My brother's bible class was teaching him about "addiction"

[Esquilax]

And I should point out to you that much of their content is not legal in Australia. In Australia pornography (x-rated material) cannot depict violence of any kind (which at present is very poorly explained on the current website, but I assure you is accurate).

Wow, really? Huh, yet more retrograde crap from the Australian censors, if what Kink does is considered illegal. I'm sure the ratings board would have fainted on the spot, if they'd been around for the bad old days of this stuff.

A consenting scene?

How much more consenting can you get than a signed contract? It's a porn shoot, a lot of thought and effort and scheduling went into it, it's not like she didn't know what she was there for, so I think the presumption of consent could be concluded at the beginning of the shoot. And as she said, when it became clear that she had withdrawn consent, she was untied and looked after, and asked if she wanted to continue, whereupon she gave her consent again. At no point was she forced; the worst thing that happened was a lapse in communication.

That explanation is offensive to my sensibilities as a man. No means no. So what if she didn't use her agreed-upon safeword? If she forgot it she shouldn't be forced to perform acts against her will - we have a word for what that is: rape. And hiding behind such a flimsy defence most likely would not hold up in court if it had been pursued as a criminal matter.

Oh, don't get me wrong, I agree that no means no. I am one hundred percent behind you there, and am by no means acting as a rape apologist in this conversation.

Having said that, the reason safewords exist is to give either party in a kink scene a clear and unambiguous way of saying no within the context of sexual play that often incorporates begging and resistance that, while real, is within the agreed upon limits. Some subs want to be able to say no, to plead, without having their dom stop; they want to relinquish power and, conversely, there are some doms that want that too. The point of a safeword is to empower the sub to do just that, while still retaining their ability to clearly refuse something, should the situation arise.

So the actual timeline of what happened is that Aurora arrived on set, gave her interview beforehand demonstrating that she was consenting, never gave any of the clear and simple signals indicating withdrawal of that consent, was still able to withdraw from the scene when those on the set who WERE doing their jobs noticed something was up, and then gave her consent a second time once she had been allowed to cool off.

These guys are kinksters, they have a slightly different way of dealing with things. Some might argue that it's actually more clearly defined and responsible than vanilla sex, but the point is that in this one area the wording is slightly different, for a reason. By no reasonable definition was this girl raped: she said yes, never said no, said yes again, and then characterized it as a nightmare after the fact. It is deeply unfair to lay the blame at Kink's feet here, especially given how fast I've seen them stop when someone does need it to happen.

Again, you do not have a clear understanding of the technical legalities. Safe word or not a person cannot consent to actual harm - and if you say bruising was involved, that's actual harm my friend. No matter what the context actual harm cannot be consented to. If you choke or gag someone until they pass out or vomit that's also actual harm. And yes that makes a lot of sub-dom activity technically illegal which is all the more reason why it shouldn't be filmed and sold as "legitimate" pornography.

I'm not particularly interested in the legal side of it, as laws aren't necessarily right, and legislating sex has a long history of getting things wrong. I'm more interested in the moral dimension, where I can't see much more than a failure in communication which, while bad and worth working on, doesn't live up to the language Aurora is using to describe it.