QotD: “I wonder what the threshold or criterion is supposed to be for when something is extreme enough for consent not to be an excuse?”
I wonder what the threshold or criterion is supposed to be for when something is extreme enough for consent not to be an excuse? Is there any objective, non-question-begging definition of how much harm is too much to consent to? Or is it just whatever the particular person you’re arguing with doesn’t think is too sick to be a turn on? Or is death the only limit, because you can’t ask a dead person whether they consented? Would death be OK if there was a legally validated way of verifying consent? Should society put in place mechanisms to enable kinksters to consent to death and grave bodily harm, make BDSM contracts enforceable? If so what non-discriminatory reason would there be to limit this to what we currently happen to think of as “kinky,” to activities motivated by sexual turn on? If a kinkster can consent to a relationship where they’re ritualistically flogged for disobedience because it turns them on, why can’t a right wing religious woman consent to a relationship where she’s slapped about willy-nilly for disobedience because it’s God’s will? Why should the rest of society have to treat kinksters’ ritual boundaries and definitions as making a decisive moral difference in analyzing the uses of violence? Why is sexual thrill the ONE thing that justifies what we otherwise agree is unjustifiable? In a scheme like that would the right wing wife beaters be able to get away with it by also claiming it turns them on? Should people who are turned on by violence have special rights to commit it that the rest of us don’t have? That should be society’s rule – such and such is totally wrong and illegal, unless it gets your dick hard in which case have at it? The very foundations of civilization and the social contract should be undermined in deference to your orgasm?