I love discussions about ethics, so this might be a bit rambly.
"An event in a fetish club, where one couples' intense scene gave a sense of unease to several other people in the club who weren't entirely sure that the scene was consensual... Is consent necessary for merely appearing in front of somebody?"
I think that the fact that somebody has purposefully entered a fetish club then they have given consent for others to commit bdsm acts around them.
A fetish venue is a designated space for violence and/or sexual acts to be done by consenting adults, which is what separates it from the pavement outside it. If you're not comfortable with watching other people's scenes then you can either not attend at all, or alternatively if you see something you don't like then stop watching. Most fetish venues have chill out areas which you can retire to.
The rules at events vary obviously, so if you've been told that fucking and bloodplay are not allowed at a venue either in the advertising or on the door then you have not consented to watch fucking or bloodplay and people breaking the rules are violating the code of conduct that they've agreed to abide by.
It might be wise to inform a dungeon monitor if your play was going to look non consensual or dangerous, as its their responsibility to watch out for people in trouble... particularly if you don't want them to interrupt your play. But that isn't the same as having to get consent, its just a failsafe which means that they can do their job non intrusively.
"One half of a couple speaks for their partner on a mailing list, and several people insist that consent MUST be given by the other partner in front of the rest of the group in order for this to be okay. Is it really reasonable to demand that the silent partner gives written consent to this, considering that the state of their relationship is nobody else's business?
I think that the idea that you cannot neccessarily trust someone who says that they have another's permission to speak for them is quite a valid one, particularly if the consequences for accepting this could be very serious.
For example, if someone on the web gives you the address of somebody they claim is their partner and tells you that they have consent to get people to kidnap them and you agree to that without verifying that this person has actually bestowed that authority then you could be violating someone's rights and placing yourself in a position where you are vulnerable to legal action. That's an extreme example admittedly, but it demonstrates possible consequences of assuming that someone has the consent to act for another.
"A person was objecting to being referred to by an incorrect term (which had been accidental on the part of the person using it) It was stated that this was non-consensual, and equivalent to physical violence. Is a pronoun, an insult, or any other term used to refer to a person, really a matter of consent, as opposed to politeness? "
Hmm... this is more complicated. 'It was an accident' can be used when what someone actually means is 'I assumed wrongly'. If misgendering/otherwise insulting someone is equivilent to physical action then I would say that doing so unintentionally would be like doing something accidentally (like kicking someone without meaning to) whereas doing so maliciously is akin hurting people intentionally physically. Like physical contact people can being irresponsibly 'reckless' linguistically (i.e using a term that a very small minority of people would find acceptable), or linguistically 'clumsy' (through ignorance or lack of social skills).
If you accidentally kick someone, you generally say sorry, and I think that general rule should exist around causing offense.
A disagreement between a young lady at a party who had given written consent to everyone at the party for a particular action (kissing), and a certain chap who wanted to double-check that this was okay. Could it be said that she had not consented to having her original consent questioned?
If she had said that she wanted people to perform an action spontaneously then yes, he was breaking her consent, in my opinion. If he felt iffy then its easy enough for him to just not kiss her.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-07-14 11:31 pm (UTC)"An event in a fetish club, where one couples' intense scene gave a sense of unease to several other people in the club who weren't entirely sure that the scene was consensual... Is consent necessary for merely appearing in front of somebody?"
I think that the fact that somebody has purposefully entered a fetish club then they have given consent for others to commit bdsm acts around them.
A fetish venue is a designated space for violence and/or sexual acts to be done by consenting adults, which is what separates it from the pavement outside it.
If you're not comfortable with watching other people's scenes then you can either not attend at all, or alternatively if you see something you don't like then stop watching. Most fetish venues have chill out areas which you can retire to.
The rules at events vary obviously, so if you've been told that fucking and bloodplay are not allowed at a venue either in the advertising or on the door then you have not consented to watch fucking or bloodplay and people breaking the rules are violating the code of conduct that they've agreed to abide by.
It might be wise to inform a dungeon monitor if your play was going to look non consensual or dangerous, as its their responsibility to watch out for people in trouble... particularly if you don't want them to interrupt your play. But that isn't the same as having to get consent, its just a failsafe which means that they can do their job non intrusively.
"One half of a couple speaks for their partner on a mailing list, and several people insist that consent MUST be given by the other partner in front of the rest of the group in order for this to be okay. Is it really reasonable to demand that the silent partner gives written consent to this, considering that the state of their relationship is nobody else's business?
I think that the idea that you cannot neccessarily trust someone who says that they have another's permission to speak for them is quite a valid one, particularly if the consequences for accepting this could be very serious.
For example, if someone on the web gives you the address of somebody they claim is their partner and tells you that they have consent to get people to kidnap them and you agree to that without verifying that this person has actually bestowed that authority then you could be violating someone's rights and placing yourself in a position where you are vulnerable to legal action. That's an extreme example admittedly, but it demonstrates possible consequences of assuming that someone has the consent to act for another.
"A person was objecting to being referred to by an incorrect term (which had been accidental on the part of the person using it) It was stated that this was non-consensual, and equivalent to physical violence. Is a pronoun, an insult, or any other term used to refer to a person, really a matter of consent, as opposed to politeness? "
Hmm... this is more complicated. 'It was an accident' can be used when what someone actually means is 'I assumed wrongly'. If misgendering/otherwise insulting someone is equivilent to physical action then I would say that doing so unintentionally would be like doing something accidentally (like kicking someone without meaning to) whereas doing so maliciously is akin hurting people intentionally physically. Like physical contact people can being irresponsibly 'reckless' linguistically (i.e using a term that a very small minority of people would find acceptable), or linguistically 'clumsy' (through ignorance or lack of social skills).
If you accidentally kick someone, you generally say sorry, and I think that general rule should exist around causing offense.
A disagreement between a young lady at a party who had given written consent to everyone at the party for a particular action (kissing), and a certain chap who wanted to double-check that this was okay. Could it be said that she had not consented to having her original consent questioned?
If she had said that she wanted people to perform an action spontaneously then yes, he was breaking her consent, in my opinion. If he felt iffy then its easy enough for him to just not kiss her.