revol68
what, fucking what?
But the argument isn't that abuse doesn't happen in the bedroom, it's that things like S&M and role play aren't abusive or damaging in themselves when done in a consensual manner. Vanilla sex can be every bit as abusive. The point being that the content of the sex isn't the issue it's the consensual form.
And no it's not airtight, an abusive relationship outside the bedroom probably feeds into it and vice versa but a consentual respectful sex life involved s&m etc doesn't generally flow into actual sadism and masochism in day to day life, most people are able to distinguish role play from reality and don't find themselves referring to their partner as a worthless little worm in the middle of a dinner party because of some weird shit they got up to the night before.
The issue then is are certain forms of sex oppressive and damaging even when done in a consensual and respectful manner and within the wider context of respectful relations loving or otherwise?
The someones job issue is important and yes I agree this is where a lot of pro sex feminism falls down, you simply can't talk seriously of respectful relations and full consent within such a context. I do think though that this blindspot is due to a desire to throw off the stigma of sex and sex work, not to mention some of the problematic patronising depictions of sex workers as fallen women, needing to be saved. Of course what this ends up doing is ignoring the fact that many women that do end up in the sex industry are in very vulnerable/desperate positions because the stigma around such work means most women (not all) with alternatives wouldn't go near it.
Have to say though your last line is pretty catholic, afterall "someone is precisely being "treated like a gimp by their boss" so some twitter radical can have a pair of trainers and a mobile phone etc".
