Why are so many women hellbent on acting against their own interest?

[thedankness]

From TWAW, pro "sex-work", "kinky sex" and porn, plastic surgery, accepting low standards in relationships with men, being anti-abortion to more trivial things such as wearing heels, and yes, shaving, and so much more, so many women will defend these things to the hilt. They refuse/are unable to see how these things are bad for themselves and/or women generally, even after presented with arguments. Obviously some people will disagree with points made in an argument, but I just don't see men subjugating themselves en masse like I do women.

I feel sad. Why can't we as women just love ourselves and look out for ourselves? I feel like we are groomed into self-hate. Is the notion of female self-acceptance and worth truly so radical that a significant number can't even fathom it as a possibility for themselves?

Why is it so common for women to act against their interest? And can or should we do anything about it?

This is a bit poorly-worded, have thoughts but am interested to hear others' opinions.

@WhatWouldJeevesDo I am not saying it isn't dangerous in the same way I drinking excessive amount of alcohol is definitely not "not dangerous"

But I don't think either should be analysed from angle of "is it feminist to do it" or that women who like it as a kink are somehow victims to patriarchy that normalised it. I don't even think it is normalised and discussing it this way actually gives weight to the accidental strangulation arguments, it puts doubts over whether this was an intentional acts of violence. I believe there should be no "wondering if" and any act that ends in death or serious injury should not allow a consent argument to even be made as the victim clearly did no consent to that amount of violence.

On the flip side, I don't believe adults should be policed on everything they do to their own bodies - this thread proves that you can run too far with this idea and end up even telling women what shoes (you know, some of us clearly don't understand that wearing heels is unhealthy...)

With chocking,just like with everything else , it's important to look at why do women "like" it.

There isn't a multitude of studies around this , but even the few that are have some troubling results.

First the fact that some women do it to please their partner. That's not kink, consent,or liking it.

There are significant differences on the brain for women who have been chocked during sex. It is not clear if it's a cause or effect which is even more concerning. Either women "like" it because of neurological differences or they have had their brains significantly altered due to the practice.

Despite the claim that they have safe practices, very few women reported actually having things in place like proper discussion around it, how much pressure, safe words etc.

Studies also showed increased mental health issues in women who have been chocked during sex (depression,anxiety,loneliness etc.). Again it doesn't say whether it's cause or effect , but raises the same concerns as the brain scans. Either women are vulnerable (and especially coupled with "please the partner point" )aren't actually liking or consenting. Or the practice /the partners they have that like to engage in the practice has a significant effect on their mental health.

Few women report doing it back to their partner/men.

From personal experience, the few women I know engaging in chocking during sex have a past of significant trauma and abuse and relationships with abusive men. I know this doesn't count , but it's still highly concerning, at least to me. Concerning enough, that I can't just leave it at that"well some women like it." Concerning enough to ask why .

I don't even think it is normalised and discussing it this way actually gives weight to the accidental strangulation arguments,

So actions have no effect on other people but words do so we should all shut up?

Consent isn’t a permissible defence, so a solution isn’t quite as simple as you make out.

Great post PaperDoIIs.
It doesn't seem a surprise to me that more and more women are "liking" certain things when put into the big picture.

Obviously there's always been adults with a wide range of sexual tastes, but it seems quite interesting that so much is being pushed into the mainstream. Previously more niche sex acts are being presented in teen magazines as standard, there's the pornification of sex, and people discussing potential harms getting shut down as "kink shaming". Then there's a shift in some branches of feminism where it's mean and awfully unfeminist to question choices and we shouldn't mention patriarchal influences, or ask who wins by changing the dynamics of sexual relationships because that's also not very empowering to women.

Coupled with a healthy dose of "be kind" (which seems to regularly mean women and girls having fewer boundaries and centring other people's wants), it starts to look an awful lot like trying to groom women and girls into having fewer boundaries and limit discussion because it's not kind to ask questions.

@WhatWouldJeevesDo one person drinking too much does not excuse another person's drink driving, I see it as a very similar scenario

That all being said - I don't exactly see women talking about their fetishes to a great extent, to me it seems to be mostly brought up when men mention them...which is interesting

There are certainly parallels with alcohol. A heavy-drinking culture is inimical to women’s interests in the same way that a culture that values sexual risk-taking is damaging to women’s interests.

@WhatWouldJeevesDo by making it a gender issue we are getting very close to good ol' "she asked for it"

women who drink don't drink because of patriarchy. In fact, up until very recently society shunned women who did "many" activities like drinking, smoking and openly enjoying sex. Doing 180 and going back to those attitudes is hardly going to help us, just like it did not help up back then.

Not to mention that it seems more like one group of women trying to impose their values on all other women and trying really hard to disguise it as concern for wellbeing.

Sometimes it makes sense to apply the higher standard of behaviour to men as well as women.
You seem to want us all to stop talking about how social trends affect women and to start pretending there are no biological differences between the sexes.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you say we are getting close to “she asked for it”

@WhatWouldJeevesDo I think you do know - this thread has already suggested that unreasonable standards are place on women because other women abide those standards, this included appearance, grooming practice, our names, sexual preferences and even the fact that women have sex at all...some posters even heavily suggested (if not said out right) that women are to blame for agreeing to low standards of one-night stands

in the meantime, the nuances of lives of vulnerable women were totally ignored (just prosecute clients pf sex workers, who cares about impact on actual sex workers), culture (names, gender roles, attitudes to marriage) and individual preferences (entire conversation about sex). Women were referred to as manipulated and not "enlighten" enough, while other posts went straight into slut shaming

I am not sure how serious was a post that suggested segregated commune so I'll leave that one

and in all of that, some posters felt it was not fair that they feel expected to shave and that other women don't care about it...yeah, the sex workers whose source of income some of you would like to make completely illegal without practical ways of replacing lost income are sure going to care that Miss (not Mrs) Anti-Shaving feels self-conscious and would like all women to forsake shaving in solidarity with her

@PaintedEgg The Nordic model fines the sex buyers and uses that money to support women exiting the industry. It is meant to be a holistic model that recognises the vulnerability of women in prostitution while condemning the purchase of human beings for sex. Legal reform rarely brings about overnight changes but allows a transition period. Is it perfect? Probably not. However it is better than decriminalisation, legalisation and toleration, which normalise the provision of an underclass of women for the sexual service of men.

I would like to live in a society that sends a clear message to women that we are valuable as people, as full human beings; we are not the sum of body parts; we are more than our appearance, our sex appeal, our vagina, our breasts, our uteruses, our nurture, our labour. That’s not to say these things cannot be valued or appreciated, they should in fact, but that as human beings we have a wholeness that is violated when our bodies are broken down and transacted. Only an abolitionist approach to prostitution achieves that and truly places women in equal standing to men.

I haven’t seen you suggest anything better so I would put your statement:
"one group of women trying to impose their values on all other women and trying really hard to disguise it as concern for wellbeing." back to you.

Comparing strangulation to “she was asking for it” with regards to clothing is not the same because women are raped in all manner of clothing. Sarah Everard was abducted wearing jeans and a raincoat. I doubt there is any statistical correlation between skimpiness of clothing and risk of rape. Whereas any form of strangulation is inherently injurious and risky. Asking someone to inflict that on you is a form of self-harm and agreeing to perform it on another is a form of abuse.

You seem to agree that in cases of sexual asphyxiation leading to death, the perpetrator should be prosecuted for murder rather than manslaughter. Do you not see how trivialising abuse through euphemisms such as “BDSM” and women merely enjoying “kinks” (which if you question are committing the cardinal sin of denying a woman’s autonomy!) contributes to people (including juries) being unable to clearly identify the abuse. It’s murky: you can consent to injury, but not to death, and only when the injury or risk of harm is sexually arousing. If women themselves defend the practice as being in their interest, and we’re not allowed to question why (I note you ignored @LolaSmiles post which addresses this), the notion of "rough sex gone wrong" is an unsurprising consequence.

@thedankness I believe that joining "women having kinks" and "men murdering women then claiming it was a kink" as two entirely separate points. I refuse to accept that some people having kinks makes the convictions murky.

People get strangled outside of sex just like women get raped regardless of what they are wearing, but murders / rapists will grasp at any straws to diminish their responsibility or claim consent where there was none.

When going in for surgical procedure you are signing a consent form about the risks, but if the surgeon carelessly punctures your artery they are still liable.

There is no reason why maliciously choking your partner, especially when there is previous evidence of abuse, should be seen as murky because maaaaybe victim was into it. even if the victim WAS consenting to rough sex, then brain damage is still not what they signed up for.

If you allow this line of thinking then it's the same as with excusing rape with victim's clothing or other scenarios such as "she agreed to go to his house", "she drank too much", "she behaved in sexually provocative manner" and so on.

Just leave the victim out of reasoning as to why a man choked a woman to death.

As for Nordic model - it does not seem to help decreasing the rates of sex trafficking, but I agree that at least it provides money to support women in sex trade. My question is whether this is like for like in terms of financial support.

@thedankness Thanks for this thread. I’m coming to the conclusion that the enemy is unbridled capitalism combined with misogyny - but misogyny isn’t an act of God either so that doesn’t really answer the question.
On ‘rough sex’ my understanding is that we can’t consent to much more than literally ‘slap and tickle’ according to case law. You can’t consent to actual bodily harm for sexual pleasure.
The problem in homicide cases seems to be that killers claiming ‘rough sex gone wrong’ somehow manage to convince that they did not intend death or grievous bodily harm and therefore it’s not murder.

Some women/people have kinks. It happens. When it comes to kinks there are two significant issues.

First you have the risk of the kink. With things like chocking, there is always ,always a risk. There is scientific proof that there is brain damage, that there are significant differences on the brain in women who like being chocked, there is an increased prevalence of mental health issues and of course the risk of serious injuries and death. But we don't talk about this enough ,because "kink shaming". That's bull and puts women in danger. Again, other studies show that women claim to be engaging in safe practices (safe words, proper conversation prior,consent etc)when this couldn't be further away from the truth. Now, if chocking was really as mainstream (more on this in my second paragraph) as you/society claims , then all these studies,risks and safety measures should be largely publicised, easily available and discussed. Otherwise consent, is not really informed consent is it?

Then, the real issue is pushing a dangerous kink like chocking into mainstream. Accepting it as mainstream and no big deal. This has negative consequences for both men and women,in different ways of course. First women (by their own admission) do it to please a partner rather than their own pleasure. That isn't women liking kink. Then you have the added pressure of everyone does it, it's fun,it's no big deal,you're such a prude etc. With men, you have the issue that it's so mainstream and "normal" and "women like it" that they don't even bother to ask for consent they just assume. Society just assumes. That's how the rough sex defence became accepted and so popular. Because the expectations is that women are into this stuff. The media says so,porn says so, giggly conversations say so, books say so, society says so, men say so.
That's where the muddying of waters comes in, not just for the women themselves,but in the case of trials too.

The more we scream kink shaming and avoid information and discussion, the less safe it is for women, no matter why they do it. The more pressure. The more confusion for juries. After all it's not that big of a deal, it? Stop being such a prudey, pearl clutcher kink shamer and stop asking all these questions.

I think you can absolutely discuss the risks involved in something without infantilising people and suggesting you know better than them what they should do

casual sex is a good example: the risks are widely discussed, but walking around telling people to not do it is frowned upon. You don't have to prohibit something (either legally or through power of social scorn) to discuss its risks.

as @WhatWouldJeevesDo pointed out - actual body harm is not something you can consent to anyway, and yet its being used as an excuse. So maybe, just maybe, it's yet another way for some people to tell themselves "that would never happen to me, it happened to her because she was into rough sex"...which is a long way of saying "it's her fault".

casual sex is a good example: the risks are widely discussed, but walking around telling people to not do it is frowned upon. You don't have to prohibit something (either legally or through power of social scorn) to discuss its risks.

Casual sex isn’t illegal, but strangling people is so I think you need to have a rethink @PaintedEgg.

This is so right. There's no comparison.
Some things are just beyond consent anyway. Like choking or cannibalism.

But I would say men do have to wear uncomfortable clothes, I could never wear a shirt and tie, couldn't breathe with a tie so close to my throat. It feels threatening. So I definitely think ties should be removed from the norm for school uniform etc. Especially considering how dangerous they are, tying something around the neck that other people can pull at / tighten? Stupid. Most schools other than grammars or naice mc leafy comps have moved to clip on ties, which are still very uncomfortable but at least safer.

If certain feminists just let people alone and weren’t constantly groaning and “discussing potential harms” over and over in very public spaces then these kink type things would likely stay fringe.

It’s the publicity caused by raising these things that makes them high risk of going mainstream.

A teenager reads about this dangerous (but exciting) sex position/kink or drug and what are they going to suddenly want to try? Exactly what has been written about in the article. So they will search for porn with it so they can see it, and that creates demand for that sort of porn. Or they will ask around for the latest designer chemical or mushroom or frog sweat to get high on.

Children die every year from stupid TikTok challenges, and the number of deaths goes UP when that information goes mainstream with a “don’t try this” as to the #views of curious kids looking up the challenge to watch it so they can try it. Some things should be dealt with quietly.

Discussing things does have impact.
The young generation today over shares and this is one result.

Keeping adult things private doesn’t push extreme things mainstream.

Plus no one can consent to being abused, critically injured or killed.

I’m not saying don’t discuss issues. You are free to do what you want.
I am pointing out that discussing these issues, analysing choices over and over and dictating a right way from on high has an impact. An impact that is often planting the seed of “I do what I want, and even though I’ve never heard of that, I’m going to do it just to spite you” (not an uncommon rebellious thought for a teen or young adult).

That’s what the Temperance Society campaigned on.
Heavy alcohol consumption is bad for all humans. It’s the in the top three causes of cancer.
Most men and women drink to self-medicate. If the health system were not in a shambles, there would be less drinking.

You will get into a whole lot of "is it illegal to hold someone's throat if they consent and you don't actually choke them" debate... and in any case, it still proves that the consent argument should not hold in court but somehow it does.

The cases of strangulation should be straightforward - man killed a woman, so he is sentenced for murder. Whatever stupid excuse he's trying to make this is not "a feminist issue". The feminist issue is that it held up in court at all.

and I absolutet agree with @MercanDede - if it wasn't for some feminists' persistent urge to tell women what's best for them then things like dangerous fetishes would not be so out in the open. People always did really stupid things, but trying to nanny entire society leads to resistance

On personal level I do agree that sometimes people could use being saved from themselves and overconsumption of alcohol is one example, but I would never blame a woman who was assaulted while drunk for what has happened to her.

Not just the health service - local authorities being starved of funds and all sorts of problems make up broken Britain. The young, however, seem to be drinking less than in previous generations and I think there are multiple factors that affect drinking culture.
Tackling drunkenness was actually quite a strong motivator for a lot of women campaigning for the vote. In America the Temperence movement joined forces with the Women’s Suffrage Movement. Women’s economic dependence on men made drinking a massive problem for them. Prohibition was a direct result of Women’s suffrage. An element of Puritanism has always been part of feminism because men’s irresponsibility has an impact on women and children.

If certain feminists just let people alone and weren’t constantly groaning and “discussing potential harms” over and over in very public spaces then these kink type things would likely stay fringe.

So pornography has nothing to do with it. Blame the woman!

Coming back to comment on some of the discussion regarding prostitution as it’s an area I have some first hand experience of (not as a prostitute but I’ve known quite a few).
Firstly, a girl selling sex could, in a simplistic sense, be said to be making a free choice, especially if she has no pimp, if she is supported and in a “safe” environment (legal brothel for example)
But when you break it down, and you know that girl, and how she came to live a life where she can disassociate to the point of sex with random men (some of whom are revolting to her) you realise that whatever “choice” she has was made years before she was able to choose.
I purposefully say girl, because almost all prostitutes are on the game before the age of 16. A huge proportion are care leavers, have been homeless and have drug problems. The drug problem is usually the catalyst to going into sex work on a full time basis, but drugs and selling of sexual services will likely have been dabbled in from a very young age.
I think the statistics say that around 90% if prostitutes were sexually abused as children. I have never met one who wasn’t (or any stripper, professional dominatrix or similar for that matter).
That’s anecdotal I know, but they ALL have a story, and disturbingly don’t even nesscarily recognise that they are victims of child sexual abuse, as the abuse has never ended- prostitution is merely a continuation of it.
So I am very averse to being told what I should wear or drink but when it comes to any state sanctioning the selling of the bodies of abused girls (and boys) I can’t support that morally.
The Nordic model is the best option barring actually addressing child sexual abuse, mental trauma and drug addiction..

i mean... you already are

@ChevyCamaro I think that's the point - we need extensive support system that works before people enter sex trade. making it illegal for sex workers to earn money does not really help. Even in Nordic Model help is offered for women to leave...while really we should be looking at them not entering the sex trade in the first place

“i mean... you already are”

I believe in looking at cause and effect. I’m not into blame. I find your analysis warped and driven by very black and white thinking @PaintedEgg.