Consent means?

[halfeye]

I got into an argument, here:

http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showt...-do-you-follow

It ended up being off topic, so I intend to move it to here.

Just dumped "I roved out ..." because "please hit my tits hard" is a male fantasy that should not be endorsed.

Some people are actually into things like that you know.

If a male wrote a female saying "please hit my tits hard" that would be wrong. If a female wrote that to make money by pleasing males, that would be wrong.

The people who are into that, are probably wrong uns.

Yeah, it's maybe a fantasy, but the line between fantasy and reality can get blurred, and then we're talking about at least abuse, leading possibly to murder.

I don't think it's your place to pass judgement on what consenting adults do with each other or what they enjoy.

I'm not passing judgement on two consenting adults in private, I'm passing judgement on what one person (presumably adult) chooses to publish to the public.

[The Extinguisher]

(oh boy this is gonna a tricky needle to thread)

look, i wont lie, there are a lot of issues surrounding bdsm, and how it intersects with sexism and rape culture. im not part of the community, but ive walked around it, and there certainly are people that take a submissive role to mean a role without consent (garbage media like 50 shades of gray do not help one bit)

i dont know the context behind the joke, and yeah i definitely agree that the male fantasy of a submissive (read in this situation as not needing consent) women that likes to be beaten is Bad. But there are people who are legitimately into it, and in general, the human trash cans are not the prevailing ideology in that community. it prides itself on respecting consent, as well as proper play and after-play procedures.

BUT, when you say that people who are into something are "wrong uns" you're definitely judging people on what they enjoy so maybe dont? talking about sex isnt a bad thing and we can't address these issues if we pretend the systems they appear in dont exist

[halfeye]

(oh boy this is gonna a tricky needle to thread)

Sure, but I think it may be worthwhile.

BUT, when you say that people who are into something are "wrong uns" you're definitely judging people on what they enjoy so maybe dont? talking about sex isnt a bad thing and we can't address these issues if we pretend the systems they appear in dont exist

I was referring to people who were into images of women demanding they be hit. Because an image isn't a human being, so it can't really give consent. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems to me, that images have different moral/ethical implications than people do.

[Tvtyrant]

Sure, but I think it may be worthwhile.



I was referring to people who were into images of women demanding they be hit. Because an image isn't a human being, so it can't really give consent. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems to me, that images have different moral/ethical implications than people do.

Images don't have to give consent, they aren't entities. Condoms don't have to give consent either for that matter.

The actors certainly have consent, and the massive proliferation of cams and free amateur videos suggesting being watched is a turn on for many of them. Consent isn't really in question here, objectification is.

Matching up consent with anti-objectification policies has proved impossible so far. Feminist arguments against prostitution and pornography come down to people can't consent if money is involved (which led to the marriage is prostitution argument), or society has a say in what you do with your body (and thus consent arguments are fubdamentally flawed).

Many third wave groups actually argue in favor of those activities for the same reasons above.

[The Extinguisher]

Sure, but I think it may be worthwhile.



I was referring to people who were into images of women demanding they be hit. Because an image isn't a human being, so it can't really give consent. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems to me, that images have different moral/ethical implications than people do.

oh for sure, i was mostly talking about keeping this above the board in terms of sex talk

its hard to navigate though, because while theres a huge problem in how the fantasy is sold as "no consent needed" its really easy to turn this into a discussion shaming sex workers, and actual consent-focused kink.

[Chen]

I was referring to people who were into images of women demanding they be hit. Because an image isn't a human being, so it can't really give consent. Maybe I'm overthinking it, but it seems to me, that images have different moral/ethical implications than people do.

This has absolutely nothing to do with consent though. Ostensibly the people who are into the images are presumably also into the act itself. If they find a consenting partner who enjoys that kind of thing, seems like a win/win and I have a hard time seeing anything wrong with that.

[Anteros]

Despite being quoted in the original thread I don't really feel like this is an appropriate topic for this forum. I don't think it's explicitly forbidden, but we usually keep things much more kid friendly than this.

I'll just say that my opinion is that people can do whatever they want with their own bodies and partners as long as everyone is an adult and is ok with what's happening. No matter how weird or squicky I personally find it.

[Liquor Box]

I found the webcomic, but its pages long and the particular scene is not on the last page, so I didn't look further. Therefore my context is limited. But given the phrase used is "please hit my tits hard", it sounds like there must be consent from the person who is to be hit (she is literally begging for it). Whether or not the other person consents to hitting is unknown but presumably if he or she did not consent, he or she simply would not hit. As such, I struggle to see any issues of consent.

As for whether hitting tits and the like is ok, it's not something I'm into and personally I find it a little off-putting. But as Anteros said, who am I to judge what other people like. There are people into that stuff in real life, and more power to them.

As for whether it is ok for a webcomic to represent it, of course it is. First, I don't think the conduct being portrayed is 'wrong' (see above). Even if it was morally wrong, I don't see that as a reason not to portray it.

It possibly is a male fantasy (of some males) to hit females tits, but it is also a practice (both for men and women). It seems to me that the only difference between men who fantasize about hitting women's (who consent to it as in the comic) tits and people who participate in those practices, is that those who hold it as a fantasy only are not able to find any willing partners to do it with - and I see no reason why a webcomic depicting the practice should be withheld from them in particular.

Also, I struggle to see how it makes any difference whether the author is a man or a woman, or whether the comic is being written for commercial reasons or for the art.

Of course, having said all that, if you (Halfeye) dislike the particular practices in the comic, it is perfectly fair enough that you choose to stop reading it. But other who like that sort of stuff, or those who like the comic despite that sort of stuff, should keep on reading,

[Roland St. Jude]

oh for sure, i was mostly talking about keeping this above the board in terms of sex talk

Despite being quoted in the original thread I don't really feel like this is an appropriate topic for this forum. I don't think it's explicitly forbidden, but we usually keep things much more kid friendly than this.

Sheriff: Indeed. A thread specifically to discuss sexual preferences and consent in a sexual context is pretty much explicit sexuality discussion prohibited by the Forum Rules.