Consent -- to what, exactly?
http://ultradevi.tumblr.com/post/122862714327/nichotina-c-photo-nicola-de-luigi-this-is-my
I commented on my tumblr reblog of this erotic pose, "hmm, an unsubtle suggestion that she’s about to be whipped with that belt. (Presumably, holding it there for her domme is CONSENT - important to know, especially in BDSM…)"
I've followed quite closely the Internet discussion of "consent" as the sine-qua-non* for modern sex. California has pioneered the "yes means yes" law: unless a partner specifically says "yes," she has not consented to whatever sex acts are... well, planned by both (or ALL) partners. This goes to what legally constitutes rape** -- and what can be prosecuted.
There's an unanswered (and maybe unanswerable) question here: BDSM "players" certainly enjoy being "forced" to do sexual things, and they are... well, "inspired" to say "no" and resist their partner's presumably careful efforts to make the agreed (and [woohoo!] agreeable) sex HAPPEN. That's legally a fuzzy area: surely -- sooner, rather than later -- there'll be a California prosecution of some dom or domme who got "carried away" and injured the consenting nonconsensual partner. Society will be "shocked... shocked, I say" to learn the lurid details. (You thought there was public consternation over Kaitlyn Jenner...)
_________________
*Latin for "without this [consent, in this use of the words], NOTHING takes place."
**I've discussed here fairly often my own rape when I was 18; whatever happened (and I've repressed much of it), I certainly didn't consent. Whether I was "asking for it" is another question... (I was unbelievably naive back then, so getting in that guy's car was certainly NOT "informed consent.")
I commented on my tumblr reblog of this erotic pose, "hmm, an unsubtle suggestion that she’s about to be whipped with that belt. (Presumably, holding it there for her domme is CONSENT - important to know, especially in BDSM…)"
I've followed quite closely the Internet discussion of "consent" as the sine-qua-non* for modern sex. California has pioneered the "yes means yes" law: unless a partner specifically says "yes," she has not consented to whatever sex acts are... well, planned by both (or ALL) partners. This goes to what legally constitutes rape** -- and what can be prosecuted.
There's an unanswered (and maybe unanswerable) question here: BDSM "players" certainly enjoy being "forced" to do sexual things, and they are... well, "inspired" to say "no" and resist their partner's presumably careful efforts to make the agreed (and [woohoo!] agreeable) sex HAPPEN. That's legally a fuzzy area: surely -- sooner, rather than later -- there'll be a California prosecution of some dom or domme who got "carried away" and injured the consenting nonconsensual partner. Society will be "shocked... shocked, I say" to learn the lurid details. (You thought there was public consternation over Kaitlyn Jenner...)
_________________
*Latin for "without this [consent, in this use of the words], NOTHING takes place."
**I've discussed here fairly often my own rape when I was 18; whatever happened (and I've repressed much of it), I certainly didn't consent. Whether I was "asking for it" is another question... (I was unbelievably naive back then, so getting in that guy's car was certainly NOT "informed consent.")