When consent fails

As you know if you read this blog, I’ve been doing research on sadomasochism and consent, and I’ve come to the conclusion that the law is bordering on pathology in its obsession with protecting masculine subjectivity, while using the other hand to perpetuate feminine objectivity just as much as it damned well pleases.  

Case in point: I read a law review article arguing that Laskey, the European Court of Human Rights case where prosecution of several homosexual men who were practising consensual sadomasochistic sex was upheld on the basis of public morality, was all about protecting the masculinity of the male “victim” by not even allowing him to consent.  This makes a lot of sense to me.  Ideally, what we want is a system of informed consent, where yes means yes and no means no.  What we get is, on the one hand, the legal system refusing to let men say yes to erotic pain in order to “protect” them, and on the flip side, refusing to acknowledge women who say no to date rape because they “accepted a risk” – ignoring the fact that true informed consent means they accepted the risk of what actually happened, not just the risk that consensual sex might occur.  Consent, essentially, doesn’t mean anything in the legal system – it’s just another tool of sexism.  Grand.

Thinky Thoughts from Elsewhere on the Internet, Pt. 1

I’ve had quite a few things starred in my Google Bookmarks to share with you, and they’re still piling up.  I’ll start with this video calling for the repeal of Section 377 in Singapore.  Section 377 is the name of a law that exists in many former British colonies, though the UK has long since repealed it.  Section 377 is a sodomy law, and Section 377A, a counterpart that exists in many countries, is an associated law that punishes other “lewd” acts.  These laws are frequently used to target gays and lesbians for reasons that have nothing to do with sodomy itself, and their very existence is a threat to the comfort and dignity of LGBT people around the world.  Ironically, many foreign leaders claim that the gay movement is a colonizing influence that must be stopped, when in fact the laws punishing sodomy are the colonial relic in societies that in many cases accepted or ignored sodomy before Westerners arrived.

Does anyone know what happened with this?  I saw a few articles about Patterson planning to allow recognition of marriages performed in other states and countries in New York, and then the newsbyte just disappeared.  If the rule is in effect, it would be huge, both in its practical effect for bicoastal couples and New Yorkers who want to marry in Massachusetts and in the symbolic effect.  Any step in this direction is a good thing for the national consciousness.  

Another thoughtful post about rape convictions in the US

Facts on the clitoris and a helpful diagram

 

This disgusts me greatly

Really.  What the fuck?