>> I do think consent is a thornier issue than I've seen pro-bdsm people
>> acknowledge in this discussion. I don't think that means bdsm is
>> wrong per se, just that saying "it's consensual" isn't necessarily
>> the end of the story.
> So what am I missing? Why is BDSM consent a thornier issue than
> consent for straight sex? How could it be any different? This seems
> like a red herring. If we're throwing out red herrings how about
> worrying about a link between BDSM practitioners and child abuse too?
> Maybe BDSM and tax evasion as well?
Straight sex (which is an odd description for vanilla hetero and vanilla homo sex, but that's how I take your meaning) doesn't specifically emphasize, exaggerate, encourage, and increase power differentials among those engaging in it. Neither does it place any particular value on obedience. Much bdsm does. Whether you take the "d" in bdsm to mean discipline or dominance, either is an activity which can erode the ability of the disciplined or the dominated to freely give consent. That doesn't mean it +must+ have that result, any more than the power differential between a younger and an older person, or a richer and a poorer person, +must+ have a nonconsensual dynamic--just that it +may+ develop.
Again, I'm not saying that means bdsm is bad. What I am saying is that consent can be coerced.
One of the attractive things in theory about bdsm is that it makes power relations explicit. One of the unattractive things about it in fact is the willingness of those who practice it to gloss over the sometimes unpleasant realities of that power.
All the best,
John A