Consent for women

[ArabellaScott]

A reminder:

You don't owe anyone your attention.

You have no obligation to 'include' anyone in your 'dating pool'.

Your sexual preferences are yours and yours alone.

Nobody has the right to shame you for your sexual preferences.

Nobody has the right to question your sexual preferences.

When it comes to sex and sexual preferences, nobody has the right to demand your attention, your consideration or your attraction.

Not ever.

I do agree that no one has a right to demand you find them sexually attractive. That would come under the category of rape and sexual harassment.

But I disagree with you when you say 'Nobody has the right to shame you for your sexual preferences."
What if a person is sexually aroused by child abuse or by evil abusive people.
I agree that no one should be shamed for being gay or lesbian.
But if a person is sexually aroused by abuse or by abusive people (including bullying, child abuse, rapists, and wife beaters). then it is right to shame that person.
People should be ashamed to be attracted to evil people or evil abuse.

I agree that certain sexual "preferences" and behaviours are shameful and should remain that way.

I don't think the point is "let's discuss what and who women are allowed to be attracted to."

I think the thread began as a statement that "women are allowed to draw sexual boundaries and say no at any time and have that refusal accepted without attempts at eroding those boundaries."

Christ why is the concept bodily autonomy bothering people so much?

'Nobody has the right to shame you for your sexual preferences."

I think it's been clarified that the op meant this in the context of the title, ie consent.
Nobody has the right to shame you for your sexual preferences in what or who you say 'no' to.

the thread began as a statement that "women are allowed to draw sexual boundaries and say no at any time and have that refusal accepted without attempts at eroding those boundaries."

Yes. The clue is in the title - 'consent'.

I believe that in theory, failure to get the woman's consent before having sexual congress is in the legal definition of rape, isn't it? There was a lot of fuss made by men saying "but what if she said yes and then passed out, that shouldn't be rape!" in an aggrieved way.

According to section 74 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, someone consents when she or he "agrees by choice…and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

So trying to debate whether she's allowed to say no at all is not relevant, really.

There was a reasonable explanation in The Independent back in 2015: www.independent.co.uk/life-style/love-sex/consent-rape-rape-a6718931.html

Article that seemed relevant, on women's boundaries

www.feministcurrent.com/2021/03/24/womens-boundaries-shouldnt-only-matter-when-politically-correct/?fbclid=IwAR1mn9IIo6N5F-vn-P1D8V23iN3Cr4KLiA9Lw7nO5zttvSJPk8ZiAQZ86Rc

In that article I find the words "If someone is harassed, physically attacked, or killed because of their race or sexuality, that is a “hate crime” in UK law. Perpetrators of these crimes can often receive a heavier sentence, and specialized governmental and policing groups work to monitor and reduce hate crime. However, there’s no such thing in UK law as a hate crime motivated by sex."

It always seems to me that heterosexuality is a sexuality quite as much as homosexuality or bisexuality; so crimes against heterosexual women because of their being heterosexual women ought also to be hate-crimes. To behave as if they are not is wilfully to ignore the facts of the matter.

The new SNP law about hate-crime includes cross-dressing; all women wearing trousers should therefore be able to claim that assault on them is a hate-crime...

But that it a derailment; sorry, Arabella.