Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Ability to consent


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Ability to consent Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Ability to consent - 6/1/2007 9:47:08 AM   
LadyHugs


Posts: 2299
Joined: 1/1/2004
Status: offline 		Dear mistoferin, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
In my mind's eyes I see, that our community requires 100% consent in all we do.  I also must add that my concerns are how the consent came about, as some consents might be out of fear, doubt, implied threats and or threats; in which voluntary consent was born from the 'invisible gun to their head,' instead of from the pit of the soul of that individual.
 
In my mind's eyes I see, the many forms of consent that exist; from non-verbal to verbal, written or not, the gestures to consent or not, provides a salad bar of issues that are worth consideration and discussion.
 
Another area where my mind's eyes yield as far as consent and the ability to consent; are those who are under the influence.  Although these addicts to alcohol and or drugs may be well masked from the larger community, they still are influenced in a major way.  I remember Dr. Phil saying that those dealing with people with addictions are not speaking to their loved ones.  They are speaking to the alcohol, drugs and the person is not totally in control.  To this measure I agree, that such people cannot fully give 100% consent as they are under the influence.  This said, there are those who have sexual and controlling addictions.  These people will prey on any elements of society that will feed those addictions.  Even more to think on, are those who thrive on other's fears and this may be a community that enables such to live as vampires.  Some I know are addicted to attention, the applause and the lofty place by being a leader or title holder.  The spirit of intent can be poison yet, addicts are cleaver and will get their fix in any manner.  We are blessed that this is more an exception --rather than a rule.
 
As far as my mind's eyes see as far as individuals who have put themselves into a pattern or cycle of behavior, as to deem themself unable to judge for themselves fully; I would consider them to be impaired and unable to consent fully and understand what they are consenting to.
I also believe it is not a 'one size fits all' judgment call.  I can easily wrap my mind's eyes around the need to judge everybody's case in an individual way. 
 
Just some thoughts.
 
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs

(in reply to mistoferin)
Profile   Post #: 81
RE: Ability to consent - 6/1/2007 11:25:43 AM   
CitizenCane


Posts: 349
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyHugs

Dear mistoferin, Ladies and Gentlemen;
 
In my mind's eyes I see, that our community requires 100% consent in all we do.  I also must add that my concerns are how the consent came about, as some consents might be out of fear, doubt, implied threats and or threats; in which voluntary consent was born from the 'invisible gun to their head,' instead of from the pit of the soul of that individual.
 
In my mind's eyes I see, the many forms of consent that exist; from non-verbal to verbal, written or not, the gestures to consent or not, provides a salad bar of issues that are worth consideration and discussion.
 
Another area where my mind's eyes yield as far as consent and the ability to consent; are those who are under the influence.  Although these addicts to alcohol and or drugs may be well masked from the larger community, they still are influenced in a major way.  I remember Dr. Phil saying that those dealing with people with addictions are not speaking to their loved ones.  They are speaking to the alcohol, drugs and the person is not totally in control.  To this measure I agree, that such people cannot fully give 100% consent as they are under the influence.  This said, there are those who have sexual and controlling addictions.  These people will prey on any elements of society that will feed those addictions.  Even more to think on, are those who thrive on other's fears and this may be a community that enables such to live as vampires.  Some I know are addicted to attention, the applause and the lofty place by being a leader or title holder.  The spirit of intent can be poison yet, addicts are cleaver and will get their fix in any manner.  We are blessed that this is more an exception --rather than a rule.
 
As far as my mind's eyes see as far as individuals who have put themselves into a pattern or cycle of behavior, as to deem themself unable to judge for themselves fully; I would consider them to be impaired and unable to consent fully and understand what they are consenting to.
I also believe it is not a 'one size fits all' judgment call.  I can easily wrap my mind's eyes around the need to judge everybody's case in an individual way. 
 
Just some thoughts.
 
Respectfully submitted for consideration,
Lady Hugs


I think you have an unrealistic notion of 'consent' here.  'Consent' can be seen as an action (saying 'yes'), or as a lack of action (not saying 'no', resisting, etc), or as a state of mind (accepting what happens). You seem to have an idea that it is/should be somehow coupled to 'correct choices' or 'good outcomes'. An addict is just as capable of saying yes as anyone else, what may differ is the mental process that leads to that answer. Is there any way to truly know the mental processes of another? Are they driven by a positive desire for something they see as a benefit? By a fear of negative consequences for not consenting? Are these things truly different? (Loss of a relationship is a 'threat' that functionally mirrors the 'benefit' of gaining a relationship, eg). People have many different kinds of motivations, more or less discernable to themselves or others. In a practical sense, it's not possible for one person to rate the validity of another person's consent (or lack of consent).  In the end, people who take actions affecting others (all of us) must simply accept responsibility for those actions, for good or ill. Gaining another's consent does not limit our ethical responsibilities.


(in reply to LadyHugs)
Profile   Post #: 82
RE: Ability to consent - 6/1/2007 11:36:34 AM   
TPEOwner


Posts: 73
Joined: 9/19/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

Now I have to ask, if someone admittedly can not care for themselves or be trusted to make good decisions for themselves regarding their own safety or even who they should or shouldn't date....how then can we assume that they are capable of giving 100% consent?


Let me take that another step.  What sort of "dominant" would want someone who was essentially non-functional.  Speaking for myself, I look for strong, confident women who don't need someone to tell them what to do in order to survive.  Dominating the weak or desperate is an amazingly unappealing idea.  Trying to imagine a couple consisting of a sub who is incapable of making adult decisions, and a dom who would want such a sub...  wait, I don't have to imagine it, I see it all the time.

(in reply to mistoferin)
Profile   Post #: 83
RE: Ability to consent - 6/1/2007 12:17:28 PM   
hereyesruponyou


Posts: 770
Joined: 1/22/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: CuriousLord

A premise of our society continually strikes me as misstated, at best.  "All men are created equal".  What does this actually mean?

Does this equality mean opinions should be considered with equal weight? 



You need to look at the whole of this notion to really consider it:

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalientable rights. That among these rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

How does this in any way say that all opinions would be treated equally? It simply says that we all start off equally, in some ways. And it remains true that certain rights are protected, we are even protected in some ways from ourselves. But it never says everyone is equal in every way, otherwise Bill Gates would be sharing his billions with me!

(in reply to CuriousLord)
Profile   Post #: 84
RE: Ability to consent - 6/1/2007 1:22:17 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TPEOwner

Let me take that another step.  What sort of "dominant" would want someone who was essentially non-functional.


While my preferences are congruent to yours in this regard, I don't think we need for the thread to derail into a discussion of what relationship dynamics are valid. YMMV.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to TPEOwner)
Profile   Post #: 85
RE: Ability to consent - 6/1/2007 1:32:04 PM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: hereyesruponyou

We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal. That they are endowed by their creator with certain inalientable rights. That among these rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

How does this in any way say that all opinions would be treated equally?


It doesn't, necessarily. Although that would be a prerequisite to democracy. What he's doing, is offering various possible interpretations.

quote:

It simply says that we all start off equally, in some ways.


All things are created equal, by that reasoning; a rock is composed of matter, as is a human. The speed of the reactions going on in them differ, of course, but a computer (electric) or chemical processor (chemical) has quicker reactions, so that difference can't be used.

In short, "duh, of course there are commonalities" is one possible response, the other is to think that something more specific was intended.

And if that something was the endowment with these rights, it would be much clearer to say that "We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, and that among these rights are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness."

Yet it doesn't say that. That may be for reasons of prose, or it may be because it's not what he intended to say. The grandparent poster is speculating about this.

quote:

And it remains true that certain rights are protected, we are even protected in some ways from ourselves.


Not all rights are protected. And being protected from oneself is one of the defining traits of sociaism: compromising the right of a competent individual to determine their own consent.

quote:

But it never says everyone is equal in every way, otherwise Bill Gates would be sharing his billions with me!


To be more blunt, he would be you. But it's more likely that some commonality of character, rights and/or purpose are implied. Simply put, it's great writing, but a poor legal document, and hence a poor declaration/foundation for anything lasting.

_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do." -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to hereyesruponyou)
Profile   Post #: 86
RE: Ability to consent - 6/1/2007 2:42:05 PM   
kyraofMists


Posts: 3292
Joined: 7/29/2005
Status: offline 		There is an index that our family has recently learned about and I have not had time to study it in depth, so if others have any knowledge feel free to correct any misperceptions that I have or add more depth to my post.  It is the Kolbe A Index and information can be found at www.kolbe.com  

It basically highlights what a person’s natural abilities are.  The four major categories are Fact Finder, Follow Through, Quick Start and Implementor.  The web site defines these modes as:


Fact Finder drive is most oriented to activities that encompass defining, calculating, formalizing, and researching.
Follow Thru drive is most oriented to such acts as arranging, coordinating, integrating, and implementing
Quick Start drive is most oriented to activities that involve brainstorming, intuiting, inventing, and risk taking.
Implementor is most oriented to such acts as building, crafting, forming, and repairing.
 
From my understanding, someone whose natural abilities tend toward the extreme end of the Quick Start mode is going to have great decision making abilities.  This is not to say that they necessarily make good decisions just that their ability to make decisions is very good.  (I see a distinction between having the ability to make decisions and making good decisions and many times I don’t think people make the distinction clear when they communicate.)

For a person whose natural abilities tend toward the extreme end of the Fact Finder mode they will have a poor ability to make decisions.  When they make decisions they will most likely make good ones but they lack the ability to make decisions because they are so driven to do more research and more analysis that they don’t get around to actually making the decisions.

If a person is self aware enough to know that their decision making ability is not that good and then can find a person to complement them and balance out their weaknesses then I do not think that we can say that they are incapable of giving consent.

I am self aware enough to know that I work best by not having to make the decisions, especially the tough ones where the risk is high.  I get too mired down in the “what ifs” and all the other possibilities.  I work best by providing the information to make the decision and then following through on making whatever was decided happen.  When I have to make decisions, I drive myself nuts considering all the possible outcomes and then second guess myself later.  It is exhausting. 

What I find troublesome is the generality that “my ability to make decisions is not that good therefore I must be submissive and need to find a dominant to make the decisions for me”.  I think the ability to make decisions, whether it is good or bad, has little to do with our orientation within an intimate relationship.  I think it quite possible for a dominant to be self aware enough to know that their ability to make decisions is not that good and find a submissive that is really good at making them.

I don’t see the ability to make decision as either a submissive or dominant trait and I think people will sell themselves and others short if they think one dictates the other. 

A long winded response that may not have answered your question at all but when I read your post these thoughts came to mind and I wanted to share them.  I just don’t see not being good at making decisions as a definitive statement that someone is unable to know what is best for them and therefore unable to give consent.

Knight's kyra

_____________________________

"Passion... it lies in all of us. Sleeping, waiting, and though unbidden, it will stir, open its jaws, and howl. It speaks to us, guides us... passion rules us all. And we obey..." ~Angelus

(in reply to mistoferin)
Profile   Post #: 87
RE: Ability to consent - 6/1/2007 3:06:49 PM   
aSlavesLife


Posts: 347
Joined: 12/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LafayetteLady

The whole issue of "consent" within the realm of an alternate lifestyle such as this is a slippery slope.  From a legal standpoint, no one - regardles of their ability or inability to applied the standards of "informed consent" - is permitted to consent to allowing another person to physically harm them.  Yet, the World Boxing Federation has no shortage of people paying good money to watch two people legally beat the crap out of each other.  The only difference would appear to be that the boxers are not necessarily getting any sexual gratification from the acts.



Glad you brought this up, because it is the one that has always amused me the most. Victorian standards still being invasive in our psyche, it is alright for people to be paid to suffer blunt trauma impact damage for the amusement of an audience, but not alright for someone to consent to have mild injury inflicted upon them for their enjoyment in private. Maybe society would be more tolerant if the beatings were televised and others were making money off it?

_____________________________

It takes a village to raise an idiot.

(in reply to LafayetteLady)
Profile   Post #: 88
RE: Ability to consent - 6/1/2007 3:14:15 PM   
CitizenCane


Posts: 349
Joined: 3/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: TPEOwner

quote:

ORIGINAL: mistoferin

Now I have to ask, if someone admittedly can not care for themselves or be trusted to make good decisions for themselves regarding their own safety or even who they should or shouldn't date....how then can we assume that they are capable of giving 100% consent?


Let me take that another step.  What sort of "dominant" would want someone who was essentially non-functional.  Speaking for myself, I look for strong, confident women who don't need someone to tell them what to do in order to survive.  Dominating the weak or desperate is an amazingly unappealing idea.  Trying to imagine a couple consisting of a sub who is incapable of making adult decisions, and a dom who would want such a sub...  wait, I don't have to imagine it, I see it all the time.


It seems to me that there is a conflation of separate and rather different ideas here. First of all, to suggest that an inability to care of ones self is the same as not being able to be trusted to make good decisions is absurd. A quadraplegiac cannot 'take care of themselves', but may be perfectly capable of making wonderful decisions. One obvious decision for such a person would be to find someone to help in their care. Similarly, a person may function in the day to day world and still make horrible decisions- about half of the decisions to marry in this country would appear to fall into this category.

As for '100% consent', consent by it's nature is either 100% or 0%.  Whatever doubts, anxieties or secret codiciles a person may harbor in the depths of their mind, when they consent, they consent. A contract is not voided because you weren't sure when you sigened it. Neither does ignorance of important facts void a contract, although deliberate deception generally does.

I think that underlying the issue of consent, for many people, is the issue of responsibility.  When we hurt someone in a BDSM relationship, we want them to be responsible for the choice to participate in that. For the most part, they take on that responsibility by participating, but this is not a zero-sum game. MY responsibility is not  diminished by my partner's consent. I still have the full ethical burden of my own actions, regardless of the competence of my partner, whether or not they voice or otherwise indicate consent. The ability of a submissive to make good choices in many spheres is then irrelevant if I'm going to make those choices anyway. 

(in reply to TPEOwner)
Profile   Post #: 89
Page:   <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: Ability to consent Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 4 [5]
Jump to:





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
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.079