Consent by default or little or no resistance. (Full Version)

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



Message

missturbation -> Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 9:08:49 AM)

I'm a firm believer that no matter what happens to us, we do etc, we always have a choice. For example if someone is holding a gun to your head and they are going to kill you, you may not have a choice whether you die or not, but you can choose how you die. You can choose to die screaming, you can choose to die crying or you can choose to die with dignity etc.
 
When it comes to our relationships we always have a choice too. For example i do not have the right to release myself but i could choose to behave in such a way as he would release me. I could choose to ask for release and if it really came down to it i could choose to walk away.

When there are problems in a relationship i also choose whether to stay in it or not, right to release myself or not!! For example Sir accidently hit me in a place he shouldn't have last time we played. It was agony but i knew it was an accident and we continued and i am still with him. But what if that problem became recurrent?
 
If Sir ignores my 'please don't hit me there, it's not a safe place', or my 'ouch Sir you caught me in the kidneys, please be careful' and continues to accidently or not accidently hit me there, i then have a choice. I have the choice to walk or stay for the good of my health.

Now if i choose to walk away, all well and good, i move on, he moves on ta da!! But what if i choose to stay? Am i then by default or little or no resistance consenting to him hitting me in the kidneys?

See i have this intolerance i can't help when i see things on the boards such as 'my partner has been sneaking around talking to / meeting other subs / doms', followed by many other threads along the same lines. Or 'my Dom / sub repeatedly refuses to communicate with me when there is a problem', followed by other threads along the same lines.
 
I just want to scream, by default or little or no resistance you are consenting to their behaviour. By staying you are allowing what they do, accepting it to a certain degree. Are we not always saying if you consent to something it is ok? Your kink is not my kink and judgementalness (is that even a word) aside of course.
 
So my question is, is this behaviour consent by default or little or no resistance? Or am i just plain and simply being judgemental and closed minded? It has been known to happen before!! [:D] 



CallaFirestormBW -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 9:31:24 AM)

I have to agree with this, and I'll add "I've threatened hir a -zillion- times that the -next- time I'll leave!", but this is the zillion and first time it's happened, and the person is still there.

To me, at the point where you realize there is a recurrent pattern and realize that you don't want to really leave this person, no matter what xhe does, it's time to get honest with yourself and change, at least in your mind, the shape of your relationship to -admit- (again, at least to yourself) that this person, for now, can pretty much do whatever xhe wants. Stop making threats/promises/demands and just accept that this is the person you've chosen, do what you can to protect yourself, and that you consider accepting this formerly inappropriate behavior as part and parcel of the relationship you want to be in now. Don't whine about it to others, or act out passive-aggressively to try to manipulate the situation and then complain about the results -- just admit that you've made a choice, whether or not anyone else would like it or approve of it.

Dame Calla



kiwisub12 -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 9:53:45 AM)

That sort of behaviour - threatening,then not following through - doesn't work with kids, dogs or parrots - and also doesn't work in a adult to adult relationship.  Sorry, but by tacitly agreeing to the behaviour , you are saying its ok, even if verbally you disagree. And if your other is having his cake and eating it too, more power to him/her. They are getting what they want, and all they have to do is put up with a bit of verbal hurt feelings.   Not a bad bargin.

Of course , if the significant other was an ethical person, you wouldn't be in that position in the first place.



DomImus -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 10:07:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation
So my question is, is this behaviour consent by default or little or no resistance?


I would say yes. Once you give consent then consent has been given until you remove it.





califsue -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 11:01:08 AM)

My thoughts are we consent by default.
 
The reason folks come to the board and talk about the things you present as intolerance is we may know in our hearts of heart that we need to walk but for whatever reason we can't. Soooooo..in posting and asking opinions maybe just maybe something will be that kick in the pants for the zillionith time as Calla put it that will make the lightbulb in our head go off and do something about our situation. It is a whole lot easier in many ways to complain and be miserable vs actually making the necessary changes that would allow us to be free from our situation. In order to do so, one has to be willing to let go of all things they know and are comfortable with and even when we are miserable those things we know and bring us comfort are easier to deal with than being alone and scared. 
 
And in many ways, the boards are annonymous and safe. People who are in the lifestyle and while much of how to deal with relationships are applicable to all relationships you may not have friends that you feel you can confide in because they don't know or understand the power dynamic, the kink or the combination.  You don't have to a profile to post on the boards. You can create a new name even if you do have a profile and you don't have to link it to your profile if you don't want.
 



OsideGirl -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 12:39:55 PM)

Master refers to this as implied consent. When you have the ability to say "no" and you don't. Ultimately, it is up to ourselves to draw our own lines, whether you rely on a "D" type or not.




AlexandraLynch -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 12:42:37 PM)

It's implied consent, yes.

I would hope that any sub I'm working will tell me when I am pushing their limits or accidentally wrap a flogger or whatever. It's partly why I don't play lightly, only with someone I've got a relationship with, so that we do have a degree of understanding and flow and comfort. If xe is so uncomfortable overall that they need to walk, I am not being the kind of dominant I want to be.



Focus50 -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 12:49:17 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

I'm a firm believer that no matter what happens to us, we do etc, we always have a choice. For example if someone is holding a gun to your head and they are going to kill you, you may not have a choice whether you die or not, but you can choose how you die. You can choose to die screaming, you can choose to die crying or you can choose to die with dignity etc.
 
When it comes to our relationships we always have a choice too. For example i do not have the right to release myself but i could choose to behave in such a way as he would release me. I could choose to ask for release and if it really came down to it i could choose to walk away.

When there are problems in a relationship i also choose whether to stay in it or not, right to release myself or not!! For example Sir accidently hit me in a place he shouldn't have last time we played. It was agony but i knew it was an accident and we continued and i am still with him. But what if that problem became recurrent?
 
If Sir ignores my 'please don't hit me there, it's not a safe place', or my 'ouch Sir you caught me in the kidneys, please be careful' and continues to accidently or not accidently hit me there, i then have a choice. I have the choice to walk or stay for the good of my health.

Now if i choose to walk away, all well and good, i move on, he moves on ta da!! But what if i choose to stay? Am i then by default or little or no resistance consenting to him hitting me in the kidneys?

See i have this intolerance i can't help when i see things on the boards such as 'my partner has been sneaking around talking to / meeting other subs / doms', followed by many other threads along the same lines. Or 'my Dom / sub repeatedly refuses to communicate with me when there is a problem', followed by other threads along the same lines.
 
I just want to scream, by default or little or no resistance you are consenting to their behaviour. By staying you are allowing what they do, accepting it to a certain degree. Are we not always saying if you consent to something it is ok? Your kink is not my kink and judgementalness (is that even a word) aside of course.
 
So my question is, is this behaviour consent by default or little or no resistance? Or am i just plain and simply being judgemental and closed minded? It has been known to happen before!! [:D] 

An interesting read....
 
I think you're describing the grey area of when a line gets stepped over; when consentual power exchange descends into spousal abuse.  While logic says the victim is enabling and validating the abuse through continued tolerance of it, I think reasonable people know that the victim has become unfit to make that judgement *because* the abuse has been conditioned into them over time. 
 
To answer your question, it's learned behaviour for both parties and the victim likely needs to be saved from themselves as much as the abuser. 
 
I'll add that in control based dynamics such as D/s and M/s, I don't ask for my girl's specific consent each time I want something of her or her body.  she consents by default because of her submissive status and virtue of agreeing to be in a D/s relationship with me to begin with.  But there is a reasonable expectation that I won't abuse the trust she bestows upon me - that I have responsibilities to and for her well-being; something that has been lost in the OP.
 
Focus. 



NorthernGent -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 1:08:45 PM)

It remains consent.

It isn't necessarily a fully informed decision - none of us have all of the information at our disposal to make a decision (I mean self-awareness is a trick in and of itself).

So I suppose it comes down to degrees of informed decision making.

Edited to add:

I would certainly not say: "where you consent it's ok" in all circumstances. Where you draw that line needs some serious thought as you're in the realms of liberty v regulation.



IrishMist -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 3:20:14 PM)

quote:

By staying you are allowing what they do, accepting it to a certain degree.

NO one, absolutly no one will enjoy my response.

If you ( generic YOU ) are in a relationship that is harmful; physically, psychologically, or emotionally; and YOU do not take the steps to remove yourself permantly from that relationship...then in my opinion ...YES, you are consenting to the behavior; you are telling your partner it's ok...

Now, before all the 'save the abused people' people start bitching and moaning about what I just wrote and how circumstances sometimes prevent this blah blah blah...save it...I have heard it before...it did not change my opinion then, it won't change it now.



lovingpet -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 3:27:15 PM)

It's kind of a catch-22 in that yes, it is consent, but the person giving the tacit consent may no longer be stable and healthy enough to be giving it.  There comes a point when fear and survival are driving the whole reality of the abused person.  Sometimes a person is so entrenched in the battle that they don't see that a way of escape is available or has opened to them.  It is a tunnel vision and one that is attempting to serve the person by allowing them simply to see another day.  The person is teetering or already fallen over the edge in areas such as health, self esteem, sanity, financial ruin, isolation, perhaps even life and death, and more.  In all honesty, that is why some states in the US and I am sure in other places have made it so that it is not always in the hands of the victim to press charges (in the case of domestic violence).  Sometimes only others can save us from ourselves.  In the smaller things, however, is where the danger lies.  It chips and cracks away at a person inperceptably over time.

There is another issue to be considered here and that is time constrained consent.  I may not be able to do anything about what you are doing now, but my mind is already made up and I am making my preparations to move on.  Chances are I have already more than adequately explained my concerns and nothing changes.  I am then left with the choice to stay and continue to accept the behavior, go with little planning and safety nets in place, or I can stay and set up my supports and make provisions for myself with the anticipatory plan b made in case I just simply run out of time before it all comes together.  This time constrained consent is the best option possible, if it can be remotely safely done.  It means someone doesn't have to fight fear anymore to walk away.  They have something to walk to.  They are in a stable position as soon as possible after and can move on completely more quickly.

That being said, some things are a matter of simple human error and oversight and can eventually be addressed properly, even if response is late in coming.  Sometimes things are so far out of control that the only option is to run.  Sometimes, it's just too late and either someone else will have to step in or a person's life is lost (if not physically, then spiritually and mentally).  I don't know who it was that said it or if I am quoting it right but it goes something like, "Evil thrives when good men sit by and do nothing."  People talk of 7 deadly sins (as if anything we are doing out of control or of wrong motivation can't lead to calamity), but I would add an 8th.  That would be omission.  Sometimes it is not when we choose to do wrong that we are in the most danger, but when we choose to not do what what we know we need to do that may well cost us dearly.

lovingpet   



porcelaine -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 3:28:09 PM)

in the end people can only do what we permit. if i allow myself to become involved in an unhealthy situation and refuse to take corrective action, i'm consenting to the behavior in some capacity. either by truly not caring enough to do something about it, or failing to love myself enough to realize i deserve better instead. sometimes the consent isn't rescinded simply because the parties involved don't believe they're worthy of different treatment, even when their words might imply they are.

porcelaine



NuevaVida -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 3:33:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist
NO one, absolutly no one will enjoy my response.

If you ( generic YOU ) are in a relationship that is harmful; physically, psychologically, or emotionally; and YOU do not take the steps to remove yourself permantly from that relationship...then in my opinion ...YES, you are consenting to the behavior; you are telling your partner it's ok...

Now, before all the 'save the abused people' people start bitching and moaning about what I just wrote and how circumstances sometimes prevent this blah blah blah...save it...I have heard it before...it did not change my opinion then, it won't change it now.


Well you're wrong - I enjoyed your response and agreed with it.  Having been in a 20 year abusive relationship, I could only begin healing once I asked myself the question:  "Why was it OK with me to be treated like that?"  Sticking around for more - for whatever screwed up reason (and there are valid screwed up reasons) is indeed telling your partner that it's OK. 



Focus50 -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 3:54:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

quote:

By staying you are allowing what they do, accepting it to a certain degree.

NO one, absolutly no one will enjoy my response.

If you ( generic YOU ) are in a relationship that is harmful; physically, psychologically, or emotionally; and YOU do not take the steps to remove yourself permantly from that relationship...then in my opinion ...YES, you are consenting to the behavior; you are telling your partner it's ok...

Now, before all the 'save the abused people' people start bitching and moaning about what I just wrote and how circumstances sometimes prevent this blah blah blah...save it...I have heard it before...it did not change my opinion then, it won't change it now.

I'm not seeing the earth-shattering profoundness of your thoughts, either - just melodrama.
 
Probably the only area I'd disagree is what I questioned in my own post - whether a victim of systemic abuse is in a fit and proper state to recognise and appreciate their abusive circumstances. 
 
Of course, if you give no credence to the validity of mind conditioning or the more extreme brainwashing, then put me down to being a bitcher and moaner by all means - and hand wringer and apologist and misty-eyed idealist ta boot....
 
Focus.



LafayetteLady -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 4:29:44 PM)

It would be nice if the answer to this were as simple as everyone is making it out to be.  It isn't.  The dynamics of a D/s relationship complicate things even further because of activities that the "outside" world would view as abuse to begin with, making that line that is crossed less clear.  It's very easy for people on the outside looking in at an abusive relatuionship to say, "they should just leave" or "they are giving consent by doing nothing", but it isn't that simple.  As Focus said, the mind of an abuse victim is not thinking clearly.  Even the poster who said they were in a 20 year abusive relationship, you can say NOW that you consented to the behavior, but can you say WHY you didn't leave all those years?  Typically, fear of retribution plays a big part in a normal situation.  In a D/s situation, there is the whole "release" issue that, in my opinion, can further complicate things.  If you firmly believe you aren't "allowed" to leave, how then can you stop the behavior?  When your situation is one where you have given up your control and your power and your decision making, walking out becomes a much more difficult situation.

Abuse victims do need the support of their family and friends to gather their strength to leave.  Typically, they have already been "conditioned" that no one else gives a crap, so those who call them "whiners" and the like, would be best to just not get involved, as you aren't helpful anyway.  The key when you see someone in that situation is to let them know that they aren't alone, to give them emotional support to move on.  It is rarely ever appropriate to tell them they are telling their abuser it is "ok" by staying, after all, their abuser does that to them enough already, and you then are just re-enforcing what the abuser is saying.

As lovingpet said, "evil thrives when good men do nothing."  It's a very true statement.  As is "if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem."  If you lack  the compassion and ability to empathize with someone, stay out of the situation.  If you insist on calling them a "whiner" or telling them they are giving "implied consent" and not able to offer them any solutions, you might as well be abusing them yourself, so just don't bother, as you are making yourself part of the problem.  If all you can do is give them the number for the local abuse hotline, then so be it.  But basically, if confronted with a truly abusive situation and you feel the need to express the "it's your own fault" type of sentiment, keep your mouth shut.  If you can't be helpful to the person, at least have the decency to not make things worse through opinionated ignorance.



missturbation -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 6:32:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: IrishMist

quote:

By staying you are allowing what they do, accepting it to a certain degree.

NO one, absolutly no one will enjoy my response.

If you ( generic YOU ) are in a relationship that is harmful; physically, psychologically, or emotionally; and YOU do not take the steps to remove yourself permantly from that relationship...then in my opinion ...YES, you are consenting to the behavior; you are telling your partner it's ok...

Now, before all the 'save the abused people' people start bitching and moaning about what I just wrote and how circumstances sometimes prevent this blah blah blah...save it...I have heard it before...it did not change my opinion then, it won't change it now.


I enjoyed your response. I tend to agree with it too.
I do however believe that it isn't always as easy as just walking out the door, but the choice to walk that is always there.
 
quote:

Sticking around for more - for whatever screwed up reason (and there are valid screwed up reasons) is indeed telling your partner that it's OK. 


Very true, my valid screwed up reason was i enjoyed it and just hadn't found a safe channel (bdsm) to enjoy it reasonably safely in.
 
quote:

It is rarely ever appropriate to tell them they are telling their abuser it is "ok" by staying, after all, their abuser does that to them enough already, and you then are just re-enforcing what the abuser is saying.


Sometimes the cold hard truth is needed.
 
quote:

It's a very true statement.  As is "if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem." 


I'm afraid you shot yourself in the foot a little bit here. If you choose to stay in an abusive situation you aren't solving anything so therefore you are not part of the solution and hence must be part of the problem.

 
 



ZenDragoness -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 7:03:11 PM)

In the core of my heart i have to agree with Irish Mist, because nobody can really save somebody. I learned that the hard way as i was very young.

If it is a abusive relationship or alcoholism the person in question remains in the situation and decides so every morning again.

When it was my relationship and i had the feeling, that i do something really wrong all the time and the other person is consenting out of fear, that i react strong or leave them, when they talk about it, i would have to question myself about my behaviour. But in relations we rely on the feedback of the other person.

I, on the other hand, are not one who accept behaviour that rubs me the wrong way. I will talk about it and if we do not find a solution in a good time i will leave and have left.

And to the OP: Yes, i think there is consent in staying or not reacting and No, there is at the same time - morally- no consent, if the person in question is so damaged that he/she can not make a free decision. Because that is the real problem with people who are in abusive situations, they can not imagine another life, a healthy situation and therefore often they have such difficulties to act.



Drakontos -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 7:58:32 PM)

When zaphira begged Master's collar; it was with the understanding that she would no longer have any say in how he decided to direct her life. zaphira promised Master loyalty, fidelity, and total honesty; in return, Master promised this slave loyalty and total honesty in all things. If Master was to break those promises to zaphira, she would have no choice but to leave.

If...IF...zaphira was to not leave; then in her mind, yes, she is giving him consent to continue to be dishonest and disloyal to her; but it would not be by default. Master knows that zaphira would HAVE no choice but to leave; so if she changed her mind and accepted this behavior, it is consciously and willingly.



LafayetteLady -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 8:38:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: missturbation

quote:

It is rarely ever appropriate to tell them they are telling their abuser it is "ok" by staying, after all, their abuser does that to them enough already, and you then are just re-enforcing what the abuser is saying.


Sometimes the cold hard truth is needed.
 
quote:

It's a very true statement.  As is "if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem." 


I'm afraid you shot yourself in the foot a little bit here. If you choose to stay in an abusive situation you aren't solving anything so therefore you are not part of the solution and hence must be part of the problem.



Yes, the cold hard truth is needed in EVERY circumstance when it has truly turned to abuse.  But there are ways to say it that are helpful and ways to say it that are not only not helpful but harmful. 

I didn't shoot myself in the foot at all.  Indeed, the victim of abuse IS part of the problem.  But it isn't always that easy to leave.  Obviously, the situation you described with yourself was not abuse, it was an accident, and I trust that it isn't something your master does regularly.  As I said, in D/s situations, the line of abuse is not quite as clear.  But if he were to make it a habit of intentionally hitting your kidney (and I'm assuming when you gave that example, it was just an example not a reality), it is overstepping.  The problem is that in many cases of abuse, the victim is threatened with worse harm or even death to themselves or their family if they were to try to leave.  Fear of the repurcussions is what will keep many from leaving.  I think we've all seen cases on the news where the victim had no access to phones, was kept locked in the house when the abuser wasn't home, etc.  That isn't a case of simply walking out.  Hard as it may be to believe, some people are still unaware of the help available to them, and sometimes their abuser removes opportunity to leave.  That doesn't mean that it can't be done, it means that it isn't a simple matter.

My comment on being part of the problem was primarily for the people who seem to think it is so easy to just walk out, and lack the compassion or empathy to reach out and try to help but rather just take the stance of "since you don't leave, you are telling him it is ok, so it's your problem."  I've said many times that I choose not to live my life by choosing not to help someone in need if it is within my power to do so.  There are also people who have asked for my help and then continued on in the situation and continued to complain.  Yes, with those people, I have told them that I don't want to hear it anymore because they don't really want my (or anyone else's) help because they are accepting their situation and not doing anything to change it.  The point is that in true cases of abuse, the answer is rarely ever so simple as telling someone to "just leave," and in my opinion, those who think so are simply very uninformed of the reality that occurs.



janiebelle -> RE: Consent by default or little or no resistance. (6/7/2009 9:30:42 PM)

FR

In other words, it is less than helpful to just tell someone to "leave the bastard" unless your pickup is backed up in her driveway. [;)]
j



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




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