"The appropriation of BDSM imagery is problematic because while community members understand that it is important to be sensitive to the needs, boundaries, and rules of players in order for a scene to function fairly and enjoyably, mainstream porn is primarily about getting off as quickly as possible. Add to that a disgraceful lack of sexual education (both in safety and in pleasure) across the country, and a general belief perpetuated by the media that women are sexual objects to be consumed, and you have a rape culture that started by borrowing from BDSM’s imagery without reading its rules."

Stacey May Fowles, The Fantasy of Acceptable “Non-Consent”: Why the Female Sexual Submissive Scares Us (and Why She Shouldn’t)

(Source: bitterglitterqueer, via goodconsentrules)

Consent

girlebony:

I believe I’ve seen a comprehensive description of consent once before. Figured I’d contribute as it’s a subject that bears repeating.

Consent is:

• Non-coercive: If you’re cojoling, threatening or otherwise trying to “convince” someone to engage in a sexual act with you, you are breaking consent. If you asked 16 times and got 15 No’s and 1 Yes, you still did not adequately obtain consent. Also, you’re a weak individual.
• Not fixed: What I mean by this is you shouldn’t take for granted that after asking once for consent that you now have consent forever. It’s not like landing a gig as a Supreme Court judge. You don’t have consent for life. It should be continuously negotiated.
• Dynamic: Related to the above note, consent for one act does not necessitate consent for all acts. Consent is not an EZ Pass. It should be re-addressed constantly for different acts.
• Conscious: Yeah, I want to believe I don’t have to explain this one. Bad enough I had to list it. But ok, yes, an inebriated/asleep/passed out or otherwise not fully coherent person cannot consent. There, you can’t say no one ever told you.
• Unambiguous/Explicit: Assume all of the following to mean “no.” — “Maybe,” “I’m not sure,” “Not yet,” “Kinda,” “Wait a minute,” …I could go on.
• Not contingent upon sexual interest nor sexual arousal: We know. Blue balls are a motherfucker. Still no excuse. Neither your NOR the expressed/implied interest of any potential partners is an invitation to any act. Also, neither your nor the (assumed) arousal of anyone you might want to have sex with is an invitation. Yes, someone might be aroused and still not want to fuck. Crazy times. I know.
• Not compensatory: Yeah, that dinner and a movie were nice. Still not an invitation to fuck. And if you thought it was, you’re a world class asshole.
• Not something that requires a qualifier: No one needs to explain why they are not granting you consent. No is enough.

(via slutwalkseattle)

TRIGGER WARNING: RAPE

slutwalkseattle:

bibliofeminista:

Trigger Warning: from the UK’s “This is Abuse” campaign:

“Sex with someone who doesn’t want to is rape.”

Massive content warning for this video. It’s very powerful, if you think you’re up to it.

"If you are ever in a situation where it is obvious your partner is not enjoying the sex you’re having—stop having sex with them. Sex is supposed to be really fucking enjoyable, so if you’re not getting that vibe from whoever you’re having sex with, you gotta sort that shit out."

Katie West (via katesloan)

(Source: therealkatiewest, via slutwalkseattle)

thedailywhat:

Sign Of The Times of the Day: If you falsely believe any of the first three increase a woman’s chances of getting raped, please peruse this.

[reddit.]

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE donate to SlutWalkDenver  so we can have a walk to have great signs like this!

(Source: thedailywhat, via btgphoto)