RE: Consent vs Doubts

RE: Consent vs Doubts (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion

Message

mbes -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/10/2007 6:57:01 PM)
Mine has blanket permission to do as he wants. He also knows there are areas I have issues with, and what those are. The reason I am able to give him blanket permission is because I am able to trust that he will work carefully if he chooses to visit any of those areas to get what he wants. If I thought there was any chance of a sudden unilateral decision to plow ahead, I wouldn't have been able to trust him. It's my job to trust, and it's his job to treat that trust carefully. If either of those jobs isn't going well, then something needs to change.

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/10/2007 7:48:07 PM)
I think that a slave ALWAYS has one choice: to obey or not. Them having this choice means that they have to live their lives with mindfulness and conscious choice. They must realize that there are consquences, no matter if the choice is obedience or not. Weighing the consequences and making the choice is about taking repsonsibility for themselves and their contribution to the relationship. Master Fire

beargonewild -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/10/2007 8:16:13 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam I think that a slave ALWAYS has one choice: to obey or not. Them having this choice means that they have to live their lives with mindfulness and conscious choice. They must realize that there are consquences, no matter if the choice is obedience or not. Weighing the consequences and making the choice is about taking repsonsibility for themselves and their contribution to the relationship. Master Fire On this I also agree. Yet this leads to another question then: when a slave makes a conscious choice, then doesn't this in effect, go against the concept of giving all control over to a Master. Since the Master has taken over every aspect of a slave's live including choice and also the repercussions of a choice being made whether positive or negative repercussions? Hope this makes sense or maybe I'm just too analytical lol.

mistoferin -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/10/2007 9:27:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad Actually, advance health directives establish precedent for unwithdrawable prior consent. It may even be possible to do something about that legally, though I'm not familiar enough with US law to comment on that. In Norway, you can take it pretty damn far if you have it in writing, as has been established by legal precedent. Not sure how we went from crossing a limit such as genital piercing to advanced health directives. I'm not aware of any unwithdrawable marriage or relationship contracts. A slave can indeed establish a firm boundary if he/she so chooses. I said can. They may not wish to, it really depends on whether or not they feel that crossing that boundary would be a deal breaker. The decision may be one that makes it impossible to continue in that relationship, but they can make that decision if the proposed action is one that crosses a boundary that they will not cross. quote: And I'd point out that battered spouses run back to the abusive partner all the time, without ever having consented. Don't underestimate the effects of mental bondage, even without intentional reinforcement (which is also possible). As one who has been there and done that I would contend that their return to a situation that has a high probability of being continually abusive is on some basic level, a kind of consent. I know that I take responsibility for my part in my past situation because by simply returning there I was volunteering to continually be his victim. If I had made the choice sooner and left he would not have had a victim to abuse. I know some people may think that is cold thinking but I very strongly believe that we all have responsibility for ourselves and what we allow to happen to us. My continued presence allowed it. quote: Your point being? No offense taken. My point is that in a relationship commitment may be deep and emotionally binding, about that there is no doubt. But relationships are not set in stone and commitments can be broken if the cons outweigh the pros enough for one person to decide they will withdraw themselves from it.

Noah -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/10/2007 10:12:01 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild On this I also agree. Yet this leads to another question then: when a slave makes a conscious choice, then doesn't this in effect, go against the concept of giving all control over to a Master. Since the Master has taken over every aspect of a slave's live including choice and also the repercussions of a choice being made whether positive or negative repercussions? Hope this makes sense or maybe I'm just too analytical lol. The master can no more utterly take over the slaves choice than he can take over the slaves molecular structure. Never mind the infinite tedium that would be involved in deciding for another when to chew and when to swallow, when to blink and even what to think. As a purely practical matter, the total control of one person by another is just a silly notion. On a grander scale, though, we can see that no matter what else we might wish were the case, each of us can choose, large things and small, in every moment. This is an inescapable part of the architecture of the human experience. That she chooses again and again and yet again to yield to me is the wonderful substance of her submission. If, hypothetically (it can't be seen any other way) she ever found a way to tunnel under her human nature and abandon her ability to choose again and again to yield to me, then she would in this single stroke make any kind of meaningful submission impossible. If a certain submissive wants to narrate her ongoing, ever-reborn submission as a choice made once in the past for all the future, well that doesn't bother me. A wide range of myths are available for us to inhabit (including that myth which states that we can live without one.) And I can't be privy to the deep meanings to her of the words in that account--nor the meanings of those meanings, for her. But the minute she looses touch the the possibility and the need to surrender once again today, once again in each new moment, her presence in my life will become about as compelling as that of any other piece of furniture which sits in my life not against its own will, but in the absence of any capacity to will. We often employ the work "dynamic" as a noun in these discussions. And it fits. That said, what could be less dynamic, more static, than a relationship with this robot, this automaton, which is incapable of ever, ever making a choice in favor of her master?

MasterFireMaam -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/10/2007 10:34:32 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: beargonewild quote: ORIGINAL: MasterFireMaam I think that a slave ALWAYS has one choice: to obey or not. Them having this choice means that they have to live their lives with mindfulness and conscious choice. They must realize that there are consquences, no matter if the choice is obedience or not. Weighing the consequences and making the choice is about taking repsonsibility for themselves and their contribution to the relationship. Master Fire On this I also agree. Yet this leads to another question then: when a slave makes a conscious choice, then doesn't this in effect, go against the concept of giving all control over to a Master. Since the Master has taken over every aspect of a slave's live including choice and also the repercussions of a choice being made whether positive or negative repercussions? Hope this makes sense or maybe I'm just too analytical lol. It's my personal opinion that the idea that someone else makes ALL the choices for you ALL the time is an unrealistic idealization of the dynamic. It just isn't physically or mentally possible. I trust my girl to make her day-to-day decisions in order to run her life and serve me in a manner that I find pleasing. If, at some point, I tell her to go sit in the road, she has the decision to do so or not. If she obeys, it's up to me to make sure it's safe for her to go sit in the road. If she doesn't obey, it's up to me to find out why, then discuss the consequences. There may not be any...I may actually realize that asking her to go sit in the busy street was a pretty fucked up idea. Master Fire

robertolapiedra -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/10/2007 10:38:59 PM)
Hello beargonewild. Limits change and evolve with time. It is very possible with more information and alleviation of fears the piercing would not be a "limit" in the future. If after this "reflection" time, one finds out that he/she has a "hard" limit, after "blanket consenting" to pratically no limits? The consequence is either it is accepted or not. But limits should be respected, just the same as the dom's prerogative for dismissal (for not complying). That is the danger with blanket consent, one may find that he/she has more limit's than thought of in the passionate beginnings. RL.

Aswad -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 2:30:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub The hard fact of life is that not every little thing can be discussed before hand. Depends on what you mean by that. You can't cover all the details, or make every case a special case and cover them individually. But you can cover every possibility within a given paradigm in general terms, along with a guideline on how to cover anything not in that paradigm if such should happen. If trying to be complete, it would make sense to add a "fallback" / "default" clause that covers how to resolve situations that aren't explicitly covered, along with something that deals with differences in interpretation, whether as simple as "I'm right" or as complex as some U.N. protocols. And you're generally pretty well covered by giving thought to what you have to lose, what you value, and who you are. quote: I believe in blanket consent to a degree. [...] I might withdraw consent. I think I understand what you mean here, but it's kind of saying much the same as mistoferin: you'll consent, but if it goes to far, you'll withdraw consent. That is why I don't use the term blanket consent, but prefer prior consent or advance directive. The latter is more clearly defined, while the former is more likely to be the case. If one wants for the submissive party to be able to withdraw consent, it makes sense to include the how and why of that in the initial terms. For instance, a rule me and nephandi used during a trial period, was that she could withdraw consent provided she remained consistent about wanting to do so for three days, and that the consent would not be considered withdrawn until the end of that period. During this "buffer time", I would not be allowed to attempt to coerce or manipulate her into changing her mind about it, but I would still be allowed to act within the original terms. quote: It is my belief that part of being a responsible owner is realizing that you can't cover everything in the world before collaring. Cover the really important stuff and put the energy and work into the relationship to make the other things come out all right. ~nod~ But I would add that one should also realize that both parties may change over time, and that this means that covering some topics completely may be useful, and that some "fallback" clauses could be useful, including something to cover renegotiations. Quite agree about putting in the work.

Aswad -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 2:36:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: LovingLife IMHO, any 'master' who insists on ignoring his/her slaves absolute limit is a self-centered, narcissistic poser, with no concern for the physical, emotional and/or psychological welfare of the slave. I don't quite see what is so Humble about sorting people as "self-centered, narcissistic poser"... Violating the terms is one thing; disregarding a limit that isn't covered by the terms, another. quote: A slave is a living being - not an inanimate possession. A living human slave is not inanimate, obviously. But any slave is a possession, by definition. Check the dictionary if you like. Edit: Removed strike-through that accidentally appeared.

Aswad -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 2:48:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 of course any Owner may change their mind and even their limits as time goes on, and that's something we as slaves must deal with... Definitely. People change. That's why I generally suggest putting, in the terms or contract or whatever, anything that one does not allow to change. Anything that is a term upon which that initial consent hinges. Some may not have such terms, whether because (as Elorin said) they trust their owner not to change, or because they are fine with giving themselves up not only to who the owner is, but who the owner will be as well. quote: but why consent to be the property of a person when you know there is a significant chance that they will subject you to something you know you cannot bear? Yeah, that's something I wondered about, too. At least, consenting to be property without an attached EULA. [:D] My nephandi knows she will, in time, be subjected to things she cannot, at this time, bear. That's part of the reason why there's a clause about permanent mental or physical injury in her terms. My current self would progress at a pace she can deal with anyway. But I can't guarantee that I won't change, and neither can she; it would be arrogant of either of us to profess to know the other person to be the single human on earth that won't.

Aswad -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 3:01:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mistoferin Not sure how we went from crossing a limit such as genital piercing to advanced health directives. I'm not aware of any unwithdrawable marriage or relationship contracts. It goes to the concept of consent. I argued that there is precedent for unwithdrawable consent, which there is. Violating the terms of such consent may invalidate the consent. "Just because I feel like it" may not, depending on local legislation and the parties involved. The bit that you said, which this was in reply to, was: "Regardless, consent is only good up to the moment of withdrawal of consent. People like to talk about blanket consent which is only given once, the truth is though that it's a fantasy. Human beings have the right to withdraw consent." quote: The decision may be one that makes it impossible to continue in that relationship, but they can make that decision if the proposed action is one that crosses a boundary that they will not cross. The question has two components: terms of consent, and invalidation of consent. Without support from the former, I do not see the latter as coming into effect. Which is why the former should include those inviolable limits. Perhaps "inviolable" is a better term than "hard" limits, since the latter is used in different senses as well? quote: As one who has been there and done that I would contend that their return to a situation that has a high probability of being continually abusive is on some basic level, a kind of consent. Fair enough. I won't argue the point. It's a bit more complicated in my view, but I can certainly support paring it down that way. Kudos for dealing with it that way; I respect that a lot. quote: My point is that in a relationship commitment may be deep and emotionally binding, about that there is no doubt. But relationships are not set in stone and commitments can be broken[...] I guess my contention is just that I don't see a problem with one party preventing the other from doing so, if doing so doesn't violate the terms of the initial consent.

LovingLife -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 3:12:02 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Noah The master can no more utterly take over the slaves choice than he can take over the slaves molecular structure. Never mind the infinite tedium that would be involved in deciding for another when to chew and when to swallow, when to blink and even what to think. As a purely practical matter, the total control of one person by another is just a silly notion. On a grander scale, though, we can see that no matter what else we might wish were the case, each of us can choose, large things and small, in every moment. This is an inescapable part of the architecture of the human experience. That she chooses again and again and yet again to yield to me is the wonderful substance of her submission. If, hypothetically (it can't be seen any other way) she ever found a way to tunnel under her human nature and abandon her ability to choose again and again to yield to me, then she would in this single stroke make any kind of meaningful submission impossible. If a certain submissive wants to narrate her ongoing, ever-reborn submission as a choice made once in the past for all the future, well that doesn't bother me. A wide range of myths are available for us to inhabit (including that myth which states that we can live without one.) And I can't be privy to the deep meanings to her of the words in that account--nor the meanings of those meanings, for her. But the minute she looses touch the the possibility and the need to surrender once again today, once again in each new moment, her presence in my life will become about as compelling as that of any other piece of furniture which sits in my life not against its own will, but in the absence of any capacity to will. We often employ the work "dynamic" as a noun in these discussions. And it fits. That said, what could be less dynamic, more static, than a relationship with this robot, this automaton, which is incapable of ever, ever making a choice in favor of her master? Very eloquently stated, and I agree.

MadRabbit -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 4:20:45 AM)
What Noah said. I could work to alter the slave's perspective on things in the realm of the spiritual, work to help her develop a mindset to move beyond freedom and dignity, that there is no choice but to obey, submit, and surrender. But still...in the realm of the physical its a relationship where both parties are making choices, have responsibility for those choices, and can leave the relationship when they want. The spiritual and mental reality is still based on benevolent decisions. The other thing that I think is missing from discussions about limits is that people view limits as black and white, hard or soft, absolute or changeable. If we were to view limits in Nietzsche's terms from "Beyond Good and Evil", then limits cant be defined as simply hard or soft, but are a whole spectrum of different shades of hard or soft. We have things all the time in life that we have fears and doubts about or cant imagine ourselves doing. People cant imagine themselves being a garbageman or cleaning port a potties at construction sites. People cant imagine themselves being a lowly waiter at a restaurant. 3 years ago there was plenty of things I thought I couldnt do or would be doing, but with time, grow, and challenging myself, I am doing them now. Of course, we could define limits as simply things that the slave doesnt want to it, but thats not the definition I use. If my authority was limited everytime a slave did not want to do something, then there isnt any surrender and my dominance is completely suferficial. This isnt to say that I cant take into consideration what my slave wants and do things that coincedentally are what we both want without being less dominant, but a relationship that is limited based on whatever the slave doesnt want isnt my kind of relationship at all. I didnt want to shave my beard when I changed jobs, but amazingly I wasnt able to set this as a limit with my company. They set the standards and if I wanted the job, then I had to get over my own inhibitions, submit to their authority, and shave my beard. I was able to and I have a really awesome job now. Some people wont though and therefore arent working at the company. So the question of limits, to me, falls into the realm of what a person can or cannot do as opposed to what they want or dont want to do. More specifically, its "How far can this person go with growth, change, and moving past their own fears and doubts?". Some people will go their entire lives without getting past their fear of needles or without being able to do scat. The other question is whats the difference between "cant" and "wont"? I'm sure we can debate endlessly about it and say there really isnt a "cant" and everything comes down to a matter of will, but I find that to be impractical. To me, its really based on the issue on an individual level, the circumstances surrounding it, and what I am willing to accept. Hence... Circumstance : I dont want to do needle play because I am horribly phobic and afraid of needles. Excuse : I dont want to do needle play because its not my favorite kind of play.

beargonewild -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 5:14:17 AM)
Greetings For myself, I look at limits which Masters and slaves have to be a fluid, which can and do change over time as well as the comfortability and openness of the individual, yet there still remains a core set of limits which both will not consider breaking. Any other "hard" limits which we have are soely based upon what we personally feel are too extreme or "this isn't for me." As we learn and grow, many of these do change as part of our personal growth as a person and as a Master or sub etc. I don't believe that a relationship is diminished and/or a Master would be less dominant when the slave or sub isn't willing and/or capable of surpassing a limit(s) they feel are to strong to overcome. I may be unique in this train of thought but I firmly believe that in the overall dynamic, the Master still retains his dominance over his slave. Even though I'd be exercisng dominance over a sub, I still have to understand that the sub is also a person in their own right. Meaning for me to acknowledge his limits, I also have to be very aware of his fears, doubts and limits to be able to make a wise decision to push back these limits enabling both of us to learn and grow. Doing this, I don't believe my dominance is being limited but showisthe sub I have respect for him thus gives the incentive for the sub the desire and a greater drive to serve me better.

slaveish -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 6:30:39 AM)
bear, it seems that this is one of those limits you will do well to work on slowly, to help the sub / slave overcome his fears, to push him past this limit if it is a soft limit. There are several things that Master helped me do that were what I thought to be hard limits but discovered that they were, in fact, softhard limits. His leadership, my trust, his affection and care, helped me get past my fear. Maybe you will find this as well. If the piercing is a softhard limit, simply say "It doesn't matter - you don't have a choice and you will do as you're told" will work. It puts the sub / slave in proper mindset and, for me, makes it easier to go through with. It releases me from thinking about it and allows me to envision the task as complete.

AquaticSub -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 6:42:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aswad quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub The hard fact of life is that not every little thing can be discussed before hand. Depends on what you mean by that. You can't cover all the details, or make every case a special case and cover them individually. But you can cover every possibility within a given paradigm in general terms, along with a guideline on how to cover anything not in that paradigm if such should happen. If trying to be complete, it would make sense to add a "fallback" / "default" clause that covers how to resolve situations that aren't explicitly covered, along with something that deals with differences in interpretation, whether as simple as "I'm right" or as complex as some U.N. protocols. And you're generally pretty well covered by giving thought to what you have to lose, what you value, and who you are. For me, the problem with that generally statement is that it just doesn't apply to those times when people do change or hid who they were in the begining. And that is something I don't think gets considered enough. quote: quote: I believe in blanket consent to a degree. [...] I might withdraw consent. I think I understand what you mean here, but it's kind of saying much the same as mistoferin: you'll consent, but if it goes to far, you'll withdraw consent. That is why I don't use the term blanket consent, but prefer prior consent or advance directive. The latter is more clearly defined, while the former is more likely to be the case. If one wants for the submissive party to be able to withdraw consent, it makes sense to include the how and why of that in the initial terms. For instance, a rule me and nephandi used during a trial period, was that she could withdraw consent provided she remained consistent about wanting to do so for three days, and that the consent would not be considered withdrawn until the end of that period. During this "buffer time", I would not be allowed to attempt to coerce or manipulate her into changing her mind about it, but I would still be allowed to act within the original terms. My consent withdraws if Valyraen has changed to the point where he is no longer the man who owned me or he is doing something dangerous. There are things that forcing me into before I'm ready, I would consider mentally dangerous. quote: quote: It is my belief that part of being a responsible owner is realizing that you can't cover everything in the world before collaring. Cover the really important stuff and put the energy and work into the relationship to make the other things come out all right. ~nod~ But I would add that one should also realize that both parties may change over time, and that this means that covering some topics completely may be useful, and that some "fallback" clauses could be useful, including something to cover renegotiations. Quite agree about putting in the work.

Aswad -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 8:09:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: AquaticSub quote: And you're generally pretty well covered by giving thought to what you have to lose, what you value, and who you are. For me, the problem with that generally statement is that it just doesn't apply to those times when people do change or hid who they were in the begining. And that is something I don't think gets considered enough. If you've formalized the results of that thought process as terms, it will usually cover those. When thinking long-term, I always consider the near-certainty that I will change over time, and when dealing with others, regardless of how I feel about them, I always consider the possibility that they may be hiding things from me, if for no other reason than that people often hide things from themselves. Of course it's impossible to cover everything in a romantic "hook up" to submission. But when I consider taking on someone for life, as a literal slave, I am not going to compromise my safety or theirs by allowing these formalities to take a back seat. If I ever find myself attracted to Dolcett-style activities, and in a country that permits it, what then? Well, for me, I will already have covered all of that before taking someone on. This isn't to say that I can't take someone on under the terms of "it works as long as we both agree it works", and without going that deeply into the terms, only that such is a quite different kind of relationship, and that I currently don't have any interest in adding one to my life. I'd like to play with people, sure, but if I'm taking on anyone else in a relationship way, I'll be looking for a slave who understands what she's getting into, fully, and who is willing to make the effort for me to go through the process of clearly identifying the limits of our relationship. quote: My consent withdraws if Valyraen has changed to the point where he is no longer the man who owned me or he is doing something dangerous. There are things that forcing me into before I'm ready, I would consider mentally dangerous. That's what I'd call a term, and quite fine. I just think it belongs out in the open. Hooking up with someone who doesn't agree that you can pull out if that happens can be dangerous if you haven't been explicit about this term. That's why I put these kinds of things in the formal terms. I don't cede the assumption, you see. Hence, checking to see if they make it, and making the assumption a formal term if they do.

thetammyjo -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 10:28:14 AM)
I see consent for a Ds or Ms relationship as one consenting to the authority dynamics and to the maintance of these dynamics. Having doubts is part of changing and developing as a person in my opinion. I should hope that in any human relationships there would be means by which to express this growth in helpful and positive ways. If my slave has doubts, he is to share them with me. They do challenge my authority though they may present us with mundane or emotional issues that need our work.

slaveluci -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 10:44:12 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: daddysprop247 if this person gave initial consent to be slave, i tend to view that as a blanket consent (which for some, is not a myth or fantasy), meaning from that point forward the slave's fate is entirely in the hands of the Owner. if the genital piercing issue was one that this person felt they would stand firm on and could never tolerate, then that should have been discussed prior to making that final choice to be slave. Don't faint, daddysprop, but I totally agree with you here[;)]. of course any Owner may change their mind and even their limits as time goes on, and that's something we as slaves must deal with Again, agreed....unless we're speaking of a hard limit which Master and I both agreed on before I became His property. He assured me that I would never be forced to change or give those up against my will. Other than those couple of limits, I agree with you that things can change or be added over time with the implied prior agreement that whatever Master desires will be done. As you stated above, when I became His property, "blanket consent" (excluding agreed-upon hard limits) was given. ...but why consent to be the property of a person when you know there is a significant chance that they will subject you to something you know you cannot bear? Exactly. If care is taken before becoming owned, this really is not a significant worry.........slave luci

Celeste43 -> RE: Consent vs Doubts (6/11/2007 12:42:03 PM)
In the situation you gave, it doesn't sound as though there was ever clear communication on this. A dom saying "I'm interested in having my s getting a genital piercing" is not the same as "Three months after you have been living with me you will get a genital piercing". From the s type there is a clear difference between "I'm not sure about getting a genital piercing" and "Sorry, genital piercing's are a hard limit". If the communication is fuzzy enough, they are probably both saying the other one is a liar and a player whereas the truth is that both need to learn to communicate clearly and listen actively. However, if someone flatly refuses, that is nonconsent. Doesn't matter if they accepted a collar before the subject came up or not, once someone refuses to give consent or withdraws it, no force or coercion can be used. What should happen then is clear communication without anger or threats on either hand. From what you said, this was lacking from the beginning.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

4.589844E-02