No, he didn't just write that, did he? This is an uncharacteristically underhanded move from a moderator who is also a partisan in the debate. If the same arguments are being repeated, then it is not just Charles who is "repeating this like a tape loop" who needs to be "explained to".
I (a mere subscriber) think there is great scope for some collective education, on this thread. The Tasmanian Devil and Wojtek (incisive and eloquent as always, but uncharacteristically muted I might add, nevertheless drawing the ire of our resident angry young man) have touched off a few nerves and CB too has waxed and waned in level of camaraderie, as have those of opposing views (and I am sure I have done my bit as well), but we have reached some interesting questions, while, all the while, AFAIK, nobody has opposed the relevant group/minority's (BDSM) right/ability to do what they do.
Andie, as someone with a background in philosophy and law, could help us enormously in moving this in the right direction (such as explaining what legal and philosophical notions of "consent" are), but he too contributes this sort of distractions:
=> Personally subs might well resent are brainwashed and => that the "yes," please, do that" that they offer to => allow activities (pre-negotiated in almost all cases => from my understanding) doesn't count. This is pure => MacDworkinism, like their claim that women;s consent => to (vanilla) sex doesn't count because all women are => brainwashed by the patriarchy and their objectively => socially subordinate position renders them incapable => of real consent. There are issues here, but this is => condescending, arrogant, and insulting. AS well as ignorant.
--ravi