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 word “moral” has been tainted by association with the religious right. But long before the evangelical movement, there was something generally accepted in community called “the moral imperative.”

*Intentionally inflicting pain on another person, for one’s own pleasure, is not a part of that moral imperative. Sexualising domination, in a world of power hierarchies based on sex, race, and class, can never be liberating. It only reifies what we’re trying, outside the bedroom,
to dismantle.

Unconsciousness has to be raised as much as consciousness does.*

This is so true.

Sorry, bold fail.

I just wanted to agree totally. I'm so glad this thread was started! What can we do?

Do you think if this woman had been ‘kink shamed’ she would not have been murdered?

Um, again I feel the need to point out that it is sadists who should be 'kink-shamed', not their victims. Except that this is a stupid term they made up themselves in order to shut down all critical thought so I was using it rather tongue in cheek. What I mean is that sexual sadism, just the same as other forms of cruelty, should not be considered socially acceptable, let alone progressive, sexy and enlightened.

Young people should be growing up with the expectation that good sex is about mutual pleasure and mutual respect, completely free of any elements of pain, domination or humiliation.

EJennings absolutely nailed it.

Surely if someone expects to be able to choke, beat and otherwise brutalise a fellow human being can surely take me calling them a shit for it? Double standards much!?

I am not a victim.

Our relationship is very, very mutually respectful. Our sex life is very, very mutually pleasurable. It also sometimes includes elements of dominance and pain.

As it happens, I don’t enjoy anal so we don’t do anal.

I utterly reject the assumption on this thread that I am not giving, and am incapable of, enthusiastic, willing and informed consent to the acts that we choose to engage in together.

I also deeply, deeply, resent men who murder women claiming that they were is BDSM relationships and it was BDSM that killed their partners. No BDSM practitioner I have ever come across has any desire to do lasting or permanent damage to his or her partner.

Who's going to stop that woman from doing exactly what she wants in the bedroom?
I think the point is if the woman reports rape/sexual assault there are some acts it should be legally impossible to consent to.
In itself that should make doms/sadists a hell of a lot more cautious about who they dominate or hurt.
I believe the law is meant to be that it is impossible to use consent as a defence focusing harm, but that doesn't appear to apply to men penetrating women for some reason.

This. The state isn’t going to police individuals in their bedrooms, so in reality if you are two consenting adults nothing will stop you.

What needs to change is the way society seems this acceptable/desireable because that’s what’s changing out window of what’s oknand that’s what is having negative effects.

The cases recently where a jury or judge has accepted, or where the defence has used, the ‘yeah she was well up for it, we only just met m’kid but she wanted it and I slipped’ have all been down to increased societal acceptance.

If it wasn’t pushed so widely in society, that defence would have been unusable - it would have been deemed unthinkable that a woman consented to or wanted this. It’s that societal shift that’s driving individual cases. Not individual private people doing things in the bedrooms privately.

The same shift is being seen on multiple things - I’m thinking the mermaids/BDSM calendar for example. And the fact that sex has gone from something women and men do for mutual pleasure to something done to women.

We need a shift back to where what people did in private was tolerated - not expected of everyone, and certainly not celebrated. And some things shouldn’t be tolerated at all - torture, rape, abuse, involvement of minors, or imposition of a paraphilic behaviour on unwilling participants in public.

And some things shouldn’t be tolerated at all - torture, rape, abuse, involvement of minors, or imposition of a paraphilic behaviour on unwilling participants in public.

These things aren’t tolerated by the BDSM community. Not for one second. Why do you think we do tolerate them?

These things aren’t tolerated by the BDSM community. Not for one second. Why do you think we do tolerate them?

I’m not talking about the BDSM community.

I’m talking about the wider societal view. which isn’t particularly informed by the actual BDSM community, but by porn, and the media. That’s what drives this. When a defence lawyer uses the ‘rough sex gone wrong’ defence, they aren’t doing it because the jury is made up of people into BDSM with knowledge of boundarie. They’re doing it because the jury is made up of average people living in a porn soaked world where images of violence in sex pervade many forms of media. And this is normalised.

I utterly reject the assumption on this thread that I am not giving, and am incapable of, enthusiastic, willing and informed consent to the acts that we choose to engage in together.

That is not at all what I was saying. Look at the title of the thread. Consent is not enough and it does not make everything OK. If your argument is that it does make everything OK can you tell me if you have any limits to this principle? Consensual waterboarding?

These thingsaren’ttolerated by the BDSM community. Not for one second. Why do you think wedotolerate them?

See article in op about consensual waterboarding.

I agree with every word you’ve written.

But not one single word says anything whatsoever about my ability to consent to what happens to my body by my choice.

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.

There is nothing that is safe, sane or consensual about bdsm.

And, no, in principal i see no limits to the acts to which a person of sound mind can freely consent.

And, just to be clear:

• drunk or high = not consenting
• unconscious = not consenting
• underage = not consenting
• coerced = not consenting

But we already have laws that cover all of those situations.

Blame porn, blame the media, blame abusive men, blame 50 Shades of Shite - I’m with you all the way.

But please don’t patronise me by telling me I can’t consent.

This is the problem isn’t it? There’s enough individuals who go ‘wah, I like being hit and I consent so who are you to say otherwise’ who seem utterly incapable of seeing past their own nose. Literally no one outside of you and your partner give a shit what you choose to consent to in private.

What the posters are saying on this thread is that by making violence against women in sex part of the norm, it enables people who don’t give a shit about boundaries and safe words to hurt women (and men) regardless of consent, say they consented if/when it goes wrong and walk away scot free. By adding to the noise because you want your lifestyle validated, you make it harder for women in general to be safe in sexual situations. The bdsm community should be making a stand if it’s so ethical, rather than whining about misrepresentation and that it’s nothing to do with them.

And, no, in principal i see no limits to the acts to which a person of sound mind can freely consent.

It isn’t about a single individual’s ability to consent.

It’s about the shift in the societal window of what’s acceptable.

Should we tolerate consenting adults doing whatever in private? Yes I think we should.
Should we allow people to inflict paraphilias on unwilling participants? No, we shouldn’t.
Should we ‘celebrate’ practices that cause injury or humiliation? No, we shouldn’t.

But please don’t patronise me by telling me I can’t consent.

you can't consent once it's started.

I don’t want my lifestyle validated. I’d be perfectly happy never mentioning it again if, as you say, no-one gave a shit.

But the fact that you’re posting on this thread shows that actually you do give a shit.

What I really, really don’t want is to have my sex life criminalised. Which is what this thread is advocating.

Should we allow people to inflict paraphilias on unwilling participants? No, we shouldn’t. Should we ‘celebrate’ practices that cause injury or humiliation? No, we shouldn’t.

Again, I have literally no experience if anyone in my community doing this (other than, at a pinch, invitation only gatherings of likeminded people - so certainly not in public).

you can't consent once it's started

I certainly can withdraw consent at any point. It’s what safe words are for. They’re taken very, very seriously. I have two - one to warn that a boundary is close to being crossed and a second to say that the boundary has been crossed and that all activity must stop immediately. I’ve never had to use my second word.

It isn’t about a single individual’s ability to consent.

Let’s say it again for those not quite getting it.

Oh, and what I said 2 posts above that gatherings of likeminded individuals - I meant about celebrating (on indulging in) activities that cause bruises or humiliation.

I have never, ever, ever seen anyone forced to do anything unwillingly.

So work to shift the societal window, as someone eloquently put it. But don’t criminalise me.

Again, I have literally no experience if anyone in my community doing this (other than, at a pinch, invitation only gatherings of likeminded people - so certainly not in public).

And again, we aren’t talking about the BDSM community. We are talking about the general societal perception.