Bobkgin
Posts: 1335
Joined: 7/28/2007
From: Kawarthas, Ontario, Canada
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Aswad
quote:
ORIGINAL: Bobkgin
So where does one draw a fine line in the sand to disntinguish those who are competent enough to participate in bdsm, and those who are not? Are those who take advantage of someone's stupidity so as to abuse them any less an abuser than someone who abuses a person with psychological difficulties?
Good reply. Saved me from writing one. This bit here, though, I'll say, is the crux of the matter for me.
I'm pretty well acquainted with some segments of the psychiatric field and the cognitive sciences, and also very concerned about the issue of informed consent, in the sense that it be the actual person's own will to participate. In some cases, like with aspies, the "abnormality" is a fundamental aspect of who they are, and isn't a barrier to consent. In other cases, it can be something that is clearly superimposed over the the actual person, and (for me) a barrier to consent. In most cases, it is a very tricky question.
The more I learn about the field, the harder it is to find any meaningful definition of consent.
We have something in common.
I've been pursuing this question from a philisophical/moral/ethical perspective than a mental health perspective, for as I said, the soft sciences are little more than statistical averages, not what is right or wrong.
Consider the following: what is the fine line between persuasion and coercion? I find we soon enter the field of semantics (and being a writer, that is a part of the craft's tool-kit). Thus, one person's "advocacy" is another person's "mind control".
It is all in the experience of the individual, and how that individual has translated those events into ethical principles and judgments. The person who has not experienced compassion sufficiently to accept it as a possible motive in humans will reject all evidence of compassion and interpret the evidence in some other way consistent with the lessons he's learned from his experience.
Being "broad-minded" or "narrow-minded" is a bit of a misnomer, as they both describe the same principle: how we relate our personal experiences and the lessons we drew from them to others in the world.
In a sense, we are all "narrow-minded", because we all use our own experiences and lessons.
For some of us, those lessons included trusting the lessons of others as related to us. Thus we can learn about history, mathematics, engineering and brain surgery.
But we are still using our own experiences and lessons to decide whose lessons we'll learn, and how we will apply those lessons.
So how shattered must an individual be before we can say that they are incapable of giving informed consent?
All of their decisions are based on their experiences and the lessons they learned.
I think the issue is a bit upside down.
For me, it is not how low can I get before informed consent is not informed consent, but rather how high a standard do I demand of those with whom I become involved.
I knew my slave was competent enough to give informed consent by the way she treated me, the way she spoke to me, before she became mine.
Intelligence rules.
Its self-reinforcing: I want to be treated well, that rules out all those who do not treat me well, that rules out anyone incapable of informed consent, because such individuals simply lack the competency to treat me well.
Bear in mind I'm not saying that is the only standard I use. But it is certainly a useful standard for steering clear of those whose consent I'd question.
on edit: You know, I can just see this confusing hell out of some people, so I'm going to take another stab at it.
From my point of view, almost all of us are capable of some degree of informed consent. The more you know, the more informed the consent will be.
One would have to reach a gross incapacity of cognitive processes before no informed consent could be given.
So the argument becomes, how informed is informed enough, and where do we draw the line between that and not informed enough?
This quickly degenerates into an elitist argument involving IQs and such.
So with respect to the OP, I submit that anyone who is unable to provide some degree of informed consent is unlikely to have the congitive skills to pick their nose, let alone use a computer, go out and date, etc.
Regarding the question of how uninformed an informed consent must be before the individual should be discouraged from engaging in bdsm ... I suspect everyone has their own opinion and likely favours the one they apply to those they seek.
Hope that clears up the earlier response.
< Message edited by Bobkgin -- 9/4/2007 6:57:10 AM >
_____________________________
When all is said and done, what will you regret?
That you never really lived?
Or there was so much living left to do?
For those interested: pics and poetry have been added to my profile.
|
RE: safe, SANE & Consensual - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread