[CW: Sexual Assault] ‘The police said it wasn’t rape it was rough sex’

submitted by [deleted] from (bbc.co.uk)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Cindy 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

By what definition? That seems hilariously restrictive to me.

[–]Camberian 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Is it possible you are mistaking criminal sadomasochism (the paraphilia) for BDSM?

It is by the BDSM community's own definition that it has to be either SSC (safe, sane, consensual) or RACK (risk aware consensual kink). Both of these mean that it can be called BDSM only and is accepted within the BDSM community only, if it is consensual.

And why should it be "restrictive" to demand and maintain consent? You call sex only sex, if it is as consensual as it should be. Everything not consensual is rape or abuse, not acceptable, normal sex.

[–]Cindy 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Is it possible you are mistaking criminal sadomasochism (the paraphilia) for BDSM?

The "SM" in BDSM is strictly referring to sadomasochism. Sure, bondage and domination and whatnot are in there too, but they are functionally very similar.

It is by the BDSM community's own definition that it has to be either SSC (safe, sane, consensual) or RACK (risk aware consensual kink). Both of these mean that it can be called BDSM only and is accepted within the BDSM community only, if it is consensual.

Ah what a load of crap, frankly. BDSM has existed since ancient times and no organization can define what it is or isn't. If a couple is having BDSM sex consensually and suddenly it becomes non-consensual, that doesn't mean the whips and ropes are suddenly "not BDSM anymore." It's still BDSM. Non-consensual BDSM.

And why should it be "restrictive" to demand and maintain consent? You call sex only sex, if it is as consensual as it should be. Everything not consensual is rape or abuse, not acceptable, normal sex.

Right but I'm not trying to make a statement here, just trying to be precise with language. Sex can be consensual or non-consensual. All sorts of sex. As far as I can tell the same should apply to BDSM, another flavor of sex.

Idk, plastering all this "BDSM is consensual only" rhetoric seems like a pretty transparent attempt at normalizing BDSM. Which is fine. But don't tell me that when two people engaging in BDSM stumble into a non-consensual situation that it's magically not BDSM anymore.

[–]Camberian 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

The "SM" in BDSM is strictly referring to sadomasochism. Sure, bondage and domination and whatnot are in there too, but they are functionally very similar.

No. Unfortunately it is you who is mixing up qualifiers and attributions. Not only are bondage, D/s, M/s and a couple of other kinks encompassed in the acronym BDSM both functionally and fundamentally different from SM, I wasn't even referring to the acronym.

Sexual sadism/masochism lacking consent should not be mistaken for BDSM. Dahmer was a sadist. I doubt you'll find many BDSMers who'd agree he belonged to the community. Instead he suffered from a sexual sadistic disorder. John Edward Robinson, even though part of the BDSM chat scene in the 1990s, wasn't a BDSMer either. Like Dahmer he was a sexual sadist who raped and killed women posing as a member of the community. Consent was entirely absent in what he did.

Ah what a load of crap, frankly. BDSM has existed since ancient times and no organization can define what it is or isn't. If a couple is having BDSM sex consensually and suddenly it becomes non-consensual, that doesn't mean the whips and ropes are suddenly "not BDSM anymore." It's still BDSM. Non-consensual BDSM.

Sadomasochistic behaviour may have existed since ancient time, as has sex. That doesn't mean it was BDSM. Again - and this is coming from an active BDSMer - BDSM is qualified by being 100% consensual, aware of risks and safety factors and observing sane boundaries. Or in other words: not consensual, no BDSM. If not consensual, then battery, bodily assault, bodily harm and rape. Period.

It's not as if bodily assault didn't happen in former times as well. And maybe this makes it easier for you to grasp what I mean:

Until 1992 "forced sex" within marriage (= sex without consent = rape) wasn't a crime in Switzerland, one of the last countries to accept marital rape as a crime. That the law was changed in 1992 doesn't mean, however, that a man who forced sex on his wife in 1991 was not ipso facto raping her. He was. It just wasn't possible to prosecute him.

And...

If I sleep with my boyfriend, and I tell him - in the middle of our sexual romp - that I have enough of it, and he should clamber off me and leave me alone, and he then holds me down and forces me to continue to have sex with him, he rapes me quite alright. It may have been consensual sex up to that point, but it turned into rape the moment I said "no".

And if you don't believe me, here's the Wikipedia quote, which - in this form - is the basis of legal BDSM in countries where it is legal:

The fundamental principles for the exercise of BDSM require that it be performed with the informed consent of all parties. Since the 1980s, many practitioners and organizations have adopted the motto ... safe, sane and consensual, commonly abbreviated SSC, which means that everything is based on safe activities, that all participants are of sufficiently sound mind to consent, and that all participants do consent. It is mutual consent that makes a clear legal and ethical distinction between BDSM and such crimes as sexual assault and domestic violence.

Right but I'm not trying to make a statement here, just trying to be precise with language. Sex can be consensual or non-consensual. All sorts of sex. As far as I can tell the same should apply to BDSM, another flavor of sex.

This is where you are being rather imprecise with language. "Non-consensual sex" equals "rape", it is not just sex. A lot of raped women would have your ass for suggesting that rape is just sex and I definitely agree with them. Just as the majority of BDSMers I know hate being thrown together with abusers, rapists and people who assault others.

Idk, plastering all this "BDSM is consensual only" rhetoric seems like a pretty transparent attempt at normalizing BDSM. Which is fine. But don't tell me that when two people engaging in BDSM stumble into a non-consensual situation that it's magically not BDSM anymore.

BDSM is normal. Sexual sadism disorder isn't. And when two people engage in BDSM and one of them wants out or safewords, it definitely is not BDSM anymore. It becomes rape or assault instead. Which is, by the way, the legal discourse in courts of countries where consent is a valid defense.