Interesting reading about negotiating consent

[Bramblethorn]

I thought this essay about different approaches to consent, and why safewords aren't a universal solution, was worth a read: https://xanwest.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/safewords-in-kink-life-and-in-kink-fiction/

 

[Blue]

I thought this essay about different approaches to consent, and why safewords aren't a universal solution, was worth a read: https://xanwest.wordpress.com/2017/03/01/safewords-in-kink-life-and-in-kink-fiction/

It's a decent read, but I've got a small problem with it's overall intent. It's framed (at least initially) as a way to prevent consent being violated in the way that happened to the author, which I think it fails at. What happened to him/her wasn't a consent accident or muddling of communication, their partner apparently decided that they would ignore protests and establishing a checklist and safeword was merely a lure. You can't prevent those people existing by making sure they're clear on terminology.

Also the closer to the end you get it starts leaning toward proselytizing the one true way of writing erotica. Ok, you would prefer erotica to have these traits, a lot of it does, but a lot of people also enjoy intellectual fast food.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Also the closer to the end you get it starts leaning toward proselytizing the one true way of writing erotica. Ok, you would prefer erotica to have these traits, a lot of it does, but a lot of people also enjoy intellectual fast food.

I disagree there. I think the essay makes it clear that the author's describing what they want out of BDSM erotica, and from my reading experience (as far as it goes) I would agree with them that it's hard to find that sort of content.

 

[SquishyBits]

I must agree with Consilience. The author mentioning their abuse set the wrong tone. The alternatives put forth will not prevent an abuser from committing their abuse. They ignore limits no matter how you discuss or label them.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I must agree with Consilience. The author mentioning their abuse set the wrong tone. The alternatives put forth will not prevent an abuser from committing their abuse. They ignore limits no matter how you discuss or label them.

I didn't see the author claiming at any point that these alternatives would prevent an abuser from abusing.

 

[Blue]

I didn't see the author claiming at any point that these alternatives would prevent an abuser from abusing.

Neither did I, I feel it's implied through beginning a guide-to-consent with mentioning their own experience of it's abuse.

 

[Primalex]

What happened to him/her wasn't a consent accident or muddling of communication, their partner apparently decided that they would ignore protests

I had a safeword, and it did not protect me from being abused and having my consent violated.

This does not have even the slightest indication of what happened. Any play that is difficult to slowly ramp up and where it's hit or miss (i.e. degradation) is a good way to cross the lines of consent even with a safeword. Or they forgot that a verbal safeword is fairly useless with your head under water...or...or...

 

[SquishyBits]

I didn't see the author claiming at any point that these alternatives would prevent an abuser from abusing.

That is the tone that was set by first mentioning their own abuse. Saying they had a safeword, were still abused and then outlining a guide to consent leads the reader to believe that the author is suggesting a different path that will not lead to abuse. The author linked the abuse with their safeword. Then suggested there is a way to consent not focused on safewords. This is the impression the author made on me. I did find many points about creating a safe space to use a safeword and so on interesting. I just did not think that starting the article with a vague statement of abuse was the way to go.

 

[Bramblethorn]

That is the tone that was set by first mentioning their own abuse. Saying they had a safeword, were still abused and then outlining a guide to consent leads the reader to believe that the author is suggesting a different path that will not lead to abuse.

You and Con seem to have taken the mention of abuse as meaning "safewords didn't prevent me from being abused, I'm gonna talk about better options that would have."

To me, it came across as "there's nothing magical about safewords as a way of negotiating consent, it's not like they provide a magical shield against abuse, so let's acknowledge that other approaches are legitimate too". As opposed to a certain school of thought which says safewords are The One True Way to manage consent.

Put it another way: if I say "going to church doesn't prevent $BADTHING from happening, you could be spending your Sundays watching movies or going to the zoo", that's not me claiming that these other options will prevent $BADTHING. It's just saying that "fear of $BADTHING" isn't a good reason to exclude those other options.

 

[SquishyBits]

To me, it came across as "there's nothing magical about safewords as a way of negotiating consent, it's not like they provide a magical shield against abuse, so let's acknowledge that other approaches are legitimate too". As opposed to a certain school of thought which says safewords are The One True Way to manage consent.

I can agree that this may have been where the author intended the article to go. I just don't think they did it very well. I happen to agree that safewords do not provide a magical shield and that they are not a replacement for negotiations. Safewords are not the one true way but the number of times safety in bdsm is talked about, through the use of safewords, it is easy to see why many people have come to that conclusion.