT so I apologise but my attention was snagged by this:

They have attended classes and read extensively to know how much pain and where is safe, and stop when they have had enough even if the submissive is begging for more.

Some time ago, medical cannabis research scientists commented that there is a lot of knowledge about how to develop/grow particular strains and how to manipulate components. However, the knowledge is mostly in the 'illegal' domain and they wish the formal and informal research communities could have a get together so that they could exchange information without there being any risk of criminal charges.

I wonder if there's an understanding of pain in some communities that would be rather valuable to pain researchers if it were possible to have an information exchange. I know it isn't because of ethical issues concerning human experimentation and consent issues.

--
CaptainBrickbeard - that training sounds wholly relevant (sadly). I had some a problem filling in the PSHE consultation because I thought this probably needed to be addressed but I wondered about how feasible it would be to provide appropriate training.

I'm simply not going to agree that hurting and humiliating other people for pleasure or pretending to be a rapist or a slave owner is OK. I don't care how you rationalise it to yourself and of course you are welcome to do whatever you like - I have absolutely no power over you.

I'm not proposing a bedroom police. I just refuse to nod along and be non-judgmental and I don't think consent should ever be a legal defence where someone has been assaulted.

@arran I mentioned neuroscience earlier;
It was an off the cuff comment but it comes from a situation similar to this. I know a neuroscientist in the community who has a very good understanding of the 'whys' of s&m from this perspective. However, it's something he studies as a hobby around the peripherals of his actual work & research for many of the reasons you have already stated. The actualities of it are fascinating though and interestingly the emphasis he places on aftercare comes from the 'comedown' after all the neurochemicals and things wear off.

This thread makes me think of a male ‘friend’ I had who was 20 years my senior. He had a long term partner and he would regularly complain that the PIV sex he was having with her wasn’t fulfilling so he sought lovers who were my age and younger. He had one who he claimed had become ‘enlightened ‘ after reading 50 Shades. He would enthusiastically tell me that she enjoyed being choked, anally fisted and waterboarded in a car park while groups of male strangers would gather round the car and masturbate over her. The woman suffered an anal prolapse during one of these exchanges and he believed it was a natural consequence of her so called ‘sexual agency’.

Worryingly, he also believed that the majority of women who reported rape were making false accusations against men in order to shame them.

He was also a lawyer.

Needless to say, I haven’t seen him in three years. I have however remained ‘friends’ with him on Facebook. He regularly posts about rape cases that have made their way into mainstream media and attempts to dismantle the ideas of consent to prove that the women involved are actually lying about their assault. I call him out but am regularly berated by his very wealthy male friends who advocate his beliefs. I just hope that one day someone will see my (very reasonable) arguments against his claims and challenge his bizarre ideas about consent. I’ll keep trying until he blocks me.

You can consent to sex, and change your mind, or not want anything other than that and if you’re wishes are not listened to then it is assault and/or abuse.

But this is the problem, Early. Men are using "consent" as a legal defence for putting women's lives in danger when they are put on trial for killing them. And there is no way of knowing what happened when the woman is dead. But still it's considered possible/reasonable that the man was acting on the woman's wishes in a rough sex or BDSM scenario and that he is not guilty.

Even when he is very likely to be lying, if it can't be proven that she didn't "consent" to being strangled, have a knife put to her throat etc there will be no murder conviction.

And the reason for this is the normalisation of rough painful sex as something everyone has. Because porn.

The interesting thing is that many dominants are not sadists.

Even ones who engage in relatively heavy pain play, flogging, caning, etc. And I am sure that sounds completely ridiculous to you, as you are not a masochist. Some dominants are into seeing the elation their submissive gets from the pain. They have attended classes and read extensively to know how much pain and where is safe, and stop when they have had enough even if the submissive is begging for more.

The thing is that a decent person wouldn't be able to inflict pain on another person. Even if someone begged me to do it and said they loved it, I wouldn't be able to punch someone hard in the face for instance. Because I am not violent.

There's always the argument 'you just don't understand it'. No, I don't and there are lots of activities that I don't understand because I have never partaken in them, such as rape, domestic violence, sexual abuse, mugging, killing, stealing etc. I still know it's extremely wrong though, and it's not just because the victim doesn't consent to it. It's also wrong because the perpetrator feels its okay to do it and doesn't have a strong aversion to that kind of behaviour. So even if in a BDSM relationship, the sub is apparently fine with it, it's a problem that the dom feels able to inflict pain in a way that most people wouldn't be able to.

As for thesepreciousthings your friend sounds like a sick sick fuck. Absolutely vile. Reminds me of the Natalie Connolly case where the defendant was able to argue that the victim wanted a spray bottle inserted into her vagina, causing internal bleeding. Sickening. There have to be things that nobody can ever be thought capable of consenting to ever.

But this is the problem, Early. Men are using "consent" as a legal defence for putting women's lives in danger when they are put on trial for killing them

The problem is the criminal justice system not the kink. Do you think if this woman had been ‘kink shamed’ she would not have been murdered? Is this not just another way of making it the woman’s fault if she’s murdered?
Murdering someone with their ‘consent’ is still murder.

@funkyfunkybeat12 he is a twisted, horrible man. The most worrying thing for me is that as someone in a position of power (as a lawyer) his beliefs are elevated and maintained by vulnerable people. He is very intelligent and articulate which makes his ideas seem well thought through and valid. I just fear for the young women who become enraptured by him, of which there appear to be many.

I remember having a boyfriend when I was 19. While he always took the time to give me pleasure, he bought a lot of ideas he’d seen in porn into the bedroom. Choking and golden showers to name but two. I accepted these behaviours as central to the power dynamic in our relationship, even though I felt uncomfortable and degraded. In the decade that has passed since, widely available mainstream porn has become increasingly violent and dangerous. I would hate to be a teenage girl today, accepting violence as part of perceived consent. Especially given that the vast majority of teenagers do not like to deviate from what is presented as the norm in a desperate attempt for approval. Furthermore, sex education and education as a whole does not encourage critical thought.

Murdering someone with their ‘consent’ is still murder.

But raping someone with their 'consent' isn't rape? Torturing someone with their 'consent' isn't torture?

Have you even heard yourself?

You can't have it both ways. Which is it to be?

Murdering someone with their ‘consent’ is still murder.

But they're not saying the victims consented to murder. They're saying their victims consented to risky sexual practices and then oops, butterfingers! It was an accident! Rough sex gone wrong.

The more outlandish the practice, the more proof should be required of enthusiastic ongoing consent. Post death, that burden of proof should be incredibly high.
So yes, early you have a point there. I did post earlier that in one survey of BDSM practitioners 3/4 of women were subs; most BDSM people are submissive but this is more pronounced in women.
Thesepreciousthings if what that man said was true, then he's a savage. Ironically he's probably some poor girl's real-life Christian Grey (older, good job, sexual sadist).

I’m broadly speaking liberarian, but with liberty comes responsibility. I don’t care what someone does or does not consent to you are always responsible for the harm that you do. Consent violation adds an extra layer of unpleasantness to wanting to or being willing to harm others.

Also considering how can we in good conscience unleash a generation of young women into a sexual arena where the majority of what they are learning centers men and male pleasure? There really did seem to be some movement in the 90s as to what felt good for women.

Reflecting on this I’m wondering if all this sexual violence is coming from some massive repression that’s going on somewhere? When things get repressed they tend to bubble up manifoldly worse further down the line.

The fact people are sustaining lifelong injuries is proof positive there is something majorly wrong somewhere. I’d really like to tackle
this before my son is old enough to be corrupted by it.

You can't have it both ways. Which is it to be?
Good point.
I wonder if it's like Catch-22. To consent to serious assault shows that you're not well enough to consent at all. I don't mean that to sound insulting, but if someone is driving nails through your skin whilst they electrocute you and restrict your breathing there is a high risk of injury or death. Same with waterboarding, vacuum suits, group anal, piercing play, knife play, etc.
Some is obviously more dangerous than others. I can't help but wonder why we accept that amount of risk being legal because someone enjoys it sexually, when we wouldn't accept a community doing something as dangerous as a hobby.
That fella that climbs up buildings with no harness etc. He gets arrested every time. As many people as are impressed with him are disgusted with him for putting himself and the people underneath him on the ground at risk, tying up police officers etc.
But when it's "kinky sex" we don't seem to mind?

But raping someone with their 'consent' isn't rape? Torturing someone with their 'consent' isn't torture? Have you even heard yourself?

By definition, rape is without their consent, try thinking about what you type without you try the ‘have you heard yourself’ crap. What is torture to you, may be pleasure to them. If there is obviously injury such as bleach poured over them, then obviously that is different but that is not general practice within BDSM.

I’m broadly speaking liberarian, but with liberty comes responsibility. I don’t care what someone does or does not consent to you are always responsible for the harm that you do.
I agree completely but what does that responsibility look like in reality?
If the victim never presses charges?
If the victims never links her MH issues with her sex life?
If the injuries were sustained at a play venue by a stranger?
If the victim plays down her injuries or sees them with pride?
If the aggressor never has to pay for the victim's treatment, support the victim's mental health, etc.
Then we're back to deaths - and there could come a case where the victim was on video, enthusiastically consenting, right up until she dies. What do we do then?
Do we infantilise a grown adult and assume nobody of right mind could consent to that, or do we accept that she wanted to die during painful sex?
I honestly don't know what the right answer is. You can't consent to being killed and eaten, that was established. So where is the line? Can you consent to a prolapse but not a broken arm?
Who picks up the pieces afterwards?

That’s not general practice amongst thinking and feeling human beings. Look if you want to practice sexy fun times in the BDSM scene more power to you, but why can’t the “risks” be shared? Ok a sub may be at serious risk of injury/death. Why is it so incredibly bad for doms to be at very real legal risk?

That should just reinforce good practice surely? Why should one group get to be insulated from negative repercussions when things go wrong?

@flyingoink I do believe he is a savage. It worries me that this girl bought into the Christian Grey message - if I give up my sexual agency and ‘consent’ to sexual violence, then this older, wealthy man will provide for my needs. He openly and proudly admitted to me that he would buy her drugs and alcohol to ‘enhance’ her sexual experience while he remained sober himself. I struggled to see how it was possible for a vulnerable woman to ‘consent’ to violent sexual acts while being totally incapacitated.

I was having a conversation with DP a couple of weeks ago. He admitted that while he was a teen Britney videos were wank fodder. Recently he went on a well known pornography streaming site and was horrified by the rape fantasy/incest/fisting and so forth that came up on the first page. He turned off his computer and had a memory wank. I suspect he’s in the minority.

I really hope I can educate my son to critically examine violent porn and look beyond it when it comes to his early sexual experience.