>WS:
>> If the only thing that separates an oppressive relationship form
>>non-oppressive one is the so-called consent of the subjugated part
>>- this is a really flimsy defense indeed.
>
>How is consent flimsy? I usually add the modifier "informed" before
>consent, but consent is powerful in my experience.
Bullshit. People consent to many things they'd prefer not to consent to.
> > So, it might help if you explained in detail how BDSM is actually
>only superficially similar to or actually not at all like domestic
>violence against women.
>
>CONSENT (sorry for the caps. I realize that if a person is blind to
>an answer in lower case, capitalization is no solution, but the
>truth is what it is).
Consent does not exclude the possibility of exploitation.
>As far as I know, there is no evidence that celebrating flogging
>enhances either a person's sense of male privilege or the likelihood
>of their commiting an act of rape or domestic violence. A person
>who rapes or abuses another person is mentally ill.
And a person who gets a thrill out of humiliating or inflicting pain on others, is not? I find that a bit difficult to accept at face value.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas