Just. No.

[Trigger warning for sexual violence and rape apologia.]

What. the everloving. fuck: Court to judge 'advance' consent.

The Supreme Court of Canada will consider on Monday whether an Ottawa woman, who had admittedly kinky sex with her longtime partner, was a victim of sexual assault when he sodomized her against her will while she was passed out, even though she had agreed to asphyxiation.

The case, which will test the sexual autonomy of couples behind closed doors, centres on whether a person can give "advance" consent to sex, a prospect that a leading women's group says would roll back Canada's sex-assault laws about 20 years. "A vital part of the meaning of consent is the right to say 'no' at any point," said Joanna Birenbaum, legal director of the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund.

"Any change in law to recognize 'advance' consent would be dangerous and regressive."

It's like they keep wanting to find ways to justify rape. It's almost like we live in a rape culture or something.

Here's the thing: This isn't an issue about kink, and it isn't even an issue about whether individual people should have the right to privately assert or negotiate something akin to "advance consent" with a partner. (That's not an argument I'm advancing, btw; it's just an argument being made in discussions of this case.) It's about whether "advance consent" should be a legally established concept, and the answer is clearly and unequivocally no.

I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that it wouldn't even be a question, if the person who had been assaulted was male. Because men, of course, aren't viewed as existing in a perpetual state of consent unless and until they say otherwise.

[H/T to Shaker Dominique. Commenting Guidelines: Keep comments to the discussion setting a legal precedent only. This isn't a thread to condemn or defend kink, nor a thread to play "Devil's Advocate" with what-if scenarios about private encounters. Stick to the topic tightly, or the thread will be closed.]