Recently, the discussion surrounding how college campuses handle women who have been sexually assaulted has been a heavy topic in the media. And to be fair, this discussion is not new. The allegations against the seven Cornell fraternity members (the “Cornell Seven”) and Kendall Francis’s experience at LSU have brought these discussions back to the forefront. What has been particularly disturbing are the comments from grown men stating the young woman in the Cornell case “was not raped. She had sex voluntarily.” And to be abundantly clear, as someone who partakes in kinky things, witnessing the lack of comprehension around consent, although not surprising, is heartbreaking.
What is also disturbing is how quickly the scrutiny turns toward the person reporting the assault. What was she drinking? Who did she willingly have sex with? What has she done before? As though her behavior is what needs to be investigated before anyone can take what happened to her seriously. Instead of asking whether her boundaries were violated, the discussion becomes whether she is the kind of woman people believe deserves protection. And if they disapprove of her sexual choices, suddenly she is the one being put on trial.
And the consequences for the person who reports the assault do not stop at public scrutiny. Kendall Francis said the trauma she experienced caused her to fail both semesters of her freshman year at LSU. According to WAFB, the university found the football player responsible for sexual assault and forcible rape through its Title IX process and upheld that finding after he appealed. But at the time of the report, no criminal charges had been announced. Francis said she believed the university’s finding would lead to criminal charges and spoke publicly after realizing that had not happened.
To me, this raises another question. What does protection actually look like for the person who has been harmed? Because acknowledging what happened does not erase the effects on her mental health or give her back the education she was trying to pursue. She is still left dealing with the consequences of an experience she did not choose.
This leads me to the point of this post. Consent. That is the foundation of BDSM. Consent should be freely given, without coercion of any sort. But it does not stop at someone saying yes. The FRIES concept explains that consent should be freely given, reversible, informed, enthusiastic, and specific.
Freely given means you are choosing to participate without pressure, manipulation, or coercion. And if someone is incapacitated by drugs or alcohol and unable to understand or freely agree to what is happening, they cannot give meaningful consent. Choosing to drink or partake in drugs does not mean choosing to have your body violated.
Reversible means consent is revocable. You can change your mind. Before it starts, after it starts, even if it is something you have done before. An initial yes does not take away your right to say no later.
Informed means you know what you are agreeing to. Agreeing to sex with a condom does not mean agreeing to sex without one. Agreeing to certain people being involved does not mean agreeing to other people being brought in without your knowledge.
Enthusiastic means you actually want to participate. Not that someone pressured you until you finally gave in. And specific means consenting to one thing does not mean consenting to everything. One activity, one person, or one encounter does not automatically give permission for another.
Consent should also be explicit. Have the conversation. Ask the question. Someone’s silence, clothing, or willingness to partake in kinky things does not tell you what they have agreed to.
This is where I think BDSM has a lot to teach people. Responsible BDSM practices expand heavily on consent, safety, and bodily autonomy. There are conversations about boundaries, what someone wants to explore, what they do not want to do, and the risks involved in what they are agreeing to. There are safe words, check-ins, and an understanding that consent can be withdrawn. The intensity of an activity does not remove the responsibility to respect the person participating in it.
Many look down on those who partake in BDSM, as though what we enjoy means we have no boundaries or respect for ourselves. But the same teachings about consent, safety, and autonomy that responsible BDSM emphasizes should be integrated into sexual education. People should be learning how to discuss boundaries, recognize when someone is unable to consent, check in with their partner, and stop when consent is withdrawn. These conversations should not only happen when someone decides to explore kink.
So even IF the young woman had consented to sex with two of the Cornell Seven, that does not mean those two had the right to invite other men to her body. According to the lawsuit, a message was sent in a fraternity group chat advertising “free pussy” upstairs. But her vagina was not a free for all. Those men could not consent on her behalf. And to be frank, if she was incapacitated, she could not give meaningful consent to sex with those two to begin with.
Many think that sexual liberation is about sex without consequence. Or that it is advocating for “reaping rewards” for being loose with your body. The liberation is about being aware of, and in control of, your sexual wants and desires. Being able to enjoy pleasure in the way you choose to without shame and judgment. But most importantly, it is about bodily autonomy.
The unfortunate thing that is being uncovered in this discourse is the lack of comprehension around consent. The fact that some people truly think a woman consenting to two men equates to consenting to five, or however many more decide to jump in on the action. As though her willingness to consent to a particular sexual activity means she no longer gets to decide what happens to her own body.
A woman can enjoy sex, partake in kinky things, and consent to multiple partners while still having boundaries. Her sexual choices do not take away her right to be protected from sexual violence. And your opinion of what she enjoys does not determine whether her consent matters.
0 comments