Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (Full Version)

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



Message

LuckyAlbatross -> Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 11:22:01 AM)

I hear this come around a LOT- usually in the "difference between a sub/slave" talks but in other places as well.

There is this idea that some people consent ONCE, FOREVER to be under anothers authority and some other people consent EVERY TIME to be under anothers authority.

What exactly does that mean? How do they consent once vs every time? Is there a difference from the outside? Are people in relationships where they have to evaluate and get consent every day before authority can be in place consensually?



Jasmyn -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 12:01:17 PM)

Dynamics of the Owner/slave relationship dictates limits can be pushed and the slave will not question... but dynamics of the Dom/sub relationship dictates that limits are only pushed when the sub has consented. In either case the submitting partner retains a form of control, that would make an oxymoron of the term Owner/slave I know but only if the term is viewed superficially.

The 'slave' consents to ownership knowing they can not question what will be asked of them and their freely given continual servitude ensures consent is present.

Whereas in the Dom/sub relationship consent is continually seeked and then given between both partners with each retaining equal shares in control...ie the Dom agrees to do a, b and c because he/she *wants* to do them to a sub who *wants* these things done to her/him. Kind of like Dom/sub relationships do things when they are both ready while the Owner/slave relationship does things when the dominant party requires it.

Or at least thats the best way I've managed to crudely define it from how I've come to understand the differences.

The problem comes of course when a great deal of d/s relationships have elements of both ...it's just the labelling that differs.

I prefer the notion of slavery over submission...mostly because I want to take this person on a journey of surrender and that is not something they can do if they feel they have an equal amount of control over proceedings as I do.



Phoenxx -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 12:15:29 PM)

To me, consent is given each time. It is a goal for some to give consent once and forever. I personally try to avoid absolutes. Always, forever, all the time, everyone who is… are all statements I try to avoid.
As a goal I can understand consenting forever. But to say that at no point will a slave ever disagree with their Master, and even if they do, there is nothing they can do about it, well, that isn’t the case.
If a slave calls the police, because of abuse something will happen. And yes, I have heard the argument that no slave would dare call the police on their master. If child abuse involved, I think most slaves would make that call. This is one example that most if not all people will understand.
There are betrayals that do cross the line. And then consent is withdrawn.
I guess it’s a matter of belief. Do you give it forever and have the right to withdraw it in extreme cases, or do you give it each time by not withdrawing it.
And yes, I know that some people are going to say a slave has no right to change their maids. And while I do understand what they are saying, the reality and law have a different view on it.
Tony



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 12:18:08 PM)

Hmmm but most people will agree that even slaves and owned property CAN revoke consent at any time. Does this mean that the slave has also consented every time, it's simply that that last time she changed her answer from no to yes?

I'm trying to feel/see the tangible, practical, and real life differences between a situation where supposed one person "consents once" versus where one "consents every time."



Phoenxx -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 12:36:35 PM)

I think a slave means it the same way people do when saying I do during a marriage ceremony. The intent is to give over forever. And at the time that is how it is meant, once and forever. Very few people go into a commitment thinking of how they will get out of it. Ok maybe I should say some people.
The last statistic I heard in Canada was that divorce was at 51%. I think most of those people went into the relation with the intent of forever. And then something happens.
IMNSHO it is the similar. The slave means to consent forever and feels the emotions in her heart. And until the trust is broken, it remains a lifetime commitment.
I think the reality is she must make a choice more then once though. Each time the Master asks or demands something, at some level she makes a choice to either say yes or no. As long as the yes choice is consistent with the other choices made there is little to no conflict.
At least that’s how I see it...
Tony



LadiesBladewing -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 12:55:17 PM)

I don't think that it is -possible- to give consent once and have it hold "for all time". That concept implies an absence of personal responsibility -- something that, in my opinion, can never be abdicated, no matter how much of a slave one is.

One may choose to serve, but each and every time that a command is given, the choice must be made to obey. Even in the case where obedience becomes almost automatic, there is still the -option- to disobey, whether it is acknowledged or not.

The real difference between the individual who yields momentarily or for a limited period of time and the one who yields completely is not the words that say "I am yielding forever" or "I expect you to yield everything for the rest of your life, with nothing held back", but the willingness to commit to evaluating each of those options to obey or disobey, for years at a time, and committing to yielding each and every time. Promises can be made by anyone, but it is the fullness of time that proves whether a servant will serve a lifetime from the heart, or will balk when the service becomes more than he or she expected.

Lady Zephyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

I hear this come around a LOT- usually in the "difference between a sub/slave" talks but in other places as well.

There is this idea that some people consent ONCE, FOREVER to be under anothers authority and some other people consent EVERY TIME to be under anothers authority.

What exactly does that mean? How do they consent once vs every time? Is there a difference from the outside? Are people in relationships where they have to evaluate and get consent every day before authority can be in place consensually?



thetammyjo -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 1:30:48 PM)

I think there is a big difference between consenting and chosing to continue a relationship.

Fox and I negotiated once -- it was well over 5 hours of negotiation but only that one time.

However, after training he consented to being my 24/7 slave. I've never asked him to consent again. I don't feel I need to given our dynamic.

But every day he makes the choice to continue to obey and to serve, he makes a conscious effort to put in the work it requires to be my slave. I doubt he thinks "do I consent" and the vast majority of the time his choice is subconscious. But he does make that choice on a day even an order by order basis.

You know what? I'm glad he does because that means what we have is valuable enough for him to chose over a vanilla life or a part-time 24/7 life. If I felt he didn't make these ongoing choices, I suspect I've start to become very sad. I don't want to be just another job he has to do, just another habit he has; I want to be special enough to be chosen every day in every way.



daddysprop247 -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 2:10:17 PM)

this is not a topic many will agree on.

as i see it, there are those who are consciously choosing to obey or to not obey, to be in the relationship or not be in the relationship, constantly weighing their options because they HAVE options. this is not something that a slave can do, at least not as i understand what it means to be slave.

when i agreed to become my Master's slave, that was the last free choice i could make. i consented to be his, with the understanding that once i became his, my consent would no longer be relevant as i would be under his control and live only for him. i cannot "take back" this consent...i cannot release myself, or choose to no longer be his slave. if i could do those things, i would not be slave. some say that anyone can leave a situation if they truly wish to. well, that is not the case. there are Masters/Owners who take care to keep their property physically, financially, and in some cases even legally enslaved, in addition to the mental enslavement. legally, i am enslaved to my Master so that if i did succeed in running away all possible authorities would simply send me back to Him. financially i have nothing and no access to anything. physically i cannot set foot outside the door without his knowledge, as whenever he leaves the locks are set from the outside, and to escape out a window would only result in a long fall and broken neck. but more importantly, i am emotionally and psychologically enslaved to him to the point where i cannot fathom an existence where i am not owned by him. no matter how difficult or frightening things are at times, the thought of leaving never crosses my mind. the thought of even disobeying him never crosses my mind. i do not make a conscious choice to obey his every wish and command...i cannot explain it, but it is like a reflex. He says jump, i jump. i do not think about it. it is very much an unconscious, or what some might consider to be "mindless" obedience. and that is the way he likes it, so all is as it should be.



Krasnaya -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 2:53:57 PM)

quote:

as whenever he leaves the locks are set from the outside, and to escape out a window would only result in a long fall and broken neck.


The first thing that came to mind when I read this was...house fire. Seriously just a thought.

Slavery as a practice is not legal in this country so that means that any slave/owner relationship exists because it has been decided on by both partners. It exists outside of the law so you still have the RIGHT to withdraw consent. I'm not saying that this lifestyle can't be a choice for willing adults. What I am saying is that consent, while maybe not verbally, is always given if you're sticking around. It's never absolutely irrelavent. Anyone can walk away from a relationship of any kind at any point. If you honestly want to and cannot well thats cause for a visit from your friendly neighborhood police dept. Never giving consent is a fantasy...and if it's one you want to live...I say hell yes, be safe, and enjoy. [:D]



stef -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 3:02:15 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysprop247

if i could do those things, i would not be slave. some say that anyone can leave a situation if they truly wish to. well, that is not the case. there are Masters/Owners who take care to keep their property physically, financially, and in some cases even legally enslaved, in addition to the mental enslavement. legally, i am enslaved to my Master so that if i did succeed in running away all possible authorities would simply send me back to Him.

How are you legally enslaved to him?

~stef



Krasnaya -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 3:11:50 PM)

Even if you're his legal wife they can't send you back.



ExistentialSteel -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 3:27:49 PM)

In most cases, the consent does not have to be given every time. It is an implied consent until something is said to negate it. Realistically, that is pretty much what happens in real relationships, too.



BeingChewsie -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 3:29:33 PM)

quote:

quote:

ORIGINAL: daddysprop247

if i could do those things, i would not be slave. some say that anyone can leave a situation if they truly wish to. well, that is not the case. there are Masters/Owners who take care to keep their property physically, financially, and in some cases even legally enslaved, in addition to the mental enslavement. legally, i am enslaved to my Master so that if i did succeed in running away all possible authorities would simply send me back to Him.
How are you legally enslaved to him?


If I recall she answered this one time on another list and I believe her owner has been named her legal guardian. I may have her confused with someone else but I think that is what she means.

If I have you mixed you up with someone else..I'm sorry props.



Krasnaya -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 3:36:38 PM)

That only counts if someone is a minor and if she is well then thats a problem obviously.



LuckyAlbatross -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 3:42:02 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Krasnaya
That only counts if someone is a minor and if she is well then thats a problem obviously.

Not for everyone. Not that it has anything to do with the specific discussion...



Krasnaya -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 3:44:56 PM)

All I was saying was that they can't ship you home against your will at 25. And yes, it has everything to do with consent and what that means in different relationships.



BeingChewsie -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 3:51:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Krasnaya

That only counts if someone is a minor and if she is well then thats a problem obviously.


No, that is not true. You can have someone named as your guardian if you are found by a court to not be competent to make your own decisions or someone can seek to be made your guardian. It has nothing to do with being a minor in this case. That is what I was referring too. I believe if I'm not mistaken that is what she means in this case.

But I'm sure she will clarify and correct if need be.



Krasnaya -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 3:54:51 PM)

Hmm.. I have heard of adults having legal guardians I just have no idea what kind of situation you would have to be in to get one that's all. I don't know all that much about how much real power a legal guardian would have over another adult, but then again I guess it really depends on why you have one...interesting thanks for explaining.



kyraofMists -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 4:16:55 PM)

Is it a matter of giving consent daily or choosing to obey? Some would say that the last choice I made was when I offered myself to my Lord as his slave. However, that is not really practical. I make choices every day and one of the biggest choices is whether to obey or not to obey. This choice is made on an instruction by instruction basis with the main consideration being will it harm me.

You wish for a tangible example; say that my Lord tells me to stain a piece of furniture that he has just made. It is a very reasonable instruction for a slave to receive and considering that my Lord builds furniture often not to be unexpected. However, I am highly allergic to the fumes of stain and paint and it can lead to severe sinus problems. I was once sick for a couple weeks with bronchitis after my parents painted the house.

My Lord’s first rule is to protect his property. So which instruction do I obey without question, his primary rule or staining the furniture? If I were to receive this order, I could not obey it without question because it would be disobeying another direct order. I would have to remind my Lord of the information about my allergies so that he will have all the information needed to give instructions that will not harm his property.

It is a simple, practical example that shows that I have to be responsible for my own well-being and my own happiness. What good would it serve my Lord if I saved him a few hours of painting only for him to lose the use of his slave for several days because painting made me incredibly ill?

For me, it is a matter of understanding my Lord’s priorities and which instruction has higher importance than another. My well-being and inherent responsibilities come first. If an instruction from my Lord threatens these then I am responsible for giving him that information.

So I do not wake up everyday and say to my Lord, “I consent to your authority”. But each time he chooses to exercise his will upon me I make the choice to obey or not.


Knight's kyra



LadyHibiscus -> RE: Consent Once vs Consent Constantly? (12/7/2005 4:19:07 PM)

I wish I could remember the speaker who talked about the "constant seduction" that elicited constant consent........ I know that I had a big problem with the whole idea.

Many have touched on the fact that we all decide each time whether we are going to do our appointed tasks. That is just part of the social contract, IMO, and not a d/s issue.

When someone is serving me, I expect them to obey me. I do not expect to have to re-negotiate, or remind. I want the people who serve me to be happy that they are with me, so I treat them well. Does that help with the constant consent?



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875