Recently someone said to me (I’m paraphrasing freely here) that they thought nobody could really consent to such extreme sexual practices as consuming shit & piss, severe s/m, and so on because those things were so very harmful that wishing to engage in them should be taken as de facto evidence of that person’s being mentally unsound, and therefore incapable of consent.

I want to leave aside the important question of whether these practices are harmful, and just look at this idea of consent. The ability to consent is essential to life as a free adult in our world. If you cannot consent to things you can’t sign a lease, get a credit card, even make your own medical decisions. We judge a person’s ability to consent on their being of reasonably sound mind, and their maturity. We also take into account that the appearance of consent can be coerced, through the use of drugs or alcohol, threats and violence, and misinformation.

We assume that persons under a set age don’t have the necessary maturity to rationally consent to things.

We also make this assumption about people who are seriously ill, mentally and in some cases physically.

In the case of the rest we grant that the person has the ability to consent, but that their ability to do so is negated by the circumstances which are imposed on them.

Now let’s go back to my friend’s assertion: that the desire and willingness to engage in dangerous sexual practices is sufficient evidence to presume one’s INability to consent.

Is the desire to do something dangerous sufficient to make this judgment? What about when people want to jump out of planes? Climb high mountains, where loads of explorers have met their deaths? Eat puffer fish? Enlist in the army? Play the last period of the big game on an injured leg? People choose to put themselves in danger all the time, why is this different?

Somehow, it seems, a person who chooses dangerous sexual activities is presumed ill, so severely ill that they no longer fit the qualification of “reasonably sound mind.” It seems to me that the problem here is not the danger, but the sex.

I may agree that playing at making some guy my toilet is disgusting, and I would certainly agree that such play requires utmost attention to safety issues, but does wanting such a scene mean this guy is incapable of consent? Would you refuse to let him sign a lease? Have a credit card? Make his own medical decisions? Why then is he incapable of making his own sexual decisions?

Seems to me that it’s much more dangerous to be negating people’s ability to consent based on their sexual lives than it is to let the odd pervert engage in a creepy fetish.